An examen of the sermon of Mr. Stephen Marshal about infant-baptisme in a letter sent to him. Tombes, John, 1603?-1676. 1645 Approx. 537 KB of XML-encoded text transcribed from 101 1-bit group-IV TIFF page images. Text Creation Partnership, Ann Arbor, MI ; Oxford (UK) : 2006-02 (EEBO-TCP Phase 1). A62867 Wing T1804 ESTC R200471 09505773 ocm 09505773 43338 This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Early English Books Online Text Creation Partnership. This Phase I text is available for reuse, according to the terms of Creative Commons 0 1.0 Universal . The text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission. Early English books online. (EEBO-TCP ; phase 1, no. A62867) Transcribed from: (Early English Books Online ; image set 43338) Images scanned from microfilm: (Early English books, 1641-1700 ; 1318:9) An examen of the sermon of Mr. Stephen Marshal about infant-baptisme in a letter sent to him. Tombes, John, 1603?-1676. 176 [i.e. 186], [7] p. Printed by R.W. for George Whitington, London : 1645. "Divided into foure parts, 1. Concerning the antiquity of infant-baptism, 2. Concerning the prejudices against antipaedobaptists from their miscarriages, 3. Concerning the arguments from Scripture for infant-baptisme, 4. Concerning the objections against infant-baptisme. In which are maintained these positions, 1. Infant-baptisme is not so ancient as is pretended, but as now taught is a late innovation, 2. Antipaedobaptisme hath no ill influence on church or common-wealth, 3. Infant-baptisme cannot be deduced from Holy Scripture, 4. Infant-baptisme is a corruption of the ordinance of baptisme." Attributed to John Tombes--Wing. Reproduction of original in the Union Theological Seminary Library, New York. Created by converting TCP files to TEI P5 using tcp2tei.xsl, TEI @ Oxford. Re-processed by University of Nebraska-Lincoln and Northwestern, with changes to facilitate morpho-syntactic tagging. Gap elements of known extent have been transformed into placeholder characters or elements to simplify the filling in of gaps by user contributors. EEBO-TCP is a partnership between the Universities of Michigan and Oxford and the publisher ProQuest to create accurately transcribed and encoded texts based on the image sets published by ProQuest via their Early English Books Online (EEBO) database (http://eebo.chadwyck.com). The general aim of EEBO-TCP is to encode one copy (usually the first edition) of every monographic English-language title published between 1473 and 1700 available in EEBO. EEBO-TCP aimed to produce large quantities of textual data within the usual project restraints of time and funding, and therefore chose to create diplomatic transcriptions (as opposed to critical editions) with light-touch, mainly structural encoding based on the Text Encoding Initiative (http://www.tei-c.org). The EEBO-TCP project was divided into two phases. The 25,363 texts created during Phase 1 of the project have been released into the public domain as of 1 January 2015. Anyone can now take and use these texts for their own purposes, but we respectfully request that due credit and attribution is given to their original source. Users should be aware of the process of creating the TCP texts, and therefore of any assumptions that can be made about the data. Text selection was based on the New Cambridge Bibliography of English Literature (NCBEL). If an author (or for an anonymous work, the title) appears in NCBEL, then their works are eligible for inclusion. Selection was intended to range over a wide variety of subject areas, to reflect the true nature of the print record of the period. In general, first editions of a works in English were prioritized, although there are a number of works in other languages, notably Latin and Welsh, included and sometimes a second or later edition of a work was chosen if there was a compelling reason to do so. Image sets were sent to external keying companies for transcription and basic encoding. Quality assurance was then carried out by editorial teams in Oxford and Michigan. 5% (or 5 pages, whichever is the greater) of each text was proofread for accuracy and those which did not meet QA standards were returned to the keyers to be redone. After proofreading, the encoding was enhanced and/or corrected and characters marked as illegible were corrected where possible up to a limit of 100 instances per text. Any remaining illegibles were encoded as s. Understanding these processes should make clear that, while the overall quality of TCP data is very good, some errors will remain and some readable characters will be marked as illegible. Users should bear in mind that in all likelihood such instances will never have been looked at by a TCP editor. The texts were encoded and linked to page images in accordance with level 4 of the TEI in Libraries guidelines. Copies of the texts have been issued variously as SGML (TCP schema; ASCII text with mnemonic sdata character entities); displayable XML (TCP schema; characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or text strings within braces); or lossless XML (TEI P5, characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or TEI g elements). Keying and markup guidelines are available at the Text Creation Partnership web site . eng Marshall, Stephen, 1594?-1655. Infant baptism. 2004-11 TCP Assigned for keying and markup 2005-01 SPi Global Keyed and coded from ProQuest page images 2005-02 Judith Siefring Sampled and proofread 2005-09 SPi Global Rekeyed and resubmitted 2005-10 Judith Siefring Sampled and proofread 2005-10 Judith Siefring Text and markup reviewed and edited 2006-01 pfs Batch review (QC) and XML conversion An Examen OF THE SERMON Of Mr. STEPHEN MARSHAL , About Infant-Baptisme , in a Letter sent to him : Divided into Foure Parts . 1. Concerning the Antiquity of Infant-baptisme . 2. Concerning the prejudices against Antipaedobaptists from their miscarriages . 3. Concerning the Arguments from Scripture , for Infant-baptisme . 4. Concerning the Objections against Infant-baptisme . In which are maintained these Positions . 1. Infant-baptisme is not so ancient as is pretended , but as now taught is a late Innovation . 2. Antipaedobaptisme hath no ill influence on Church , or Common-wealth . 3. Infant-baptisme cannot be deduced from Holy Scripture . 4. Infant-baptisme is a corruption of the Ordinance of Baptisme . LONDON , Printed by R. W. for George Whitington . 1645. Infant-Baptisme Is not so Ancient as is pretended : As now Taught , Is a late Innovation . PART I. Concerning the antiquity of Infant-Baptisme . SIR , IT is now full nine moneths since , that being informed by one of the Members of the Assembly , in which you are one , that there was a Committee chosen out of the Members of the Assembly , to give satisfaction in the point of Paedo-baptisme , and advised by the same person out of his tender love to me , to present the reasons of my doubts about Paedo-baptisme , to that Committee ; I drew them up in Latine , in nine Arguments , in a scholastique way , and they were delivered unto Mr. Whitaker the Chair-man of the Committee , about nine moneths since : to which I added after , an addition of three more reasons of doubting , with a supplement of some other things wanting ; which was delivered to Mr. Tuckney , and joyned by him to the former Papers . My aim therein was , either to find better ground then I had then found to practise the baptizing of Infants , from that Assembly of learned and holy men , whom I supposed able and willing to resolve their Brother in the Min●st●ry ; Or else according to the solemn Covenant I have taken , to endeavour the reformation of these Churches according to Gods word , by informing that Assembly what I conceived amisse in the great ordinance of Baptizing . The successe was such , as I little expected : to this day I have heard nothing from the Committee by way of answer to those doubts ; but I have met with many Pamphlets , and some Sermons , tending to make the questioning of that point odious to the People , and to the Magistracie . Among others , reading the Sermon of Mr. Richard Vines , on Ephes. 4.14 . before the Lord Major : and the Sermon you preached at Westminster Abbey . I perceive there is such a prejudice in you , and it may seem by the Vote pass●d about the members of the visible Church , in the generality of the Assembly , that he is likely to be exploded , if not censured , that shall but dispute against it : and therefore little or no likelihood that this matter will be argued , as I conceive it doth deserve , in your Assembly . And further , I perceive there is a great zeale in your spirit against the denying of Children baptisme , as if it were a more cru●ll thing than Hazaels dashing out Childrens brains ; That it were an exclusion of them out of the Covenant of Grace , &c. Which I the more admire , considering the report which hath been of you , as a sober , learned , holy , well-tempered man , that you should be so transported in this matter , as to be so vehement in maintaining that which was accounted heretofore in many ages , but an Ecclesiasticall tradition , for which you are fain to fetch a command from Circumcision , and conf●sse no expresse example in Scripture for it : and go not about to prove it , but by consequence inferr'd from five Conclusions , which though you call undeniable , yet others do not think so , nor yet see reason to subscribe to your judgment . You are not ignorant , I pr●sume , that Mr. Daniel Rogers , in his Treatise of the Sacrament of Baptisme , part 1. pag. 79. confessed himself yet unconvinced by demonstration of Scripture for it . And whereas your Achilles for Paedo-baptisme , is the Circumcision of Infants , me thinks Mr. Balls words , ( Reply to the Answer of the New-England Elders , about the third and fourth Positions , pag. 38 , 39. ) cut the sinews of that argument . But in whatsoever they agree , or differ , we must look to the Institution , and neither stretch it wider , nor draw it narrower then the Lord hath made it ; ●or he is the Institutor of the Sacraments according to his own good pleasure ; and it is our part to lea●n of him , both to whom , how , and for what end the Sacraments are to be administred ; how they agree , and wherein they differ . In all which we must affirm nothing , but what God hath taught us , and as he hath taught us . And whereas the words of Paul , 1 Cor. 7.14 . are your principall strength to prove the Covenant-holines of Infants of a believing parent , Musculus a writer of good esteem , in his Commentary upon that place confesseth , that he had abused formerly that place against the Anabaptists , but found it impertinent to that purpose . And for my part , after most carefull and serious reading and perusing of many Authors , and among the rest , your Sermon , I cannot yet find it to be any other then an innovation , in comparison of many other things rejected late , maintained by erroneous and dangerous principles , having no true ground from Christs institution , which alone can acquit it from Will-worship , and which hath occasioned many errors in doctrine , corruptions in discipline and manners , unnecessary and vain disputes , and almost quite changed the ordinance of Baptisme . Wherefore , upon advise , I have resolved to examine your Sermon , who are a leading man , and in respect of your eminency , either likely to be a very good , or very bad instrument , as you are gui●dd ; that you may either rectifie me , or I you ; and that we may ( if the Lord shall see it good ) give one another the right hand of fellowship , and stand fast in one mind in the truth of the Gospel , and cleare the truth of God to the people , whose eyes are upon us . And so much the rather have I pitched upon your Sermon , because I conceive it contains in a plain way as much as can be wel said for Poedo-baptisme ; and your Epistle seems to intimate your publishing of it to be for the ease of the Assembly , and possibly it may be all I may expect from them . Now the Lord vouchsafe to frame both your spirit and mine , that we may seek and find truth , in humility and love , in this great businesse , which concerns the soules , & perhaps lives and estates of many millions , yea of all godly persons ; and the glory of God , and honour of our Lord Jesus Christ , and that we may trample under our feet our own credit , our own opinion , if it stand not with the honour of Christ , and the truth of God. LEtting passe the Epistle , and leaving the various Questions , and allowing the stating of the Question , conceiving you mean it of baptizing by warrant of ordinary rule of Scripture , without extraordinary revelation or direction . Whereas you affirme , that the Infants of Believers are to be baptized with Christs baptisme , by the lawfull Minister according to ordinary rule . I deny it . That which you say for the practise of baptizing infants may be reduced , 1. To the testimonies of Antiquity . 2. To the novelties and miscarriages of the opposers of it . 3. To the arguments produced for it . 4. To the answering objections against it . I shall by Gods assistence examine each of these . First you affirm , That the Christian Church hath been in possession of it for the space of fifteen hundred years and upwards , as is manifest out of most of the Records that we● have of Antiquity both in the Greek and Latine Churches . To this I answer , that if it were true , yet it is not so much as may be said for Episcopacy , keeping of Easter , the religious use of the Crosse , &c. which I conceive you reject . 2. That the highest testimonies you produce come not so high . 3. Those that be alleaged , being judiciously weighed , will rather make against the present doctrine and practise , then for it . 4. There are many evidences that do as strongly prove ( as proofes usually are taken in such matters ) Quod ab initio non fuit sic , That from the beginning it was not so ; and therefore it is but an innovation . The first of these I presume you will acknowledge , that for Antiquity not-Apostolicall , there are plain testimonies of Episcopacy , keeping of Easter , the religious use of the Crosse being in use , before any of the testimonies you , or any other can produce for baptizing of infants ; and therefore I will forbear mentioning proofes so obvious to Schollars . The second and third thing I shall make good in the weighing of the Testimonies you produce , and the fourth in the close . YOur Testimonies are either of the Greek or Latine Churches . Of the Greekes you alleage foure . The first is Justine Martyr , of whom you say , That he lived Anno 150. which wants somewhat of 1500. years ; and therefore you did somewhat ▪ overlash , in saying that it is manifest out of most of the Records of the Greeke and Latine Church ; The Church hath been in possession of the priviledge of baptizing Infants 1500. years and upwards ; and then you say , In a Treatise that goes under his name : By which it is manifest ▪ that you know that it was questioned whether it was his or no ; and I conceive you could not be ignorant , that it is not only questioned , but also proved by Perkins in his preparative to the demonstration of the Probleme , by Rivet in his Critieus sacer , by Robert Cooke of Leeds ( if my memory faile me not , to which I am inforced to trust in many things , being spoiled of my bookes ) in his Censure , and confessed by Papists , to be none of Justine Martyrs , but to bee written a great while after his dayes ; for as much as it mentions not only Irenaeus , but also Origen and the Manichees : Now what doth this bastard Treatise say ? You say Question 56. Justine Martyr disputes the different condition of those children who die baptized , and of those children who die unbaptized . The question propounded is . If Infants dying have neither praise nor blame by works , what is the difference in the resurrection of those that have been baptized by others , and have done nothing , and of those that have not been baptiz●d , and in like manner have done nothing . The Answer is , this is the difference of the baptized from the not bapti●●d ; that the baptized obtaine good things ( meaning at the Resurrection ) by baptisme , but the unbaptized obtain not good things . And the● are accounted worthy of the good things they have by their baptis●● , by the faith of those that bring them to baptisme . You may by th●● testimony see ( what ever Age the book was made in ) what the reason of baptizing of Infants was : Not the supposed Covenant of grace , made to believers and their seed , which you make the ground of baptizing of infants : but the opinion that the not baptized should not obtain good things at the resurrection ( meaning the Kingdome of God , mentioned Joh. 3.5 . ) but the baptized should ; and that by reason of the faith of the bringers , what ever the Parents were , and therefore they baptized the children of unb●lievers , as well as believers if they were brought . YOur next Greek Author is Irenaeus , who was indeed a Greeke , and wrote in Greek , but now only we have his works in Latine , ( except some few fragments ) for which reason we are not so certain of his meaning , as we might be if we had his own words in the language in which he wrote . You say he lived in the same Century , and it is acknowledged he lived in the same Century with Justine Martyr but not with the Author of the Questions & Answers ad Orthodox●s , who ( as hath been said ) lived in some Age after . Irenaeus is by Vsher placed at the yeare 180. by Osiander at the yeare 183. so that though he were of that Century , yet he flourished in the latter part of it , and so reacheth not to your 1500. years & upwards . Of him you say , that l. 2. c. 39. he saith , Christus venit per seipsū omnes salvare , omnes inquā , qui per eum renascuntur in Deū , infantes & parvulo● & pueros , &c. Now it is well knowne , say the Glossers upon that text , renascenti● nomine , Dominica & Apostolica Phrasi Baptismum intelligi : You might have added what follows . Aperte confirmans Apostolorum traditionem de baptismo infantium parvulorum adversus Anabaptisticam impietatem . But I pray you , whose Glosse was this ? Was it any other then Fevardentius ( if I mistake not ) of whom Rivet . Crit. Sacr. lib. 2 cap. 6. Juniores tantum , qui in opera Irenaei incident monitos volo , ut caveant ab illis Editionibus , quas impudentissimus ille Monarchus Fevardentius , homo projecta audacia et nullius fidei , foede in multis corrupit , & annotationibus impii● et mendacibus conspu●cavit . And for the glosse its false : for no where doth our Lord , or the Apostles call baptisme , Now birth , although our Lord speake of being borne againe of water Ioh. 3.5 . and Paul of the washing of regeneration . Tit. 3.5 . and for the words themselves without the glosse , all the strength lyes in this , that the word ( Renascuntur ) is used for Baptisme by the Ancients , which yet possibly was not the word Irenaeus used in his owne writing ; and how the Latine translation alters the meaning of Irenaeus , you may see somewhat in Rivet . Vossius Thesibus Theologic . de Padebapt . Thesi. 7. intimates , that the proper acception is of sanctification , and that the word may be so taken , yea and that it is not meant of Baptisme , the words and the whole scope of Irenaeus in that place shew . For the scope of Irenaeus in that chapter is to refute the Gnosticks , who sayd that Christ did not exceede one and thirty yeeres of age ; against whom Irenaeus alleageth , that Christ lived in every age , of infancy , youth , old age , that by his age , & example , he might sanctifie every age , so that here Irenaeus speakes not of being borne againe by Baptisme : for it is said , who are borne againe by him , that is , by Christ. Not as if he had baptized infants , but because he was an infant , that by the example or vertue of his age , he might sanctifie infants , as the whole context will shew , which is this . Magister ergo existens , Magistri quoque habebat aetatem , non reprobans nec supergrediens hominem , neque solvens suam leg●m in se humani generis , sed omnem●tatem sanctificans per illam , quae ad ipsum erat , similitudinem . Omnes enim venit per seipsum salvare , omnes inquam , qui per eum renascuntur in Deum , Infantes , & parvulos , & pueros , & juvenes & seniores . Ideo per omnem venit aetatem , & infantibus infans factus sanctificans infantes , in parvuli● parvulu● , sanctificans hanc ipsam habentes aetatem , simul & exemplum illis pietatis effectus & justitiae & subjectionis . In Iuvenibus Iuvenis exemplum Iuvenibus fiens , & Sanctificans Domino : sic et senior in senioribus , ut sit perfectus Magister , non solum secundum expositionem veritatis , sed secundum aetatem , sanctificans simul & seniores exemplum ipsis quoque fiens deinde & usque ad mortem pervenit , ut sit primogenitus ex mortuis ipse primatum tenens in omnibus princeps vitae , prior omnium , et praecedens omnes . Which he confirmes by the testimony of Iohn the Apostle , from whom he saith , those that conversed with him related , that Christ lived about fifty yeares , which all sorts of writers doe reckon among Irenaeus his blemishes , and thereby shew how little credit is to be given to the too much entertained Apostolicall traditions . THe next Greeke Author is Origen , who you say lived in the beginning of the third Century , Perkins and Vsher place him at the yeare 230. but for his works , as of old they were counted full of errours and dangerous to be reade , so as now they are , we can hardly tell in some of them what is Origens , What not : for the originall being lost , we have only the Latine translation , which being performed in many of his works , and particularly the Homilies on Leviticus , and the Epistle to the Romanes , by Ruffinus , it appeares by his owne conf●ssion , that he added many things of his own , insomuch that Erasmus in his censure of the Homilies on Leviticus saith , that a man cannot be certaine whether he reades Ruffinus or Origen ; and Perkins puts among Origens Counterfeit works his Comentary on the Epistle to the Romans , as being not faithfully translated by Ruffinus : the like is the judgement of Rivet and others , and I suppose did you reade the passages themselves you cite , and consider how they are brought in : and how plaine the expressions are against the Pelagians : you would quickly conceive , that those passages were put in after the Pelagien heresie was confuted by Hierom and Augustine , who often tells us that the Fathers afore that controversie arose , did not speake plainly against the Pelagiens : and of all others , Origen is most taxed as Pelagianizing . Wherefore Vossius in the place aforenamed , though he cite him for company , yet addes , sed de Origene minus laborabimus quia quae citabamus , Graece non extant . But what saith the supposed Origen ? In one place ▪ that the Church received this tradition of baptizing infants from the Apostles : in another according to the observance of the Church baptisme is granted to infants , you adde , ( as foreseeing that this passage would prove that then it was held but a tradition ) that then the greatest points of faith were ordinarily called traditions , received from the Apostles , and you cite 2 Thes. 2.15 . To which I reply , true it is that they did call the greatest points of faith , though written , traditions Apostolicall , as conceiving they might best learne what to hold in points of faith , from the Bishops of those Churches where the Apostles preached , and therefore in prescriptions against Heretickes , Tertullian , Irenaeus and others , direct persons to go to the Churches where the Apostles sate , specially the Romane Church which seemes to have beene the seed of Appeals to Rome , and the ground of the conceit which was had of the Popes unerring Chaire . But it is t●ue also they called Apostolicall traditions any thing though unwri●ten , which was reported to have come from the Apostles ; as the time of keeping Easter , and many more , which was the fountaine of all corruptions in discipline and worship . And that in those places you cite , is meant an unwritten tradition , not only the not citing any Scripture for Baptizing of Infants , but also the very Phrases , Pro hoc et Ecclesia ab Apostolis traditionem suscepit & Secundum Ecclesiae observantiam , are sufficient proofe to them who are acquainted with the Ancients writings of those times . So that yet you have not proved that the baptisme of Infants was time out of minde , that it had beene received in the Church , or was delivered over to the Church in Origens time , and was of ancient use in the Church afore his time . But these passages prove that in the time when the framer of those passages wrote , it was accounted but an Apostolicall tradition , according to the observance of the Church . Like speeches to which are found in Pseudo-Dyonisius in the end of his Hierachy , and Augustin . lib. 10. de Genesi ad literam . c. 23. and elsewhere , which argue that it was held as an Ecclesiasticall tradition in those times . THe fourth and last of the Greeke Church you name is Gregory Nazianzen , who is by Perkins placed at the yeare 380. by Vsher 370. much short of 1500 yeares and upwards , you say that Orat. 40. in Baptismum , he calls baptisme , signaculum vita cursum in euntibus , and commands Children to be baptized , though afterwards he seemed to restraine it to the case of necessity . But doth he seeme onely to restraine it to the case of necessity ? the words are plaine , that he gives the reason why Infants in danger of death should be baptized 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , that they might not misse of the common grace , but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , he gives his opinion of others , that they should stay longer , that they might be instructed , and so their minds and bodyes might be Sanctified , and these are all you bring of the Greek Church . By the examination of which you may perceive how well you have proved , that it is manifest out of most of the Records that we have of antiquitie both in the Greeke and Latine Church , that the Christian Church hath beene in possession of the priviledge of baptizing the infants of beleivers for the space of 1500. yeares and upwards . Whereas the highest is but a bastard Treatise , and yet comes not so high , if it were genuine ; the next without a glosse , which agrees not with the text , speakes nothing to the purpose , the third is of very doubtfull credit , the fourth which was sundry hundreds of yeares after Christ restraines it to the case of necessity . But it is wonder to me , that if it were so manifest as you speake , you should finde nothing in Eusebius for it , nor in Ignatius , nor in Clemens Alexandrinus , nor in Athanasius , nor in Epiphanius , that I mention not others : to me it is no small argument that baptisme of Infants was not universally knowne in the Greek Church , no not in Epiphanius his dayes , who is said to flourish in the yeare 390. because in his Panarium , disputing against the Hieracites , that denied Infants inheriting the Kingdome of heaven , because not striving . He brings the Infants killed by Herod , the words of the Lord concerning Ieremiah Chap. 1. of his prophesie : Christs blessing and receiving of infants , the children crying Hosanna : but nothing at all of Infants-baptisme , which had beene as proper to his purpose if he had beene acquainted with it . But besides the continuance of the questions to baptized persons , and answered by them , in many Authors mentioned , this is to me , and it seemed so to Hugo Grotius , Annot. in Matth. 19.14 . No small evidence , that baptisme of Infants many hundred yeares was not ordainary in the Greeke Church : because not onely Constantine the Great , though the sonne of Helena a zealous Christian as it s reported , was not baptized till aged , but also that Gregory Nazianzen who was the sonne of a Christian Bishop , and brought up long by him , was not baptized till he came to be a youth , as is related in his life . And Chrysostome though ( as Grotius saith ) according to the truer opinion , borne of Christian Parents , and educated by Meletius a Bishop , yet was he not baptized till past 21 yeares of age . Grotius addes , that the Canon of the Synod of Neocaesarea held in the yeare 315. determines that a woman with childe might be baptized , because the baptisme reached not to the fruit of her wombe , because in the confession made in baptisme , each one 's own free choice is shewed . From which Canon , Balsamon and Zonaras do inferre , that an Infant cannot be baptized , because it hath not power to choose the confession of divine baptisme . And Grotius adds fur●her , that many of the Greeks in every age unto this day do keep the custome of diff●ring the baptisme of little ones , till they could themselves make a confession of their faith . From all which I inferre , That the Anabaptists need not blush to say ( which you seem to make a part of their impudence ) that the Ancients , especially the Greek Church , rejected the baptisme of Infants for many hundred yeeres . I Proceed to the Writers of the Latine Church , you alledge for Baptisme of Infants . First Cyprian , one of the ancientest writers amongst the Latines : which is true ; He is placed by Perkins at the yeare 240. by Vsher , at the yeare 250. Yet Tertullian was before him , and counted his master : Now in Tertullians time , it appeares ( saith Grotius in Mat. 19.14 . ) there was nothing defined cencerning the age in which they were to be baptized , that were consecrated by their parents to Christian discipline , because he disswades by so many reasons ( in his book of Baptism c. 18. ) the baptizing of Infants . And if he did allow it , it was only in case of necessity , as may appeare by his words in his book de anima , c. 39. But you say , Cyprian handles it at large , in Epist. 59. ad Fidum . It is true , he doth say enough in that Epistle for bapt●zing of Infants ▪ and more then enough , except he had spoken to better purpose . The truth is , the very reading of that Epistle , upon which Hierom , and especially Augustine rely for the proving of the baptizing of Infants , is sufficient to discover how great darknesse there was then upon the spirits of those that were counted the greatest lights in the Church . You say , upon this occasion , Fidus denied not the baptisme of Infants , but denied that they ought to be baptized before the eighth day . But you might have further observed , that Fidus alleadged , considerandam esse legem Circumcisionis antiquae , that he thought the law of ancient Circumcision was to be considered . And , Vestigium Infantis in primis partus sui diebus constitut● mundum non esse dixistì : Thou hast said that the footstep of an Infant being in the first dayes of his birth , is not clean . Whence it plainly appeares , that there was a relique of Judaisme in him , and that he did not well understand the abrogation of the Ceremoniall Law : and the truth is , the contentions about Easter , neere that age , do plainly shew , that Iudaisme was not quite weeded out of the mindes of the chi●fe teachers among Christians . You say Cyprian assures him , that by the unanimous consent of 66 Bishops gathered together in a Councell , baptisme was to be administred to Infantes , as well as to growne men ; and not to be restrained to any time , which is true , but you adde , and proves it by such arguments as these . They are under originall sinne , they neede pardon , are capable of grace and mercy , God regards not age , &c. But the resolution of Cyprian with his Collegues is not so lightly to be passed over , sith the determination of this Councell , as far as I can by search finde , is the very spring-head of Infant-baptisme . To conceive it aright , it is to be considered , that you are mistaken , about the proofe of their opinion ; the things you mention , are not the proofe , but are produced in answer of objections . The proofe is but one , except you will make a proofe of that which is in the close of the Epistle , which is , that whereas none is to be kept from baptisme , and the grace of God , much lesse New-borne Infants , who in this respect doe deserve more of our ayde , and Gods mercy , because in the beginning of their birth they presently crying and weeping doe nothing else but pray . The onely proofe is this , the mercy and grace of God is to be denyed to none , that are borne of man , for the Lord saith in the Gospell , that the sonne of man came not to destroy mens soules , but to save them , and therefore as much as in us lyes , if it may be , no soule is to be lost , and therefore all infants at all times to be baptized . Whence we may observe : 1. That they thought baptizing , giving Gods grace , and the denying it , denying Gods grace : Secondly , that they thought the soules to be lost that were not baptized . Thirdly , that therefore not onely Infants of beleivers , but all infants were to be baptized . Whence Tossanus in his Synopsis , Notes this for Cyprians errour that he taught , Infantes Statim esse baptizandos ne pereant , quod eis misericordia non sit deneganda Ep. 8. lib. 3. Then follow the objections , which are three . First , That Infants are not capable being so young : this he answers by saying God regards not age , which he proves by an allegoricall accomodation of Elisha , his stretching himselfe upon the little Childe , to the applying of Gods grace to Infants . The second objection is , But we shun to kisse Infantes as uncleane in the first dayes of their birth : to this he answers , that to the cleane all things are cleane ; and we ought not to decline the embracing Gods worke . The third objection , was the Law of circumcision , to this he answers , that in Circumcision the eighth day was a figure of the resurrection of Christ : Which is now accomplished , and we are to account now nothing common or uncleane : and therefore we are not to account this an impedinent to obtaine grace by Baptisme . Then he addes further , if any thing could hinder from obtaining of grace , greater sinnes should hinder men of yeares from it , now if greater sinnes hinder not men of yeares from it , but that they when they beleive obtaine forgivenes , grace , and Baptisme , by how much rather is an Infant not to be forbidden , who being newly borne , hath not sinned , except in that being borne carnally according to Adam , he hath contracted the contagion of ancient death in his first Nativity , who in this respect comes more easily to receive remission of sinnes , because not his owne sinnes , but anothers are forgiven him : So that whereas you say , that Cyprian proves : that Infants are to be baptized because they are under Originall sinne , they neede pardon ; You may perceive that the argument is rather thus , they have lesser sinnes then others , they neede lesse pardon then men of growne yeares , and therefore there is lesse hinderance in them to come to Gods grace , remission of sinnes and Baptisme : thus have I considered that famous resolution of a Councel of 66. Bishops , which for the nakednes of it I should more willingly have covered , were it not that the truth hath so much suffered by the great esteeme that this absurd Epistle hath had in many Ages . YOu adde next to Cyprian Augustine , who flourished about the yeare 405. according to Perkins , 410. according to Vsher , and I follow you to consider him next ; for though Ambrose and Hierome are reckoned somewhat afore him about 30. or 20. yeares , yet they lived at the same time , and the Authority of Augustine was it which carryed the Baptisme of Infants in the following ages , almost without controule , as may appeare out of Walafridus Strabo placed by Vsher , at the yeare 840. who in his booke De rebus Ecclesiasticis cap. 26. having said ●hat in the first times , the grace of Baptisme was wont to be given to them onely , who were come to that integrity of minde and body , that they could know and understand , what profit was to be gotten in Baptisme , what is to be confessed , and beleived , what lastly is to be observed by them that are new borne in Ch●ist ; confirmes it by Augustines owne confession of himselfe continuing a Catechumenus long afore Baptized . But afterwards Christians understanding Originall sinne &c. Ne perirent parvuli si sine remedio regenerationis gratiae defungerentur , statuerunt eos baptizari in remissionem peccatorum quod & S. Augustinus in libro de baptismo parvulorum ostendit , & Africana testantur Concilia , & aliorum Patrum documenta quamplurima . And then adds how God-fathers and God-mothers were invented and addes one superstitious and impious consequent on it in these words . Non autem debet Pater vel mater de fonte suam suscipere sobolem ut sit discretio inter spiritalem generationem & carnalem , Quod si casu evenerit , non habebunt carnalis copulae deniceps adiuvicem consortium , qui in communui filio compaternitatis spiritale vinculum susceperant . To which I adde that Petrus Cluniacensis , placed by Vsher , at the yeare 1150. writing to three Bishops of France against Peter de Bruis , who denyed Baptisme of Infants , sayes of him , that he did reject the Authority of the Latine Doctors , being himselfe a Latine , ignorant of Greeke , and after having said recurrit ergo ad scripturas , therefore he runnes to the Scriptures : he alleageth the examples in the New Testament , of Christs curing of persons at the request of others , to prove Infants Baptisme by and then adds , Quid vos ad ista ? Ecce non de Augustino , sed de Evangelio protuli , cui cum maxime vos credere dicatis aut aliorum fide alios tandem posse salvari concedite , aut de Evangelio esse quae posui si potestis , negate . From these passages I gather , that as Petrus Cluniacensis urged for paedo-baptisme the authority of Augustine and the Latine Doctors , So Peter de Bruis and Henricus appealed to the Scriptures , and the Greeke Church : Now the reason of Augustines authority was this , the Pelagian heresie being generally condemned , and Augustines workes being greatly esteemed , as being the hammer of the Pelagians , the following refuters of Pelagianisme , Prosper , Fulgentius &c. the Councells that did condemne it as those of Carthage , Arles Milevis &c. did rest altogether on Augustines arguments , and often on his words , and Augustine in time was accounted one of the foure Doctors of the Chu●ch , esteemed like the foure Evangelists , so that his ●p●nion was the rule of the Churches Judgement , and the schooles determination , as to the great hurt of Gods Church Luther and others have beene of late . Now Augustine did very much insist on this argument to prove originall sinne , because Infants were baptized for remission of sinnes , and therefore in the Councill of Milevis he was adjudged accursed , that did deny it : But for my part I value Augustines judgement iust at so much , as his proofes and reasons weigh , which how light they are you may conceive . First , In that whereas he makes it so Unive●sall a tradition , his owne baptisme not till above thirty , though educated as a Christian by his mother Monica , the Baptisme of his sonne Adeodatus at 15. of his friend Alipius , if there were no more , were enough to p●ove that this custome of baptizing infants , was not so received , as that the Church thought necessary that all children of Christians by profession should be baptized in their infancy . And though I conceive with Grotius annot . in Matt● . 19.14 . that baptisme of Infants was much more frequented , and with greater opinion of necessity in Africa , then in Asia , or other parts of the world , for ( saith he ) in the Councells you cannot finde ancienter mention of that custome , then the Councell of Carthage . Yet I doe very much question whether they did in Africa , even in Augustines time baptize children , except in danger of death , or for the health of body ▪ or such like reason : I do not finde that they held that Infants must be baptized out of such cases , for it is cleare out of sundry of Augustines Tracts , as particularly tract . 11 in Johan : that the order held of distinguishing the Catechumeni and baptized , and the use of Catechizing afore baptisme , still continued , yea and a great while after , insomuch that when Petrus Cluniacensis disputed against Peter de Bruis , he said only , that ther● had beene none but infants baptized for 300. yeares , or almost 500. yeares in Gallia , Spaine , Germany , Italy , and all Europe , and it seemes he denyed not the baptizing of growne persons in Asia still ; whence I collect , that even in the Latine Church , after Augustines dayes , in sundry ages the baptizing of persons of growne age did continue as well as baptizing of infants , till the great darknes that over-spred the W●sterne Churches , spoiled by Barbar●us Nations , destitute of learned men , and ●uled by ambitious and unlearn●d Popes , when there were none to Catechiz● , and therefore they baptized whole Countries upon the baptisme of the King of that Country , though both Prince and people knew little or nothing of Christianity , but were in respect of manners and knowledge Pagans still , which hath beene the great cause of the upholding of Papacie , and corrupting of Christian Churches , I mean this great corruption of baptizing , making Christians , giving Christendome ( as it is called ) afore ever persons were taught what Christianity was , or if they were taught any thing , it was only the ceremonies and rites of the Church , as they called them . 2. You may conceive how light Augustine's ju●gement was , by considering the ground upon which Augustine held , and urged the baptisme of Infants so vehemently ; which was , as all know that read his works , the opinion he had , that without baptisme Infants must be damned , by reason of originall sinne , which is not taken away but by Baptisme , yea , though he wanted baptisme out of necessity ; urging those places , Joh. 3.5 . Rom. 5.12 . continually in his disputes against the Pelagian● , particularly tom . 7. de natura & gratia , c. 8. And tom . 2. ep . 28. he saith , Item quisquis dixerit , quod in Christo vivificabuntur etiam parvuli , qui sine Sacramenti ejus participatione de vita exeunt , hic profecto & contra Apostolicam praedicationem venit , & totam condemnat ecclesiam . And in the close of the Epistle , calls it , robustissimam & fundatissimam fidem , qua Christi ecclesia , nec parvulos homines recentissime natos a damnatione credit , nisi per gratiam domini Christi , quam in suis Sacramentis commendavit , posse liberari . And this , Perkins in his Probleme , proves , was the opinion of Ambrose , and many more : And hence , as Aquinas , so Bellarmine , proves baptisme of Infants , fro● Joh. 3 5. And this hath been still the principall ground . The ground that you go on , that the covenant of grace belongs to believers and their seed , I cannot find amongst the Ancients . Yea , as you may perceive out of Perkins in the place alleadged , although Ambrose , and Augustine in his 4. book de Baptismo contra Donatistas , c. 22. yielded , that either Martyrdome , or the desire of Baptisme , might supply the defect of Baptisme , and some of the School-men , Biel , Cajetan , Gerson , do allow the desire and prayer of parents for children in the wombe , in stead of baptisme : Yet we finde no remedy allowed by them , but actuall baptisme for children born into the world : So strictly did Augustine and the Ancients urge the necessity of Baptisme for Infants born . 3. You may consider , that Augustine held a like necessity of Infants receiving the Lords supper , from the words , Joh. 6.53 . as is plainly expressed by him , lib. 1. de peccat . merit . & remis . c. 20. And accordingly , as in Cyprians time , the Communion was given to Infants , as appears by the story which he relates of himself , giving the Communion to an Infant , in his book de lapsis , mentioned by August . epist. 23. So it is confested by Maldonat on Joh. 6. that Innocentius the first , Bishop of Rome , held it necessary for Infants ; and that this opinion and practise continued about 600 yeares in the Church , though it be now rej●cted by the Romane Church in the Councel of Trent . 4. You may consider , that Augustine held such a certainty of obtaining regeneration by Baptisme , that not only he puts usually regeneration for Baptisme , but also he makes no question of the regeneration of Infants , though they that brought them , did not bring them with that faith , that they might be regenerated by spirituall grace to eternall life ; but because by Baptisme they thought to procure health to their bodies , as is plain by his words , epist. 23. ad Bonifacium . Nec illud te moveat , quod quidam non ea fide ad Baptismum percipiendum parvulos ferunt , ut gratia spiritali ad vitam regenerentur aeternam , sed quod eos putant hoc remedio temporalem retinere aut recipere sanitatem : non enim propterea illi non regenerantur , quia non ab illis hac intentione offeruntur ; celebrantur enim per eos necessaria ministeria . By which last words you may perceive how corrupt Augustine was in this matter , so as to excuse , if not to justifie their fact , who made use of Baptisme in so profane a manner , as to cure diseases by it : which is no marvaile , if it be be true which is related , of the approbation that was given of the Baptisme used by Athanasius in play amongst boyes . 5. You may consider , that in the same Epistle , when Bonifacius pressed Augustine to shew how Sureties could be excused from lying , who being asked of the Childs faith , answered , He doth believe , ( for even in Baptisme of Infants they thought in all ages it necessary that a profession of faith go before ) He defends that act in this absurd manner : Respondetur credere propter fid●i Sacramentum , And thence is he called a believer because he hath the Sacrament of faith . Which as it is a ridiculous playing with words , in so serious a matter before God , so it is a senslesse answer , sith the interrogation was of the Childs faith before it was baptized , and the answer was given before , and therefore it cannot be understood of believing by receiving the sacrament of faith , which came after . 6. It is apparent out of the same Epistle , that Infants were then admitted to baptisme , whether they were the children of believers , or not ; it was no matter with what intention they brought them , nor whose children were brought ; yea it was counted a work of charity to bring any children to baptisme , and in this case the faith of the whole Church was counted a sufficient supplement of the defect of the parents or bringers faith : So that whereas the present defenders of Infant-baptisme , pretend Covenant-holinesse a priviledge of Believers , it was no such matter in the time of the Ancients , but they baptized any Infants , even of Infidels , upon this opinion , That Baptisme did certainly give grace to them ; and if they dyed without baptism● , they did perish . And thus I grant that it is true , the Epistle of Cyprian is cited and approved by Augustine : but neither is Augustine to be approved for approving it , nor doth it advantage your tenet , that you have cited his citation of it . NExt to Augustine you place Hierom , and it is true that he cites and approves Cyprians Epistle , in the end of his third book of his Dialogues against the Pelagians ; and he cites , and approves , and commends Augustine's books , de peccat . merito , & remissione , ad Marcellinum , in which he maintains baptisme of Infants , and Infant-communion , as necessary to salvation , and the certainty of regeneration and salvation to Infants that are baptized , and receive the Lords supper . So that the same answer is to be given concerning Hierom , which is to be given concerning Augustine . The last you alleadge , is Ambrose , who lived about the same time , though he be placed some yeares before Augustine and Hierom ; And it is confessed that he was of the same judgement , and many other of th● Ancients of the same time , and in after-ages , but nothing comparable to those already named , and therefore adding no more weight to the cause . NOw these , you say , you relate not to prove the truth of the thing , but only the practise of it . It is well you added this , that you might disclaime the validity of these t●stimonies for proof ; for the truth is , they rather prove the thing to be an error , than a truth , which was held upon such erroneous ground as they taught and practised it , to wit , the necessity of Baptisme to salvation , Joh. 3.5 . The certainty of remission of originall sin by baptisme ; The denying of Gods grace to none , And the perishing of those to whom Baptisme was not given . Whether you have any better p●oofs , I shall consider hereafter : in the mean time this I adde . 1. That concerning the practise , your testimonies prove not , that it was in practise , bu● in case of supposed n●cessity . 2. That there was still in use a constant course of baptizing , not only the converted from infidelity , but also the grown children of professed believers , when they were at full age . 3. That they did alike conceive a necess●ry of , and accordingly practise the giving of the Lords supper to Infants . 4. That they made no distinction between the Infants of believers and unbelievers being brought to them . 5. That your ancientest testimonie for practise , according to any Rule determined , is Cyprian , neer 300 yeeres after Christ. 6. Lastly , there are many evidences that do as strongly prove , as proofs are usually taken in such matters , That it was not so from the beginning : As particularly , 1. The continued propounding of the ordinary questions even to Infants , concerning their faith , repentance , and obedience , afore they were baptized , which in the School-men was still held necessary , and therefore Sureties thought necessary to answer for them , yea even in Reformed Churches , unto this day : which as it was conceived by Strabo , and Vives in his Comment on Aug. lib. 1. de civit . Dei , c. 27. a cleare evidence ; so I conceive any reasonable man will think it to be a manifest proof , that at first none were baptized but such as understood the faith of Christ. 2 The examples before mentioned , of the baptizing Gregory Nazianzen , Chrysostom , Augustine , Constantine the great , &c. being children of professors of Christianity , is a manifest proof they did not then baptize Infants ordinarily , but extraordinarily in case of necessity . 3. Specially if we joyn hereto the disswasions of Tertullian , and Gregory Nazianzen forementioned . 4. The plain testimony of the Councel of Neo-Caesarea agai●st it , before mentioned . 5. The silence of the chiefe writers , Eusebius , &c. concerning it . 6. The many passages in Augustine , and others , referring it only to Apostolicall tradition , and that usually proved by no higher testimony than Cyprian , & that brought in upon erroneous grounds , is a strong evidence it came not from the Apostles . To all which I may add the testimony of Hugo Grotius before recited , concerning the Greek Church ; the testimony of Ludovicus Vives , Comment . in August . de civit . Dei , l. 1. c. 27. affirming , that he heard , the old use continued in some Cities of Italy , of not baptizing , till the party baptized did desire it . Which it seems Bellarmine , an Italian , when he mentions that speech of Vives , did not deny . More testimonies and ●vidences might be brought out of sundry authors : but these are enough to me , and I think to any that search into Antiquity , to prove , that the custome of baptizing Infants was not from the beginning , and ther●fore is but an Innovation : especially that your tenet , and practise accordingly , is a very late innovation , [ That Baptisme is to be given to Infants of Believers only , because of supposed Covenant-holinesse ] not elder then Zuinglius , and so not much above one hundred yeares old , so far as I can find . Antipaedobaptisme hath no ill influence on Church , or Common-wealth . PART . II. Concerning the prejudices against Antipaedobaptists , from their miscarriages . HAving examined the first part of that you produce for baptizing of infants , I proceede to the second , taken from the noveltie and miscarriages of the opposers of it . And here I wish you had remembred the order of the Areopagites mentioned by Smectymnuus that in pleading causes before them prefaces should be avoyded , as tending to create prejudice in the Judges . For to what end serves this your Narration of your adversaries , but to beget an Odium , hatred or prejudice at least in your Auditors ? which if it had come after other arguments might have been more excusable , but placed as it is , neither suites with serenity of minde fit for judging in you , or your Auditors . Unto which give me leave to adde , that the courses taken by too many , as namely by the Author of the Frontispice to Doctor Featlies booke , which is light and immodest , by Mr. Edwards in his prejudices ag●inst the persons of his opposites , as , that none that ever maintained Antipaedobaptisme , lived and died with repute in the Church of God : the historie of the Anabaptists , the Anabaptists Catechisme , with the invectives against this as an heresie , everting the Fundamentals , as leading into all heresie , over-throwing all government , used in Sermons every where to make Antipaedobaptists odious , and to forestall men with prejudice , though , for the present they serve like Medusaes head , to astonish men , specially the more unlearned , yet are they not right courses , but Artifices serving only to prevent impartiall discussing of things which is necessary that truth may appeare , and perhaps when truth sh●ll appeare will returne on the head of the Authors of ●hem . But I resolve to follow your steps . YOu begin thus . And indeed although some in those times questioned as Augustine grants in his Sermons de verbis Apostol . yet the first that ever made a head against it , or a division in the Church about it , was Baltazar Pacommitanus in Germany in Luthers time , about the yeare 1527. You say , in those times some questioned , as August . grants in his Sermons de verbis Apostol . , . But you doe not tell us who those some were , nor in which Sermons , which might have been requisite for your Reader . Upon search I finde the 14. Sermon De verbis , Apostol . om . 10. intituled de baptismo parvulorum contra Pelagianos , but it is plaine out of that Sermon , and out of Augustines bookes of Heresies , ad Quod vult Deum , Tom. 6. Heres . 88. and else where , that the Pelagians did grant the baptizing of Infants , because they durst not oppose the custome of the Church , which in those dayes was accounted Sacred , only they shifted ●ff the proofe of originall sinne from it , by saying that they were baptized not for the remission of sinnes to eternall life , for they had none , but for the Kingdome of heaven , which shift Augustine doth well refute in that Sermon , and also opposeth some others that taught , that the child not baptized might enter into the Kingdome of Heaven . From Augustines time you make a great leape , and say , the first that ever made a head against , or a division in the Church about it , was Baltazar Pacommitanus in Germany in Luthers time , about the yeare 1527. But therein you are much deceived . For Cassander in his Testimonies of Infants baptisme in the Epistle to the Duke of Cleve , tells us that Guitmund Bishop of Averse mentioneth the famous Berengarius Anno. 1030. opposing not only the corporall presence of Christ in the Eucharist , but also the baptisme of little ones . And that a little after sprung in Bernards time an heresie of an uncertaine Originall and appellation , and he saith that they were called Cathari or Puritans , and from a Country of France , Albigenses , spread over France and lower Germany , and the banke of the Rhine ; of these , he saith , Hireliquis erroribus quos a Manichaeis et Priscillianistis mutuati sunt , hoc insuper addiderunt , ut Baptismum parvulorum inutilem esse dicerent , ut qui prodesse nemini queat qui non et ipse credere , et per seipsum Baptismi sacramentum petere possit , quale nihil Manichaeos , & Priscillianistas docuisse legimus . And indeed Bernard , who is placed by Vsher , at the yeare 1130. just a 100. yeares after Berengarius , Sermon 66. in Cantica , mentions the Heresie of some , that had no name , because their heresie was not from man , nor received they it by man , but they boasted themselves , to be the successors of the Apostles , and called themselves Apostolicos : Now although he charge them with denying Marriage , and abstaining from meates , yet you may smell out of his owne words , that this was but a calumny ; but take the Character he sets downe of them and weigh it , and you would conceive he had spoken of Protestants . Irrident nos quia baptizamus Infantes , quod oramus pro mortuis , quod sanctorum suffragia postulamus , and a little after , Non credunt autem ignem purgatorium restare post mortem , sed statim animam solutam a corpore , vel ad requiem tranfire , vel ad damnationem , And a little after . Jam vero qui Ecclesiam non agnoscunt , non est mirum , si ordinibus Ecclesiae detrahunt , si instituta non recipiunt , si sacramenta contemnunt , si mandatis non obediunt . The same Bernard in Epist. 204. writes to Hildefonsus Earle of S. Gyles , to take away Henricus once a Monke , then an Apostate , quod dies festos , sacramenta , Basilicas , Sacerdotes sustulerit , quod parvulis Christianorum Christi intercluditur vita , dum baptismi negatur gratia , nec saluti propinquare sinuntur , and it is well known that Petrus Cluniacensis who is placed by Vsher at the yeare 1150. hath written an Epistle to three Bishops of France against Peter de Bruis and Henricus , as defending errors digested into 5. Articles . First , That little ones may not be baptized . Secondly , that Temples or Altars are not to be made , Thirdly , that the Crosse of Christ is not to be adored or worshipped , but rather to be broken and trodden under foote . Fourthly , that the Masse is nothing , nor ought to be Celebrated . Fiftly , that the benefits of the living nothing profited the deceased , that we are not to chant to God. He saith that the heresie of the Petrobrusians , was received in the Cities of Gallia Narbonensis , and complaines , that the people were rebaptized , the Churches profaned , the Altars digged downe , the Crosses fired , on the day it selfe of the Lords passion , flesh was openly eaten , the Priests scourged , Monks imprisoned , and by terrours and torments compelled to marry wives . All this was done very neare 400. yeares before Baltazar Pacommitanus , or as others write him Pacimontanus . But perhaps you thinke however , that Baltazar was the first that opposed the baptisme of Inf●nts in the 16. Century , which possibly may be true , though herein you follow Cochlaeus and Bellarmine , who addes that Erasmus himselfe had sowed some seedes of it also , but Gerhard the Lutheran in the 40th Tome of his Common places , where he handles this question , rather derives the Originall from Carolostadius , and alleageth Melancthon , Com. on Coloss. and saith , that he is called the father of the Anabaptists by Erasmus Alberus . Now I doe not finde in Melancthon that which Gerhard saith of him , yet Sleidan saith of him , that he praised their opinion , and Osiander that he joyned himselfe unto them , and I finde that Melancthon in his Comment on 1 Cor. 9.24 . sayes of him that he indeavoured to promote the Gospel , though in a wrong course . Arnoldus Meshovius hist : Anabap : lib. 1. § . 2. sayes that the businesse of Anabaptisme began at Wittenberg , Anno Christi , 1522. Luther then lurking in the Castle of Wartpurg in Thuringia , by Nicolas Pelargus , and that he had Companions at first , Carolostadius , Philip Melancthon and others , and that Luther returning from his Patmos as he called it , banished Carolostadius and the rest , and only received Philip Melancthon into favour againe . Now they that know what was Luthers vehemency and pertinacy on the one side , and Melancthons timerousnesse on the other side , may well conceive , ●hat as in the businesse of Images in Churches , and Consubstantiation , so in this about Infant-baptisme the temper of these two men much hindred the clearing of this truth , perhaps fearing that a further reformation then they had begun , would be an occasion of nullifying , all they had done . Surely it hath beene the unhappy fate of the reformed Churches , that they have so stucke to Luther , and Calvin , that they have scarce stepped one step further in reformation then they did , but stifly maintained onely the ground they had gotten . Cassander in his Epistle to he D. of Cleve before mentioned reckons the error of Anabaptisme to have bin revived abou● the yeare 1622. by Nicolas Stork or Pelargus & Thomas Munzer ; but it is not res tanti to search any further into this matter , nor is it of any weight to enquire much after this Baltazar . He is stiled Baltazar Huebmer Pacimontanus , Dr. in Waldshuot , in the Epistle Zuinglius writes to him , before his answer to his booke about bap●isme , & in the Epistl● Zuinglius wrote to Gynoraeus , he relates how he came to Zurich , and was there demanded by the Emperor , who it seemes sought his life , there he made some recantation , but it appeares he was afterwards taken and burnt at Vienna in Austria Anno , 1528. For what cause I know not . Zuinglius saith this of him in his Epistle to Gynoraeus . Nos dexteritatem spectamus in homine , ac mediocritatis studium , in eo autem homine ( falli cupio ) nihil quam immoderatam rei gloriaeque sitim deprehendisse visus sum ipse mihi . And Osiander at the yerae 1528. saith only of him , he was Hom● fanaticus et crassus Anabaptista . But I leave him to his Judge to whom he stands or falls , onely I marvaile I reade no worse , specially in Osiander , said of one that is accounted a leader in so hated a sect . YOu goe on , Since that time multitudes in Germany have imbraced his opinion , who because they opposed paedobaptisme , were forced to reiterate their owne baptisme , and thence were called Anabaptists . Afore I proceed , because it goes so currant , that rebaptization is not only an errour , but also an heresie , let me beg of you one good argument to prove it unlawfull in se , or intrinsecally , I meane without respect to scandall , or the like cause by accident , for a man that hath beene baptized rightly , to be baptized againe : One baptisme Eph. 4 5. is not to me all one as once baptizing , no more then one faith once beleiving , We are regenerated by baptisme , and a man is borne but once . But are we not borne againe by the Word , and must that be but once preached ? Is not sinne mortified , the Church sanctified by baptisme , and are not these often ? And for example , if there were as good for paedobaptisme , as that Act. 19.5 , 6. for rebaptizing , the controversie were at an end with me . But if heresie must be determined by the votes of men , Smectymnuus may be judged an Arian , and the opposers of Pasche Hereticks : this by the way , though not besides the matter . YOu goe on , And soone proved a dangerous and turbulent sect , not only working a world of mischeife about Munster , and other parts of Germany , but have with this opinion drunke in abundance of other dangerous heresies and blasphemies , and quickly grew into such divisions and subdivisions among themselves , that Bullinger notes that they were growne to no lesse then 14. Sects in his time which is indeed the common lot of all Sectaries . To all which I only answer thus , that much of this is true I make no question , though perhaps vehemency of opposition , hath made matters more or worse then they were , as it is wont to be in such cases , and I finde that Gualter in his Apology for Zuinglius , saith of them , veritatis studiosi videri vellent , and Cassander speakes favourably of some of them . But it is no marvaile that when men grow into sects , such things happen , especially when the reformation of an abuse is denyed men by an orderly Synodicall way , and the persons that seeke it , declaimed against , accused , and accursed , and persecuted as Schismaticks and Heretiques ; and unlearned and factious men , joyne with a discontented party for sinister ends , so that the men that hold an opinion have no regular Ministery , nor orderly meetings to debate or conclude of things amongst themselves ; and to agree upon a confession of their doctrine , to be by all avouched . But have not the like , if not the same things happened in other matters ? Did not the like troubles happen in Q. Elizabeths dayes in seeking to remove Episcopacy & Ceremonies ? Did not some of them grow a dangerous and turbul●nt Sect ? was not the practise of Hacket and his companions like that of Iohn a Leyden at Munster ? Did not divisions and other miscarriages and persecutions , bring the Non-conformists of England as low as the Anabaptists ? Did not Whitgift long agoe compare the Anabaptists principles with the Nonconformists of England , and Hooker in his preface to his bookes of Ecclesiasticall policy , their proceedings , manners & pretences togethe● ? and yet Episcopacy is now found an abuse and so may in time be Paedo-baptisme . Indeed these miscarriag●s were argumentative if they did arise from the nature of the doctrine taught : but when they come only from the weakenes , or rashnes , or malignity of the assertors , or from the violence of opposers , we must not jumble things togeth●r , but by sifting the matter to the bran , sever the nature of the d●ctrine from the quality and actions of the teachers , else we shall as soone loose truth as finde it : Now whether the nature of the Doctrine that denies Paedobaptisme , inferre any such turbulent effects , I shall consider in examining that which followes . And because this opinion and divers others which depend upon it , begins unhappily to take place , and spread among our selves in this Kingdome . You do not expresse what those opinions are which depend upon it , Mr. Richard Vines in his Sermon on Eph. 4.14 . pag. 13. Having sayd what heresie ever came abroade , without Verbum Domini in the mouth of it ? and then after the Arians plea , he saith the Anabaptists from Matth. 