THE COVENANTS Plea for INFANTS: OR, The Covenant of FREE GRACE., pleading the Divine Right of Christian Infants unto the Seal of holy Baptism. Against the Rustic Sophistry, and wicked Cavillations of Sacrilegious Anabaptists: Being the Sum of certain Sermons had in the Parish-Church of Cranham, near the City of Gloucester, in Gloucester- shire, with the exceptions of certain Anabaptists against the foresaid Sermons, and the Author's answers thereunto. Very seasonable for weak consciences in these unsettled times of Schism and Apostasy. By THOMAS WYNELL Minister of the Gospel of JESUS CHRIST. OXFORD, Printed by Henry Hall for the Author. 1642. TO MY MOST INDULGENT mother the Famous UNIVERSITY of OXFORD, all flourishing increase of Divine Graces, and Commendable Literature be wished and multiplied. Men, Fathers, and Brethren, I Have with a mournful eye, and a sad heart beheld the distractions of these times, and seen the devil, that Mille-artifex, taking the opportunity (as always he doth) to erect his throne upon our woeful miseries. They say Rome must pack out of England, so 'tis credibly reported: and now the Envious-one labours to bring-in Amsterdam. The KING'S power, in causes Ecclesiastical, must be taken from the Pope, and reason good: and now the devil labours strongly to lay it upon the people; so that (if the devil can do it) Caesar must always behold his Glory in Captivity. Ceremonies must down, and let them fall, if they and the Gospel may not stand together; but let not American novelties ponere obicem, to the Covenant of free Grace. Stand fast (ye Worthies) and acquit yourselves like men; View over this Treatise (I beseech you) and (if it may not be to your disparagement) vouchsafe it your Patronage. Nay more (if you think it may any way further the Protestant cause) join with me (I pray) in presenting it to the Honourable Court of PARLIAMENT. Nothing is herein (for aught I know) dissonant to the Orthodox faith. It is the first fruits of my labours that ever saw light, and I Dedicate it to my dear Mother, knowing that hereby I shall have an affectionate construction put upon all mine assertions. I pray let it not be thought ambition in me, that I sue unto you for Patronage, but accept all in favour, as I present all in love: What is amiss (I pray) correct, and what is right (I pray) allow. And thus (not to retard your more weighty employments) I commit you all to the good dispose of Israel's Keeper (who can do for you beyond what I can ask or think) and so I rest Your most obedient son THOMAS WYNELL. TO THE CHRISTIAN READER Grace, Mercie, Peace, Strength, Stability, and Settledness, with a blessed increase of all heavenly gifts from the Sanctuary by God's Ordinances of Grace, to the perfect edification of the Soul, etc. Christian READER, HE that puts himself in Print in matters of Controversy, doth not only bid battle to the opposite party, but also expose himself to the critical censure of all beholders, and standers by. And by how much any Writer seeks the applause of men in publishing his works, by so much the Righteous God makes him a loser. And that work (mostly) is most prosperous, wherein least of fame, and most of conscience is sought and aimed at. This poor Treatise of mine, though mean for phrase, style, and artifice, yet needful in these times of schism, and heresy for the subject matter thereof, as that which may occasion my faithful brethren (more able) to crush the insolences of a dangerous faction, the daughter of the Separation, and the Mother of Libertinisme. As for my call to this employment, it is this, viz. There were ne'er unto my dwelling a company of the Separation, who under took to erect a Church by entering into a Covenant, and these carried on their resolutions handsmooth, until they were grown into a great faction. And (as it is the property of that Schism to speak at random) they began to let fly against the Church assemblies of England, as false, Antichristian, and out of God's way. Whereupon I began to inquire into the nature of their Covenant, and told them, that if it were a Covenant of first entrance into the true visible Church of Christ, then of necessity the parties so entering must have the seal of first entrance imprinted upon them, which (under the Gospel) is Baptism. For if the Ministry which they leave be false in the very constitution thereof, than the Sacraments by them administered, must needs be nullities; and so now they having a lawful ministry constituted and set in Christ's way, they must begin all anew, Baptism and all. Thus (by way of arguing) I spoke unto divers of them, which did so puzzle them, that not long after some of them fell upon this practice of sealing their covenant by Baptism, renouncing their Baptism in their infancy, as a nullity and an Idol. and being demanded by the Magistrates of the City of Gloucester (before whom they were convented) who it was that advised them unto this practice, they nominated me to be the first that put them upon it: whereas I was so fare from it, that I held that the dangerous Covenant of the Separation would necessarily lead unto this. And moreover one Walter Coals of Painsewicke a Tailor (a man of good behaviour a long time, and well esteemed by the godly and best Christians) This man (I say) fell off first to the Separation, (where he had his bane.) And God having given him another child, he refused to have it baptised until it could answer for itself. This matter fell into debate in Mr Wells his Congregation at Whaddon, Pastor to the Separation there, where the said Coals was a member. Now Mr Wells and the Church-officers of his division (foreseeing the ill consequence of this business) had resolved to determine against the said Walter: but this being perceived by the said Coals, he desired to go out of the company. And happy had it been for him, if he had returned to his former godly, and profitable courses of doing good. But he goes further, and turns plain Anabaptist. And so making a journey to London he brings down one Thomas Lamb a chandler (as it is reported) and one Clem: Writer a Factor in Blackwell-hall London (both Anabaptists) into this Country. And I being in London, these two travellers (by Walter Coals his directions) came on the Lordsday to Cranham (where I did and do serve in the work of the Ministry) and there the said Lamb (being in a grey-suit) offers to preach in public, but being disappointed by God's good providence of his wicked purpose, he retires to a private house in Cranham abovesaid, and by Preaching there he subverted many And shortly after in an extreme cold, and frosty time, in the night season, divers men and women were rebaptised in the great river of Severne in the City of Gloucester. And so at length returning from London, I found the face of things much altered, and many strangely leaning to the heresy of the Anabaptists. And they put on the business with such peremptory boldness, as if all the world had been unable to gainsay their practice, or refute their doctrine. Whereupon to clear myself, and to satisfy others, I undertook the controversy at Cranham, where they had left their poison. And when I undertook it, the Anabaptists from Gloucester, and Painswicke came to hear me, and set upon me in the open face of the Congregation, as soon as I came down out of the Pulpit. I desired them to forbear public tumults, and to send in their exceptions against what I had laid down for Poedobaptisme. And at first they sent me in a paper with no hand to it: but this I rejected, and delivered back to them again, because I knew no one of them would stand to it, when once the folly thereof was declared. At length I received about two sheets of paper, and yet (though it came in the names of them all) there was but one hand unto the same, and this Champion doth so stoutly manage the matter, that surely if his cause were suitable to his stomach, neither men nor Angels could stand before him. It is high time then for us to bestir ourselves, when condemned heresies shall find such bold abettors, and that in the Land of light and truth. The Lord put it into the heats of our Parliament to settle a Government among us with speed, that outfacing impudency may be called to an account, that truth and peace may dwell in our Land. And now (Gentle Reader) peruse the ensuing tractate, wherein if thou find any benefit, give God the glory, and afford me thy help at the Throne of Grace. And so I have done, and do thou begin. Thine in the Truth T.W. ERRATA. PAg. 6. line 1. for Cor. read King. p. 8. l.7. for up; r. upon. p. 10. l. 21. r. God's Covenant of Grace. p. 11. l. ult. add, of God's command, but because. p. 16. l. 31. for, their God, r. th● God. p. 36. l. 22. for under, r. of. p. 42. l. 16. deal not. p. 81. l. 4. let Petitio principii, be put in the Margin. Ib. for, disputationibus, r. disputations. Ib. l. 20 for well by, r. well as. p. 107. l. 14. for, profession in the, r. profession of faith in the. p. 110. l. 16. for, as whatsoever, r. as if whatsoever. p. 111. l. 20. deal or. p. 114. l. 17. deal saved and. p. 115. l. 22. for, certify, r. rectify. p. 116. for, to, r. of, p. 119. l. 6. ●or, hearts. 6.1. heart, p. 122. l. 28. for, not, r. not the. THE COVENANTS Plea for INFANTS. MATTH. 28.18, 19, 20. All power is given unto Me in Heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptising them in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Teaching them to observe all whatsoever I have commanded you. And lo I am with you always, even to the end of the world. AMEN. THE monstrous brood of Anabaptists in former ages, and now in these our days, have made, and do make this portion of Scripture their main Fort, and strongest Barricado to beat back poor, helpless, and harmless infants from being consecrated into God's peculiar by baptism, though born of Christian parents. Now against these unjust oppressors, and sacrilegious thiefs I am now come into the field, to maintain the christian birthright of infants, whose parents are sealed unto God, and of His Family: And to set them into their own border, possession, and inheritance. And because some of Satan's troopers of late in mine absence have made an inroad into this Parish, and by perverting of this Scripture have carried away some, and staggered many others, therefore I have chosen to insist upon this Text, to let all men see how it makes nothing at all for the establishing of their wicked purpose. This whole Chapter contains the History of our Saviour's resurrection, and a Rehearsal of what He did on earth between the time of His triumphant resurrection, and His glorious Ascension. The former we omit for brevity's sake. In the latter, the Spirit of God relates how Christ (being risen from the dead, & by virtue of His resurrection possessed of all power and authority over all things and persons, in heaven and in earth) gave a command, and commission unto his Apostles to go out among the Pagan-Gentiles, and plant the Gospel among them, and not confine themselves any longer within the precincts of judea. And why? Because all power is given unto Christ in heaven and in earth, which before was not given unto him. This is our Saviour's preface, and it is a material passage, and the ground of our Saviour's sending of His Apostles to plant the Gospel among the Pagan-Gentiles. Now all power and authority concerning the Church of God was conferred on Him for ministering the kingdom of heaven among Jews, and Gentiles. And hence observe this point for your instruction. Doct. Viz. That all power and authority concerning the Church of God was given unto Christ, and conferred on Him by virtue of His meritorious death, and triumphant resurrection from the dead. Eph. 1.19, 23. Ps. 2.6, 9 compared with Acts 13.33. Heb. 2.9, 10. Luk. 24.46, 47. Reason. And the reason is, because thereby Christ vanquished the enemies of our salvation, led captivity captive, received gifts for men, and became the head of the Church among Jews and Gentiles. Quest. But had not Christ this power from the beginning? Ans. 1. He had it in the mind and decree of His Father; for we were chosen in Him, and He was still the head of His, the Church. 2. He had it virtually in His sufficiency to vanquish enemies, and to deliver His chosen; for He was a lamb slain from the beginning. 3. Actually; and by way of execution among jews and Gentiles, without difference. He had it not, until the time of His glorious resurrection. Acts 2.32, 36. For than was He declared to be the son of God, and the Jews Messiat. Rom. 1.4. Now this point may be put to sundry good uses. Use 1 It may serve to pierce the hearts, and souls of all wicked men, and move them to repentance, and amendment of life. Acts 2.36, 37. Use 2 It may serve to deter all Church-enemies from their furious, and vain attempts against Christ, and His Gospel. Psal. 2.1, 8. Use 3 This should teach us to yield divine honour, and worship unto Christ. We are to set him up as the Lord of our faith, having His warrant for what we do in His worship under the Gospel, making Him our King and Lawgiver, and obey him in all things, that He shall say unto us, depending upon him alone for salvation, as our All-sufficient Saviour. Use 4 Let us then labour to be so qualified, and so to live, as that all this power of Christ may be improved for our advantage. Now if we would be so qualified, we must see that we are true members of Jesus Christ. And the truth of this may be discerned by our threefold oneness with Christ. viz. 1. Of Spirit. 1 Cor. 6.17. 2. Of image, Gal. 4.19. 3. Of carriage. Gal. 2.20. Now if we are thus one with Christ, Christ will be Alsufficient unto us against every evil, and for all good things of soul or body, in life and death that we shall stand in need of. Use 5 This consideration may lastly afford precious matter of substantial, and lasting joy. Psal. 118.22, 23, 24. Ps. 149.2. And let this suffice for the Preface. We are now to treat of Christ's glorious Commission unto His Legates and Apostles. Wherein before we come unto the particular scanning of the whole text, we will premise two things in General, which will appositely reach the present controversy between us, and the Anabaptists. 1. The first General is this, viz. That the Apostles, and first planters of the Gospel must no longer keep within the precincts, and borders of judea, but go out among the Pagan-Gentiles, and instruct them in the Mystery of the Gospel, and so seal them also into God's peculiar by baptism. 2. The second General is this, viz. That the Apostles had a Commission from Christ to go unto all Nations without limitaion, and were not to take up their settled residence in any one Nation, but to travel from Country to Country, their Commission was so large and ample. They were for Spain, they were for Rome, for Italy, for Corinth, for Asia, for Macedonia, for Philippi, etc. And in this they had a peculiar Commission, which was to plant foundations where Christ was not named, to bear the Name of Christ before Iewes and Gentiles, to be the immediate penmen of the Holy Ghost, to deliver unto them the immediate will of God concerning faith and worship, and to confirm their doctrine by miracles, as part of their extraordinary Commission. Now let the Anabaptists show us any such Commission among all the mopping apes of their Apostolical instructers, by whose miraculous endowments, they hope to see all the world brought to the obedience of their faith. Now this second observation we shall not speak of here in this treatise; for such was the impetuous madness of the Anabaptists at their first entrance into their new way, (for young beginners are most fiery) that I thought it prudence, to forbear the further prosecuting of this text: for their objections would have been so many, that in answering of them, I should have spent whole sermons, and so have deprived mine auditory of more necessary instructions; and therefore I resolved to deal with them by writing, and to publish my Sermon-notes (or at least the sum of them) upon this first General; this being the very hinge, upon which the controversy betwixt us, and the Anabaptists is turned. The first General point than is this, viz. That the Apostles, and first planters of the Gospel, were no longer to keep within the borders, and precincts of Judea, but to go out among the Pagan-Gentiles, and instruct them in the mystery of the Gospel, and being so instructed to seal them into God's peculiar by Baptism. Now as this point stands clearly upon the text, so other Scriptures suffrage with it, as Mark. 16.14, 18. Act. 10.34, 38. Act. 13.47, 48. And this primitive administration of the Gospel, unto the Pagan. Gentiles is called a bearing of Christ's name before them. Act. 9.15. And an opening of a door of faith unto the Gentiles. Act. 14.27. 1 Cor. 16.9. And here faith must be the door of admittance. But to make brief way to the clearing of the truth, against the obstreperous clamours, and darkening cavillations of the Anabaptists, or opposers of paedobaptism, we are to consider, what the state of the Gentiles was in point of religion, before the Gospel was preached among them by the Apostles, and first planters of Christ's Kingdom, and then what their estate is now (where the Gospel is planted and they baptised) in point of Religion. The state of the Pagan-Gentiles in point of religion, before the Gospel was planted among them, may be presented unto you in two Generals. viz. 1. They were without Christ, aliens from the Commonwealth of Israel, strangers from the Covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world. Ephes. 2.12. 2. They had their visible and Country-Idols, and they were carried away to dumb Idols, even as they were led. 1 Cor. 12. 2. Rom. 1.18, 32. Psal. 115.2, 8. Thus the Sidonians had their Astaroth, the Moabites their Chemosh, the children of Ammon their Milchom. 1. Cor. 11.33. The Philistines their Dagon. 1 Sam. 5.1, 2. The Ephesians their Diana. Act. 19 And the Athenians their Hotch potch. This was their state in point of religion. And therefore is there any reason, that these should be baptised, before they were turned from their Idols, and called to faith in Christ, and repentance towards God? Surely none. And therefore Christ would that such should be first made Disciples, before they should be baptised into the name of the sacred Trinity. And the Apostles did so. For it's expressly said, that many of the Corinthians hearing, believed, and were baptised. And there is good reason for this; for First, its fit that mere aliens, and professed Idolaters, (Gods professed enemies) should manifest their faith and repentance, before they should be sealed into God's peculiar by baptism. Secondly, none of their kindred were ever before in the state of Christianity, from whence they might claim right unto God's seal of Admittance. But now a Church was to be raised of persons grown up to years, and so confession of faith must be the ground of their baptism, their parents being not baptised before, and in the state of Christianity. But secondly, the condition of the Gentiles where the Gospel is embraced, and they baptised into the Name of the holy Trinity, is not now the same in point of religion. For 1. First, it cannot be said that such Gentiles are aliens from the Commonwealth of Israel, without Christ, strangers from the Covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world. 2. It cannot be said that such Gentiles have their Countrey-Idols, by which they are carried away, seeing they are turned from them. 1 Thess. 1.9. 3. It must needs be acknowledged that such Gentiles are not fare off, but in Jesus Christ made nigh by the blood of Christ. Ephes. 2.13. having access unto the Father through Christ by the Spirit, verse 18. 4. It must needs be acknowledged, that such Gentiles are no more strangers, and foreigners, but fellow-citizens with the Saints, and of the household of God, and are built upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief cornerstone. Eph. 2.19, 20. 5. It must needs be acknowledged, that such Gentiles are all baptised into Christ's body. 1 Cor. 12, 13. Gal. 3.27, 28, 29. Now bring me any such Gentiles as these, among the Pagan-Gentiles, before the Gospel came among them, and was embraced by them. And therefore these things being considered, who but a stupid dolt, and perverse wrangler, can hence conclude, that infants of Christian parents should be debarred from the Sacrament of Baptism in their infancy. And the reason is because their parents are not now found in the state of heathenish Paganism, (as were those among whom Christ sent His Apostles before they received Christ and His Gospel) but now they stand in Grace, and Covenant with God, as His peculiar people, holy, and beloved. Now, albeit it is a truth, that all children of baptised parents are baptizable, and to be baptised, yet to prevent impertinencies, and all collateral cavillations, I propound the question concerning paedobaptism in these terms, viz. Whether children of holiest parents in purest Churches are to be baptised in their infancy? The point between us and the complete Anabaptists is simply concerning paedobaptism. If my controversy lay with the Semi-Anabaptists, I would lay my proposition in other terms, but the complete Anabaptist doth hold, that no child in infancy is baptizable, let his parents be never so holy, and let the administration be never so pure. Now we maintain the affirmative of this question against the Anabaptists upon these grounds; viz. Reason 1 First, because Infants of Christians are holy. 1 Cor. 7.14. cum Rom. 11.16. And à Spiritu Sancto recepto ad Baptismi administrationem is an invincible argument with St. Peter. Acts 10.47. Can any man forbidden water, that these should not be baptised, which have received the Holy Ghost, as well as we? Ob. I but, say our busy-Anabaptists, there was a visible manifestation of the holy Ghost in a miraculous manner, up-those that Peter speaks of there; but there is no manifestation of the Holy Ghost, upon Infants of Christian parents in their infancy, more than upon Infants of Turks and Pagans. Sol. I answer, that there was a manifestation of the Holy Ghost, as well to the eye of sense, as to the eye of faith, but here to the eye of faith only. That was miraculous & extra ordinary; this oraculous & ordinary. And a standing Oracle is as much to be credited; as a Miracle, if not more; For miracles are but secondary confirmations of divine faith, but Gods written Oracles are primary. Manifestations of holiness may be fallacious, but God's Oracles are certain, and can never deceive. And the singer of God hath written holiness upon Infants of Christians, and Paul (God's Ambassador) hath proclaimed it unto us. A writing, and a proclamation, that the heilish spite, and virulent tongues of clamouring Anabaptists, shall never be able to obliterate or disannul by their bastard exposition of this sacred Oracle; forcing it to speak the strange language of a seduced Anabaptist, and not the heavenly language of the sacred Scriptures, a practice plainly diabolical and hellish. But put case (oh monster) that God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost should come unto thee, and say, these are holy children. Dost thou think God's meaning were, that they are no bastards, but lawfully begotten? Surely, if that should be God's meaning▪ He should not speak according to the usual language of his own written word. For tell me, where God terms children holy, for their being mere legitimates? Canst thou bring one text of Scripture, where children are said to be holy, unless it be in relation unto the holy Covenant under which they were borne? And if God should say that such children are holy, because of the holy Covenant, under which they were borne, (as children are said to be holy for that only reason in the Scripture.) Did not God in this say unto thee, I have set these children apart unto myself? Psal. 4.3. Did not God in so saying say unto thee, set them a part unto Me as My Portion. And how wouldst thou set them apart unto God, but by putting Gods seal upon them? Well, we need not suppose Gods speaking thus unto thee, for God doth so speak unto thee, and unto all men in this sacred Oracle. And on children of Christian parents it must stand, as an unchangeable Oracle, that they are holy. Quest. But (say Anabaptists) that children of Christians are holy, the text is expressly clear; but what holiness doth the Apostle mean? Sol. I answer, that doubtless the Apostle means such holiness as the Prophets in the old Testament do mean, when they call the children of God's Covenant-people the holy seed. Not holiness by legitimation, as Bellarmine the Jesuit, and his disciples the Anabaptists dream, but such holiness as hath the promise of the kingdom of heaven. Mark. 10.13, 16. Matth. 19.13, 14, 15. Luk. 18.15, 16, 17. Ob. I, but say Anabaptists, these were not children in propriety of speech, but young beginners in Christianity, and such as were little in their own eyes, as Matth. 18.1, 6. Sol. The stories are not the same; For it's said in Mat. 18. that Christ called a little child, and set him in the midst of His disciples to teach them humility, and in the other places, that we have cited (Mark. 10. Matth. 19 Luk. 18.) that they brought children unto Christ that He should bless them And to say that the words are not taken in propriety of speech in these texts, is just like their other stuff: For 1. In the places that we have quoted its said, that the children were brought unto Christ, not led and presented only, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, apportabant, borne to Christ, as we bear a burden. 2. They were such 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as. St. Luke terms 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, children newly borne. 3. The disciples blamed those that brought them. And would they blame men for bringing young beginners in in Christianity, weak Christians, and such as were little in their own eyes unto Christ? 