28.19 . Goe yee therfore and disciple all nations ; and when we shal be thriven to his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or full stature , he will undermine Magistracy by that Rom. 12.19 . Avenge not your selves . But how knowes Mr. Vines this ? I do not take Mr. Vines for a Prophet & to inferre this by reason , The Anabaptist urgeth Matth. 28.19 . against paedobaptisme , Ergo , he will urge Rom. 12.19 . against Magistracy , is in my slender apprehension a baculo ad angulum . I doe not feare to averie , and doubt not but to be able to make it good , that the principle by which he proves paedobaptisme , from the reason & equity of the rule of circumcision , doth by just consequence undermine , I will not say all Magistracy , but much of the Magistracy and Lawes of the Kingdome of England , as they are at this day . Perhaps he may say the Anabaptists heretofore have opposed Magistracy . I reply , Have none of the adversaries of the Anabaptists undermined Magistracy ? Since the actions of Muncer and Munster I finde not either in writing or action any opposition but the Battenburgick after mentioned ( which what they were I know not ) made by the Anabaptists against the Magistrates or Magistracy . I cannot but thinke it necessary to insert the words of Cassander a Papist in his Epistle to the Duke of Gulicke and Cleve . Hujus quem dixi Memnonis cui nunc hic Theodoricus successit , sectatores fere sunt omnes , qui per haec Belgicae , & inferioris Germaniae loca huic Anabaptisticae heresi affines deprehenduntur , in quibus magna ex parte pii cujusdam animi argumenta cernas , qui imperito quodam zelo incitati , errore potius , quam animi malitia a vero divinarum literarum sensu , et concordi totius Ecclesiae consensu descrverunt . Quod ex eo perspici potest , quod Monasteriensibus , et hinc consequutis Batenburgicis a Iohanne Batenburgo , post cladem Monasteriensem excitatis furoribus , Novam quandam restitutionem regni Christi , quod in deletione impiorum per vim externa● positum sit meditantibus acerrime semper restiterunt , et in sola cruce Regni Christi instaurationem et propagationem consistere docuerunt , quo fit ut qui hujusmodi sunt , Commiseratione potius et emendatione quam inse●tatione et perditione digni videantur . How unlike is Mr. Vines his speech to the Lord M●jor & City of London , to these words of Cassander a Papist , to the D. of Clev●●●●pist ●●pist . And for those in these dayes , that deny or question Paedo-baptisme , as I know them not , or very few of them , so I cannot say what they do , or hold , as being not privy to their tenets or proceedings , onely unde●standing by one of your assembly , that there was a little book pu● forth intitled the compassionate Samaritane , upon perusall I found that that Author , who ever he were , accounts it a calumny to charge th● Anabaptists with opposing Magistracy . But concerning this , the confession of faith , lately put forth in the name of 7 Churches of them Artic. 48 , 49. will give best information . But if you meane not this but some other error depending on the opinion of Antipaedobaptisme , when I meete with them in your Sermon , I shall in their proper place , consider whether they do depend on it or no , and for the opinion it selfe , I say , if it be not truth , the spreading of it is unhappy , if it be truth , the more it spreads , the more happy it is for the Kingdome . YOu say further . And so the worke of reformation without Gods mercy likely to be much hindered by it . Sir , you now touch upon a very tender point , in which it concerned you , and it in like mann●r concernes me , and all that have any love to Iesus Christ , or his people , to be very considerate in what we say . I have entred into Covenant to endeavour a reformation as well as you , and though I have not had the happines , ( as indeed wanting ability ) to be imployed in that eminent manner you have beene in the promoting of it ( in which I rejoyce ) yet have I in my aff●ctions sincerely d●sired it , in my intentions truely aimed at it , in my prayers hea●tily sought it , in my studies constantly minded it , in my indeavours seriously prosecuted it , for the promoting of it greatly suffered , as having as deepe in interest in it as other men . Now b●gging this Postulatum , or demand , that Paedobaptisme is a corruption of Christs institution , which upon the reading of my answer , and the 12 reasons of my doubts formerly mentioned , will appeare not to be a mere Petitio principii begging that which is to be proved . I say this being granted , I humbly conceive that Paedobaptisme is a Mother-Corruption , that hath in her wombe most of those abuses in discipline and manners , and some of those errors in doctrine that doe d●file the reformed Churches ; and therefore that the reformation will be so far from being hindred by removing it , that indeed it is the only way to further reformation , to begin in a regular way , at the purging of that ordinance of Iesus Christ , to wit Baptisme , without which , experience shewes how insufficient after-Catechizing , Excommunication , Confirmation , Vnio reformata , solemne Covenant , Separation , & the New Church-Covenant , invented or used to supply the want of it , are , to heale the great abuses about the admitting visible professors into the priviledge of the Church , from whence spring a great part , if not all the abuses in discipline , receiving the Lords Supper , and manners of Christian people . And therefore , I earnestly beseech in the bowels of Iesus Christ , both you , and all others , that ingage themselves for God , to take this matter into deepe consideration . I am sensible how inconsiderable a person I am , and how inconsiderable a number there be that are aff●cted with this motion , I do consider how much against the streame of the R●formed Churches , such a reformation would be . Yet when I consider how far fetched the reasons for Paedobaptisme are , how cleare the institution of Christ is against it , how happily truthes opposed with as much p●●j●dice as this , have beene in processe of time vindic●ted , of wha● moment the knowledge of this point is to every conscience , how exact a r●formation our solemne Covenant binds us to endeavour ; I do not despaire but that this truth also may take place upon second thoughts , ●here it hath beene rejected at the first , nor doe I doubt bu● in time Gods people will consider what an influence baptisme had of old into the comfort and obligation of conscien●es , and how lit●le it h●th now . And truely Sir , though it may be but my weaknes , yet I suppose it can doe you no hurt to tell it ; I feare you want much of that blessing , which was hoped for by your Assembly , in that you do waste so much time about inconsiderable things comparatively , and hastily passe over or exclude from examination this which deserves most to be examined , but rather seeke to stop the bringing of it to any tryall . But having told you thus much , I follow you in your Sermon . You say , I shall God-willing handle this question more largely then I have done any other in this place , and the rather because of three other great mischeifes which go along with it . First I see that all that reject the baptizing of Infants , do & must upon the same grounds reject the religious observation of the Lords day , or the Christian Sabbath , viz. because there is not ( say they ) an expresse institution or command in the New Testament . Give me leave to take up the words of him in the Poet , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , What a word hath gotten out of the hedge of your teeth ! They doe , They must . Though I doubt not of your will , yet I see you want some skil in pleading for the Lords day , that others have : the truth is that it is neither so , nor so , They neither doe , nor must reject upon the same ground the Lords day . That they doe not I can speake for one ; and your owne words delivered after with more caution , Verily I have hardly either knowne , or read , or heard , intimate that though few , yet you cannot say , but you have heard , or read or knowne of some , that have not with baptizing of Infants rejected the Lords day ; but you have , I presume , heard or read of whole , and those reformed Churches , that have upon such a ground rejected the Lords day as not of divine institution , who yet are zealous for paedobaptisme . Nor must they , And to make that good , let us consider their ground as you mention it . Their ground you say is , because there is not an expresse institution or command in the New Testament : this then is their principle , that what hath not an expresse institution or command in the New Testament is to be rejected . But give me leave to tell you , that you leave out two explications that are needefull to be taken in ; First , that when they say so , they meane it of positive instituted worship , consisting in outward rites , such as Circumcision , Baptisme and the Lords Supper are , which have nothing morall or naturall in them , but are in whole and in part Ceremoniall . For that which is naturall or morall in worship , they allow an institution or command in the old Testament as obligatory to Christians , and such doe they conceive a Sabbath to be , as being of the Law of nature , that outward worship being due to God , dayes are due to God to that end , and therefore even in Paradise , appointed from the creation ; and in all nations , in all ages observed : enough to prove so much to be of the Law of nature , and therefore the fourth Commandement justly put amongst the Morals ; and if a seventh day indefinitely be commanded there , as some of your Assembly have indeavourd to make good , I shall not gainsay : though in that point of the quota pars temporis which is moral , I do yet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 suspend my judgement . Now Circumcision hath nothing moral in it , it is meerely positive , neither from the beginning , nor observed by all nations in all ages , nor in the Decalogue , and therefore a Sabbath may stand , though it fall . 2. The other explication is , that when they require expresse institution or command in the New Testament , they doe not meane that in positive worship there must be a command totidem verbis , in so many words , in forme of a precep● , but they conceive that Apostolicall example , which hath not a meere temporary reason , is enough to prove an institution from God , to which that practise doth relate . And in this , after some evidences in the Scripture of the New Testament , they ascribe much to the constant practise of the Church in all ages . Now then if it be considered , that when Paul was at Troas , Acts. 20.7 . the Disciples came together to breake bread , and Paul preached upon the first day of the weeke , and Paul , 1 Cor. 16.1.2 . as he had appointed in the Churches of Galatia , so he appoints at Corinth collections for the poore the first day of the week ; & Revel . 1.10 . it hath the Elogium or title of the Lords day ; and it was so Sacred among Christians , that it was made the question of inquisitors of Christianity , Dominicum servasti ? Hast thou kept the Lords day ? to which was answered , Christianus sum , intermittere non possum , I am a Christian , I may not omit it : it is cleare evidence to me , that either Christ or the Apostles , having abrogated the old Sabbath , Col. 2.16 . subrogated the first day of the weeke instead of it . Now if a moity of this could be brought for Paedobaptisme , in the stead of Circumcision of infants , I should subscribe to it with you . But Paedobaptisme not consisting with the order of Christ in the institution , being contrary to the usage of it by John the Baptist , & the Apostles , there being no foote-steps of it , till the erroneous conceit grew of giving Gods grace by it , and the necessity of it to save an infant from perishing , some hundreds of yeares after Christs incarnation ; I dare not assent to the practise of it upon a supposed analogy , equity or reason of the rule of Circumcision , and imaginary confederation with the beleiving parent in the Covenant of grace . For to me it is a dangerous principle upon which they go that so argue : to wit , that in meere positive things ( such as Circumcision and Baptism are ) we may frame an addition to Gods worship from analogy or resemblance conceived by us betweene two ordinances , whereof one is quite taken away , without any institution gathered by precept or Apostolicall example . For if we may doe it in one thing , why not in a nother ? where shall we stay ? They that read the Popish expositors of their Rituals , doe know that this very principle hath brought in Surplice , Purification of women , &c. that I mention not greater matters . I desire any learned man to set me downe a rule from Gods Word , how far I may go in my conceived parity of reason , equity or analogy , and where I must stay ; when it will be superstition and will worship , when not ; when my conscience may be satisfied , when no● ? That which Christ and his Apostles have taken from the Jewes , and appointed to us , we receive as they have appointed : bu● if any other man , if a Pope , or Occumenicall Councel take upon them to appoint to mens Consciences any rite in whole or in part , upon his owne conceived reason from supposed analogy with the Jewish ceremonies , it is an high presumption in such against Christ , and against the Apostles command to yeeld to it , Col. 2.20 . though it hath a shew of wisedome , v. 23 ▪ And the Apostles example , Gal. 2.3.4 5. binds us to oppose it , when it is likely to bring us into bondage . And for the other pillar upon which at this day paedobaptisme is built , it is to me very dangerous , viz. That the Covenant of Evangelicall grace is made to beleivers and their seede , that the children are confederates with the Parents in the Covenant of grace . Which without such restrictions or explications as agree not with the common use of the words ( which in the plaine sense import this , that God in his Covenant of grace by Christ hath promised not only to justifie and save beleiving Parents , but also their children ) is in my apprehension plainly against the Apostles determination , Rom. 9.6 , 7 , 8. makes an addition to the Gospell mentioned Gal. 3.8 9. and drawes with it many dangerous consequences , which I abhorre . You adde , Now God hath so blessed the religious observation of the Lords day in this Kingdome above other Churches and Kingdomes , that such as indeavour to overthrow it , deserve justly to be abhorred by us . Upon occasion of which passage I only desire to intimate to you , that from happy events it s not safe to conclude , that a thing pleaseth God. You know it is the way the Monks and Prelates use to inferre that their institution is of God , because their Orders have yeelded so many pious Confessors , Martyrs and Saints ; & it too much countenanceth the way of arguing for Independency ( by which it hath prevailed ) in Letters from abroad , and suggestions at home , still harping on this string , that it is the way of God , because they that are in that way thrive & grow more spirituall then others . And if this arguing be good , It prospers , therefore it pleaseth God ; then it will follow on the contrary , It prospers not , therefore it pleaseth not God : And if so , we might inferre Infant baptisme is of men , not of God , sith if conscience and experience may speake , there are but few Christians that have tasted the sweete & comfort of their baptisme , as Mr. Shepard , in his Epistle before Philips vind : of infant-bap . The other note is this , that when you say , that such as indeavour to overthrow the religious observation of the Lords day , deserve justly to be abhorred by us , it must be taken cum grano salis , with cau●ion , of such as doe it against cleare light , with a malitious spirit : Otherwise your words reach to forraigne reformed Churches & their teachers , yea in a sort to your selfe , who may be said interpretatively to indeavour to overthrow it , while you build it on the same ground with paedobaptisme . But I proceede . YOu say , Secondly the teachers of this opinion , where ever they prevaile , take their Proselites wholy off from the Ministery of the Word and Sacraments , and all other acts of Christian Communion both publique and private , from any but those that are of their owne opinion , condemning them all , as limbes of Antichrist , worshippers and followers of the Beast . This is indeed a wicked practise , justly to be abhorred , the making of sects upon difference of opinion , reviling , separating from their teachers and brethren otherwise faithfull , because there is not the same opinion in disputable points , or in cleare truths non-fundamentall , is a thing too frequent in all sorts of Dogmatists , and yet so contrary to common charity , which teacheth us to beare all things , to the rules of heathens , who could say , Non eadem sentire duos de rebus iisdem incolumi licuit semper amicitia , It hath bin alwayes allowed that friends should differ in opinion about the same things , & yet continue f●iends , much more against that neare concorporation of Christians : that I looke upon it as one of the great plagues of Christianity , you shal have me joyne with you in shewing my detestation of it . Yet neverthelesse , First , It is to be considered , that this is not the evill of Antipaedobaptisme ; you confesse some are otherwise minded , and therefore must be charged on the persons , not on the assertion it selfe , and about this what they hold , you may have now best satisfaction from the confession of faith in the name of seven Churches of them , Art. 33. and others following . Secondly , It is fit when such things happen , that godly Ministers should looke upon it as their affliction , & take occasion excutere semetipsos ; to search themselves whether they have not by their harsh usage of their brethren , unjust charging them , misreporting their tenents , stirring up hatred in Magistrates & people against them , ●nstead of instructing them , unsatisfying handling of doubtfull qu●stions , and by other ways alienated them from them . And I make bold to let you understand , that among others you have beene one cause at my startling at this point of Paedobaptisme , remembring a very moveing passage which is in your Sermon Preached and printed on 2 Chron. 15.2 . Concerning the hedge that God hath set about the 2. Commandement , that you admire that ever mortal man should dare in Gods worship , to meddle any jot further then the Lord himself● hath commanded . I Come after you . Thirdly , this opinion puts all th● Infants of all believers into the self-same condition with the Infants of Turkes and Indians . And so doth the opinion of Cyprian with his 66. Bishops , that would have Gods grace denyed to none . And so do the words of the grave confutation of the Brownists , put forth by Mr. Rathband , Part. 3. pag. 50. Children may be lawfully accounted within Gods Covenant , if any of their Ancestors in any generations were faithfull . Exod. 20.5 . But it may be you do not so . I pray you then tell me , wherein you make their condition different ? Possibly if you open your selfe plainly , there will be no difference between us . I will deale freely with you herein . 1. Concerning Gods Election , I am not certaine any more , concerning the election of a believers Infant , then an unbelievers . I rest upon Gods words , I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy , Rom. 9.15.2 . For the Covenant or promise of grace , that is , righteousnesse and life in Christ , though I acknowledge a peculiar promise to Abrahams naturall posterity , mentioned Rom. 11 27. Yet I know not that God hath made such a covenant to any , much lesse to all the naturall seed of any believing Gentile ; if you can shew me such a Character , I sha●l count it a treasure : but I dare not forge such grants . 3. Yet I grant that the present estate of a believers Infants hath a more comfortable likelihood that they are in Gods election , then the infants of Turks and Indians , both because they have their parents prayers , and the Churches for them , they have some promises , though generall , indefinite , and cōditional ; & we find by experience , God doth very frequētly cōtinue his Church in their posterity , though it often happen that the child●ē of godly parents prove very wicked , But this I dare not ground upon any promise of free grace , made to the child of a believer as such , for feare le●t I incurre blasphemy , by challenging a promise which God doth not keep ; nor upon any pretended law of friendship , lest that objection r●flect on me , Is there unrighteousnesse with God ? Rom. 9.14 . which the Apostle thought best to answer by asserting to God the most absolute liberty , v. 15.18 . 4. That the condition in respect of future hopes of a believers Infant is a thousand times better then of a Turk or Indian , because it is born in the bosome of the Church , of godly parents , who by p●ayers , instruction , example , will undoubtedly educate them in the true faith of Christ , whereby they are not only as the Turks children , in potentia Logica , in a Logick possibility , or in potentia remota , in a remote possibility , but in potentia pr●quînqua , in a near possibility to be believers , and saved . And surely this is a great and certain priviledge enough to satisfie us , if we remember the distance between God and us : Nor do I feare to be gored by any of the three horns of your Syllogisme , of which one you say must unavoidably follow . The first is , That either all are damned who die in their infancy , being without the Covenant of grace , having no part in Christ. But this follows not ; there is no necessity from any thing said before of their condition , that all of them should be damned , or be without the Covenant of grace , having no part in Christ : God may choose them all , or some , take all , or some into the covenant of Grace ( which is , I will be thy God , and the God of thy seed , that is , mine Elect , Rom. 9.8.11 . ) into communion with Christ ( who dyed for the Elect , Rom. 8.33 , 34. ) notwithstanding any thing I have said of their condition . The second is , Or else all are saved , as having no originall sin , and consequently needing no Saviour , which most of the Anabaptists in the world do owne , and therewith bring in also all Pelagianisme , universall grace , free-will , &c. This I imagine is the error you conceive depends upon Anti-paedobaptisme . I finde Mr. Blake stands much upon this in his Birth-right-priviledge , pag. 17. where he saith , The Anabaptists in this present age , well see , that all that joyn in this tenent saile between those rocks , either to affirm , that infants die in their pollution , or perish in their birth-sin , or else to deny this originall pollution , or any birth-sin at all . But for my part I see no reason of this , unlesse it be granted that no infant can have sin forgiven , unlesse it b● baptized . May it not be said , that some , or all infants are saved , notwithstanding their birth-sin , by the grace of God electing them , putting them into Christ , uniting them to him by his Spirit , forgiving them their birth-sin through Christs obedience , ●lthough they be not baptized ? As corrupt as the Schoolmen were , they could say , Gratia Dei non alligatur Sacramentis , The grace of God is not tyed to Sacraments . If most of the Anabaptists hold universall grace , and free-will , there may be as much said of most of the paedobaptists , taking in a great part of the Papists , almost all the Lutherans , and Arminians , and if they denyed originall sin , it is their dangerous error , but it is not consequent on their denying Paedobaptisme . But the late confession of faith made ●n the name of 7. Churches of them in London , Art. 4 , 5 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 26. will abundantly answer for them in this point of Pelagianisme . The third is , Or that although they be tainted with originall corruption , and so need a Saviour , Christ doth pro bene placito , save some of the infants of Turks and Indians dying in their infancy , as well as some of the infants of Christians , and so carry salvation by Christ out of the Church beyond the Covenant of grace , where God never made any promise . Nor doth this follow : for it may be said , all that dye in their infancy are not damned , nor all saved because they have no birth-sin , nor some of the Indians saved . For the some that may be saved , may be the infants of believers , to whom God may forgive their birth-sin , without baptisme . Thus you may perceive , how the push of all the horns of your horned Syllogisme may be avoyded . But you conceive it a great absurdity to say , That Christ doth pro bene placito save some of the infants of Indians : it is true , it is a bold saying , to say he doth save them , but ●is as bad to say that God may not save them pro bene placito , according to his good pleasure . He hath mercy on whom he will have mercy . Bu● then salvation by Christ is carried out of the Church , where he hath made no promise : if you mean by the Church , the invisible Church of the elect , the Church of the first-born that are written in heaven , of which Protestant Divines , as Morton de Ecclesia , and others against Bellarmine understand that saying , Extra Ecclesiam non est salus , without the Church is no salvation : then it follows no● , that if the infants of Indians be saved , salvation is carryed without the Church , for they may be of the invisible Church of the elect , to whom belongs the promise made to Abraham , I will be thy God , and the God of thy seed . But if you mean it of the visible , though I disclaim Zuinglius his opinion ( who was a stiffe assertor of Paedobaptisme , and I think the founder of the new way of maintaining it , by the new addition to the Covenant of grace ) that Hercules , Arist des , Socrates , Numa , and such like heathens are now in heaven ; yet I cannot say no persons without the communion of the visibl● Church are saved : He that could call Abraham in Vr of Chaldea , Job in the land of Vz , and Rahab in Jericho , may save some amongst Turks and Indians out of the visible Church . You will not call Rome a true visible Church , nor will you , I think , say , that all are damned that are in Rome . You adde , That God hath made a promise to be the God of believers and of their seed , we all know . If you know it , yet I professe my ignorance of such a promise ; I reade indeed of a promise made to Abraham , That he would be his God , and the God of his seed , and I reade That they that are of the faith of Abraham , are the children of Abraham , Gal. 3.7.29 . Rom. 4.11 , 12 , 13 , 16. But I am yet to seek for that promise you speake of , to be the God of believers and their seed . You say , But where the promise is to be found , that he will be th● God of the seed of such Parents who live and die his enemies , and the●● seed not so much as called by the preaching of the Gospel , I know not . Nor do I. Only I know this , I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy , and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion , Rom. 9.15 . which is the Apostles answer in this very case . Thus have I entred your out-works , I shall now try the strength of your walls , I mean the third part of your Sermon . Infant-baptisme cannot be deduced from holy Scripture . PART . III. Concerning the Arguments from Scripture for Infant-baptism . YOu say , My first argument to ●his , The Infants of believing parents are foederati , therefore they must be signati . They are within the Covenant of Grace belonging to Christs body , Kingdome , Family , therefore are to partake of the seal of his covenant , or the distinguishing badge between them who are under the Covenant of grace , and them who are not . The ordinary answer to this argument , is by denying that Infants are under the Covenant of grace , only some few deny the consequence , that although they were within the Covenant , yet it follows not that they must be sealed , because say they , the women among the Jews were under the covenant , yet received not circumcision , which was the seal of the Covenant . They that deny the consequence of your argument , do it justly , for the consequence must be proved by this universall : All that are foederati , must be signati , all that are in the covenant of Grace must be sealed , which is not true . If it were true , it must be so , either by reason of some necessary connexion between the termes , which is none ; for it is but a common accident to a man that hath a promise or a covenant made to him , that he should have a speciall sign , it may adesse , vel abesse a subjecto , it may be present , or absent from the subject : God made a speciall promise to Joshuah , that he should bring Israel into the Land of Canaan ; to Phineas a covenant of an everlasting Priesthood , without any speciall sign or seal distinct from the Covenant ; or else it must be so by reason of Gods will declared concerning the covenant of Grace , but that is not true . The promise made to Adam , which you confesse was the same in substance with the covenant of Grace , had no speciall sign or seal annexed to it ; Noah , Abel were within the covenant of Grace , yet no speciall sign appointed them , therefore it is not Gods will that all that are foederati in the Covenant , must be signati , Sealed ; if they had been signati , though they were foederati , it had been will-worship , God not appointing it to them . But you will say , all that are foederati should be signati , since the solemn Covenant with Abraham . But neither is this certain , sith we finde no such thing concerning Melchizedeck , and Lot , that lived in Abrahams time , nor concerning Job , that it 's conceived lived after his time . You will say , but it is true of all the foederati in Abrahams family : but neither is that true , for male children before the eighth day , and women , though federate , yet were not to be signed . So that you see it is so far from being universally true , that all that are foederati , must be signati ; that this is all which is true , all the male children of Abrahams family if they were eight dayes old , must be signed with the sign of Circumcision , which never will be able to prove the consequence of your Enthym●me according to true Logick . But you say this receives an easie answer , the women were circumcised in the males , else God could not have said , that the whole house of Israel were circumcised in the flesh , else could not the whole Nation of the Jews be called the Circumcision , in opp●sition to all the world besides , who were called the V●circumcision . 'T is true , the answer you give is an easie answer , because easie to be answered , but it is not a sufficient answer , to tak● away the exception against that universall proposition which must prove the consequence of your Enthymeme : The answer is , That women were circumcised in the males . You expresse it thus , pag. 28. where you repeat the same thing . This sign was actually applyed only to the males , yet the females were virtually circumcised in them : So this is your meaning . The women were not circumcised at all , yet that the males were circumcised , it was all one as if they had been circumcised in their persons . Now then let us scan this answer : the conclusion to be proved was , that Infants were to be sealed actually , not virtually . For if a virtuall sealing , or baptizing were all that you would prove , we might grant it ; we may say infants are virtually baptized in their parents , and yet it may be unlawfull to baptize them actually ; as it would have been unlawfull to have circumcised women actually , notwithstanding their virtuall circumcision . For it had been a will-worship , there being no command to do it . And indeed , to speak exactly , women were not circumcised virtually in the males ; for he is said virtually to have a thing by another , as by a Proxie , or Attorny , that might receive it by himselfe , yet quoad effectum juris , according to the effect of Law , anothers receiving is as if he had received it : but so the males did not receive circumcision for the females , for the females might not be circumcised in their own persons , it had been their sin , if they had recieved it , God not appointing it : As it had been a sin for a childe to be circumcised afore or after the eighth day , in them that altered or swerved from the appointment of God : Now then this being the conclusion to be proved , That infants of believing parents are to be actually signed or sealed , the proposition must be meant of the same signing or sealing , and the Syllogisme thus framed . All that are foederati , must be actually signati . All the infants of believers are foederati , Ergo , All the infants of believers must be actually signati : If you do not thus frame your Syllogisme , but put in the pr●position virtually signed , and in your conclusion actually signed , your Syllogisme hath four termes , and so is naught . If you do not put actually signed in the conclusion , you conclude not that which you should prove . Now this also occasions me to note another fault in your argument , to wit , your concluding that which was not the question , which was not of any sign indefinitely , but of baptisme . You cannot say it is all one , for there are other signes of the Covenant besides baptisme , as circumcision of old , so the Lords Supper now . If then I should grant the conclusion , That infants of believers are to be signati , yet you would say they are not to be pa●takers of the Lords Supper , because it is not appointed for them . So in like manner if it were granted you , that infants of believers are to be signed , yet it follows not that they are to be baptized unlesse you can prove it is appointed to them ; and the truth is , if it were granted , that children were foederati , yet it were a high presumption in us to say , therefore they must be signati , without Gods declaration of his minde , and if it were granted they must be signati , it were in like manner a high presumption in us to say , therefore they must be baptized , without Gods declaration of his minde concerning that Ordinance . Though it may be good to a●gue thus , it is Gods minde , therefore it is to be done ; yet it is a great pride of spirit for us to argue , This should be , therefore God hath appointed it . As for the reasons you bring to prove that women were virtually circumcised in the males , they prove it not , for when it is said The whole house of Israel were circumcised in the flesh , the sense is not , every person is either actually , or virtually circumcised , but all the house of Israel is put for a great part , or the greater , or the most eminent , as it is frequently elswhere , 1 Sam. 7.3 . Act. 2.36 . Act. 13.24 . as the whole Church is said to come together , when the most of them come together . And in the like manner the people of the Jews may be called the Circumcision , from the greater or more famous part , though the women be neither actually nor virtually circumcised . As a field of wheat may be called from the greater or most eminent part ; as a Church of believers , from the greater or most eminent part , though the rest be neither actually nor virtually believers . And for your other reason , pag. 28. It was Gods expresse order , Exod. 12.28 . No uncircumcised person might eat of the Passeover , which we are sure women did , as well as men , therefore they were virtually circumcised ; Neither is this cogent . For , the Proposition is thus to be limited , pro subjecta materia , according to the subject matter . No uncircumcised person might eat thereof , that ought to be circumcised : Now women were not appointed to be circumcised at all , therefore they need not either actually to be circumcised , or to have any circumcised for them , or in their stead , which you mean ( I think ) by virtuall circumcision . Now I have dwelt so long on your Consequence , because I still stick at this , That no reason of ours in positive worship , can acquit an action that is performed , from will-worship . Nothing but Gods will , manifest in his institution , gathered by some command or example now in force , can do it . Neverthelesse , because I conceive the Antecedent of your Enthymem● is not true , though your Argument be overthrown by shewing the inv●lidity of your Consequ●nce , I shal proceed to examine your 5 Conclusions , by which you endeavor to make good both your antecedē● , & whole argument . YOur first conclusion is this , That the Covenant of grace for substance , hath always bin one & the same to Jews and Gentiles . This conclusion I grant : but on sundry passages in the p●oofe of it , I think it necessary to make these animadversions . 1. You carry the narration of the Covenant made with Abraham , Gen. 17. as if it did only contain the covenant of Grace in Christ , whereas it is apparent ou● of the Text , that the Covenant was a mixt Covenant , consisting of temporall benefits , to wit , the multiplying of his seed , v. 6. the poss●ssion of Canaan , v. 8. the birth of Isaac , v. 16. and the spirituall blessings , v. 5 7. Yea , Cameron th●sibus de triplici foedere Dei , thesi 78. saith , That circumcision did primarily separate Abrahams seed from other Nations , sealed the earthly promise , it signified sanctification secondarily . And indeed this is so plainly delivered in the Scripture , that the Psalmist cals the promise of Canaa● , the covenant made with Abraham , Ps. 105.8 , 9 , 10 , 11. He hath remembred his Covenant for ever , the word which he commanded to a thousand generations , which Covenant he made with Abraham , and his Oath unto Isaac , and confirmed the same to Jacob for a Law , and to Israel for an everlasting covenant ; Saying , unto thee will I give the Land of Canaan , the lot of your inheritance . If you should say that these promises were types of spiritu●ll and heavenly things , the reply is , that though it be true , yet the things promised were but carnall and earthly , as the Sacrifices were but carnall things , though shadowes of spirituall . 2. When you say thus : " The manner of administration of this Covenant , was at first by types and shadowes , and sacrifices , &c. It had been convenient to have named Circumcision , that it might not be conceived to belong to the substance of the Covenant . But of this there may be more occasion to speak at pag. 35. of your Sermon . 3. Whereas , pag. 14. you place among the third sort of Abrahams seed , " Proselytes , that were selfe-justitiaries , carnall and formall professors : it behoved you to shew , where in Scripture they are called Abrahams seed , which I think you cannot . Yea , the truth is , you herein joyn with Arminius , who in his Analysis of the 9. to the Romans , makes this as the ground of his wresting that Scripture , that there is a seed of Abraham mentioned , Romans 4.9 , 10. and Galat. 3. & 4. cap. Qui per opera legis justitiam & salutem consequuntur , Who follow after righteousnesse and salvation by the works of the Law. To whom Baine on Eph. 1.5 . p. 139. answers . Beside , though the sons of the flesh may signifie such , who carnally , not spiritually conceive of the Law ; yet the seed of Abraham without any adjoyned , is never so taken . But it is yet stranger to me , that which Mr. Blake hath , pag. 9. where he saith , That there yet remaines in the bosome of the Church , a distinction of the seed of Abraham , borne after the flesh , and after the spirit . And that now by vertue of being born after the flesh , some have a Church-interest . And applies that of Gal. 4 29. Even so it is now , to children born of believing parents after the flesh ▪ as having there by title to Church-interest . Which passages are very grosse , though he makes this the medium of his fourth Argument . For , first , whereas the Apostle , by being born after the flesh , means not infants born of believing parents , but those that are under the covenant of Mount Sinai , that is , who sought righteousnesse by the law , and not by faith : Mr. Blake means , by being born after the flesh , birth by naturall generation of infants born of Christian parents . 2. Whereas he saith , that such are in the bosome of the Church ; the Apostle saith , they persecute the Church , and are cast out . 3. Whereas ●e makes such Abrahams seed , he therein joyns with Arminius , against the tru●h , and against the Apostle : for though the Apostle makes Ismael to be the son of Abraham , and speaks of him as born after the flesh , whom he typically makes to represent legall justitiaries ; yet doth he not call Abrahams seed simply such justitiaries . 4. Whereas the covenant of grace is made the reason of baptizing infants , by alle●ging this place for baptizing of infants ; To be born of Hagar , that is , to be in the covenant of works , should give a child interest into the Church of Christ. For my part , I can see no other consequence than this , of that cloudy argument . The rest of your explication of the first Conclusion , I let passe without any further animadversions , as being unwilling sectare minutias , to insist on small things , or to stand upon matters of expression , where I think you mean right , and your words are likely to be so taken . YOur second Conclusion is this . Ever-since God gathered a distinct number out of the world , to be his Kingdom , City , household , in opposition to the rest of the world , which is the kingdom , city , and houshold of Sathan ; He would have the Infants of all who are taken into Covenant with him , to be accounted his , to belong to him , to his Church and family , and not to the Devils . This Conclusion you expresse so ambiguously , that it is a Cothurnus , a buskin that may be put on either legge , right or left , which should not have been in the main Proposition , upon which the whole frame of your Argument hangs . You say , The Infants of all who are taken into covenant with God , are to be accounted his ; but you tell us not in what sense this is to be understood . For whereas persons may be said to be accounted his , either before God , or in facie Ecclesiae visibilis , in the face of the visible Church ; 1. Before God , either in respect of his election from eternity , or his promise of grace in Christ , congruous to it ; Or of their present estate of inbeing in Christ , or the future estate they shall have . 2. In facie Ecclesiae visibilis , persons may be said to be accounted God's , either as born among his people , and so potentially members of the Church , as being in a way to be in time actuall members of the Church of Christ , or who already enquire after God , and professe Christ , though they do not well understand the doctrine of Christian Religion , such as the Catechumeni of old were : or they are to be accounted his , in respect of actuall participation of Baptisme , and the Lords supper . 3. The accounting of them to be God's , may be either an act of science , or faith , or opinion ; and that grounded on a rule of charity , of prudence , or probable hope for the future . You do not declare distinctly in which of these senses or respects , the Infants of all who are taken into covenant with God , are to be accounted his ; so that I am almost at a stand , what to deny , or grant . It cannot be denied , but God would have the infants of believers in some sort to be accounted his , to belong to him , his Church and family , and not to the Devils , ( which expression I fear you use in this and other places , ad faciendum populum , to please the peopl● . ) It is true , in facie Ecclesiae visibilis , the infants of believers are to be accounted Gods , to belong to his family and church , and not to the Devils , as being in a neer possibility of being members of the church of God , by an act of opinion grounded on probable hopes for the future : But to make them actually members of the visible Church , is to overthrow the definitions of the visible Church , that Protestant writers give , particularly the Church of England , Art. 19. who make the visible Church a number of Chr●stians by profession : to make a member of the visible Church , ●o whom the note of a member of the visible Church doth not agree , to make them visible members that are only passive , and do nothing , by which they may be denominated visible Christians . Yea , it will follow , that there may be a visible Church , which consists only of Infants of believers ; for a number of visible members , makes a visible Church . It is also true , that we are not to account Infants of believers to belong to God , before God , in respect of election from eternity , or promise of grace in Christ , or present estate of in being in Christ , or future estate by any act of science or of faith , without a particular revelation : for there is no generall declaration of God , that the Infants of present believers indefinitely all , or some , either are elected to life , or are in the covenant of grace in Christ , either in respect of present in being , or future estate . Mr. Cotton , [ The Covenant of Gods free-grace , p. 15. ] Fifthly , it is ordered in regard of the persons to whom it is given , Gal. 3.16 . It was given to Christ , and in Christ to every godly man , Gen. 17.7 . and in every godly man to his seed ; God will have some of the seed of every godly man to stand before him for ever . Against this passage I except , That when he saith , that the covenant of grace is given in every godly man to his seed ; he expr●sseth himself in an unusuall phrase , so obscurely , that his meaning is not easily conceived . For when he saith , it is given in every godly man ; If he mean it as he said in the words next before , in Christ to every godly man , that every godly man should be to his seed , as Christ to eve●y godly man ; this were to make every godly man a mediator to his seed , as Christ is to eve●y godly man , which would be blasphemy . If he mean that every godly man is a root of the Covenant , as Abraham , it is most false , sith this is proper to Abraham●lone ●lone , to be the father of the faithfull , Rom. 4.11 . And the root that beares the branches , whether naturall , or ingrafted , Rom. 11.16 , &c. And when he saith , it is given to his seed , he speaks indefinitely , which may be understood universally to all his seed , which is most manifestly false ; or else particularly , as the words following seem to import : But neither is this true , as shall be presently shewed . Nor doth he tell us whether the covenant of grace be given to the godly mans seed , absolu●ely as his seed ; which if he affi●m , then he must affirm the covenant of grace is given to all the seed of ev●ry godly man : for , Quatenus ipsum includes de omni , That which is said of any thing , as such , agrees to all that are such . Or whether it be given conditionally . Now it is true , that some promises do s●pp●se a condi●ion , as justification presupposeth believing : and if this be the meaning , the Covenant of grace is given to every godly man , and in every godly man to his seed , if they do believe , then it is no more then the Covenant of grace is given to every godly man , and then it is but trifling to adde , and in every godly man to his seed , sith nothing more is expressed , but what was said before , nor any thing convayed from the godly man to his seed ; some promises have no condition , as the promise of writing Gods Laws in our hearts , for if any condition be put , we shall fall into Pelagianisme , that grace is given according to our merits . 2. That which he saith , he saith without any proofe at all , yea , contrary to the expresse words of the Apostle , Rom. 4.11 , l2 , 13. Rom. 9.6 , 7 ▪ 8. Gal. 3.7 , 14 , 29. who limiteth this promise , Gen. 17.7 . to the seed of Abraham , and the seed of Abraham he explains to be the elect , and believers only , whether of Jews or Gentiles , and those of the Jews that are in that Covenant , not to be in that Covenant , because Abrahams naturall seed ( though God have more regard in his election and covenant of grace to Abrahams naturall seed , then to any other godly mans naturall seed that hath been since ) but as his seed by calling . And for that which he saith , God will have some of the seed of every godly man to stand before him for ever , meaning this , as I conceive , of election and covenant of grace , or some state consequent upon these , it is but a bold dictate without proofe , imposing on Gods counsell and covenant , especially sith God hath declared so expresly after the Covenant , Gen. 17.7 . That he will have mercy on whom he will have mercy . Exod. 33.19 . whence the Apostle infers , Rom. 9.18 . an unlimited freedome notw●thstanding his Covenant to Abraham , to shew mercy on whom he will , any other being passed by : and therefore that promise w●s made good to Abraham in the calling of the Gentiles , Rom. 9.24 . Rom. 4 16 , 17. yea , John Baptist saith , That God could raise up children to Abraham out of stones , Mat. 3.9 . And for the thing it selfe , it is not true , That God will have some of the seed of every godly man to stand before him for ever . For millions of godly persons die childlesse , as Abel , &c. millions that have children , yet their posterity are rooted up . Were there not other godly persons from Seth to Noah , besides th●se mentioned in the Genealogy Gen. 5. yet it is certain that none of their seed stood before God at the time of the Flood but Noah , and some of his . Is it not more likely that none of Elies . children , or Samuels stood before God in Mr. Cottons sense ? Besides , if that which Mr. Cotton saith were true , how is it that the Candlestick is removed quite from some people , and the naturall branches broken off , and the branches besides nature , even of the wilde Olive , graffed into the true Olive ? Then , suppose a godly man have but one childe , that childe must infalliby stand before God. It is said indeed Jer. 35.19 . and Mr. Cotton seems to allude to it , Jonadab the son of Rechab shall not want a man to stand before me for ever . But this standing before God is not meant of election to eternall life , and the covenant of grace , but of preservation in the destruction of Jerusalem , and being after the Captivity of Babylon Scribes , as Junius annot . in Jerem. 35.19 . gathers from 1 Chron. 2.55 . and for ever is in many places meant of a temporall duration for some ages . This digression will not be thought unnec●ssary by those that know how apt many are to swallow down such mens dictates without examination . But I proceed . Nor are we to account Infants of believers by an act of opinion according to a rule of prudence , by which the Sacraments are to be administred , to belong to God in facie Eccl●siae visibilis , in respect of outward profession , as the Catechumeni , or participation of baptisme and the Lords Supper , as compleat Christians . And as for being accounted by an act of opinion according to a rule of charity to belong to God , it hath no place in this matter . For judging of mens present estate by a rule of charity , is when men judge of others the best , that their words and works may be interpreted to signifie , according to that of the Apostle , 1 Cor. 13.7 . Charity believes all things : But infants do not shew any thing by words or works that may signifie their thoughts , and therefore in respect of them , whether they be good or bad , we can have no judgement , but must only suspend our act of judging them . But if by judgement of chariry be meant , as some expresse it , conceiving a thing to be so , because we know nothing to the contrary , then are we to conceive all infants to belong to God , yea almost all men in the world by the judgement of charity , because for ought we know to the contrary , all may be elected . Wherefore I must either here stop , or else gather your meaning by your expressions in other parts of your Sermon , and the expressions of those with whom I conceive you concurre in opinion ; and therefore if I should not exactly light on your meaning , you are to thank your selfe , but not to blame me . This is then that which I conceive you meane . That in the promise which God made to Abraham , That he would be his God , and the God of his seed , as this promise comprehends Evangelicall blessings , the infants of believers are comprehended , and therefore they are foederati , taken into Covenant with their Parents . And yet I am at a stand , whether , when you say they are taken into Covenant with their Parents , and that the promise , I will be thy God , and the God of thy seed , belongs to them in respect of Evangelicall blessings , you mean it in respect of saving graces , or the priviledge of outward Ordinances , though the latter is no more true then the former , yet it is lesse dangerous , and sometimes your expressions incline me to think you mean no more , especially that which you say pag. 13. Secondly , All true believers are Abrahams seed , Gal. 3.29 . These only are made partakers of the spirituall part of the Covenant , neverthelesse , because the most of your expressions carry it thus , that you conceive that God hath promised according to the Covenant with Abraham , I will be thy God , and the God of thy seed , to be the God of the naturall seed of believers , in respect of the saving benefits of the Covenant of grace in Christ , and your proofes tend that way . I shall oppose that assertion . But that I may not be thought to wrong you , or cum larvis luctari , to fight with a vizour , the reasons why I conceive you mean , or at least your readers are likely to take your meaning so , are these , you say pa. 8. My first argument is , They are within the Covenant of grace belonging to Christs body , kingdome , family , therefore are to partake of the seal of his Covenant , or the distinguishing badge between them who are under the Covenant of grace , and them who are not . Pag. 9. You expresse your second conclusion thus . God will have the Infants of such as enter into Covenant with him , to be accounted his , as well as their Parents : You set downe the substance of the Covenant of Grace . pag. 10. to consist in those benefits , and then you often say , The children are in the Covenant of grace with their believing Parents : and pag. 31. You reject the asserting to the Infants of believers priviledges peculiar to some , and assert the priviledges belonging to the Covenant of grace , which all that are in Covenant may claime , which you say , God made to Abraham , and all his seed . Besides , your Texts you produce tend to prove that , as Acts 2.39 . &c. and you say , pag. 15. They shall be made free of Gods City , according to Abrahams Copy , I will bee thy God , and the God of thy seed , which in respect of us Gentiles , can have no other meaning , then in respect of justification , sanctification , and salvation , & p. 16. speaking of Zacheus , you say , Let him professe the faith of Christ , and the Covenant of salvation comes to his house , for now he is made a son of Abraham , that is , Abrahams promise now reacheth him . And pag. 26. The proving of the two first conclusions gains the whole cause , if the Covenant b● the same , and children belong to it , then they are to be owned as Cov●nanters . pag. 37. The whole Covenant of grace , containing all the promises , whereof this is one , viz. That God will be the God of believers , and of their seed ; that the seed of believers are taken into Covenant with their parents . This is a part of the Gospel preached unto Abraham , and the Apostles were to baptize them , that is , to administer baptisme as a seal of the Covenant , to all those who received the Covenant . And Master Vines in his Sermon , pag. 19. cals them confederates with their believing parents , and Mr. Blake pag. 16. God promis●s to be a God in Covenant to his and their seed , which people in Covenant have also a promise from him of the Spirit . Nor do I doubt but that your meaning is agreeable to the Directory , which directs the Minister at Baptisme to teach That the promise is made to believers , and their seed , which promi●e , what it is , appears by the words following make this baptisme to the infant a seal of adoption , remission of sins , regeneration , and eternall life , and of all other promises of tht Covenant of grace . And the truth is , although in some passages , ( especially Mr. Blake ) you speak more warily , as if you would avow onl● a Covenant for outward priviledges , as when Mr. Blake saith pag. 14. This birth-right intitles only to outward priviledges , yet in applying thos● Texts , G●n . 17.7 . Act. 2.39 . Mat. 19.14 . and others , you are inforced to expresse your selves , as if you meant the Covenant whereby salvation is promised by Christ , as knowing that those Texts you produce , do otherwise speak nothing to the purpose , bring pl●inly meant of saving gr●c●s ; and the Covenant now of the Gospel is not of outward priviledges , as the mixt Covenant made with Abraham wa● , and therefore if there be not a promise of saving graces to Infants , they are not now under an Evangelicall Covenant of free grace , and that baptism seals only the promise of saving grace , remission of sins , &c. and therefore if there be not a promise of saving grace to infants in vain are they baptized , the seal is put to a blank , as some use to speak : And if that there be no covenant of saving grace , to no end is so much weight laid on this for the comfort of parents , and such an Odium cast on Anti-paedobaptists for denying it , and therefore I see not but your assertion , if you do not revoke your plea for paedobaptisme , must be conceived thus : That God hath made a Covenant or promise of saving grace in Christ , not only to believers , but also to their seed , whom you baptize for this reason . The Author of the little book intituled Infants baptizing proved lawfull by Scripture , pag. 3 , 4 , 5. Int●rpr●ts the Covenant , I will be thy God , and the God of thy seed , thus , I will be the God of every believer , and the God of every believers seed in respect of outward Church-priviledges , to be members of the visible Church , partakers of baptisme , &c. to the naturall seed , in respect of inward and meerly spirituall , to none but true Saints , in whom the new creature is formed . But I say againe [ Abraham ] or [ thee ] in that Covenant is put only for Abraham , and not for ev●ry believer . For sith the Apostle plainly interprets believers to be Abrahams seed , Rom. 4.13 , 16. Gal. 3.29 . to say Abraham is put for any believer , makes the speech to have an inept tautology , I will be the God of Abraham , that is , of every believer , according to that Authors sense ; and I will be the God of thy seed , that is , of every believer , according to the Apostles sense . And that in that Covenant should be a promise to us believing Gentiles , That to our seed should be conferred visible Church-priviledges , to be members of the visible Church , partakers of baptisme , &c. is but a dream , the Scripture no where explaining it so , and being so understood , were not true , there being many of the seed of believers , that neither de facto , in event , nor de jure , of right , have those visible Church privil●dges , to be members of the visible Church , partakers of bap●isme , &c. and if there were such a promise , God could not take away the Candlestick from the posterity of believers , which he threatens , Rev. 2.5 . George Philips , vind . of Infant bapt . p. 37. Cals the Covenant , an offer to become their God , and all along supposeth infants under the Covenant , because grace was offered in circumcision ; and they sealed , because it was off●red . But the Covenant is not an offer , but a promise ; nor is a man under the Covenant of grace , or in the Covenant of grace , because an offer is made , for then refusers might be said to be under the Covenant , but because God hath promised , or performed to them . And if infants are to be bap●ized ( which is his ground ) because the Covenant is offered to them in baptisme , then in effect , it is to argue , they are to be baptiz●d , because they are to be baptized , which i● nugatory . I h●ve discussed this matter more fully , that I may shew you how doubtfull your speeches are , and give you the reason , why I set down this as your conclusion to be denyed by me . That the Covenant of saving grace in Christ , expressed Gen. 17.7 . In th●se words [ I will be thy God , and the God of thy seed ] is made to believers and their naturall seed . Now I will shew you the reason why I take this to be an error , and that very dangerous . MY first reason is taken from the Apostle , Rom. 9 6. &c. in which place this very Text that is now the apple of our contention , was brought into question ; Beza thus expresseth the question . Qui fieri possit ut rejectus sit Israel , quin simul ●onstituendum videatur irritum esse pactum Dei cum Abrahamo , & ejus semine sancitum . I deny not , but there was also some other promise included in that objection , to wit , some promise made to Israel , or the house of Israel , probably that Jer. 31.33 36.37 . for so the words ver . 6. They are not all Israel which are of Israel , do intimate . But without question the promise made to Abraham , Gen. 17.7 . was one which was included in that objection . Beza , Twisse , Ames , and others , answering Arminius , call it the Covenant of God with Abraham , which was that Gen. 17.7 . and the very phrase of Abrahams seed , In Isaac shall thy seed be called , ver . 7. The children of the promise are counted for the seed , ver . 8. Sarah shall have a son , ver . 9. do evidently shew , that the promise objected to prove , that if the Jews were rejected from being Gods people , then God failed in making good his word , was , that promise to Abraham , I will be thy God , and the God of thy seed . Whereto I may adde , that the Answerers of Arminius , and the cited Remonstrants , to wit , Baine and Ames do say , It was the word of promise , not of the Law , as Arminius conceived , for the word of promise saith Ames , Animadv . in Remonstran . script . Synod . de praedest . cap. 8. Sect. 4. Is distinguished and opposed to the words of the Law , Gal. 3.17 , 18. Now the word of the promise there , is to Abraham and his seed , ver . 16. and this is there called by him verbum foederis , the word of the Covenant . Now let us consider how the Apostle answers it . He denies that Gods word made to Abraham did fall , though the Jews were rejected : because that promise , I will be thy God , and the God of thy seed , as it cōprehended saving grace , was never meant by God of all Abrahams posterity , or of any barely , as they were descended from Abraham by natural generation , but of the Elect , whether descended by natural generation from Abraham , or not . And this is apparent both from the words , v. 7. Neither because they are the seed of Abraham are they all children , but in Isaac shall thy seed be called , &c. v. 8. It is expounded thus : That is , they which are the children of the flesh , these are not the child●en of God , but the children of the promise are counted for the seed ; Whence it is apparent , that the same are not alwayes the seed by calling , which are the seed of Abraham by naturall generation , and that the children of the flesh are not the same with the children of promise , and that the Apostle conceived this the right way of answering those that objected , the falling of Gods word upon the rej●ction of the Jews , by restraining the promise , of being God to Abrahams seed , only to the Elect , whether of Abrahams naturall posterity , or not , with so little respect to any birth-right priviledge , that he not only rejected Ismael , and took Isaac , but also loved Jacob , and hated Esau , by prophesie declaring his minde , the elder shall serve the younger , and in this the Apostle acquits God from unrighteousnesse , in that He hath mercy on whom he will have mercy , and whom he will he hardens , notwithstanding his promise made to Abraham and Israel , or any birth-right priviledge they could claime . That I may not be thought to go alone in this , I will recite some others concurring with me in this , Dr. Twisse vind . Grat. l. 1. part . 3. digr . 2. Argumentū Apostoli ad probandū foedus dei initū cum Abrahamo , non omnes Abrahae posteros fimbria sua comprehendere sic simpliciter instituendū esse censemus : Esavus & Jacobus erant ex posteris Abrahae , at horū ut●ūque non cōplexus est Deus foedere suo , cum Abrahamo inito : ergo non omnes posteros Abrahami . Probatur autem Deum non complexū fuisse utrūque foedere gratiae , quiae non complexus est Esavū majorē , sed Jacobū minorē . Bain on Eph. 1.5 . p. 138. He answereth the assumption of the latter Syllogism , by distinguishing of Israel & children , denying that al Israelites are that Israel to which Gods word belongeth , or that all Abrahams seed are those children whō God adopted to himselfe , v. 7. but such only who were like Isaac , first begotten by a word of promise , and partakers of the heavenly calling . The reason is to be conceived in this manner , the rejecting of such who are not the true Israel , nor belong not to the number of Gods adopted children cannot shake Gods word spoken to Israel and Abrahams seed ; but many of the Israelites , and Abrahams seed , a●e such to whom the word of God belonged not , ergo , the word of God is firm , though they be rejected . Pag. 139. A childe of the fl●sh being such a one who descendeth from Abraham according to the flesh . For it is most plaine , that these did make them thinke th●mselves within the comp●sse of the word , because th●y were Israelites , and the seed of Abraham , in regard of bodily generation propagated from him ; and Arminius doth decline that , in objecting and answering which , this discourse consisteth . Beside that , though the sons of the flesh may signifie such who carnally , not spiritually conceive of the Law , yet the seed of Abraham without any adjoyned , is never so taken . The assumption which is to be proved is this , That many of Abrahams seed are such to whom the word belongeth not . The word which belonged not to Ishmael and Esau , but to Isaac and Jacob only , and such as were like to them ; that word belonged not to many of those who are the seed of Abraham and Israelites : But the word shewing Gods love , choice , adoption , blessing of Israel and Abrahams seed , belonged not to Esau , Ishmael , and such as they were , but to Isaac and Jacob. Amesius Animadv . in Remonstr . citat . scripta Synod . de Prae●estin . cap. 8. § . 6. thus expresseth the Apostles scope . Multi sunt ex semine Abrahami , ad quos verbum promissionis non spectat , ut Ismael , & Ismaelitae , si autem multi sunt ex semine Abrahami , ad quos verbum promissionis non spectat , tum rejectio multorum Judaeorum , qui sunt ex semine Abrahami non irritum facit verbum promissionis . Out of all which I gather , if the naturall posterity of Abraham , were not within the Covenant of grace , by vertue of that promise Gen. 17.7 . then much lesse are our naturall posterity : but the former is true , Rom. 9.6 , 7 , 8 9 , 10 , 11 , 12. therefore the latter is true : and the contrary , delivered in that which I conceive your ●ssertion , false . A second reason is this , The Apostles Exposition of the promise shews us best what is the meaning of it , but the Apostle when he expounds the promise of God to Abraham , I will be thy God , and the God of thy seed , as it was a promise of saving grace , to wit , justification , and life , expounds it as belonging to Abraham , not as a naturall Father , but as Father of the faithfull , whether of the Jews , or the Gentiles , and his seed , not his naturall , but his spiri●uall seed , Christ , and believers , Rom. 4.11 , 12 , 13 , 14 15 16 , 17. Gal. 3.7.16.29 . Whence George Downham of Justification lib. 6. cap. 6. § . 4. speakes thus . The other promises concerning his seed are two : The former concerning the multiplication of his seed , that he should be a father of a multitude of Nations , namely , in Christ , and that he would be a God to him and his seed , he doth not say to seeds , as of many , but as of one , to thy seed , which is Christ , Gal. 3.16 . that is , Christ mysticall , 1 Cor. 12.12 . Containing the multitude of the faithfull in all Nations , both Jews and Gentiles . This promise therefore implyeth the former , that in Christ , the promised seed , Abraham himselfe , and his seed that is , the faithfull of all Nations should be blessed : And in confirmation of this promise , he was called Abraham , because he was to be a Father of many Nations , that is , of the faithfull of all Nations , for none but they are accounted Abrahams seed , Rom. 9.7.8 . Gal. 3.7.29 . Thus he opens the Apostles meaning , and thus frequently do Protestant Divines in their writings . Now if only believers are in that promise , as it was a promise of saving grace , then it is not made to the naturall posterity , as such , of any believer , much lesse of us Gentiles . My third reason is this . The Covenant of grace is the Gospel , and so you call it , pag. 37. when you say , This is a part of the Gospel preached unto Abraham . Now the Gospel preached to Abraham , the Apostle thus expresseth , Gal. 3.8 , 9. And the Scripture foreseeing , that God would justifie the heathen through faith , preached before the Gospel unto Abraham , saying , in thee shall all Nations be blessed : so then , they which be of faith , are blessed with faithfull Abraham , and ver . 11. But that no man is justified by the Law in the sight of God , it is evident , for the just shall live by Faith , it is Hab. 2.4 . By his faith . And generally , when Divines distinguish of the Covenant of grace , and of workes , they say the condition of the Covenant of grace is faith . They then that say the Covenant of grace belongs not only to believers , but also to their naturall children , whether believing or not , these adde to the Gospel , and the Apostle saith of such , Gal. 1.8 , 9. Let him be accursed . Fourthly , I thus argue : If God have made a Covenant of grace in Christ , not only to believers , but also to their seed , or naturall children , then it is either conditionally , or absolutely ; if conditionally , the condition is either of works , and then grace should be of works , con●rary to the Apostle , Rom. 11.8 . or of Faith , and then the sense is , God hath promised grace to b●lievers , and to their seed , if believers , that is , to believers , and believers , which is nugatory . If this Covenant of grace to believers seed be absolute , then either God keeps it , or not : if he do not keep it , then he breaks his word , which is blasphemy ; if he do keep it , then it follows , that all the posterity of believers are saved , contrary to Rom. 9.13 . or if some are not saved , though they be in the Covenant of grace , there may bee Apostasie of persons in the Covenant of grace , by which the Arguments brought by Mr. Prynne , in his Perpetuity , and others for perseverance in grace are evacuated , and Bertius his Hymenaeus desertor justified . The truth is , generally to be in the Covenant of grace , and to be elect , and to persevere in grace , are meant of the same persons , according to the Apostles doctrine , Rom. 9.7 , 8. &c. and the common doctrine of the Contra-Remonstrants . And on the contrary , Bertius in his book de Apostasia sanctorum , pag. 79. among other absurdities which he reckons as consequent on their opinion that deny Apostasie of Saints , puts this as the seventh . Baptismum non obsignare certo in omnibus liberis fidelium gratiam Dei ( quum inter illos quidam sint etiam antecedente decreto Dei ab aeterno absolute reprobati ) ac proinde dubitandum esse fidelibus de veritate foederis divini , Ego sum Deus tuus , & seminis tui post te . And when this was urged by the Author of the Synod of Do●t , and Arles reduced to the practise , Part. 3. Sect. 6. in these words . For to every person whom they baptize , they apply the promises of the Covenant of grace , clean contrary to their own doctrine , which saith , that they nothing belong to the Reprobates of the world , Dr. Twisse answers , that however in the judgement of charity they take all Infants brought to be baptized , to be elect , yet the promises of the Covenant of grace do indeed belong only to the El●ct , which he proves at large , by shewing that there are promises of the Covenant of grace , as of regeneration , circumcising the heart , writing the Law in their hearts , Jer. 31.33 . which must needs be absolute . For no condition can be assigned of performing these promises , but that it will follow , That grace is given , to wit , the grace of faith , according to mens workes , which is plaine Pelagianisme . Whence he concludes . Now then who are they on whom God should bestow faith and regeneration , but Gods Elect ? And accordingly Baptisme as it is a Seale , and assurance of performing this promise of Justification and salvation unto them that believe , so it is a seale and assurance of the promise of circumcising the heart , and regeneration only to Gods Elect. And after pag. 192. VVe are ready to maintaine , that all who are under the covenant of grace , are such as over whom sin shall not have the dominion , Rom. 6.14 . Besides , he that shall heare you preach , that the children of believers are in the Covenant of grace , and that they that are in the Covenant of grace cannot fall away , may be apt to conceive himselfe within the Covenant of grace without repentance and faith , and that he shall be saved without obedience , and so lay a ground-work for Antinomianisme , and consequently Libertinisme . And may not on the other side believing Parents , when they see their children vicious , and ungodly , doubt whether they themselves be true believers , because they see not their ch●ldren in the Covenant of grace ; and so while you think to comfort parents about their children , you may create great discomfort concerning themselves . Lastly , if this were true , that the Covenant of grace is a birth-right priviledge , then the children of believers are children of grace by nature , for that which is a birth-right priviledge , is a priviledge by nature : and if , as Mr. Blak● saith , pag. 6. of his book , Christianity is hereditary , that as the childe of a Noble man is Noble , the childe of a freeman is free , the childe of a Turke is a Turke , of a Jew a Iew , the childe of a Christian is a Christian ; then Christians are born Christians , not made Christians , and how are they then children of wrath by nature ? which whether they may not advantage Pelagians , and denyers of Originall sin , it concernes those that use such speeches , to consider . But the Author of the writing entituled Infants baptizing proved lawfull by Scripture , mentions other promises besides that Gen. 17.7 . to wit , Deu. 28.4 . Deut. 30.2.6 . Isa. 44.3 . Isa. 59.21 . Exod. 20.6 . Psal. 112.2 . and such like . To all which the answer is plaine , if men would conceive it . 1. That according to the Apostles own determination , Ro. 9 ▪ 7 , 8. these promises as they contain such things as accompany salvation , must be restrained to the Elect , whose children soever they be by naturall generation , and this is agreeable to our Saviours applying the promise Isa. 54.13 . to them that are given of his Father , Iohn 6.45 . And thus are we to understand Deut. 30.6 . Isa. 44.3 . 2. That the text , Isa. 59.21 . is plainly applied to the time of the calling of the Jews , Rom. 11.27 . and therefore cannot be applied rightly to the posterity of any believers at any time indefinitely . 3. Th●t the promises , Deut. 28.4 . Psal. 112.2 . are expresly meant of outward blessings , and therefore cannot prove a covenant of grace in Christ. 4. That Exod. 20.6 . doth plainly include a condition of obedience , and it is expresly mentioned Psal. 103.17 , 18. as included in other promises of like kind , which condition God doth not undertake for any children of a believer , but the elect , nor is Christ surety for any but the elect ; and therefore till it can be proved that the Election of grace belongs to the children of believers , it cannot be proved that the Covenant of grace belongs to them by vertue of these promises . I Now return to your Sermon . You tell us thus : As it is in other kingdomes , corporations and families ; the children of all subjects born in a kingdom , are born that Princes subjects : where the father is a free-man , the childe is not born a slave : where any are bought to be servants , their children born in their masters house , are born his servants . Thus it is by the Lawes of almost all nations , and thus hath the Lord ordained it shall be in his kingdome and family : the children follow the Covenant-condition of their parents ; if he take a father into his covenant , he takes the children in with him ; if he reject the parents out of the covenant , the children are east out with them . This passage I might have passed over , as containing nothing but dictates ; Yet I think it necessary to observe , 1. That you do very carnally imagine the Church of God to be like Civill corporations , as if persons were admitted to it by birth , whereas in this all is done by free election of grace , and according to Gods appointment : nor is God tied , or doth tie himself in the erecting and propagating his Church , to any such carnall respects , as descent from men . Christianity is no mans birth-right ; The Apostle knew not that God had so by promise , or other ingagement bound himself , but he was free , as he said to Moses after the promise made to Abraham , to have mercy on whom he would , Rom. 9.15 . Yea , to conceive that it is in Gods Church , as in other Kingdomes , and after the laws of Nations , is a seminary of dangerous superstitions and errors . Dr. Rainolds , in his Conference with Hart , hath shewed , that hence arose the frame of government by P●triarchs , Metropolitans , &c. And is not this the very reason of Invocation of Saints , that I mention not more of the like kind ? 2. When you say , if he take a father into his covenant , he takes the children in with him ; If he reject the parents out of covenant , the children are cast out with them . If you mean this taking in , and casting out , in respect of election and reprobation , it is not true , neither if you mean it of the Covenant of grace , for that is congruous to election , and reprobation . Nor is it true in respect of outward Ordinances ; the father may be baptized , heare the Word , and not the child ; and on the contrary , the father may be deprived , and the child may enjoy them . Nor is it true in respect of Ecclesiasticall censures ; the father may be excommunicated , and the sonne in the Church , and on the contrary . And about that which you say , there is no certainty in the Paedobaptists determination . Rutherford [ The due right of Presbyterie , p. 259. ] saith , The children of Papists , and excommunicate Protestants , which are borne within our visible Church , are baptized , if their forefathers have been sound in the faith . But others will deny it . But it is true as well of Paedobaptists , as of Anabaptists , that like waves of the Sea they beat one agninst another . You tell us , That it was without question in the time of the Iews , Gen. 17.9 . And when any of any other Nation , though a Canaanite , or Hittite , acknowledged Abrahams God to be their God , they and their children came into covenant together . That when Parents were circumcised , the Children were to be circumcised , is without questio● , Gods command is manifest ; Whether this make any thing for baptizing Infants , is to be considered in its place . But that which you say , It was in the time of the Iews , if God did reject the parents out of the covenant , the children were cast out with them ; is not true . Parents might be Idolaters , Apostates from Judaisme , draw up the fore-skin again , and yet the children were to be circumcised . But in all this there is no Argument . THe first Text you dwell upon , is that , Act. 2.38 , 39. and thus you speak . And so it continues still , though the Anabaptists boldly deny it , Acts 2.38.39 . When Peter exhorted his hearers , who were pricked in their hearts , to repent , and to be baptized for the remission of sins , he useth an argument to perswade them , taken from the benefit which should come to their posterity ; For , the promise ( saith he ) is to you and to your children , and to all that are afar off , even as many as the Lord our God shall call : if once they obey the call of God , as Abraham did , the promise was made to them and their children . VVhether they who obey this call , were the present Jews to whom he spake , or were afar off : whether by afar off , you will mean the Gentiles , who as yet worshipped afar off , or the Jews , or any who were yet unborn , and so were afar off in time , or whether they dwelt in the remotest parts of the world , and so were afar off in place ; The argument holds good to the end of the world , Repent and be baptized for the remission of sins , and ye shall receive the Holy Ghost , for the promise is made to you and your children , they shall be made free of Gods city according to Abrahams copy . I will be thy God , and the God of thy seed . It is a very irksome thing to Readers , and especially to Answerers , when they that handle a controversie , give a text for their assertion , and make a paraphrase of it , but shew not how they conclude from it , by which meanes the enemy is more hardly found then vanquished . I wish , if ever you write any more in this kind , you would distinctly expound , and then frame your arguments out of the text you produce : for the present I shall devorare taedium , swallow downe the tediousnes of this defect as well as I can . You do not distinctly tell us what that promise was , onely I gather it is , that which you after expresse , calling it " Abrahams copy , I will be thy God , and the God of thy seed , But then you do not distinctly tell us , under which part you comprehend the promise to them , whether under the first part , I will be thy God , or under the second , I will be the God of thy seed . It may seem you thus parallel'd them : I will be thy God , with , the promise is unto you ; and , the God of thy seed , with that , the promise is to your children . But I must see better proofe then yet I have seen , afore I assent to this construction , I wil be thy God , that is , of every believer : though the Author or infants b●p●izing proved lawfull by scriptures , page 4. s●ith , It is plaine and manifest by the Gramaticall construction of this promise ▪ I professe that I neither know rule in Grammar , Logicke , or Divinity for that interpretation , and yet I thinke all the strength of your proofe lies in this imagined parallelisme . Nor doe you tell us of what thing this promise was , which you parallel with Abrahams copy , I will be thy God , and the God of thy seed ; whether it was a promise of saving graces , or outward priviledges ; Onely that which you bring in of Zaccheus to interpret it , let him professe the faith of Christ , and the covenant of salvation comes to his house , seemes to import that you conceive the meaning thus ; if you once obey the call of God as Abraham did , the promise of salvation is to you and your children : and sith you answer the second objection , which you call a shift , by rejecting the limiting of [ to you and your children ] with those words [ as many as the Lord shall call ] the sense must be this : The promise of salvation is to you and your children , whether the Lord our God call them or not . But this proposition I know you will not stand to , though as you handle the matter , this is made the Apostles assertion . But it may be you mean otherwise , thus : If you once obey the call of God , as Abraham did , the promise of outward church-priviledges , that is , to be members of the visible Church , partakers of Baptism , &c. is to you and your children . Now what an uncouth reason is by this made in the Apostles speech , that if they did repent , and were baptized , the promise should be made good to them and to their children , ( I use your own words , expressing what you conceive the strength of the argument lies in ) that you & they shal be members of the visible church , partakers of baptism , &c. So that the Apostle is made to say thus : If you will repent and be baptized , the promise is to you and your children , that you & they shal be baptized . What I conceive is the meaning , I will shew afterwards : in the mean time , because ( though on the by ) you alleage that Text , which Mr. Tho. Goodwin also at Bow in Cheapside urged and insisted on for this purpose , I shall by the way examine what you say . You say , Let Zaccheus the Publican once receive Christ himself , be he a Gentile , as some think he was , be he a great sinner , esteemed as an heathen , as we all know he was ; let him professe the faith of Christ , and the covenant of salvation comes to his , for now he is made a son of Abraham , i.e. Abrahams promise now reacheth him . Upon which I note , 1. Though it be of little moment , whether he were a Gentile or no , yet I conceive it more likely he was a Jew , partly because his name is more like the hebrew , than the greek or latine ; and partly because if he had been a Gentile , Christ had plainly discovered the calling of the Gentiles , which he did not till afterward : & it would have caused in likelihood greater offence in them to hear a Gentile called a son of Abraham , who already murmured that he was gone to be a guest to a man that was a sinner . 2. You thus expound [ a son of Abraham . ] that is , Abrahams promise now reacheth him . But Bez● more truly , Filium esse Abrahae nihil aliud declarat quam gratis electum esse , Rom. 9.8 . Et vestigiis fidei Abrahae insistere , Rom. 4.12 , Et opera Abrahae facere , Joh , 8.39 . Ex quibus demum recte colligitur certa futurae salutis expectatio , Rom. 8.29 . 3. You only expresse [ this house ] by [ his ] as if you would have it conceived that salvation came only to his children by his believing , whereas Mr. Tho. Goodwin ( if my memory deceive me not ) comprehended the whole family under the term house , discoursing thereupon that a houshold-Church was prima Ecclesia , the first Church , which I marvailed to hear from him , as conceiving it to overthrow the way of Government they call the Church-way , which is mainly grounded on this , that the first Church ( as Parker held ) is a single congregation out of many families , and is primasedes potestatis Ecclesiasticae , the first seat of Ecclesi●sticall power . But I know no reason why , when it is said , Salvation is come to this house , it should be stretched any further then Zaccheus his person , in that salvation was come to him , salvation was come to his house , and the whole Narration favours this Exposition , and Beza saith that Theophylact , and some others understand by house Zaccheus himselfe . I omit the conceit of Erasmus , and Camerarius , as if 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 thee , did refer to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hous● , for I thinke with Beza , it is absurd to say , This house is a son of Abraham . 4. Although it be true , that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is often a Causall particle , yet it is true , that it is sometimes a restrictive particle , as Acts 2.45 . and Acts 4.35 . and therefore may be rendred by quatenus as , or in quantum in as much , or secundum quod , according to what , as well as by eo quod quoniam , or quandoquidem , because , or forasmuch . 5. In your paraphrase , you put instead of salvation , The Covenant of salvation , which is not right , what ever Author you may follow herein . Now let it be considered what an erroneous inference is made , by expounding it of all the posterity or family , and making the particle Causall , as if his believing alone did bring salvation to his house or posterity ; from whence this may be gathered , a mans whole house or posterity may be saved barely by his believing , and you will see a necessity to make 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a restrictive particle , and to expound this house of Zacheus , his family only , in reference to his person . And so what you take in by the way for the credit of your conclusion , from Luke 19.9 . is answered by shewing the faultinesse of your paraphrase . But you returne to the Text , Acts 2.38 39. You say , neither can the evidence of the place be eluded , by saying the promise here meant i●●f the extrao●dinary gifts of the holy Ghost , to speak with tongues , &c. for we all kn●w , that all who then beleeved and were baptized , did not receive those extraordinary gifts of the holy Ghost ; and beside , this argument remained still in force , to be used to the end of the world , who ever beleeves and is baptized , shall receive remission of sins , and the gift of the holy Ghost , which was not true , if by the holy Ghost was meant onely those extraordinary gifts . Though I doe not so expound the words , [ the promise is to you and your children ] of the extraordinary gifts of the holy Ghost , yet the words next before , and that which is before , verse 33.17 , 18. of the same chapter might very well induce men to conceive that this is the promise of which Peter meant , verse 39. nor doe I conceive your reasons sufficient to overthrow it : For what though all who then , beleeved and were baptized , did not receive those extraordinary gifts of the holy Ghost , yet Peter might assure them that it should be so for the future , to them , their children , and all that are afarre off , as many as the Lord should call : though I doe not say , the thing was true in this sense ; I onely say it might be so true , notwithstanding your argument . And whereas you say this argument remaines still in force to be used to the end of the world , Who ever beleeves and is baptized , shall receive remission of sinnes , and the gift of the holy Ghost . Neither doth this follow from the exposition of the words , verse 39. by the words , verse 38. of receiving the gift of the holy G●ost : For there is nothing in the text to prove that this argument still remaines in force as you speake , sith it might be onely a particular benefit to them on their repenting , and baptisme , for ought you can inferre from the text . You go on . Nor secondly , can it be avoided by that shift of others who interpret it thus , to you and your children , as many of them as the Lord shall call , that is ( say they ) whether your selves or your children , or any other whom the Lord shall call , if they repent and be baptized , they shall receive the gift of the holy Ghost . If you put in stead of , [ they shall receive the gift of the holy Ghost , ] these words [ the promise is to you and them , ] it is no shift , but the genuine and necessarie explication of the text . For let the promise be what ever you can make it , you must put in that limitation if you will have it t●ue . If the promise be of saving graces , if of Christ sent , if of the outward ordinances of baptisme , &c. If of the holy Ghost in ●xtraordinarie gifts ; it is none of these wayes true without that limitation . For neither God promised saving graces , nor outward ordinances , nor extraordinarie gifts , nor sent Christ to them , their children , or all that are afar off without calling them and every of them . But you tell us , it is plaine , the strength of the argument lies in this , That if they did repent , and were baptized , the promise should be made good to th●m and to their children : and what comfortable argument can this be taken from respect to their children , if the Apostle must be interpreted as these men would have him , viz. you and your children h●ve hitherto been an holy seed , but now , if you beleeve in Ch●ist your selves , your children shall be in no better condition then the rest of the Pagan world , strangers from the Covenant of God ; but if afterward any of them , or any of the heathen , shall for their parts beleeve and be baptized , their particular persons shall be taken into covenant , but their children still left out ; had this thinke you been a comfortable argument to perswade them to come in , in relation to the good of their children after them . You suppose here , that the Apostle used this argument onely in relation to the good of their children , whereas the maine matter was concerning themselves to erect them , who being told that they had crucified Iesus who was both Lord and Christ , verse 36. and had said , Matth. 27.25 . His blood be upon us and our children , were pricked in their hearts , and said to Peter and the rest of the Apostles , Men and brethren what shall we doe ? and was it not a comfortable argument for men in that case to be told , that notwithstanding all this , the promise of Christ , and remission of sinnes by him , was yet to them and their children , on whom they had wished Christs blood to be , and to all the Jewes that dwelt afarre off in the di●persion , as many as the Lord should call : and a great incitement to repent and be baptized in the Name of the Lord Jesus for the remission of sinnes ? However you conceive now , sure if your soule had been in their soules stead , you would have conceived it a very comfortable speech in this sens● that I now give . As for that witlesse descant you put on your adversaries , I know not whether it be their meaning or not , sure I am no such thing follows on the applying the restriction in the end of the verse , to them , their children , and all that are afarre off . And that which you would burden your adversaries tenent with , as if they put beleivers infants out of the covenant , into the condition of Pagans children , it is a coccysme answered before , and therefore I may well let it passe in this place . You adde , The plaine strength of the argument is , God hath now remembred his Covenant to Abraham in sending that blessed seed , in whom he promised to be the God of him and his seed : doe not you by your unbeliefe deprive your selves and your posteritie of so excellent a gift . In this passage I thinke you hit the marke , it is the very interpretation I gave in the reasons of my doubts before mentioned , in answering the argu●ent from this text : onely the alle●dging the promise , Gen. 17.7 〈◊〉 that expression , do not you by your unbeliefe deprive your posteritie of so excellent a gift ; have a little relish of your interpretation of the promise concerning the naturall seed of beleevers : But letting that passe , in the maine you expound it rightly . The promise is to you and your children ; that is , God hath now remembred his Covenant to Ab●aham in sending that blessed seed , in whom hee prom●sed to be the God of Abraham and his seed , and the sense is plaine . T●e promise which is made to Abraham is now fulfilled in sending Christ to you and your children , and to all that are afarre off , as many as the Lord our God shall call , that they might bee turned from their iniquity , ●nd baptized in his name for the remission of their sinnes ; And this agrees with the Apostles exhortation to the same purpose ; Acts 3.25.26 . Ye are the children of the Prophets and of the covenant which God made with our fathers , saying unto Abraham , and in thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed , unto you first God having raised up his Sonne Jesus , sent him to blesse you in turning away every one of you from his iniquities . And Acts 13.32 , 33. And we declare unto you glad tidings , how that the promise which was made unto the fathers , God hath fulfilled the same unto us their ch●ldren , in th●t he hath raised up Jesus againe . You adde . And except in relation to the covenant , there was no occasion to name th●ir children ; it had been sufficient to have said , a promise is made to as many as the Lord shall call . Though I deny not their children are mentioned in relation to the covenant in the sense I have given , or rather in allusion to the forme of expressions in the covenant , and predictions of the Prophets : yet there was other occasion , to wit , their imprecation , Matth. 27.25 . and especially because Christ was , as it is Acts 3.26 . first sent to the Jews and their children , and to be offered first to them , as it is Acts 13.46 . But it was not to intimate that which you would gather , that the promise is such to them , if they did beleeve that their children , even their infants upon their fathers faith , whether the children were called or not , were taken into the covenant , either of saving graces , or visible church-membership ; which you should have proved , but never will prove out of this Scripture . But taking your Hypothesis , that these to whom Peter speakes were within the covenant made to Abraham , and cirumcised rightly , and yet the Apostle requires these to repent , afore they are to be baptized ; the Antipaedobaptists have hence a good argument against baptizing infants , because Peter required of such as were in the covenant , repentance afore Baptism . I passe on to the next proof you bring for your Conclusion . YOu say , as plain it is out of the 11. Rom. 16 &c. where the apostles scope is to shew , that we Gentiles have now the same graffing into the true olive which the Jews formerly had ; and our present graffing in , is answerable to their present casting out , & their taking in in the latter end of the world , shall be the same graffing in ( though more gloriously ) as ours is now . Now all know that whē they were taken in , they and their children were taken in ; when they were broken off , they and their children were broken off ; when they shall be taken in , in the latter end of the world , they and their children shall be taken in ; and that because the root is holy , that is , Gods covenant with Abraham , Isaac , and Jacob , extends yet unto them , when their unbelief shall be taken away . The root being like Nebuchadnezars tree , the tree hewen down , and the root bound with a hand of iron , until seven times were passed over it , and then the bands should be broken , & the root should spring , and the tree should grow again : So their present nation like this tree is cut down , and this holy root the covenant made with their forefathers is suspended , bound with an iron bar of unbelief , blindnesse being come upon them untill the fulnes of the Gentiles were come in , and then all Israel shall be saved . And mark , that in all this discourse , the holines of the branches there spoken of , is not meant of a personall inherent holines , but a derivative holines ; a holines derived to them frō their ancestors , the first fruit is holy , the lump holy , the root holy , the branches holy , that is , the fathers holy , accepted in covenant with God ; the children beloved for their fathers sake , and when the vail of unbelief shall be taken away , the children and their posterity shal be taken in again , because beloved for their fathers sakes . Now then if our graffing in be answerable to theirs , in all , or any of these three particulars , we and our children are graffed in together . Your argument needs a swimmer of Delos to bring it out of the deep . I will dive as deep as I can to fetch it up ; the thing , it seems , you would prove , is , that we and our children are gr●ffed in together ; but the words are Metaphoricall , and therefore obscure , they may be true in a sense , and yet not for your purpose . The insition you speak of may be either into the visible , or invsible church ; the graffing in , may be either by faith , or by profession of faith , or by some outward ordinance . Children may be either grown men or infants , the graffing in may be either certain , or probable ; certain , either by reason of election , covenant of grace made by them , or naturall birth , being children of believers ; probable , as being likely , either because fr●quently , or for the the most part it happens so , though not necessary & so not certain . The thing that is to be proved is , that all the infants of every believer are in the covenant of free grace in Christ & by vertue thereof to be baptized into the communion of the v●sible church : now it may be granted that infants of believers are frequently , or for the most part under the election & covenant of grac● ( wh●ch whether it be so or not , no meere man can t●l ) and so in the visible chu●ch & yet it not follow that every infant of a believer , in asmuch as he is t●e child of a beli●ver , is under the covenant of grace , & therefore by baptisme is to be admitted into the visible church ; now let it be never so prob●ble , that God continues his election in the posterity of b●lievers & accordingly hath promised to be th●ir God in his covenant of grace , yet if this be the rule of baptizing children of beleivers , no other infants are to b● baptized , but such as are thus : the practise must agree with the rul● ; & so not all infants of believers are to be baptized , but the elect in the covenant of grace . If it be said ; but we are to judge all to be elected , & in the covenant of grace , till the contrary appeares . I answer , that we are not to judge all to be ●l●cted , or in the covenant of grace ; because we have Gods declaration of his mind to the contrary , Rom. 9.6 , 7 , 8. and all experience proves the contrary to be tru● ; nor is the administration of an outward ordināce instituted by God , according to such a rule as is not possible to be known , but according to that which is manifest to the ministers of it ; & therefore sith God conceals his purpose of election , and the covenant of gr●ce , which is congruous to it in respect of the persons elected ; it is certain God would not have this the rule according to which outward ordinances are to be administred , because such persons are in the election and covenant of grace & not others . You say , our graffing in is answerable to the Jews , and their infants were graffed in by circūcision , therefore ours are to be graffed in by baptism . But in good sadnesse , doe you thinke the Apostle here meanes by graffing in , baptizing , or circumcision , or insition by an outward ordinance : if that were the me●ning , then breaking off must be meant of uncircumcising or unb●ptizing . The whole context sp●aks of election of some , and rejection of others ; of the breaking off by u●beliefe , and the standing by faith , and your selfe seeme to understand the phrase so , when you say , pag. 43. to cut miserable man off from the wilde olive , and graffe him into the true olive . T●e ingraffing , to me , is meant of the invisible church by election and faith ; which invisible church was first amongst the Jews , and therefore called the olive , out of Abraham the root , who is therefore said to beare them . And because Abraham had a double capacitie , one of a naturall father , and another of the father of the faithfull , in respect of the former c●pacitie , some are called branches according to nature , others , wilde olives by nature , yet graffed in by faith ; and when it is said that some of the naturall branches were broken off , the meaning is not that some of the branches in the invisible church may be broken off : but as when our Saviour Christ saith , using the same similitude , Joh. 15.2 . Every branch in me not bearing fruit , he taketh away ; The meaning is not , that any branch truely in him c●uld be fruitlesse , or taken away ; but he calleth that a branch in him which was only so in appearance . So the Apostle speaking of branches broken off , meanes it not of such as were truely so , but in appearance : For similitudes doe not runne with four feet ; but vary in some things . Now if this be the meaning of your words , that the insition of the Gentiles is the same with the Jewes , and the insition is meant of ingraffing by faith into the inv●sible church ; it onely proves this , that now bele●v●rs of Gentiles are by faith in the church of the elect , as the Jewes : but neither the beleeving Jewes Infants were in the covenant of grace , bec●use their children ; nor are our children . But let us consider the three particulars you speake of , that we may examine whether there be any shew of an argument for your purpose in this text . You say , as plaine it is out of the eleventh of Rom. 16 , &c. where the Apostles scope is , to shew , that we Gentiles have now the same graffing into the true olive which the Jews formerly had , and our present graffing in is answerable to their present casting out ; and their taking in , in the latter end of the world , shal be the same graffing in ( though more gloriously ) as ours is now . The Apostles scope in the whole chapter is plaine to answer that question , v. 1. Hath God cast away his people ? which he doth , 1. by shewing for the present in himselfe , and others , perhaps unknowne , That God had then a remnant according to the election of grace . 2. For the future from ver . 11. to the end , that he intends a calling of all Israel when the fulnesse of the Gentiles shall come in , and ver . 16. is one argument to prove it . It is not the scope of the Apostle , as you say , To shew that the Gentiles have now the same graffing into the true Olive , which the Jews formerly had ; but to prove that the Jews , notwithstanding their pres●nt defraction , shall be graffed into their owne Olive . But for the thing it selfe . You say , That the Gentiles hav● now the same graffing into the true Olive which the Jews formerly had . But you must remember your own distinction , pag. 10. of the substance of the Covenant , and the administration of it : It is certain , that in respect of the substance of the Covenant , we have the same graffing into the Olive , the Church of the faithfull , of which Abraham is the root , that the Jews had . We by faith are partakers of the root and fatnesse of the Olive tree . ver . 17. or in plainer termes , as the Apostle ●l●gantly , Ephes. 3.6 . that the Gentiles should be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , Fellow-heirs , and of the same body , and partakers of his promise in Christ through the Gospel . In respect of which all believing Gentiles are Abrahams seed , the Israel of God , one in Christ Jesus . But if you mean it of the outward administration of this ingraffing by Circumcision , Baptisme , &c. nothing is more false . For indeed the outward administration is utte●ly taken away , as separating the Jews from the Gentiles , of very purpose , that the enmity betwixt Jews and Gentiles may be removed , and they made one in Christ by his death , Eph. 2.14 , 15 , 16. and if you mean this , when you say , we have the same graffing in with the Jews ( which your whole arguing tends to , and your expression in those words [ for these outward ●ispensations ] import you mean it ) you evacuate the blood of Ch●ist in this particular . You say , Our present graffing in , is answerable to their present casting out . It is true , our present graffing in is an●w●rable to their ( or rather for their ) casting out ; that is , God would supply in his Olive tree the Church , the casting away of the Jews , by the calling of the Gentiles , so much the Apostle saith , v. 17. Thou being a wilde Olive , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , that is , in ramorum defr●ctorum locum , into the place of the branches broken off , as rightly Beza ; if you mean it in this sense , I grant it . You adde , And their taking in ( though more gloriously ) as ours is now . It is true , their taking in will be by faith , as ours is now ; concerning other particulars ; as I doubt not but it will be more gloriously , as you say , so for the manner , I must confesse I am at a stand . I look upon it as a mystery , as the Apostle cals it , Rom. 11.25 . You go on . Now all know that when they were taken in , they and their children were taken in ; when they were broken off ▪ they and their children were broken off ; when they shall be tak●n in in the latter end of the world , they and their children shall be taken in . I grant it , they were taken in , and broken off togeth●r , in respect of Gods election and reprobation , and when they shall be taken in , in the latter end of the world , they and their children shall be taken in . Yea , I thinke , that as at the calling of the Gentiles there was a fuller taking in of the children of the Gentiles , then ever was of the children of the Jewes afore Ch●ists comming , according to th●t Heb. 8.11 . So at the calling of the J●ws , there shall be a more full taking in of the children of the J●ws , then is now of the Gentiles , according to that , Rom. 11.26 . and so all Israel shall be saved . But all this proves not , that God would have either all Infants of believers counted his as elect persons , or in the Covenant of grace in Christ , or in the face of the visible Church admitted to baptisme : which was to be proved by you . You go on . And that because the root is holy , that is , Gods Covenant with Abraham , Isaac , and Jacob extends yet unto them , when their unbeliefe shall be taken away ; and then after an illustration from Nebuchadnezzars dreame , Dan. 4.14 , 15. you say of the Jews , their present Nation like this tree is cut down , and this holy root , the Covenant made with their forefathers is suspended , bound with an Iron barre of unbeliefe , blindnesse being come upon them till the fulnesse of the Gentiles be come in , and then all Israel shall be saved . In this passage you somewhat alter the Apostles resemblance , who doth not make the Jewish Nation to answer the tree , but the branches , nor doth he say the tree is cut down , but the branches broken off ; and here you make the Covenant the root , but a little after your words import , when you say , a holinesse derived from their ancestors , &c. that by the root you mean their Ancestors . And you say , The Covenant made with their forefathers is suspended , which in some sense may be true , that is thus , the effects of Gods love to Israel are for the present suspended from those generations , and so in our apprehension the Covenant is suspended ; but in exact speech it cannot be true , sith Gods Covenant according to his intention and meaning , cannot be suspended or stayed , but doth alwayes take effect irresistibly . In that wherein you alter the resemblance of the Apostle , by putting in the cutting down of the tree , instead of breaking off th● branches , you much pervert the Apostles meaning ; who makes the tree , that is , the Church of believers , still standing , and some branches broken off , and others graffed in . And for that of the root , it is true , it is variously conceived by Interpreters , some understanding with you the Covenant , some Christ , some Abraham , Isaac , and Jacob , and some Abraham only , which last I conceive to be genuine , for the expressions of some branches 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , according , to nature , and others 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 besides nature : Some naturall , some ingraffed , our not bearing the root , but the root bearing us , are plain evidences to me , that by the root , Abraham is meant ; Nor know I how to make the resemblance right , but by this Exposition . Now to say , the root , that is , Abraham , is bound with an Iron band of unbeliefe , cannot have any handsome construction . But you tell us : And marke that in all this discourse , the holinesse of the branches there spoken of , is not meant of a personall inherent holinesse . Then Master Thomas Goodwin is answered , who in urging 1 Cor. 7.14 . for Paedobaptisme , saith , in the New Testament , there is no other holinesse spoken of , but personall or reall by regeneration , about the which he challenged all the world to shew the contrary : whereas here is according to you , a holinesse which is not personall , or as Mr. Blake speakes , qualitative , and inherent . But to go on . You say , But a derivative holinesse , a holinesse derived to them from their Ancestors , the first fruit is holy , the lump holy , the root holy , the branches holy ; that is , the Fathers holy , accepted in Covenant with God , the children beloved for their Fathers sake ; and when the vail of unbeliefe shall be taken away , the children & their posterity shall be taken in again , b●cause beloved for their fathers sake : Now then , if our graffing in be answerable to theirs in any , or all of these three particulars , we and our children are graffed in together . Object . But here is no mention of our Infants graffing in . Answ. We must not teach the Lord to speake , but with reverence search out his meaning ; there is no mention made of the casting out of the Jewish Infants , neither here , nor elsewhere , when he speakes of taking away the Kingdome of God from them , and giving it to the Gentiles , who would bring forth fruit ; no mention of the Infants of the one , or of the other , but the one and the other , for these outward dispensations are comprehended in their parents , as the branches in the root , the infants of the godly in their parents according to the tenor of his mercy , the infants of the wicked in their parents according to the tenor of his justice . There are sundry things in this passage you would have to be marked , that deserve indeed to be marked , but with an Obeliske , not with an Asteriske , as 1. That you oppose personall inherent holinesse to derivative , as inconsistent . The truth is , the holinesse the Apostle speaks of , is , first in respect of Gods Election , holinesse personall and inherent , in Gods intention , He hath chosen us that we should be holy , Ephes. 1.4 . Secondly , it is also holinesse derivative , or descending , not from any Ancestors , but from Abraham , not barely , as a naturall father , but as a spirituall father , or Father of the faithfull , and so derived from the Covenant of grace , which passed in his name to him and his seed . And lastly , it shall be inherent actually , being communicated by the Spirit of God , when they shall be actually called . But this is such a kinde of holinesse , as is more then you mean , to wit , not only an adherent , or relative holinesse , which they have by enjoying outward Ordinances , but also inherent , by faith , whereby they a●e holy , as the root , that is , Abraham the father of the faithfull . 2. Whereas you make it the case of any believers to be a holy root , to their posterity , especially in the following words , when you say , The infants both of the Jews , and Gentiles for these outward dispensations , are comprehended in their parents , as the branch in the root , the infants of the godly in their parents , according to the tenor of his mercy , the infants of the wicked in their parents , according to the tenor of his justice : Master Blake pag. 8. more plainly , The branches of Ancestors are roots of posterity , being made a holy branch in reference to their issue , they now become a holy root . This is not true , for in the Apostles resemblance , Abraham only is a holy root , or at most , Abraham , Isaac , and Iacob , in whose names the Covenant runs . No other man , though a believer , is the father of the faithfull , but Abraham : And the body of believers is compared to the Olive , and each believer to a branch , that partakes of the root and fatness of the Olive tree , not in outward dispensations only , as you speak , but also in saving graces , which is mainly here intended . I remember Master Thomas Goodwin , who hath handled this matter of Pae●obaptisme , by spinning out similitudes and conjectures ( fit indeed for the common people , that are more taken with resemblances then Syllogismes ) rather then with close arguments : indeavoured to infer a kinde of promise of deriving holinesse from believers to their posterity , out of the similitude of an Olive , and its branches , compared with Psal. 128.3 . &c. but it is dangerous to strain similitudes beyond that likenesse the Holy Ghost makes . It is a tedious thing to Auditors that look for arguments , to be deluded with similitudes and conjectures . 3. Whereas you alluding to the words of the Apostle , v. 28. that the Jews were beloved for their fathers sake , carry it , as if this were true of any believing parents ; the Apostle meanes it of those fathers only , in whose names the Covenant was made , especially Abraham called the friend of God , Jam. 2.23 . and the father of the faithfull , Rom. 4.11 . and in reference to the promises made to them , they are beloved , and therefore it is added , ver . 29. For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance . Lastly , you say That the infants of the wicked for these outward dispensations , are comprehended in their parents , according to the tenor of Gods justice . I intreat you to consider , whether this speech do not symbolize with the tenet of Arminius in his Antiperkins on the fourth Crimination , and in the end of his Treatise , where he maketh the cause , why the posterity of some people have not the Gospel , to be their forefathers fault in refusing it . Against which you may see what Doctor Twisse opposeth in both places , and Moulin in his Anatomy of Arminianisme , cap. 9. And thus it may appeare , that you have very much darkened this illustrious Scripture , by applying that holinesse and insition to outward dispensations only in the visible Church , which is meant of saving graces into the invisible by faith , and made every believer a like root to his posterity , with Abraham to his seed . I Am now come to your principall hold , you say . And yet plainer ( if plainer may be ) is the speech of the Apostle in 1. Cor. 7.14 . The unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife , and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband , else were your children uncleane , but now they are holy . By the way . Because you acknowledge in the Margin page 24. that " signifies to , as well as in , and you conceive it may be here read [ in ] or [ to ] as well as [ by ] and though our translators following the vulgar read [ by ] yet Beza dislikes that reading ; it might have done well in the citing of this text by you , to have given some hint of that varietie . But to follow you . You say , the plain scope and meaning thereof is this . The believing Corinthians amongst other cases of Conscience , which they had sent to the Apostle for his resolution of , had written this for one , whether it were lawfull for them who were converted , still to retaine their Infidell wives or husbands . You doe rightly here expresse the scope of the Apostle , but you make another scope , page 25. when you say ; We must attend the Apostles scope , which is to shew , that the children would be unholy , if the faith or believership of one of the parents could not remove the barre , which lies in the other being an unbeliever , against the producing a holy seed ; which I shall shew in its place , not to be the scope of the place ; but only this which you first give . You then say , their doubt seemes to arise from the Law of God , which was in force to the Nation of the Jews , God had not only forbidden such marriages to his people ; but in Ezra's time they put away , not onely their wives : but all the children that were borne of them , as not belonging to the Common-wealth of Israel : and it was done according to the Law , and that Law was not a particular Edict which they did agree upon but according to the standing Law of Moses , which that word there used signifieth , and in Nehemiahs time the children who were born of such marriages were accounted a mungrell kinde , whom Nehemiah cursed : Now hereupon these Corinthians doubted whether their children as well as their wives , were not to be accounted unclean : and so to be put away according to th●se examples . You declared rightly the scope before : but the doubt is not rightly put by you . The Corinthians had no doubt whether their children were unclean , and to be put away ; for the Apostle , argues from the uncleanes●e of their children , as a thing that appeared absurd to them , they tooke it as a common received principle , that their childr●n wer● holy , as rightly Master Thomas Goodwin at Bow-church . And for the occasion of the doubt , though I deny not , but the Corinthians might know that fact of Ezra 9. and 10. yet that the reading of it was the cause of their doubt I see no evidence o● likelihood , though Master Blake pag. 12. takes it as granted , joyning with the relations , Ezra 9. and 10. that resolution , Hag. 2.12.13 . as the occasion of the doubt , and Mr. Thomas Goodwin seemed confident of it that it could be no other upon a supposed agreement of matter and phrase . But for matter I see very little agreement , the cases being f●r different of two persons not under the Law ma●rying in unbeliefe , and of two persons under the Law , the one a Iew by prof●ssion , the other a stranger . And for phrases , exc●pt the word [ holy ] I observe no other phrase used in Ezra which is used by the Apost●e ; not the phrase of unbelieving husband or wife , or sanctified to , in , or by the wife or husband , nor the phrase of unclean children , and for the tearm [ holy ] the Apostle doth not use the phrase [ holy seed ] as Ezra doth . In my apprersion it is farre more likely that ●●e ●oubt arose from the Epistle he wrote before to them mentioned , 1 Cor. 5.9 . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , ● . 10 Not to keep company with Fornicators or Idolaters , which might occasion the question , whether they were then to continue with their unbelieving Yoke fellows ? But let us examine the Apostles resolution , you say . To which the Apostle answers , no , they were not to be put away , upon what speciall , reason soever , that law was in force to th● Jews , believing Ch●●stians were not in that condition . The unbelieving wife was sanctified in the believing husband , quoad hoc , so far as to bring forth a holy seed . Were it with them , as when both of them were unbelievers , so that n●ither of th●m had a prerogative to intitle their children to the covenant of grace , thier children would be an unclean progeny : Or were the children to b● reckoned in the condition of the worser parent , so that the unbeliever could contribute more to Paganisme , than the believer to Christianity , it were so likewise . But the case is otherwise ; the believing husband hath by Gods ordinance a sanctified use of his unbeli●ving wife ; so as by Gods speciall promise made to believers and their seed , they were invested in , and to the most spirituall end of marriage , the continuance of a holy seed , wherein the Church is to be propagated to the worlds end . And the case is he●e in relation to posterity , for spirituall priviledges , as in other marriages for civill priviledges : as , suppose a Prince or Noble man marry with a woman of base and mean birth , though in generall it be true , that the children of those that be base , are born base , as well as the children of Nobles are bor● noble , yet here the issue hath h●nour from the father , and it is not accounted base by the basenes of the mother . This I take to be the plain meaning of the Apostles answer . And must your Readers , thinke you , take it on your word , without shewing that the tearms are so used else where , or connexion of the words , or the analysis of the text lead you to it ? But it is necessary that I discusse this matter more fully , then by returning a bare denyall , to a bare affirmation . Concerning the answer verse 13. there is no difference , all the diff●rence is concerning the reason of the resolution delivered ver . 14. and the meaning of it . There are these terms doubtfull . 1. What is meant by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , in the wife ; and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the husband . 2. What is meant by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is sanctified . 3. What is meant by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 unclean . 4. What by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 holy . It is agreed , that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may be read , in , to , or by . It is agreed , that to be sanctified , hath many senses , and t●at the sense wherein sanctification is taken for renovation of mind , is not here meant , for so an unbeliever is not sanctified , and the speech is in sensu composito , in a compound sense to be understood : An unbeliever , though an unbeliever , is sanctified . Nor is it true of any kind of Ceremoniall sanctification , or sanctification for enjoying religious ordinances ; for such could not agree to an unbeliever . Therefore there remain only two senses , the one of an instrumentall sanctification , as Mr. Goodwin cals it , for the begetting a holy seed ; The other of matrimoniall sanctification , whereby the one is enjoyed as a chaste yoke-fellow by another , without fornication . The former of these , your words intimate , you imbrace , when you say , the unbelieving wife was sanctified in the believing husband , quoad hoc , so far as to bring forth a holy seed . But against this are these reasons , 1. This could not have resolved the doubt in the case of those , who by age could not be sanctified to this end , or by reason of accidentall inability for generation , they might depart each from other , notwithstanding this reason : whereas the Apostles resolution is , of all husbands and wives ; The unbelieving husband is sanctified , that is , every unbelieving husband is sanctified . If meant of Instrumentall sanctification , it were true only of those that are apt for generation , yea that do actu●lly generate : whereas the Apostles determination is concerning any husband or wife that were of different religion . 2. If the Apostle , by being sanctified , meant instrumentally sanctified to beget a holy seed , then the reason had been thus : You may live together , for you may beget a holy seed . And so their consciences should have been resolved of their present lawfull living together , from a future event , which was uncertain ; It had been taken from a thing contingent , that might be , or not be : whereas the resolution is , by a reason taken from a thing certain , a thing present , or past ; and therefore he useth the preterperfect tense , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hath been sanctified ; yea , in probability he speaks of a sanctification , even when both were unbelievers : for he saith , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 twice in the preterperfect tense , and he mentions the unbelieving , distinctly ; but the believer , without the expression of his , or her faith , under the title of husband , or wife ; and saith , your children , indiscriminatim , without difference , as well those you had before one of you was a believer , as since . However , it is manifest the Apostles reason is taken from a thing not contingent , but certain , not future , but present or past , and therefore not from instrumentall sanctification for the begetting of a holy seed , which was a future thing , and that contingent . This was so manifest to Chamier , that , tom . 4. Panstrat . Cathol . lib. 5. c. 10. § . 46. he proves , that sanctification here cannot be understood of sanctification by conv●rsion of the unbeliever through the diligence of the wife , from this reason : Primum quia incerta ratio est , etsi enim nonnunquam ita factum , tamen plerumque etiam aliter , which I may apply to your instrumentall sanctification , in the same words . And after , In praeteritum dixit ; sanctificatus est non autem sanctificabitur , rem jam constitutam , & peractam non autem in futurum rem incertam , aut optandam , aut expectandam . 3. When any person is said to be instrumentally sanctified for a purpose , this sanctification is ascribed to God , as Jer. 1.5 . Isa. 13.3 . as selecting some from others to such an use , but here the sanctification is common to all unbelieving husbands in resp●ct of their wives , and comes from that common relation , not speciall d●signation . 