4. They very gesture of Christ proves them to be children in propriety of speech. For it is said that Christ took them up in his arms. And thus you see how these shuffling jugglers will catch at any thing, and so can they allege Scripture, they care not how little it is to purpose; so they may puzzle others, and avoid the evidence of truth against themselves. Quaest. But put case (say they) we grant the places to be meant of Children in propriety of speech, how can you hence conclude, that they ought to be baptised? Sol. Very well; for if the Kingdom of God, which is the proper inheritance of Saints, doth belong unto them, than the seal and cognizance thereof is theirs in all equity. But the end wherefore we alleged these Scriptures, is to prove that the holiness attributed unto children by Paul, 1 Cor. 7.14. is the holiness of God's Kingdom, or the holiness of God's grace, under which these children were borne, as the children of the Covenant by birth, because borne of a parent in covenant. And infants are not where in Scripture phrased holy, but in relation to the holy Covenant, under which they were borne. And so from the covenant their title stands good to the initial seal thereof, which under the Gospel is Baptism. Quaest. If the holiness of the Covenant gives Infants right unto Baptism, why then do you not administer the Lords supper unto them also. Answ. Because the Lord's Supper belongs only unto such as can spiritually examine themselves, and discern the Lords body, 1 Cor. 11.27, 28, 29. Now the sum of all is this, viz. Children of Christian parents are holy (by virtue of God's holy Covenant) in their infancy, and therefore to be Baptised in their infancy. Or thus more largely, viz. Whensoever persons appear unto the Church (under the Gospel) to be holy, by virtue of God's holy Covenant, than the Church is to baptise such persons. But Infants of Christians, even in their infancy are persons that appear unto the Church (under the Gospel) to be holy, by virtue of God's holy Covenant. Ergo, The Church under the Gospel is to Baptise infants of Christians in their infancy. Quaest. But how do Infants of Christians appear unto the Church under the Gospel to be holy; prove that (say they) and we have done. Sol. I answer, that persons may appear to be holy unto the Church (under the Gospel) two ways, viz. 1. Sensitively, by their words and pious actions, and and this is the only way that the Anabaptists do know, for they are altogether led by sense: and thus Infants of Christians neither do, nor can appear unto the Church (under the Gospel) to be holy. 2. Oraculously, by virtue of a Divine Oracle, and thus children of Christians appear unto the, Church (under the Gospel) to be holy. The Holy Ghost hath engraven this Oracle (1 Cor. 7.14.) upon such children. And such children do utter this Oracle in the circumcised ears of all understanding Christians, though Anabaptists hear no such voice. And let these suffice for our first ground. Reason 2 Secondly, Infants of Christians are to be baptised in their infancy, because they are subjects capable of it. Now that they are subjects capable of this initial seal in their infancy, appears conspicuously by God's express command, that the infants of Jews, & their proselytes should be circumcised in their infancy. If they had not been subject a capable of it, God would not have commanded it, but God did command it, and therefore they were subjects capable of it. And these infants were not therefore capable, because of God's Covenant with Abraham, and their Fathers, which were sealed unto God by Circumcision, and in Covenant with him. For the Text saith not, Thou shalt keep My command therefore, but thou shalt keep My Covenant therefore, thou, and thy seed after thee, in their generations, Gen. 17.9. implying, that this command had reference to the Covenant, and was part of it. For here God is to be considered, as God in covenant with His people, and all his commands are branches of His Covenant, all grounded upon His free grace in Jesus Christ, and therefore in the next verse, (viz. v. 10.) He calls Circumcision by the name of His Covenant, saying, This is my Covenant, which ye shall keep between Me and you, and thy seed after thee: every manchild among you shall be circumcised. And to put the matter out of all doubt, that Circumcision is called by the name of the Covenant, the Lord speaks expressly afterwards, saying, And My Covenant shall be in your flesh, v. 13. to teach us that the Covenant made infants capable of the seal, and not God's mere Mandamus, as our abstracting Anabaptists play with notions. And so they will consider God here in His absolute prerogative, and not as in Covenant with this people. Whereas the Seal can be nothing, but a confirmation of the promises of Grace unto such as have the promises made unto them. So then the promises of grace made these infants capable of having the promises confirmed unto them by God's initial seal. Now what seal should be authentic in Heaven, and seal up divine promises unto persons under the promises, or in covenant with God, that depended upon God's institution. Now God instituted Circumcision, and commanded it to be imprinted on the flesh of his people in covenant, as the proper subjects capable of the same. So that the command that the Anabaptists talk of so much, are the words of institution, it being God's prerogative incommunicable to institute Sacramental signs; because He only can make them effectual to supernatural ends, and give the things signified thereby. Now Circumcision did bind the circumcised to the obedience of the whole Law, Gal. 5.3. And this obligation was laid on very Infants before they could have any knowledge of the Law. And again, Circumcision is a seal of the righteousness of faith in the Messiah, Rom. 4.11. And this seal was imprinted on very infants, before they could have any actual faith or knowledge of righteousness. And unto this obedience and faith, the Covenant (under which they were borne) had bound them, though the initial seal had been denied them. Such an anabaptistical wickedness could not have put these infants into the condition of aliens. The Covenant itself would have bound them to faith and obedience. And the Covenant itself would have made them capable of Gods saving mercy, though the initial seal had been denied them. Such an anabaptistical cruelty could not have blocked up heaven against them. Consider this you stout Champions for Hell, which do what in you lies to make God's Covenant of free grace void, and of none effect unto his people. And to stop the course of God's mercy unto the souls of men. Well, the being of infants in covenant under the Law made them capable of Circumcision, the initial seal of the Covenant. To be in covenant then with God makes a man capable of the initial seal in infancy, according to the ministration of Christ, under which he is borne, i.e. whether the ministration be of Christ to be exhibited in the flesh, or of Christ already exhibited in the flesh. The substance is the same. The Covenant is nothing but Christ ministered. Whether it be man's Saviour to come, that is ministered (as to the Jews and their proselytes in types) or man's Saviour already come be ministered (as to Christians without types in clear demonstrations) in the ordinances of Grace, yet it is the same Saviour Jesus Christ, The same yesterday, to day, and for ever, Heb. 13.9. (i.e.) In the Ordinances of Grace in times past, present and to come, nothing hath been, is, or shall be ministered (for the eternal salvation of the soul) but Jesus Christ. The Covenant now and formerly with Jews is the same, in relation to the eternal welfare of the soul. For, 1. The foundation of the Covenant is the same, as Gods free eternal, and unchangeable love to his elect. 2. The occasion of the covenant the same, as man's misery by his fall in the loins of Adam: of which this Covenant of Grace is a pregnant, and merciful remedy. 3. The Author is the same, as God gracious, merciful, flow to anger, pardoning iniquity, etc. 4. The thing promised is the same, as Christ the Redeemer, and Saviour of mankind. 5. The spiritual eflicacie of the Ordinances the same, as the mortification of the flesh, and the renewing of the creature to God's Image in Jesus Christ. 6. The subject's the same, as a people in Covenant with God to yield obedience to the faith. 7. The end Cujus the same, as the glory of God's mercy to His Elect, and the unexcuse of the Reprobate. 8. Finally, the end Cui the same, as Good works here in this life, and the immortality of the soul, and eternal blessedness in the life to come. Only God's manner of ministering Christ unto man for his eternal salvation is divers, according to the diversity of Christ state: viz. as not incarnate, and to come; or incarnate and already come; and so the ministration is divers in the Ordinances of Grace. Before Christ was come in the flesh all the Ordinances of Grace directed the eyes of the faithful unto Christ to be exhibited for their salvation & redemption. (And therefore all the Ordinances of grace must needs be typical) And this did quiet their consciences, and filled their hearts with joy. And since Christ is come, all the Ordinances of Grace, serve to confirm the faithful in this point, and minister Christ exhibited (in the flesh) unto us. And this causes us to rest in Him for Redemption, and salvation, and to expect no other Saviour. Now if Infants under the typical ministration of Christ were capable of the initial seal of this Covenant (because borne under this Covenant) in their very infancy, when they could declare no right they had unto it, but their birth; then Infants of Christians under the Gospel, borne under the same Covenant of Grace, are capable of the present initial seal of this Covenant, though they can show no right they have unto it, but their being born of such parents as are Christians. The manifestation of faith is no more requisite to the administration of Baptism unto such as are borne Christians, than it was to the administration of Circumcision unto such as were born Jews. But as such as were made Jew's had Circumcision administered unto them, because they testified faith in the Messiah, and such as were borne Jews had it by birth, as children of parents in covenant. So such as are made Christians are to have Baptism ministered unto them, upon the testimony of their faith, but such as are borne Christians are to have it by birth, as children of parents in Covenant with God, and of his household and family. For as it was a rule of old, that nemo circumcidendus quà Infans, or, quà adultus, but quatenus foederatus. So now, nemo baptizandus quà infans, or quà adultus, but quatenus foederatus. Now if infants of Christians appear unto us to be foederati (as they do) than we are to administer baptism unto them in their infancy. Baptism herein answering to Circumcision. And so the fond quaere of the Anabaptists is groundless. What (say they) shall we seal a blank? But this question implies this blasphemy, namely, that Gods written Covenant is a blank, for God's covenant is written upon the children of parents in covenant, as Christian parents are in covenant. And if so, than their infants are in covenant, otherwise the parents are not in covenant. For though it follows not, children are in covenant with God, therefore their parents are in covenant with God, for Abraham was in covenant with God, but his father Terah was not: yet it follows undeniably, parents are in Covenant with God, therefore their Infants are in Covenant with God. Now than the Infants of Christian parents have the Covenant of Grace, written upon them by birth, because children of such parents. And because their being in Covenant in their infancy appears unto the Church, therefore the Church is to baptise them in their infancy; for when persons appear unto the Church to be in God's Covenant of Grace, than the Church is to put the Covenant under seal unto them; and 'tis their due, and the Church's duty. And so in the business of paedobaptism, we are not to look to the righteousness inherent in the parents, nor to the righteousness in the infant (for of neither of these can we have certain, and infallible knowledge) but to the righteousness of the Covenant, or to the free grace of God in Christ, as Rom. 4.11. where Circumcision is called, the seal of the righteousness of faith; And therefore the seal of imputative righteousness. And hence is the gross mistake of our Anabaptists. They think that the efficacy of Baptism is grounded on the practical righteousness of the creature, manifested in words or works, (which stinks of Popery all over) but orthodox Christians in the business of paedobaptism do look to God's Covenant of free Grace, and so present their children unto God's mercy, and Fatherly love in Jesus Christ, our Righteousness, Covenant, and atonement. And albeit our infants have no inherent righteousness manifested unto us by their words or actions▪ yet God hath righteousness to be imputed, by virtue of His Covenant of Grace (saying, I will be thy God, and the God of their seed in their generations) And therefore we dedicate our children unto God in their infancy by Baptism. Now our Popish Anabaptists cannot endure to hear of Circumcision, as if that should be to the Jews before Christ's incarnation, the same with baptism unto Christians since. Oh they labour to cry down this, as the grossest absurdity, that ever was uttered by the tongues of men. But this is no new thing, for the old heretics heretofore did lead upstart punies in the right way, how to fasten themselves to their own errors, and Popish pride. But I pray what difference between these two, save in the outward ceremony? For was not Circumcision as sacrament of entrance into the true Church of God before Christ's incarnation? And is not Baptism the same unto us Christians since Christ's Ascension. Why doth the Apostle call baptised Christians, circumcised Christians, and Baptism by the name of Circumcision? Col. 2.11, 14. Was not Circumcision a seal of the same justifying faith, as Baptism is now unto us? Rom. 4.11. And in a word, did not Circumcision signify the mortification of the flesh, and the renewing of the mind, and so bind over the Jews unto the obedience of Gods will? Rom. 2.28, 29. Gal. 3.21. And doth not Baptism the same now? Rom. 6.3, 11. 1 Pet. 3.21. Now show us any substantial difference between these two Sacraments; for if there be no substantial difference, then without controversy there is a substantial union. You say, there is a wide difference, for the one was the cutting off of the foreskin of the flesh, and the other is a washing with water. So say we, but this difference is but ceremonial; but as an initial seal, how differ they, or in any other spiritual effect necessary unto salvation? When we look upon Sacraments, we do not look upon them by halves, as you Anabaptists do, and detain our senses in the bodily part of them. We look upon the mystical part of them, as they are of spiritual use to confirm the Covenant of Grace, and to further a man in the way to Heaven. And so circumcision was that unto the Jews before Christ's incarnation, as Baptism is to christian's since. Now to overthrow this, Anabaptists usually allege two things, viz. First, they allege that Baptism cannot be the same unto Christians since Christ's incarnation, as Circumcision was unto the Jews before, and why? Because (say they) Circumcision was to be administered unto Infants, on the eighth day, but Baptism is not to be administered unto Infants on the eight day. Sol. This objection proves nothing against the point in hand, for the eighth day fell out to be in such a time, wherein the Infants could make no sacramental use of the Sacrament of Circumcision, and they were a blank in their sense, as much as our Infants. Under the law they were to be kept from Circumcision until the eight day for a ceremonial reason. Levit. 12.2, 3. And this makes nothing at all against what we have said, touching the substantial identity of Circumcision and Baptism. For things that do differ circumstantially, may yet be altogether one in substance. Secondly, they allege that under the law females were not circumcised, but under the Gospel they are baptised. Sol. We answer, that this (neither) makes nothing against the point in hand, which is paedobaptism; for grant that the proportion holds between Circumcision and Baptism, were it but in males, this were enough to refute their own conclusion. For this would infer that the state of infancy doth not make persons uncapable of the initial seal of the Covenant of grace under the Gospel. But they oppose paedobaptism in males and females. But we answer that under the law the females were circumcised in the males, as the Church is circumcised in Christ. The males bearing the type of Christ upon their flesh, and the males and females in matrimonial conjunction representing Christ and His Church. And unto this the Apostle alludes. Ephes. 5.22, 33. And now such a typical discrimination of sexes being removed, Christ exhibited puts no difference in Baptism between males and females. Gal. 3.27, 28. So then the argument stands good, that Infants are capable of Baptism, because borne under the Covenant of Grace. Reason 3 Thirdly, Infants of Christians are to be baptised in their infancy, because we have divine warrant for it. For the text here (Matth. 28.19.) imports, that all the children of the Christian Church are to be baptised. And God's Covenant of grace with the parents, put under seal unto them by Baptism, doth necessarily put the Infants of such parents under the same Covenant of grace; as the seed of such parents. For to grant, that baptised parents are put under the Covenant of grace by divine warrant, is to grant that the children of such parents are put under the same Covenant, by the same warrant. For the separating of Children from parents in Covenant is to dissolve that Covenant▪ which God made with Abraham in the promised seed, for the eternal salvation of Jews and Gentiles. Now the very being of the parents under the seal of this Covenant doth prove unanswerably, that their infants are in this Covenant. And if this proves the being of Infants in Covenant, than it proves unanswerably their right of having the Covenant put under seal unto them by divine warrant, and so (by necessary consequence) their divine right unto Baptism. For by birth they are in the Covenant, because borne under the Covenant, as children of such parents. And admit the parents unto Baptism upon the testimony of their faith, and that brings the children of such parents into the Church by birth; so then baptise the parents, and thereby of necessity you make the Infants of such parents baptizable by divine warrant, and it cannot be avoided. Now that Matth. 28.19. doth warrant our baptising of Infants whose parents are baptised, may thus be evinced and made good; viz. All true members of the Christian Church are to be baptised by Christ's warrant in Matth. 28.19. But all Infants of baptised parents are true members of the Christian Church. Ergo All Infants of baptised parents are to be baptised by Christ's warrant in Matth. 28.19. The Minor proposition I thus prove, viz. That proposition whose contradictory is false, and absurd, is a true proposition. But the contradictory of this Minor proposition is false, and absurd, ergo. This Minor proposition is a true proposition. Now the contradictory of this Minor proposition is this, viz. Some Infants of baptised parents are not true members of the Christian Church. But this proposition is false, and absurd, and as much as to say, as some Infants of baptised parents are Aliens, Pagans, and Insidels. Thus than I argue, viz. Infants of baptised parents are either true members of the Christian Church, or else they are Aliens, Pagans, and Infidels; there is no medium, there is no neuter. But Infants of baptised parents are not Aliens, Pagans, and Infidels. Ergo. Infants of baptised parents are true members of the Christian Church. And so by necessary consequence Christ's Commission, Matth. 28.19. is a divine warrant, for the baptising of Infants, whose parents are baptised. Now let the Anabaptists show us any child, or infant of baptised parents, that is not a true member of the Christian Church, and prove him by the word of God to be no member of the Christian Church, and we will not baptise that child. Again, to contrive my Syllogism in another mood, which may as well accomplish my purpose, and prove that Christ's Commission for baptising, is for the baptising of Infants whose parents are baptised, as well as for the baptising of the alien upon the testimony of his faith in Christ. Thus I argue, viz. All true members of the Christian Church are to be baptised by virtue of Christ's Commission in Matth. 28.19. But some Infants of baptised parents, are true members of the Christian Church, Ergo. Some Infants of Christian parents are to be baptised by virtue of Christ's Commission in Matth. 28.19. Now that some Infants of Christians are true members of the Christian Church may thus be proved; viz. All true members of Christ in the Church are true members of the Christian Church. But some Infants of baptised parents are true members of Christ in the Church, ergo. Some Infants of baptised parents are true members of the Christian Church. Now than if Christ's Commission Mat. 28.19. be, that we should baptise all true members of the Christian Church; and that some Infants are true members of the Christian Church, than some Infants of Christian parents are to be baptised by virtue of Christ's Commission. Mat. 28.19. And this proves that persons may be baptizable in their infancy, and aught to be baptised. And as for what you instance from the practice of the Apostles, that will not serve your turn. For the Apostolical Ministry lay, in gathering of a primitive Church from Judaisme and Paganism. But instance in the practice of ordinary pastors in a Church gathered (as the Church of Corinth, or any other mentioned in the new Testament) and bring me thence but one instance, that any children (whose parents were baptised, and in the state of Christianity) were held back from baptism, until they could give an account of their faith in person, and then you will speak to the present condition of God's Church in these times. But this you cannot do, and therefore in drawing extraordinary instances into an ordinary canon, to bind all the Churches of God unto like practice, is to overthrow the nature of God's Covenant of Grace, and to make that a personal Covenant (i. e. to terminate in the person baptised) which God hath made social, i. e. to believers and their seed jointly saying, I will be thy God, and the God of thy seed in their generations. Now for this Commission in the 28. of Matth. verse 19, 20. It's a full, and univerfall Commission, belonging to all the Ministers of Christ under the Gospel, unto the world's end. And of these Ministers, some are extraordinary, and to cease; and some are ordinary, and to continue. So then in this short Commission, here is somewhat Apostolical, and peculiar to extraordinary Ministers, which cannot be applied unto, nor expected from ordinary pastors in settled Churches; As to plant foundations, to work miracles, as proofs of their immediate calling from God, to be led by an unerring spirit in delivering immediate oracles from Christ, as standing canons of divine faith, and worship, etc. And so their practice was extraordinary, and no such thing is to be expected from ordinary pastors, but to build upon the foundation, which the Apostles laid. Now the Apostles committed the Churches gathered unto ordinary pastors and teachers, which must proceed in the work of the Ministry, where the Apostles left, for the edifying of the body of Christ, etc. And that this is such an universal Commission (as we speak of) the Apostle Paul makes clear, and puts it out of all doubt. Ephes. 4.8, 13. where he expounds the meaning of this Commission. For whereas Christ in this text (here) saith All power is given unto Me, go ye therefore and teach all Nations etc. Paul upon the same ground and occasion saith, when He ascended up on high (meaning Christ) He led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men, etc. And He gave some Apostles, some Prophets, and some Evangelists, and some pastors, and teachers, for the perfecting of the Saints, for the work of the Ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ, etc. For how long? Until the end of the world, saith Christ. Until we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ, says Paul. See then what confusion the Anabaptists do speak, when they urge from this text Apostolical imitation in ordinary pastors, without distinguishing of what is herein peculiar to extraordinary Ministers, and what is common to Apostles and ordinary pastors. This I thought good to speak, to prevent a mischief that might befall unstable souls (through the juggling fraud cunning craftiness of the Anabaptists) for want of a right understanding of our Saviour's mind in this text. For they will hence take occasion to cry up Christ's Commission unto His Apostles in Matth. 28.19, 20. viz. of making men Disciples, before they could be capable of Baptism, putting no difference between those that are to be made Christians of Aliens, and those that are borne Christians of Christians; and also putting no difference between the Apostolical ministration and the Pastoral ministration, and so by a confused urging of the text in the strict letter, they seduce many an unstable soul unto their heretical practice of rebaptising. Whereas could they but look upon this Commission, as an universal Commission, they would soon discern the fraud of these men, and would not be carried away by them. Christians then in these days should labour, to be men in knowledge, and not be always children tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness whereby they lie in wait to deceive. Ephes. 4.14. Seducers have a sleight, whereby they can deceive children i e. men of little knowledge in divine mysteries, and of an unstable and wavering mind. These seducers can use the Scriptures, as the jugglers use their dice. For as the juggler hath a sleight to make his dice to turn up what may serve his turn, to defraud such as he plays withal, so seducers have a sleight (when they deal with men of little knowledge and of a wavering mind) to make the Scriptures speak their own language, for to win men unto their party. And the metaphor is here by the Apostle taken from the juggler, for he saith, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Men deceive novices and ungrounded Christians. But how? In the dice-playing of men. And so our Anabaptists meeting with Novices and ungrounded christians, will make this and other Scriptures speak their own principles and language, to deceive men and lead them into error. And therefore I thought good to acquaint you with the true meaning of this text, which the juggling Anabaptists pervert to their own ends, and do not make it speak the mind of Christ, but the language of their own seduced and seducing hearts. and 'tis blasphemy to say that any text of Scripture doth speak their hellish principles. Simple ones may be carried away with their good words and fair speeches, but grounded Christians know, and see their juggle and method of deceiving well enough. The text warrants and commands the baptising of all true members of the Christian Church. And therefore it warrants the baptising of Infants of baptised parents: and this Inference cannot be avoided. And so much for this third reason for paedo baptism. Reason 4 Fourthly, we baptise Infants of baptised parents, because the Lord doth ordinarily make our baptising of Infants effectual to the proper ends, whereunto true Baptism is appointed in the Gospel. Now the ends are, to put on Christ. Gal. 3.27. To die unto sin, and to live unto God. Rom. 6.3, 4, 5. 1 Pet. 3.21. And God doth ordinarily make Baptism effectual unto these ends, in persons that were baptised in their infancy. For among those that were baptised in their infancy we have as humble, meek, and mortified Christians, (men and women) as any among the Anabaptists, to say no more. We have those that die daily unto sin, and are vexed in soul to see the abominations of others. Again we have those that bear upon them the marks of the Lord Jesus. Their lives are holy and lovely. They are sound in the faith, grave in their behaviour, and ready unto every good work. They deny themselves, they advance free grace, they afflict their souls, and seek the peace of Jerusalem. Ordinarily our ministry doth gain them, and sweetly win upon them, they grow in grace, and submit unto God's word in all duties. And certainly God doth not ordinarily work by a false ministry, and a false Sacrament. I say God doth not thus ordinarily by false and unlawful means, though sometimes He brings light out of darkness. Now I challenge all the Brownists, and Anabaptists in the world to answer me this one thing, though nothing be more rife with them, then to condemn our Ministers and Baptism, as false and Antichristian. Certainly God would not ordinarily give testimony to a false Ministry, and false Sacrament by making them effectual to the proper ends, whereunto the true Ministry and Sacraments are appointed in the Gospel. The Apostle Paul useth this very argument to prove his calling to be right, and from the Lord. 1 Cor. 9.1, 2. saying, Am I not an Apostle? Am I not free? Have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord? Are not you my work in the Lord? If I be not an Apostle to others, yet doubtless I am to you, for the seal of mine Apostleship, are ye in the Lord. 1 Cor. 4.15. Reason 5 Fiftly, and lastly we baptise Infants of Christian parents, because it is the practice of other reformed Churches, which God hath blessed in that way with great increase of heavenly gifts. Now if we should forbear by virtue of a divine restraint, (as we pretend) than we should lay iniquity upon whole kingdoms, and godly societies, as taking liberty where God hath put a restraint. And how should we justify our practice, and condemn theirs, by the word of God? For they would tell us, that we put restraint upon men's consciences, where God hath put none. And that we misinterprent the 28. of Matth. verse 19 And that our inter pretation of the text is absurd and ridiculous, and that neither Christ's Commission, nor the Apostles practice doth any way countenance our cause. Again, they would tell us that we do evade the evidence of 1 Cor. 7.14. against us, by a base and beggarly shift, plainly derogatory to the Majesty of the holy Scriptures, in saying that children of a believer are said there to be holy in opposition to bastardy, as if they were holy for no other more noble cause, but for their being mere legitimates: a notion too low for the Spirit of divine Oracles, a notion plainly ridiculous in the apprehension of every ordinary capacity, the Scriptures no where terming children holy, but for the holy Covenants sake under which they were borne. Now for us to pretend Apostolical imitation, and walking according to Christ's primitive Commission, and yet to put off Apostolical Authority with such a bastardly gloss, would give other Churches (which we oppose) just cause to think, that our way is rather a diabolical delusion, than an ordinance of Christ, and that fantastical humours do rather sway with us, than conscience. Again, they would tell us that our way of rebaptising hath been always condemned, in all reformed Churches by the holiest and ablest Christians for an heresy, and that paedobaptism was never so condemned in any reformed Church, but practised and maintained an Ordinance of Jesus Christ under the Gospel, and that God ordinarily hath blessed it by making the same effectual, to the comfort and sanctification of the baptised. Furthermore they would tell us, that denying Baptism unto Infants of baptised parents is grounded upon an hellish foundation, and is the inlet of many hateful heresies, which have been always found with the abettors of this practice, though at their first entrance into this trade, they have not been so vile and loathsome. Yet for the maintaining of this way (when opposed by the Churches and Ministers of Christ) they have been enforced to hold many gross and palpable heresies, which our Anabaptists will be driven unto, though as yet they deny not the doctrine of predestination, orginal sin in Infants, the morality of the Christian Sabbath, the Person of the Holy Ghost, etc. I say (though as yet they seem to be more tolerable) they must be driven unto these and many moe such abominations, or else they cannot hold up their trade. Finally, they would produce many learned authors, that have condemned our practice, and refuted our tenants, which to this day are not answered, by any of the contrary party. Now for us to make so pitiful a schism from all the Churches of God, and not to refute those that have written against us, would argue rather obstinate folly, than conscience and zeal. And so much for this first General. THE COVENANTS Plea for INFANTS, vindicated. Anabaptist. A Brief answer unto Mr WYNNNELS arguments, and reasons that he delivered in public, for to prove the lawfulness of Infant's Baptism, with propositions annexed. Answer. A full reply to your answer, vindicating the arguments, and reasons for paedobaptism, against your frivolous exceptions, with an answer to your annexed propositions. Anabaptist. First you argue from the difference of state and time of the Pagan. Gentiles in the Apostles times, and us now under the Gospel. For you say that they were such as had their several country Idols, and that they were strangers to the Commonwealth of Israel, and without God in the world. For answer unto this. First we grant, that this was the general state and condition of the Pagan-Gentiles: but there were many particular persons, as Cornelius and others is the Acts, who were men truly fearing God, and such as were called out of the state of Paganism unto the profession of the Gospel, and therefore they were not all under Paganism, and yet we do not find that any of the seed of those persons were baptised, but only such that did hear the word and believe. Act. 10. latter end. Answer. Well. If this were their state in general, that is as much as I require. And for particular extraordinary instances, they cannot infringe the truth of an ordinary and general canon. However, to the point. Show one example that any of the seed of Cornelius, or of any Jew or Gentile converted to Christianity were baptised, when they were able to answer for themselves and not before and then (and not before then) the cause is yours. john Baptist baptised a world of people. And from john Baptist to the end of the Acts, was about forty years: But show that any one of the posterity of those John baptised, or of those the Disciples baptised (who were more than those john baptised, Jo. 4.12.) I say, give one example of any one such baptised, when grown up; and than you speak to the purpose. Else give over calling for examples. Anabaptist. Again further. Admit we grant you that this were the condition of them all in particular, as well as in general, yet this would make nothing for your purpose. For we Gentiles are all Generally as bad in our natural condition as they were, and we are such as know not God, nay are open and professed enemies to God, as well the seed of believers as other stand therefore seeing our condition by nature is the same with the Pagan-Gentiles, I know no reason why we (so long as we remain in our natural condition) should have greater privileges than they, unless the holy Ghost had any where given commission for is in Scripture. And therefore until you can prove a difference between them and us by nature, you in effect as good as say nothing. Answer. Here (as a man more than confident of his cause) you seem to grant your antagonist more than is required. Here you have found out an argument, which in your opinion is more than demonstrative. And oh how happy is your Church in having so mettalsome a champion, that is able to say something, that your Apostolical fraternity be not trodden down of the Idolatrous paedobaptists. But, however your words may pass in your Church, as oracles: yet we (the maintainers of God's Covenant) judge your assertion in all this prattle to be but an aspersion. And either make your charge good, or else we will look upon you as an agent for the devil, and not for Christ. Prove that all the children of believing parents are open and professed enemies to God. Show where the Scripture so terms Infants of Christian parents, seeing such are borne Christians, and called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Saints. I Cor. 7.14. You show yourself to be an open and professed enemy to the holy seed, in casting so soul a reproach upon persons, that God hath so highly honoured. And as much may be said of the Infants of the Jews, namely that they were borne in original sin, yet the Scripture terms them not where open and professed enemies to God, though you say the promises made unto them were but temporary. Nor did this estate debar them from being sealed into God's peculiar in their infancy, by the seal of His holy and eternal Covenant. Now if you say that infants in their infancy, must not be baptised because they cannot understand the meaning of that mystical Ordinance, nor have saith to apply the promises therein held forth; by the same reason the Infants of the Jews should not have been circumcised, for circumcision had in it the same essential mystery with Baptism, though held forth in a type. And so your argument blames God Himself for preposterous dealing, in prescribing the seal of the righteousness of faith to be imprinted on persons, before they manifested, or could manifest any faith at all by profession, or practise. And circumcision was a seal of the same righteousness of faith, which we Christians build our eternal salvation upon, and that is faith in Jesus Christ. Rom. 4. and Rom. 5. Ob. But there was a special command for circumcision in the time of infancy. Sol. But your reason (I say) blames God for that command, because Infants of Jews were as much in the state of nature, as Infants of Christians. So then the same reason that you allege to blame us for our practice, doth blame God for His command. Again, we answer that there was such a command for the circumcising of such Infants in their infancy, whose parents were under God's seal, but no such command for Infants, whose parents were not. Profession of faith was needful unto such whose parents were not under God's federal seal. And so Abraham (in whom the Church of the Jews began) had saith before he had the seal; for being uncircumcised (or before circumcision) he had the righteousness of faith. Rom 4.11. But no such thing afterward required of Abraham's seed, but the contrary commanded, namely, that his seed should be circumcised in their infancy. So for baptism under the Gospel: For such, whose parents are not under the seal of God's Covenant, are not to be baptised, but first to manifest the righteousness of faith. And here (as in Abraham) the righteousness of faith must go before the initial seal, but when parents (as Abraham) are once under the seal of God's Covenant, their seed (as the seed of Abraham) are to be sealed unto God in their infancy by virtue of their Christian birthright; for by birth they are under God's Covenant, and that Covenant under which they were borne is to be put under seal and ratified unto them, as joint confederates with their parents, and of God's peculiar people with them. For the express words of the Covenant are I WILL BEE THY GOD, AND THE GOD OF THY SEED. And therefore when God doth put the initial seal upon the parents. He doth enright the seed of such parents unto the Covenant and initial seal thereof in their infancy, as the Lord hath clearly resolved the case when He put His Covenant under seal with Abraham. And therefore you Anabaptists are destroyers of God's Covenant, and will have it to terminate in the party baptised, and not to extend to his or her seed, as their Christian jointure by birth. So then the Covenant that God makes with us Christians is not, I will be thy God and the God of thy Seed jointly. But I will be thy God, and not the God of the seed, until they manifest faith in practice and profession, and then I will be the God of thy seed also. And so this Covenant will be no privilege unto children of Christian parents at all, for the children of Turks shall be received by Baptism, when they testify faith in christ, and and repentance towards God. And so God's Covenant of Grace must always terminate in the party baptised, and go no further. And is not this mad Divinity, that the children shall be excluded, when God hath joined parents and children as joint-partakers of the same Covenant, and inheritance? And are not you herein the devil's attorneys sent of purpose to wrangle children of Christian parents out of the spiritual inheritance, unto which they are borne as Christians by birth? The Lord plead the cause of His Covenant against these perverse disputers, maintain the inheritance of our seed and offspring against the cursed machinations of these sacrilegious thiefs and robbers, which steal from God, from us, and from our children. But you call for a difference beteeen us Christians, and the Pagan-Gentiles by nature, & unless this be showed nothing, in effect is spoken against you, or for us. By nature, that is, by natural generation, this (I believe) is your meaning, a notion indeed high enough for Anabaptists, who look upon all God's ordinances like sensual beasts. But upon that natural generation of procreation of seed you may behold the Covenant of Grace established, and set up, had you any spark of spiritual discerning in you. for so did St. Paul. Ephes. 2.3, 4. etc. And had you learned the language of the Scriptures, you might truly say that the children of Christians are Christians by nature, and not sinners of the Pagans; as the Apostle speaks of the Jews, saying; we are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles. Gal. 2.15. Here Jews by nature, and sinners of the Gentiles are opposite members. But how were they Jews by nature? Surely, as St. Peter speaks, because they were the children of the Prophets, and of the Covenant, because borne under the holy Covenant. Act. 3.25. And how were not the Jews sinners of the Gentiles? Surely Divines (whom you may seem sooner to refute then understand) tell us, that such as were borne Jew's had not their sins imputed unto them, otherwise they were borne in original sin as well as the Gentiles, but the holy Covenant of Grace was established upon them, which Covenant was appointed as a remedy to fire e them from original corruption, and to restore them to God's favour. But this is a kind of language which you Anabaptists haply do not understand. For had you any knowledge this way you would not reason so wildly, and turn God's Covenant out of doors; by putting no difference by nature between such as are born Christians in the Church, under the holy Covenant; and such as are born Pagans, out of the Church, & strangers from the covenant. And therefore seeing by nature there is so wide a difference between such as are born Christians, and such as are born Pagans, you in effect as good as say nothing. For God bathe engraven His Covenant upon the Infants of Christians, and made this known unto his Church, and therefore the Infants of Christians are to have the privilege of Baptism in their infancy. But God hath not engraven His Covenant upon children of Pagans, therefore they are not to have it, until they testify faith and repentance. And this covenant written upon children of Christians in their infancy, is the Commission that the Holy Ghost hath given in Scripture for baptising Infants of Christians in their infancy. 1 Cor. 7.14. And now I pray put your heads all together, and let me hear what you can say against this. But go on. Anabaptist. Again further. This argument of yours is but from humane conception, and doth tend to the overthrow of a divine institution, which may not, nor ought not to be: unless you can prove where and when the holy Ghost hath or doth expressly lay down, or give commission for the alteration of that express institution that Christ gave unto His Disciples, to teach and instruct all Nations to observe and follow the rule that they left them. And therefore the alteration of times, and state is not sufficient to alter a divine institution, until it be altered by divine Authority, by which it was at first commanded. As for instance, Suppose the King should establish a Law, and an Act of Parliament, for the practising of any particular action, in the Land, and the cause may be removed, for which this Law was established, yet this Act doth still remain in force to be practised, until the Author thereof doth disannul it by proclamation or alteration. So in like manner, Christ hath established an Institution for Baptism, and confirmed it by the Apostles practice, according to their commission; and therefore, until Christ doth disannul this Institution, or alter it, we may not, nor dare not to alter it, upon pain of open rebellion against the King of Heaven; let the time alter never so much; that is not a ground sufficient to alter an Institution. And this for answer unto your first, and chiefest Argument. Now to pass by many groundless, and sensual arguments, which are not worth answering, because they savour of nothing but censuring; we desire to come to your chiefest reasons, wherefore Infants should be Baptised. Answer. No Argument that is truly deducted from the Scriptures of God, is from humane conception. But this Argument of mine, against which you except, is truly deducted from the Scriptures of God: Ergo, This Argument of mine, against which you except, is not from humane conception. And then again thus, viz. No Argument that is deducted from the Scriptures of God can overthrow a divine Institution. But this Argument of mine, against which ye except, is truly deducted from the Scriptures of God: Ergo, This Argument of mine, against which you except, cannot overthrow a divine Institution. Now let me but prove the Minor Proposition, and you are overthrown irrecoverably, though you seem to be armed with Law and Gospel against us. Well, the point that I have to make good is this: namely, that the Argument I here used, was truly deducted from the Scriptures of God. And to make this good, the very rehearsal of what I said will be enough, without any more ado. The sum of what I said was, that the state of the Pagan Gentiles before the Apostles planted the Gospel among them, was not the same in point of religion, as is the state of the Christian- Gentiles, where the Gospel is embraced, and they baptised. Now I represented the state of the Pagan-Gentiles unto you in two particulars. 1. I told you that (before the Gospel came among the Pagan-Gentiles) they were without Christ, being aliens from the Commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world. Ephes. 2.12. And I am sure this is no humane conceit unless the Oracles of God are humane conceits. 2. I said again, that before the Gospel came among the Pagan-Gentiles, they were carried away to dumb Idols, even as they were led. 1 Cor. 12.2. Neither is this any humane conceit. Then finally the Gentiles where the Gospel is planted, are not of this condition in point of religion, but in covenant with God, and of God's family and household, as you may see in any Sermon-notes prefixed. If this Argument doth overthrow the sense that you give of Matth 28.19. than you do not give the right sense of the text. For no argument truly deducted from the Scripture, can overthrow the true meaning of any Scripture. And so if your manner of baptising (which you would have to be warranted by that of our Saviour Matth. 28.19.) will not stand with the nature of God's covenant of Grace, among the Gentiles, where the Gospel is planted: then Christ means not your way of baptising in Churches, where the Gospel is planted. So then this argument of mine tends not to the overthrowing of any institution of Christ in Mat. 28.19. but lays a ground for the refuting of your wrong interpretation of the text, the true meaning of which text you may afterwards see in due place. For (it should seem) this is the keeping of your song, and afterwards iterated again and again. And for me to run over the same things again and again, would argue me to be as void of matter, as you are of reason. But, I pray, one thing more. What are those sensual and groundless arguments of mine, that you so slightly pass over, as not worth the answering? I termed Anabaptists indeed a monstrous brood, sacrilegious thiefs, Bellarmine's Disciples etc. Do these savour of nothing but censuring? Are these the sensual and groundless arguments you mean? But I argued that the promises of God made unto the Jews in the Messiah, were spiritual and eternal promises. Mat. 23.32. Act. 3.25, 26. Heb. 11.16. And this you pass by untouched, not because the argument is sensual and groundless, but because you cannot answer it. Moreover I told you that circumcision was the seal of the righteousness of faith, and that this seal was imprinted on very Infants in their infancy. And is this a groundless and sensual argument, not worth the answering? Alas, alas, you cannot answer it. And therefore for aught you have said, or can say, my doctrine must stand good, and the gates of hell cannot prevail against it. View it over again, and consider it more punctually. And then haply you will either be † Hodson, an Ambaptist in the city of Gloucester grown as light to the head since he was new baptised, as he was light in the heart before. Hodson-peevish, or of another mind. And now having made so manly an encounter, let us see whether your valour will endure the brunt of the battle. Let us hear your kill exceptions against my reasons, that I had for paedobaptism. Reason 1 The first reason for paedo- baptism. Anabaptist. Because you say that children are holy, therefore they may be baptised, 1 Cor. 7.14. Now we would know what holiness you mean. Answer. I did not say that children are holy, that's too general; but that children of Christian parents are holy. And we therefore say so because the Apostle Paul the penman of the Holy Ghost speaks it. And so when you ask me, what I mean by holiness in this discourse, you demand withal what the Apostle means by it; for I only relate his words. The meaning then of the Apostle is the same, as was the meaning of the Prophets, when they said that the jewish Infants were holy, because borne under an holy Covenant. Iewes by nature, and not sinners under the Gentiles. So the meaning of the Apostle is, that the children of Christians are holy, i. e. Christians by nature and birth, not sinners of the Pagans, unto which Pagans God hath not committed His Oracles, nor put them under His seal. But go on, and we will follow you. Anabaptist. If you say an inward holiness, than grace must come successively from parents. And so by this rule we shall make our parents the authors and conveighers of grace, and so mightily wrong the Lord Jesus Christ. For there is nothing doth make us truly holy but grace, for by nature we are all filthy and corrupt from top to toe; and by this ground we draw grace from our parents loins, which to affirm is most gross and false, and no less than high blasphemy against the Spirit of God, and the Lord Jesus Christ. Answer. What holiness we mean you may see in our answer immediately going before. But if we should say that it was inward holiness, How doth that infer that grace must come successively from parents? Seeing parents and children do not derive inward holiness and grace from one another. but as joint-confederates they both derive and draw holiness from the Covenant of Grace under which they both are. For the express words of the Covenant, are. I will be thy God and the God of thy seed, jointly, as copartners in the same Covenant. And therefore you err not knowing the Scriptures, nor the nature of the Covenant. The Sadduces endeavouring to overthrow the doctrine of the Resurrection, drew an argument (ab absurdo) wherein there were more words than matter (like the arguments of you and your brethren of the separation) Matth. 22.23, 28. thinking to puzzle their answerer with multitude of words, seeing they wanted weight of argument. So you use many words, and sport yourselves with your own fancies. But as Christ answered the Sadduces, that they did err, because they neither knew the Scriptures, nor the power of God. So say I to you, that you therefore err, not knowing the Scriptures, nor the Nature of God's Covenant of free Grace with His people: And who wrongs Christ think you? You or I? You in making the grace of God of less extent by the coming of Christ, in setting Moses above Christ? For Moses allowed Infants of God's Covenant people the initial seal in their infancy, but Christ denies it unto them, if your Divinity will hold. Or I in setting Christ above Moses, both for clearness and extent of grace? Now if Moses in his typical ministration afford unto the Infants of God's Covenant-people the initial seal, and Christ denies it in His Gospell-ministration, then surely the shadow is to be preferred before the substance. And herein you show yourself to be as stout an advocate for the obstinate Jews, against Christ, as if from them you had received thirty pieces of silver to betray Him. But what high blasphemy against the Spirit of God, and the Lord Jesus Christ have you found out spray you? Oh this, namely, that children shoul● draw grace from their parent's loines● But who a ●irmes this, you or ●●? If ●, than the Apostle affirms it, for ●d only said, that children of Christian parents are holy, and so says the Apostle? An● is the Apostle an high blasphemer in saying so? But go on, I pray, I know you love not to be interrupted in so weighty a case of conscience, as this is. Anabaptist. Again, if this be true than the unbelieving wife is made holy too, and she may be baptised as well as the children, although she be an infidel which is aghast your own affirmation. Answer. 'tis true; that children of Christian parents are holy (if that be your meaning) and upon this ground are to be baptised, as is said in my Sermon-notes. But how doth it hence follow, that the unbelieving wife (though holy to the believing husband) is therefore as well to be baptised, as the children of the believing parent? For the Covenant is, I will be thy God and the God of thy seed; not I will be thy God and the God of thy wife though an infidel. It's one thing to be under an holy use, another thing to be under an holy conditition. The believing party is said to have a sanctified use of the infidel, but the infidel is not said to be holy, as the children are. For such children are not said to be sactified unto the parents, but holy in themselves, by reason of the holy Covenant under which they were borne, as children of a parent in Covenant with God, and joint-confederates. In the original the unbelieving party is said to be holy not to, but in the believing party. Not that one of them absolutely considered were sanctified in another, for we are sanctified only in the Lord Jesus Christ; but as considered in the relation of husband and wife in lawful matrimony, so the infidel party is sanctified in the believing party for conjugal society, and for raising up of an holy seed unto God. And if you can but look into the original, and consider the scope of the place, you cannot but suffrage with me. But go on. Anabaptist. But you say it is such an holiness as hath the promises of the Kingdom of heaven. If so, then thus we affirm, that all those to whom the promises of the Kingdom of heaven are made unto, shall have it made good unto them, and so consequently all the children of one believing parent at least, shall also go to heaven by this rule. Answer. This we say that all the children of one believing parent shall go to heaven for aught you or I know. We are in charity so to judge, so to hope. You can say no more for such as profess themselves to be believers, then that you hope the best. So may, so must we hope of such children. Can we tell which were which, and did we know that such a child neither had grace, nor ever should have grace, but were a reprobate, we must not baptise that child. But sigh that is morethen we know, or can know: Therefore we stand bound to baptise all children of Christians, lest we should deny to elect children the scale of the Covenant. Answer. But we affirm, that the Apostle doth not speak of such an holiness in that place, but of such an holiness as is opposite to uncleanness. For the Apostle doth answer an objection as some of the believing Corinthians might make concerning their present condition; as, whether they might live with their wives now, they being converted, and their wives infidels. Now the Apostle doth answer them, that they might live together; for conversion doth not disannul matrimony If so, than your children were unclean, but now they are holy. That is, they are your children, being lawfully descended and borne of your loins, and so are your children and being so borne are accounted holy in the Apostles estimation. Answer. And we affirm the same with you, that children of Christian parents are holy, as holiness is oposite to uncleanness. and Pagans are said to be uncircumcised and unclean) which is of larger extent then bodily uncleanness. But I conceive your meaning is, that children of Christian parents are holy, that is, they are no bastards, but lawfully begotten, and so holiness here shall be opposite to adultery, fornication, and bodily uncleanness only. And so Lawb your founder in his directions to you expounds the place. But ask that ass ●ow he can make good his exposition. And his letter will answer you, that you must take it upon his word, or else he knows not what to say to you. And I believe you had this deep Divinity from that letter, for that letter bears date Feb. 11. Anno 1641. And your papers bear date March. 