4. According to this Exp●si●ion , the words following could not be true , Else were your children uncleane , but now are they holy : For in this form of reasoning , this Proposition is included . Their children could not be holy without that sanctification , but that had been false , understanding it of instrumentall sanctification ; and of foederall , or of reall inherent personall holinesse . For their children might be in Covenant , and be regenerated , though their parents by reason of their unbeliefe had been neither of them sanct●fied to the other , for the begetting of a holy seed . The children of Infidel-parents may be in the Covenant of grace , and be sanctified . It remaines then that the sanctification which I call matrimoniall , is here meant , which I expresse in Beza's words , thus : Fidelis uxor potest cum infideli marito bona conscientia consuescere ( cur enim aliena conscientia eam pollueret ) idcirco dicitur infidelis ille non in sese , sed in uxore ( id est uxoris respectu ) sanctus esse , idem quoque de altero membro judicandum est . That this may be the sense , I gather from the like use of the word , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Tim. 4.5 . where the creature of God is said to be sanctified , that is , lawfully used , in opposition to that which is to be refused ; so here , the unbelieving husband is sanctified , that is , lawfully enjoyed as a husband , by , or to , or in respect of his wife , whether believer , or unbeliever , in this case there is no difference . And this your own words import , pag. 24. When you thus speake . He saith indeed , the unbelieving wife is sanctified in the believing husband , or to the believing husband ; that is , to ●is use , as all other creatures are , as the bad he lies on , the meat he eats , the cloaths he wears , and the beast he rides on are sanctified to his use . And this sense is the more confirmed , in that , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , sanctification , is the same with chastity , 1 Thess 4.7 . So that the sense is , the unbelieving husband is sanctified to his wife , that is , lawfully or chastly , used as a husband , without fornication in respect of his own wife , whether believer or unbeliever , and therefore not to be refused . And this sense only serves for the purpose of the Apostle . The words are a reason why they might lawfully live together : the reason must be taken from that which was not contingent , but certain , as Chamier saith truly , tom . 4. Paustrat . Cathol . l. 5. c. 10. § . 66. Haec est meus Apostoli , ut doceat fideli non discedendum a conjuge infideli , consentiente in habitationem ; cui rei conficiendae ineptum ●st aeque ac paul● ante argumentum ab eventu incerto ac per accidens , hinc refutatur illo sententia quae imaginatur tandem cum etiam infidelis conversus erit , generatum iri filios sanctos : Nam quid si nunquam fiat ? Take it then in your sense , it had been no satisfactory reason . You may live together , though one party be an unbeliever , because you may beget a holy seed ; but this wa● meerly contingent , uncertain , and by accident , not arising from their present estate , but from something future , which might not be , possibly they might have no children at all : how shall persons then be satisfied from this reason ? But in the other acception of matrimoniall sanctification , the reason is plain and satisfactory : Let them , if they will , live together , though one be a believer , the other an un●eliever ; for though there be difference in Religion , yet marriage continues still , they are husband and wife , and are so sanctified to each others use , in respect of their chaste enjoyment of each other , and it is no sin for them to accompany together , notwithstanding the u●belief of the one party ; for marriage is honorable among all , even unbelievers , and the bed undefiled , Heb. 13.4 . And Holin●sse and Honour are terms of like sense in this matter , 1 Thes. 4.7 . And the like resolution the Apostle gives , vers . 17.20 . concerning circumcised or uncircumcised persons and servants , they might continue circumcised and uncircumcised persons and servants to their masters , notwithstanding their Christian calling , it did not dissolve those relations ; so that to me it is very cleare , that the sanctification here spoken of is matrimonial sanctification . As for instrumentall sanctification , for the begetting a holy seed , I know not of any before Mr. Thomas Goodwin that hath so expounded it ; But Beza and many others expound it of matrimoniall sanctification . Which is further confirmed in that the Apostle when he speakes of the believing party saith not the believing wife or husband , but the husband or wife , which is to me a plaine evidence , that the Apostle placeth the reason of their sanct●fication , not in the faith of either party , but in the relation of husband and wife . But of this more in the answering of your second argument . Now let this be granted ( as of necessity it must ) then the uncleannesse must be understood of bastardy , and the holines of legitimation ; for no other holines follows necessarily to the children , in that their parents marriage is lawfull , and they borne of such parents , but legitimation nor any other uncleannes follows upon the denying of it but bastardy . And therefore who ever they be that interpret it of legitimation , they doe it rightly , call them how you will. And that I may cleare it , let the Apostles reason be resolved . To conceive it we are to consider , 1. That the words [ els were , &c. ] are not a resolution of another doubt , but an argument to prove that which was said last , as the particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 shews ; for the tearmes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 els were , are argumentative , as much as quoniam tum , because then , used so , 1 Cor. 15.14.29 . Rom. 11.6 . to prove that which went before . 2. That here the argument is ab absurdo , from an absurditie , which would follow , if the thing to be proved were not granted , and the speech must needs be Elliptick : and somwhat is to be repeated to make the speech full , as when it is said , Rom. 11.6 . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . If by grace , it is no more of workes , else grace were no more grace : To make the sense full , you must adde , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , because if of works : So here , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , &c. For if the unbelieving husband hath not been sanctifi●d to the wife , your children , &c. So that this is the argument of the Apostle entire : If the unbelieving husband were not sanctified by the wife , then were your children unclean , but they are not unclean , but holy , Ergo , the unbelieving husband is sanctified to the wife . Now the Major of this Syllogism is a conditional , and the s●qu●l of it were not true , if this proposition were not true : All the children of those Parents whereof the one is not sanct●fied to the other are unclean . Now if the sanctification be here meant of Matrimonial sanctificatiō , as I have proved it must , and the uncleannesse be meant of federall uncleannesse , so as to exclude them out of the covenant , whether of Saving-graces , or Church-priviledges , the proposition were most false , sith that children of parents , whereof one was not Matrimonially sanctified to the other , but came together unchastly , as Pharez and Zarah of Iudah , and Tamar , Iepthe of Gilead , and many others were within the Covenant of Saving graces , and Church priviledges , and therefore to make the Proposition true ( without which the Apostle speakes that which is false ) it must be understood of uncleannesse by b●stardy : for it is true of no other uncleannesse , that all children of those parents , whereof the one is not sanctified to the other are uncleane . And that this is the force of the Apostles reasoning , Chamier saw , Panstr . Cathol . tom . 4. lib. 5. c. 10. § . 67. when arguing against the conceit ascribed to Augustine concerning Ceremoniall holinesse , he saith thus . De ceremoniali illa sanctitate quid dicam ? venit in mentem Augustino , sed Deus bone ! quam aliena ? profecto quaedam sunt tam absurda ut refutari non mereantur . Euge. Dixit Apostolus , si non sanctificetur maritus infidelis in vxore fideli futurum ut filij inde nati sint impuri , ergo omnes sic nati sunt impuri aut falsum dixit Apostolus . Quid ergo ? Omnesne nati ex ijs parentibus quorum alter non santificatur in altero geniti sunt in menstruis ? Nunquamne Infideles utuntur uxoribus nisi menstruatis ? ita oportet sane aut hanc ridiculam esse interpretationem . I may apply the same words to Chamier his interpretation of foederall sanctity . De faederali illa sanctitate quid dicam ? venit in mentem Chamiero , Calvino , &c. Sed Deus bone ! quam aliena ? profecto quaedam sunt tam absurda ut refutari non mereantur ; Euge. Dixit Apostolus , si non sanctificetur maritus infidelis in uxore futurum ut filij inde nati sint impuri , ergo omnes sic nati sunt impuri , aut falsum dixit Ap●stolus , quid ergo ? Omnesno nati ex ijs parentibus quorū alter non sanctificatur in altero sunt extra foedus gratiae ? Nunquāne parentes infideles aut fornicantes gignunt liberos intra foedus gratiae futuros , ita oportet sane aut ridiculam han● esse interpretationem . As for the other words , but now are they holy ; the particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but now , is not an adverbe of time here , as Beza rightly , but as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 else were , so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 bu● now , is a particle of reasoning used in the assumption of arguments , which shews it is the assumption of the Apostles argument , and therefore it must be understood of holinesse opposi●e to the uncleannesse mentioned , but that being no other then bastardy , the holinesse can be meant of no other , then legitimation . Nor is this any whit an unlikely sense , sith bastards were reckoned among uncleane persons , Deut. 23.2 . and the Apostles expression may be allusive to the Iewish speaking or estimation . And why it should be thought strange , that holy should signifie legitimate , I know not , when as Mal. 2.15 . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a seed of God , rendred by your selfe , page 19. a holy seed , is all one with a legitimate seed , as Calvin rightly expounds it , and the words must be understood ; for they speak of the first institution of marriage , which was not to seek a seed of God distinct from the wicked ( for it is spoken of the generall end of all marriages ) but a lawfull seed : whereto I may adde , that marriage hath had the reputation of a holy estate , as the Liturgie calls it , and as that excellent booke intituled , The union of Christ and the Church in a shadow , by R. C. prov●s . As for Mr. Blakes quaere , pag. 11. whether we will give the like interpretation of Gal. 2.15 . which is , saith he , every way parallel , and answers in either of the branches ? Doth the Apostle here meane we that are by birth legitimate , and not bastards of the Gentiles . I may apply to him the words of him in the Poet. Cernimus , an qui amant ipsi sibi somnia fingunt ? Doe we see ? or doe they that love , faine dreames to themselves ? for I cannot tell how to interpret this passage , that 1 Cor 7 14. and Gal. 2.15 . are very way parallel , and the one to be interpreted by the other , any otherwise then as a conceit in a dream , like as when the fancy from gold and a mountaine compounds a golden mountain . And for his argument which he drawes from the text , on which his discourse is builded , in that the Apostle contra distinguisheth , Jews by nature , and sinners of the Gentiles , ( which the phrase shews the Apostle useth after the vulgar manner ; for otherwise Jewes are by nature sinners , as well as the Gentiles ) to prove that the Infants of believers are in the Covenant of grace , and have a birth-priviledge for baptisme , it is a riddle to mee . The meaning of the words is plainly this ; we are born Jews and not Gent●les who are reputed sinner● , yet we know that a man is not justified by the works of the law , to observe which by birth we were tied , and therfore Peter did ill to compel the Gentiles to Judaize , to keep the law of Moses , thereby dissembling the l●bertie they had in Ch●●st , and bringing them into bondage ; so that it is plaine he mentions Jewes by nature , to shew their obligation to the law by their birth , and he calls the Gentiles sinners , according to the common expression of them , as not observing the law of the Jews , and ther●fore when Mr. Blake saith , That he contend● to have the seed of believing Parents under the Gospel , to be under the first member of the division in the text . It is a strange speech , that he sh●uld contend to prove this , The seed of believing Gentiles are Jews by nature , born to be circumcised , and to keepe Moses law . But let it be granted , that they are called sinners in the sense he would have it , tha● is , out of the Covenant , as it is said , Ephes. 2.12 . the question is , in what sense the Gentiles were without the Covenant , and the Jewes in . It is certaine the Jews had by Gods appointment the priviledge of circumcision , and the Covenant made with Abraham did belo●g to them in speciall manner , and the Oracles were with them , Rom. 9.4 , 5. and the Covenant of Saving-grace was among them , till they were by unbeliefe broken off , and that the Gentiles were dogs , uncleane persons , aliens from the commonwealth of Israel , without God , without Christ , &c. And so it may be granted that the Jews had a birth privledge , though it is certaine , that their birth did not intitle them to the Covenant of grace , and that the common priviledge of circumcision belonging to the Jews , did not arise from the Covenant of grace , accotding to the substance of it , but according to the admi●ist●ation that then was , nor was a fruit of the faith of the parents , but of Gods appointment according to the dispensation of his will , in that time of the churches minoritie ; but he that will prove , that ther●fore our children have such a birth priviledge , because the Jews had , must make our case as the Jews , and so bring us under the Ceremoniall law . But of this wee shall have occ●sion hereafter to ●peake more fully , onely by the way I thought it necessary to say so much , because Master Vines referres us to Master Blakes Sermon as a learned treatise , and I heard it in like manner magnified by Master Calamy , and therefore have thought it necessary some where or other to ●xamine what hath any seeming strength in it . And for the same reason I take notice of that speech of Master Blake , page 11. Singular opinions put men upon singular interpretations ; which may as truely be verified of himselfe , as of his adversaries , in that which occasioned him so to speake . Another booke lately published , being the treatise of one Mr. William Cook , and commended by Master Francis Woodcocke , one of your Assembly , as I conceive , in the 62. page of it saith . Whoever before ( but B●llarmine , or such Iesuiticall interpreters of Scripture ) tooke it so , putting uncleane for bastards , or holy for legitimate . And in the Margin , Note Reader , that this is Bellarmines interpretation , and after , whether A. R. borrowed this answer of Bellarmine , or invented it of himselfe ( as it is the happinesse of the good wits , and holy affections of Iesuiticall and Anabaptisticall heads and hearts to jump in the same thing ) let others judge . Mr. Woodcock had done well to have left out this passage : For , first , although I have not now Bellarmines book by me , to examine whether it be his interpretation or no , yet I perceive by Chamier , Panstr . Cathol . tom . 4. lib. 5. cap. 10. § . 55. who saith thus , Hoc observato Bellarminum e tribus quas enumerat , non iudicare quam cui praeferat , quasi nihil interess●t , This being observed , that Bellarmine , of the three senses which he reckons , doth not shew which he preferres , as if it were of no behoofe ; That that Author did not well heed Bellarmine , when he makes it his opinion , because he numbers it amongst other opinions . Secondly , that Authour not only erroneously , but also otherwise in an unfitting way , makes it a Jesuiticall interpretation only , whereas he might have perceived that Bellarmine cites others then Jesuites for that interpretation ; and if he be not to be believed , yet Chamier might be believed , who saith in the same place , § . 50. Sic Ambrosium , Thomam , Anselmum exposuisse , & hunc Suarez appellat literalem sensum : That Ambrose , Thomas , Anselme , so expounded it , and this Suarez cals the literall sense . And before Bellarmine , Musculus in his Commentarie on 1 Cor. 7.14 . alleageth Ambrose and Hierome so expounding it , and confesseth that though he had abused formerly that place against the Anabaptists , yet he found that of matrimoniall sanctification and sanctity , to be the right sense . And Melancthon , and Camerarius doe expound it of legitimation : Gagnaeus Parisiensis , in loc . also so expounds it : and Osiander , Enchir. controv . cum Anabap. c. 2. q. 3. Mariana schol . in loc . And as for that of Foederal holinesse , I have rather reason to conceive it to be a new exposition , the Ancients expounding it otherwise , None that ever I met with , expounding it of federall holinesse , till the controversie of the Anabaptists in Germanie arose . You say , But this cannot be the meaning , I clearly prove by these foure arguments . First , uncleannesse , and holinesse , when opposed one to the other , are never taken for civilly lawfull . Nor do I like the calling of it civill holinesse , for it is not from the lawes of men , but the institution of God , and therefore I rather call it matrimoniall holinesse . You say , Vncleanesse , indeed , when opposed to cleanesse , may be taken in severall senses , An unclean vessel , an unclean cloth , an unclean garment , when opposed to clean , may signifie nothing but dirty or spotted : but when unclean●sse is opposed to holinesse , it is alwayes taken in a sacred sense , referring to a tabernacle use , to a right of admission into , or use in the tabernacle or temple , which were types to us of the visible church ; and holinesse is alwayes taken for a separation of persons or things from common to sacred uses . It is hard for you to make good , nor is it materiall for me to disprove that which you say , That when uncleanesse is opposed to holinesse , it is alwayes taken in a sacred sense , referring to a tabernacle use , to a right of admissi●n into , or use in the tabernacle or temple , which were types to us of the visible church . For if it were true , yet the sense I give might stand good , sith uncleanesse for bastardy might be taken allusively to the tabernacle , if the exclusion of bastards from the congregation of the Lord , were an exclusion from the tabernacle ; and so the sense might be good , that uncleanesse is bastardy , though that which you say were true , that uncleanesse , as opposed to holinesse , refers to a tabernacle use . Howsoever it is enough , that I have proved , that the word uncleanesse must be taken here for bastardy , if the Apostles reason stand good . Yet let me intreat you to look a little on that text , 1 Thes. 4.7 . and tell me , whether uncleanesse there be not opposed to holinesse , and whether it be taken in a ●acred sense , refer●ing to a tabernacle use , to a right of admission into , or use in the tabernacle or temple , which were types to us of the visible church . Me thinks , by uncleanesse is meant fornication , and by holinesse , chastity ; and that comes very near the adjectives for bastards , and legitimate , which are cons●quent on fornication , and lawfull generation . And the words of the Apostle , 2 Cor. 7.1 . opposing filthinesse of the flesh , to holinesse , makes me conceive you were mistaken in your speech , when you say , In that opposition , uncleanesse is alwayes taken in a sacred sense . And when you say , that Holinesse is alwayes taken for a separation of persons and things , from common to sacred uses . Me thinks you might have considered , that 1 Thes. 4 3. the holy Ghost saith thus : This is the will of God , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , your holinesse , i.e. saith Beza , that you abstain from fornication . Now , abstinence from fornication , you will not say is separation from common to sacred uses . And when the Apostle saith , 1 Cor. 7.34 . that she may be holy in body , is it not meant , that she may be chaste ? You go on . Even the meats and drinks of believers , sanctified to them , serve for a religious end and use , to refresh them who are the temples of the Holy Ghost . Is it a religious end and use , to refresh them who are the temples of the Holy Ghost ? Then the godly , in eating and drinking , do an act of religion , because they ref●esh themselves . It is true , when their meats are sanctified to them , they use them religiously , but not because they refresh their bodies , which are the temples of the Holy Ghost , but because they use them with the word , and prayer . If refreshing the temple of the Holy Ghost , be a religiou● use and end , then the inordinate eating of a godly man , or the feeding of a godly man by a prophane person , is a religious use and end . You adde , So that they have not only a lawfull , but a holy use of their meat and drink , which unbelievers have not , to whom yet their meat and drink is civilly lawfull . This is true ; but how this proves , that unclean may not be taken for bastard , and holy for legitimate , I see not . You go on . And whereas some say , 1 Thes. 4.3 4.5 . that Chastity , a morall vertue found among heathens , is called b● the name of Sanctification : Let every one possesse his vessell , not in the lust of concupiscence , but in sanctification and honour . I answer , Chastity among heathens is never called sanct●fication , but among believers it may be called so , being a part of the new creation , a branch of their sanctification wrought by the spirit of God , a part of the inward adorning of the temple of the holy Ghost . But this is bu● a shift ; for why may not an unbeliever he said , as w●ll to possesse his vess●ll in holines , is to be sanctified ? B●sides , are not sanctification , and cleannesse , and honour , all one in these passages ? And doth not the Apostle say , Heb. 13.4 . that Marriage is honourable among all , ( even Infidels ) and the bed und●filed ? And though the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 holinesse , be not found among the heathen writers , as being ( so farre as I can finde ) a word used only among Ecclesiasticall writers ; yet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used for c●st●moniam servo , I preserve chastity : as Stephanus , in his Thesaurus , ●bserves out of Demosthenes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , where a Priest of Bac●hus speaks thus : 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , I am holy and pure f●om the company of man. And the words , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , chaste , to be chaste , to make chaste , chastity ; comming from the same root with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 holy : whether 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to reverence , or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to admire , as Grammarians conceive , are used for holinesse and chastity , very frequently , both in Scripture ▪ and in all sorts of Greek writers . So that what you say , that [ holy ] cannot be taken for [ legitimate ] but must be taken for persons admissible into the Church ; I● is so farre from being true , that notwithstanding any thing you have said , yet that sense both may and must be , if the Apostles reasoning be good . But you assault it with a second Argument . Secondly , this being so , had this been the meaning , Else were your children uncleane , but now they a●e holy ; Else had your children been bastards , but now they are legi●imate : The Apostles answer had not been true , because if then one of the parents had not been a believer , and so by being a believer sanctified his unbelieving wife , their children must have been bastards : whereas we know their children had been legitimate , being borne in lawfull wedlock , though neither of the parents had been a believer . Marriage , being a Second Table-duty , is lawfull ( though not sanctified ) to Pagans , as well as to Christians : and the legitima●ion , or illegitimation of the issue depends not upon the faith , but upon the marriage of the parents ; Let the marriage be lawfull , and the issue is legitimate , whether one , or both , or neither of the parents be believers , or infidels : Take but away lawfull marriage betwixt the man and the woman , and the issue is illegitimate , whether one , or both , or neither of the parents are believers , or infidels . Withall , if the children of heathens be bastards , and the marriage of heathens no m●rriage ; then there is no adultery among heath●ns , and so the seventh Commandement is altogether vain in the words of it , as to them . This is indeed the principall reason that hath prevailed with many , to interpret this passage of federall holinesse , not of matrimoniall ; because they conceive here is a priviledge ascribed to the believing wife , or husband , in respect of the faith of the one person , not common to such with infidels . Whereas the holinesse here expressed is not from the quality of faith , but from the relation of husband and wife . For that onely was agreeable to the Apostles purpose : to assure them that in the disparity of religion they might live together still , because the unbeliever , though an unbeliever , notwithstanding his infidelity , is and hath been still lawfully injoyed and sanctified to his wife . So that the force of the Apostles reason is taken from the lawfulnesse of marriage amongst infidels . This was so plaine to Chamier . tom . 4. Panstr . Cathol . lib. 5. cap. 10. sect . 63. that he writes thus ; Hoc argumento excluditur ea sanctitas quam nonnulli praetulerunt ab educatione , nam ab ista peni●ùs delumbatur argumentum Apostoli . Haec enim incerta est : nôrunt enim omnes , & docet experientia , neque omnes viros lucrifieri , quod etiam innuit Apostolus , neque omnes liberos obsecundar● sanctae educationi . Praeterea si qui obsecundent , tamen hic effectus est accidentalis , non autem ex ipsius matrimonii naturâ . And this is confirmed , that the sanctification of the husband , and the holinesse of the children , comes from the nature of marriage , because the Apostle when he speaks of the unbelieving party , names him or her , under the terme of unbelieving husband or wife , because the doubt was of the unbeliever , in respect of his unbeliefe ; but when he speakes of the believing party , how ever the vulgar Latine thrusts in [ believing ] twice , and one old copy Beza found , that had in the Margin , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . believing wife and believing husband , and a copy of Clermont had 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , to the husband a brother , yet all the copies besides reade simply without that Epithet [ to the wife , to the husband ] without believing . The reason cannot be conceived righ●ly to be any other , but that although the person meant were a believer , as well as a wife or a husband ; yet in this passage they were considered onely as husband or wife , and not as believers ; to intimate that the sanctification did not come from the faith of the party , but from conjugall relation . So that whereas you say , that upon the interpretation given , it would follow that there would be no lawfull marriage amongst heathens , or legitimate children , because you conceive the sanctification & holinesse here proper to believers and their children , the contrary is most true , and most agreeable to the Apostles meaning , who doth not here ascribe the sanctification , either of the unbeliever , or the children , to the faith of either partie , but to the conjugall relation , and mentions here no priviledge , but what was common to all married persons amongst the heathens . Thus is your principall argument answered ; I passe on to the next . You say besides S t Pauls reason had no strength in it , supposing the text were to be interpreted as these men would have it . Their doubt ( say they ) was that their marriage was an unlawfull wedlocke , and so consequently their children bast●rds . You doe not herein rightly set downe your adversaries explication of the Apostle ; the doubt was onely , whether the beleever might continue with the unbeliever in conjugall use : the Apostles resolution was they might , for they were sanctified each to other , notwithstanding the unbeliefe that was in the one partie ; for if it were otherwise , their children were bastards . There was no doubt , as you say , of their childrens bastardy ; the Apostles reason supposeth it was out of doubt with them . You adde . Now marke what kinde of answer they make the Apostle give . Were you not lawfull man and wife , your children were bastards ; but because the unbelieving wife is sanctified in the husband , &c. because your marriage is a lawfull marriage , your children are legitimate . What strength of reason is in this ? if this had been their doubt or question , whether their marriage were not a nullitie ; the Apostle by his Apostolike authoritie , might have definitively answered , without giving a reason , your marriage is good , and your children legitimate . But if Paul will goe about to satisfie them by reason , and prove them to be mistaken , it behoved him to give such a reason , which should have some weight in it , but this hath none . Set their doubt ( as these men frame it ) and the Apostles answer ( as these men interpret it ) together , and you will easily see the invalidity of it . Wee doubt ( say the Corinthians ) wee are not lawfull man and wife , and that therefore our children are bastards . No , saith Paul , you are mistaken , and I prove it thus ; Were you not lawfull man and wife , your children were bastards , but because you are lawfull man and wife , your children are not bastards . Is there any argument or proofe in this ? As you frame your adversaries meaning , it may be thought ridiculous , but your mistakes must not be charged on them for their errour . All this passage of yours is built on this , that you make that the doubt which was not the doubt , to wit , whether their children were bastards , and make that the conclusion , which is the medium to prove the conclusion by ; for it was so far from being a doubt whether their children were bastards , that the Apostle argues from this as an absurditie he knew they would not grant , and therefore supposed this to be without doubt with them , that their children were not bastards , but legitimate . And herein Mr Thomas Goodwin spake rightly , that the Apostle supposed it to be a received principle with them , though his paraphrase , but now are they holy , that is , you see your children baptized , is his owne comment , and that not onely a very bold , but absurd one , that I say no worse of it . And whereas you say , the Apostle might by his Apostolike authoritie , have definitively answered , 't is true , and so he did , as appeares from ver . 12. and yet he might give a reason ad homines , to the men , to convince them , which it may be , as you make it , is invalide , but rightly conceived , as the Apostle framed it , is convincing and cogent . You say . Fourthly , according to this their interpretation , the Apostles answer could no way have reached to the quieting of their consciences ; their doubt was whether according to the example in Ezra , 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 . Now what kinde of quiet would this have given them , to tell them that their children were not bastards ? Wee know the Jewes did not put away their bastards , as not belonging to the Covenant of God , Pharez , and Zarah , and Jepthah , and innumerable others , though bastards , were circumcised , and not cut off from the people of God. All this argument is grounded on a mistake , as if the question were , whether they were to put away their wives and children , as not belonging to God , and that according to the example in Ezra . Whereas that is but a conjecture , that they had any relation in this matter to the action mentioned in Ezra : and some other occasion is as likely , if not more likely , as hath been shewed , and it is certaine there were no doubts at all about the putting away of their children ; for the Apostles argument proceeds upon this as a thing undoubted with them , that their children were not uncleane , but holy . What their doubt indeed was , and how the Apostles answer fits it is shewed before . You goe on . And whereas some object out of Deut. 23.2 . that bastards did not belong to the Covenant among the Jewes , because God there forbad a bastard to come into the Congregation of the Lord. I answer , that is meant onely of bearing office in the Church , or some such like thing ; and not of being under the Covenant belonging to the Church ; as is manifest not onely by what hath been now said of Jepthah , and others , who were circumcised , and offered sacrifices , and drew nigh to God , as well as any other , but the very Text alledged gives sufficient light , that it cannot be meant otherwise , because in that place who ever is an Eunuch or wounded in his stones , hath the same exclusion from the Congregation of the Lord , and I hope that none will dare to say , that none such are holy to the Lord ; if they should , the Scriptu●e is full enough against them ; that putting away in Ezra was of an higher nature then illegitimation , and therefore it behooved the Apostle to give another manner of satisfaction to their doubtfull consciences , then to tell them their children were not bastards : Therefore I conclude , that this holinesse being the fruit of one of the Parents being a believer , must be meant of some kinde of holinesse which is not common to the seed of them whose parents are both believers , and that is enough for our purpose . What others object I know not , the Text , Deut. 23.2 . was produced by mee in my papers in Latin , above-mentioned , in these words , Et quidni simili allusione ponatur 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 pro spuriis , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 pro legitimis , nam spurius inter impuros , Deut. 23.2 . And why may not b● a like allusion , uncleane be put for bastards , and holy for legitimate ? for the bastard is put among the uncleane , Deut. 23.2 . By which you may perceive , that I produced it not to prove , that basta●ds did not belong to the Covenant among the Jewe● , or were to be denied circumcision , or to be put away , and therefore in what respect they are to be excluded from the Congregation of the Lord , is not to my purpose materiall , but onely to shew , that bastards were reckoned among uncleane persons by the Law ; which I thinke , you will not deny , sith you confesse they were excluded from bearing office in the Church , or some such like thing ; and therefore the Apostle might fi●ly by allusion put uncleane for bastards . Against this there being nothing in your answer , nor any thing else , which hath not been replyed to before , I passe to the two objections you bring in against your interpretation . You say , Yet there remain two Objections to be answered , which are made against this our interpretation : First , the unbelieving w●●e is here said to be sanctified as well as the child is said to be holy ; and the originall word is the same for both , one the Verb , the other the Noune ; if then the childe is holy , with a federall holinesse , then is also the unbelieving wife sanctified with a f●derall sanctification ; and so the wife , although remaining a Heath●n , may be counted to belong to the Covenant of Grace . I answer , indeed there would be weight in this Objection , if the Apostle had said , The unbelieving wife is sanctified , and no more , as he simply saith the children are holy ; but that he doth not say : He saith indeed , the unbelieving wife is sanctified in the believing husband ; or , to the believing husband , that is , to his use , as all other creatures are ; as the bed he lies on , the meat he eats , the clothes he wears , the beast he rides on , are sanctified to him ; and so this sanctifiednesse of the wife , is not a sanctification of state , but only of use , and of this use to be sanctified to the believing husband , whereas the holinesse and sanctification that is spoken of the children is a holinesse of state , and not only a sanctification to the parents use . These words in your Margin [ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Greek Preposition , signifying to , as well as in , as Gal. 1.16 . 2 Pet. 1.5 . Acts 4.12 . 1 Cor. 7.15 . ] being the Texts I produce in my Latin paper , that [ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ] may be translated [ to ] as well as [ by ] give me some occcasion to think that this Objection is produced in reference to these words in my Latin paper , where arguing against the rendring of [ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by ] as if the faith of the wife were the cause of the sanctifying the unbelieving husband ; I say thus : Nemo enim dixerit fidem uxoris sanctificare virum infidelem foederaliter , ita ut baptismi capax sit infidelis maritus propter fidem uxoris ( quod tamen pace tantorum virorum dictum sit , tam benè sequitur ex hoc loco , quam filium sanctum esse foederaliter , & baptismi capacem propter fidem parentis● ) for no man will say , the faith of the wife sanctifies the unbelieving husband federally , so that the unbelieving husband should be capable of Baptisme for the faith of the wife ( which yet , with the leave of so great persons be it said , doth as well follow out of this place , as that the sonne is federally holy , and capable of baptisme for the faith of the parent ) . In which words , when I say , it follows out of this place , my meaning is , so translated and expounded as before ; that the unbelieving husband is sanctified by , that is , by the faith of the wife , as the child is holy , it would follow , that the unbelieving husband should be in the Covenant as well as the child , and so be baptized : for the faith of the wife is said to sanctifie according to this reading and exposition , the one as well as the other . And so much I conceive you acknowledge , in saying in this Objection , there would be weight if the Apostle had said the unbelieving wife is sanctified and no more . But this only I put in by a parenthesis , as not building the main of the interpretation I gave on it , knowing that Beza renders it [ in uxore , in the wife ] and then the Objection hath no place . And seeing you do render [ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ] in , or to , and expound the sanctification to the believers use , as all other creatures are . I confesse , against you that Objection is not in force , and therefore your answer may be acknoweldged right in this particular . I passe to the second Objection . That holinesse of the children is here meant , which could not be unlesse one of the parents were sanctified to the other ; which is the force of the Apostles arguing , the unbeliever is sanctified to the believer , else were not the children holy , but unclean ; but federall holinesse of children may be where parents are not sanctified , one in , or to the other : as in bastardy . Davids childe by Bathsheba , Pharez and Zarah Judah's children by Thamar , the Israelites children by the Concubines , Abrahams son Ishmael by Hagar , &c. in which case the children were federally holy , and accordingly were circumcised , and yet the Harlot not sanctified , in , or to the Adulterer , or Fornicator , though a Believer . This Objection I own , having first proved that the santification of the unbeliever , is meant of lawfull conjugall copulation , only where you say , the unbeliever is sanctified to the believer , I would say as the Apostle doth , to the wife or husband . Now to this Objection you say , " I answer , but I pray you tell me where you answer it , I finde no answer to it here , except it be an answer to an Argument to deny the conclusion . In the Argument you neither shew faultinesse in the form nor matter , which was the way of answering I learned in the Schools where I was bred . You say , we must attend the Apostles scope : true , but when we are to answer , we must attend to the Objection , and shew the weaknesse of it . You say , which is to shew , that the children would be unholy if the faith , or believership of one of the parents , could not remove the barre which lies in the other , being an unbeliever , against the producing of an holy seed , because one of them was a Pagan or unbeliever , therefore the childe could not be a holy seed , unlesse the faith or believership of the other parent could remove this barre . You made the scope at first right , to resolve them whether they might lawfully retain their Infidell wives or husbands ; but the scope you now give , is but a meer figment , not the Apostles . You say , now this can have no place of an argument in any case where one of the parents is not an Infidel . I know not what you mean in this passage , unlesse it be you would answer thus ; the Apostles scope is otherwise then the objector takes it , therefore he can make no argument , nor objection , and so I need not make any answer , which is a kinde of answering I am not acquainted with . You go on : But this was not the case amongst the Jews , Hagar and Thamar , and the concubines , however sinfull in those acts , yet themselves were Believers , belonging to the Covenant of God , and that barre lay not against their children , as it did in the unbelieving wife . This passage is indeed a grant of the Minor in the objection , that children may be federally holy , where the one parent is not sanctified to the other ; and that the Major is true , which rests on this , that the children could not be holy , unlesse one parent were sanctified to the other , you will not deny it ; you do your self frame the force of the Apostles reason thus ; both pag. 19. when you say , were it with them , as when both of them were unbelievers their children would be an unclean progeny : and pag. 21. when you say , the Apostles answer had not been true , because then , if one of the parents had not been sanctified to his unbelieving wife , their children must have been bastards . In these and other passages , you acknowledge the force of the Apostles reason , to consist in this : that holinesse of the children is here meant , which could not be , unlesse one of the parents were sanctified to the other ; wherefore the conclusion stands good , that the holinesse here is not federall holinesse . But you adde , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , a wise remedy . Indeed , if a believing man or woman should adulterously beget a child , upon a Pagan or Heathen , or unbeliever , there this objection deserves to be further weighed , but here it comes not within the comp●sse of the Apostles argument . This is just nihil ad rhombum , nothing to the point ; as if you had said , I will not answer the objection which is made , but if you make it thus or thus , I will answer it ; and thus I have at last gotten your chief hold , which you had best manned , but in the close you quitted it . You adde as over-measure , certain Reasons : 1. From Gods will , which were enough , if you could prove it . 2. From Gods honour , in which you say , so i● i● with the Lord , he having left all the rest of the world to be visibly the Devils kingdome , will not for his own glories sake permit the Devill to come and lay visible claim to the sons and daughters begotten by those who are the children of the most High ; which speech , if true , well fare Cain and Cham , and Ismael and Esau , and innumerable others , whom the Devill hath had visible claime to by their works and profession . 3. For the comfort and duty of these who are in covenant with him . Indeed it were a very great comfort , if you could make it good which you say ; but we must be content with that comfort God is pleased to give , and not for our comfort speak that of God which is not true . You say , you have been the larger upon those two first conclusions , because indeed , the proving of these gains the whole cause , and so I have been the larger in answering , as conceiving by loosing these you loose the cause . You say , The most learned of the Anabaptists do professe , that if they knew a child to be holy , they would baptize it . It is likely they that said , or professed so , did declare in what sense , and for what reason they so spake . But because these are but Rhetoricall passages , I leave them , and passe to your third Conclusion , which you ●hus expresse . THe Lord hath appointed and ordained a Sacrament or Seal of initiation , to be administred unto them , who enter into covenant with him ; Circumcision for the time of that administration which was before Christs incarnation , Ba●tisme since the time of his incarnation . Th● conclusion , as you here set it down , may be granted , that the Lord hath appointed and 〈…〉 a Sacrament or Seal of initiation , to be administred to them that enter into covenant with him , circumcision for the time of that administration , which was before Christs incarnation , Baptisme since the time of his incarnation . But this is not all you would have granted ; for it would stand you in no stead , and therefore , in stead of it , pag. 33. in the Repetition , you put this conclusion for your third ; that our Baptisme succeeds in the room and use of their Circumcision ; and your meaning is , that it so succeeds , that the command of circumcising Infants should be virtually a command to baptize Infants , as you expresse your self , pag. 35. Now this I deny . That which you alledge for this is , First , the agreement that is between Cicumcision and Baptisme : Secondly , the Text , Col. 2.8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12. I shall examine both , and consider whether they fit your purpose . You confesse they differ in the outward Elements , and that is enough to shew that the command for the one , is not a command for the other , except the Holy Ghost do so interpret it . But you say , they agree in five or six particulars . The first , that they are both of them the same Sacrament for the spirituall part ; which is to be granted , but with its due allowance : For , though Baptisme signifie in part the same thing that Circumcision did ; namely , sanctification by the spirit , justification and salvation by Jesus Christ , and faith in him ; yet it is true that there is a vast difference betwixt them , because Circumcision signified these things as to be from Christ to come , and therefore it was a sign of the promise of Christ to come from Isaac ; but Baptisme signifies these things in the name of Christ already manifested in the flesh , crucified , buried , and risen again . And because Circumcision did signifie Christ to come out of Isaac , therefore it did also confirm all the promises that were made to Abrahams naturall Posterity , concerning their multiplying , their bringing out of Egypt , their settling in the Land of Canaan , and the yoak of the Law of Moses , which was to be in force till Faith came , that is , till Christ was manifested in the flesh , Gal. 3.19.23 , 24 , 25. Gal. 5.2 , 3. The second agreement you make , is that both are appointed to be distinguishing signes betwixt Gods people and the Devils people . This must be also warily understood ; for though it be true they are both d●stinguishing signes , yet not so , but that they may be Gods people , who were not circumcised , nor are baptized . God had a people in Jobs and Lots families , who were not circumcised , nor to be circumcised ; and there may be a people of God , wh●●re not bapti●ed , as the thief on the crosse , the Catechumeni dying a●o●e baptisme , many martyrs , and others , that have dyed without Baptisme . And in the signes themselves there is a great difference , both in the acting of them ; the one of them was with blood , the other without ; the one took away a part of the body , the other not : and after the acting , the one was a permanent signe , the other left no impression or footsteps of it that did remain . The third agreement is , both of them the way and means of solemn entrance and admission into the Church , which may be granted ; yet in the solemnity there was a great difference : the one to be done in a private house , by a private person , the other openly by the Minister thereto appointed . The fourth agreement is , both of them to be administred but once , which I conceive true thus ; to wit , that there is no necessity of administring either of them above once ; but a demonstrative Argument to prove it an heresie , or unlawfull in it self to rebaptize , I yet expect . Yet this parity hath its disparity : For Baptisme is not restrained to any set day , but Circumcision was limited to the eighth day in its institution . Your fifth , And none might be received into the communion of the Church of the Jewes , untill they were circumcised , nor into the communion of the Church of the Christians , untill they be baptized . If you mean by Communion to be accounted members of the Church of the Jews , I cannot assent unto you : For not only the children were accounted in that Church who were not eight dayes old , but also all the uncircumcised in the time of the travell through the Wildernesse , untill they cam● to Gilgal , and all the females were members , though they were not to be circumcised . The reason was , because God would have all within that Church that were within the families of Israel ; and therefore he would have the servants born in the house , and that were bought with money of any stranger that were not of Abrahams seed , circumcised . And if you mean by the communion of the Church of Christians , the accounting of them as visible members , it is not true that none might be received into the communion of the Church of the Christians untill they be baptized , unlesse you will with Bellarmine deny the Catechumeni to be actuall members of the Church , and oppose Whitaker , and others of the Protestant Divines herein . The last agreement is , that none but the circumcised might eat of the Pasch●● L●mbe , which is true of those that ought to be circumcised , but it ●s not true simply taken : for the females were to eat , though not circumcised . On the other side you say , none may but those who are baptized be admitted to eat the Lords Supper . This you affirm , but you bring no other proof for it , but the Analogie conceived by you between Circumcision and the Passeover , and Baptisme and the Lord● Supper , which can make but a Topick argument , and that à simili , which i● of all other the weakest Place to prove by , proportions are weak probation , saith R●●therfu●d , Due right of Presbyteries , Ch. 2. Sect. 2. p. 37. 'T is true , we find persons ordinarily upon their fi●st call were baptized , and then after received the Lords Supper ; and it is true , that 1 Cor. 10.2 , 3 , 4. and 1 Cor. 12.13 . baptizing is put before eating and drinking , and therefore thers is ground enough for ordering it so ; yet I make question , whether , if a person that professeth the faith of Christ sincerely , and is not yet baptized , suppose for want of a Minister , or out of scruple , at the way of baptizing only allowed , or because the custome is not to baptize but at Easter or Whitsuntide , as it was of old , or the like reason , should come to a Congregation of Christians receiving the Lords Supper , and there receive it with love to Christ , whether he should sin , because not baptized , as the Jews should sin , that did eat the Passeover not circumcised : For in the Jewes case a command is broken , not here , and so no transgression . If he come without examination of himself , not discerning the Lords body , he sins , he breaks the command , 1 Cor. 11.28 . But where is the command that he must be baptized first ? And for the same reason , I question , whether a Minister can justifi● it before God , if he reject such a Christian from the Lords Supper , because not baptized , for the aforesaid reasons . By this which I have said , you may perceive how uncertain your agreements are , and how many disagreements there are between Circumcision and Baptisme ; and therefore how poor a proof , or rather none at all may be drawn from the supposed agreements you make between Circumcision and Baptisme , for the making a command to circumcise Infants , a command to baptize Infants , without the Holy Ghost declaring Gods minde to be so . All these agreements ; y●a , if there were an h●ndr●d more , cannot make it any other than an humane invention , if the Holy Ghost do not shew that they agree in this particular . But to make the weaknesse of this Argument the more apparent , let me parallel the Priests of the Law , with the Ministers of the Gospel , as you do Circumcision with Baptisme . As God appointed Aerg●s and his sons to Minis●e● in the time of the Law , so the Ministery of the Gospel now ; the Apostle makes the Analogy expresly , 1 Cor. 9.13 , 14. and far more plainly then the Text you bring for the succession of Baptisme to Circumcision , and they agree in many things : As the Priests lips should preserve knowledge , Mat. 2.7 . Deut. 33.10 . so must the Bishop be apt to teach , 1 Tim. 3.2 . As the Priest by offering the sacrifices held forth Christ to them , Heb. 9. so the Minister by preaching , Gal. 3.1 . As the Priest was for the people of God , so the Minister of the Gospel : As the High Priest was to have the people on his breast , so the Minister in his heart ; as the one was to blesse , so the other was to pray for them : As the Priest had a consecration , so the Minister is to have an ordination : As none was to thrust himself into the one without a calling ; so neither in the other : And many more such agreements might be assigned ; will it therefore follow , that a command to a Priest to offer a sacrifice propitiatory , is a command to a Minister to offer a sacrifice propitiatory , or a command for a Priest to wear a linen Ephod , should be a command to a Minister to wear a Surplice , as the Papists do just in your manner argue from Analogy or resemblance ; or , that therefore tythes are due to Ministers , jure divino , by divine appointment , as Bishop Carleton , Dr. Sclater , and others , from Analogy of Melchisedecs and Aarons Priesthood would infer : or that ordination may be by the people ; because the children of Israel laid hands on the Levites , as Mr. Mather in answer to Mr. Herle ; or that there must be an imparity in the Clergy , and so Bishops above Presbyters , as the Prelates , Bilson , Daven●nt , D●terminat , Quest. 42. and others were wont to argue ; or that a Doctor in Divinity may be a Justice of Peace , because Eli and Samuel were Judges , as the Prelaticall Doctors ; or that there must be a Pope , because there was an High Priest , as Bellarmine and the Papists . If the consequence be not good in the one , neither is it in the other . You say in the next words , that the Lords Supper succeeds in the room of the Passeover . This , I confesse , goes current , but the Scripture doth not say so , that I know . The Scripture expresly saith , that Christ our Passeover was sacrificed for us , 1 Cor. 5.7 . It i● true , the Lords Supper was appointed after the Paschal Supper , but it is but our collection , that thereby the Lord would make an end of the Passeover , and substitute the other in its room . In other places we rather finde the Lords Supper to answer the Manna , and the Rock , or water out of the Rock in the Wildernesse , 1 Cor. 10.3 , 4. It is true , the Apostle , 1 Cor. 10.16 , 17. argues from the eating of the sacrifices to the eating of the Lords Supper . But that was not only from the Passeover , but from the rest of the peace-offerings as well as it ; yea , from the Heathens feasts upon their sacrifices . It is true , 1 Cor. 5.8 . we are required to keep the feast , and the allusion is to the Paschal Supper ; but whether the keeping the feast be meant of the Lords Supper , or as Beza paraphraseth it , totam vitam in justitia & integritate consumamus , let us spend our whole life in justice and integrity , or something else , sub judice lis est , is a controversie undetermined . But let it be granted , that the Lords Supper imitates ( I will not say succeeds into the room of the Jewish Passeover , for that was a sacrifice , and Christ offered , is only in stead of it ) the Paschal Supper , which because of the time , and the form of words used in the institution , and such like circumstances , is very probable , and therefore there is great Analogy between them ; yet he that should argue , therefore we must receive the Lords Supper with unleavened bread , as the Papists ; or that the bread and wine must be first consecrated on an Altar , as was the Paschal Lamb ; or that the Lords Supper is not to be administred but in a Church , gathered after the Church-way , as the Elders of New-England , in answer to the nine Positions ; or that we must keep an Easter , and then have the Lords Supper , as in ancient and later times hath been conceived , you would reject these things as ill gathered , and perhaps call them superstitious . But whether these , and more like to them , do not as well follow , as baptizing of Infants , from circumcision of Infants , because of their Analogy , I leave to your self to consider . You adde , And this our Lord himself taught us by his own example , who was circumcised as a professed member of the Church of the Jews , and when he set up the new Christian Church , he would be initiated into it by the Sacrament of Baptisme . It is confessed , that Christ was circumcised and baptized , but that it was to teach us by his example , either your conclusion , or the agreements between Baptisme and Circumcision which you set down , or that which next goes before your speech , the succession of the Lords Supper to the Passeover , remains yet to be proved , much more that which you drive at , that there is such a parity , or rather identity between Baptisme and Circumcision , that the command to circumcise Infants , is a command to baptize Infants . The circumcision of Christ was undoubtedly as his presenting in the Temple , and the offering for him to accomplish the Law , under which it pleased him to be made of a woman , Gal. 4.4 , 5. and it had a spirituall use to assure our circumcision in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh , Col. 2.11 . This is certain , we have cleare Scripture for it ; if you shall shew the like Scriptures for the inferences you make from Christs circumcision , I shall imbrace them with both arms . The Baptisme of Christ was that Christ might fulfill all righteousnesse , Mat. 3.15 . But how to expound this speech , hath not a little difficulty . Various conjectures there are about the meaning of it : this seems to me most likely , that righteousnesse is there taken for that which was appointed by God , either in secret instructions , or some particular Prophecy from God. But then if it be asked why God did appoint it , this seems most likely , sith it is plain that this was the time of Christs anointing with the Spirit , as appears , Luke 4.18 . that Baptisme was used to signifie his anointing by the Spirit for his great function he was then to enter on , which me thinks , the story it self , and the speech of Peter , Acts 10.37 , 38. do evince . That which you say , That being to set up the new Christian Church , he would be initiated into it by the Sacrament of Baptisme , seems not probable ; partly , because Christ did not set up in his own dayes on earth a visible Church , Discipline and Worship distinct from the Jewish ; partly , because his Baptisme was of a far higher nature then our Baptisme , Who was anointed with the oyl of gladnesse above his fellows , Heb. 1.9 . and therefore his Baptisme was of a transcendent nature above ours . But if it were granted that Christs Baptisme were to teach us , that he that is a member of the Church , must be initiated by baptisme , it will rather disadvantage your cause then advantage it , sith Christ , who was the holy One of God , and the Angel of the Covenant , and the seed of Abraham , in whom all the nations of the earth should be blessed , to whom the promises were made , in whom the Covenant was confirmed , Gal. 3.16 , 17. yet was not baptized , till he began to be about thirty yeers of age , Luke 3.23 . So that you see how little help you have from your parities , or Christs example to prove a like reason of circumcising and baptizing Infants . But you have yet another string to your bow , out of Col. 2.11 , 12. I will follow you to try the strength of that also . You say , of this conclusion , there i● no great doubt ▪ but bec●use some of the Anabaptists do deny the S●crament of Baptisme to succeed into the room , place , and use of Circumcision , be pleased to observe how plain the Apostle makes it , Col. 2.8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12. It is necessary that I should first consider in what sense your Position is to be taken , before I examine your proof for it . The thing that you say the Apostle makes plain , is that the Sacrament of Baptisme doth succeed in the room , place , and use of Circumcision : Succession properly notes a coming after another , as we say , Kings succeed one another , High priests one after another . To speak exactly , Baptisme ( I do not say the Sacrament of Baptisme ) was a concomitant of Circumcision , if not ancienter ; For it is well known , that Baptisme was in use among the Jews , in the initiating of Proselytes for many yeers together with circumcision , as may be seen in Selden , de jure naturali , & gentium juxta discipl . Heb. lib. 2. cap. 2 , 3 , 4. Ainsworth Annot. on Gen. 17. There is much of this in many Authors beside . But I suppose you cannot be ignorant of what Mr. Lightfoot hath in his Sermon , entituled Elias Redivivus , pag. 11. where he makes it as ancient as Jacob. Gratius Annot. in Mat. 3.6 . hath these words : Cum verò peregrini abluti & non circumcisi solis legibus tenerentur , quos Deus toti hominum generi dederat , intellectu facile est ablutionem hanc fuisse inter vetera instituta orta , ut arbitror , post magnum diluvium in memoriam purgati mundi : unde illud celebre apud Graecos , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , certe baptismum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 esse diluvio etiam in Petri Epistola legimus . But it may be the Sacrament of Baptisme came after ; neither is that in exactnesse of speech true , sith Circumcision was a great while in force after John began to baptize , which you will not deny to be the same Sacrament with ours . But let it be granted it succeeds , that is , comes after Circumcision , sith it continues now circumcision is taken away , yet the sense in which you can rightly make it succeed into the room , place , and use of Circumcision , will be brought into a narrow room , too strait to settle Baptisme of Infants in it . Room and place are properly either the same , or differ only as locus communis & proprius , common place and proper ; so Baptisme , which is an action , hath no place or room properly . If you mean by the room and place , the subjects to be baptized , or baptizing , it is not true , except in part ; some of the baptized and baptizers only were circumcised , and to be circumcised ; some that were not to be circumcised , as women , were to be baptized . If you mean by the room and place the society into which both persons were to be initiated , it is not true : For by the Sacrament of Baptisme , persons were to be baptized into the Christian Church , by Circumcision into the Jewish , as your own Conclusion saith . If you mean it of the commandment upon which both are seated , neither is that true : the commandement of Circumcision was many age● before Baptisme was instituted as a Sacrament . And for the succession into the use of Circumcision , that is yet more untrue . Your self say a few lines after . The use of Circumcision engaged men to the use of the rest of the Jewish Ceremonies . And page 29. It is true indeed , that circumcision bound them who received it , to conf●rm to that manner of administration of the Covenant , &c. And if you had not confessed it , it might have been proved out of Gal. 5.2 , 3. Acts 15.10 . from the custome in circumcising Proselytes , to bind them to the Lawes , not only common to all the Noachidae , but also to all the Laws of the Jews , as Selden , ubi supra , Ainsworth on Gen. 17. But I hope you will not dare to say , that Baptisme succeeds Circumcision in this use , if it do , then are we still bound to keep the Law of Moses . Another use of Circumcision , was to signifie Christ to come out of Abrahams family , I think you will not deny it ; if you should , I might plead against you , Col. 2.17 . Gal. 3.23 , &c. the institution of it to be in the males only of Abrahams family , by whom the Genealogy was to be reckoned , in the member for generation , the expressions of the Covenant confirmed by it , and the consent of innumerable learned men , both of the Jewes and Christians : And I think you will not say , Baptisme succeeds into this use of Circumcision : Another use of it was to be a partition wall between the Jews and Gentiles , to distinguish and divide them , whence the one were counted unclean , as uncircumcised , the other clean , Eph. 2.11.14 . but you will not say , that Baptisme succeeds into this use , sith the use of Baptisme is to the contra●y , Gal. 3.26 , 27 , 28. and surely these were the main uses of it . But you will say , there was use of circumcision for initiation into the Church of the Jews , and so of Baptisme . But then , though Baptisme do initiate as Circumcision , yet not into the same Church : For Circumcision did not initiate into any Church , but into the Church of the Jews , or rather into the family of Abraham ; but so doth not Baptisme . If it be said , that the one confirms the Covenant , and so doth the other ; still I answer , that Baptisme doth not confirm the same Covenant in every part that circumcision did : For the Covenant was a mixt Covenant , a great part whereof Baptisme doth not confirm . This is all that can be said , that they agree in that , as circumcision did confirm the spirituall part of the Covenant , to wit , righteousnesse by faith , Rom. 4.11 . and signified holinesse of heart ; so doth also Baptisme , the like whereof did the Cloud , Sea , Manna , the water out of the Rock , 1 Cor. 10.2 , 3 , 4. the Deluge or Ark , 1 Pet. 3.21 . the sprinkling of the blood of the Sacrifices ; and the same are confirmed by the Lords Supper ; and why then should we not say , that Baptisme succeeds the flood , sprinkling of blood , as well as Circumcision ; and that the Lords Supper succeeds Circumcision as well as Baptisme ? Wherefore I conceive your Proposition so generally delivered , That the Sacrament of Baptisme succeeds into the room , place , and use of Circumcision , erroneous and very dangerous . But how ever you think , the thing is plainly delivered , Col. 2.8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12. let us examine that Text then . You say thus : Where the Apostles scope is to disswade the believing Christians from the rudiments of the world , and Jewish ceremonies and observations upon this ground , that we are compleat in Christ , and that in him , as in the head , the Church hath all perfections . All this is very right , and the thing very well expressed by Beza , Addendum fuit istud ut non tantum sibi , & in sese , sed in nostrum etiam usum statuatur Christus esse talis & tantus , ut nihil in ipso desideretur , & in eo uno omnia nanciscamur ad veram , & salvificam Dei notitiam requisita : Co●plementum igitur in Christo adeptis quorsum vel humana sapientia , vel vanis hominum commentis , vel ceremoniis , ullo denique extra Christum ascito sit opus ? Annot. in Col. 2.10 . where mark that Beza rightly makes us so compleat in Christ , that there is no need of any thing added out of Christ in stead of those ceremonies . You go on ; and because he would take them wholly off from Circumcision , the use whereof engaged them to the use of the rest of Jewish ceremonies ; he tells them that in Christ we are circumcised with circumcision made without hands , a better circumcision then the Jews was , in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh , by the circumcision of Christ. You say rightly : First , that the Apostle would take them off wholly from circumcision , therefore not teach them that they had another Ordinance in stead of it , by vertue of that command : Secondly , That the use of circumcision , ingaged them to the use of the rest of the Jewish ceremonies , and therefore that Baptisme succeeds not in the use of Circumcision : Thirdly , In Christ we are circumcised with a circumcision made without hands , a better circumcision then the Jews was , in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh , by the circumcision of Christ , and therefore we have circumcision not in another Ordinance , but in Christ and his circumcision . You go on ; and whereas the Jewish teachers would be ready to object , that the receiving of the inward grace of circumcision , did not make them so compleat as Abraham , and his seed was , because they also had an outward sensible signe whereby they might be further perswaded , comforted and confirmed . This is but a conceit that either the Jews were ready thus to object , or the Apostle intended to answer such an objection . The intent of the Apostle is to declare in what way and manner , and by what means they became compleat in Christ , to wit , Baptisme and Faith , whereby they had communion with Christ , and so were compleat in him . But you say , To this he answers , vers . 