22. Anno 1641. So that allowing a considerable time for the coming of his letter from London to you; you might have time enough to make use of your instructions. And so as your Religion is grounded upon Scripture perverted, so it must be maintained by Scripture perverted: perverseness being the foundation of your Church, perverseness must be your weapon of defence. But in this exposition both you and your master seem to affirm a strange paradox, namely, that children borne of unbelieving parents are all bastards, which may overthrow all succession in Kingdoms, and inheritances, and by this Divinity all the primitive Christians were bastards, because borne in Paganism. And Abraham the Father of the faithful was a bastard too, because his Father was an Idolater. But I pray how doth your reason prove your assertion? You say in effect that children of one believing parent are not bastards, but legitimates, and that this is meant by the holiness the Apostle here attributes to children. And why? Because (say you) that the Apostle doth here answer an objection as some of the believing Corinthians might make concerning their present condition, whether they might live with their wives now, they being converted, and their wives infidels. You say the Apostles answer to this is, that they might live together, because conversion doth not disannul matrimony. Well, this reason confutes your own assertion, for it implies that infidels may live together in matrimony; how then can the children of such be bastards? Must not then their children lawfully deseend and be borne of their loins? Thus you speak contradiction. And where find you any such language as yours, in the Scriptures? What authors have you consulted for the meaning of that text. viz. 1 Cor. 7.14. Paraus tells us that such children are not unclean, but holy i. e. says he, not Pagan's, but Christians. Tremelius saith, that the children are said to be holy, because they are partakers of the holiness of God in the Church (ex foedere) by the Covenant. Beza says the children are holy. i e. In promissione censeantur, etc. they are judged to be in the promise, because unto every believer it's said, I will be thy God and the God of thy seed. Peter Martyr thus. This holiness is believed to be, that these children do appertain to the Church of Christ. Calvin ut sancti in in Ecclesia reputentur. i e. That they might be reputed Saints in the Church. And you confess that such children are holy in the Apostles estimation; And if the Apostle esteems them holy, then God judgeth them to be holy, and for holy children of God's Covenant-people we must take them to be, according to the constant phrase of the Scripture. For where faith is, there Christ is, where Christ is, there the holy Covenant is, but faith is with the believing parent, therefore Christ and the holy Covenant is with him also, and the Covenant is, I will be thy God, and the God of thy seed. Therefore the holiness of children (that the Apostle here speaks of) must needs be holiness peculiar to the children of faithful parents. But holiness of children by legitimation is not peculiar unto children of believing parents. For among the civil heathens, and Pagans, have not men their own wives, and women their own husbands? Are not these joined together in lawful matrimony? And are not the children that issue from men and women so joined, their own children lawfully descended, and borne of their loins? And are not such children so begotten of persons in wedlock therefore holy, because lawfully descended, and borne of their loins? If to be mere legitimates be to be holy, than the Apostle doth predicate no peculiar thing of the children of Christians, more than may be said of the children of Pagans, begotten and borne in wedlock. Then the Apostle need not to have said that now they are holy, seeing one of you is a believer, for they were holy before, if legitimation would make them holy. But let Pareus, Tremelius, Beza, Peter Martyr and Calvin hold their peace, and let us a little hear what your worthy Founder Th. Lamb says for the true meaning of the Apostle, in this text. viz. 1 Cor. 7.14. Thus saith he. As for the 7 Cor. 14. I say that the holiness of the children did not arise from that one parent was a believer (as our opposites say) but from this that the unbeliever was sanctified by or to the believer, which could not have been if they had not been lawfully married before, therefore the holiness of the children spoken of here, can be no other but that which is opposed to bastardy. Here this wise man maintains the contradictory of your opposites conclusion. He says that the holiness of the children doth not arise from that one parent was a believer. But how proves be this? Surely testimonium dicentis is full enough, he being a man of such an infallible a spirit, that a bare [I say] must serve your turn. But whence then doth this holiness arise? From this (says he) that the unbeliever was sanctified to or by the believer. Very good! because the unbeliever was sanctified to the believer, therefore the children of such were holy. And why was the unbeliever sanctified to the believer? Was it not because he was a believer, and so made pure by faith, and then unto the pure all things are pure. Tit. 1.15. Now then, because he was a believer, therefore the infidel was sanctified to him for conjugal society, and because the infidel was sanctified to the believer for conjugal society, therefore the children of such were holy, and so by necessary consequence because one of the parents was a believer, therefore the children were holy. Faith made the conjugal society holy, the holy conjugal society made the children holy, and therefore faith made the children holy. Quest. But how can the faith of the parent make the children holy? Answ. Surely, not by infusing of sanctifying grace into the children, but by putting the parent into Christ. Now faith puts the parent into Christ, and Christ puts the parent so put into Him, into the Covenant of grace, and the Covenant of grace is I will be thy God, and the God of thy seed, and hence is it that the children of such parents are holy, namely because of the holy Covenant. And therefore the holiness spoken off here may be and is somewhat else, then that which is opposed to bastardy, namely the holiness of the Covenant, which the saith of the parent puts him into for himself and his seed. For (Goodman-Cocks-combe) how can the children of those be bastards that are lawfully married? But you acknowledge that the parents of the holy children here spoken off were lawfully married before (you mean) while in the state of infidels. And therefore it must be the holiness of the Covenant of grace, which the faith of the parent put himself, and his children under. But you say in the last paragraph of your letter to your Disciples, that Infants were in the Covenant legally, but not Evangelically; and that when the law ceased, this being in Covenant ceased with it. But for so saying, you deserve a pillory, not a Pulpit. You might be better employed in looking to your Soap or Candles, then in filling men's heads with such hellish notions. If this be your care and diligence that you show for your Disciples (as you say in your foresaid letter) you may sit still. The devil himself can show such care, and diligence fast enough. But how prove you, that children's being in Covenant with their parents is now ceased under the Gospel? You say so. And your [I say] must stand as an Oracle with such as are willing to be seduced by you. And personal faith (in your sense) is no more requisite to the being of Infants in Covenant with their parents under the Gospel, then under the law. For it's the same Covenant of free grace in Jesus Christ now, as then. And thus (for aught I see) your master and you are in hot emulation, who shall excel in speaking of non▪ sense. And yet you are so confident of the truth of your cause, that had you a 1000 lives, you would lay them all down for the confirmation of the same. Stout words! But should you lay down that one you have for it, it would be judged rather madness, than martyrdom, and you not a Martyr, but a madman in so doing. And truly if you can say no more for your cause, give over writing, and take Physic. Talk no more of your conscience, but see your folly. Now say on. Anabaptist. For we have examples in Scripture, where children that are borne of two parents that were lawfully yoked together, were called to be holy and a godly seed by birth. As for instance, Mal. 2. Ezra. Levit. and other examples. Answer. The mere being of the two parents lawfully yoked together, is not sufficient to denominate the children of such parents holy by birth, but their being within the holy Covenant. The Covenant under which the parents are, is the cause, why the children of such are holy by birth, and so called by the Spirit of God in the Scripture, and for that reason only. And those very instances (where you find them in the old Testament) where children are said to be holy, will cut the throat of your own cause; for you cannot show, that the Scripture doth so much as once call the children of the Gentiles and Pagans an holy seed, as is doth the children of the Church. The holy Covenant of God (I say) under which the parent or parents is or are, is the only cause why the Scriptures term children holy. And I challenge you to bring me one instance where children of parents are said to be holy for any other reason. Anabaptist. Again, we do not find any warrant in Scripture for to give the seals of the Covenant of grace upon imputed holiness, but upon personal holiness and confession, Acts 16. Mat. 3. Mark. 1. For the sign of circumcision was not given by virtue of any imputed holiness in the child, that it did draw from the parents, but by virtue of God's Commission unto Abraham that he gave him for to circumcise his seed, and so ought the seal of Baptism to be given by virtue of Christ's Commission, and not by virtue of any holiness that is imputed unto the child. Answer. By imputed holiness I conceive your meaning, to be imputative righteousness; And by personal holiness inherent righteousness, or holiness in a man's personal practice and confession. And by seals, the initial seals of God's Covenant. Now I find the initial seal of the Covenant of grace to be given upon the ground of imputative righteousness, for the righteousness of faith is imputative righteousness: but I find it to be administered upon this ground, and therefore upon the ground of imputative righteousness. And circumcision unto the Infants of the Jews, was a seal of righteousness, but not of righteousness in their personal practice and confession, and therefore of imputative righteousness. And thus I have brought unto your hand what you could not find. And then for your instances Act. 16. Matth. 3. Mark. 1. they will not serve to help you. For the matter in controversy is, whether children of parents already in the state of Christianity be to be baptised in their infancy or no? And now you bring instances of such, whose parents were not in the state of Christianity, which is a quite contrary case. But prove by Scripture that the children of the first▪ baptised were denied Baptism, until they could give account of their faith, or else you speak not to the point, seeing children borne of Christian parents are Christians by birth, but such as you instance in were not. And is this fair dealing think you? And what talk you of an imputed holiness in a child, that it should draw from it parents? What imputed holiness is it you mean? Imputative righteousness? Do you think that imputative righteousness is in us? How differs it then from inherent righteousness? The words imply a contradiction. And had you ever been rightly grounded in the principles of our Religion, you would never have vented so absurd a passage. For the children do not draw holiness from their parents in Covenant, but as companions in Covenant with their parents are primitively holy, as well as their parents, by virtue of the same Covenant. For the express words of the Covenant are, I will be thy God, and the God of thy seed. Here the Covenant puts parents and children both in equal relation unto God. But here you renew your old quarrel against the Covenant of grace, like an old trotting horse, let never so skilful a rider use his best art to bring him into a better pace, yet the carrion will fall into his old jolting trot again, so you tell us again that circumcision was not administered unto Abraham's seed, by virtue of any holiness imputed unto Infants by the Covenant, but by virtue of God's command. This is your meaning, however your expressions be. And we answer again, that because they were an holy seed, that therefore the Lord commanded them to be circumcised. For the Covenant in order of nature must go before the confirmation and seal thereof. So that the ground of Gods commanding Abraham's seed to be circumcised, was their being in the holy, i. e. a seed set apart unto God from other nations. And therefore the Lord doth not barely command Abraham to circumcise his males, but He brings it in with a THEREFORE, to show that the Covenant having made them an holy seed, therefore they wereto have the initial seal imprinted on those holy persons. For mark the words (Gen. 17.7, 12.) of the Covenant. I will establish my Covenant between Me and thee, and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting Covenant to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee. And will give unto thee and thy seed after thee the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan for an everlasting possession, and I will be their God, verse 7, 8. And hereupon God said unto Abraham, thou shalt circumcise thy males therefore. Not barely thou shalt circumcise thy males, but thou shalt circumcise thy males therefore. i e. Because of the foregoeing Covenant in the 7. and 8. verses. This inference we have verse 9 in these words, viz. Thou shalt keep my Covenant therefore, thou and thy seed after thee in their generations. And then whereas they might have asked the Lord what that Covenant was which He would have them to keep. The Lord answers in the to▪ verse. after this manner; viz. This is My Covenant which ye shall keep between Me and you, and thy seed after thee, every manchild shall be circumcised, etc. Here circumcision is called by the name of the Covenant, because the Covenant is the ground of it. And circumcision did but put the covenant under seal, in which Covenant those children were before by birth, being borne of parents with whom God had stricken Covenant. And so this lame shift will not serve your turn. And to conclude, as little to the purpose is it, which you say concerning Baptism; for you say, that Baptism is not to be given by virtue of holiness imputed to the child, but by virtue of Christ's Commission, as if holiness imputed unto a child by virtue of an holy Covenant were not Christ's Commission. The nations which Christ sent His Apostles unto, were not said to be holy, and therefore by teaching they must make them holy, before they baptise them. But the children of those holy ones were holy by birth, and so called by God himself, and therefore to be put under the initial seal of God's holy Covenant, as their right and privilege by nature and birth. Anabaptist. Again, the Apostle doth not so much as any way make mention of baptism in that place. viz. 1 Cor. 7.14. and therefore your reason is groundless from this place for Baptism of Infants. Answer. How groundless this exception is, he that hath but half an eye may see. As if to be holy by virtue of God's holy Covenant, were not a sufficient reason to argue a man's right unto the initial seal of this holy Covenant according to the ministration of the covenant under which he is born, & doth live. Now the initial seal of the Covenants ministration under the Gospel is Baptism; but children borne of Christian parents under the Gospel are holy by virtue of God's holy Covenant, and therefore children borne of such parents have right unto Baptism. The Covenant of God is engraven upon them by birth, and therefore the initial seal is their present privilege. And so the place proves it. And the reason is substantial. And it proves you to be sacrilegious thiefs and robbers, for denying Infant's baptism in their infancy. And by God's help i'll maintain this charge against you before the dreadful tribunal of the Lord Jesus Christ at the last day. And in the interim I shall endeavour to preserve as many as I can from being seduced by your fair pretences. Anabaptist. Again, you parallel this place with Rom. 11.16. where you say, that is the root be holy, so are the branches. Now this root if you take it in the literal sense as it is spoken, than it is meant of Abraham only, and he was the root, and the believing Jews the branches, and therefore Abraham is called the Father of the faithful, and in this sense believers are his seed and branches. But if you take it in a more spiritual sense, than it may be meant of Christ being the root, and all believers are His members. But we conceive to be chief meant of Abraham the root, and believers the branches, and so will this make nothing to the purpose, neither is it the same with the other place in Corinthians, 1 Epist. cap. 7. verse 14. Answer. If I paralled Rom. 11.16, and 1 Cor. 7.14. (to prove that the children of parents in Covenant are holy by virtue of God's holy Covenant) I shall not draw my lines awry. Seeing the express words of the Covenant are, I will be thy God, and the God of thy seed. And both places prove, that both parents and children are holy by virtue of God's holy Covenant with them. And so both places are coincident to prove the same thing, though there may be some circumstantial differences. The place then in Rom. 11.16. makes much for my purpose. For my purpose was to prove that as the children of the Jews were holy, by virtue of the holy Covenant with their parents, so also are the children of the Gentiles holy, by virtue of the same holy Covenant with their parents; (an argument never too often to be inculcated.) And now having spoken of that text of 1 Cor. 7.14. already in our former discourse, we will say some what for the sense and meaning of Rom. 11.16. which text must needs be understood and meant of Abraham and his branches only. Now the question is, who are meant by Abraham's branches. Well, the point there to prove is, that as Abraham's children among the Jews were partakers of the privileges of the Covenant, so among the Gentiles, children engrafted into Abraham are partakers of the Covenant as well as the natural branches of Abraham, the Jews. And hence I inferred, that as the Jews receiving the faith of Abraham were circumcised, so Gentiles receiving the faith of Abraham are to be baptised. And as the Jews that were not internally and inherently godly (as long as they did not renounce Abraham's faith) had a right to circumcision, so the children of the Gentiles receiving the faith of Abraham were by Baptism (as Jew's by circumcision) to be admitted into the enjoyment of the privileges of the Christian Church. Peter tells the Jews that the promise is unto them and their children. Acts 2.39. Now the promise was not made to their seed, because they did believe, but the seed did believe because they were under the promise. viz. I will be thy God, and the God of thy seed. If this must be restrained thus; viz. I will be thy God, and the God of thy seed too, when thy seed shall believe, than no more is promised to this seed, then to the seed of the Gentiles for when the seed of any Gentile should make procession of his faith in the Messiah, he was to be circumcised, as well as the seed of Abraham. But more was due by this promise to the seed of Abraham, then to the seed of a Gentile: therefore the seed of Abraham was under the promise in a peculiar manner, and not the seed of a Gentile uncircumcised: yea among the Jews a parent who was orthodoxal in judgement, albeit he shown no proof of justifying faith in his life, yet he was put under the Covenant for him and his seed. And the children of such had as much right to circumcision, as the children of David. So then external subjection to the doctrine of faith doth entitle the parent, and his seed to the right of the external benefit of the Covenant. The sum is, that as Jews were born Jews, so the seal of circumcision was their due, not to put them under the Covenant, but to seal up the Covenant under which they were borne. So (say I) Christians children are borne Christians, and a right to the Covenant is not given them by Baptism, but that right which they had by birth is put under seal. The very Covenant under which a Christian Infant is born, stands good unto him, and binds him to faith & obedience, and so albeit Anabaptists (like so many enraged devils, do what in them lies to cancel the hand-writing of Almighty God by withholding Gods own seal from Infants of Christian parents, upon whom He hath engraven His Covenant, and written His promises of grace and mercy, by virtue of their being born of such parents. A wickedness so heinous, so horrible, so full of impiety and hellish cruelty, that I want a parallel, I want words to express it unto my reader) yet Gods Covenant (I say) stands good, unto them. Now the Lord make you to understand what I have written, and give you a sight of your wickedness. And thus you have my first reason vindicated. Which is, that Infants of Christians are Christians borne, and therefore are to be baptised in their infancy. The second Reason. Anabaptist. Again your second reason is, that children are capable of Baptisine, and your ground is from circumcision. Because children were circumcised, therefore they may be baptised in their infancy. Answer. If children because borne under the Covenant before Christ's incarnation, were therefore capable of the initial seal (even by the sentence of Almighty God) because born under that Covenant, than children of Christians borne under the same Covenant of grace since Christ's incarnation are capable of the initial seal, and 'tis their due by virtue of their Christian birthright. Now that the Covenant before Christ with the Jews, and since Christ with the Christians is the same Covenant (namely. A Covenant which concerns man's deliverance from misery by sin, and man's restitution unto happiness by Jesus Christ) we have showed before, we will now instance only in three things. Viz. 1. The Covenant of God with the Jews before Christ caused the godly in Covenant to seek for immortality after death in heaven, as their country and abiding city for ever. Heb. 11.13, 14, 15, 16. Acts 26.6, 7, 8. 2. All the ministrations of God's Covenant with the jews tended to the debasement of nature, and to the advancement of God's free grace in the whole work of man's Redemption, though in types. 3. All the promises that God made to the jews looked towards jesus Christ, as the only Mediator in whom all God's promises are yea and Amen. 2 Cor. 1.20. cum Heb. 13.8. and Gen. 3.15. Christ was the subject of Moses, and the Prophet's writings. Job. 1.45. And the jews were justified in the sight of God by the same righteousness of faith, as we Gentiles are justified by. Rom. 4.3.13. And this justification hath essential connexion with eternal salvation. Rom. 5.9, 10. And is not our Covenant the same for substance, reducible to these three heads. Quest. Why then is the Covenant said to be a better Covenant, and established upon better promises? Heb. 8.6. Ans. It's better only in regard of the ministration, and permanency, of which we shall be necessitated to speak more fully afterwards in due place. Now if the Covenant be the same, and the manifestation of this Covenant upon persons unto the Church be the Churches warrant to minister the initial seal unto them; then if the Covenant manifested by God (unto the Church) to be upon Infants of persons in Covenant under the law was their warrant to administer the initial seal that there God did appoint to be used, than the like manifestation is a warrant for us to administer the initial seal unto Infants, under the Gospel, whose parents are in Covenant. But let's consider your exceptions against this reason. Anabaptist. But we deny the sufficiency of this reason to prove Infant's Baptism, and that upon this ground. 1. They differ in the institution. 2. In the signs. 3. In the subjects. 1. They differ in the Institution: for the Institution of circumcision was that infants should be circumcised, even all Abraham's lineal seed as well the seed of the bond woman, as the free; but the Institution of Baptism is, that they should first be taught, and they that did believe the word might, and aught to be baptised, and not else, as we find in all the Scripture: and therefore every ordinance must be practised upon its own institution, and not how we please. Now the Lord would sure have made some mention of children's Baptism, if they had been the subjects of Baptism, and therefore from Christ's own charge and Commission to His Disciples, Matth. 28, we are bound as strictly to observe Christ's rule for Baptism, as the Jews were to observe the order of circumcision. Secondly, they differ in the signs, ut infra. Answer. How do Circumcision and Baptism differ in the institution? seeing both of them are of divine institution, annexed to the Covenant of free grace, and the initial seals thereof proper to the ministrations of Christ; for they both seal Christ unto God's Covenant people, the one seals Christ to come, the other seals Christ already come; but both seal Christ. But to your meaning, I answer that for the institution of circumcision; Abraham by the institution was not to be circumcised till he gave testimony of his faith in the Messiah, but then his seed was to be circumcised in their infancy, before they could give any other proof of their faith, than their being borne of parents in Covenant. And their being borne of parents in Covenant gave them right to the initial seal, as we have showed before. So the Gentiles were not to be baptised (as Abraham not to be circumcised) till they did show forth proofs of their faith. But when the parent ba entered himself, his children were to be baptised (as Abraham's seed were to be circumcised) before they could show any more proof of faith, than their being borne of parents in Covenant. Christ indeed (Matth. 28.19.) gave charge, that whom His Apostles had taught, they should be baptised; but that none should be baptised but such as were first taught, that's your additional, and of that you neither do, nor can make proof. You were answered sufficiently, that in raising a Church among Pagans, faith must be the door of admittance. This was the Apostles case. But when believing Pagans were baptised, I desire proof that their seed must bring a verdict of their believing, ere they could be baptised. Divines tell us, that Heb. 6.2. where the Apostle speaks of Baptisms, and imposition of hands: By imposition of hands the Apostle means a practice then in use, that such children as were baptised should after make profession of their faith, and so be admitted by imposition of hands to the Lords Supper. Now you will have profession of faith go before, and afford such as are borne Christians no more privilege, then mere Pagans borne out of the Church. You say that by Christ's charge and Commission Matth. 28. we are bound as strictly to observe Christ's rule for Baptism, as the Jews to observe the order of circumcision. Right. And therefore as Abraham was not, and no Proselyte was to be circumcised till he gave testimony of his faith, so no Alien, no Pagan, is to be baptised till he show forth his faith. But as the seed of Abraham and the seed of any circumcised Proselyte were to be circumcised while Infants, so the seed of baptised Pagans (while young) are to be baptised; Baptism herein answering circumcision. Anabaptist. Secondly, they differ in the signs, for the sign of circumcision was the cutting off of the foreskin of their flesh, and that was a mark in their flesh for ever; and so the parties that were circumcised (I mean the Infants that were circumcised) could make use of the sign afterward, as well as at the present. But the sign of Baptism is water, and so it must be a sign to the party baptised in the present act thereof, or not at all. Now we know, that Infants cannot discern the sign in the present act, and so consequently not at all, and so the sign is given in vain. Answer. What though they differ in the signs, yet they accord in the thing signified, and they both put the Covenant of grace under seal, unto the children of the Church. You reason like carnal Atheists, as if all the benefit of Sacraments lay in what is obvious to our senses. A perpetual mark in the flesh which the circumcised (though circumcised in infancy) could after make use of. But when? When they came to years of discretion? But what if they died before, as many of them did? What use then could they ever make of this mark? But what mark or sign in the flesh mean you? A sacramental mark or sign? Then verily a sealing sign. But what did this mark or sign in the flesh, seal unto the lineal seed of Abraham? Redemption by Christ, or the temporal inheritance of the land of Canaan? You say the temporal inheritance of the land of Canaan. If so, than all Abraham's lineal seed circumcised must be possessed of the land of Canaan, or else God must be unfaithful. But Abraham's seed for the space of 440 years were kept out of Canaan after circumcision was instituted and practised. And so by this your Divinity all this while God was a liar, and failed of His promise. And must this sacramental sign of circumcision seal the land of Canaan unto all Abraham's lineal seed? Why then was Ishmael and his posterity excluded? What became of Abraham's, lineal seed by Keturah? The fonnes of Jacob became 12. tribes, and the land of Canaan, was divided unto them only. And yet not to all these neither. For two tribes and a half were settled on this side jordan. Fie! Fie! What mad stuff is this? Truly he that hath any knowledge in Divine Mysteries may see evidently, that either you read the Scriptures without observation, or conclude that you maintain untruths against your own knowledge and consciences. And then you come with another flim flame. You tell me, that water in Baptism must be a sign to the party baptised in the present act, or not at all. That is, as you expound it in the case of Infants, that the party baptised must discern the sign in the present act, or else that that sign is given in vain. And this Divinity is as spiritual as your Religion. This argues that the efficacy of God's ordinances of grace depends upon the act of the creature. In this you may shake hands with Rome, and exclude grace, and set up works. Here is much spoken of the act of man, but not a word of the Act of God in His ordinances of grace. But how doth this conclude Baptism to be in vain unto an Infant? You say the Infant discerns not the sign in the present act of administration. Thus you seem to argue. Such as discern not the sacramental sign in the present act of administration, have the sacramental sign given in vain. But Infants of Christians do not discern the sacramental sign in Baptism in the present action of administration; Ergo. Infants of Christians have the sacramental sign of Baptism given in vain. This argument proves, that the sacramental sign of circumcision was given to the Jewish Infants in vain also, for they could not discern that sign as a Sacrament, for though they had bodily feeling of the cutting off of their flesh, yet they could not in the present act of administration discern the sign, as sacramental, and so our Infants have bodily feeling of the water too. And so your quarrel is against God, as well as against us. But as such as were borne Jew's were to have the initial seal of the present ministration imprinted on them in their infancy to seal up the Covenant (under which they were borne) unto them, though they could have no such discerning as you seem to require in the present act of administration; so such as are borne Christians are to have the intiall seal of the present ministration imprinted on them in their infancy, to seal up the Covenant (under which they are borne) unto them, though they can have no such discerning as you require, and yet the ordinance effectual unto them too. I thought that Baptism had been a continual act of God's mercy and grace, and that the saving efficacy and benefits thereof had not depended upon the Act of the receiver, but upon the operative mercy of God, and Merits of Christ. But it seems your Divinity shows me a new way. But why must Infants of Christians discern the sign of water in Baptism, in the present act? What? Because water leaves no impression upon the body, but shortly after the act is over, the body is as dry as if it had not been washed at all? And when the child is come to years he finds no visible mark upon his body, to assure him that he is sealed into God's peculiar? Oh! Is this it? I pray what mark is there left upon your flesh, since you were washed in Severne, though you were ducked over head and ears? Is a mark in the flesh, and a sensitive discerning of the sign, the excellencies of circumcision and Baptism? When the jews came to years of discerning. God called not for the circumcision of their flesh, but for the circumcision of their hearts. It was the mark of circumcision upon the heart that God looked upon, for many had the mark of the flesh, which were as bad as Ethiopians. So for us Christians when we are come to years of discretion, it's the mark of the Spirit, and of the blood of Christ upon the heart, that God calls for, and looks upon. For a man may have the sign of water, and discern the sign in the very act with the eye of his flesh, and yet be a vile Anabaptist, deny original sin in Infants, deny the Christian Sabbath, and set up the jewish, deny Christ's taking flesh of the Virgin MARY, deny the power of the Magistrate, and a 1000 such like abominations; and a man be baptised in his infancy, and want your discerning; and yet when he is come to years of discretion, he may be an holy and mortified Christian, sound in judgement, regular in all his practices, and sincere in all his aims. And therefore this your rotten stuff will not serve to make a sorry garment for to cover your shame. But you have a third thing to allege, I pray speak on, that we may consider that also. Anabaptist. Thirdly, they differ in the subjects, for the subjects of circumcision were all Abraham's lineal seed according to the flesh, and strangers bought with his money too. And why? Because God had promised Abraham a temporal inheritance, for him and for all his lineal seed as they were borne, and circumcision was the sign thereof. But the subjects of Baptism, as are set forth to us by Commission are only believers, and none else as we find; and therefore we may not dare to cast off the Commission of Christ, and practice of the Apostles, for to set up inventions of our own, as an ordinance of Christ, where we have neither precept nor precedent for it in all the book of God. Again, ut infra. Answer. For the subjects of circumcision and Baptism I know no substantial difference, for persons, as in Covenant with God are the proper subjects of them both. Now men are brought into God's Covenant either by instruction, or borne under this holy Covenant as the seed of persons in Covenant with God. Thus Abraham and his Proselytes became the subjects of Circumcision by profession of their faith in the Messiah. But the seed of circumcised Abraham, and of the circumcised Proselytes were such by birth, as children of parents in Covenant. So when the Apostles in primitive times planted foundations of the Christian faith among the Pagans. These Pagans were made subjects capable of Baptism by instruction; but the seed of these baptised Pagans were capable of Baptism by birth, as joint heirs with their parents of the same holy Covenant, and that Covenant (under which they were borne) was to be put under seal unto them. So then as Abraham's seed, and the Proselytes seed, were to be circumcised, when and while Infants, for Christians children are to be baptised when and while Infants; such Infants being not Infidels, ergo believers, as afterward you shall see in due place. And so the baptising of Christian Infants is no invention of man, but grounded on the Covenant of God with parents and their children. And this the book of God warrants every where. And whereas you say, that the promise to Abraham and all his lineal seed was of a temporal inheritance, and that circumcision was a sign of that: That is false, if you mean only or chief of a temporal inheritance (the temporal inheritance was theirs, not as temporal neither, but as typical) for 1. Circumcision was a sign and seal of the righteousness of faith in the Messiah. 2. The Proselytes with their children were circumcised, to whom right unto that temporal inheritance of the land of Canaan did not appertain. 3. Neither did it belong unto all Abraham's lineal seed, as before we have showed. And so all this is, as it is unsound, so fallacious and absurd. Anabaptist. Again, the Infants might be more capable of circumcision in their infancy, then when they were of riper age, because they here to be only patients in the act, be they great, be they small, there was not any act required in them as we find, but only to receive the sign upon them. But in Baptism they must be agents acting faith in the action. Again, ut infra. Answer. Abraham and the Proselytes who were to be first received into the Covenant, were to be agents acting faith in the Action of administering Circumcision, as well as Pagans at their first receiving into the Church were to be agents acting faith in the Action of administering Baptism unto them. And as no such thing was required of the seed of circumcised Abraham, nor of the seed of the circumcised Proselytes, but circumcision was administered unto them in their infancy, as the holy seed, being borne of such parents: so no such thing is to be required of the children of baptised parents, but as holy by birth (being borne of such parents) are to be baptised in their infancy, because in their infancy God hath made them holy, and declared so much unto us. The Covenant (under which children are borne) makes them capable of the initial seal according to the ministration under which they are borne, whether of a Saviour to come, or of a Saviour already come. Anabaptist. Again there is difference in the persons, for there were none but males circumcised, but we have example of male and female baptised. Further, etc. ut infra. Answer. This is no argument at all against paedobaptism, for males were circumcised in their infancy, and the Covenant with the Jews and us Christians is the same spiritual and eternal Covenant, binding to divine faith, and obedience assuring us, and them of eternal happiness through God's mercy in the merits of Jesus Christ. Now if Male Infants had the seal of such an inheritance and Covenant upon such spiritual grounds in Such a Saviour, binding the circumcised Infant to divine faith & universal obedience (though he could discern none of these matters) than Male-Infants of Christians (being borne under the same holy Covenant of grace) are subjects capable of the initial seal thereof, as children of parents in Covenant with God, and of the holy seed by birth. So then (to exclude females) grant males to be capable of Baptism upon the ground of circumcision, is to conclude against your own principle. But all Israelites (females as well as the males) stood in God's acceptation for circumcised, as appears in the story of Samson, who seeing a woman of the daughters of the Philistines in Timnath, fell in love with her, and spoke to his Father and Mother to get her for him to wife. Then his Father, and his Mother said unto him. Is there never a woman among the daughters of thy brethren, or among all my people, that thou goest to take a wife of the uncircumcised Philistines. Judges 14.1, 2, 3. Now if the women of Israel had been reputed uncircumcised, then as good for Samson to choose one as well as the other, as good a woman of the daughters of the Philistines, as a woman of the daughters of his brethren. What cause then had his Father and his Mother to blame him for his choice? As good one uncircumcised woman as another. More of this is to be seen in our Sermon-notes, to which as yet I have received no answer. But I believe that this concerning females is none of your main foundations, you build your Religion upon. Anabaptist. Further they differ in the time, for they were to be circumtised the eighth day, but we have no set time for Baptism, but when they do believe, than they are to be baptised. And therefore if you rightly consider these things and the main differences hereof, I think there is no reasonable man that understands himself and the Scripture, will go about to parallel circumcision with Baptism in respect of the practising of it. Answer. We shown you out of Levit. 12.2, 3. that there was a special reason why the man-child should not be circumcised till the eighth day. And this reason you pass by untouched, because you couldnot answer it: And I find no such reason why baptism now should be forborn until any set time. Now if circumcision had been forborn until the eighth day, because till then infants could not, and then they could believe, this were to the purpose. But I see you falter in all things. You say much, and prove nothing. If you ask Physicians why in time of the Law infants were not to be circumcised till the eighth day? They will tell you, that until the seventh day (being a critical day, and so a dangerous day) were passed, no wound was to be made in the flesh of a tender infant. But you say, that under the Gospel when persons believe, than they are to be baptised. But I say, that Infants of Christians in their infancy are not Insidels, but Saints, and of the holy seed, and therefore believers; and so are to be baptised in their infancy, unless you can show where the Scripture calls the Infants of God's people in Covenant unbelievers; And therefore if you rightly consider these things, and the substantial agreement between Circumcision and Baptism; I think there is no reasonable man that understands himself and the Scripture, but will judge your exceptions to be frivolous, and that this Argument stands firm; which is, that Baptism is unto us, as Circumcision was to the Jews. Col. 2.11. The Covenant the same, the ends and significations the same for substance. Infants were admittable there, Ergo here; else children in worse case since Christ, than before. Reason 3 The third Reason. Anabaptist. Thirdly, you seem to draw a reason from divine Authority for Infant's baptism, and you seem to prove it out of Mat. 28.19. But here give us leave to tell you plainly, that you are foully mistaken, and you wrest the Text: For Christ bids them go and teach all Nations, and them that are taught must be baptised. For Christ doth not say, go, and teach all Nations, and so baptise all the Nation; but go teach them. Now you know there is great difference between preaching to a people, and teaching of a people; for you may preach to a thousand people, and it may be not above two or three of all those taught. And therefore Christ bids teach them first, and then baptise them. But however, etc. ut infra. Answer. My third Argument for Paedobaptism from Mat. 28.19. runs thus. The Commandment of baptising is universal to the whole Church, but Infants of Christian parents are members of the Church, and therefore the command of baptising is to be extended unto them, as before we have amply declated. Now if Infants of such parents be not members of the Church, than so dying they cannot be saved; since none can be saved, but by Christ, and Christ came to save his Church only: Ephes. 5.26. Wherein now (I pray) am I so foully mistaken, and wherein do I wrest the Text? Christ saith indeed, that such as are taught must be baptised, but Christ saith not, that none must be baptised but such as are taught. Prove that, or let this Text alone. The Text saith, baptise all in the Church, therefore Infants of baptised parents, unless you can show a place that exempts them. Christ doth not say, go teach all Nations, and so baptise all the Nation: Neither did I, nor will, unless the whole Nation shall embrace the doctrine of Christ. And then the whole Nation must be baptised, and their seed after them in their infancy, as Christians by birth. Ob. But the baptised must believe and repent. Acts 2. Matth. 3. etc. Sol. Those Texts must be restrained to the persons in hand. So 1 Thess. 3. He that labours not must not eat: i.e. men that can labour. Children though they cannot labour, yet must eat. Infant's must have meat, though they know not what belongs to meat. In Painswick, children that know not what they do, are taken Tenants by a rod or pen, by the custom of the Manor. This stands good, binds the Lord of the Manor, and binds the child to Courts, and Orders, and Privileges of the Manor. Paul challenges privileges of Romans by birth, and children of baptised parents challenge baptism by birth, as individual associates with their parents in covenant. As for your descant about preaching and teaching, it's a frog of your own slime; and were a man as sick of body, as you are of fancies, it were high time to send to the Clerk or Sexton to toll the bell. The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Matth. 28.20. shows what Christ means by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, v. 19 and Mar. 16.15. where the same commission is rehearsed, the word ΚΗΡΥΞΑΤΕ, i.e. preachthe Gospel, doth the same. The Church of Gentiles was to be raised by men and women of years, and when they came in, they brought in their children by course with them, as Abraham and his Proselytes did theirs. Were we disposed to shift as you do, we might say, that in Mat. 28. they were to be made Disciples by baptising first; because it is said in the next verse (v. 20.) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, teaching them. And again, it is not said, go make disciples and baptise them, but make disciples baptising them; to intimate, that by baptising them they made them disciples. Chief considering that Mar. 1.4. it's said, that John (in whom baptism was first instituted) did baptise in the wilderness, and then preach; as though he did baptise first, and then preach. Besides, to exelude such children from being disciples is harsh, sigh they were borne under the Covenant, and Christians by birth; and to be disciples, and to be Christians are synonymaes, Acts 11.26. Anabaptist. But however, if this answer will not serve to confute your seeming reason, yet here is another will (I think) which is this; You confess unto us that the word in the original is Matathusita, that is, go make disciples, and baptise them. Now you know who are disciples, they that believe, and these by your own confession must be baptised, and none else from that place, nor elsewhere as we find; and therefore you are much deceived in this reason. Again, etc. ut infra. Answer. If it were but a seeming reason, you should do well to show where the fallacy thereof lies. the word in the original doth not unloose the joints of my Argument: But what your monster Matathusita may do, I know not. but for you to say that children of baptised parents are nop believers, is harsh, (as we have said before) because they are borne under the Covenant, and so by birth are not infidels; therefore believers. I say that such children by birth are either believers or insidels; but not infidels, therefore believers: And therefore you are much deceived in this exception. And who are to come into the Church upon confession, and who by birth, we have showed you. And to raze the foundation of Paedobaptism that we have laid, you must have better workmen and better engines. And for you to cry out against a seeming reason, and to conclude a falleris upon so poor a ground, argues rather a rash head, than deliberate reason. Anabaptist. Again, you do plainly deserve, Mr Wynnell, to have the same scandalous term cast upon yourself, as you cast upon us; which was, that we were Jugglers; but I submit unto any reasonable Judgo, whether this is not plain juggling for you to turn your tongue and Text to your own purpose, and preach that confusion, and wrest the Scripture. Nay further, etc. ut infra. Answer. I said indeed that Anabaptists were Jugglers, and this you take to yourselves, and so now I know where to have you, and what to call you, though formerly you have declined the name. And for what I have herein done, I have done in love to my Nation, and do commit the same to the view of all my brethren, and do submit unto their censure, promising to rectify whatsoever is herein amiss, if any just blame may be found out. And I shall desire you also to maintain God's covenant of free grace, and to submit unto your lawful governor's, which you Anabaptists refuse to do. Anabaptist. Nay further, you affirmed divers times over, that considering the estate and condition of the Pagan Gentiles that they were in, you said that there was no reason in the world why any of those should be baptised, without confession of Christ and the Gospel; and yet here you bring a groundless argument, that all the whole Nation should be baptised, where the disciples did preach the Gospel; yet before you affirmed, that there was no reason in the world why any of these should be baptised, before they had confessed Christ, and believed the Gospel. Now if this be not gross confusion, I know not what is. Again, etc. ut infra. Answer What I said before, I will rehearse over and over again, if that will serve your turn. And that is, that there is no reason why the Pagan-Gentiles should be baptised, until they had given testimony of their faith in Christ; but I said, that the children of those so baptised, are holy by birth, and so are to have the Covenant put under seal by baptism in their infancy. This is all I said, and so I spoke distinctly, without confusion. The point that I insisted on was, that children borne of Christian parents are to be baptised in their infancy, and therefore you bring a groundless accusation, and make me the Author of your own forgeries. And that I spoke no such thing as this aspersion doth import, is clear by this: viz. A near neighbour of mine (after the Sermon, against which you have brought these exceptions) came to me, and told me that you apprehended, I meant that the whole Nation was to be baptised upon the very bringing of the Gospel among them. I answered, I intended no such thing, but that such as were to be baptised of the Pagans, where the Apostles came to lay the first foundations, must give testimony of their faith, and that the children of baptised parents only were to be baptised: And this answer was immediately returned unto you. But either you have forgotten, or you conceive that slandering may help your cause, when you want better arguments. And my hearers at that time, who without passion took my Sermon-notes, can note you for a slanderer. but haply you learned that trick of your brethren of the separation before you left them. Anabaptist. Again, we may easily see this overthrown by other Scriptures, as Mar. 16.15, 16. There the Disciples are commanded to preach the Gospel to every creature; that is, reasonable creatures, and he that did believe was to be baptised: Now it were a strange folly in us to think, that Christ would so strictly charge his Disciples to preach to every creature before baptism, if the preaching to the Nation would bring all the rest to have right to baptism. Then the Disciples did bestow labour in vain by this rule. Again, etc. ut infra. Answer. You now sight with your own shadow, and that is a strange folly indeed. And what is it that may be so easily overthrown by other Scriptures? your own fancy and forgery? down with it enough, it shall have no countenance from me. But had I said as you affirm, how would that help your cause, or wound ours? It would have argued my weakness, (unless the whole Nation had received the Gospel) but not have established the grand principle of your sacrilegious religion, which is Antipaedobaptisme. As for that of Mar. 16.16. we shall still grant, that as such as were to be made Jews, were first to be taught the Covenant, and then to enjoy the Seal; but such as were borne Jew's were first to be sealed, and then taught afterwards: so here Christians-made must first be taught, and then be sealed; but Christians-borne of those made-Christians are first to be sealed by baptism, and afterward taught; for this Scripture doth bar children no more from baptism, than it doth from heaven. Thus out of the Text you argue, viz. He that believeth and is baptised shall be saved, But infants do not believe. Ergo Infants are not to be baptised. Thus I argue, viz. He that believes not shall be damned, as it followeth in the Text. But (say you) Infants believe not, Ergo Infants shall be damned Answer this and you answer you selves. Now some of your side say for answer, thus; viz. He that is of years and believes not shall not be saved, and so say I; he that is of years and believes not is not to be baptised. And this is all that I require, namely, that made-Christians must first testify their faith before baptism▪ but borne-Christians not so. Anabaptist. Again, if this Commission had been from divine authority, than the Apostles had not dared to omit the practice thereof: but we have not any example of one person in all the Scripture that was baptised, but what had the Gospel first preached unto him, and did believe it. Again further you say, etc. ut infra. Answer. The non-practice of the Apostles doth not argue the non-divinity of our warrant for paedobaptism, from Matth. 28.19. For the business of the Apostles lay in planting of foundations, and in erecting of Churches, consisting of persons of years. And the Apostles baptised but a poor few of the multitudes that were converted by their ministry. 1 Cor. 1.13, 17. Now if these words Mat. 28.19. must be urged in the strict letter, than it had been a sin for the Apostle, not to baptise such as by his preaching he converted; but this is no sin, for than he would not have thanked God, that he baptised none of the Corinthians, but Crispus and Gaius, 1 Cor. 1.14. And yet Paul did beget the Corinthians in Jesus Christ by his preaching. 