12. that neither is this priviledge wanting to Christians who have as excellent and expresse a Sacrament of it , being buried with Christ in Baptisme ; the effect whereof he there sets down , and therefore they needed not circumcision as their false teachers insinuated , thereby directly teaching that our Baptisme is in stead of their circumcision . It is true , the Apostle teacheth them that they needed not circumcision , but not because they had Baptisme in lieu of it , but because all was in Christ now , who hath abolished all these rites , or taken them away quite , vers . 14. as being but shadows of good things to come , and the body is of Christ , vers . 17. in whom , and in that which befell him all was accomplished . And Aretius therefore in his Comment on Colos. 2. saith rightly in this ; not a rem ipsam vindicari sanctis sine externo symbolo ; quod tamen indesinenter urgebant advers●rii ; s●c Rom. 2.29 . & Phil. 3.3 . Atque hoc beneficium in Christo habemus : est igitur perfectum organum salutis , note that the thing it self is asserted to the Saints without an outward symbole , which yet the adversaries incessantly urged : so Rom. 2.29 . and Phil. 3.3 . and this benefit we have in Christ , he is therefore a perfect organ of salvation ; so that it is utterly against the Apostles scope and whole argument to say , that therefore they needed not circumcision , because they had another Ordinance in the room of it . For the Apostles intent is plain , to shew , that Christ is in stead of Circumcision , and all the rest of the Jewish ceremonies . and the truth is by this doctrine , that Baptisme is in stead of Circumcision , the Apostles argument for the disanulling the Jewish ceremonies , both here , and Hebr. 9. & 10.1 . & 13. in the Epistle to the Galatians , chap. 3. & 4. and Ephes. 2. is quite evacuated , who still useth this argument to prove the abolition of the ceremonies of the Law , because they have their complement in Christ , not in some new Ordinance added in stead of them ; for if there be need of other Ordinances ( besides Christ ) in stead of the old , then Christ hath not in himself fulnesse enough to supply the want of them , and this abolition is not because of Christs fulnesse , but other Ordinances that come in stead of the abolished . And indeed , Baptisme and the Lords Supper , though they be Ordinances of Christ that may imitate or resemble the Ordinances of the Jews , yet it cannot be said they succeed into the roome , place , or use of them : For Christ only , and that which he did , doth so succeed : So that if things be well weighed , this Text is against your Position , not for it , and so your Ordinance is turned against you . You go on ; And the Analogy lies between two sacramentall types of the same substance [ regeneration ] to both Jews and Gentiles . I deny not but that there is Analogy between Circumcision and Baptisme , and so there is between the Deluge and Noahs Ark , or deliverance from the Deluge and Baptisme , 1 Pet. 3.21 . they do resemble each other in some things . But we are not to conclude thence , that Baptisme succeeds into the roome , place , and use of Noahs Ark , or that therfore we are to baptize married persons only , because in Noahs Ark only married persons were saved : For in the administration of an Ordinance , we are not to be ruled by bare Analogy , either framed by us , or delivered by the Spirit of God , but the institution of God. But the truth is , in this place , Col. 2.11 , 12. the Apostle rather resembles buriall to circumcision , then baptisme , and so makes the Analogy not between Circumcision and Baptisme , but circumcision and Christs buriall . And so Chrysostome on the place , and after him Theophylact , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , and what he calls circumcision , he again calls buriall . You proceed thus : And in truth , had not baptisme come in the roome of it , the Apostle could not have pitched upon a worse instance then Circumcision , which was so much valued by them , and was so great and usefull a priviledge to them . It is true , circumcision was a great and usefull priviledge to them , in that estate they were before Christs incarnation , in comparison of Heathens , who had not a School-master to bring them to Christ , yet absolutely it was a burthen and heavie yoak , Act. 15.10.28 . and it would be a burthen , not a priviledge , for us to have an Ordinance in the roome , place , and use of it , now Christ is come , in whom we are compleat . And it is true , the Apostle pitched on circumcision , vers . 11. because the Jews much valued it , but not to shew , as you say , that Baptisme is in the roome , pl●ce , and use of it , but to shew , that in Christ we have circumcision , and are compleat in him . You close up this conclusion thus : Nor had there been any reason to have here named Baptisme , but that he meant to shew Baptisme to Christians was now in the roome of circumcision to the Jewes . This is said with more confidence , then truth : For another reason is plain from the context ; that therefore Baptisme is named , because it is one of the means by which Christians come to have communion with Christ , and to be compleat in him , which was the thing the Apostle intended in the 12th verse , and therefore he joynes faith with Baptisme , they being the two speciall means whereby we come to have communion with Christ , and to be compleat in him . And this is further confirmed by comparing this with other Scriptures : Gal. 3.25 , 26 , 27. the Apostle speaks thus : But after faith is come , we are no longer under a Schoolmaster , meaning Circumcision , &c. For we are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus : For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ , have put on Christ ; which Text is apparently answerable to Col. 2.8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12. And again , Rom. 6.3 , 4 , 5. Know you not that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ , were baptized into his death ? therefore are we buried with him , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , by baptisme into death , that like as Christ was raised up from the dead , by the glory of the Father , even so we also should walk in newnesse of life : For if we have been planted together in the likenesse of his death , we shall be also in the likenesse of his resurrection . In which places you may easily perceive , that by putting on Christ , we come to be exempted from the Schoolmaster , that is , the Law , and so from Circumcision ; that being planted into Christ , we walk in newnesse of life , that is , as Rom. 7.6 . that now we are delivered from the Law , that being dead wherein we were held , that we should serve in newnesse of spirit , and not in the oldnesse of the letter ; and that the means hereof , is by Baptisme by which we put on Christ , and are baptized into his death , and by faith , whereby we are no longer children under age , but sons come to their inheritance . Thus have I at last , waded through your third Conclusion , and the Text , Col. 2.11 , 12. the misunderstanding of which hath been the ignis fatuus , foolish fire , which hath led men out of the way in this matter into bogs . YOur fourth Conclusion followes ; That by Gods own expresse order , Infants as well as grown men were in the time of the Jews 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 th● Covenant , they and their children were circumcised . It is true , this was Gods expresse order , and it is as certain that this expresse order of God is now revoked , or repealed , Acts 15.10.20.26 . Gal. 5.1 , 2 , 3. as belonging to that administration , which was before Christ came . That which you adde of the females virtuall circumcision in the males , hath been examined before . I passe on to that which followes : And whereas some , who see which way the strength of this Conclusion tendeth , do alledge , that though Circumcision was to be applyed to their Infants , yet it was not as a seal of the spirituall part of the Covenant of Grace , but as a nationall badge , a seal of some temporall and earthly blessings and priviledges , as of their right to the Land of Canaan , &c. And that Ishmael , though he was circum●ised for some temporall respects , yet he was not thereby brought under the Covenant of Grace , which was expresly said to be made with Abraham , in relation to Isaac and his seed . They that thus object , speak that which is truth , only whereas you make the objectors say , That it was not a seal of the spirituall part of the covenant of Grace , I would say , to all that were circumcised ; and when you say , but as a nationall badge , &c. that Ishmael was circumcised for some temporall respects , I would leave out those words , and say , because God commanded it . Thus did I expresse my self in my Latin paper , affirming , that not right to Euangelicall promises , I now adde , nor right to any other benefit by the Covenant made with Abraham , was the proper and adequate reason , why these , or those were circumcised , but Gods Precept : For as much as persons were to be circumcised , who had no right , either to the Euangelicall promises , or any other in that Covenant which was confirmed by circumcision ; and I named Ishmael , concerning whom , though God heard Abraham in giving him some blessing upon Abrahams prayer , when he understood the promise was not intended for Ishmael , but to Isaac , Gen. 17.19 , 20. yet he expresly added his determination to hold , vers . 21. that he would establish his Covenant with Isaac , not with Ishmael : and on the other side , all the females in the Covenant were uncircumcised , though some of them had right to all the promises in the Covenant ; and the Text expresly makes the reason of what Abraham did to be Gods appointment , v. 23. and no other . Wherefore those that say , that Circumcision did not seal the spirituall part of the Covenant of Grace to all , and that Ishmael was not by circumcision brought under the Covenant of Grace , say no more , then what the Apostle saith , Rom. 9.6 , 7 , 8. Gal. 4.28 , 29. and your self , pag. 13. where you say , only true believers are made partakers of the spirituall part of the Covenant . Now the end of this objection , is to prove that it followes not , because a person was appointed to be circumcised , therefore he was within the Covenant of Grace , or that because persons were within the Covenant of Grace , therefore they were to be circumcised . Let us now see what you answer to this . You say , I answer there is nothing plainer , then that the Covenant , whereof Circumcision was a signe , was the Covenant of Grace . It is granted , that the Covenant made with Abraham , Gen. 17. was the Covenant of Grace , though not a pure Covenant , but a mixt covenant . But what then ? Doth it follow , that every one that was circumcised , was in the Covenant of Grace ? It is true , the sacrifices did confirm the Covenant in Christs blood ; but it doth not follow , that all that did offer sacrifices were partakers of the Covenant . The like may be said of Baptisme , the Lords Supper , Manna , &c. which they that did partake of , yet were not all of them in the Covenant , as the Apostle shews , 1 Cor. 10.5 . Heb. 3.18 , 19. It is one thing to be under the outward administration , another thing to be in the covenant of Grace . This is proper only to elect persons , the other is common to Elect and Reprobate , and depends meerly on Gods appointment without any other consideration . You go on , Abraham received circumcision , a signe of the righteousnesse of Faith : Very true , and the Apostle expoundeth this , when he saith , which he had , yet being uncircumcised , that he might be the father of all them that believe , though they be not circumcised , that righteousnesse might be imputed to them also , Rom. 4.11 . So that the Apostle makes Circumcision a seal of righteousnesse , but not to all , or only circumcised persons , but to all believers , whether Jews or Gentiles ; so that according to the Apostles doctrine , Circumcision , in as much as it sealed to Abraham the righteousnesse of faith , which he had , being yet uncircumcised , i● a seal to the Gentiles that believe of the righteousnesse of faith , though they be never circumcised . So that it is so far from being true , that persons have the promise , therefore they must have the seal in their persons ; that it followes , persons have the promise , therefore they have the seal in Abraham , though they never are , nor may be sealed in their own persons . You go on , and the Jewes received it not as a Nation , but as a Church , as a people separated from the world , and taken into covenant with God. If you take [ as ] with reduplication , it is true , that neither the Jewes received circumcision as a Nation , for then every nation should receive it , nor as a Church or people separated from the world , and taken into covenant with God , for then every Church or people separated from the world , and taken into covenant with God should receive circumcision , which is false , but they received it as appointed them from God , under this formall reason , and no other . But what is all this to the answering the objection , That it was not the seal of the spirituall part of the Covenant of Grace to all circumcised persons , and that circumcision was appointed to persons not under the Covenant of Grace , and that the reason why persons were circumcised , was not because they were under the covenant of Grace , but only Gods appointment ? But you yet adde , It is true indeed that circumcision bound them who received it to conform to that manner of administration of the covenant which was carried much by a way of temporall blessings and punishments , they being types of spirituall things . It is right which you grant , that circumcision bound them who received it to conform to that manner of administration of the covenant , but then it is to be considered , that circumcision was a part of this administration ; and that though temporall blessings , as of the land of Canaan , and rest in it , were shadows of the rest of Gods people , and so in a sort of administrations of the covenant of Grace , yet they were also part of the things promised in the covenant made to Abraham ; and when you say , circumcision bound them who received it , to conform to that manner of administration of the covenant which was carried much by a way of temporall blessings and punishments ; it is hard to shew in what sense they were bound to conform to temporall blessings and punishments : they were bound to conform to the sacrifices and offerings , and washings , &c. For these were their acts to be done by them , but how they were bound to conform to the administration by temporall blessings and punishments , it is hard to understand , sith they were Gods acts , not theirs . You adde , but no man can ever shew , that any were to receive the Sacrament of Circumcision , in relation to those outward things only , or to them at all , further then they were administrations of the Covenant of Grace . The truth is , no man was to receive the Sacrament of Circumcision in relation to these outward things only , or to them at all , either as they were temporall blessings or types of spirituall things , and so , as you speak , administrations of the covenant of Grace , but in this respect only , and for this reason , and no other , because God had so commanded ; though I deny not circumcised persons were by faith to look on the covenant of Grace through these administrations , yet the reason of being circumcised was barely Gods command ; so that if you abstract Gods command , notwithstanding the covenant , or any other administration of it , they were not to be circumcised : You go on : Sure I am , the proselytes and their children could not be circumcised in any relation at all to the temporall blessings of the land of Canaan , as they were temporall , because notwithstanding their circumcision , they were not capable of receiving or purchasing any inheritance at all in the land , sojourne they might as other strangers also did , but the inheritance of the land , no not one foot of it could ever be alienated from the severall Tribes to whom it was distributed , as their Possession by the most High : For all the land was divided into twelve Tribes , and they were not any one of them allowed to sell their lands , longer then till the yeer of Jubilee , Lev. 25. v. 3. &c. Yea , I m●y boldly s●y , that their circumcision was so far from sealing to them the outward good things of the land , that it occasioned and tyed them to a greater expence of their temporall blessings , by their long and frequent and chargeable journyes to worship at Jerusalem : This which you say may be granted , and the thing which you would prove by it , That they which received circumcision , did not receive it in relation only to these outward things , yet this overthrows not this Proposition , That the covenant made with Abraham had promises of temporall blessings , and that some were to be circumcised , who had no part in the covenant of Grace . You adde : And as for what was alledged concerning Ishmael , the Answer is easie ; God indeed there declares , that Isaac should be the Type of Christ , and that the covenant of Grace should be established , and continue in his family , yet both Ishmael and the rest of Abrahams family were really taken into covenant untill afterwards by apostasie they discovenanted themselves , as also did Esau afterwards , though he were the son of Isaac , in whose family God had promised the covenant should continue . When you say , that Ishmael was really taken into the covenant , meaning , of Grace , mentioned in a few words before , you oppose both the Apostle , Rom. 9.7 , 8. Gal. 4.28 , 29. as I have shewed before , and Gods own speech , Gen. 17.19 , 20. To which I may adde , that Isaac and Jacob only are said to be coheirs with Abraham of the same promise , Heb. 11.9 . And when you say , that he and Esau were discovenanted by apostasie : you plainly deliver apostasie from the covenant of Grace , which I will not call in you Arminianisme , but in others it would , and that justly be so censured . But you will say , you mean that Ishmael and Esau were Abrahams seed by profession , and outward cleaving to the covenant , as you speak , pag. 14. But this is not to be taken into the covenant of Grace really , as you speak ; for taking really into the covenant of Grace , is Gods act , either of election ▪ or promise , or some act executing either of these ; but profession and outward cleaving to the covenant is mans act ; and therefore , how to salve your speech I know not . As for the objection , I see not that you have answered it , but that still it stands good , that persons were to be circumcised , who were not in the covenant of Grace , that Ishmael was appointed to be circumcised , though it were declared Gods covenant did not belong to him ; and therefore the reason of circumcising persons , was not the covenant of Grace , but only the will and command of God to have it so . Your fifth Conclusion followes . FIfthly , and lastly , the priviledges of Believers under this last and best administration of the covenant of Grace , are many wayes inlarged , made more honourable and comfortable then ever they were in the time of the Jews administration . This Conclusion , with its Explication and Application , have all their vigour in ambiguity of speech ; as the strength of the Coney is in its burrow ; which , that I may uncover , I must distinctly declare , what is to be held in this matter , and then examine what you say . Priviledge is a Law term , the Etymologie is , Privilegium quasi priva lex , quia veteres priva dixerunt , quae nos singula dicimus : Priviledge , as it were a private law , because the ancients called those things private , which we call singular , Gel. noct . Attic. lib. 10. cap. 20. Joh. Calvinus Wett . in his Lexicon Juridicum voce privilegium . Privilegium alii sic definiunt , jus singulare in certae personae gratiam favoremve , others so define a priviledge , a singular right in favour of a certain person ; so that a priviledge is a particular law , whereby some persons have benefit different from common right . Calvin ibid. Item beneficium dicitur privilegium quia benè facit iis quibus conceditur contra legem communem , likewise a priviledge is called a benefit , because it benefits those to whom it is granted , against the common law . If it do not benefit , it is not a priviledge ; Priviledges therefore may be priviledges at one time , which are not at another time : and in comparison of some which are not priviledges in comparison of others . To have Christ personally present with the Disciples , was a priviledge for the time , but it was a priviledge that he was absent , when he went to heaven , and sent his Spirit to them : The Lawes delivered to the Jews were priviledges in comparison of the Heathen , but not in comparison of Christians . Priviledges of the covenant of Grace may be conceived , either in respect of the substance of the covenant of Grace , or the administration . Now , when you speak of priviledges of the covenant of Grace , some passages s●em to mean it in respect of the promises of grace in Christ , as when you say , Our covenant is established upon better promises , we as well as they are called a holy nation , &c. not only in the clearnesse of the administration , but also , &c. And those especially which you have when you say , pag. 31. We are inquiring for priviledges , which are branches of the Covenant of Grace , which every man that is in covenant with God , may expect from God , by vertue of the Covenant , which cannot be understood but of the promises . Now the promises of the covenant of Grace , are of the substance of the covenant , not of the administration : But other passages refer to the administration . That yoak , that hard and costly way of administration , which neither they nor their fathers were able to bear , is taken off from our shoulders , the glory of theirs had no glory in respect of ours , they were under the bondage of Infants under age , in comparison of our freedome ; which things belong to the administration , pag. 10.12 . Now , if you mean your conclusion of priviledges of the substance of the covenant of Grace , it is to be denied : For so the priviledges of believers are not now inlarged many wayes , or made more honourable or comfortable . Your self , pag. 9.10.12 . say , they are the same to both Jews and Gentiles : but in respect of the administration , it is granted they are many wayes inlarged , made more honourable ; and in this sense , I grant it , that many Scriptures speak of the inlargement of our priviledges , and particularly , those that speak of the removing the hard yoak , Acts 15.10 . and bringing us into liberty to full age , Gal. 4.1 . and greater glory , 2 Cor. 3.10 . And it is true that those things were priviledges to the Israelites , but it is a benefit to us , that we are freed from them , and so no priviledge for us , either to have them or any other thing in lieu of them , but Christ already come , who is in stead of all . Now the thing that you drive at , is this : that whereas you conceive that you have proved before , that the Infants of those that are in the covenant of Grace , are covenanters with their parents ; that Baptisme succeeds in the roome and use of their circumcision , that by Gods expresse order , Infants were to be circumcised . You lastly conclude , that our priviledges for our selves and children , are at least as honourable , large and comfortable , as theirs , and therefore our Infants are to be baptized . The answer to it is this : It is true , our priviledge is the same with theirs in respect of the substance of the covenant , but neither was that made to the Jews naturall posterity as such , nor is it made to ours . As for Circumcision , it was indeed a priviledge , but belonging to the manner of administration not to the substance of the covenant which is in variable , a priviledge to the Jews in comparison of the Heathens , but a burthen in comparison of us ; and it is so far from being a priviledge to our children , that they should have either it or any other thing in the place and use of it , but Christ manifested in the flesh , that the truth is , it is a great priviledge to us and our children , that they have neither it , nor any other thing in the stead of it but Christ manifested in the flesh : And so parents loose nothing by denying Baptism to Infants in the place & use of circumcision ; but it is indeed , if rightly considered , a benefit to them to want it , God not appointing it , nor making a promise of grace to be confirmed by it to the Infants of Believers . Having premised this , I shall examine the proofs of your conclusion , and see whether they make any thing against that which I have delivered . The thing you should prove , is one of these two : either that circumcision did belong to the substance of the covenant of Grace , or , that the want of Circumcision , or some Ordinance in the place and use of it , is a losse of priviledge of the covenant of Grace to us and our children . That which you alledge is this : Many Scriptures speak of the inlargement of their priviledges , not one for the diminishing or depressing or extenuating of them ; that yoak , that hard and costly way of administration , which neither they nor their fathers were able to bear , is taken off from our shoulders . True , and by this , you yeeld that it may be an inlargement of priviledge to have somewhat removed that was a priviledge formerly . The Scripture to which you allude , is that , Acts 15.10 . Now I pray you , what was this yoak , but circumcision , as your self declare , pag. 39. and all the legall ceremonies which were great priviledges to the Jews ; but yet to us it is a priviledge that we are freed from them , and if it be a priviledge to be fre● from circumcision , it is a priviledge to be freed from any ordinance in the roome , place , and use of it . Lastly , in that Circumcision is taken off from our necks , it appears , that it belongs not to the covenant of Grace , which is invariable , and belongs to Gentiles as well as to Jewes , according to your conclusion . The next Scripture you bring , is Heb. 8.6 . where our covenant is said to be established upon better promises . If this Scripture serve to your purpose , then the covenant of Grace now hath better promises then the covenant of Grace the Jews had : but this I know you will deny , who hold that the covenant of Grace is the same both to Jews and Gentiles . But that you may see how confusedly you thrust things together in this place , I pray you consider what covenant it is of which the Author to the Hebrewes speaks there , that it had not so good promises ; Is it not expresly said to be that which God made , when he took the Israelites by the hand , to bring them out of the land of Egypt , which covenant they brake , vers . 9. Now , although Dr. Crisp , vol. 2. Serm. 2. calls the covenant of Aarons Priestood a covenant of Grace , though of lesse grace ; yet you say thus , pag. 10. and four hundred and thirty yeers after the Law was added , with great terror upon Mount Sinai , not as a part of this covenant ; and after , plainly in that giving of the Law there was something of the covenant of works made with Adam in Paradise , &c. So that you do grant there was a rehearsall of the covenant of works ; though you do make it also to have something of the administration of the covenant of Grace . The truth is , the Scripture plainly makes it the covenant of works , Rom. 10.5 . Gal. 3.10.12 . Gal. 4.24 . Heb. 12.18 . though I deny not that which you say , that it was intended as a preparative and means to fit them for Christ , and therefore may not unfitly be called foedus subserviens , a subservient covenant , as Cameron in his Theses de triplici foed●re . But this being so , to what purpose do you tell us , that our covenant is established upon better promises ; as if the Jewes covenant were no better then that on Mount Sinai , or as if the comparison concerning priviledges were between the covenant of Grace now , and the covenant of Works then ; whereas the question is , as you say , page 31. which are branches of the covenant of Grace , and a little after , but were no part of the covenant of Grace , which God made to Abraham and his seed . Now the covenant of Grace is that made with Abraham , Gal. 3.15 , &c. as your self alledge , pag. 10. and you say there , that covenant was for substance alwayes the same , and the substance as you recite it , is the promises and the condition ; so that out of your own words it is clear , that we have no better promises in the covenant of Grace now , then they had then , only the administration of the covenant of grace is now better then it was to them ; then it was mixt with other particular promises , which because they are not cōmon to al believers in the covenant of grace , therfore belong not to the covenant of Grace in Christ purely taken , such as the promise of deliverance from Egypt , setling in Canaan , &c. For though it is true , that godlinesse hath the promise of the life that now is , and of that which is to come , yet the promise of the life that now is , is not a particular promise of possession of such or such a land to us or our seed , or the coming of Christ out of our posteritie , as it was then , but only a generall promise of Gods providing for his children with persecution , Mark. 10.30 . Then it was with expectation of Christ to come , now with assurance of Christ already come in the flesh , and accomplishing what was foretold of him ; then Christ was shadowed in darke types , now wee see him unveiled in a plaine history . So that though it be true that the priviledges of believers are now many wayes inlarged in some respects , yet simply the Covenant of Grace is not inlarged in respect of the substance of it , the promises of Grace and the condition , they are still belonging to the Elect and believers , and to no other . The next Scripture you thus express . The glory of theirs had no glory in respect of ours ; for this you quote 2 Cor. 3.10 . But this passage is plainly meant of the Covenant at Mount Sinai , which is called the letter , ver . 6. The ministration of death written and ingraven in stones so glorious , that the children of Israel could not stedfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance , which glory was to be done away , ver . 7. The ministration of condemnation , ver . 9. Which I suppose you doe not understand of the Covenant of Grace , and therefore it is impertinently alledged . Your next is , they were under the bondage of Infants under age in comparison of our freedome . For this you alledge , Gal. 4.1 . &c. But this is said of the administration in types and shadows and ceremonies , called the rudiments of the world , ver . 3. Concerning which it is confessed our priviledges are enlarged : but they are not branches of the Covenant of Grace , which every man who is in Covenant with God may expect from God by vertue of the Covenant . You goe on , We as well as they are called a holy Nation , a peculiar people , a chosen Generation , separated to him from all other people : It is granted we believers are such a holy Nation , &c. doth it therefore follow , that the priviledges of beleevers under this last and best administration of the Covenant of Grace are many wayes enlarged ? You allude to that place , 1 Pet. 2.9 . and Mr Blake , pag. 8. urgeth this text to prove a birthright priviledge of Christians , equall to the Nations of the Jewes . But it is answered , this passage is meant of the invisible Church , the living & lively members of Christ. To which he saith . The contrary to this in the Text is cleare . First , by looking back to the words that there precede : It is meant of all those who do not professedly with the unbelieving Jewes reject Christ. I have looked backe and finde no such thing there . It is true , there is mention of some who did reject Christ , ver . 7 , 8. But that when Peter sayes , yee are a chosen Generation , a royall Priesthood , &c. it should be meant of any other then true believers , who alone can offer spirituall sacrifice acceptable to God through Jesus Christ , is an interpretation which I disclaime , much more that it should be meant of all those who do not professedly with the unbelieving Jewes reject Jesus Christ. For then it may be said , not onely of Simon Magus , and other hypocrites , but also of all the salvages in the world that never heard of Christ , that they are a chosen Generation , a royall Pries●hood , an holy Nation , a peculiar people , that they should shew forth the praise of him , who hath called them out of darkness into his marvailous light . Mr Blake addes , Which will yet more fully appeare by comparing the words of S t Paul , Rom. 9.32 , 33. I desire Mr Blake to revise his Treatise , and to examine whether this and many other passages answer to Mr Vines , and others commendation of it . To me the Text he cites Rom. 9.32 , 33. compared with 1 Pet. 2.9 . doe as well agree to prove that 1 Pet. 2.9 . is meant of all those who doe not professedly with the unbelieving Jewes reject Christ , as a harp and a harrow doe consort to make musique . But perhaps wee may see more by looking forward . Secondly , saith Mr Blake , by looking forward to that which followes in the character which the Apostle ( before he ends his description ) addes : which in times past were not a people , but now are the people of God. A speech taken from the Prophet to set forth the case of the Gentiles , as it is also by S t Paul interpreted , Rom. 9.26 . but the Gentiles thus called , and of no people made a people , have all a Covenant-holiness , and not alwayes inherent holiness . Sure the word nation and people , did so run in Mr Blakes mind , that he could thinke of nothing but a nationall Church like the Jewes ; whereas if he had weighed the words , ver . 10. of having obtained mercy , and considered that both Rom. 9.25 . & 26. are meant of the same , of whom he said ver . 23. that they were the vessels of mercy , which he had afore prepared unto glory , he would have plainly perceived the people and nation to be meant of the invisible Church of the Elect , and so nothing in that Text for the holiness of a believing Nation , as some speake , communicating a priviledge of the seales to the infants of that Nation : which how absurd a conceit it is , may be shewed perhaps more fully in that which followes . You adde to whom as well as to them belongs the adoption , the Covenant , the promises . You allude doubtless to Rom. 9.4 . but had you alledged the whole Text , ver . 3 , 4 , 5. you would then have seen that it speakes of peculiar priviledges of the Jewes , to whom the adoption , Covenants , that is , as Beza thinkes , the tables of the Covenant , the promises of their multiplying , having the Messiah from them , &c. were peculiar in the sense the Apostle there speakes : And so Mr Rutherfurd due right of Presbyteries , Chap. 4. sect . 5. pag. 192. That they had prerogatives above us is cleare , Rom. 3.1 , 2 , 3. Rom. 9.4 . and that in other respects far more excellent we have prerogatives above them it is as cleare , 2 Cor. 3.7 , 8 , 9. Mat. 13.16 , 17. So that even in respect of the Covenant made with Abraham it is plaine the Jewes had some priviledges above us , and therefore this place proves the contrary to your conclusion , and that the want of some priviledges they had , may be recompensed by some other priviledges we have : And therefore you may see how feeble a reason this is from the Jewish priviledge of infant-males circumcision to prove infant-Baptisme . But to follow you in your way . You say , we as well as they injoy him to be our Father , and with his dearest Sonne our Lord are made co-heires of the Kingdome of Glory . All this is granted , but to what purpose it is produced I see not . You adde , we have all these things with advantage , not onely in the clearnesse of the administration , but in some sense in greater extent to persons with us ; there is neither male nor female . This is true also , we have the substance of the Covenant of Grace , that is , justification , &c. with advantage not only in the clearness of administration , but in some sense in greater extent to persons with us . For now not only the small Nation of the Jewes , but also of all Nations , believers are brought into the Covenant of Grace . But this proves not your conclusion , or any of those things that may serve for your purpose . You adde . And there is neither male nor female . Why you adde this I know not , except you mean to insinuate , that in the Jewish Church there was male and female , because Circumcision was onely of Males . But neither doth the Apostle , Gal. 3.28 . intimate , that wee are better than the Jewes , as if their females were not within the Covenant of Grace , nor will you say it . Now that which you were speaking of , was the substance of the Covenant of Grace , that wee are made co-heires of the Kingdome of Glory , &c. not of the administration of it , and so there was no more distinction of male and female with the Jewes then with us , nor more priviledges of ours then of the Jewes in this particular . Thus have I examined all the proofes you bring for your fifth Conclusion , and thereby you may perceive how you have heaped together many places of Scripture , without any usefull order or distinction or pertinency to the thing in hand . You bring in next an objection thus ; Some indeed goe about to shew , that in some things the Jewes had greater priviledges then we have , as that Abraham had the priviledge to be called the Father of the Faithfull , that Christ should be borne of his flesh ; Mary had the priviledge to be the Mother of Christ , and the whole Nation this priviledge , that God will call in their seed againe , after they had been cast off for unbeliefe many hundred yeares ; which priviledges , say they , none of the Gentiles have or can have . It is true , that in answer to the argument from Circumcision , as it is popularly framed ( which yet I perceive many that either are or should be scholars to examine things more scholastically , do or pretend to satisfie their consciences with ) thus ; If the children of believers be not to be baptized , then we have less priviledge then the Jewes ; then the Grace of God under the new Testament , is straitned more then in the old . To this argument as being an argument of no weight , but onely among vulgar and non-syllogizing capacities , among other things I said thus in my Latin paper above mentioned , Nec absurdum est dicere respectu aliquorum privilegiorum gratiam Dei contractiorem in novo Testamento , quàm in veteri , v. gr . Nulla familia habet privilegium quod Abrahami familiae concessum est , ut ex ea nasceretur Christus , nullus vir praeter Abrahamum pater fidelium , nulla faemina praeter unicam mater Christi , &c. Yet it is not absurd to say , that in respect of some priviledges the grace of God is more contracted in the new Testament , then in the old : For instance ; no family hath now the priviledge that was granted to Abrahams family , that out of it Christ should be borne : no man besides Abraham is called the Father of the faithfull ; no woman besides one , the mother of Christ. By which I would shew , that it is no absurditie to grant that the Jewes may have more priviledges secundum quid , in some things , then wee , and yet our case and condition , to speak simply , better then theirs , by reason of other priviledges we have above them , which recompence the defect of those priviledges , whether real or supposed , which is the very same which as Robinson did alledge , so Rutherford grants in the place above-named , and cites two Scriptures to prove it , Rom. 3.1 , 2 , 3. Rom. 9.4 . And the truth is , priviledges are so arbitrary and various , that God gives them as he thinkes good , oft times without assigning any special reason , so that no argument can be drawne thus . God gave such a priviledge to the Jewes , Ergo , we must have such a priviledge too , except we can prove it is Gods will it should be so . And therefore this Argument is of no force , but rather an argument of arrogant presumption , without an institution to attempt to prove , that because the Jewes had a priviledge to circumcise infants , therefore we must have a priviledge to baptize infants , nor doe any of the many Scriptures you have alledged , prove that Baptisme of infants is a priviledge granted by God in lieu of Circumcision : But you take upon you to answer this objection . You say , but these things have no weight : we are inquiring for priviledges which are branches of the Covenant of Grace , which every man who is in Covenant with God , may expect from God by vertue of the Covenant , were he a Jew or a proselyte , not for any particular or peculiar favour to a particular man or woman , or family , or tribe : All these forementioned things , and many other of the like kind ( as the ministery of the Tabernacle & Temple to belong to one Tribe , the Kingly office to one family , such and such men never to lacke a man of their house to stand and before God ) proceeded indeed from free grace , but were no parts of the Covenant of Grace , which God made to Abraham and all his seed . For could every man in Covenant challenge these things at Gods hand , and that by vertue of the Covenant ? Could every one of them promise that Christ should be borne of his flesh ? or every one of their women that shee should be the mother of Christ ? Could every one whom God owned to be in Covenant with him , promise by vertue of the Covenant , that their Children , if cast off by unbeliefe , should after many hundred yeares be againe called in ? We speak onely of such priviledges as were universall and common to all who were in Covenant , for which by vertue of the Covenant they might relie upon God. Though you say , the things objected have no weight , yet it may seeme they are so heavy & presse your conclusion so hard , as that you cannot well ease it of them . The things objected , you deny not : but you answer , that they are impertinent : you tell us why , because you enquire for priviledges which are branches of the Covenant of Grace , common to all in Covenant , which they may challenge at Gods hand by vertue of the Covenant , and such are not these . It is not materiall what you inquire after , men may sectari Aquilam in nubibus , follow after an Eagle in the Clouds . But sure I am the Scriptures you bring , prove not that believers now have more priviledges belonging to the Covenant of grace , which all may challenge at Gods hands , then the Jewes had . Yea your second conclusion contradicts your fifth , understood in this sense . Beside , Circumcision was not a priviledge common to all in the Covenant of Grace : For besides all the faithfull before Abraham , and those of his time , Melchisedeck , and Lot , and their households , and Job after his time , there was a sort of proselytes , called strangers , or of the gate , who were not circumcised , yet the Scripture reckons them among the worshippers of God. Such is Cornelius conceived to be by Mede in his discourse on Acts 17.4 . by Selden lib. 2. de jure nat . & Gent. c. 4. who is said to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , a godly or devout man , and one that feared God with all his house , which gave much almes to the people , and prayed to God alwayes , Act. 10.2 . and therefore within the Covenant of Grace . Besides the priviledges alledged in the objection doe some of them at least belong to the Covenant of Grace as well as Circumcision , as to be Father of the faithfull , to be the Mother of Christ , and the last belongs much more to the Covenant of Grace then circumcision . And those Rom. 9.4 . are priviledges which you alledge as belonging to the Covenant of Grace , to which I may joyne that Rom. 3.2 . that to them were committed the Oracles of God , which yet were prerogatives of the Jewes , as Mr Rutherford rightly and according to truth . Lastly , the phrases , Rom. 11.21 . of the naturall branches , ver . 24. of the wild Olive by nature , thou wast graffed in besides nature , these according to nature , doe seeme to me to import , not that the Jewes were in the Covenant of Grace by nature , but that they had this priviledge to be reckoned in the outward administration , as branches of the olive by their birth , by vertue of Gods appointment which the Gentiles have not . But you goe on . Let any m●n shew out of the Scripture , where our priviledges under the Gospel are cut short in any of these things , and be saith somewhat , and in particular for the case in hand , concerning our infants right to the Covenant of Grace , and the seale of it : Once we are sure the infant children of all Covenanters were within the Covenant , and the seale also belonged to them , and by vertue of the Covenant ( which is still the same ) we plead their interest in it . Let any man shew when and where this was taken away , when the infant children of believers were expunged out of the Covenant of grace . It is unreasonable to require men to shew what they doe not avouch ; it were equall to exact this taske at the hands of those who doe expunge the infant children of believers out of the Covenant of Grace : we neither write in nor expunge out ; but leave that to God onely , from whom we learne , Esau have I hated , Jacob have I loved . Though you thinke your selfe sure , that all the infants of Covenanters were within the Covenant of Grace , yet I see no cause to believe you , for as much as I thinke God never shewed you the booke of life , that you may see who are written in , who expunged out of the Covenant of Grace , and St Paul who was as well read in that booke as you , saith Rom. 9.8 . They which are the children of the flesh , are not the children of God , but the children of the promise are counted for the seed , which how to spell I have shewed above . But you adde . Certainly who ever will goe about to deprive them of it , to cut off such a great part of the comfort of believing parents , must produce cleare testimonies before they can perswade believers to part with either of them , either right to the Covenant , or to the seale of the Covenant . And you adde two reasons of it . You are now on your advantage ground , in a veine of Oratory , and on a subject , of all others , aptest to move affections , to wit , parents tendernesse to their children . But wee must not sacrifice truth to either of these . You insinuate that Antipaedobaptists goe about to deprive infant-children of believers of the Covenant of Grace . They may tell you , it were a madness for them to goe about such an impossibilitie , as the putting out or putting into the Covenant of grace , and that they hope so well of you , that you come not so neere the Papists , or Augustines opinion , as to thinke infants dying unbaptized , are out of the Covenant of Grace . And as for cutting off a great part of the comfort of believing parents , I pray you tell us what comfort is cut off by it , you cannot say that either an infant is certainly regenerated or saved by Baptisme , nor can you say , he is lost for want of it . What comfort then doe you give them indeed which the Antipaedobap●ists doe not give as well as you ? Or , what discomfort in truth , do they give them , which you do not ? All the comfort you can indeed give them , is that according to your Hypotheses , they do their duty : But if it be proved that they prophane the Ordinance of Baptisme by bringing Infants to baptisme ( which there is great cause to think they do ) it may rather bring discomfort to their conscience in fine , then comfort . But to Believers indeed , Gods glory will be more deare then their own comfort ; and therefore they will be content to part with that which dishonoured God , though it seemed cause of comfort to themselves : they will imitate Abraham , who quieted himself in the will of God concerning Ishmael , though deare unto him ; and Isaac , who perceiving Gods rejecting of Esau , yet submitted to his will. And for your two reasons , because they are only a piece of pathetick oratory , I passe them over . For though there be some strains that Logically examined will not endure the test , yet having learned the rule about reading the Fathers , not to account all their Rhetoricall expressions their Dogmaticall resolutions , I am willing to conceive the same of you . And as for your recapitulation of your conclusions , and your inference thereupon , how short they are of your conceit of them , I leave it to your self to consider , and proceed to that which you say is the main and only Objection remaining which hath any colour of weight in it . YOu say the Objection is this : There is no comm●nd , no expresse institution , or cle●r ex●mple in all the new Testament of baptizing of Infants ; and in the administratinn of S●craments , we are not to be led by our own reason , or grounds of seeming p●obabilitie , but by the expresse order of Christ , and no otherwise . This you justly count the main objection ; which if you could answer clearly , all the rest of your Discourse might be saved , and without answering it , all that you have said else is to little purpose . For , though it were proved that the children of Believers were in the covenant of Grace , Baptisme succeeds to Circumcision , our priviledges greater then the Jewes , yet all this cannot acquit the practice of baptizing Infants from will-worship , without an institution , by Precept or Apostolicall example . And therefore , as it concerns Smectymnuus , so almost all the Divines of the Assembly , and Preachers of the City , that have so often delivered in their Sermons at Westminster , now in print , and in the City , that in Gods Worship we must not medd●e a jot further then God hath comm●nded , to shew some institution of Christ , or example of his Apostles for it , otherwise the Prelatists will tell you , that they can shew virtuall command from Analogie of the Ceremoniall Law of the Jews , and tradition Ecclesiasticall as ancient as yours for Paedobaptisme , for their Prelacy , Holydayes , Surplice , &c. against which there have been so many , and those just Declamations . If then you do not stand to it here you may yeeld up your weapons . Let us then try it out on this ground : You begin thus ; If by institution , command and example , they mean an expresse syllabicall command , &c. I grant that in so many words it is not found in the new Testament that they should be baptized : No expresse example where children were baptized . Sure this is a shrewd signe that you are not likely to make good your ground , when you have yeelded so much . But I grant , that if you make it good , by good consequence , you may recover all . Let us then consider what you say of that . But I also adde , that I deny the consequence , that if in so many words it be not commanded in the new Testament , it ought not to be d●ne ; this is not true Divinity , that Christians are not tyed to observe that which is not expresly in so many words set down in the new Testament . True , but whose consequence is this ? Infants are not to be baptized , because that which is not in so many words commanded in the new Testament , ought not to be done ? The consequence rightly framed is this : In meer positive worship that ought not to be done , which hath not Precept , or Apostolicall example equivalent to a Precept , gathered by plain words , or good inference out of the new Testament : For , if it have none of these , it is wil-worship . And Baptisme of Infants is such , therefore it ought not to be done . The ground of it is this , because all the ceremoniall or meere positive worship of the Jewes is now abrogated ; and therefore a Precept of God to them is not a warrant to us now , if it were , it must be in one thing as well as another , and so we must bring on our necks the yoak of bondage of the Mosaical Law. Now let us see how you encounter this Argument : you answer by telling us ; there is no expresse reviving of the Lawes , concerning the forbidden degrees of marriage in the new Testament , except of not having a m●ns fathers wife , 1 Cor. 5.8 . No expresse Law against polygamie ; no expresse command for the celebration of a weekely Sabbath ; are therefore Christians free in all these c●ses ? I answer , no , but withall I say , that the first instance is about a morall command , and yet there is for one branch of incest , an expresse censure in the new Testament , proving the unl●wfulnesse of it ; whereas the businesse is now about a point of meer positive ceremoniall worship , and so there 's not the like reason . Secondly , the same may be said of Polygamie , that it is a sin against a morall Precept , and yet there is good proof against it in the new Testament , from Mat. 19.5.9 . And for the third , enough hath been said above , Part. 1. Sect. 8. to shew how little advantage you have in this instance . But you adde , yea in the point of S●craments there is no expresse command , no example in all the new Testament , where women received the Sacrament of the Lords Supper , there is no expresse command , that the children of Believers , when they are grown , should be instructed and baptized by their parents ; expresse command there is , that they should teach the Heathen , and the Jews , and m●ke them Disciples , and then baptize them , but no command that the children of those that are Believers should be baptized when they are grown men ; nor any example where ever that was done : will any man therefore say , that Christian women are not to be partakers of the Lords Supper ? I think none will be so absurd as to affirm it . If it be said , though these things be not expresly and in terminis in the new Testament , yet they are there virtually , and by undeniable consequence , I confesse it is true . You do in this perioch , give two instances of practice , warranted by command , or example , gathered by consequence in the new Testament , in the positive worship of the Sacraments , to wit , womens receiving the Lords Supper , and the baptizing of children of Believers , when grown persons , which you grant are virtually , and by undeniable consequence in the new Testament , though not expresly and in terminis , in terms . Now this thing you need not have proved , I readily grant it , that what ever in positive worship is commanded in the new Testament , though it be not in formall terms commanded , yet if it may be gathered by virtuall consequence , ought to be done . Neverthelesse , I observe : First , that you do well expresse the institution of Christ , Matth. 28.19 . when you say , expresse command there is , that they should teach the Heathen and the Jews , and make them Disciples , and then baptize them , of which I may make further use afterwards . Secondly , that when you say , there is no expresse command , no example in all the new Testament , where women received the Sacrament of the Lords Supper , you imply there is for males . Now , herein you , Mr. Vines and Mr. Blake , and generally others follow Zwinglius , whose conceit this was , if he were not the first inventor : And Mr. Blake expresseth himself thus , pag. 22. No particular president more then for this of Infant-baptisme . But I pray you tell me , is not that , 1 Cor. 11.28 . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , Let a man examine himself , and so let him eat of that bread , and drink of that cup , an expresse command in formall terms ? And doth not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 comprehend both Sexes ? When the Apostle sayes , vers . 23. I delivered unto you that which I received from the Lord , was not that a command , and that to the whole Church , women as well as men ? when he saith , 1 Cor. 10.17 . We being many , are one bread , and one body ; for we are all partakers of that one bread , and are not women as well of the body as men ? And if so , here is an expresse example in formall terms for womens receiving the Lords Supper ? The like may be said , of 1 Cor. 12.13 . Acts 20.7 . unlesse you will say , that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , himself , all , Disciples , comprehend not women , because they are of the Masculine Gender , which from you that have learned that Logica non curat sexum , Logick regards not sex , and that hundreds of places there be , where the Masculine Gender is put , the matter so requiring it , for both Sexes , I do not suspect . And for your other instance , as I do not remember any brings it but your self , so it is as little to the purpose as the other : For that which you say , that there is no expresse command that the children of Believers should be baptized when they are grown men . It is true , except they professe the faith ; but there is an expresse command , as your self grant , to baptize Disciples , and so to baptize the childe of a Believer that professeth the faith , not otherwise ; so that these your instances are brought to prove that which is not denied , and yet the instances are impertinent to prove it . You say further : So have we virtually , and by undenyable consequence , sufficient evidence for the baptizing of children , both commands and examples . This assertion is full , if you mean by children , Infant-children of Believers , prove this , and you need prove no more . But your fetching such a compasse about , makes me imagine your attempt will prove but a Parturiunt montes , the mountains bring forth , especially , when your proof is but from Analogy ; concerning which , the rule holds , as Mr. Bowles in his Sermon on Joh. 2.17 . Allegorica Theologia , ( unlesse the Lord himself make the application ) non est argumentativa , Allegoricall Divinity is not argumentative ; but it is fit you should be heard . You say , For , first you have Gods command to Abraham , as he was the father of all covenanters , that he should seal his children with the seal of the covenant . I grant we have Gods command to Abraham , who is indeed called , the Father of the faithfull , no where that I know , the father of all covenanters , to circumcise his males of eight dayes old ; and I deny not , but that this was a seal , that is , a confirming signe of the covenant God made with Abraham ; whence Gods covenant was said to be in their flesh , Gen. 17.13 . and 't is called the covenant of circumcision , Act. 7.8 . But you have need of the Philosophers stone to turn this into a command to baptize Infants of Believers , which you thus attempt . You tell us , Now this truth , all our Divines defend against the Papists , that all Gods commands and institutions about the Sacraments of the Jews , binde us as much as they did them in all things which belong to the substance of the Covenant , and were not accidentall unto them . This is your foundation for your undeniable consequence , it had need then be very undeniable , and so you conceive it , because it is a tru●h all our Divines defend against the Papists . But this is no undeniable Axiome , that what all the Protestant Divines defend against the Papists must be truth undeniable , I do not think all the Divines in the Assembly will subscribe to it ; I for my part do disclaim it , I give that honour only to the Holy Scripture , and have learned from Art. 21. of the Church of England , that Generall Councels have erred , and may erre , and consequently all the Divines in the world : And one Paphnutius is to be heard against a whole Oecumenicall Councel sometimes . And for this which you call a truth , all our Divines defend against the Papists , I marvell how you can averre it , unlesse you had read them all , which I think neither you nor any one else hath ; and for this Maxime , I question whether any one leading Author have delivered that which you charge all our Divines with , because you direct not where they deliver it , it is in vain for me to make search ; it were to seek a needle in a bottle of hay ; but I will examine whether it be truth or no. You suppose , that there are comm●nds of God about the Sacraments of the Jews , which is granted : But then let me tell you , I do not assent to this , that Circumcision and the Passeover are all the ordinary Sacraments of the Jews ; I do approve of the words of R. C. that is , as I learn from Mr. Selden , de anno civili veter . Judae . c. 2. Mr. Ralph Cudworth of Cambridge , ( whom he there commends ) in that book of his , which is of the true notion of the Lords Supper , chap. 2. styl'd by Mr. Selden , A witty and very learned book , where he saith , I know not what warrant there is for that divinity so m●gisterially imposed upon us by some , that the Jews had but two Sacraments , Circumcision , and the Passeover , and that it should thence follow by inevitable consequence , that the Lords Supper must 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , answer only to the Jewish Passeover ; sure I am , the Jews had many more ; for not to instance in that of Paul , 1 Cor. 10.2 , 3 , 4. nor to examine all the other Sacramentall ceremonies which they had , that were almost as many Sacraments as Ceremonies , these feasts upon the sacrifices which we have all this while insisted on , were nothing else but true and proper sacraments joyned with sacrifices . I adde , that according to the received definitions of a sacrament , all the sacrifices that were propitiatory , were Sacraments , that is , visible sealing signes of invisible grace in Christ appointed by God to that end . Secondly , you suppose , that of those comm●nds and institutions of God , some did belong to the substance of the covenant , some were accidentall to them . This last expression is very ambiguous , whether you mean by [ them ] the Jewes , or the Sacraments , which seems most likely ; or , whether you would , as the law of opposion requires , say accidentall to the Covenant . Again , you here contradistinguish the substance of the covenant , and that which is accidentall to it , which I construe in the same sense that you distinguish between the substance of the covenant and the administration of it , pag. 10. Conceiving by your explication that you call the substance of the Covenant that which is invariable , and that which is accidentall that which is variable . Substance doth not agree to Covenant , which is an action in proper sense ; but in Schoole● it is usuall to distinguish between the substance of the act , and the circumstances of it , the essence and the accidents , but I do not remember that Logicians do oppose the accidents of an act to the substance of it , and so your expression of the substance of the covenant , and that which is accidentall , is not in my apprehension , after the usuall speech of the Schooles , and therefore I cannot well tell what sense to make of it . If [ them ] referre to the Jewes , then it is said , something of the Sacraments was accidentall to the Jewes , but I know not how to make any handsome sense of this . If you referre [ them ] to the Sacraments , you make something commanded by God , accidentall to the Sacraments , which may be yeelded you in this sense ; that there might something have the essence of a Sacrament without such accidents , as it might be true Circumcision , though it were not the eighth day ; it might be a true Passeover , though not on the right night . Yet , in this sense it cannot be yeelded that it was so accidentall , that it might be omitted without sin , any more then the thing it self : For , it was as well a sin , not to circumcise the eighth day , or not to keep the Passeover on the night appointed by God , as not to do these acts at all , since a command was broken in one as well as the other : For these reasons , I cannot well tell how to deny or grant that which you suppose , that some commands of God about the Sacraments of the Jews , were accidentall to them . But that which is supposed , that some of the commands of God about the Sacraments of the Jews , did contain things belonging to the substance of the Covenant , meaning , of the covenant of Grace , I can in no wise assent unto it : For , if either you mean by substance the essence of the covenant , I utterly deny that any of the Sacraments of the Jews were of the essence of the covenant , Gods Covenant was , and might be without them : If you mean by substance , that which in no case might be varied , I deny it in that sense also ; Nothing of the sacraments of the Jews was morall and invariable . And it is most true , that as the sacrifices , so Sacraments ( according to the common distinction ) were belonging to the administration of the covenant for the time , but never of the substance of the covenant ; for that consists only in the things you expresse for the substance , pag. 10. And for the maxime which you f●ther on all our Divines , which I can hardly believe any one of our Divines have delivered , as you have done , I utterly deny it , to wit , that all Gods commands and institutions about the Sacraments of the Jews bind us as much as they did them , in all things which belong to the substance of the Covenant , as being contradictory to those words , Art. 7. of the Church of England . Although the Law given from God by Moses , as touching Ceremonies and Rites , do not bind Christian men , and on the contrary , I affirm , that they are all abrogated , subst●nce and circumstance , whole , and part ; and I thus prove it : First , those things bind us not which had their complement in Christ , but all the Sacraments of the Jews had their complement in Chtist , Ergo. The Major is the force of the Apostles prohibition ; and the reason of it , Col. 2.16 , 17. the Minor is delivered , 1 Cor. 5.7 . Col. 2.17 . Heb. 9.9 . Heb. 10.1 . And Beza in Annot. in Col. 2.14 . Hoc respectu ut Euangelicae gratiae adhuc exhibendae , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , ceremoniis finis erat impositus ipsius Christi , id est veritatis , quam antea adumbrarant exhibitione , by the exhibition of Christ himself , that is the truth , which before they shadowed , there was an end put to ceremonies in this respect , as being seals of Euangelicall grace yet to be exhibited . Secondly , those things bind not us now , which were taken away by Christs death ; this I suppose you will not deny , lest you evacuate the effect of Christs death : But Christ hath by his death abolished all the sacraments of the Jews , comprehended under the law of commands in ordinances or rites , Ephes. 2.15 . Col. 2.14 . therefore they bind not . Thirdly , those commands which were only to continue till faith came , those bind not now faith is come : But the commands of the Sacraments of the Jews were such , therefore they bind not now : The Major and Minor are delivered , Gal. 3.23 , 24 , 25. Gal. 4.1 , 2 , 3 , 4. Act. 15.9 , 10. Fourthly , those commands bind us not , which were a partition wall between Jews and Gentiles ; but all the Sacraments of the Jewes in whole and in part , were a partition wall between Jews and Gentiles , therefore they bind us not . The Major and Minor are delivered , Ephes. 2.14 . Fifthly , those commands which were unprofitable , and weak rudiments of the world , contrary to Christ , beggerly rudiments , these bind not a Christian now ; but such are the Jews sacraments , Heb. 7.18 . Col. 2.8.20 . Gal. 4.3.9 . therefore they bind not . Sixthly , those commands that belonged to another Priesthood then Christs , bind not Christians , but the Jews sacraments belonged to another Priesthood then Christs , therefore they bind not . The Major and Minor are both delivered , Heb. 7.12.16 . Heb. 9.10 . Seventhly , those commands that belonged to another covenant then that which now in force , bind not ; but such are the commands of the Jews sacraments , Heb. 8.13 . Heb. 9.1 . therefore they bind not . Eightly , those commands which were proper to the Jews , bind not us Christians ; but the sacraments of the Jews were proper to the Jews , so was Circumcision , the Passeover , the Sacrifices ; therefore they bind us not . Ninthly , If one part bind us , then all the commands bind us ; and if we be obliged to any one rite , then to all , for they had all the same authority ; nor hath that authority dissolved any one part more then another . Now it is a sure rule , that ubi lex non distinguit , non est distinguendum , where the law distinguisheth not , we must not distinguish ; therefore , either none binds us , or else we must revoke Judaisme . And indeed , to say , so far a command of God binds , and so far not , without a plain declaration of Gods will , is an high presumption , whereby man takes on him to release or dispense with Gods Law , which is of equall authority with the making of a law . Lastly , those commands bind us not , which the Apostle would not have us subject to , no not in part , but such are the commands of the Jewish sacraments , Col. 2.16.20 . Gal. 5.1 , 2 , 3. and your self say , pag. 27. the Apostle would take them off wholly from circumcision ; therefore they bind us not : Yea , it is to overthrow utterly our Christian liberty by Christ , which the Apostle was so stiffe in maintaining that he would not yeeld , no , not one hou● , and blamed Peter for di●sembling this liberty , Gal. 2.5.14 . to maintain that all the commands and institutions of God about the Sacraments of the Jews bind us as much as they did them in all things which belong to the substance of the Covenant , and were not accidentall to them . But you endeavour to make good your Maxime by instances , and accordingly you say thus : As because Circumcision is called a seal of the covenant , therefore our Sacraments are seals of the covenant ; though circumcision no where that I know , be called the seal of the covenant , but only the seal of the righteousnesse of faith , Rom. 4.11 . yet , because it is called a signe or token of the Covenant , Gen. 17.11 . it may well be called a seal or confirming signe of the covenant with Abraham , and so of the covenant of Grace ; and our Sacraments may be so called likewise , they being confirming signs of the new Testament , Luk. 22.10 . Acts 2.38 . but not because Circumcision was called so , but because that phrase expresseth the truth of the thing . But what is this instance to your purpose ? Is there a command or institution of God , binding the Jews to call Circumcision so ? or a command or institution for us by vertue of the command to the Jews to call it so ? though I should oppose him that should deny our Sacraments to be seals of the covenant , because he should deny a truth , yet I should not say he did sin that did not call them so . Your next instance is , be●ause Circumcision might be administred but once , being the seal of initiation , therefore Baptisme being also the seal of initiation is to be administred but once . However I conceive no necessity of circumcision or Baptisme above once , yet I professe my self unsatisfied in this , that there is either a command , that a person be but once circumcised , or a person once only baptized : However , if there were a command that a person should be but once circumcised , and it could be proved that a person should be but once baptized , yet I utterly deny , that the command to circumcumcise but once , is a cammand to baptize but once ; and therefore what ever any Divines may dictate Magisterially , yet I do not think my self in Pythagoras his School , that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , he said it , should be my rule . You adde : but that circumcision was to be administred on the eighth day only , was an accidentall thing , and therefore bindeth not . I see no reason why once circumcising should belong to the substance of the covenant , and to be circumcised on the eighth day should be accidentall ; yea , if reason may rule the roast , there is more reason that circumcising on the eighth day should belong to the substance of the covenant , being commanded by God expresly , and as many of the Ancients conceive , particularly Cyprian , Ep. 99. ad finem , typifying Christs resurrrection on the eighth day , then that to be circumcised but once , should be of the substance of the covenant , which is neither commanded , nor is found in Scripture to typifie any thing belonging to the Covenant : So vaine are mens conceits , without the light of the Word . But you go forward in the other Sacrament . The Jewish Passeover being to be yearly repeated , binds us to have a repetition of the Sacrament of the Lords Supper , which came in roome of it , because this belongs to the substance of the Covenant ; both of them being Sacraments for spirituall nourishment , growth , and continuance in the Covenant : ( as the other was , for birth and entrance ) but that their Passeover was to be e●ten in an evening , and upon one set evening in the yeare , was accidentall , and so binds not us . Here is a heape of dictats without proofe . I grant the Jewish Passeover was to be yearly repeated , because God so commanded it , but tha● either this belonged to the substance of the Covenant , or that this command binds us to the frequen● use of the Lords Supper , I deny it : if it did , it were a very good plea for the superstitious custome of keeping Easter , and receiving the Communion once a yeare on that day , which I thinke you will be ashamed of , though you lay the egge out of which it may be hatched . I grant the Lords Supper is to be repeated often , not because the Jewish Passeover was to be yearly repeated , or because it is the Sacrament for spirituall nourishment , growth , and continuance in the Covenant ( as the other was for birth and entrance ) but because it may be plainly gathered from the Institution or Command of Christ , and the Apostles declaration thereupon , 1 Cor. 11.25 , 26. for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth imply 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , as oft doth imply , not obscurely but plainly , a frequency , and if example must be a rule , as it is conceived in many cases lesse cleare , and that have lesse reason ; that example Acts 20.7 . should binde that on the first day of the weeke , when Disciples come together they have the Lords Supper , for the which the meeting then was intended , and that action gave denomination to the whole service ; and by the relation of Justine Martyr ( if my memory deceive me not ) and others , it was so in the primitive Church of Christians ; but I desire to be sparing in matters of command on mens consciences . As for that you make the Evening accidentall to the Passeover , and so not binding us in the use of the Lords Supper , it 's but a dictate . The Evening of the Passeover is no more accidentall then the day it selfe , they being commanded both together . And for the Lords Supper , how we can be loose to receive it in the Morning or Evening after Supper , when the Apostle doth so distinctly mention in this relation of the Institution , 1 Cor. 11.23 . that it was done in the night ; and vers . 25. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , after he had supped ; I leave to your Assembly to cons●der ; Especially those of you that are so stiffe for the sitting together at the Table , which is not mentioned or hinted in the Apostles relation , and therefore may seeme as much occasionall as the other . And for that which you intimate , as if Baptisme were not the Sacrament for spirituall nourishment , growth , and continuance in the Covenant , as well as for entrance ; I take to be but a dictate like the rest , which upon exact examination will not hold : it seems to me somewhat neare of kinne to that of Bellarmine and other Papists , that the efficacy of Baptisme extends not to the remission of the sinnes of our whole life , but of originall sinne onely . But you have yet one more Instance , and thus you speake ; The like Instance I give in our Christian Sabbath ; the fourth Commandement binds , as for the substance of it , as much as ever it bound the Jewes , there God once for all , separated one day of seven to be sacred to himselfe , and all the world stood bound in all ages to give unto God that one day of seven , which should be of his own choosing . Now untill Christs time , God chose the last day of the seven to be his Sabbath ; and having by the death and Resurrection of our Lord Jesus , put an end to the Saturday Sabbath , and surrogated the first day of the week instead thereof to be the Lords day , wee need no new Commandement for the keeping of the Lords day , being tyed by the fourth Commandement to keep that day of seven which the Lord should choose ; the Lord having chosen this , the fou●th Commandement binds us to this , as it did the Jewes to the former ; so in like manner , I say in the Sacrament of Baptisme . What I conceive about the Lords day , I have before declared Part. 2. Sect. 8. where also I shewed you how different the case of Paedobaptisme is from it , which I shall not now repeate ; Onely whereas you bring the Sabbath for an Instance of a Command of God , about the Sacraments of the Jewes , binding us as well as the Jewes ; you forget the marke at which you shoote , the Sabbath or Lords day being not to be reckoned among the Jewes Sacraments , or ours , according to the usuall Ecclesiasticall acception and definition of the word . You see now your maxime , which is the foundation of your undeniable consequence undermined , I presume you may see quickly the superstruction it selfe overturned : one blow more will doe it . You piece things together thus ; 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 , wee claime our part in it as the child●en of Abraham , and wh●t God required on Abrahams part for the substance of obedience , wee all stand charged with , as well as Abraham ; Wee as Abraham are tyed to beleeve , to love the Lord with all our heart , to have our hearts circumcised , to walke before God in uprightnesse ; to instruct our children , and bring them up for God , and not for our selves , nor for the Devill , to teach them to worship God according to his revealed will , to traine them up under the Ordinances and Institutions of Gods own appointment . All these things God commanded to Abraham , and charges upon all the children of the Covenant , though there were no expresse reviving these Commands in any part of the New Testament . And therefore consequently , that Command of God to Abraham , which bound his seed of the Jewes to traine up their children in that manner of worship , which was then in force , binds the seed of Abraham now , to traine up their children in ●onformitie to such Ordinances as are now in force . Supposing you meane by what God promised to Abraham , the spirituall part of the Covenant , and the persons claiming to be beleevers : I grant this passage to be truth ; for these duties are morall duties , and binde at all times ; but that which follows , I cannot tell how to take for any other then plain Judaisme . You say , And the s●me Command which enjoyned Abraham to seale his children with the seale of the Covenant , enjoynes us as strongly to seale ours with the seale of the Covenant , and that Command of God which expresly bound Abraham to seale his with the signe of Circumcision , which was the Sacrament then in force , pro tempore , for the time , doth virtually binde us to seale ours with the signe of Baptisme , which is the Sacrament now in force , and succeeds into the roome of the other by his owne Appointment . This is your undeniable consequence , inferred from a Judaizing principle , without so much as one Scripture to prove either the principle or conclusion ; Whereas ● have brought ten arguments most of them out of the Scripture against your principle ; and for the Conclusion , what construction can be made of it , but this , that the Command of God to Circumcise , binds us still ? for that was the seale of the Covenant God enjoyned to Abraham , and so the Law given by Moses as touching Ceremonies and rites , binds Christian men , contrary to Art. 7. of the Church of England . Then must wee Circumcise our Males at the eighth day , as they did . But you say , it binds us virtually only to seale ours with the signe of Baptisme ; I pray you then what meane you by this virtuall binding ? The opposite Member was expresly , and in Terminis , in termes . Is this then your meaning , that it doth not binde expresly and in terminis , but virtually , that is , implicitely , and by Interpretation ? Tell us then , I beseech you , by what rule of Divinitie , Logick , Grammar , or Rhetoricke , is a man to conceive this Command , Cut off the foreskin of the secret part of all the Males in thy house the eighth day . That is , let a Preacher of the Gospel wash with water at any time after birth the young Infants , male and female of Beleevers all over , or on the face . You call this undeniable Consequence : if so , it 's either Demonstrative from the cause , or effect , or definition , or propertie , or the like ; or it 's onely Topicall , and then not undeniable ; you say , 't is by cleare consequence , you may as well say , this is good consequence , Tu es Petrus & super hanc Petram , Thou art Peter , and upon this rocke ; Ergo , the Pope is Monarch of the Church ; or with Baronius , Arise Peter , kill and eate ; Ergo , the Pope may deprive Princes ; if you can apprehend cleare consequence in it , you may enjoy your conceit ; Nos non sumus adeò sagaces , wee are not so quick-witted . I passe to the next Command , which you thus expresse . ANother you shall finde , Mat. 28. where our Saviour bids them goe and teach all Nations , baptizing them in the Name of the Father , of the Sonne , and of the Holy Ghost . Where you have two things ; first , what they were to doe . Secondly , to whom they were to doe it ; they were to preach and teach all things which he had Commanded them ; that is , they were to Preach the whole Gospel , Mark. 16.15 . The whole Covenant of grace , containing all the promises , whereof this is one , viz. That God will be the God of Believers , and of their seed ; that the seed of Believers are taken into Covenant with their Parents ; this is a part of the Gospel preached to Abraham . The Gospel which was preached to Abraham , is delivered Galat. 3.8 , 9. And the Scripture foreseeing that God would justifie the heathen through faith , preached before the Gospel to Abraham ▪ saying , In thee shall all Nations be blessed ; so then they which be of faith , are blessed with faithfull Abraham . And Rom. 1.16 , 17. I am not ashamed of the Gospel of Christ , for it is the power of God to salvation , to every one that beleeveth , to the Jew first , and also to the Greeke . For therein is the righteousnesse of God revealed from faith to faith ; as it is written , the just shall live by faith . The like may be proved out of Rom. 10. and elsewhere ; but it is no wrong to say it , that it is a new Gospel , to affirme , that this is one of the Promises of the Covenant of grace , that God will be the God of Believers , and of their seed ; that the seed of Believers are taken into Covenant with their Parents . I cannot derive it's pedegree higher then Zuinglius . But you goe on : And they were to baptize them , that is , to administer Baptisme as a seale of the Covenant to all who received the Covenant ; this is a dark Paraphrase , you expresse it clearer , pag. 35. Expresse Command is there , that they should teach the heathen , and the Jewes , and make them Disciples , and then baptize them . If your meaning be the same in both places , I am content you should Comment on your own words ; you goe on ; Secondly , Wee have the persons to whom they were to do this , all Nations , whereas before the Church was tyed to one Nation , one Nation onely were Disciples , now their Commission was extended to make all Nations Disciples , every Nation which should receive the faith , should be to him now as the peculiar Nation of the Jewes had been in time past . In a word , Nations here are opposed to the one Nation before . I grant that Nations are opposed to one Nation , and that th● Commission was extended to all Nations ; which you expresse well , pag. 44. Whereas before they were to goe to the lost sheepe of the house of Is●ael , now they were to goe unto all the world . But what sense those wo●ds may carry , Every Nation which should receive the faith , should be to him now as the peculiar Nation of the Jewes had been in time past is doubtfull . For either it may have this sense , Every Nation that receives the faith , that is , Believers of every Nation , shall be to mee a peculiar people , as the Jewes were , in the sense that Peter speaks , 1 Pet. 2.9 . and so the sense is good ; or thus , When a Nation shall receive the faith , that is , a great or eminent part , the Governours and chief Cities , & representative body , shall receive the faith , that Nation shall in like manner have all their little ones capable of Baptisme , and counted visible members of the Church , as the posteritie of the Jewes were in the time of that Church administration . This I guesse is the businesse that is now upon the anvill , by observing ●undry passages in latter Writers , with whom your Sermon agrees , as if it came out of the same forge . Mr Blake , pag. 20. hath these words . In the same sense and latitude , as Nation was taken in respect of the Covenant of God , when the Covenant and Covenant-initiating-Sacrament was restrained to that one onely Nation , where their Commission was first limited : in the same sense it is to be taken ( unlesse the Text expresse the contrary ) now this Commission is enlarged . This cannot be denied of any that will have the Apostles able to know Christs meaning by his words in this enlarged Commission . But Nation then , as is confessed , did comprehend all in the Nation in respect of the Covenant , and nothing is expressed in the Text to the contrary , therefore it is to be taken in that latitude , to comprehend Infants . Mr Rutherfurd in his peaceable and temperate plea , Ch. 12. Concl. 1. Arg. 7. hath these words ; Seeing God hath chosen the race and nation of the Gentiles , and is become a God to us , and to our seede ; the seede must be holy , with holinesse of the chosen Nation , and holinesse externall of the Covenant , notwithst●●●ing the father and mother were as wicked , as the Jewes who slew the Lord of glory . And indeed those Paedobaptists are forced to say so , who justifie the practise of baptizing foundlings , infants of Papists , excommunicate persons , Apostates , if they be borne within their Parish ; thereby directly crossing their own tenent , That this is the priviledge of a believer from the Covenant of grace , I will be the God of a believer , and his seed ; And the Apostles words , 1 Cor. 7.14 . according to their own exposition , which is , that the children whereof one of the parents is not sanctified by the faith of the other , are federally uncleane ; nor considering that this practise of baptizing all in the Parish , arose not from any conceit of the federall holinesse of a Nation , but from the conceit of Cyprian , with his 66 Bishops , that the grace of God is to be denied to none that are borne of men : upon which ground , and the necessitie of baptisme to save a childe from perishing , as of old , so still among the common people , and officiating Priests , children are baptized , without any relation to Covenant-holinesse , particular or nationall . But I leave this to the Independents to agitate , who have in this point the advantage ; and returne to the Text , Mat. 28.19 . Concerning which the question is , what 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , or [ them ] refers to in our Saviours words : whether all Nations must be the substantive to it , without any other circumscription , or the word , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , men and women , as the Author of infants baptizing proved lawfull by Scriptures , or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , Disciples , included in the verbe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , which may be translated , make Disciples . That Author denies not , but that the verbe may signifie to make Disciples , yet by the subject matter , which it is here taken and used to expresse , it must be taken for to teach , and not to make Disciples : because to m●ke Disciples was not in the power of the Apostles ( upon whom the command lay ) it being the peculiar of God to frame the heart to submit unto and embrace the Apostles teaching , and to cast them into the forme and obedience of it , and so to make them Disciples : but to teach and thereby endeavour ( as much as in them lay ) to make Disciples , was in their power and duty : and is all the whole meaning of the word here , therefore properly , and rightly rendred teach , and not , make Disciples . But that the word doth not signifie onely simply , to teach , whether with effect or without , but to teach till they become disciples , is plain by the use of it elsewhere , in all the places it is used in the new Testament . Mat. 13.52 . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , Every Scribe that is so taught , as to become a disciple . Mat. 27.57 . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , rendere●●y Beza , Vulgar , ours , &c. who also himselfe was Jesus disciple : where the noune 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , disciple , is included in the verbe , and expressed by John , Cha. 19.38 . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , being a disciple of Jesus . Act. 14.21 . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , which though our translatours render , and had taught many ; yet Beza renders it , Discipulos multos adjunxissent , and had joyned many disciples . So plaine it is that the noune 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , disciples , is included in the verbe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , to make disciples ; and that it is put not for simple teaching that is without effect ; for then the Apostle might be said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , when he did preach to the Athenians who mocked , Acts 17.32 . and the unbelieving Jewes , Acts 28.24 . for they were taught : but for teaching , cum effectu , with effect , so as that the persons taught became disciples . And Mr Edwards lately at Christ-Church averred in all the Dictionaries he could peruse , it did not signifie simply to teach , coming from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , to learne , he might have added coming from the noune 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , a disciple . As for the objection ; Christ should command them that which was not in their power . I answer , it was in their power , and their dutie not onely to teach simply , so as to propound things to them , but also so as to bring them to be disciples , which they could doe , not as principall , sole , supreme agents , but as workers with God , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , as it is 2 Cor. 6.1 . subordinate instruments to him they could , in which respect they are called wise Master-builders , that beget men by the Gospel , save and convert them , espouse them to Christ ; &c. Even as the knife cuts , though not without the hand ; as an Ambassadour makes peace , though not without his Prince . And this might be rightly charged to them , as it was charged to Peter , to feed Christs sheepe , and to strengthen his brethren , though he could doe neither of himselfe . But that Author hath another exception , that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , disciples , is of the m●sculine gender , and if that were the substantive to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , them , then women should be excluded . To this I answer , that there be hundreds of places , where the masculine comprehends both sexes , as Joh. 3.16 . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , every one that believeth , though in the masculine gender , yet comprehends women . Rom. 5.12 . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , upon all men , comprehends women too : and women are comprehended under 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 disciples , Acts 1.15 . &c. Besides that Author did not consider it seems , that if 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , men , were the substantive , and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , them , in the masculine gender were the adjective , women if this reason were worth any thing , should be excluded however . And for that which he saith , " that some say 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , them , cannot agree with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , nations , because of a different gender , though it may be a reason , an● Piscator made use of it thus farre , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 syntaxi refertur ad sensum , non ad vocem : nam praecessit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , them , in the syntaxis is referred to the sense , not to the word , for nations went before : yet I fasten nothing on it , sith it cannot be denied that Enallage , Heterosis , or change of gender is frequent . But for my part , I conceive that the sense includes both , neither separately , both conjunctly , and that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , them , referres both to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , disciples , and to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , nations ; thus , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , disciples of all Nations , and must be thus expounded , make disciples of all nations , baptizing them , that is , the disciples of all nations . And this is agreeable to your Paraphrase , pag. 35. teach the heathen , and Jewes , and make them disciples , and then baptize them ; and pag. 38. make all nations disciples . And Beza annot . in Matth. 28.19 . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , id est , discipulos mihi f●cite ex omnibus gentibus , make disciples to me of all nations : and a little after ▪ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , ergo hoc loco , non neutropassivè pro dis●ipulum esse , sed activè accipitur quasi in Conjugatione Hiphil , ac si dicas discipulare , to teach therefore in this place is not taken neuterpassively for to be a disciple , but actively , as if it were in the Conjugation Hiphil , as if you should say , to make to learne . Some doe make the substantive credentes , believers , and that parallel place , Mark. 16.16 . may leade us to it ; but disciples and believers being all one in this matter , it comes to one passe . I rather , as I said , make the substantive 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , disciples out of all nations , for these reasons ; first , because it suits with the expression , Joh. 4.1 . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he maketh more disciples and baptizeth ; where making disciples is put before baptizing , and baptizing of Christ by his Apostles is of disciples : they that were baptized by John , or Christs disciples , are every where called the disciples of John , and of Jesus , and the doctrine they taught them , their baptisme , Acts 19.1 , 2. and elsewhere . Secondly , because usually hearing and believing are put before baptizing , Acts 2.41 . Acts 8.12.38 . Acts 10.48 . Acts 16.15.33 . and so were called disciples , which shews that the Apostles so construed the precept of Christ to baptize disciples . Besides , if [ them ] were referr●d to nations or men , without due circumscription of disciples or believers , as a limitation , directing whom to baptize , it would follow , that either they might baptize any man or nation in the world , whether taught or not , and if so , then the Spaniards practise of forcing droves of Indians to baptisme , and that practise of baptizing a Kingdome upon the Kings conversion and command , without sufficient precedent teaching , were justifiabl● ; or else they must baptize none till all men or all nations were to be baptized together . There hath been vented lately , in a little p●per , a very absurd one , though it be licensed , entituled , A Declaration against the Anabaptists ; in which the Author saith , that making Disciples , is to be done by baptizing them ; which if true , then the Apostles needed to have done nothing else , in observance of that command of discipling , but to baptize , and it would serve for a good plea for non-preaching , or meer officiating Priests : whereas in Mark. 16.15 . which I think will not be denied to be parallel to this , Matth. 28.19 . Disciple all nations , is preach the Gospel to every creature . But this conceit is so absurd , that I presume none that hath any wit will entertain it , though the paper be licensed . That which I have hitherto discoursed , tends to this , to prove , that when Christ saith , Teach all nations , and baptize them , his meaning is , by preaching the Gospel to all nations , make them Disciples , and baptize those that become Disciples of all nations . Now , concerning the Position , which after Mr. Blake and Mr. Rutherfurd , you seem to imbrace , concerning the federall or externall holinesse of a believing or chosen nation , giving right to the Infants of that nation to be baptized . Give me leave to argue a little : First , if Infants may be baptized , because they are born in a chosen nation , or a believing nation , then there may be a rule whereby we may know when a nation may be called a believing , or chosen nation , when not ; otherwise we should not know when to make use of this title to baptisme , when not : and it were absurd to conceive God should give us a rule , and no direction how to make use of it . But no rule can be assigned whereby to know when a nation is a believing , chosen , or discipled nation , giving right to baptize Infants of that nation , when not ; Ergo , If it be said they may be known , in that they are descended from such a Believer as Abraham . I reply , then God would have lef● us a note to know such a nation by , as he did Abrahams posterity by Circumcision : But there is no such note , nor any such nation marked out ; this were indeed contray to the appointment of admitting all nations . If it be said when the king of a countrey is a Believer , this is no rule ; for it may be he may be a Believer , and all the rest unbelievers , and then the practice of baptizing Infidels afore they are instructed at the command of Princes : As when Charles the great fo●ced the Saxons to be Christians , were to be justified . If it be said , the nation is a believing nation , when the representative body believes , and so the children of that people may be baptized : I answer , the representative body may be Believers , and the greatest part Infidels , Papists , &c. these Infidels children must then be baptized ; yea , the Infidels themselves , by vertue of an implicit faith in their governours faith ; for they are a part of the nation . And therefore if Mr. Blakes Argument be good : The Infants of any nation make up a part of the nation , and the nation where they came was to be discipled ; and therefore the Infants to be baptized : the same reason holds for Infidels of age , for they are a part of the nation . If it be said , it is a believing nation , when the greatest part are Believers , how shall that be known ? How shall a minister do when he cannot come to the knowledge of it ? must he stay till they be counted by poll , as the Sheriffes do at the election of Knights of the Shire , and upon Certificate that the major part is believing , then baptize ? Why did not the Apostles so , nor any other Ministers to this day ? How ill would it fare with some poor Christians , who are but a handfull in respect of the multitude of unbelievers of their own nation , as in the Primitive times , when Princes and States were adversaries to Christianity ? If it be said , when all adulti of ripe yeers are believers , then such a right is asserted as never was , nor perhaps ever will be , except when all Israel shall be saved ; and so no Infants shall be baptized on this ground . Secondly , but , if it could be resolved what number or sort of Believers make a believing nation , giving title to Infant-baptisme , yet there would be uncertainty concerning the kind of believing , which might denominate a believing or chosen nation , having federall or externall holinesse , such as may create title to the baptisme of Infants of that nation . There are some nations that are reckoned among Believers , which yet are mis-believers , as Heretiques , for instance , the nation of the Goths , who were Arians ; or grosly Idolatrous , as the Spaniards , shall they give title to their children to baptisme , when without repentance they cannot be deemed capable of communion in the body of Christ ? Thirdly , if Infants of wicked parents be capable of baptisme , because born in a believing nation , then this priviledge agrees to them , either in respect of their descent , or the place of their birth , or both . If in respect of their descent , then either their descent within mans memory , or their descent beyond all the memory of man. If of their descent within memory and knowledge , then Foundlings have no title hereby to Baptisme , of whose parentage there is no knowledge , neerer or remoter , who are neverthelesse baptized : If of that beyond memory , it must be upon such a ground , as is common to all Infants in the world , which are descended from some Believer , in some precedent generation ; or else such a rule must be set down , as hath no certainty in it , by which to administer that Ordinance : If from the place of birth only , because the Church of God is there , then children of Turks or Jews are to be baptized , because born in London : If by reason of both , when they concurre , and not otherwise , then the children of an English Embassador at Constantinople , or Agent at Aleppo , supposed to be wicked , as the Jews that persecuted Christ , loose this priviledge , because born out of England : If there be any other nationall respect upon which this supposed priviledge may be fastened , it either hath these or the like inconveniences consequent on it . Fourthly , if there be such a federall holinesse of a chosen , discipled , or believing nation as may make the Infants of that nation , though their parents be openly wicked , capable of Baptisme ; this right must come from some grant or charter or other . We find indeed , God would have the posterity of Abraham , and all the males in that nation circumcised : So God appointed it , what ever their parents were , for reasons before rehearsed ; but there is no such grant , promise , covenant , or appointment now to any nation of Gentiles , as was then to the posterity of Abraham , because the reasons now cease , the Messiah is now come , and the prerogatives are now personall , not nationall , not one nation hath priviledge above another as a nation , but personall , as a Believer in any nation . As for the Text which Mr. Rutherfurd alledgeth , to wit , Rom. 11.16 . it hath been examined before , and shewed out of the Text , that holinesse of the branches there , is meant personall by faith ; and the objection against it which he makes , to wit , that then the children of a believing parent should be all sanctified , whereas the contrary is manifest : as in Absolom , the son of David , proceeds upon this mistake , that by the root and first fruit , are meant any Ancestor ; whereas it is meant of Abraham the Father of the faithfull , as Deodate in his Annot. on Rom. 11.16 . or , at most , Abraham , Isaac and Jacob , in whose names all the elect are comprehended , when God calls himself The God of Abraham , Isaac and Jacob , as our Saviour intimates , Luke 20.37 , 38. Mat. 22.32 . Mar. 12.26 , 27. And for that which he saith , that the Jews in Pauls time were holy by covenant , howbeit for the present , the sons were branches broken off for unbeliefe , if it be meant of the Jews broken off through unbelief , in respect of their present state , they were not holy by covenant . Only thus f●r the Jewish nation in Pauls time is said to be holy , either in respect of the remnant , according to the election of Grace , mentioned , vers . 5. of which he was one ; or in respect of the posterity that should afterwards be called according to the promise of God to Abraham , in which sense they were federally holy ; yet this did neither give right for the baptizing of children of unbelieving Jewes in Pauls time , nor now . And for that which he saith that God hath chosen the race and nation of the Gentiles , it is not right : For God hath not chosen simply the race and nation of the Gentiles , but a people to himself , out of the race and nation of the Gentiles , as it is said , Rev. 5.7 . Thou hast redeemed us to God by thy blood , out of every kindred , and tongue , and nation . As for Mr. Blakes Argument , because it falls in with your reason , I shall answer them together in that which followes . You say ; Now we know , that when that one nation of the Jews were made Disciples , and circumcised , their Infants were made disciples ( made to belong to Gods School ) and circumcised with them , when that nation was made disciples in Abrahams loynes , and circumcised their seed also was the same , when that nation was taken out of Egypt , and actually made Disciples , their children were also with them . This is your first Argument to prove a command by cleare consequence , from Mat. 28.19 . for baptizing Infants . Now the strength of it lies in these suppositions , First , that Christ did bid them baptize all nations , after the manner that the Jews did circumcise one nation . And Mr. Blake doth conceit this so strongly , that he saith , this cannot be denyed of an● , that will have the Apostles to be able to know Christs meaning by his words in this enlarged Commission . Secondly , that the nation of the Jews were discipled when they were circumcised . I do not impute it to Mr. Blake through defect of ability to understand , but through the strong hold which these points have in his minde , that Baptisme succeeds Circumcision , in the place , roome , and use of it , and the covenant of the Gospel is all one , with the covenant made to Abraham , that he imagines there should be such an allusion to circumcision , as that the Disciples must understand Christs meaning , whom to baptize from the Precept of circumcision , Gen. 17. but in mine apprehension , there is no colour for such a conceit . 'T is true , he enlargeth their commission , and bids them , Go and make Disciples of all nations ; or , as it is in Mark , Preach the Gospel to every creature , and then to baptize the Disciples of all nations ; but this enlargement of commission was not in opposition to the restriction about circumcision , Gen. 17. but in opposition to the restriction , Mat. 10.5 , 6. as your self rightly expresse it , pag. 44. And for that expression , that the nation of the Jews were discipled , that their Infants were discipled , that the nation was made Disciples in Abrahams loines ; it is such a construction of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , make Disciples , as I believe no Lexicon , nor , I think , any Expositor to this day made of the word , which plainly signifies so to teach , as that the persons taught do learn , and accordingly professe the things taught ; and our Lord Christ in Mark expresseth it by preaching the Gospel , and accordingly , the Apostles by preaching , did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , disciple , Acts 14.21 . which how it can be said of Infants that can neither understand , nor speak the doctrine of the Gospel preached to them , without a miracle , I know not . I make no question , but Abraham did teach his children , and make them Disciples , and that the Israelites did teach and make Disciples of their children , as soon as they could understand the things of God ; but that they should be disciples in Abrahams loynes , is such a piece of language as I never read in the Bible , nor in any Author , but such as torture words to make them speak what they would have them . And sure , if the Apostles had understood our Saviours command thus : [ Disciple all nations baptizing them ; that is , Admit the infants of all nations to baptisme , as the Jews did the male Infants of that one nation to circumcision ] they might have saved themselves a great deal of labour of preaching afore baptisme , and of baptizing females , and would have left us some precedent of such a practice . But you adde further : And we know , that in every nation , the children make a great part of the nation , and are alwayes included under every administration to the nation , whether promises or threatnings , priviledges or burthens , miracles or judgements , unlesse they be excepted : So are they in families , in cities , it being the way of the Scripture , when speaking indefinitely of a people , nation , city , or family , to be either saved or damned , to receive mercies or punishments , expresly to except Infants , when they are to be excepted , as we see in the judgement that befell Israel in the Wildernesse ; when all that rebellious company that came out of Egypt was to perish by Gods righteous doome , their little ones were expresly excepted , Numb . 14.31 . and in the covenant actually entred into by the body of the nation , Nehem. 10. it is expresly limited to them who had knowledge and understanding : And the Disciples who received this commission , knew well , that in all Gods former administrations , when any parents were made disciples , their children were taken in with them to appertain to the same school ; and therefore it behooved the Lord to give them a caution , for the leaving out of Infants in this new administration , that they might know his minde , had be intended to have them left out , which that ever he did , in word or deed , cannot be found in Scripture . The Lord hath plainly given a caution in Scripture for the leaving out Infants in this administration acco●ding to ordinary rule : For , in that he directs them to baptize disciples upon preaching , he doth exclude Infants , who are not such disciples , nor according to ordinary providence can be . And this the Apostles could easily understand , as knowing that under the term Disciple , in common speech , and in the whole new Testament , those only are meant , who being taught , professed the doctrine taught by such a one , as Johns Disciples , Christs Disciples , the disciples of the Ph●risees , Luke 5.33 . the disciples of the perverters , Acts 20.30 . and accordingly they administred Baptisme . And in that Christ appoints these to be baptized , he excludes others : For the appointment of Christ , is the rule according to which we are to administer holy things , and he that doth otherwise , follows his own invention , and is guilty of will-worship ; and thus we construe the meaning of the Holy Ghost in other appointments : As , because it is said , 1 Cor. 11. 28. Let a man examine himself , and so let him eat , therefore Infants are excluded , though Infant-c●●●union was held lawfull and necessary for six hundred yeers in the Church : Wine is appointed in the Eucharist , therefore not Water mixt with Wine , as the Papists contend : Water in Baptisme , therefore not salt , chrisme , spettle : the Preacher to baptize , therefore not women , or private persons : Males to be circumcised , therefore no females : two shall be one flesh , therefore no more then two , against Polygamie , Matth. 19.5 . So that unlesse you will alter the definition of wil-worship , according to Mat. 15.9 . in point of worship , that is excluded which is not expressed . And therefore , whereas you say , [ it behoved the Lord to give them a caution for the leaving out of Infants in this new administration , that they might know his minde , if that be intends to have them left out , which that ever he did , in word or deed , cannot be found in Scripture ] . I may more truly invert thus ; it behoved the Lord to give them a Precept for the putting in of Infants in this ( which you truly call ) new administration , as being not the same with Circumcision , that they might know his mind , if that he intends to have them put in , which that ever he did , in word or deed , cannot be found in the Scripture . Certainly , you may as soon extract water out of a flint , as draw a command to baptize Infants out of this Scripture , by any expresse terms , or virtuall consequence : but the ordinary baptizing of Infants is , and may be proved from this Text to be a wil-worship , if this Scripture be the rule of administring ordinarily that Ordinance , which it indeed is , and hath been still taken to be . As for that which you say , The children make in every nation a great part of the nation , so do the Infidels that are adulti , of ripe yeers ; and yet are not therefore included in this speech , Teach all nations , and baptize them ; and as for that which you say , the children are alwayes included under every administration to the nation , whether promises or threatnings , priviledges or benefits , mercies or judgements , unlesse they be excepted ; therefore here Infants are included , when it is said , Go teach all nations , baptizing them . I answer : Fi●st , that this speech in so universall and ample expressions , if understood of temporall judgements and mercies , is contrary to Ezek. 17.20 . Jer. 31.29 , 30. Isai. 6.13 . and 10.22 . if of eternall , as it seems you mean , when you say , [ to be either saved or damned ] it is contrary to Rom. 9.13.27.29 . Rom. 13.5 . Secondly , if it were true , yet makes nothing to the purpose , sith this Prec●pt is not an appointment to baptize all nations as nations without a● further circumscription , for then every person in the world might be ●aptized , but disciples of all nations ; and therefore it is not a nationall priviledge , but a personall , belonging to Disciples or Believers of every nation . And for that which you say , The disciples who received this commission , knew well , that in all Gods former administrations , when any parents were made disciples , their children were taken in with them to appertain to the same school ; if it be thus understood , that God required that parents being called , should instruct their children , and so the children in potentia propinqua , in a neer possibility , were disciples , it is granted , according to that which God speaks of Abraham , Gen. 18.19 . and requires of the Israelites , Deut. 6.7 . But if you mean it thus , that the Disciples knew , that when any parents were made disciples , barely and precisely for this reason without any other , the children were actually disciples , and so to have Baptisme administred to them , it is an untruth , that hath no ground for it . But you have yet somewhat more to say for Infants being disciples ; and therefore you thus answer an objection . If it be said they are not capable of being disciples , I answer , as capable as the Infants of the Jews and Proselytes were when they were made disciples . It is granted , but neither were the Infants of Jews or Proselytes capable of being actually disciples in an ordinary way , nor are ours . You go on : And besides , they are devoted to be disciples , being to be trained up by their parents , who are from their Infancy to teach them the knowledge of Christ. It is hard to say , that parents are to teach Infants from their infancy the Knowledge of Christ : For , though it is said of Timothy , Thou hast known the Holy Scriptures , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , 2 Tim. 3.15 . yet our Translators would not render it from an Infant , but from a child . But however , if their parents be to teach them from their infancy , and the parents devote them to be disciples , yet this doth not make them disciples actually , but potentially , they may never be disciples for all that . But you tell us : And at the present , they are capable of his own teaching . I deny not but Infants are capable of Christs own teaching , yea , of actuall faith , yea , of actuall profession of faith . The same power that could make John Baptist in his mothers womb sensible of the presence of Christs mother , and to leap for joy , that could open the mouth of Balaams Asse , can out of the mouth of babes and sucklings perfect praise . But then this is done in an extraordinary way , and extraordinary accidents make not an ordinary rule . But you adde : And su●e I am , in Christs own dialect , to belong to Christ , and to be a Disciple of Christ , or to bear the name of Christ , are all one ; and that such Infants do belong to Christ , and bear the name of Christ , I have sufficiently proved already , and in the margine you cite Mat. 10. 42. Mar. 9.41 . Mat. 18.5 . Mr. Blake pag. 21. seems to triumph in this Argument , when he saith : Who then is not afraid to refuse them , who will receive Christ ? Who will not baptize them , that is willing to baptize disciples in the name of Christ ? But this is a triumph afore victory . The plain truth is , there 's never a one of all the three Texts , speaks of little ones in respect of age . The first , Mat. 10.42 . is meant of the Apostles ; and as Beza in his Annotations sayes rightly , Parvos vocat per concessionem suos discipulos , homines nimirum coram mundo viles & abjectos , He calleth his Disciples little ones by concession , to wit , men vile and abject before the world ; so that they are called little , in respect of their outward estate in the world , not in respect of age . The second Text , Mar. 9.41 . hath not the term little ones , or children at all , and it is expresly meant of the Apostles , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , because ye belong to Christ. The third Text , Matth. 18.5 . is as little to the purpose . For , first the word is not Infant , but little childe , who may be one able to speak : secondly , one such little child , is not meant of a little childe in age , but a little child in affection , though an old man in age , resembled by a little child , as appeareth out of vers . 3. one that is converted , and made as a little child , vers . 4. one that humbles himself as a little childe , vers . 6. one of those little ones that believe in him . And therefore Beza rightly on vers . 5. hath this Annot. Puerulem talem 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , id est , quempiam ita se demittentem , ut puerum referat : nec enim proprie de pueris agit ; such a little childe , that is , any one that doth so humble himself , that he resembles a little childe : For he doth here properly deale concerning children : And so the Syriack Interpreter , qui sit sicut puer iste , who may be as this boy . But you have yet one place to prove that Infants are disciples , which you thus expresse . And I desire it may be seriously weighed , whether that expression , Acts 15.10 . Now therefore why tempt yee God , to put a yoak upon the necks of the Disciples , do not necessitate us to give the name of Disciples to Infants , as well as to grown men : For I reason thus ; All they upon whose necks those false teachers would h●ve put the yoak of Circumcision , are called disciples , and to be called disciples ; but they would have put the yoak of Circumcision upon Infants , as well as grown men ; therefore Infants ●s well as grown men are called disciples , and to be called so . The Major is undeniable , the Minor I prove thus : They who pressed Circumcision to be in force according to the manner of Moses Law , and would put it upon their necks after the manner of Moses his Law , they would put it upon Infants of those who were in convenant with God , as well as upon the necks of those who were grown men ; for so Moses Law required : But these false teachers pressed Circumcision to be in force , as is apparent , Acts 15.1 . I have seriously weighed this Text , Acts 15.10 . as you desire , and I find no necessity nor colour of giving to Infants the name of Disciples from that Text. And in answer to your Argument , though you say , it is undeniable , yet I have the boldnesse to deny the Major in your Prosyllogisme ; For , though it be true that they are called disciples upon whose necks they would put the yoak of Circumcision , yet it is not said , they would put it only on Disciples , it is more probable they indeavoured to put it on the necks of all , whether Disciples or others , as universally necessary to salvation , v. 1. And therefore your M●jor is not certain , that all they , upon whose necks those false teachers would have put the yoak of Circumcision are called disciples : The Minor likewise in your Prosyllogisme , I deny and in your latter Syllogisme , framed to prove it , I deny the Major : For , though I deny not that they would have had Infants as well as converted Gentiles circumcised ; yet the putting the yoak of Circumcision is not actuall circumcision in their flesh , for that they were able to bear for many ages ; and at this day Mahometanes and Abassine Christians do still bear , as well as Jews ; bu● the yoak of circumcision is the necessity of it on mens consciences , and therewith the whole Law of Moses , vers . 5. and that as necessary to salvation , v. 1. and therefore Peter having said , v. 10. Why tempt ye God to put a yoak upon the necks of the Disciples ? addes , v. 11. but we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus we shall be saved even as they , plainly implying , that the yoak he meant , was the necessity of Circumcision , and keeping Moses his law to salvation . Now , this yoak was not put upon Infants , but upon brethren taught the necessity of it , vers . 1. And thus , like another Sisyphus , the stone you roul returns upon you : Volvendo saxum sudas , nec proficis bilum , you sweat in rouling a stone , and yet profit not a whit ; and you are so far from proving by virtuall and undeniable consequence , a command to baptize Infants of Believers , according to ordinary rule , that on the contrary , this Text , Mat. 26.19 . clearly proves Infants are not by ordinary rule to be baptized , because Disciples of all nations , and no other , are appointed to be baptized ; and therefore baptizing of Infants is besides the institution , and so wil-worship . But yet Mr. Blake hath one Text for a reserve , which he thus puts in array : Let that Text of the Prophet be well weighed , where speaking by the Spirit of prophecy of the rejection of the Jews , and the glorious call of the Gentiles in their stead , in that ample way , as it is there set out , hath these words : Behold , I will lift up mine hand to the Gentiles , and set up my Standard to the people , and they shall bring thy sons in their arms ; and thy daughters shall be carried on their shoulders , Isai. 49.22 . If there were but such an hint , as that by way of prophecy to have left them behind , we should from some have heard of it with a noise . It may be truly said , the alledging this Text for Infant-baptisme , is but a noise , vox & praeterea nihil , a voyce , and nothing beside , as the Spartan said of the Nightingal . To it I answer , that the allusion is to nursing-fathers and mothers , carrying children on shoulders , and in their arms , and the speech is metaphoricall , as Junius saith in his annot . in locum , Haec omnia allegoricè dicuntur , all these things are spoken allegorically , and may be either understood , as he speaks , of the spirituall amplifying of Christs Kingdom ; and so children were brought on arms and shoulders among Gentiles by preaching and instruction , as when the Apostle saith , he was gentle among the Thessalonians as a nurse that cherisheth her children , 1 Thes. 2.7 . or , it may be understood of the return of the Jews from captivity ; and that the following verses make more probable ; nor is there a word in the Text that I observe , of the rejection of the Jews , as he sayes , but of their restitution . But if it must be understood properly , which hath no likelihood , it may be as well conceived of bringing their children to have laying on of hands , as baptizing of them . I go on to that which followes in your Sermon . ANother command by good consequence for the baptizing of infants , you shall finde in the forementioned place : when the Apostle exhorteth them to repent and be baptized , &c. because the promise was made to them and to their children , which as I shewed clearly proves that the children of such as beleeve and are baptized , are taken into Covenant , and therefore by good consequence they are to receive the seale of the Covenant , the Text not onely shewing that they are within the Covenant , but also that a right to Baptisme is a consequence of being within the Covenant . This text hath been examined before , and it hath been proved that the promise there is the sending of Christ , who was raised up to blesse them and their children first , then those that were afarre off , being called , and that the promise doth not belong to their children , as the children of beleevers , but as called , and that the promise is not alledged as of it selfe giving right for them or their children to be baptized , without any other consideration , but as a motive and incouragement for them to repent , and so to be baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus ; for the remission of sinnes , notwithstanding they had crucified the Lord of glory , and wished his bloud to be upon them , and their children ; which being thus rightly understood , is so farre from proving a command to baptize infants , that on the contrary , it proves they are not to be baptized . You say further ; Thus for Commands : for examples , though there should be none , there is no great argument in it , when the rule is so plaine , yet we have examples enough by good consequence . It is true , if the rule were plaine , there would be no need of an example ; and on the other side , if wee had regulating examples , we should thereby know how to interpret the rule . But whereas you say , wee have examples enough by good consequence , it may be well suspected , these examples will prove like the commands , by consequence meere conjectures and conceits of men that would have it so . But let us heare what you say . For you shall finde , that the Gospel tooke place just as the old administration , by bringing in whole families together ; when Abraham was taken in , his whole familie was taken in with him ; when any of the Gentiles turned proselytes , ordinarily their whole families came in with them ; so in this new administration , usually if the master of the house turned Christian , his whole familie came in and were baptized with him ; the whole household of Cornelius , the first converted Gentile , Act. 11.14 . the houshold of Stephanus , the houshold of Aristobulus , the houshold of Narcissus , the houshold of Lydia , the houshold of the Gaoler : These are examples not to be contemned . True : nor any part of holy Scripture which is written for our learning , but in all these , there is no example of an infants baptizing in the Scripture . You say , the Gospel tooke place just as the old administration , by bringing in whole families together . By the old administration , you meane circumcision . But wee doe not finde the Gospel or Baptisme tooke place just in the manner or circumcision ; for in circumcision , it was but in one familie singled out , of the males onely , whether in the covenant of grace or not , children or servants , elder or younger , at eight dayes old , in the house , by the Master of the familie , or others in his stead . But in Baptisme it is cleane otherwise , so that you might more truly have said , the new administration of Baptisme is just opposite to that of circumcision , yea in respect of that one thing wherein you make them agree so well , the bringing in of whole families together , it was but contingently so , not alwayes so , nor constantly so , according to any promise or prophecy , and when it did so happen , we finde not any infant baptized , nor any intimation of baptizing housholds , in conformitie to the administration of circumcision . And this may appeare by going through the examples of baptizing in the new Testament . Concerning John the Baptist , it is said , Mat. 3.5 . Then went out to him Jerusalem , and all Judea , and all the region round about Jordan , and were baptized of him in Jordan , confessing their sinnes . Luk. 3.29 . And all the people that heard him , and the Publicans justified God , being baptized with the baptisme of John ; but the Pharisees and Lawyers rejected the counsell of God against themselves , being not baptized of him . Concerning Christ and his disciples , it is said , Joh. 4.1 , 2. When the Lord knew how the Pharisees heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples then Iohn ( though Iesus himselfe baptized not but his disciples . ) In these examples the practise of baptizing , is not by taking in a familie , but by admitting all that would become disciples over all the Countries . After the ascension of Christ , the first example of Baptisme , is that Acts 2.44 . and there it is said , They that gladly received the Word were baptized ; and these were they to whom he had said , ver . the 39. the promise is to you and to your children ; and there were added unto them about three thousand soules , and yet never an infant baptized , unlesse we shall take Mr Thomas Goodwins conceit for an Oracle ( possibly the more willingly taken up , that it might seeme the more credible , that the Church of Jerusalem was but one single formed Congregation in a Church way ) that therefore it is said , There were added three thousand soules ; to intimate , that there were men , women and children added : he might have observed how ridiculous such a conceit is by that which follows , ver . 