1 Cor. 4.15. Or he made them Disciples, but baptised very few of them; and therefore the text cannot be urged in the strict letter. Again, to dispute negatively from the Scripture in a matter of fact, (viz. we do not read that the Apostles, or any else baptised any Infants, therefore there were none baptised by any of them) is a kind of arguing fit for fools, not for schools; and yet this is the only Divinity of your Church. Upon this ground I argue upon more probable reason: We do not read in the story of the Church, from the Baptist to the end of the Acts, that the Apostles, or any others, did baptise a child of any Christian, when he was grown up to years, but the baptised Christians being millions, had many children in that great tract of time, and baptised they were. Now we read not, that it was done in their growth on profession of their faith, and therefore in thei● infancy. We read of abundance that were converted from Jews and Pagans, who on profession of their faith were baptised, but we read no such thing of the children of any baptised Jew or Gentile, but that such children were holy by birth. This shows a main difference between them and their children; viz. That such parents became children of the Church by instruction, but the children of such baptised parents were holy, and the children of the Church by birth. Anabaptist. Again, further you say that this Commission was partly circumstantial, as for to go from Nation to Nation. We would know how you can prove it so? by what Scripture? or where ever Christ did say so. For Christ gave this Commission in particular to his Disciples, and they were to go unto all Nations to preach the Gospel, and so they did fulfil the Commission that Christ gave them. And as they were to do this, so they were to teach all Nations to observe the like rules of them, as they had from Christ: For Christ bid them to teach the Nations to observe whatsoever he commanded them. So they were to leave the like Commission with every Nation as they did teach. Now we see Christ commanded the Disciples to teach and make them Disciples, before they should baptise them, and so the Disciples were to teach all Nations to follow the same rule; and so the Apostle doth exhort to follow their rule and example as they left us. Answer. Thomas Lamb your dear brother, and messenger of Jesus Christ, put apart to preach the Gospell-grace, (as he styles himself in his letter to you, his brethren, and prisoners of Jesus Christ) was (as he writes in that letter) to go to Norwich in February last, Anno 1641. about the Lords work, as he had been with you about the like work. Now the substance of this worthy instruments commission is the Lords work, in erecting Churches, and planting new foundations, but his going to Norwich, and coming to Gloucester, and Painswicke, and Cranham, is but a circumstance of this man's commission, as things concerning time and place about actions, may be termed circumstances of such actions, without any text of Scripture to warrant the expression. I told you that Christ's Commission in Mat. 28.19, 20. was a full Commission, to all Christ's Ministers under the Gospel, extraordinary and ordinary; and that this Commission was, that the Word should be preached, and that the Sacraments should be administered; and that ordinary Pastors and Teachers in se●led Congregations did execute this Commission fully, though they went not from Nation to Nation, and from place to place. Now if such a circumstance may be dispensed withal, without violation of the Commission, than the Commission of Christ there given, binds not all Ministers in every circumstance: For we told you, that this being a full Commission to all the Ministers of Jesus Christ, to direct them in the work of the Ministry: and the Ministers of Jesus Christ being partly extraordinary, and partly ordinary, therefore in this Commission here must be something peculiar unto the Apostles (being extraordinary Ministers) which did not, nay, could not be found in ordinary Pastors and Teachers. Now ordinary Pastors must preach and baptise, as well as the Apostles. What then is peculiar to Apostles (as being extraordinary Ministers) in this Commission? I answer, that it's peculiar to Apostles here (being penmen of the Holy Ghost, inspired immediately by the Holy Ghost) to plant foundations, to deliver binding rules of faith and worship immediately from God unto the Churches, which before were not given unto the sons of men: By their preaching and working of miracles they were to convince Jew's and Gentiles, that Christ (the son of the Virgin Mary, which the Jews did crucify) was the true Messiah and Saviour of mankind, the only begotten son of God; And such as did embrace the doctrine and faith of Christ, they must baptise: And many were called unto the obedience of the faith, by the doctrine and miracles of the Apostles, and these did fulfil their ministry, when they had planted these foundations, and delivered the full canon of the Gospel unto the Churches, and so being thus planted, they did deliver over the Churches unto ordinary pastors and teachers, as holy companies in Covenant with God, whereas before they were Idolaters, and Pagans, and murderers. Now I hope you expect not new canons of sacred Scriptures, you do not expect that ordinary Ministers should work miracles The practice of the Apostles is not then to be followed in things of extraordinary privilege, but in matters of ordinary faith and mortality. Now ordinary pastors find parents in the state of Christianity, in Covenant with God, and under His seal, and therefore they do and must baptise their children in their infancy. The strict urging of Apostolical imitation is wicked and plain confusion; something is here peculiar to extraordinary Ministers. Anabaptist. Nay further you grant us, that Baptism hath its Commission from this text. Why then we would know where and when Christ gave any Commission to alter it. If any, I pray show it us. If none, how dare you or any man to alter and change the Commission and Commands of Christ. Answer. I told you that Baptism was here mentioned occasionally, and that it was instituted long before in John the Baptist. Neither did Apostles now begin to receive a Commission to preach and baptise, for they had received this Commission before, and they did preach and baptise. But now they had a Commission to go unto all nations, whereas before Christ's resurrection, they were to keep within the precincts of Judea. And for an alteration of the commission (by baptising Infants of Christians) we acknowledge none, neither can you prove it an alteration, but distinguish of what is peculiar to Apostles in this general Commission, and of what is common to Apostles and ordinary pastors, and you are answered. I say, in this short sum of words, we have the Apostolical ministry and the pastoral ministry included. The Apostolical ministry being extraordinary and to be but for a time is ceased, and no ordinary Ministers are to exercise such a ministry as the Apostles did, by virtue of their peculiar function, neither do we, nor can we expect any such Ministers, because we ought not to expect any new canon of holy Scripture, nor an alteration of the present Liturgy. Heb. 8.6. The canon of the sacred Scripture is full, and the present Liturgy is to continue unto the world's end. And therefore it's absurd and impious for you to utter such confusion (to use your own phrase) and urge the Apostolical Commission upon ordinary pastors in the strict letter. And you run it over again and again, and still you have the Apostles Commission and practice up; whereas if you look upon their Commission and practice as extraordinary and Apostolical, both are peculiar unto them, and to cease with them. And (as I said before) Apostles are not to be followed by us in things of extraordinary privilege, but in matters of ordinary faith and morality. And so however your peevish reasonings may lead yourselves into a fool's paradise, yet they shall never drive us from the ways of Christ. Anabaptist. Nay further those to whom Christ gave this Commission unto, He said He would be with them unto the end of the world, but we know that the Disciples lived not to the end of the world. And therefore the Commission doth still last to the end of the world. Thus for your third reason. Answer. The Commission indeed may be meant of a succession of persons in the ministerial function, unto the world's end. But yet it cannot be denied, but that somewhat in this general Commission is Apostolical, as to plant foundations▪ and to have an immediate Commission from God for to be the penmen of the sacred canon. Ministers do not now deliver a new canon of divine faith and worship, nor do they prove their calling by miracles. They teach the Church of Saints only that which is left them by Apostles and Prophets Ordinary Ministers preach and baptise, and God is with them, and also will be with their survivers in that holy function unto the world's end. And thus my third reason is good, and stand it will against the strongest assaults of Satan and his wicked instruments. Reason 4 The fourth Reason. Anabaptist. Fourthly you reason from the fruits and effects of Baptism, saying, that God did ordinarily bless this Baptism unto Infants. But truly S, we cannot but wonder at your folly in rendering such a reason as this. Well. Seeing you have rendered it, we desire to answer it. You say etc. ut infra. Answer. To see impudence in the face of an Anabaptist, is a thing that I no more wonder at, then to see fishes in the water, or flying fowls upon the wing. And to clamour where you cannot answer, is an old trick, that haply you learned of Can (that great Cabalist for schism) while you were of the separation, before you came to this perfection of impiety. Were I to deal with reasonable men. I should wonder to see them so bereft of all reason, as to sentence that argument folly, which the wisest in the school of Reason judge to be demonstrative. And that is an argument drawn from the effect. Thus I argued; we baptise children in their infancy, because God doth ordinarily make our baptising of Infants effectual, to the ends whereunto true Baptism is appointed in the Gospel. Now the ends whereunto true Baptism is appointed in the Gospel, are to put on Christ, to die unto sin and to live unto God. And certainly God would not ordinarily give testimony to a false Sacrament, by making it effectual to the ends whereunto a true Sacrament is appointed. If this be folly, than you do well in excepting against it, but if truth, than you have verily the old proverb, viz. That a fool's bolt is soon shot. But let us hear your answer for refutation hereof. Anabaptist. You say it is effectual, but we would know wherein it doth appear, for we find generally all children to be as vile, and as wicked, when they are come to any bigness, as any wicked men. For there is not any evil almost, but they do show it in their tougues or actions. And this they do etc. ut infra. Answer. In the amplification of this reason I told you that among us (that were baptised in infancy) we have as humble, and as meek and mortified men and women, as any among the Anabaptists, to say no more. We have those that die daily unto sin, and are vexed in soul to see the abominations of others. Again we have those that bear upon them the marks of the Lord Jesus. Their lives are holy and lovely. They are sound in the faith, grave in their behaviour, and ready unto all good works. They deny themselves. They advance free grace. They afflict their souldes, and seek the peace of Jerusalem. And hereof (I say) we (through God's blessing) have not a few; and all these baptised in their infancy. And whereas you say, that all children generally are as vile & as wicked, when they are come to any bigness, as any wicked men. I must tell you, that this your charge is unjust, wicked, and slanderous, for many children of godly parents among us (that were baptised in their infancy) do manifest the gracious fruits of their incorporation into Christ by Baptism, as soon as they come to any bigness. And their speeches and actions (considering the immaturity of their age, and the corruption and frailty of man's nature) are (for the corruption and frailty of man's nature) are (for the general tenor thereof,) gracious and lovely, though at some times, and in some particulars (being provoked and stirred) they are erroneous, and not justifiable. Anabaptist. And this they dye still remain until the word of God doth work upon them, and new mould them, so that it is the word that doth change them, and not Baptism, For we find, etc. ut infra. Answer. Mortification, and rising to newness of life, are attributed to Baptism Rom, 6.3, 4, 5. And salvation by Jesus Christ his resurrection is attributed to Baptism, 1 Pet. 3.21. And therefore for you to exclude Baptism from having any stroke in the change of man from nature to grace is not to speak according to the language of the Scriptures of God. Christ doth sanctify and cleanse His Church with the washing of water by the word. Ephes. 5.26. Here the Apostle doth join Baptism, and the word as joint-instruments in man's sanctification, and therefore you are led by an antiapostolicall spirit in excluding Baptism. But now you have forgotten God in your discourse, for I said, that God doth ordinarily make our baptising of Infants effectual to the ends whereunto true Baptism is appointed. And now you say, that it is not baptism that changeth the baptised, but the word. Well, God ordinarily by His word changeth and new mouldeth the baptised in their infancy, and so God by His word ordinarily makes baptism effectual unto persons that were baptised in their infancy. And this is that which we would have. And thus you see that while you had forgotten God in His ordinances of grace, you forgot what you were about. And why make you such an opposition between the word preached and the Sacraments, seeing both are the word of God? The word preached is the word audible, and the Sacraments are the word visible, both the word of God to the fitting of His elect for Heaven. We baptise with water, that's our duty: but it's Christ that baptizeth with the Holy Ghost. We catechise and preach, but it's God that makes His word effectual to the ends whereunto it's appointed. God must be looked upon in all His ordinances, as a wise worker that makes them all helpful unto one another, and one must not exclude another. The Infants of the Jews were circumcised in their infancy, but that Sacrament became a long time afterward effectually by the instruction of their teachers. Shall we now for this cause exclude circumcision as ineffectual, because God made it not effectual unto them until a long time after by the instructions of their instructours? Answer this and the proportion will hold in paedobaptism. It's wild divinity to say, that an ordinance is not to be used, unless it take effect presently. Anabaptist. For we find them to show forth as bad fruits after their Baptism, as the vilest creatures that be, so that, if we should judge of their Baptism by their fruits before they come to understand the word of God, we may justly say, that their Baptism was abominable by its evil fruits. I say, if we should judge any thing of the effect of their Baptism, than this we may judge of it. But we will be sparing in our censures, although from your affirmation we might justly conclude so. Yet, I say, we will be sparing in that, and impute those evil fruits and effects (that are in children after Baptism) unto their corrupted nature, and their Baptism to be ineffectual by its fruits. And therefore by all this well considered, we may see it is the word that makes the change in the children and others. and not their baptism. Thus we plainly see, that it is the word that makes them fit for Baptism, and not their parentage. Answer. We find not all baptised children of Christian parents as bad as this your wicked charge doth import. Nay there are creatures worse than the worst of them, and therefore you are a false accuser and unjust slanderer, and you cannot make it good. But you have forgotten the business in hand again, I told you that God did ordinarily make our baptising of Infants effectual to the ends, whereunto true Baptism is appointed in the Gospel. And this the Lord may do, though the most of those that we baptise in their infancy prove vicious in their conversation, and but few of them religious; as long as the Lord doth it ordinarily, i. e. by ordinary means and usually, as by His word and ordinances in His Church, for what else can you understand by the word [ordinarily?] I say, as long as the Lord doth thus ordinarily make our baptising of Infants effectual to the proper ends of true Baptism, appointed in the Gospel, though but to a few of the baptised, our argument stands good. And you can no more conclude from the viciousness of the baptised in infancy, that that practice of baptising Infants is abominable, than you may from the viciousness of the Jews, that their circumcision in their infancy was abominable, because there were but few of them, unto whom God ordinarily made it effectual to the proper ends, whereunto it was appointed in the word, for among them there were but few that did believe in the Messiah, & yield obedience unto God's holy Law in heart and life. And now how just your conclusion is from my premises, let all men see. And no wonder that you make my premises speak what you please. And should we judge of your Baptism by your fruits, i. e. by your doctrine and tenants, (for that is the true meaning of Matth. 7.16. as you may see clearly evinced by the verse immediately going before.) I say, should a man judge of the Baptism of Anabaptists by their doctrine and tenants, he could not but conclude, that your Baptism is a most abominable and execrable thing (though you are adulti before you are adulti before you are baptised.) For Anabaptists deny original sin in Infants, and hold a bundle of heresies, as you may see in Osianders' Enchiridion of controversies with Anabaptists. And the most strict in your religion are the most vile, and God doth not ordinarily make your Baptism effectual to the proper ends, whereunto true Baptism is appointed in the Gospel. And whereas you say that we may see, that it is the word that makes children and others fit for Baptism, and not their parentage, I think herein you say you know not what, in making an opposition between the word and parentage, if by parentage, you mean Christian parentage, if not, you speak not to the point in hand. We say that the word fits all for Baptism. The word of instruction in the Covenant makes the alien fit for Baptism, and the word of the Covenant makes children of baptised parents fit for Baptism, as the word of instruction made Abraham and his Proselytes fit for circumcision, but the word of the Covenant made their children fit for circumcision in their infancy. Gen. 17.9. Anabaptist. Again, God suffered the patriarchs to live in the sin of malignity for a time, through their ignorance, yet God did bless them, and pass it by, but this is no warrant for us to sin wilfully against the light, nor ignorantly for want of seeking light. Again etc. ut infra. Answer. But how comes this in? How doth this batter my reason and assertion? Oh! I cry you mercy. I apprehended not your meaning at the first. Your meaning is, that the Church of Christ hath sinned in baptising Infants of Christian parents, and that God passed it by, because they did it ignorantly, for want of light. But now since Lamb your Founder, and you hide Disciples have brought it into, and set it up in the Country, viz. that none must be baptised until they give testimony of their faith and repentance. All (though hitherto they have baptised children in their infancy) must henceforth forbear that practice, if not, they sinne wilfully agianst the true light that you have brought, or at least ignorantly, if they will not seek unto your light for direction. And so my argument is not worth a straw, for albeit God hath hitherto made our baptising of Infants effectual to the proper ends, whereunto true Baptism is appointed in the Gospel▪ because we did it ignorantly before this light came into the country, but now you (as a new Apostle) can tell us, that God will do so no longer. If this be not your meaning. I know not how this story can argue against this fourth reason of mine. And most probable, this is your meaning, for it suits well with your former blasphemies; for when you fell upon this course of rebaptising, you were wont to say usually to your old acquaintance, that we are bound to bless God for the coming of this light amongst us. However if this be your meaning (as I am confident it is) yet in this you are deceived, for the devil did set up this light heretofore in the country. And God did put it out again, And so yours must out too, as soon as it hath led as many wanderers into the bogs, as God hath appointed it unto. Anabaptist. Again you condemn many gross things, that have been practised in the Church of England, as the ceremonies, and the admitting of drunkards and unclean persons, and such like to Sacraments. This you know was not right, as appears by your confession and practice. Now God hath suffered this a long time, and what, shall we therefore say that God approved of these things? Nay; if you will, so it is: But we will not conclude so. For our lives we dare not. Why then the case is all one, and therefore this is no ground at all. Answer. They say that a professed beggar is never out of his way; And there is a kind of reasoning which we call beggary in Schools, and then it's used Petitio principij in disputationibus, when the opponent is drawn so dry of arguments, that unless the answerer grant him some absurd principles, he can maintain the opposite part no longer. And so I think you have almost run yourself out of breath, and now unless I will acknowledge, that the baptising of Infants is a gross practice in the Church of England, you can say no more against this reason. The baptising of Infants in the Church of England must have no more warrant from the word of God, than the admitting of drunkards to the Lords table. But if I will not grant you this ex favore, you cannot prove it. And surely should I grant you this, I should be a man of as little conscience, as you are of reason. It's one thing for God to suffer things in a Church, and another thing to make an ordinance effectual by His ordinary concurrency. And the godly (in all reformed Churches) that have bewailed the things you mention, have still defended as well by practised paedobaptism, and now to this day do still the same. As for the ceremonies I dare not conclude, that their use is a gross and sinful practice, but leave them to every man's conscience to use or not to use, as God shall give liberty or put restraint. Anabaptist. Further you bring us the example of wise and learned men which do hold for Infant's Baptism. We answer, that possible it is for wise and learned men (as any are upon the earth) for to be blind and ignorant, concerning some things in the worship and service of God. As for instance. Apollo's. Act. 18.24. He was an eloquent man and mighty in the Scripture, and yet this man was deceived about the same point of Baptism, for he only knew the Baptism of John, and we see Aquila and Priscilla a couple of private persons did teach and instruct this wise man in the perfect way of the Lord. And so also Nicodemus joh. 3. he was a Ruler among the Jews, and when Christ said he must be borne again, he thought he must have gone into his mother's womb again; see where this were wisdom in this man. And of Balaam, he was counted a wise man and a Prophet, and yet his Ass could see that which he could not; for his Ass perceived the Angel of the Lord in the way, when he went to curse the people, when Balaam himself could not see him. And so divers other examples in Scripture we have to the same purpose, and therefore this argument is no good argument. Answer. If it be possible for wise and learned men to be blind, and ignorant concerning some things in the worship and service of God, then it's very probable that fools, and unlearned men may be blind, and ignorant concerning some things, in the worship and service of God much more. But your meaning is, that you have a privilege of not erring: That indeed is a thing that your Church holds. And why say you that Apollo's was deceived about the same point of baptism? and that Aquila and Priscilla, a couple of private persons, did instruct him in the perfect way of the Lord? Was it paedobaptism that Apollo's was deceived about? If not, how the same point of baptism? For the point in controversy between you and us is paedobaptism: And what mean you in saying, that Apollo's was instructed in the perfect way of the Lord by Aquila and Priscilla, a couple of private persons? That your way of baptising is the perfect way of the Lord, and that Ministers must be instructed by you (being private persons) in this point? And for Nicodemus you do well to wonder where his wisdom was, when he talked so carnally of regeneration, as if he were to return unto the state of infants-unborne, before he could be truly regenerated: as we wonder where your wisdom was, when you talked so carnally of baptism, as if you (Christians by birth, and baptised in your infancy) must return into the state of Pagans and Infidels, and so come into the Church by confession, before you could be truly baptised. And what talk you of Balaam, that went to curse the people of God, and of his Ass that saw the Angel of the Lord in his way? It must be granted, that you are the people of God, and that I am Balaam that curse you, because I preach against you. But are you mine Ass that see the Angel of the Lord, viz. your baptism in my way? Surely they are silly fools that will ride upon Asses, where Horses are so plentiful. I have many good books to inform me, and many grave Ministers, learned and godly to advise withal, if need were. And I must tell you, that I am so fare from scrupling about paedobaptism, that I see the impression of the Holy Ghost upon it. But to what purpose all this is alleged by you (here in this place) I know not. it shows only that men may err, and so may you. And now let all men see your folly in charging me of folly for rendering of this reason. Reason 5 The fift and last Reason. Anabaptist. Also you bring the practice of true Churches against us, but this argument is as weak as the others. For we have examples in Scripture of true Churches that have been deceived in some things, and held gross things and great disorders, and yet true Churches too; as the seven Churches of Asia, most of which held gross things, and so the Church of Corinth, with others. Therefore we see it possible and practical for true Churches to be out. Answer. Your meaning is, that all other true Churches (as you call them) are out in this point of baptism, and that you only are right. This is a very compendious and pithy refutation of the argument drawn from the example of other true Churches. But look upon this argument in my Sermon-notes, and you shall find that the matter will not be so easily put off, as you seem to intimate. For in this last reason I said, that we baptise children of Christian parents, because it's the practice of other reformed Churches, which God hath blessed in that way, with great increase of heavenly gifts. Now if we should forbear baptising of infants, by virtue of a divine restraint, than we should lay iniquity upon whole Kingdoms, and godly societies, where Paedobaptism is practised: And this would make a mighty division, rent, and schism between us and other true Churches, with whom we should endeavour to hold communion and fellowship as companies of Saints, that stand as immediately under Christ, as ourselves. Now you will say, that In sin we are not to hold communion with other Churches, But to hold communion with other Churches in the practice of Paedobaptism, is to hold communion with other Churches in sin. Ergo We are not to hold communion with other Churches in the practice of Paedobaptism. Prove (say they) that baptising of infants is a sin. We prove it thus, say you. To baptise those that are not baptizable is a sin. But infants of baptised parents are not baptizable. Ergo To baptise infants of baptised parents is a sin. Well, you will prove the assumption thus: viz. Only believers are baptizable. But infants of Christians are not believers. Ergo Infants of Christians are not baptizable. They now will tell you that the minor proposition is false, for the Scripture doth no where term persons unbelievers, for the habit of unbelief negatively, but for the habit of unbelief positively. And to be a believer (in your sense) is requisite unto baptism for a made-Christian, but not for a borne-Christian. And to say, that infants of Christians are not believers is absurd: And therefore however you may seem to pass over this argument as a sleight thing, you shall finde there was more weight in it, than ever you can answer. But you say well (however) in saying that this argument of mine is as weak as the others, I believe it indeed: and so as the others do stand upon such a foundation, as you cannot undermine, so let this. And now let all men see how well your boasting, and your answering do agree together, for you have boasted up and down that you have answered all mine arguments, and I think all as well as any. But let us now proceed, and consider your miscellance rhapsody, that follows in your papers. Anabaptist. Again, there is as much controversy among you Ministers, concerning who should be baptised, as it is between you and us. For you, and Mr Cape●, and Mr Martial, and divers others of the best Ministers do hold, that all the children within the Nation should be baptised: and the Ministers of New-England, and other reformed Churches do hold, that none should be baptised but the children of believers, who are judged to be believers at least. Now here is as much difference among you, as between you and us: And therefore we may justly say, go and reconcile yourselves, and you may do the better with us. For if we should yield unto you, we cannot tell to which of you to turn unto; whether to you that hold all to be baptised, or those that hold some to be baptised. But the truth is, unless you give us better grounds than any yet we see, we shall turn to neither of you, with Gods help to strengthen us. Answer. We all agree in the point of Paedobaptism, namely, that children of believers are to be baptised in their infancy, and so in this point the difference is not so wide, as between you and us. Herein you lay a false imputation upon us, a thing too frequent in you, and that which your conscience can well dispense withal, as appears by your usual practice: and whether you turn to us, or New-England, you must turn from your own way. Our agreement is such, that we are all one in the point of Paedobaptism against you. We (in this Land) hold, that children of all baptised parents are baptizable in their infancy, by virtue of the Covenant of Grace, under which such children were borne, as children of all circumcised parents were circumcisable in their infancy, by virtue of the same Covenant of Grace, under which they were borne; and this is the opinion and practice of all reformed Churches that I know, as the French, Scottish, Dutch, High and Low, etc. But what they do in New-England, I know not. The Records of their Church orders and tenants are not in print. But they which say they follow New-England way, will not baptise all children of believers neither, except they be in their Covenant. Except believers enter into their Covenant, they shall have no commons with them at the Lords table, neither shall their children be baptised by them. But their warrant for this practice we desire to see, for we think it unjust and impious, that persons under God's Covenant of Grace, should be deprived of gods seals, which he hath inseparably annexed unto that Covenant. And moreover, for them to deny baptism unto children of baptised parents, I see no reason, though such parents are vicious in their lives, as long as such parents remain within the Church, and are orthodox all in the faith. I am sure that the children of the Jews (whose parents were profane in life) were not kept bacl from the Sacrament of circumcision, for that cause; And the reason is, because that Covenant was the Covenant of Grace, and not of Works. There are two Covenants that God hath made with men, viz. the Covenant of Works, and the Covenant of Grace. And of these Covenants there were two heads, namely, the first Adam, and the second Adam: With the first Adam God did strike a Covenant of Works; and Adam the head of this body in Covenant did transgress, and so destroyed the Covenant, and thereby deprived himself, and all his members of the privileges thereof, and so death entered upon all m●n, in that all had sinned in their Head. With the second Adam, viz. Christ, God did strike a Covenant of Grace; and Christ the head of his body in this Covenant remains just, and the justifier of his members; and therefore his members cannot be deprived of the privileges of this Covenant, for the default of immediate parents. Now for th●se men in this way (as they say) of New-England, to put a stop unto the Covenant of Grace; in denying baptism unto children of baptised parents, I see no warrant. For first, This practice destroys the nature of this Covenant. For the parents by their miscarriage have broken the Covenant of Works, but not the Covenant of Grace; this remains entire in Christ, who is the head of the children borne under this Covenant. And these children, though by natural generation they are the offspring of such wicked parents, yet by reason of the Covenant under which they were borne, they are the children of the Covenant. This practice than is a presumption of an higher nature than these men are ware off: And albeit their intent be a reformation, yet the means is diabolical. Secondly, This practice doth virtually accuse Christ the Head, as a violater of this Covenant of Grace; for as long as the Head remains just, and the justifier of his members, his members are not to be debarred of their privileges whereof under the Gospel's Baptism is the first. And the vicious carriage of immediate parents, can no more exclude a child from Baptism now, than could formerly the vicious carriage of Jewish parents, exclude their children from the privilege of Circumcision. Now some (to evade this) say, that the Church of the Jews was a Nationall Church, but the Church of England is not so. But this is but a mere shift to evade what they cannot answer, for Proselytes who were not of that Nation, were to have their children circumcised, and circumcision was enjoined and practised before the Jews were a Nationall Church, even when and while they were a Family-Church. But to the point, I say that the Church of the Jews was a Nationall Church in some things after a peculiar manner; as First, God had tied himself to remain with that Nation by his Ordinances of grace, until Shiloh came. Secondly, that Nation was once a year (in the representative body thereof) to meet at one common place, (viz. at Jerusalem) about the worship of God by divine appointment. Now God hath not tied himself to the Church of England for any set term of time; nor is there by divine appointment any set place of worship for the whole Nation to meet in once a year, about the worship of God. But thirdly, the Church of the Jews was a Nationall Church, because the whole Nation had received the Doctrine and Covenant of grace, and in this sense I hope England is a Nationall Church. And if in this sense the Church of England be a Nationall Church, that's as much as I require. But surely these men have some other meaning (when they say that the Church of the Jews was a Nationall Church, and the Church of England is not) than as yet they dare to utter, (though among them you shall seldom find a man tongue-tied.) Their meaning is, that the whole Nation of the Jews pellmell, were by course to be admitted to the privileges of that typical ministration, and so the children of vicious parents too, because of that Nation; but under the Gospel since Christ, only the children of godly parents are to be sealed into God's peculiar by baptism, and others are not; and here they would bring in their Covenant as the form of the Church: But the children of the Jews were not circumcised because of that Nation, but because of god's Covenant with that Nation. And so our children are not to be baptised because of such a Nation, but because of God's Covenant with such a Nation; and the children of all baptised parents are borne under God's Covenant of grace, and whether their parents be vicious or religious in life, the child's title stands good to the Covenant. The religious lives of his parents (being works) do not entitle him to the Covenant and initial seal thereof. And the vicious life of parents baptised (being works) cannot make void the child's title to the Covenant and initial seal thereof. For his title unto the Covenant and initial seal thereof lies in Christ, who remains just, and the justifier of his members; and the elect seed may pass through the loins of vicious parents, and often do, whereas godly parents may have reprobates to their children. If then these men have any thing to object against Christ, as a violater of the Covenant of Grace, let them say on, and they shall be answered; but if nothing, how dare they deny the initial seal of this Covenant unto the children of this Covenant. Now many honest-hearted Christians carried away with the fair show of these men, do not see the high iniquity of this practice. 3. The practice of debarring infants of baptised parents from baptism, for the lose lives of their parents is no better than high sacrilege: For such children being not Pagans, borne out of the Church, but Christians, borne within the Church, and of the holy seed; borne (I say) under the Covenant of Grace, are therefore to have (as their birthright) that Covenant under which they were borne, put under seal unto them For the miscarriage of the parents cannot deprive the children of their portion in God's Covenant of Grace; seeing works are not the ground of that right of theirs, but God's free grace in Christ: and the child hath as primitive a right unto this Covenant as the parent. For the words of the Covenant are, I will be they God, and the God of thy seed after thee in their generations. And therefore, however vicious parents are to be kept bacl from the Lords Supper for their reformation, yet their infants cannot be kept bacl from Baptism, and so put a stop unto the Covenant of Grace, where God puts none. Fourthly and lastly, as this is a new way, so it's grounded upon new-Divinity, which none of the orthodox Divines in the Church of England were ever principled in, in the Schools of the Prophets; for if that the personal sin of the immediate parent be a bar against insants' baptism, than there are more sins imputed besides the first sin of Adam; but there is no other sin imputed, but only the first sin of Adam. And thus you see that I am as great an adversary against those whose practices do any way oppugn the nature of the Covenant of Grace, as I am against you. For my purpose is to maintain the quarrel of God's Covenant against all opposers, as 'tis my duty and office, and I hope my Brethren and Fathers in the Universities and in the Country, will assoord me their pious aid and assistance. And that all good Christians will beseech God at the Throne of Grace, to carry on His own work in me, and in all that shall endeavour to hold forth the Truth of God unto His people, that godly hearts and tender consciences may not be misled by the good words and fair speeches of Satan's agents. And for you that are carried away into this way of rebaptising, the Lord give you to see where you are. And for those of the Separation, the Lord show them wherein they do exceed, for their ways are not right before the Lord, nor justifiable by His Word. And now for you to say that you will turn neither to us, nor to those of New-England, unless you see better grounds; We must tell you, that you must bring better exceptions against the grounds that we have laid for Paedobaptism, or else we must conclude that you blaspheme the Name of God, in desiring his help for to strengthen you in your way. Anabaptist Again, you allege the qualisications of some men that hold against as, which (you say) are as good as any of the Anabaptists, and as loving is one another as any of the other side: But this we confess may be. But Sir, this doth ill appear sometimes, for there be some of your coat that are ready to by't and devour one another, for a small triste many times, and that good men too, for which they are too blame. Answer. To what end I alleged the qualifications of good men, you may see in my fourth reason; and what doth all this prove? But that good men, yea Ministers sometimes have their failings, for which (you say well) they are too blame. But what? This is one of your expletives, to fill up your paper, and to make your answerer work. Anabaptist. Nay you said further, that they were as humble as the proudest Anabaptist of them all. Now S●, you did well to compare the best of yourselves to the worst of them, For we account him that is proudest, to be the worst man of them. And you compare your humble men with our proud men, but we pass by this, and take it only to be your mistake in the heat of your expressions and not any way to be the meaning of your intentions. Answer. If I said any such thing, I was mightily overseen indeed, for Anabaptists are all so proud, as if each particular strove for the supremacy. And I was much mistaken in you also, for I thought you had been truly burdened in conscience, and would only have alleged such things, as might have tended to the satisfaction of conscience about paedobaptism, but now I see nothing but scorning, and slighting of what you cannot ●●fell. I pray pardon me this mistake too. But it should seem, that this merry passage is none of the arguments you build your faith upon, but pass it by as a null, and judge it a mistake in the heat of expressions, as we judge of your baptising in Severne to be a null, and mistake in the heat of your fiery zeal, and therefore you chose so cold a season, and so great a river to allay it. Anabaptist. Further you demand of us, where we can bring any example of any Church gathered, that did deny Infant's Baptism. But we will quickly answer you that we have no example of any Church gathered or ungathered, that did baptise their Infants. And so your question is frivolous, and as you said to us, we return the like to you; where the Holy Ghost hath no tongue, we will have no ear. Answer. You say, no Church gathered or ungathered doth baptise Infants, but ere now you speak of reformed Churches, and here no Church baptizeth Infants. Your meaning is, that Baptism is the form of a Church, and so no Baptism, no Church, and Baptism of Infants is no Baptism; as though you were members of no Church, till you were baptised. If of no Church, than no members of Christ, and so dying not to be saved, but haply I mistake your meaning. You confess that you can bring no example of any gathered Church in the new Testament that did deny Baptism unto Infants, whose parents were baptised, and in the state of Christianity. Neither doth the Holy Ghost any where in the new Testament either expressly, or by necessary deduction deny Baptism unto such children. And therefore Anabaptists in denying Baptism unto children of baptised parents are not therein led by the Spirit of God. The Holy Ghost speaks expressly, that children even of one believing parent are Saints. 1 Cor. 7.14. and no such thing was predicated of any Gentiles children, before faith in Christ put that honour upon them, and yet many, yea most of them borne in wedlock. And Lamb your Master doth acknowledge the married spoken off, 1 Cor. 7.14. to be married, nay lawfully married before faith came to make either their marriage or children holy. Look upon his letter, and you shall find, that either he speaks that, or plain nonsense. But I have had speech with your Master already about his judgement upon this text, and I think that (if your Master will be but ingenious) we are agreed. But you his Disciple have gotten another trick to put the Holy Ghost to silence here, in this text. (As the proverb is, seldom comes a better, a bad Master, and a worse Scholar.) You talk of children's being holy in the Apostles estimation. Happily you have gotten that old Popith shift, that the Papists are wont to have against Paul's writings. They say that all Paul's writing is not to be taken for the holy Canon, because Paul saith, not the Lord but I, not I but the Lord. And in that you said that children were holy in the Apostles estimation, I suppose you rested upon that rotten prop of Popery. And so you will have the Holy Ghost to have no tongue where you will have no ear; for the Holy Ghost speaks as well by necessary deductions, as in express words, and the Holy Ghost hath a tongue in the true sense of the Scripture, as well as in the express letter. But you have said enough, you confess you have no example in the new Testament, where Baptism was ever denied unto Infants of baptised parents, neither have you any Command or Commission from Christ our only Monarch, and Law giver for denying of Baptism, unto Infants of baptised parents. And therefore you do not derive your power from Christ the King of the Church, but from the devil in so doing Thus I argue from this ground. Such as deny Baptism unto persons, to whom Christ denies it not, are from the devil, and not from Christ. But Anabaptists deny Baptism unto persons to whom Christ denies it not. Ergo Anabaptists are from the devil, and not from Christ. The assumption may thus be proved irrefragably. Infants of baptised parents are persons to whom Christ denies not Baptism. But Anabaptists deny Baptism unto Infants of baptised parents, Ergo. Anabaptists deny Baptism to persons to whom Christ denies it not. Now bring forth any Commission from Christ, where Baptism is denied unto Infants of baptised parents. If you can bring no such thing forth (as indeed you cannot) then let all men know, that you are from the devil, and not from Christ, in denying Baptism unto such Infants. And so you set up the devil, and not Christ in that practice. For Christ hath no proviso in His Commission for Baptism, wherein the Infants of baptised parents are denied. Show us any place in the new Testament where Christ saith either expressly or by true deduction, you shall not baptised parents. See then whom you serve, and whence you derive your power: even from the devil. Now take the same weapons and sight against us, and argue thus against us. Viz. Such as administer Baptism unto persons, to whom Christ denies it, are from the devil and not from Christ. But Ministers of the Church of England administer Baptism to persons unto whom Christ denies it, Ergo Ministers of the Church of England are from the devil, and not from Christ. We will deny your minor proposition, and you will prove it thus; viz. Infants of baptised parents are persons, unto whom Christ denies Baptism. But Ministers of the Church of England administer Baptism unto Infants of baptised parents; Ergo Ministers of the Church of England administer Baptism unto persons that Christ deny it unto. Now the major proposition of the this later Syllogism is false, and it cannot possibly be made good by the Scripture. Make that good, and the day is yours, I say, make this good, viz. That Christ in His Gospel doth any where deny Baptism unto Infants of baptised parents, and then we will acknowledge that you have your power (of debarring Infants of baptised parents) from Christ; the which until you do we will look upon you, as persons that have your Commission from the devil, and not from Christ. And we in baptising Infants of baptised parents are in the way of Christ, and have our Commission from Him, and He will defend us from your virulent rage, and bless our ministry. Anabaptist. Next you seem to say something concerning the Covenant, and you bring us the example of the Church of the Ephesians, which were Jew's and Gentiles converted, and brought out of the miserable estate that they were in before, and now being converted they were engrafted into Christ, not before, but now being in a new condition; yet those privileges that are there spoken to the Church of the Ephesians, which were all converts; I say you make these privileges and benefits that they were partakers of, to belong to the whole nation of Pagan, Jew, and Gentile in their natural condition, which is most gross wresting of the text, and much prejudice to the privilege of the Gospel. And likewise that place 1 Cor. 12. concerning being baptised into one spirit, which privilege you attribute to all before conversion, which was only peculiar to the converts of the Church of Conrinth, and therefore pray take heed how you wrist the Scripture to accomplish your own humours. Answer. I said in opposition to the state of the Pagan Gentiles, that the condition of the Gentiles, where the Gospel is embraced, and they baptised, is not now the same in point of religion, for now in Jesus Christ we who were sometimes fare off are made nigh etc. Ephes. 2.13.22. And by one spirit are we all baptised into one body whether we be Jews or Gentiles. 1 Cor. 12.13. And whether this be not faithful dealing with the Scripture, let the texts by yourself alleged judge. Did I at all make any mention of persons in their natural condition, or say that the privileges of the Gospel did belong to the whole nation before conversion? Fie! Fie! Is this fair dealing? I spoke no more, nay not so much, as is expressly written in the texts alleged. But somewhat your venomous tongues must utter, and if you cannot wound our cause, you will traduce our persons. Our question was about paedobaptism, and we conveyed and contrived the matter in these terms; viz. whether children of holiest parents even in purest Churches are to be baptised in their infancy? And we propounded the question of purpose in these terms, that we might come directly to the point. And therefore all that you say in this cavil is rather ad personam, then adrem. The like false aspersion you east upon me before, and there you are answered. And so to answer here were but to answer you in your folly. And now what humour you are here led by let the reader judge. Anabaptist. Further, you would know whether the Covenant be not social; we answer, that it's social in respect of the durance or continuance of it. As thus, that it is to all generations unto the end of the world, or else, woe unto us, if we are left without a Covenant or Promise. For if the Promise had ceased, than what hopes had there been for us, the force of the Promise concerning what God is and will be to his people doth still last unto the end. But the seals, etc. ut infra. Answer. The Covenant of Grace that God hath made with His people is this, viz. I will be thy God, and the God of thy seed. This Promise is to parents and children jointly, as companions and fellow-sharers of the same blessings promised, and because parents, and children are joined together, as fellow-heires of the same mercy, therefore we termed the Covenant social; and you confess that the force of the Promise, concerning what God is, and will be to His people, doth last still, unto the end of the world, and that this Covenant in respect of its durance or continuance is social, even to all generations. Very good. Then as Abraham, and his Proselytes had their children in Covenant, put under the initial seal in their infancy, so are Christians to have their children put under the initial seal in their infancy, ut socij promissioniscum parentibus. And in this I confess you go beyond your Master, though yet you do not come off clearly in the business; but go on, let us hear your restriction. Anabaptist. But the seals and peculiar privileges belong only to believers. Gal. 3.22. Rom. 4.13, 14. with Rom. 9 compared with Gal. 3. and Gal. 4. and so in this respect the peculiar benefits; and privileges of the Covenant are personal, and unto believers. For, etc. ut infra. Answer. You mean that the saving benefits of this Covenant, and the inward Grace signified, and assured by the outward seals do belong only to believers, and true converts endued with renewing grace in Christ, their mystical head. And so it was under the Law likewise, for Israel was as the sand of the Sea, yet a remnant saved, and many are called, but few are chosen. Few were endued with saving grace of the multitude that were put under the seal of the Covenant. And the Law was nothing but Christ vailed, as the Gospel is Moses unvailed. The Covenant is the same, which is, that the seed of the woman shall break the Serpent's head. Gen. 3.15. And that Covenant (being made on occasion of man's fall in Adam) did concern man's deliverance from thraldom under sin, and man's restitution unto happiness by Christ, the seed of the woman. And now were your avail to establish your purpose, than God did very ill in commanding children to be sealed in their infancy, seeing then they could exercise no faith, nor manifest the same unto others, and yet were to receive a type of Christ upon their flesh. But you seem to bring a reason to confirm what you here say; let us hear it I pray, that we may consider it, what weight there is in it. Anabaptist. For the Covenant is now established upon better promises, Heb 8.6. and to better subjects; for than it was to all lineally, though unbelievers might have the sign of Circumcision, but the promise of the Gospel is only to believers, as I find. Answer. The Apostle doth not say, that our Covenant is better than that which God made with Adam after his fall, Gen. 3.15. nor better than that which God made with Abraham, Gen. 17. but better than the Covenant that God made with the Jews in the day, when he took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt, Heb. 8.9. And why better than that? Because established upon better promises. Upon what promises was God's Covenant with the Jews established, when he delivered them out of Egypt? Upon the promises of the people's obedience, Exod. 19.3, 8. But in this Covenant they continued not, but soon broke it, and so God regarded them not. This Covenant was yet needful, that man might hereby see his own inability, and his great need of a Saviour, to satisfy for his sin; and to repair man's nature by changing his heart and mind, and so freely to justify his person; and this is the Covenant established upon better promises. Heb. 8.10, 11, 12. The people would obey God immediately, and they would hear God immediately instructing them in his Law. They thought they could have done all readily without the help and mediation of another. But they were soon woefully convinced of their pride, and soon saw they the necessity of a Saviour, and so they chose Moses a type of Christ, Exod. 20.18, 19 And so God by the hand of Moses gave them a threefold law, as in the hand of a Mediator; for the two tables of the law which God (viuâ voce) delivered unto the people on Mount Sinai, Moses broke on the occasion of the people's Idolatry, Exod. 32. Which tables, albeit they contained the perfect rule of righteousness, yet in that the people entered into Covenant with God, immediately before they had chosen Moses to be their Mediator; and every one stood in his own person, immediately receiving the law, and promising legal obedience unto the same, as the ground of their right unto God's favours; and the people having broken their promise by Idolatry, therefore these tables must needs be broken to pieces, as the people's personal Covenant; and other two tables of God's law must be procured, wherein the people were not to appear in their own persons, but in the person of their Mediator; and this Covenant must be established upon God's promises of free grace in Christ, whereof Moses was a type: and this you may see, Exod. 34.1, 7. And this is the same Covenant with that of the Apostle for substance. Heb. 8.6, 11. Now then (I say) Moses being set up as a Mediator between God and this people, God by him (as in the hand of a Mediator) gave unto the Israelites a threefold law, shadowing forth the threefold office of Christ, and serving thereunto: Here is the Moral Law for a Prophet the levitical Law for a Priest, and the Judicial Law for a King. And so under Moses Christ was administered in types and shadows, but the same Christ than administered as now, and effectual to the Regeneration, Justification, Sanctification, Edification, and Salvation of Gods Elect then as now. And thus you see, how while you allege the Scripture by piecemeal, as the Devil doth, yourselves are taken in the Devil's snares, even while you go about to entangle others: And your Religion will not stand with the true interpretation of God's holy Word. And you cannot maintain your way, unless you overthrew fundamentals. And this is the just judgement of God upon you, that while you neglect the light of the Sanctuary, you should be given over to believe the muddy sophisms of the Devils factours. The Covenant of God for substance is now the same as it was unto the Jews. Quest. What then doth the Apostle mean by the Covenants, being better now under the Gospel, if it was the same Covenant for substance under the Law? Sol. View but the place, and the Epistle to the Hebrews throughly, and you shall then see, that nothing else can be meant, but a better Ministration or Liturgy, for the text runs thus: viz. But now hath he obtained a more excellent Liturgy or Ministry, by how much also He is the Mediator of a better Covenant, which was established upon better promises. Heb. 8.6. A better Covenant established on better promises. Now show what these better promises are, and you have what the Apostle means by the better Covenant, whereof Christ is now Mediator. Now these better are; I will put my laws into their minds, and write them in their hearts, and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people. And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord; for all shall know me from the least to the greatest, for I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins, and their iniquities will I remember no more. Heb. 8.10. 11, 12. 