42. And they continued stedfastly in the Apostles doctrine , and fellowship , and in breaking of bread , and in prayer , and feare came upon every soule , &c. Which if he can apply to infants , Erit mihi magnus Apollo , I shall take his words for Oracles . Now sure these three thousand soules were not one family . The next example is of the Samaritanes , of whom it is said , Acts 8.12 . That when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the Kingdome of God , and the name of Jesus Christ , they were baptized men and women . Where it is plaine , that in a manner the whole Citie were baptized ; for ver . 6. it is said , The multitude with one accord ga●e heed to that which Philip spake ; ver . 13. Simon himselfe that did before lead them , now believed ; and ver . 14. Samaria received the word of God , and yet not an infant mentioned to be baptized , but those that believed , and received the word of God ; nor was this administration by taking in of a familie , but rather of a Citie . The next are of the Eunuch , Acts 8.38 . and Paul , Acts 9.18 . which were single believing persons , not a whole familie . The next is of Cornelius , of whom you gather from Acts 11.14 . " That his whole houshold were baptized . But it is true withall , that his house was not an ordinary familie , but a garrison of Souldiers . 2. That he called together his kinsmen and neare friends , Acts 10.24 . 3. That ver . 2. This whole house feared God. 4. That no other are nominated to have been baptized , but those who had heard the word , ver . 44. which spake with tongues , and magnified God , ver . 46. which received the holy Ghost , ver . 47. who were saved by Peters words , Acts 11.14 . which I presume will not be affirmed of infants . " Then you mention the houshold of Stephanas , which is said to be baptized , 2 Cor. 1.16 . and also Chap. 16.15 . is said to addict themselves to the ministery of the Saints . To this houshold most aptly may be adjoyned that which you omit , the house of Crispus , concerning whom 't is said Acts 18.8 . And Crispus the chiefe ruler of the Synagogue believed on the Lord , with all his house , and many of the Corinthians hearing believed , and were baptized . Where under the tearme houshold , those onely are meant who believed , and those that among the Corinthians were baptized , are said first to heare and believe . You put in the houshold of Aristobulus , the houshold of Narcissus , and you doe allude to Rom. 16.10 , 11. but these are onely brought in to make a number . For though our translators in the Text , reade of Aristobulus and Narcissus houshold , yet in the Greeke it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , which cannot well be translated of the houshold of Aristobulus and Narcissus , but rather as Beza , ex familiaribus , and as our translators in the Margin , of the friends of Narcissus ; and if it were translated houshold , yet proves not that the whole families were Christians , but some of them . The next you mention , is the houshold of Lydia , of whom it was said , that shee was baptized , and her houshold , Acts 16.15 . But this must be understood by other places , which when they expresse the baptizing of the houshold , they expresse also the believing , or receiving of the Word by the whole houshold , and by the frequent use of the Word , which is to put the house for the people of growth in it ; as , Mat. 10.13 . Mark. 3.25 . & 6.4 . Luk. 11.17 . Joh. 4.53 . Acts 10.2 . 2 Tim. 4.19 . The last you mention , is the houshold of the Gaoler ; concerning whom it is said , that he was baptized , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , Act. 16.33 . I remember Mr Edwards at Christs-Church indeavoured lately to gather from this expression , that because it is said , [ all his were baptized ] therfore his young children or infants , but this is but a light conjecture , and the Text sufficiently refutes this glosse : for ver . 32. immediately precedent expresseth who those [ all his ] were , to wit , all those in his house to whom Paul had spoken the word of the Lord ; and ver . 34. immediately subsequent , which saith , that he rejoyced , believing in God , with all his houshold . But Mr William Cooke , pag. 46. hath 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , a wise remedy to cure this : he tels us thus , I conceive it might be rendered more agreeably to the signification of the words , the scope of the place , and the avoyding of ambiguitie . And having believed in God , he rejoyced , exulted , or testified his joy openly by words and actions in all his familie , or through his house , or all his house over . But it is not worth while to refute this conceit at large , it is agreeable enough to the scope , order , meaning and signification of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , with all his house , to joyne it with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , believing , and to expound it as Beza , cum universa domo , with the whole house , and the Vulgar , cum omni domo , with all the house , rather then in domo , in the house , and to make it answer to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , with all his house , Acts 10.2 . to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , with all his house , Acts 18.8 . so that a● yet it doth not appeare that either one infant was baptized , or that the Gospel tooke place just as the old administration , by bringing in whole families together . Yea the contrary appeares out of the 1 Pet. 3.1 . & 1 Cor. 7.13.16 . that the husband was converted sometimes without the wife , and on the contrary , 1 Cor. 7.21 . & 1 Tim. 6.1 . Phil. 4.22 . in the house of infidel Masters were converted servants , and on the contrary , Philem. 11.12.14 , 15 , 16. And our Lord Christ foretold it should be so in the preaching of the Gospel , Mat. 10.35 , 36. Wherefore I much marvaile at the speech of Mr Blake , pag. 22. We have examples not to be contemned of the baptizing whole housholds , and whether infants were there or no , as it is not certaine , though probable , so it is not materiall , the president is an houshold ; He that followeth the president , must baptize housholds ; It appeares not that any wife was there , yet he that followes the president in baptizing of housholds , must baptize wives , and so I may say servants , if they be of the houshold . Which speech , though it containes onely dictates , and might be let passe , yet it is not fit to leave it without some animadversions . For if it be true , that the president is an houshold , and wee must baptize households , I aske whether we must baptize wife and servants , because they professe the faith , or because they be of the houshold : if the first be said , then the president is not of baptizing housholds , but baptizing a professor of the faith , which is the thing the Antipaedobaptists contend for ; if because of the houshold , whether professing faith or not , then an unbelieving wife or servant should be baptized , because they are of the houshold , unlesse it be supposed , that in an houshold when the Master or a husband is a believer , the wife and servant cannot be an unbeliever , the contrary whereof hath appeared above : But this I believe , none will deny to be absurd , and heterodox , and consequently that speech of Mr Blakes is very absurd , that I say no worse of it . To which I adde , that Mr Blake gives no reason , nor I thinke can , why the baptizing of housholds , Acts 16. should be the precedent for baptizing rather then the baptizing Samaria , Act. 8.12 . the 3000. Acts 2.42 . all Judea , Mat. 3.5 . So that in fine , it appeares that the administration of Baptisme is not just as the administration of circumcision , and that though it be true , that sometimes housholds were baptized , yet it is said , those housholds received the Word , and the word houshold , is often put for the growne people of it , and therefore as yet there is no example in Scripture to justifie the baptizing of infants , according to ordinarie rule . As for the objection of the houshold , eating the Passeover , and the answer to it , I shall let it passe now , because it will come againe in the last objection of the fourth part of your Sermon . And thus I have at last examined your first and maine argument . Your second , it seemes , you make lesse account of , and therefore I shall sooner dispatch the answer . Thus you frame it . THe second argument : to whom the inward grace of Baptisme belongs , to them belongs the outward signe , they ought to have the signe , who have the thing signified , the earthly part of the Sacrament must be granted to those who have the heavenly part : but the infants of believers , even while they are infants , are made partakers of the inward grace of Baptisme , of the heavenly and spirituall part , as well as growne men : therefore they may and ought to receive the outward signe of Baptisme . The major proposition , that they who are made partakers of the inward grace , may not be debarred of the outward signe , is undeniable : it is Peters argument , Acts 10. Can any forbid water , that these should not be baptized , who have received the holy Ghost as well as wee ? And againe , for as much as God gave them the like gift , as he did unto us , what was I that I could withstand God ? And this is so cleare , that the most learned of the Anabaptists doe readily grant , that if they knew any infant to have received the inward grace , they durst not deny them the outward signe , and that the particular infants whom Christ took up in his armes and blessed , might have been baptized . The Question between us is , whether the infants of believers universally , or indifferently , are to be admitted to the Sacrament of Baptisme , according to ordinary rule . Now I suppose you doe not hold that the infants of believers indifferently have actually the thing signified by Baptisme , that is , the Holy Ghost , union with Christ , adoption , forgivenesse of sinnes , regeneration , and everlasting life : for then they are all sanctified , and are all believers , and if this could be proved , there would be no question about Paedobaptisme , the texts , Act. 8.37 . Act. 10.47 . Act. 11.17 . would undeniably prove it , and therefore there is no Antipaedobaptist , I thinke , but will grant your Major ; That regenerate persons united to Christ , whose sins are forgiven , adopted persons that have received the Holy Ghost , are to be baptized . But I conceive , though in the laying down the Major , you use these phrases [ who have the thing signified , who have the heavenly part ] : and in your Minor [ are made partakers ] ; yet you do not mean in this Assumption , actuall having , and being made partakers of the inward grace of Baptism ; concerning which , the Antipaedobaptists do so readily grant the Major : but a potentiall having , or , as you after speak , being capable of the inward grace ; and so you use the fallacy of equivocation : in the Major , [ having ] being understood of actuall having , and in the Minor of potentiall , which makes four terms , and so the Syllogisme is naught : Or , if you do mean in both actuall having , you mean it only of some Infants of Believers , not of all , of whom the Question is , and so your conclusion is but particular , that some Infants of Believers , who are sanctified actually , are to be baptized . But this will not reach home to your tenet or practice , concerning the baptizing of all Infants of Believers , in as much as they are the children of Believers , without the consideration of actuall faith or sanctification . It is true , the Lutheranes do teach , that Infants have actuall faith , and are regenerate in Baptisme , and therefore , in Colloquio Mompelgar●ensi , upon the fourth Artic. de Baptismo , they put these among the Positions they reject , as contrary to the Scripture : Non omnes infantes qui baptizantur gratiae Christi participes esse , & regenerari , infantes carere fide , & nihilominus baptizari ; that all the Infants which are baptized , are not partakers of the grace of Christ , and regenerate ; that Infants want faith , and neverthelesse are baptized . And I remember , when I lived in Oxford , there was a book published in English , of Baptismal initiall regeneration of elect Infants , the Position whereof was opposed , as favouring the doctrine of conferring grace by Baptisme , ex opere operato , by the work wrought , and intercision of regeneration , sith according to that doctrine , a person might have the Spirit initially , in infancy ; and though it could not fall away finally , as being an elect person , yet might run out in a continued course of sinning grosse and scandalous sins with full consent untill his dying day ; which doth enervate the urging of that Text , 1 John 3.9 . against Apostasie of regenerate persons , when out of it is proved , that raigning sin is not in the regenerate , and the like texts , which in that Controversie are urged against Arminans . With that book Dr. Featley in his late feeble , and passionate Tract against Anabaptists , and Antiprelatists concurs , pag. 67. in these words : Nay , so farre are they from excluding faith from Infants that are baptized , that they believe , that all the children of the faithfull , who are comprised in the covenant with their fathers , and are ordained to eternall life , at the very time of their baptisme receive some hidden grace of the Spirit , and the seed of faith and holinesse , which afterwards bears fruit , in some sooner , in some later . And since I came to London , I met with a Book , intituled , A Christian plea , for Infants Baptisme , by S.C. who holds positions somewhat like to the Lutherans , that though children of believing parents be not all holy and righteous , they may degenerate , apostatize , yet the Infants of believing parents are righteous by imputation , are believers and confessors imputatively , &c. pag. 10. and elsewhere . And he hath this passage , pag. 3. It is a sure truth , that the sins of the parents , being forgiven , the Lord will not impute the same unto their Infants . Originall sin , I say , taketh no more hold on the Infants then on their parents ; and touching actuall sin , they are as clear as their parents . Many more like passages there are in that Book , these I mention , that you may see what stuffe Paedobaptists do feed the people with . But I suppose you do not hold , that all Infants of Believers , either actually or initially , or imputatively , are sanctified , regenerated , adopted , justified , as knowing how contrary this is to Rom. 9.6 , &c. to daily experience , to the doctrine of Beza and his Collegues , at Mon●pelgart , to the reformed Churches of Geneva , &c. and what advantage it gives to Papists , Lutherans , Arminians , and those that follow the way of Tomson in his Diatribe , of which I suppose you are not ignorant ; and therefore conceiving you orthodox in this point , the answer to your Syllogisme is either by shewing it doth not conclude the question , if your Minor and conclusion be understood of actuall having the inward grace , and they be particular only . If you understand them of actuall having , and they be universall , then I deny your Minor. If your Major be understood of potentiall having , I deny it , if of actuall , and the Minor be of potentiall , there be four terms , and so the Syllogisme is naught . Take away the ambiguity of your terms , and the answer is easie . But for the proof of your Minor , you say thus : And for the Assumption , or Minor , That the Infants of Believers , even while they are Infants , do receive the inward grace as well as grown men , is as plain , not only by that speech of the Apostle , who saith , they are holy , but our Saviour saith expresly , Mark 10. That to such belongs the Kingdome of God , as well as to grown men ; And whereas some would evade it , by saying , that the Text saith not , To them belongs the kingdome of God , but of such is the Kingdome of heaven , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , of such like , that is , such as are graced with such like qualities , who are humble and meek , as children are : and that Luke 18. is parallel to this in the meaning of it : whosoever doth not receive the Kingdome of heaven as a little child , be shall not enter therein . But I answer , though it be true , that in other places this is one use that Christ makes of an Infants age and condition , to shew , that such as receive the Kingdome of heaven , must be qualified with humility , &c. like unto children ; yet here it cannot be his meaning , because his argument is , Suffer them to come to me , and forbid them not , because of such is the Kingdome of God , that i● , my Church and Kingdome is made of those , as well as of others . This was the very cause , why the disciples rebuked those who brought the children to Christ , because they were little , not fit to be instructed ; and therefore not fit that Christ should be troubled about them ; this Christ rebukes in them , and tels them , that the littlenesse of children , is no argument why they should be kept from him : Suffer them , said he , to come , and forbid them not , for of such is the Kingdome of God ; and what kinde of argument had this been , if the Text should be interpreted as these men would have it ; Suffer little children to come unto me , that I may touch them , take them up in mine arms , put my hands upon them , and blesse them , because the Kingdome of God belongeth to them , who have such like qualities , who resemble children in some select properties ? By the very same ground , if any had brought doves and sheep to Christ to put his hands upon them , and blesse them , the Disciples had been liable to the same reproof , because of such is the Kingdome of God , such as are partakers of the Kingdome of God , must be endued with such like properties . The Minor to be proved is , that all the Infants of Believers , or the Infants of Believers in as much as they are Infants of Believers , are actually partakers of the inward grace of Baptisme , else your Argument will not serve for your purpose , as hath been shewed . Now neither doth the Apostles speech , 1 Cor. 7.14 . prove it , as hath been shewed above ; nor doth this Text , Mar. 10.14 . prove it . For , first , it is doubtfull , whether these were Infants or no. I presume you are not ignorant , that Piscator observat : in Mat. 19.14 . doth maintain that the speech of Christ , is not of Infants , but of children which were capable of instruction , which he gathers from this , that Christ called them , Luke 18.16 . And whereas it is said in Mark , he took up in his arms , the word so translated , is used Mark 9.36 . For the imbracing of those that were of some growth , whom he placed in the midst , and of whose scandalizing he there warnes ; nor doth the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 used Luke 18.15 . translated in English Infants prove it , for it signifies a childe capable of teaching , as when it i● said , Timothy knew the sacred Scripture from a childe , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , that is , ever sinne he was a boy , not an Infant ; nor doth the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 translated brought unto him prove that they were Infants : For the same word is applied to them that were guided , though they were not carried , but did go by themselves , as the blinde and deaf Daemoniake , Matth. 12.22 . and the lunatick childe , Matth. 17.16 . To this purpose Piscator . As for Mr. Thomas Goodwins reason from Julius Pollux , that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth signifie one that is madidus , moist or sappie , it is of no force to prove that they were Infants : For besides , that not etymologie , but use must expound words ; if it were so , yet we know children are moist , till they be adolescentes , youths ; we say , till they be of good yeers , they are but a gristle , tender , green ; so that notwithstanding this , the children brought to Christ , might be of yeers sufficient to be catechumeni , and yet fit enough to resemble humility and harmlesnesse by . Secondly , It is yet doubtfull whether our Saviour said , of them is the Kingdome of heaven ; for the word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , of such , not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , of these : And Luke 18.17 . Mark 10.15 . both adde this speech , Verely I say unto you , whosoever doth not receive the Kingdome of God as a little childe , shall not enter therein ; like to which is that Matth. 18.3 . But you have two exceptions against this : First , because this had been no reason why they should suffer these little children to come to him , because , of such is the Kingdome of God : Secondly , he might as well have said , suffer sheep , or doves to come to me ; for of such is the Kingdome of God. To these exceptions it may be replied , the reason may be thus conceived ; therefore you should not despise that age as prophane , and keep them from me , for even they that are my Disciples , must become children again , in putting off their vices , being converted , unlearning what they have learned , becoming humble and docible , which things could not be resembled by sheep and doves . Thirdly , but let it be granted , that these were Infants , and that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , is to be expounded as Beza in his Annot. on Mat. 19.14 . horum & similium , these and the like , yet there is no certainty , only conjecture , that they were believers Infants . For , though Christ was in the coasts of Judea then , yet it might as well be , that the children were brought by others as parents , and that without faith in Christ , as the Messiah , upon the fame of his miracles , and the conceit he was a prophet , and so they might bring children to him to be blessed , as Jacob and Esau , by Isaac , Josephs children by Jacob , &c. Fourthly , but let it be granted they were the Infants of Believers , and that it is said , of these is the Kingdome of God , it may be , as Piscator observes , referred not to thei● present estate , as if for the present they were in the kingdome of God , that is , believers and justified ; but that they were elect persons , and so in time of them should be the Kingdom of God : Now that which gives right to Baptisme , 〈◊〉 the present estate of a person . Fifthly , but let that be also granted , yet all this proves not your Minor , unlesse you can prove , that the reason why the Kingdome of heaven belongs to Infants , is common with these to other Infants of Believer● , and the reason why their● is the Kingdome of God , is , because they were the Infants of Believers , that ●o it may be true of all the Infants of Believers . But this cannot be true , being contrary to expresse Scripture , Rom. 9.6 , 7 , 8.13 . and inferring this error , that a childe hath right to the Kingdom of God , in that he is the childe of a Believer : And experience proves innumerable of them have no interest in the Kingdome of God. Besides , this reason may be given , why these Infants did belong to Gods Kingdome , because they were such as Christ would blesse , and then all that you can gather from hence will be , that of the Infants of Believers whom Christ blesseth , is the Kingdome of heaven . But this will never prove your Assumption , except you can prove that Christ blesseth all the Infants of Believers . Lastly , Christs action in this businesse is proper to him , as the great Prophet of the Church , and extraordinary , and therefore yeelds no ground for an ordinary rule of baptizing by the publique Ministery . And , if an ordinary rule should be made in imitation , of it , it would serve better for the proving the Sacrament of confirmation , which Art. 25. of the Church of England puts among things , grown from a corrupt following the Apostles , then Baptisme . And in all probability , if Christ would have this accident to be a rule or precedent for bringing Infants to him by a visible signe in the new Testament , as Mr. Thom●s Goodwin at Bow dictated , he would have appointed his Apostles to have baptized these Infants as a samplar . For which reason , it seems to me , that this example rather shews Christ would not have Infants baptized , then that he intended to make this accident a precedent for paedobaptisme . But you will prove your Minor by reasons , and thus you reason : Beside , what one thing can be named , belonging to the initiation and being of a Christian , whereof Baptisme is a seal , which Infants are not capable of as well as grown men ; they are capable of receiving the Holy Ghost , of union with Christ , of adoption , of forgivenesse of sins , of regeneration , of everlasting life ; all which things are signified , and se●led in the Sacrament of Baptisme . I may apply to you the words of Horace , Amphora coepit institui , currente rota cur●●recus exit ? A barrell began to be made , why the wheel running doth a pitcher come forth ? The thing you should prove is , that all the Infants of Believers , are actually partakers of the inward grace of Baptisme ; but in stead of this , you prove , they are capable of it ; they may have it , but doth it therefore follow , that they actually have it ? It was once an Axiome in the Schools ; a posse ad esse non valet argumentum , from it may be ●o it is , an Argument holds not ; and I think it is so still . Besides , must children be baptized , because they are capable of Grace ? Then may all children be baptized , for they are all capable of the inward Grace of Baptisme . But you have yet something more to say . And it is further considerable that in the working of that inward grace , of which Baptisme is the signe and seal , all who partake of that grace , are but meer patients , and contribute no more to it then a child● doth to its own begetting , and therefore , Infants as fit subjects to have it wrought in them as grown men ; and the most grown men are in no more fitnesse to receive this grace when it is given them in respect either of any faith or repentance , which they yet have , then a very little childe , it being the primary intention of the covenant of Grace in its first work to shew what free grace can , and will do to miserable nothing , to cut miserable man off from the wild Olive , and graffe him into the true Olive , to take away the heart of stone , ●o create in them a heart of flesh , to forgive their iniquities , to love them freely ; what doth the most grown men in any of these more then an Infant may do , being only passive in them all ? and of this first grace is the Sacrament of Baptisme properly a seal . That which you say , it is true , is further considerable ; but to what purpose it is here brought in , I cannot readily divine , whether it be for a proof of the Minor of your Syllogisme ; or that which you said immediatly before , that Infants are capable of the inward grace of Baptisme ; or whether you would make a further Argument for Infant-baptisme thus : Baptisme is to be given to those that are capable of the first grace as well as grown men ; and the proof of this seems to be , because Baptisme seals properly the first grace . But Infants are capable of the first grace as well as grown men , and the proof of this seems to be , because all who partake of that grace , are but meer patients , &c. Therefore Infants are to be baptized as well as grown men . If this be your Argument , the Major is to be denyed : For , a person is not to be baptized because he may have grace , but because he hath it . And for the reason , that Baptisme seals properly the first grace , it is obscure , what you mean by the first grace is not cleare . If the free favour of God , mentioned before , when you say , [ to love them freely ] this indeed is the first grace simply Gods eternall love and election ; and I deny not but Baptisme seals it in some sense properly , and so doth the Lords Supper as properly ; if you mean by the first grace the covenant of Grace , which is the first transient act of grace , that also is sealed properly in Baptisme , and as properly in the Lords Supper : if you mean the first grace in execution , it is uncertain which you put first , justification or regeneration , or , as some , adoption : And then which is the second grace is uncertain , whether after-sanctification , cooperating , concomitant , subsequent grace , sustentation against temptations , remission of sins , hearing prayers , or eternall glory . Now , I do not well understand in what sense , or why Baptisme seals properly rather the first grace then the second , sith according to your doctrine it is a seal of the covenant of grace ; and therefore of all the promises in it ; Nor can I tell , why it should be said , that Baptisme seals the first grace properly , rather then the Lords Supper . I confesse in exactnesse of speech , Baptisme seals no grace , first or second , properly , taking it for propriety of speech , but improperly , because metaphorically , as sealing is taken for assuring . And if properly notes propriety of right , or title , or possession in opposition to anothers ; or that which is alien , I see not how Baptisme doth seal , that is , assure the first grace in respect of the propriety of right more then the second , or more then the Lords Supper . And therefore your speech seems to me very ambiguous : And for the Minor , as I conceive , you frame it , that Infants are capable of the first grace as well as grown men , it is true , and so they are of the second , or at least some of them ; but both by extraordinary working . As for receiving grace by ordinary means , they are not capable of one or other . And for the speeches which you heap together , though I grant that in the first conversion , in the sense that some learned men understand it , we are meerly passive ; yet I doubt whether Dr. Twisse , and such as have most acutely handled the controversie about the irresistibility of grace in the first conversion , will subscribe to those speeches of yours , when you say , all who partake of that grace , are but meer patients , and contribute no more to it , then a childe doth to its own begetting ; and therefore Infants as fit subjects to have it wrought in them , as grown men , and the most grown men are in no more fitnesse to receive this grace when it is given them , in respect either of any faith or repentance which they yet have , then a very little childe . What doth the most grown man in any of these , more then an Infant may do ? being only passive in them all . If my memory deceive me not , the Divines of great Britain at the Synod of Dort in their suffrage , did set down some things which might be done in respect of faith or repentance , when grace is given , by grown men , more then an Infant can do , and so doth in like manner Mr. Rutherfurd , The Triall and Triumph of Faith , Serm. 14. pag. 109 , 110. And though you say , The most grown men are only passive in them all , yet D ● . Twisse in his Vindiciae gratiae , lib. 3. errat . 9. Sect. 3. thought this subtilty necessary , that the will in the first conversion , is meerly passive , as the willing of the will is taken for●ally , as being in the subject ; but as it is taken efficiently , it being a vitall act , so it is not meerly passive in the first conversion . And Dr. Preston in his acute Exercitation , De irresistibilitate gratiae convertentis , hath these words : Nos sustinemus voluntatem in primo actu conversionis , partim passivè , partim activè , id est , prius passivè , dein activè se habere , ideoque cum Deo cooperari ; We hold the will in the first act of conversion , to be partly passive , partly active , that is , first of all to be passive , then active , and therefore to cooperate with God. It is true , the acts of taking away the heart of stone , creating a heart of flesh , forgiving iniquity , loving freely , as they are acts of God , a man is neither active nor passive in them , they are not in man as the subject , nor from man as the agent ; only we may be said to be passive , or active , in respect of the terminus , or effect of them , a new heart , faith , or repentance , produced by them ; and in respect of this , in some sense , we are meerly passive , in some , partly active , and partly passive in the first conversion , according to the doctrine of the two learned Doctors forenamed . You conclude this Argument with this speech : And whoever will deny that Infants are capable of these things , as well as grown men , must deny that any Infants dying in their infancy , are saved by Christ. Concerning which speech , if you mean that Infants are capable of these things as well as grown men simply , in respect of the things , it is true that Infants are capable of them as well as grown men , and he that denies it denies their salvation : But if you mean it in respect of the modus habendi , the manner of having , then it is not true : for Infants are not capable in the same manner of a new heart , faith and repentance , by hearing , and outward ordinances , as well as grown men . But what is all this to prove your Minor , which is not of potentiall having inward grace , which is not denied , but of actuall having ? And so still it remains unproved ; that all the Infants of Believers , or the Infants of Believers as such are actually partakers of the inward grace of Baptisme . And thus have I at last , examined the third part of your Sermon , containing your Arguments from Scripture for Paedobaptisme . I proceed now to examine the last part , which followes . Infant-Baptisme , is a corruption of the Ordinance of BAPTISME . PART . IIII. Concerning the Objections against Infant-Baptisme . AGainst this argument severall things are objected , which I shall indeavour to r●move out of the way : First , it is said , that although infants are capable of these things , and they no doubt are wrought by Christ in many infants , yet may not we baptize them , because according to the Scripture patterne , both of Christs Command , Mat. 28. in his institution of Baptisme , where this was injoyned , and John the Baptist , Christs disciples and Apostles , they alwayes taught , and made them disciples by teaching , before they baptized any . It is true , the institution of Christ , Mat. 28.19 . and the practise of John Baptist , and the Apostles , are the great objections against Paedobaptisme ; This principle being laid down as a truth avouched against the Papists , by Protestants generally , that it is a sinne of prophaning the Sacraments , when the institution is altered , by substraction , as when the cup is denied to the lay people , or by addition , as when chrisme and spittle , &c. are added to the elements : and by the non-conformists conformists of England , that it is will-worship to administer the Sacraments any other wayes , by addition of any thing to them , but circumstances , which are alike requisite to civill actions ; now the persons to be baptized cannot be conceived a meere alterable circumstance , but to belong necessarily to the administration or worship , as the person baptizing , and as the persons receiving the Lords Supper , and therefore there must be warrant from institution for it , else it is a sinfull invention of man. But neither Christs institution , or John the Baptist , or the Apostles practise , doe warrant the baptizing of infants , therefore it is will-worship : that the institution , Mat. 28.19 . doth not warrant the baptizing of infants , is proved . 1. Because the institution appoints onely disciples of all nations to be baptized ; but infants are not such : therefore the institution doth not warrant their Baptisme . The Major and Minor of this Syllogisme have been made good , Part. 3. Sect. 13. 2. Because the order Christ appoints is , that teaching or preaching the Gospel , should goe before Baptisme ; now the order of Christ , is a rule of administring holy things , as we argue in like manner , 1 Cor. 11.28 . The Apostle appoints that a man is first to examine himselfe , then to eate of that bread ; ergo , Children are not to have the Lords Supper ; so in like manner wee may argue , wee must first teach persons , and then baptize them ; therefore children that cannot be taught by us , are not to be baptized ; To that which Mr Edwards answereth to this argument , that John is said , Mark. 1.4 . to baptize and preach , I oppose the words of Beza annot . in Mark. 1.4 . Quod autem Erasmus subjungit Joannem priùs baptizâsse , deinde praedicâsse baptismum , ejusmodi est ut ne refutatione quidem videatur indigere . Quid enim ? cum diceret Joannes , Poenitentiam agite , appropinquat enim regnum coelorum , non docebat quos erat baptizaturus ? Imò ve●ò nisi priùs docuisset in quem finem baptizaret , quis tandem ad ejus baptismum accessisset ? Certe cum sacramenta sint 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , necesse est ut praeeat doctrina quam obsignent . 3. Because the institution is to baptize into the name of the Father , Son , and Holy Spirit , that is , with invocation of the name of the Lord , as Acts 22.16 . Paul is bid arise and be baptized , and wash away his sinnes , calling on the name of the Lord. Which infants cannot doe : with devoting themselves to the service and adherence of the Father , Son , and holy Spirit , which may be gathered from this , that Paul said , 1 Cor. 13.15 . he had baptized none into his name , that is , he had not caused them in their baptisme to devote or addict themselves to him as their Master , but infants cannot so devote themselves to Christ , therefore they are not to be baptized according to this institution . 4. Christ bids the Apostles presently after baptisme teach them to observe what ●ver he commanded them ; but infants cannot doe this , therefore they are not to be baptized . Likewise baptizing , infants , doth not agree with the primitive practise of John Baptist , and the Apostles , who required expressions of repentance and faith afore Baptisme , Mat. 3.6 . Mark. 1.5 . Luk. 3.10 . Acts 2.38 . & 8.12 , 13.37 . & 9.18 . & 10.47 . & 11.17 , 18. & 16.15.31 , 32 , 33. & 18.8 . & 19.5.8.22.16 . in which places , profession of repentance and faith is still made the antecedent to Baptisme : but this doth not agree to infants , therefore they are not to be baptized . Of these arguments you answer onely to the two first from institution , and to the last from example ; to the first from institution , you answered before , and there I examined your answer , part . 3. sect . 12 , 13. To the second from institution , and to the last from example , you make some answer here , not denying that the order appointed by Christ is first to teach , and then to baptize : for that is so manifest , that your selfe page 35. doe so paraphrase the words , when you say , expresse command there is , that they should teach the heathen , and the Jewes , and make them disciples , and then baptize them : nor by denying that John Baptist , and the Apostles required expressions of faith and repentance afore Baptisme , nor by denying that the institution of Christ , and the Apostles example , are our rule in the administring the Sacraments , so as that we cannot vary from them without will-worship , and prophaning the worship of God by our inventions : for that is so confessed a truth , that there hath been a great while , scarce a Sermon before the Parliament , but hath asserted that rule , and pressed it on the Parliament , and our solemne Covenant supposeth it , the Churches of Scotland , New-England , &c. The Sermons in the Citie continually a vow it , and urge it , and upon this ground former and later reformations are urged . But you have two miserable evasions ; You say , I answer . First , that of Mat. 28. is not the institution of baptisme , it was instituted long before to be the seale of the Covenant , it 's only an inlargement of their commission , whereas before they were onely to goe to the lost sheepe of the house of Israel , now they are to goe unto all the world . Whereunto I reply , 1. If this be not the first institution of baptisme , yet it is an institution , and the institution of baptisme to us Gentiles , and therefore the rule by which Ministers are to baptize , there being no other institution that I know of to regulate our practise by , but such as is gathered from John Baptist , the Apostles practise and sayings . 2. If institution or appointment of God must warrant our practise in Gods worship , which you once held in the Sermon cited before , part . 2. sect . 9. then you must shew another institution , else you cannot acquit paedobaptisme from will-worship , and your selfe from breaking the hedge God hath set about the second Commandement . But you adde further ; And beside it is no where said , that none were baptized but such as were first taught , and what reason wee have to believe the contrary , you have before seene . Your selfe say presently in the next words , It is said indeed , that they taught and baptized , and no expresse mention of any other , then of the baptisme of persons taught , and you assigne a reason of it . And page 35. your selfe paraphrase the institution , Mat. 28.19 . Expresse command there is , that they should teach the heathen , and the Jewes , and make them disciples , and then baptize them : and consequently , there is no expresse command for any other ; and for the reason you have to beleeve that others are to be baptized which are not taught , it hath been examined in the weighing your virtuall consequence , which is grounded upon such a principle , as in time you may see to be a dangerous precipice , how ever for the present the great consent of Doctors in the reformed Churches dazzles your eyes ; for my part , I cannot yet discerne , but that your grounds for paedobaptisme , are worse then the Papists and Ancients , who build it on Joh. 3.5 . Rom. 5.12 . But you yet adde . Secondly , it is said indeed , that they taught and baptized , and no expresse mention made of any other : but the reason is plaine ; there was a new Church to be constituted , all the Jewes who should receive Christ , were to come under another administration : You say right , therefore none other were to be baptized , but taught persons , because though the invisible Church of the Gentiles were joyned to the invisible of the Jewes , Rom. 11.17 . Ephes. 2.14 , 15 , 16. by faith of the Gospel , as Ephes. 3.6 . it is expounded : yet the outward estate of the Church is new , and as you say , even the Jewes who should receive Christ , were to come under a new administration , even those who were Jewes by nature and not proselytes , were to be baptized as uncleane persons , contrary to their former administration , in which they were onely circumcised ; and this is a plaine evidence , that the administration of Circumcision , is not the administration under which wee are now , but that it did belong to that administration which is now abolished , which is enough to overthrow all your virtuall consequence from circumcision , to baptisme , and consequently all the former dispute of your first argument , in which circumcision of infants is indeed the alone prop of baptizing infants . As for that which you adde , " And their infants were to come in onely in their right . This overthrows your second argument ; for that is grounded upon this , that infants of believers , and particularly infants of believing Jewes , such as those are supposed to be Mark. 10.14 . were partakers of the inward grace of baptisme , and if so , they came in by their own right . But that one mans right to baptisme , should give another right to baptisme , is a position that the Scripture doth not deliver , and inwraps sundry errors , which I now omit , because it comes in onely upon the by . But you goe on . And the heathen nations who were to be converted to Christ , were yet without the covenant of grace , and their children could have no right , untill themselves were brought in , and therefore no marvaile though both John and Christs disciples and Apostles did teach before they baptized , because then no other were capable of baptisme . In this perioch , you grant many things which doe yeeld the cause ; for , 1. you say , that both John and Christs disciples and the Apostles did teach before they baptized , because then no other were capable of baptisme ; now by this reason you confesse , 1. that baptizing of infants is not according to Johns and Christs disciples and Apostles practise ; 2. you say , then no other were capable of baptisme : Now this is true , either because then there were no children of believers that might be baptized : but that is absurd , that in all the time of Johns and the disciples and Apostles ministery , believers had no children to be baptized , and contrary to the allegation of Mark. 10.14 . and other Texts , or because they had no Commission ; I cannot conceive how else your speech can be true : But if John , the disciples and Apostles had no Commission to baptize infants , neither have we , and so to doe it neither have our Ministers any commission , for we have no other commission to baptize then they had . But you thinke to salve it thus ; But when once themselves were instructed and baptized , then their children were capable of it by vertue of the covenant . Upon which I observe , 1. If the children were capable when once parents were instructed , and baptized , then they were capable , in Johns , and the disciples , and Apostles times , and so this speech overthrowes that before , that then no other but taught persons were capable of baptisme . 2. When you say , the children were capable by vertue of the covenant , it seems you could produce no institution in the new administration , but the institution of circumcision , the validitie of which hath been considered before . Besides , the covenant being the same at all times , as your Conclus . 1. holds , the children of believers were as capable in Johns time as after . So that your words plainly enterfere . But you put a case to be resolved . If any in the Jewish Church had received commission to goe and make other Cities proselytes to them , their commission must have run thus , Goe teach and circumcise , would it therefore have followed , that none might be circumcised , but such as were first taught ? To this I answer , in this commission the precept of circumcising should have had reference in the execution of it , either to the old institution of circumcision , Gen. 17. and then they had been appointed to circumcise males at eight dayes old not taught , or to a new institution , and then it would have been told more plainly , what they were to circumcise and whom , and so they might have resolved themselves . But what this makes for baptisme of infants , I see not , unlesse it be supposed that baptisme and circumcision are all one , which like the string in the Lampry is an errour that runs along through your whole Sermon . THe next objection you thus expresse ; But it is expresly said , That he that believes and is baptized , shall b● saved ; faith in Christ is the condition upon which men may be baptized ; and this is the most common objection among the Anabaptists , unbelievers may not be baptized ; children are unbelievers , therefore they may not be baptized ; wee have , say they , cleare evidence that faith is a condition required in those that are to be baptized , no evidence of any other condition that makes them capable of baptisme . Others of them adde , that under an affirmative command , the negative is to be included , believing is the affirmative , unbelieving is the negative , therefore where believers are commanded to be baptized , unbelievers are forbidden to be baptized : this objection they much glory in , and some of them dare all the world to answer it . The objection framed in this later way I own not , and consequently I may well let passe the answer ; for the truth is , Mark. 16.16 . is not a command , but an enuntiation ; onely that text , with others , specially that , Acts 8. 37. where when the Eunuch asked Philip , What letteth me to be baptized ? Philip answered , if thou believest in the Lord Jesus with all thy heart thou mayest ; and thereby intimated , that faith professed is a prerequisite to baptisme , and the defect of it an hindrance , confirme the objection as it is the first way formed , which may be further strengthned from the baptisme of Lydia , the Jaylor , Crispus , &c. and is confirmed in that in the subsequent practise of baptizing a Confession of faith was made by the person baptized , as appeares out of plaine passages in the Ancients , Justin Martyr , Tertullian , Cyprian , and Augustine , lib. 8. confes . c. 2. where speaking of one Victorinus , who was to be baptized , Denique ut ventum est ad horam profitendae fidei , quae verbis certis , retentisque memoriter de loco eminentiore in conspectu populi fidelis Romae reddi solet ab iis qui accessuri sunt ad gratiam tuam , &c. Lastly , when it was come to the houre of professing the faith , which is wont in certaine words , and gotten by heart to be rendered from an higher place in the sight of the faithfull people at Rome by those that shall have accesse in thy grace ; and when it was offered him by the Presbyters , that if he would he might then make his confession more secretly , he refused it and made his confession publiquely , with great acclamation . But this is a thing confessed by you , pag. 47. and it is usually answered , that this was onely in the baptisme of growne men : but infants might be baptized without such a confession . I reply , this answer might serve turne , if either by institution or practise primitive , there could be proved any other baptisme then of confessors of faith : in the meane time , till that be done , the argument is good , sith primum in unoquoque genere est mensura reliquorum ; The first in each kinde is the measure of the rest ; and this was a prerequisite condition in the first practise , therefore it ought to be so still , especially considering that God in his providence hath still preserved in all ages an image of the first practise in the interrogatories propounded to the baptized , even to infants , and thought necessary to be answered by some one for them , and the altering of it hath been a great cause of many corruptions in the Church of God , that so men might see what evils have followed the swerving from the rule : and might be directed what is necessary to be reformed . And so I passe to the third ( as you call it ) objection , which you thus expresse . BVt suppose they are capable of the inward grace of baptisme , and that God doth effectually worke in some of the infants of believers , is that sufficient warrant for us to baptize all the infants of beleevers ? if wee knew in what infants the Lord did worke , then we might baptize those infants , say some of them : but that he doth not make knowne to us , wee cannot know of any one infant by any ordinary way of knowledge , that they are inwardly baptized with the holy Ghost , and therefore wee may not baptize any of them , but waite to see when and in whom God will worke the thing signified , and then apply the signe to them . This that you here put among the objections , is rather an exception to your second argument , grounded on Act. 10.47 . & 11.17 . In answer to which it is granted , that those who have the inward grace , meaning it actually , are not to be debarred of baptisme , for then they are believers and disciples : But then it is rightly added , that this can make no ordinary rule for baptizing the infants of believers indifferently ; sith there is no certainty that any one infant of a believer , now existent , hath the inward grace of baptisme : and it is certain that all have not , and experience sheweth very many have not when they come to age , nor can it be known who have and who have not , but by extraordinary revelation , which if given , would be sufficient authoritie to baptize those infants , though the ordinary rule be not to baptize infants of believers indifferently . As the extraordinary spirit of Elijah , and Phinehas , and Peter , in killing Ananias and Sapphira , were sufficient authoritie to them to doe those things which agree not with ordinary rule . And this I grant to Mr Blake , that those that are thus intituled through want of an institution , are not to be excluded : for according to this supposition , in this case , the institution is cleare for them ; for they are sanctified persons , and so believers and disciples of Christ , and besides the extraordinary revelation for that end , would be an institution of that particular act . But the thing that he and you would infer from this concession , is that we may then make it an ordinary rule to baptize infants . But that can never be ; for extraordinarium non facit regulam communem , That which is extraordinary , makes not a common rule . If it did , James and John might call for fire from heaven , as Elijah did ; a man in his zeale might kill a wicked man without a legall triall , as did Phinehas . But let us heare what reply you make to this concession , you say thus ; Our knowledge that God hath effectually wrought the thing signified , is not the condition upon which we are to apply the signe , God no where required that wee should know , that they are inwardly and certainly converted , whom we admit to the Sacrament of Baptisme , the Apostles themselves were not required to know this of those whom they baptized , if they were they sinned in baptizing Simon Magus , Alexander , Hymeneus , Ananias and Sapphira , with others : wee are indeed to know that they have in them the condition which must warrant us to administer the signe , not that which makes them possest of the thing signified ; fallible conjectures are not to be our rule in adminis●ring Sacraments , either to infants or growne men , but a knowne rule of the Word , out of which rule wee must be able to make up such a judgement , that our administration may be of faith , as well as out of charity : In baptizing of grown men , the Apostles and Ministers of Christ administred the signe , not because they conjectured , that the parties were inwardly sanctified , but because they made that profession of faith and holinesse , of which they were sure , that whoever had the thing in truth , were received by Christ into inward communion with himself ; and that whoever thus made it , that Christ would have them received into the communion of his Church , though possibly , for want of the inward work , they were never received into the inward communion with Jesus Christ. Indeed , when such a confession was made , Christian charity , which alwayes hopeth the best , and thinketh no evill , bound them to receive them , and think of them , and converse with them , as with men in whom the inward work was wrought , untill they gave signes to the contrary : But this their charity , or charitable conjecture , was not the ground of admitting them to the Ordinance , but the profession and confession of the party made , according to the Word which they were bound to rest in ; yea , I greatly question , whether in case Peter or Paul could by the Spirit of revelation , have known that Ananias or Alexander would have proved no better then hypocrites , whether they either would , or ought to have refused them from Baptisme , whilest they made that publique profession and confession , upon which others were admitted , who in the event proved no better then those were ; so that I conclude , not our knowledge of their inward sanctification is requisite to the admitting of any to Baptisme , but our knowledge of the will of Christ , that such , who are in such and such a condition should by us be received into the communion of the Church . To the assertion here delivered , I assent , that not our knowledge , that the person to be baptized hath inward grace , is necessary ; but our knowledge of the will of Christ , and the person to be baptized , his having the condition , which is the profession of faith and holiness , is sufficient warrant to baptize him . And I agree , that a judgement of charity , is not that a Minister is to proceed by in this case , but a judgement of faith , as you speak , and of ministeriall prudence : For a Minister in this case is to act as a Steward , who is to deal according to his Lords will , not his own minde , otherwise his own understanding or affection , which are but a Lesbian rule , should be his rule , which would be intolerable . Thus far I agree with you : only whereas in the case by you framed , your resolution inclines to the negative , I rather incline to the affirmative , and conceive they would have refused them , and that they ought ; because I conceive the end of such an extraordinary revelation would be to warne them not to admit such persons , and so equivalent to a prohibition ; and in that case the baptizing them , would be a plain prophaning the Ordinance , which is not to be given to Dogs and Swine : And I conceive , that which Chamier tom . 4. panstra . Cath. lib. 5. c. 15. Sect. 13. speaks in justification of the scrutiny heretofore made in examining the competentes so strictly , confirms this resolution . But to keep to the present businesse , that which is granted , doth neither prove that upon extraordinary revelation of the present inward sanctification of an Infant , that Infant may not be baptized without staying for its profession : For , though it be true that we are not to stay from baptizing them that professe the faith , because we have not a spirit of discerning to know them to be reall Believers , yet we may , having a spirit of discerning that an Infant that cannot professe the faith , yet hath true faith , or is inwardly sanctified , baptize that Infant without staying for his profession , partly , because of the principle used by Peter , Acts 10.47 . and partly , because the revelation of the faith of that Infant to that end , doth authorize that act : Nor doth this concession advantage you to prove baptizing of Infants by ordinary rule , which is the thing you and Mr. Blake aim at . But your words concerning the knowledge of the will of Christ , as the rule of baptizing , rather advantage the Antipaedobaptists , who know no other rule to baptize by , but the condition you truly propound of profession of faith , and therefore conceive your words a good plea for them . But you further say : And in this the rule to direct our knowledge , is as plain for Infants as for grown men , the rule having been alwayes this : that grown men , who were strangers from the covenant of God , unbelievers , Pagans , Heathens , should upon their being instructed , and upon profession of their faith , and promise to walk according to the rule of the covenant , be received and added to the Church , and made partakers of the seal of their entrance , and their Infants to come in with them , both sorts upon their admission , to be charitably hoped of , untill they give signes to the contrary , charity being bound from thinking of evill of them , not bound to conclude certainly of any of them , because they ought to know , that in all ages all are not Israel who are of Israel , and that many are called , but few chosen . That the rule for baptizing Infants should be so plain , as the rule to direct our knowledge about baptizing grown men , professors of faith , I wonder you should say it , much more that you should preach and print it ; sith your selfe confesse , pag. 34. no expresse command in the new Testament that they should be baptized ; no expresse example where children were baptized : but on the other side , pag. 35. you say , expresse command there is , that they should teach the Heathen , and the Jews , and make them disciples , and then baptize them . And I hope you do not imagine , that a rule gathered by virtuall consequence is so plain as that which is expresse ; it may be as true , but it is not possible it should be so plain . But the truth of that additionall rule of Infants coming in with their parents , hath been examined , and as yet it hath been found to me , neither plain nor true . YOu go on to the fourth Objection : But all who enter into covenant , and receive the seal of the covenant , must stipulate for their parts , as well as God doth for his ; they must indent with God to perform the Believers part of the covenant , as well as God doth to perform his part ; as even this Text , 1 Pet. 3. requires , that Baptisme which saves us , must have the answer of a good conscience to God. Now , although it be granted , that Infants are capable of receiving the first grace , if God be pleased to work it in them , yet what answer of a good conscience can there be from Infants unto God , they having not the use of reason , and not knowing what the covenant means ? For my part , I own not this objection taken from the generall nature of the covenant , as if it did exclude Infants , or that particular text , 1 Pet. 3.21 . For the word used for a Covenant , may be as well translated a Testament ; and the Holy Ghost , Gal. 3. and Heb. 9. doth use it in that notion , and it may be , that covenants of another may be by interpretation of Law , as their covenant ; as in the covenant of the Israelites with the Gibeonites . And for that text , however Beza translates 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , by stipulation , and in his Annotation on that place sayes , The Apostle had respect to the interrogations of Catechists , in which the catechised even then did witnesse their inward baptisme to be confirmed by the outward , as Acts 8.37 . whereto , sayes he , belongeth the Apostles Creed , and that translated from the baptisme of grown persons to the baptisme of Infants by a greater error , if you consider the Infants themselves : Dost thou believe ? I do believe : Dost thou renounce ? I do renounce . Whence that of Tertullian , which is , as it were , in the stead of a Commentary on this place , in his book of the resurrection of the flesh ; The soul is established , not by washing , but by answering . I say , though Beza do upon second thoughts , and neerer consideration conceive this to be the meaning , yet I build not on it , as being doubtfull , and in mine apprehension , it rather notes an effect of Baptisme and the resurrection of Christ , then a prerequisite condition ; and there are other plain places before alledged which do prove the thing , that the baptized were to professe and promise ; or , to use your phrase , seal ( which I deny not to be the phrase of John Baptist , Joh. 3.33 . ) as Acts 8.37 . &c. So that the objection is the same with the second . Now let us see what you answer : you say thus , The Infants of the Jews were as much tied as the Infants of Believers under the Gospel , every one who was circumcised , was bound to keep the whole Law , Gal. 5. And these men professe that Israelitish Infants were within the old covenant , when yet they knew not what it meant , nor could have the same use of it with their parents and others of discretion ; look what answer they will make for the Jews Infants if true , will abundantly satisfie for the Infants of Believers under the Gospel . It is true , this answer serves turn against those that argue from the generall nature of a covenant ; but it is no answer against those that only urge Instituton and Apostolicall practice as our rule . As for that which you here , and all along in your Book , suppose that there is the same reason of the mixt covenant made with Abraham , as with the pure Covenant of the Gospel , and of every Believer , as of Abraham , and of Baptisme , as of Circumcision , it is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , chief error , which misleads you throughout your Sermon , and makes you speak and write in a dialect , which in the Scripture is unknown . And for that which you say , that the Infants of the Jews were as much tied as the Infants of Believers under the Gospel ; if you mean it of common duties , of Euangelicall obedience , it is true ; if you mean it thus ( which alone serves for your purpose ) that persons to be baptized now , are no more tied to make profession of faith before Baptisme , then Infants of the Jews were tied to make profession of faith afore Circumcision , it is false : For , there is now plain Text for the requiring of it before Baptisme , but not before Circumcision . But you say , every one that was circumcised was bound to keep the whole Law , Gal. 5. True , and therefore circumcision was in the use of it diametrally opposite to the use of Baptisme . You say , and these men professe that the Israelitish Infants were within the old Covenant , when yet they knew not what it meant , and then say , look what answer they will make for the Jews Infants , if true , will abundantly satisfie for the Infants of Believers under the Gospel . If you mean this concerning the reason why the Christians Infants should not be baptized , though the Jews Infants were circumcised , this is a true and satisfactory answer , that God commanded the one , but no where the other ; and your self say , pag. 84. Our knowledge of the will of Christ , is that which is the only direction we are to follow . But you adde a second answer , which I let passe , because it is but a declaration of your own conceits , how you conceive a childe may seal the covenant in his infancy , telling us , that their name is put into the Deed , and that a child may seal , fi●st in infancy , and then after agnize it ; and that God is pleased to seal to Infants while they are such , and to accept such a seal as they can give , without any proof , but only spinning out the simile of a seal ; as if Gods wayes were like mans wayes , or a simile did g●●deare in omnibus , a similitude were even in all things ; only where you say , that in the mean time , Jesus Christ , who is the surety of the covenant , and surety of all the covenanters , is pleased to be their surety ; this speech is further to be examined . 'T is true , Jesus Christ is the surety of a better Testament , Heb. 7.12 . he is the surety of all the covenanters , he doth strike hands , and becomes a surety of the whole covenant , and of every condition in it , take it in the largest sense , and this of all , both on Gods part and ours , as very rightly and excellently Mr. Thomas Goodwin in his Teatise intituled , Christ set forth . Sect. 3. Chap. 3. And to like purpose , Mr. Rutherfurd , The triall and triumph of Faith , serm . 7. But are any other among men covenanters , but the elect who are purchased by the blood of the everlasting covenant ? Heb. 13.20 . It is a very inconsiderate boldnesse in you , to make every baptized person , or at least every baptized Infant of a Believer a covenanter , for whom Christ is a surety , and one to whom God seals , when the Scripture makes Christ the surety only for his redeemed ones , as may be gathered out of sundry places in the Epistle to the Hebrews ; but I doubt not but when you have considered it a little better , you will easily espie your error in these dictates , and therefore I passe on to the next objection . BVt what benefit comes to children by such kinde of sealing as this is ? it seems then ( say they ) by your own confession , that this is but a conditionall sealing on Gods part , viz. that they own it and ratifie it when they come to age ; and if they then refuse to stand to it , all is then nullified ; were it no● therefore better to deferre i● to their yeers of discretion , to see whether they will then make it their own voluntary act , yea or no. In what sense baptiz●ng may be called sealing , I have above shewed , Part. 3. Sect. 12. but I cannot allow of this , to say , that God seals to every one that is baptized . It is true , that Baptisme is in its nature a seal of the righteousnesse of faith , 1 Pet. 3.21 . but yet God doth not seal this to every one that is baptized , but only to true believers : For , what is Gods sealing , but the confirming of his promise ? But God promiseth righteousnesse only to Believers ; therefore he seals only to Believers . As for the sealing by God upon condition persons agnize the covenant , it is but a notion , the Scripture makes not Gods promise in the covenant of Grace conditionall in that sense : For Gods promise is for those he enters into covenant with , That he will put his Law in their hearts , and in their mindes will write them , Heb. 10.16 . Nor do I know any but Corvinus in his Examen of Moulins Anatomy , chap. 9. sect . 6. and the Arminians , that do so speak of Gods covenant of Grace , as if it were common to the elect and reprobates , and conditionall in this sense , as if God left it to mens liberty , to whom he had sealed , to agnize or recognize that sealing , or to free themselves , if they please , and so nullifie all ; yet so as to afford them a while the favour and priviledge of being in covenant with him , as you speak . I appeal to them who have been conversant in the writings of the Arminians , whether these speeches do not symbolize with their language . And therefore this that you make an objection , I look on as a frivolous supposing a Chimaera , and then disputing about it : But yet there are some things I shall take notice of in your answer . The question is , What benefit to Infants by such a sealing : you answer thus : This objection lay as strongly against Gods wisedome in requiring the Jews Infants , even in their infancy thus to seal ; and therefore argues no great wisdome , or modesty in man , who would thus reason with God about his administrations . It is true , God appointed the male children of Abrahams family to be circumcised , and thereby they were bound to keep the whole Law , and it were a sinfull presumption to reason with God about it ; and in like manner , if God had appointed Infants to be baptized , it would silence all arguings about it , though we knew not the reason : but how it is to be understood , that God required the Jews , even in their infancy to seal , I do not well understand ; our sealing to God is believing , Joh. 3.33 . I do not finde that God required this of the Jews Infants in their infancy , nor of our Infants ; nor was Circumcision it self the Infants duty , required by God of the Infant , though it were its priviledge , it was the parents duty , Exod. 4.24 . You say , secondly , God hath other ends and uses of applying the seal of the covenant to them who are in covenant with him , then their present gain , it 's ● homage worship , and honour to himself ; and it behoves us even in that respect , to fulfill all righteousnesse ; when Christ was baptized and circumcised , he was as unfit for the Ordinance through his perfection , as children through their imperfection , being as much above them as children are below them . It is true , Baptisme is a worship of God ; but Paedobaptisme , for ought yet appears , is but a will-worship . Christs Baptisme , it is true , was of a transcendent nature , as is said before ; that children are unfit for the Ordinance , is not to be imputed to their imperfection , but to the defect of Gods appointment ; if God did appoint it , there would be no doubt of their fitnesse . But you adde further : 3. I answer , The benefit and fruit of it at the present , is very much , both to the parents and to the children : to the parents , first , whilest God doth thereby honour them , to have their children counted to his Church , to his Kingdome and Family , and to be under his wing and grace , whilest all the other Infants in the world have their visible standing under the prince , and in the kingdome of darknesse , and consequently , whilest others have no hope of their childrens spirituall welfare , untill they be called out of that condition , these need not have any doubt of their childrens welfare , if they die in their infancy ; nor if they live untill they shew signes to the contrary ; God having both reckoned them unto his people , and given them all the means of salvation which an Infants age is capable of . All this passage is but dictates ; what , or how much of it is true or false , hath been considered before , only that you say ; all the other Infants of the world have their visible standing under the prince , and in the kingdome of darknesse ; and consequently , whilest others have no hope of their childrens spirituall welfare , untill they be called out of that condition ; If you mean by all other Infants , all that are unbaptized , though the Infants of Believers in the Church , it is a very harsh and uncharitable speech ; and you oppose those that in dispute against the Papists concerning the necessity of Baptisme to salvation , do hold that Infants of Believers are holy , and in the Church afore they be baptized , and joyn with Lutherans and Papists , denying it ; if you mean only the unbaptized Infants of Infidels , what comfort do you give more to believing parents , that have their children baptized , then belongs to them , though their children were not baptized ? And when you say , that all others have no hope of their childrens spirituall welfare , if you mean it of believing parents that baptize not their children , it is in like manner an uncharitable speech , and doth border too neer on the opinion of the necessity of Baptisme for Infants to salvation ; and when you say , these need not have any doubt of their childrens welfare , if they die in their infancy , if you mean it of parents , because their children are baptized , you do speak like one that did hold that Baptisme doth conferre gratiam ex opere operato , conferre grace by the work done ; but for ought you can shew out of Scripture , a believing parent hath as much ground of hope for his Infant that dies unbaptized as for the baptized , and as much reason of doubt concerning the baptized as the unbaptized . And therefore , what you here speak , doth no whit encourage parents to baptize children , if it be well weighed , except there can be proved an institution and a promise . But you say , secondly , here is much priviledge and benefit to the children , when as ( beside what inward secret work God is pleased to work in them ) they being members of the Church of Christ , have their share in the communion of Saints , are remembred at the Throne of grace every day by those that pray for the welfare of the Church , and particularly , in those prayers which are made for his blessing upon his Ordinances . By your parenthesis , you intimate some inward secret work God is pleased to work in the Infants baptized , by Baptisme . If you conceive a bestowing of grace , ex opere operato , by the work done : or , baptismall initiall regeneration of the elect , supposed to be in the Infants in baptisme , notwithstanding till death they live wickedly , speak plainly that we may know what you mean , and then an answer may be framed to your spe●ch . As for being members of the Church , if you me●n the invisible Church , neither I nor you can affirm or deny ; it s in Gods bosome alone ; if you mean the visible , you must make a new definition of the visible Church afore Infants baptized will be proved members . For their remembring at the Throne of grace daily , if you mean it particularly , and by name , I do not finde that to be in use after Baptisme any more then afore , and I think they are remembred by the godly in generall as well afore Baptisme as after ; and for the praying for Gods blessing upon his Ordinances , if Infant-baptisme be not Gods Ordinance , this prayer in reference to Infant-baptisme at that time might be better spared . You say ; And lastly , it 's no small priviledge to have that seale bestowed on them in their infancy , which may afterwards plead when they are growne , and come to fulfill the condition . When , where , and how Baptisme should be pleaded , as you shew not , neither doe I well conceive . It is not Baptisme of it selfe that will yeeld a plea of any force , either in foro soli , in the Court of earth , or in foro poli , in the Court of heaven , but the promise of God , and the condition of faith in Christ. And these will be good pleas in praye●s to God , and in the court of conscience , when Infant-baptisme will stand in no stead . The plea of the Apostle will hold , Rom. 8.31 , 32 , 33 , 34. which baptisme rightly administred doth strengthen , 1 Pet. 3.21 . But I never knew any Saint that pleaded his infant-baptisme in such cases . YOu say further ; But if their being capable of the spirituall part , must intitle them to the outward signe , why then doe we not also admit them to the Sacrament of the Lords Supper , which is the seale of the Covenant of grace , as well as the Sacrament of Baptisme ? And this is urged the rather , because ( say they ) the infants of the Jewes did eate of the Passeover as well as were circumcised ; Now if our infants have every way as large a priviledge as the infants of the Jewes had , then can we not deny them the same priviledge which their infants had , and consequently they must partake of the one Sacrament as well as the other . This argument is good , ad homines , against the partie opposite , proceeding upon the Paedobaptists hypotheses or suppositions ; to wit , 1. That those to whom the Covenant belongs , to them the seale belongs ; 2. That to the infants of believers , the Covenant belongs ; 3. That the Lords Supper is a seale of the Covenant as well as Baptisme . And these are your hypotheses . Now then if this be a good argument , children are to be baptized , because they are in the Covenant , and the seale belongs to those in Covenant , by the same reason they are to receive the Lords Supper , because they are in Covenant , and the seale belongs to those in Covenant . Now this argument is strengthened from other hypotheses , as that the Lords Supper succeeds the Passeover , as Baptisme Circumcision , but children not of yeares of discretion had the Passeover , therefore they are to hav● the Lords Supper . And this is confirmed by the practise and opinion of the Ancients that gave the Lords Supper to infants , for 600 yeares after Christ as well as baptisme . To this you say ; I answer , that infants are capable of the grace of Baptisme we are sure , not sure that they are capable of the grace signed and sealed in the Sacrament of the Lords Supper . This answer supposeth that there is grace sealed in the Lords Supper , which is not sealed in Baptisme . To me that Sacrament that confirmes the covenant of grace , confirmes all the promises in it , and therefore if Baptisme be the seale of the covenant , it seales all the graces and all the promises in it , and therefore you are as sure that infants are capable of all graces annexed to the Covenant , as of one . But you say ; For both of them are seales of the new Covenant , yet it is with some difference ; Baptisme properly seales the entrance into it , the Lords Supper properly the growth , nourishment , and augmentation of it ; Baptisme for our birth , the Lords Supper for our food . Now infants may be borne againe while they are infants , have their originall sin pardoned , be united to Christ , have his image stampt upon them ; but concerning the exercise of these graces and the augmentation of them in infants while they are infants , the Scripture is altogether silent . You spake somewhat to like purpose before , which I examined part . 3. sect . 15. To me it is yet as a paradoxe , that Baptisme seales properly the entrance into the Covenant , and the Lords Supper , the growth , nourishment , and augmentation of it . If you make the entrance at remission of sins , justification , or mortification ; the Lords Supper that seales Christs death , seales the entrance into the Covenant , Mat. 26.28 . And for Baptisme , it seales dying with Christ , and rising with Christ , Rom. 6.3 , 4 , 5. Gal. 3.27 . Col. 2.12 . 1 Pet. 3.21 . and therefore not onely the first worke of conversion , but also after-growth and exercise of holinesse . And the Lords Supper , signifies the same receiving the Spirit , which Baptisme doth , 1 Cor. 12.13 . And according ●o the doctrine of Protestants , Baptisme seales as well the pardon of other sins , as of originall sin . And so Peter , Acts 2.38 . and Ananias , Act. 22.16 . And therefore this difference you put , is a difference which the Scripture makes not ; that I say nothing of your strange phraseology of the growth , nourishment , and augmentation of the Covenant . But you say ; And what is said concerning the infants of the Jewes eating the Passeover , to which our Sacrament of the Lords Supper doth succeed , there is no such thing mentioned in the Book of God. It is said indeed that the severall families were to eate their Lambe , if the houshold were not too little for it , and that when their children should aske them what that service meant , they should instruct them about the meaning of it , but no word injoyning , nor any example witnessing tha● their little children did eate of it . The Commands were , that all the males should thrice a yeare appeare before the Lord ; one of which was the Passeover , Exod. 23.17 . Exod. 34.23 . Deut. 16.16 . And at that time there was no other food to be eaten , but the unleavened bread , and the paschall Supper . Therefore those males that could eate , though not come to yeares of discretion fit to receive the Lords Supper , yet were to eate the Passeover . Ainsworth notes on Exod. 12.26 . So both the outward rite , and the meaning of it was to be taught to their children . Touching whom , the Jewes hold from the Law in Exod. 23.14.17 . Deut. 16.14.16 . that every child that could hold his Father by the hand , and goe up from Jerusalem ( gates ) to the mountaine of the Temple , his Father was bound to cause him to goe up and appeare before God with him , to the end he might catechize him in the Commandements . And who sow as bound to appeare , was bound to keep the feast . Maim●ny in Hagigah , Chap. 2. sect . 3 , 4. Also they say . A childe that is able to eate a marsell of bread , they catechize him in the Commandements , and give him to eate so much as an Olive of the unleavened bread . Maimony Treatise of leaven and unleavened bread , c. 6. sect . 10. But you say ; If they say as some of them doe , that those little ones who were able to enquire concerning the meaning of that service , and capable to receive instruction about it , did eate of the Passeover with their parents ; I answer , ( although the Scripture speaks nothing of their eating , yet if that be granted ) it is no prejudice to us , because the Gospel prohibites not such young ones from the Lords Supper , who are able to examine themselves and discerne the Lords body . True ; but children that were to appeare at the Passeover , and to partake of it , were many of them such as might be instructed concerning the meaning of that service , and yet too young to examine themselves , or to discerne the Lords body : so that if the Lords Supper succeed the Passeover , and a rule may be drawne from the Passeover to the Lords Supper , children unable to examine themselves , may be admitted to the Lords Supper . THe rest of your Sermon is application , which being not argumentative , I shall let it passe . Onely whereas you charge Anabaptists with a rash and bloudy sentence , condemning infants as out of the state of grace , condemning all the infants of the whole Church of Christ , as having nothing to doe with the Covenant of grace ; and then tragically aggravate this thing , as parallel , or rather exceeding the cruelty of Herod and Hazael , in slaying and dashing the infants of Israel against the wall , till you produce some testimonies of those you call Anabaptists , so determining , I shall take it to be but a false accusation , and a fruit of passion , not of holy zeale . For the thing it selfe I have shewed part . 2. sect . 10. that it doth not follow on the doctrine of Antipaedobaptisme : and I conceive that if to be in the Covenant of grace be rightly explained , to wit , so as to signifie the having of the promise of justification and salvation by Christ Jesus , ( besides which I know not any other Evangelicall Covenant of grace ) your selfe will be found to exclude them from the covenant of grace as much as they . As they dare not say that this or that particular infant of a believer is in the covenant of grace , that is , certainly elected , justified , and to be saved , so neither dare you . Your owne words are pag. 48. Charitie being not tyed to conclude certainly of any of them : because they ought to know that all are not Israel who are of Israel , and that many are called , but few are chosen . If you should , you would gainsay the Apostle , Rom. 9.6 , 7 , 8. And on the other side , as you will not say they are damned , so neither will they I am perswaded : but suspending any sentence concerning this or that in particular , leave them to God , who is the soveraigne Lord both of them and us . THus have I , at last , in the middest of many wants , distractions , discouragements , and temptations , with the assistence of God , who hath never failed me ( to him be the praise ) examined your Sermon , and thereby shewed that it doth not satisfie , and how little reason you had to say in your Epistle , I am assured that it is Gods truth which I have preached , and which he will blesse . Notwithstanding which confidence , I presume you will see cause to consider more exactly of this matter upon the reading of this answer . I dare not thinke any otherwise of you then as of one who loves and seekes the truth . Nor doe I know any reason why you should conceive that I have taken this paines for any ends crosse to the finding of truth . My reall intention in this worke is to discover truth , and to doe what is meete for mee in my calling , towards the reformation of these Churches according to Gods Word : unto which wee have both bound our selves by solemne Covenant . I have endeavoured not to let passe any thing of weight , either in your Sermon , or Master Thomas Goodwins , which I could well remember , or Master Blakes , or any other that have published any thing about this matter of late . It is an endlesse businesse to make a severall answer to every one . I chose to answer yours , because you are stiled the antesignanus , Ensigne-bearer in print ; and for other reasons given in the Prologue . My motion is that there may be an agreement among those that have appeared in publique in this cause , to joyne either in a reply to this examen of your Sermon , or in some other worke , in which I may see together the whole strength embattailed , and not be put to weary out my selfe in reading every Pamphlet , of which there are too many indigested ones now adayes printed , even with License : and for the buying of which , as now my estate is , I doubt whether my purse will furnish me . If I may have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , daily bread for mee and mine in a narrow compasse , it will be as much as I may looke for . The small stipend I had is likely to be even now subtracted . If there be any willingnesse in you to have any conference with mee , to consult about a way of brotherly and peaceable ventilating this point , I shall be ready upon notice to give you the meeting , and I hope it shall appeare , that I shall not be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , stiffe in opinion , in case truth shining before me , present my errour to my view ; and I hope the like of you . I shall waite a moneth after your receiving this writing , to know whether any of these motions take place with you , hoping you will not disdaine to let me have advertisement of your minde , by some letter or message . I would faine have truth and peace and love , goe hand in hand , if it may be : though of these three 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , it is meet to preferre truth , as Aristotle said long since . It will be no griefe of heart to you at the day of resignation of your spirit , that you have done nothing against the truth , but for the truth . You have now my writing , as I have yours : one day Jesus Christ shall judge us both . Consider what I say , and the Lord give you understanding in all things . Thus prayeth From the house belonging to the Rectory of Gabriel Fanchurch in London . December 7. 1644. Delivered to him Dec. 9. 1644. Your brother and fellow-servant in the worke of Christ , JOHN TOMBES . Inscribed thus ; To the reverend and worthy Mr Stephen Marshall , B. D. these present . As it is now printed , it is enlarged in sundry places , occasioned by sundry Books published since the first writing of it . Colossians 2.11 , 12. Proves not Infant-Baptisme . An Appendix to these Treatises , in an Answer to a Paper , framing an Argument for Infant-Baptisme , from Coloss. 2.11 , 12. SIR , YOUR Paper exhibites an Argument for Infant-Baptisme in this form : That may be said to be written , without which , that which is written cannot be true . This I grant . But that which is said , Colos. 2.11 , 12. of the compleatnesse , with respect to Ordinances in the new Testament , could not be true , unlesse Baptisme were to Believers children , as Circumcision was of old ; because it cannot be understood of the compleatnesse that Believers have in Christ for salvation ; for that the Jews had in Christ in the old Testament ; but yet they had a token of the Covenant to their children ; Ergo , so they must now , or else that cannot be true . Answ. This Argument supposeth sundry things , whereof somewhat is true , somewhat false . 1. It is true , That the believing Jews were compleat in Christ for salvation . For so was David , Abraham , &c. who were justified by faith , Rom. 4. Gal. 3. Heb. 11. 2. It supposeth , that the Apostle , Colos. 2.11 , 12. mentions Baptisme , to shew that we are as compleat as the Jews in respect of outward Ordinances , whereas the Apostle speaks not , vers . 10. of compleatnesse by reason of outward ordinances , but sayes , we are compleat in Christ without outward ordinances , and that is his very Argument to disswade them from embracing the Jewish ordinances , vers . 8. yea , it is plain , that the Apostle makes the Jews incompleat by reason of their outward ordinances ; and that it is our compleatnesse that we have all in Christ , without outward ordinances , vers . 17. Nor doth the Apostle mention Baptisme , to shew that we are equall to the Jews in outward ordinances , ( for the Apostles assertion is , that we are compleat in Christ , exhibited without outward ordinances , and so the better for want of them ) but to shew how we put on Christ , and so are compleat in him , and therefore he mentions Faith as well as Baptisme ; as in like manner he doth . Gal. 3.26 , 27. Rom. 6.3 , &c. Besides , if that by being baptized we are compleat in outward ordinances , then we need no other ordinance , and consequently the Lords Supper should be needlesse . 3. It is supposed , that Circumcision was a token of the Covenant to their children . But this is ambiguous , in some sense it is true , in some sense it is not true . It was a token of the Covenant made to Abraham , to wit , First , that God made such a Covenant with Abraham . Secondly , that God required them to keep the conditions of it . But it is not true in these senses . First , that every person circumcised , or to be circumcised , of right had a title to the promises of the Covenant . Secondly , that this title to the promises of the Covenant was the reason why they were circumcised . 4. It is supposed , that if our children have not a token of the Covenant now , as the Jews had , that it cannot be true that we are compleat as the Jews . But there is not a shadow of proof for it in the Text. And it is grounded on these false assertions : First , that the Jews children were in the Covenant of Grace , because they were Abrahams naturall seed . Secondly , that a Believers children now are in the Covenant of Grace , because they are a Believers children ; which things are expresly contrary to Rom. 9.6 , 7 , 8. 5. It is supposed , that the Jews having salvation by Christ , had also a compleatnesse by outward ordinances . It is true , that compared with the Gentiles that served dumb Idols , they were compleat by reason of outward ordinanc●s : For , their outward ordinances did shadow Christ to come , and so did not the Rites of the Gentiles . But compared with Christians since Christ manifested in the flesh , so they were incompleat in respect of outward ordinances ; and so the Apostle determines , Gal. 4.1 , 2 , 3. 6. It is supposed , that without a succession of some ordinance in stead of Circumcision , we are not compleat in Christ , or , at least , not so compleat as the Jews . But this I account to be false , and very dangerous . 1. False , because it is contrary to that which the Apostle asserts , that we are compleat in Christ alone , because in him is the fulnesse of all that was shadowed in the ordinances of the Jews . 2. It is very dangerous , because the same reason that will conclude , that we are not compleat without a succession of some ordinance in stead of Circumcision , will conclude , we are not compleat without a succession of something in stead of sacrifices , Temple , Priest , Altar , &c. and so after the Popish manner , all Jewish Rites may be reduced under new names , which would overthrow Christianitie . As for our compleatnesse in Christ without outward ordinances , like to the Jewes , I distinguish of a twofold compleatnesse . First , in all the will of God , Colos. 4.12 . And thus we are compleat without such ordinances : we may do all the will of God believing in Christ , without observing any of those ordinances . Secondly , of means , in ordine ad finem , in order to the end , that is , to the knowledge of God , and obtaining salvation : And so we are more compleat then the Jews without those outward ordinances or any answerable to them . First , because they had Christ only promised and assured , we have ●hrist exhibited , and fulfilling all things . And surely they that have a promise accomplished , are compleater then they that have it only assured , let it be assured never so firmly . Secondly , because they had Christ under shadows , we the body , Colos. 2.17 . he is the true Shecinah , or Divine Majesty , in whom the fulnesse of the glory of God dwelt , Col. 2.9 . he was circumcision , sacrifices , all . And the woman is more compleat that enjoyes her husband in person , then in a picture , messenger , &c. that represent him . The Jews were compleat in Christ as we , quoad rem , in respect of the thing , but not quoad modum , & mensuram rei , in respect of the manner and measure thereof . So that in the Argument , these Propositions are to be denied : 1. That Colos. 2.11 , 12. speaks of compleatnesse , with respect to Ordinances in the new Testament . 2. That it could not be true , unlesse Baptisme were to Believers children , as Circumcision was of old . 3. That Colos. 2.11 , 12. cannot be understood of the compleatnesse that Believers have in Christ for salvation . 4. In some sense it is to be denied that the Jews had a token of the Covenant to their children . 5. In what sense it is to be granted that the Jews had a token of the Covenant to their children , in that sense the consequence is to be denied , that we must have a token of the Covenant of Grace for our children now . FINIS . Latin passages En●lished in the second Treatise . PArt 1. pag. 2. Achilles the champion of the Greeks proverbially put for the strongest argument . Pag. 5. Christ came to save by himself all ; all , I say , who by him are born again unto God , infants , and little ones , and boyes . Pag. 6. That Baptisme is unde●stood under the name of new-birth in our Lords and the Apostles phrase . openly confirming the Apostolique tradition of the baptisme of little infants against Anabaptisticall impiety . Onely I would have the younger who shall light on the works of Irenaeus●dmonished ●dmonished , that they beware of those editions , which that most impudent Monke Feuardentius a man of large boldnesse , and of no faith , hath foully corrupted in many things , and bespattered with impious and lying annotations . Are born again . Therefore being a master he had also the age of a master , not rejecting nor going beyond a man , nor loosing the law of humane kind in himself , but sanctifying every age by that likenesse which was to him . For he came to save all men by himself ; all men , I say , who by him are new born unto G●d , infants and little ones , and boyes , and young men , and elder men . Therefore he went through every age , and was made an infant sanctifying infants ; among little ones , a little one , sanctifying them that have this age : being also made an example to them of piety , and justice , and subjection . Among young men being made an example to young men , and sanctifying them to the Lord : so also an elder to the elder , that he might be a perfect m●ster not onely according to the exposition of the truth , but also according to age sanctifying also the elder , being made also an example to them . And then he went even unto death , that he might be the first-b●rn from the dead holding the primacy in all things , the Prince of life , before all , and preceding all . Pag. 7. But we shall the lesse trouble our selves concerning Origen , because the things we cited are not extant in Greek . In the margin . If therefore any man before Pelagius was born , or before Arius arose , be sha●p and vehement against the errours of Pelagians , and vexing them professedly , although the name of the heretiques be suppressed , it is not probable that such a writing is the Authors whose name it 〈…〉 Pag. 8. For this also the Church hath received a tradition from the Ap●stles , and according to the observance of the Church . The seal to them that enter into a course of life . In the margin . Notwithstanding the custome of our mother the Church in baptizing little ones is not to be despised , nor by any means to be accounted superfluous , nor at all to be beleeved , unlesse it had been an Apostolicall tradition . Pag. 11. That infants are presently to be baptized that they perish not , because mercy is not to be denyed them . Pag. 13. Lest little ones should perish if they should die without the remedie of the grace of regeneration , they determined that they were to be baptized for the remission of sins . Which also St. Augustine shews in his book of the baptisme of little ones , and the African Councels witnesse , and many documents of other Fathers . But the father or mother ought not to stand for their own childe at the Font , that there may be a difference between spirituall begetting and carnall . But if it happen by chance they shall have after that no fell●wship of carnall copulation , who have undertaken the spirituall bond of co-fatherhood in a common son . What say you to these things ? Lo I have not brought out of Augustine , but out of the Gospel , which sith ye say ye chiefly beleeve , either yeeld ye at length that by the faith of others others may be saved ; or deny if ye can those things which I have laid down to be of the Gospel . Pag. 14. in the margin . And I was signed with the signe of his crosse , and I was seasoned with his salt from the wombe of my mother , who much hoped in thee . Pag. 15. in the margin . Augustine adjudgeth to eternall flames the Infants that die without baptisme . Likewise whosoever shall say , that even the little ones shall be made alive in Christ , who go out of this life without the participation of his Sacrament , he truly goeth both against the Apostles preaching , and condemns the whole Churcb . The most strong and founded faith , in which the Church of Christ beleeves that no not little ones most lately born can be freed from damnation , unlesse by the grace of the name of Christ , which he hath commended in his Sacraments . Pag. 16. Neither let that move thee , that some do not bring little ones to receive baptisme with that faith that they may be regenerated by spirituall grace unto life eternall : but because they think that by this remedy they keep or receive temporall health . For not therefore are they not regenerate , because they are not offered by them with this intention . For necessarie ministeries are celebrated by them . It is answered he doth beleeve by reason of the Sacrament of faith . Pag. 18. in the margin . Lastly , who seeth not that this was the manner of that time , when scarce the thousandth person was baptized afore he was of grown age , and diligently exercised among the catechized . Part. 2. Pag. 21. These to the rest of the errours which they borrowed from the Manichees and Priscillianists added this over and above , that they said , that the baptisme of little ones was unprofitable , inasmuch as it could profit none , who could not both himself beleeve , and by himself ask the Sacrament of baptisme , of which kind we read not that the Manichees and Priscillianists taught any thing . They mock us because we baptize infants , because we pray for the dead , because we ask the suffrages of the Saints . They beleeve not that Purgatory fire remains after death , but that the soul loosed from the body doth presently passe either to rest , or to damnation . But now they who acknowledge not the Church , it is no marvell if they detract from the orders of the Church , if they receive not their appointments , if they despise Sacraments , if they obey not commands . Because he took away Festivals , Sacraments , Temples , Priests , because the life of Christ is shut up from the little ones of Christians , while the grace of baptisme is denied , nor are they suffered to draw neer to salvation . Pag. 23. We perceive in the man dexterity , and a study of mediocrity . But in that man ( I desire to be deceived ) I have seemed to my self to have found nothing but immoderate thirst of wealth and glory . A fanatique man , and grosse Anabaptist . Pag. 24. They would seem studious of truth . Pag. 25. The word of the Lord. From the staffe to the corner . A proverbiall speech in Schools , when one thing is inferred from another , which have no connexion . They who all along these places of Belgick and lower Germany are found bordering on this Anabaptisticall heresie , are almost all followers of this Mennon whom I have named , to whom now this Theodorick hath succeeded . In whom for a great part you may perceive tokens of a certain godly mind , who being incited by a certain unskilfull zeal , out of errour rather then malice of mind have departed from the true sense of Divine Scriptures , and the agreeing consent of the whole Church ; which may be perceived by this , that they alwayes resisted the rage of Munster , and Batenburgick that followed after , stirred up by John Batenburg after the taking of Munster , who plotted a certain new restitution of the kingdom of Christ , which should be placed in the destruction of the wicked by outward force . And they tau●ht th●t the instauration and propagation of the kingdom of Christ consists in the crosse alone : whereby it happens that they which are such m●y seem rather worthy of pity and amendment , then persecution and perdition . Pag. 28. What part of time . Pag. 48. H●w it may be that Israel may be rejected , but that together the Covenant of God established with Abraham and his seed should seem to be made void . In the margin . The credit of that promise , Gen. 17.7 , 8. doth presently appear to be brought into danger by the rejecting of the Jews , and the exclusion of them out of the Covenant of God , sith they are born of Abraham according to the fl●sh , so ( saith he ) it appeares to them that look upon the first f●ce of things . The Apostle shews , th●t the●ef●re the word of the Covenant , and divine promises made to Israel failed not , or was made void , a●though a great part of the Jews were unbelieving , because those promises of the C●venant are of God , not to them properly who were to come from the seed of Abraham according to the flesh , but to those , who were to be ingraffed into the family of Abraham by vertue of divine promise . Pag. 49. The argument of the Apostle to prove the Covenant of God entred into with Abraham doth not comprehend all the posterity of Abraham in its skirt , we think should be thus simply framed . Esau and Jacob were of the p●sterity of Abraham , but God did not comprehend both of these in his Covenant with Abraham . Therefore not all the posterity of Abraham . It is proved that God did not comprehend both in the Covenant of grace , because he did not comprehend Esau the elder , but Jacob the younger . Pag. 50. There are many of the seed of Abraham to whom the word of promise doth not belong , as Ismael , and Ismaelites . But if so there be many of the seed of Abraham to whom the word of promise doth not belong , then the rej●ction of many Jews who are of the seed of Abraham doth not make void the word of promise . In the margin . Calvin gathers hence , in that any is the seed of Abraham the promise made to Abraham belongs to him : but the answer is manifest , that promise understood of spirituall blessing , pertaines not to the carnall seed of Abraham , but to the spirituall , as the Apostle himselfe hath interpreted it , Rom. 4. & 9. For if you understand the carnall seed , now that promise will belong to none of the Gentiles , but to those alone who are begotten of Abraham and Isaac according to the flesh . He teacheth also that the promises of God are not tied to the carnall birth ; but to belong onely to the believing and spirituall posterity . For they are not the sons of Abraham , who are of Abraham according to the flesh , but who are according to the spirit . Pag. 51. In the Margin . The inculcation also of the seed sheweth that onely the elect and effectually called are noted , the Apostle so interpreting this place , Rom. 9.8 . Gal. 3.16 . & 4.28 . Pag. 52. That baptisme doth not certainly seale in all the children of believers the grace of God ( sith among them some are absolutely reprobated , even by an antecedent decree of God from eternity ) and therefore believers are to doubt of the truth of Gods Covenant , I am thy God , and the God of thy seed after thee . Pag. 58. To be a son of Abraham doth declare nothing else but to be freely elected , Rom. 9.8 . and to tread in the steps of the faith of Abraham , Rom. 4.12 . and to doe the workes of Abraham , Joh. 8.39 . From which is rightly gathered certain expectation of salvation to come , Rom. 8.29 . Pag. 69. In the Margin . Infants in their parents , grandfathers , great grandfathers , grandfathers grandfathers have refused the grace of the Gospel , by which act they have deserved , that they should be forsaken of God. For I would to me , &c. For it is the perpetuall reason of the Covenant of God , that sons ar● comprehended and reckoned in parents . To which D r Twisse thus opposeth in his answer . Nor any where in sacred Scripture is it signified , that God hath made such a Covenant with man fallen , that if he would believe , he should obtaine grace to him and his posteritie ; on the contrary , if he should not believe , he should lose grace for him and his posteritie , which kinde of Covenant all Divines acknowledge to have been entered into with Adam under the Condition of obedience . Pag. 71. In the Margin . It is manifest that the believers marrying with Gentiles are guilty of uncleannesse , and to be kept from all communication of the fraternitie from the Letters of the Apostle , saying , that with such meat is not to be eaten . Pag. 73. First , because the reason is uncertaine , for though it sometimes be so done , yet for the most part it is otherwise . He spake in the preterperfect tense , hath been sanctified , not , shall be sanctified , signifying a thing already determined and finished , and not a thing for the time to come uncertain either to be wished or expected . The believing wife may with a good conscience keep company with the unbelieving husband ( for why should anothers conscience defile her ? ) Therfore it is said , the unbelieving not in himself , but in his wife ( that is , in respect of his wife ) is holy . The same we are to judge of the other member . Pag. 74. This is the minde of the Apostle that he may teach , that the believer is not to depart from the unbelieving yokefellow , consenting to dwell together . For proving of which an argument from an uncertain event , and by accident is equally unfit as a little before . Hence that opinion is refuted that then when the unbeliever shall be converted , holy children will be begotten . For what if that never be ? Pag. 76. Of that ceremoniall holinesse what shall I say ? It came into Augustines minde , but good God! how strange ? verily some things are so absurd , that they deserve not to be refuted . Well . The Apostle hath said , that if the unbelieving husband be not sanctified in the believing wife , it will be that the children borne from thence are uncleane . Therefore all so borne are uncleane , or else the Apostle spake false . What then ? Are all borne of those parents whereof one is not sanctified in the other begotten in the monethly courses ? Doe unbelieving husbands never use their wives but in their monethly courses ? So it must be verily , or this interpretation is ridiculous . Of that Covenant-holinesse what shall I say ? It came into Chamiers , Calvins , &c. minds , but good God! how strange ? verily some things are so absurd , that they deserve not to be refuted . Well! The Apostle hath said , that if the unbelieving husband be not sanctified in the believing wife , it will be that the children borne from thence will be uncleane . Therefore all that are so borne are uncleane , or the Apostle hath said that which is false . What then ? Are all borne of those parents whereof one is not sanctified in the other , without the Covenant of grace ? Doe fornicating or unbelieving parents never beget children that shall be within the Cov●nant of grace , or federally holy ? So it must be verily , or this interpretation is ridiculous . Pag. 77. In the Margin . But there is no straiter friendship then of husband and wife , which requires communion of affections , body , off-spring , lastly of the whole life : which all Nations have with great consent believed to be a thing truly holy , that is not found out by man , but by God. Pag. ( 75 ) By this argument that sanctity is excluded which so ne have brought from education . For by that the argument of the Apostle is altogether weakened . For this is uncertaine . For all know and experience teacheth , that neither all husbands are wonne , which also the Apostl● implies , nor that all children obey holy education . Besides , if any obey , yet this effect is accidentall , and not from the nature of marriage it s●lfe . Pag. 89. But sith strangers washed and not circumcised were held with those Lawes onely which God gave to all mankinde , it is easie to be understood that this washing was among old institutions , arising as I think after the great deluge , in memory of the world purged . Whence that famous speech among the Greekes , The sea washed away all the evils of men . Certainly , we reade even in the Epistle of Peter , that Baptisme is answerable to the flood . Pag. 91. It was to be added , that not onely to himselfe and in himselfe , but also for our use Christ be determined to be such , and so great , that nothing be wanting in him , and that in him alone we may get all things requisite to the true and saving knowledge of God. Therefore having gotten fulnesse in Christ , wherefore is there need either of humane wisdome , or the vaine inventions , or ceremonies of men , lastly any other thing added besides Christ ? Pag. 146. In the margin . It was knowne to the Jews that God hath been wont to give this honour to Prophets , that he would bestow his gifts on others at the Prophets prayers , of which imposition of hands was a signe . It is manifest also from Gen. 48.14 , 15. that in that rite prayers were wont to be conceived for children . Thence it hath been alwayes observed by the Hebrews , that they would bring children to those , who were believed to excell others in holinesse , to be commended in their prayers to God by laying on of hands : which custome as yet continues with them . Now this custome Christ approving , shewes that the faith and prayers of others profit also that age . Pag. 152. As for that which Erasmus subjoynes , that John first baptized , then preached baptisme , it is such that indeed it seems not to need refutation . For what ? When John did say , Repent , for the kingdom of heaven is at hand , did he not teach those whom he was about to baptize ? yea verily , unlesse he had first taught to what end he did baptize , who at last would hav● come to his baptisme ? Certainly , sith Sacraments are seales , it is necessary that the doctrine goe before which they signe . Pag. 153. In the margin . All these rites of profession of faith , &c. had their originall from the very institution of baptisme , nor ought they to be omitted , onely to be dispensed with respect to age . FINIS . Notes, typically marginal, from the original text Notes for div A62867-e190 §. 1. The prologue Of the occasion , and en● of this writing . §. 2. Of the stating the question , partition of the Treatise , sum of the Answer to the Testimonies of Antiquity for Infant-baptisme . §. 3. Of the pretended Testimony of Justine Martyr . §. 4. Of Irenaeu● his Testimony . §. 5. Of the supposed testimony of Origen . Si igitur aliquis ante ●atu● Pelagium vel ante exortum A●ium in Pelagi●●orum & Aria●orum erro●es acer et vehemens , e●sque ex professo quamvis Hereticorum nomine suppresso divexa●s pr●b●bile non est tale Scriptu● esse ●jus Authoris 〈◊〉 nomen pref●rt Rivet . tract●t de Patrum Auth●rit . cap 14. Consuetudo tamen Man is Ec●lesia in baptizandis parvulis nequaquam sper●enda est , neque ullo modo superflua deputanda , nec omnino credenda nisi Apostolica esset traditio . Augustin . lib. 10. cap. 23. de Genesi . § 6. Of the Testimonies of Gregory Nazianzen and the Greeke Church . Lib. 2. heresi . 47 vel . 67. §. 7. Of the testimony of Cyprian , §. 8. Of the testimony of Augustine . August . t●m 1. Confess . lib. 1. c. 11 & Sig●abar signo Cru●is ejus & con●i●b●r ejus sa●e jam inde ab ute●o matris m●ae , quae multum speravit in te And then followes , how being young and falling sick , he desired , and his mother thought to have him baptized , but upon his recovery it was differred . Rivet . tract . de Patrum authoritate , c. 9. Augustinus aeternis flammis adjudicat Infantes fine baptismo morientes· §. 9. Of the testimonies of Hierom and Ambrose . §. 10. O● the vali●ity of proof by these testimonies , and of the evidences that Infant-baptism is an innovation . Chamier panstr . Cathol . to . 4. l. 5. c. 15. §. 19. Denique hunc morem quis non videt ejus temporis ●sse , cum vix mil●esimus quisque bapt●zabatur non adultus , & in Catechumenis diligenter exercitus . H. Hamond , A practicall Catech . l. 1. §. 3. pag. 23. And those other fundamentals of faith which all men were instructed in anciently , before they were permitted to be baptized . Notes for div A62867-e4340 §. 1. Of the fitnes of placing the Narration of miscarriages of opposers of Paedobaptis●e . §. 2. Of the opposers of Infant-baptisme afore Baltazar . § 3. Of Baltazar Pacimontan●● . §. 4. Of rebaptizing . § 5. Of the Anabaptists in Germanie , and the Antiprelatists in England . §. 6. Of Anabaptists opposing Magistracy . §. 7. Of the hindering of refo●mation by Anabaptisme . §. 8. The Antipaedobaptists principle overthrows not the Lords day ; the Paedobaptists principle reduceth Judaisme , and Popish Ceremonies and addes to the Gospell . Vid. Rainold . Confer . with Hart , c. 8. §. 4. §. 9. Of the evill of separating from the Ministry and Communion of Christians by reason of this opinion . §. 10. Of the condition into which the opinion of Anti-paedobaptisme puts the infants of believers , of originall sin , salvation out of the Church , and Covenant of grace . Notes for div A62867-e7910 §. 1. Of the connexion between the covenant and the seale . §. 2. Of the first conclusion concerning the identity of the Covenant of grace f●r subst●nce to Jews and G●ntiles . §. 3. Of the meaning of the second Conclusion . The answer of the Assembly of Divines to the reasons of the 7 dissenting br●thren , p. 48 praecog . 1. The whole Chur●h of Christ is but one , made up of the collection and aggregation of all who are called out of the world by the preaching of the Word , to professe the faith of Christ ▪ §. 4. That the Covenant of grace is not made to believers and their seed . Twisse vind . Grat. cont . Armin. lib. 1. pa. 1. digr . 7. Hujus autem promissionis ( Gen. 17.7 , 8. ) fides confestim apparet in discrimen ad●uci ex rejectione Judaeorum & exclusione eorundem ex foed●re Dei , cum fint ex Abrahamo s●cundum carnem prosminati ; sic inquit apparet primas rerum facies intuentibus . Walae cont . Corvin . cap. 15. pag. 377. Apostolus ostendit , ideo verbum foederis & divinarum promissionum Israelitis factarum , non excidere aut irritum fieri , licet magna Judaeorum pars esset incredula , quia promissiones illae foed●ris factae sunt a Deo , non iis proprie qui ex semine Abrahami secundum carnem erant orituri , sed iis qui secundum election●m gratuitam Abrahami familiae ex vi di●ina promissionis erant inserendi . The new Annotations on the Bible , Annot. on Rom. 9.8 . The children of the flesh , &c ] Not all they who are carnally born of Abraham by the course of nature are the children of God to whom the promise of grace was made ; but the child●en of promise , that is ▪ those who were born by vertue of the promise , those who by Gods speciall grace were adopted ( as Isaac by a speciall and singular promise was begot by Abraham ) they only are accounted for tha● seed mentioned in the Covenant , I will be thy God , and the God of thy seed . Estius annot . ad Gen. 17.7 . Colligit hinc Calvinus ●o ipso quo quis est semen Abrahae ad cum pertinere pr●missionem Abrahae factam : sed responsio manifesta pr●missionem illam de benedictione spirituali intellectam , non ad carnale semen Abrahaemi pertinere , sed ad spirituale , quemadmodum eam ipse Apostolus interpretat●● est , Rom. 4 & 9. Si enim carnale semen intelligas jam ad neminem ex gentibus illa promissio pertinebit sed ad solos ex Abraham & Isaac secundum carnem genitos . Paraeus Comment . in Mat. 3.9 Docet quoque promissiones Dei non alligatas esse carnali origini : sed pertinere tantum ad posteros fideles & spirituales . Non enim sunt filii Abrahae qui secundum carnem sunt ex Abraham , sed qui secundum spiritum . Ainsworth ann . on G●n . 12.7 . Thy seed ] That is , to all the children of promise ( the elect ) who only are cou●ted Abrahams seed , Rom. 9.7 , 8. and in Christ are heirs by promise , as well the Gentiles as the Jews . Gal. 3.26.28.29 . Ames . Coron . art . 5. cap. 2. Seminis etiam inculcatio solos electos & efficaciter vocatos notari docet Apostolo sic hunc titulum interpr●tante , Rom. 9.8 . Gal. 3.16 . & 4.28 . §. 5. It is not in Gods church , like other kingdomes . Cotton , Way of the Churches of Christ in N.E. c. 4. §. 6. Infants cannot claim right unto baptisme , but in the right of one of their parents , or both . Where neither of the parents can claim right to the ●ords supper , there th●ir Infants cann●t claim right to Baptisme . A● therefore we do not receive an he●●hen to the fellowship of the supper , nor their seed to Baptism , so neither dare we receive an excommunicate person ( who is to us an heathen ) to the Lords supper , or his children to Baptisme , But after , ● 7 §. 2. Or where either of the parents have made such profession ; Or it may be consi●ered al●o , whether the children may not be baptized . where either the grand-father or grand-mother have made su●h prof●ssion , and are still living to undertake for the Christian education of the child . For it may be co●ceived where there is a stipulation of the Covenant on Gods part , an● a restipulation on ma●s part , there may be an obligation of the Covenant on both parts . Gen. 17.7 . Or if these saile , what hindereth but that if the par●nts will de●●gne their infant to be educated in the house of any go●ly member of the Church , the child may be lawfully baptized in the right of its household governour , according to the proportion of the Law , Gen 17.12 , 13. §. 6. Of the Texts , which are , Act. 2. 38 , 39. Luk 19.9 . Annot. on the Bible , edit . 1645. on Acts 2.36 . The promise is unto you ] Christ is promised both to Iewes and Gentiles : but the Iewes had the first place . §. 7. Of the text . Rom. 11.16 . So also the new Annot. on Rom. 11.16 Arminius l. 1. Antiperk . p 3. Sect. 6. Infantes in parentibu● , avis , abavis atavis , tritavis Evangelii gratiam repudiarunt , quo actu meruerunt ut a Deo desererentur velim enim mihi , &c. Perpetua enim est foederis Dei ratio quod filii in parentib●● comprehendantur & censeantur . Cui opponit Tuissus ibidem . Nec us piam in sacris literis significatur Deum ejusmodi foedus cum homine lapso pepigisse ut si crederet , adipisceretur gratiam & sibi & posteris ; contra si non crederet & sibi & posteris suis gratiam amitteret ; cujusmodifoedus sub conditione obedientiae cum Adamo initum fuisse omnes Theologi agnoscunt . §. 8. Of the Text 1 Cor. 7.14 . Tertul. lib. 2. ad uxorem . cap. 3. Fideles Gentilium matrimonia subcuntes stupri reos esse constat , & arcendos ab omni communicatione fraternitatis ex literis Apostoli dicentis cum ejusmodi n●c cibum sumendum . Grot. annot . in Mat. 19 5. nulla autem arctior ami●itia quā mariti & uxoris quae communionem requirit affectuum , corporis , prolis vitae denique totius : quam rem esse vere sacram , id est , non humani●us , sed divinitus , repertam magno consensu g●ntes ●●ed : derunt . Gr●t annot . in Ma● . 5.8 . So ent pro eodem usurpari 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . §. 9. Of the succession of Baptisme into the place , room , and use of Circumcision . §. 10 . Of the notion under which , & the reasons for which persons were circumcised , shewing that all persons that were circumcised were not in the covenant of Grace . §. 11. Of the priviledges of Believers under the Gospel , and whether the want of Infant-Baptisme be want of a priviledge of the covenant of Grace which the Jews had . §. 12. That the command to circumcise male Infants is not virtually a command to baptize Infants . §. 13. That Mat. 28. is not a Command to baptize Infants , but contrary to it . Master Bal●y . A diswasion from the error of the times , ch . 8. p. 175. argues from this very text in like manner , to prove that only Ministers have power to preach the Word ordinarily . §. 14. Of examples in Scripture of Infants Baptisme , particularly of baptizing of housholds . §. 15. Of an infants capacity of inward grace ; the Text Mat. 19.14 . and of the inconsequence of Paedobaptisme thereon . Grot. annot . ad . Mat. 9.18 . notum erat Judaeis solere Deum Prophetis hunc exhibere honorem , ut in alios dona sua conferret ad prophetarum preces , quarum symbolum erat manuum impositio . Ad Mat. 19.13 . pro pueris etiam eo ritu preces concipi solitas manifestum est ex Gen. 48.14 , 15. Exinde Hebraeis semper observatum , ut ad eos qui sanctimonia praestare caeteris crederentur pucros deserrent , ipsorum precibus Deo commendandos , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 : qui mos bodie & apud ipsos manet . Hunc autem morem Christus probans ostendit isti etiam aetati pr●desse aliorum fidem ac preces . Notes for div A62867-e33670 §. 1. Of the first objectiō from institution , Mat. 28.19 . and the practise of John Baptist , and the Apostles . Cotton in his way of the Churches of Christ in New-England . Chap 4. sect . 6. And indeed the Commission which Christ gave his Apostles , holdeth it forth that they were by preaching to make disciples before they baptized them and their children , Mat. 28.19 . Now a disciple is a Scholler in Christs schoole , and therefore when the Apostles were directed to make disciples , before they did baptize them , they were not onely to cōvert them to the faith , but also to gather them as disciples or schollers into a schoole of Christ. Cotton : The way of the Churches of Christ in New-England . Chap. 1. sect . 1. prop. 4. In the times of John the Baptist , such as were received into baptisme they did first make confession of their sins , and therewith of their repentance , and of their faith also in him who was to come after him , Mat. 3.13 . Act. 19.4 , 5. And in the times of the Apostles Philip received ●he Eunuch unto baptisme , not untill he had made professiō of his faith in Christ Jesus , Act ▪ 8.37 . Cham. Panstr . Cath. tom . 4. l. 5. c. 15. §. 19. Hiritus omnes professionis fidei , &c. ab ipsae baptismi institutione habuerunt originem : nec debēt omitti , tantum proaetatis ratione dispensari . §. 2. Of the second objection , and therein of the condition prerequisite to Baptisme . Videatur Chamierus Panstr . Cath. tom . 4. li. 5. c. 15. Grot. annot . on Mat. 28.19 . §. 3. Of the third so called objection , and therein of the knowledge requisite concerning the person to be baptized . §. 4. Of the fourth Objection , & therein of the stipulation of Baptisme . Cotton : The way of the Churches of Christ in New-England , ch . 4. Sect. 5. The Word of God receiveth none to the fellowship of the seals of the covenant , but such as professe their tak●ng hold of the covenant . §. 5. Of the fifth Objection , and therein of the benefit that comes by Infant-Baptism● Dr. Twisse : The doctrine of the Synod of Dort , & Arles , &c Part 2. § 3. p. 121. I willingly confesse , that the Sacrament of Baptisme is the seale of the righteousnesse of faith unto us Christians , as Circumcision was un●o the Jews , Rom. 4. which is as much a● to say , that it assures us of the remission of our sins , as many as believe ; and I conceive it to be a visible signe of invisible grace , and that not of justification only unto them that believe , but of the grace of regeneration also , but how ? not at that instant collatae , but suo tempore conferend● , to wit , when God shall effectually call a man ; and it is very strange unto me , that regeneration should go before vocation . S●e more to the same purpose in the same Author , part . 3. §. 6. §. 6. Of the sixth objection , and therein of Infant-cōmunion , by vertue of their being in the Covenant , & the Lords Supper succ●eding the Passeover . Cotton : The way of the Churches of Christ in New-England . Chap. 1. sect . 2. To the Passeover all Jewes were admitted young and old , unlesse defiled with some pollution . §. 7. Of the first use , and the Anabaptists supposed bloudy sentence . §. 8. The Epilogue containing some expressions and motions of the Author . Mr Stalhams Epistle before a Conference at Terling in Essex .