1. The Old Covenant had the Law written in tables of stone, but the New hath the Law written in the hearts of the worshippers: i.e. Moses did minister the Law unto the Jews written in tables of stone, thus did the type; but Christ the anti-type doth minister God's Laws unto Christians, written in the fleshly tables of the heart. Moses could minister the letter of God's Law unto the people, but Moses could not change the heart, and renew the mind of his people, but Christ by his Ministers can change the heart, and renew the mind of his worshippers. And it's Christ's peculiar prerogative both under the Law, and under the Gospel, that whatsoever persons formerly under the Law, have been renewed by grace; and what persons soever have been renewed, or shall be renewed under the Gospel; have, are, and shall be renewed by Christ, and in Christ. This Epistle to the Hebrews was written by the Apostle unto the Jews, and the end of the Apostle in writing this Epistle, was to take off the Jews from resting on the works of the Law, and Liturgy or Ministration of Moses for salvation and eternal life, and to divert their minds unto Jesus Christ the Prince of life, and to the ministration of Christ's blood and spirit under the Gospel, or New Testament, or Covenant. And that the difference between the old Covenant under Moses the type, and the new Covenant under Christ the truth and anti-type, lies not in the thing ministered for man's eternal salvation, but in the ministration of Christ to come, and already come, is clear by that of Paul to the Corinthians, 2 Cor. 3.2, 18. Ye are our epistle written in our hearts, known, and read of all men. Forasmuch as ye are manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ, ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshly tables of the heart. And such trust have we through Christ to God-ward: Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think any thing as of ourselves, but our sufficiency is of God. Who also hath made us able Ministers, not of the letter, but of the spirit: (for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.) But if the ministration of death written, and engraven in stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not steadfastly behold the face of Moses, for the glory of his countenance, which glory was to be done away: How shall not the ministration of the spirit be rather glorious? For if the ministration of condemnation be glory, much more doth the ministration of righteousness exceed in glory. For even that which was made glorious, had no glory in this respect, by reason of the glory that excelleth. For if that which is done away was glorious, much more that which remaineth is glorious. Seeing then we have such hope, we use great plainness of speech. And not as Moses, which put a veil over his face, that the children of Israel could not steadfastly look to the end of that which is abolished. But their minds are blinded: for until this day remaineth the same veil untaken away, in the reading of the Old Testament: which veil is done away in Christ. But even unto this day, when Moses is read, the veil is upon their heart. Nevertheless when it (i.e. their heart) shall turn to the Lord, the veil shall be taken away. Now the Lord is that Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty. But we all with open face, beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same image, from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of the Lord. And then, Chap. 4.1. he comes with this inference, viz Therefore seeing we have this Ministry, etc. So then the difference lies in the ministration, and not in the substance of the Covenant. God's Covenant of grace with man is nothing, but Christ for salvation, Christ in type, and Christ in person: Christ in type before His Incarnation, and Christ in person since. Here Christ is said to be the Mediator of a better Covenant. And in the former chapter, Heb. 7.22. He is said to be made a Surety of a better Testament. This better Covenant coming in place did disannul the former. Heb. 7.18. Now what did it disannul? Surely nothing but the Typical and Mosaical Liturgy, or Ministration. And what did disannul this typical ministration? Surely nothing but the body of Christ offered up unto God once for all. Heb. 10.1, 10. Read the 9 chap. of Heb. In a word, the whole redounds to this much, the Sacrifices which they offered up year by year continually under the Law, could not make the comers thereunto perfect, as pertaining to the Conscience. Heb. 10.1, 2. Nay, could not so much as make him that did the service perfect. Heb. 9.9. But the sacrifice of Christ's body once for all, makes the comers thereunto perfect, as pertaining to the conscience. Heb. 9.14. And therefore Christ is the Mediator of ● better Covenant, than Moses was. But the people to whom Paul writes this Epistle, and the end wherefore he wrote it, are always to be remembered; and that will give a great deal of light unto what is herein written. Ob. If this be the meaning of the text, than here is nothing in peculiar attributed to this ministration under the Gospel; for under the Law the Elect were converted, and had their hearts changed, and renewed by Christ, and in Christ. Sol. Right. They had so▪ Grant but this, and grant my conclusion, and so establish the contradictory of your own. For if Christ made the ordinances of Grace effectual to the conversion of God's Elect under the Law, and doth the same under the Gospel▪ then that and this is the same Covenant of Grace for substance; and so the difference must needs lie in the administration only. But Paul's controversy lay with the Jews, and mine lies with the Anabaptists, both adversaries to Christ and his Gospel. The conversion of the Jews under the Law is not to be ascribed unto those typical sacrifices, but unto Christ, which they did typify: but the conversion of God's Elect under the Gospel, is to be ascribed unto the sacrifice of Christ, the Captain of our Salvation, as the proper cause thereof. The Law said, Christ is to be sacrificed; the Gospel says, Christ is sacrificed for us: And they both bespoke the same Christ for the spiritual benefit of the worshippers; yet the Gospell-ministration is to have the prerogative, for now our Highpriest is more excellent. Now we have a clearer manifestation of God's love for every necessity of the soul. Now we have a Throne of Grace to go to, every where. Now we have free access unto God, without bringing our sacrifices unto others, who must (as types) offer them unto God for us. 2. The old Covenant (in the sacrifices thereof) did again call to remembrance the sins of the worshippers every year, and so could not make the comers thereunto perfect, as pertaining to the conscience. Heb. 10.3, 4. The new Covenant (in the sacrifice thereof) doth wrap up the sins of the comers thereunto in perpetual oblivion, and makes the worshippers perfect, as pertaining to the conscience. Heb. 10.12, 18. Heb. 7.24, 28. Heb. 9.14, 15. And so now every worshipper hath boldness to enter into the Holiest by this one sacrifice, and to draw near unto God. Heb. 10.19, 22. And for this cause the typical ministration must needs be inferior, and the Gospel's ministration more excellent, sublime, and anagogical. Let these things be but seriously considered, and they will afford you a great deal of light in reading that glorious Epistle of Paul to the Hebrews. And in a word, grant me that Gods Elect under the Law were saved by God's free grace in jesus Christ, in those sacrifices typified, as (if there be any spark of ingenuity left in you) you must needs acknowledge, and you shall grant that Covenant, and this under the Gospel, to be all one for substance; and so the difference between that and this to lie in the ministration only. But how say you that this gospel-covenant is established to better subjects? I pray, how better subjects? you say believers. But did God seal his Covenant under the Law to unbelievers? How prove you that? To children in their infancy, therefore to unbelievers. The inference is unsound, neither can you bring one text of Scripture where it's said, that Infants of Jews in Covenant were unbelievers: And therefore let all men see how well your Divinity agrees with the language of Scripture. If the Scripture terms infants of the Jews the holy seed, than they are not to be termed unbelievers; and therefore you speak wickedly, and more than you can justify. Turn your Bible over, and by finding nothing for your purpose, you shall see that you have said nothing to the purpose. That unbelievers might have the sign of Circumcision under the Law! Oh abominable blasphemy! And the promises under the Gospel do no more belong to believers, than they did to believers under the Law. They did and do belong to God's people in Covenant. And infants of baptised parents are under the promise, and in Covenant. Well, thus you argue: viz. The promise of the Gospel is only to believers. But infants of Christians are not believers. Ergo The promise of the Gospel is not to infants of Christians. This Syllogism may well be termed a Solacisme: But it may well pass in the School of Anabaptists, for to speak nonsense overthrows not the principles of their Religion. But we have showed you before, That infants of Christians are not Insidels, Ergo believers. And you say afterwards, that infants are saved by the Election, and therefore (say I) the promise of the Gospel belongs unto them. But haply you had forgotten what you said here; as indeed, he that will lie, had need have a good memory, otherwise a fluent tongue will quickly discover a knaves heart. And now give me leave to put in my plea for our poor infants. Thus I argue for them: viz. All the Elect have right to the promise of the Gospel. But some infants of Christians are Elect, Ergo Some infants of Christians have right to the promise of the Gospel. And then again, thus: viz. Such as have right to the promise of the Gospel, have right unto the initial seal of the Gospel. But some infants of Christians have right to the promises of the Gospel, Ergo Some infants of Christians have right unto the initial seal of the Gospel. Quest. Why then do you baptise all Infants of Christians, seeing you confess that the promise of the Gospel belongs only to the elect? Answ. And why do you baptise any at all, though they give testimony of faith by practice and confession, seeing you confess, that the promise belongs only to Gods elect? For if the certain knowledge of a persons election must be the ground of baptising unto us, than you shall never baptise any, but every particular person must baptise himself: For no man by ordinary grace can have certain knowledge of another man's election. But you will say, that albeit we know, that there be many reprobates borne within the Church, and many hypocrites may make a show of faith by profession (and not have it in truth) yet when they come one and one unto us by profession of faith, we have a charitable persuasion that this and that man so professing is of God's election. And so say we, that albeit we know doctrinally, that divers Infants borne within the Church are reprobates, yet as they come to us one and one upon the evidence of God's Covenant engraven upon them by birth, we have a charitable persuasion that this and that Infant is of God's election. Quest. Why then do you not baptise the Infants of those that are without the Church, as Turks and Insidels, if a charitable persuasion of God's election be warrant enough for you? Sol. We answer, that such Infants are not borne under the Covenant, neither are their parents under the seal of Baptisine, and the Scripture no where terms such Infants holy, as it doth every where the children of the Church. And this is a direct answer unto A. R. in the 6. page of his childish book, entitled the vanity of childish Baptism. The Adoption belongs to the children of the Church, and not to the children of aliens. And therefore this profane Ass speaks wickedly in his † most ferious thoughts What (says he) if it be a warrantable ground for us to administer Baptism to all Infants, because that some particular Infants are elected, by the same reason it will follow, that Baptism may lawfully be administered to every man and woman in the world because among them also we may judge that some are elected. page 6. These stout words of his do as well bear before them a professed quarrel against God for Circumcision, as against us for Baptism. Why might not such an hellish blasphemer say unto God. What? If it be a warrantable ground for us, to administer circumcision to all Male-Infants of Jews, because some particular Infants of them are elected, then by the same reason it will follow, that circumcision may lawfully be administered unto every Male in the world, because among them also we may judge that some are elected; why then dost thou not command circumcision to be administered unto them also? Surely to this God would say, thus; viz. If any among other nations in the world, do belong unto Mine election, they shall become Proselytes unto the Church, and come in by profession in the Messiah, but when these Proselytes are put under my seal, their Infants shall be circumcised in their infancy, though most of them be reprobates. And so say we, if there be any of Gods elect among the aliens, they shall become Proselytes to the Christian Church, and so be baptised upon the confession of their faith in Christ, but for the Infants of those Christian Proselytes, they shall all be baptised in their infancy, as the children of the Covenant, though most of them may be reprobates, election and reprobation being not the ground of our ministration or not ministration, but the Covenant under which persons are borne. And thus you may see how wildly this Ass doth reason, and yet what a great show doth he make of his Greek. But if he be the Author of this pamphlet, that some report to be, then to my knowledge, he is not overstored either with Greek or Latin. And surely had he ever come to the passive voice of verbs in the Greek Grammar, and learned to decline 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with his breeches down about his heels, and a good sharp pedagogue doing justice upon his posteriors, he would ever after have taken heed, of playing such pranks as he hath in his childish treatise, wherein few things concern our present business; and in this tractate you may have matter sufficient to answer the Anabaptists, about the point of paedo baptism, and to seal up their lips too. But let us proceed. Say on, what else you have to allege. Anabaptist. Again, their being under the Covenant is not sufficient to give them the seal of Baptism. For if so, than those Jews in the second of the Acts, who were within the Covenant, might have been baptised all and wholly. But we find there, that though the Apostles preached unto the Nation of the Jews, yet none were baptised, but they that received the word gladly verse 41. So then we see, that their being within the Covenant (nor the Apostles preaching unto them) could give them the seal of Baptism, but it was their receiving and believing of the word. And so likewise of the Gentiles, the Promise of the Covenant did belong unto the Gentiles too, as well as to the Jews, yet I find not one example in all the book of God, where Jew or Gentile was baptised, but only upon their confession of Christ, and believing the Gospel. So that suppose we grant you, as much as you desire, which is, that we are under the Covenant, yet this is not sufficient to give us proper right unto the seals and privileges of the Covenant, until we come to believe and confess Jesus Christ. Answer. To be under the Covenant so, as to acknowledge Jesus Christ (the son of the Virgin Mary) to be the Messiah and Saviour of the world, was sufficient to give men right unto the Sacrament of Baptism. But the jews did not so, they denied the Holy One, and killed the Prince of life Acts 3.14.15. They looked upon Him, as one accursed, and hanged Him on a tree. And in this they renounced the Covenant, and did depose themselves, and their children from the title they had. Matth. 27.25. Those Jews were borne under the Covenant, and so accordingly were circumcised, but now in renounceing Christ, they did renounce the Covenant they had title to by birth, and so were not to have the new appointed seal of Baptism, till they should receive Christ Jesus. The old ministration (as it looked towards the Messiah to come) was now out of date, and to be done away, for the Messiah was come. And a new seal of entrance was set up, which might assure them that He was Lord and Christ whom they put to death. Acts 2.36, 37. They were now to acknowledge, that this was the Christ, and so to be baptised into His Name. A Saviour they did look for, and now this is Herald So then this fetch will not serve your turn. It proves firmly what is required of such as are to be made Christians, but it will not reach unto born Christians. That which is here spoken concerning examples, is but a repetition of what you said before, and there you are answered. Anabaptist. Again, you demand further of the Anabaptists, where their Commission is to baptise. As for the word [Anabaptists] we disclaim the sense of it, but as it is a slanderous reproach that is cast upon us for the cause of Christ, we therein rejoice in it. But to answer your demand thus; you would know where our Commission is, we answer from the Commission of Christ. Mat. 28.19 Where Christ bids His Disciples to teach all nations, to observe whatsoever He commanded them. Now He commanded to teach them before Baptism, and so the Disciples were to teach all nations to follow the like rule. Answer. I demanded whence you had your calling, or Ordination to baptise at all. Neither can you by the word of God justify your practice of preaching, and administering the Sacraments, for you have neither extraordinary calling immediately from God (as had John the Baptist, and the Apostles) nor ordinary (from any Presbytery) unto that weighty function, which the ablest and holiest servants of God have been afraid to venture upon. And for you to take your turns, and go on in course, as if it were a business for every Pedlar, and Tailor, lour, and Feltmonger to meddle with, argues clearly that you were never men of Gods sending, but have your Commission from the devil, and not from Christ (as we have noted before.) And now you tell me a tale of a Tub, that you derive your Commission from Matth. 28.19. where you say, that Christ bids His Disciples to teach all nations to observe whatsoever He commanded them. Where you would lay this foundation, namely, that if a man be a Disciple, than he may teach and baptise, and so the Ministerial function shall be no peculiar function. But if you look back upon the 16 verse of that chapter you shall finde, that the Disciples unto which Christ gave this Commission, were the eleven Apostles, called there by the name of the eleven Disciples. And therefore you belie the Lord, and pervert His word. And then you shuffle in your own confusions and glosses, as whatsoever the Apostles did in their ministration, all succeeding Churches, and Ministers must do, which is most false and impious. For (as we have showed before) there were some things belonging to the Apostolical ministration, that succeeding Churches must not look for like. And whereas you intimate, that the Apostles were to teach all nations to follow their practice, in teaching the persons to be baptised, before they admit them to Baptisine, herein you utter strange confusion. For all that you can conclude from the 20. verse, of Matth. 28. (which is, teaching them to observe whatsoever I command you) redounds only to this. viz. Teach them to observe whatsoever I command you to teach them: but not to this, viz. Teach them to observe whatsoever I have commanded you to do in your extraordinary and Apostolical ministration, that command them to do in their ordinary, and pastoral ministration. And yet your strict urging of the letter will necessarily redound to this, and so every ordinary Minister must plant foundations, have an unerring spirit, deliver a new canon of divine faith, and worship, and confirm their doctrine by miracles. And thus you see, how for want of distinguishing you bring your selves into straits, and puzzle the simple, which cannot discern the depths of Satan in you. And whereas you intimate that the cause of Anabaptists is the cause of Christ, you therein speak blasphemy. for your cause is the cause of the devil, and not the cause of Christ. And you corrupt and adulterate every text of Scripture that you allege for the maintenance of your tenants, which is not a note of Christ's Disciples, but a character of the devil's factours. Anabaptist. Further you affirmed in your first Sermon, that whatsoever was set up as an ordinance, in the worship of God, must have its warrant from Christ; so say we, and close with you, but the baptising of Infants, hath no express warrant from Christ, therefore may not be set up, as an ordinance. Answer. Your whole trade lies in shifting, and shuffling; and I think you as well understand what I said, as your A. R. understands Greek, But as that Grammarlesse Ass would wipe off a just aspersion, that is cast upon you, as if no Scholar would countenance your cause, or makes a great flourish with his Greek, and yet scarce ever learned his Greek Alphabet, so you make a great flourish with your Commission and warrant, as if in the name of Christ you would convent the whole world before your tribunal, and every truth (that Ministers do utter) must speak the language of an Anabaptist. What if I affirmed, that whatsoever was to be set up as an ordinance in the worship of God, must have its warrant from Christ? Doth this warrant your inference. viz. Baptising of Infants hath no express warrant from Christ, therefore no warrant from Christ at all. Your speech implies, as if you could not deny, but that there is warrant from Christ for baptising of Infants of Christians, but you would shift off the matter by calling for an express warrant. I thought that a general proposition had been enough to warrant its particulars. As; every man is a reasonable creature, ergò an Anabaptist is a reasonable creature. But haply though the Antecedent be true, yet the consequent will not hold. So likewise, all the children of the Church are baptised, or to be baptised, ergò Infants of baptised parents are baptised, or to be baptised. This consequence will hold with all reasonable men, but not with Anabaptists, ergo Anabaptists are no reasonable men. And thus in all your discourses you do nothing but toy and baffle. However I think your disputations to be as good, as your preaching, and fare more warrantable. I said that in that all power is given unto Christ by virtue of His glorious resurrection, therefore we are to set Him up as the Lord of our faith, and as our King and Lawgiver, and so yield unto Him divine worship and honour, obeying Him in all things that He shall say unto us. And all this is wholesome and good, but how well this doth warrant your inference, let all men judge. Anabaptist. If you ask, what become of Infants in the state of infancy, if they die before Baptism, which is a question, that many do ask, and therefore we thought good to answer it, thus; That we must commend them to God's free election, and extraordinary means of salvation. For a child is not capable of the ordinary dinary means, as the world, and Sacraments. Now the Apostle saith, that faith comes by hearing, and an Infant is not capable of hearing, so as to understand the word, and so consequently not of faith wrought by the ordinary means, and without faith we cannot please God; neither can we be saved. So then by the ordinary means that God hath appointed to bring men to salvation, we cannot judge Infants by this means to be saved. But children are, and may be saved, and therefore we leave them to God's extraordinary means, to bring them to heaven. Answer. Here you look upon me, as a man confuted in all his tenants, and standing almost mute, and having but a question or two, to propound unto his antagonist, even ready to subscribe unto the contradictories of his own conclusions. You have sat in Commission upon me, and found matters very foul on my side. By sound evidences of Scripture, and demonstrative reasons, you have answered all my arguments, and more you would if I had alleged them. And now to prevent future scruples, that might arise in my conscience, and to confirm me in your express way of pious sacrilege, you assoil another doubt, which might deter weak consciences from your Apostolical practice. The question (which here you unanswerably resolve, and which many have propounded unto you) is, what becomes of Infants that die unbaptised? And here you answer, that we must commend such Infants to Gods free election, and extraordinary means of salvation. And your reason for this is very pregnant, namely because such children are not capable of the ordinary means. Well, you say, that such children are saved by God's free election, as the cause. And for the means they are extraordinary. But what those extraordinary means are, we are as fare to seek, as if you had said nothing. I thought they had been saved by Christ and the spirit of grace, as the internal ordinary means of salvation, appointed of the Father for the salvation of His elect. But (I pray) are such Infants as you speak off, saved by regeneration, or without regeneration? If without regeneration such Infants are saved, and go to heaven, than flesh and blood may enter into the Kingdom of heaven, persons without regenerating grace, and so persons in their natural estate may be glorified, among the Saints in light. If by regeneration, than children are capable of regeneration in their infancy, and often are regenerated in their infancy, for they often die in their infancy, and go to heaven, by your own confession. Now if they are capable of regeneration in their infancy, than they are capable of Baptism (the seal of regeneration) in their infancy. And hence I form this enthymeme, viz. Children of baptised parents are regenerable in their infancy. Ergo Children of baptised parents are baptizable in their infancies. The consequence is sound, the antecedent may be thus evinced, viz. Such children in their infancy are oftentimes regenerated, Ergo Such children in their infancy are regenerable. Now let us compact, what you say, and what we say (touching this point) together, and contrive both into one entire Syllogism, and so meet as friends in the same conclusion, thus; viz. Such as go to heaven and are saved, are regenerated say we. But elect Infants that die unbaptised go to heaven, and are saved, say you, Ergo You as well as we must say that elect Infants which die unbaptised, are saved and regenerated. And this confutes your own conclusion, for regeneration is the ordinary means of salvation, and elect Infants that die unbaptised are saved by regeneration. And hence, thus I infer the contradictory of your conclusion, viz. Regeneration is the ordinary means of salvation. But elect Infants that die unbaptised are saved by regeneration, Ergo Elect Infants that die unbaptised are saved by the ordinary means of salvation. And this refutes you, and like a rod of iron dashes in pieces the earthen vessel of your chamption A. R. page 2.7. wherein in he seems to scoff at our thanksgiving for baptismal regeneration of Infants, whereas we may without blushing give God thanks for the regeneration of an Infant-christian after baptism, as for the regeneration of an alien after Baptism, that comes in upon the testimony of his faith. For charity is the ground of our thanksgiving here, and there. And for his exception drawn from the calling of our Ministers, that was needless, for if Infants are not capable of Baptism, then let the Ministers calling be never so right, their baptising of infants must be a nullity, and they should sinne in baptising of them. And so his discourse concerning dipping and sprinkling is also needless, for if children were dipped in their infancy, yet their Baptism must needs be invalide, because Infants. And so the Ass might have saved a great deal of labour, and kept to the point of paedobaptism, for the Anabaptists do simply oppose paedobaptism. not as ministered by such persons, nor as administered in such a manner, for they hold paedobaptism to be simply unlawful in itself. As for the controversy of the calling of Ministers, you may read Bradshaw against Johnson, and the Author of the book entitled the unreasonableness of the separation, a very precious book wherein Bradshaw deceased is vindicated against the calumnies of Can the Brownist. Also two worthy treatises of famous Mr Ball deceased, And lately Rutherford a famous and learned Scot, and many more which are not answered by any of the contrary party. And therefore for A. R. to speak at random, without refutation of these Authors, argues his purpose rather to calumniate, then to edisie and certify conscience. But to leave this senseless monster, either to repentance, or to the judgement of the great day, I return to you again. I tell you that all your redargutions are rather confirmations, than refutations unto me. And what misery is this; All the ablest Ministers in the land, are of my judgement about this point of paedobaptism, that the Prophecy of Clem. Writer the Factor might be fulfilled, saying, that its thought that Ministers should be the last men, in the Church of England, unto whom God would reveal this your light. And his reason is a very material one, because (said he) they know this light, but do hid it from the people, and will not hold it forth unto them. But to proceed. A child (say you) is not capable of the ordinary means of salvation. as the word and Sacraments. I answer, that a child indeed is not capable of Baptismal entrance into the Church by instruction, but what? Therefore not at all. I deny that consequence, for there is another way of baptismal entrance into the Church, and that is by birth as a Christian-borne, because borne of baptised parents: and of this baptismal entrance a child is capable. Thus you seem to argue: viz. The Word and Sacraments are the only ordinary means to salvation. But elect infants are not capable of the Word and Sacraments, Ergo Elect infants are not capable of the ordinary means of salvation. This is your natural sophistry, and both propositions are unsound, and liable to just exception. But to the major, we say, that the Word and Sacraments are not the only ordinary means of salvation; for there is Christ and the Spirit of Grace, which are ordinary means of salvation also. And elect infants that die unbaptised, are saved by Christ, and the Spirit of Grace. There are internall-ordinary means of salvation, as well as externall-ordinary means of salvation. And therefore, though your Logic hath made fools of yourselves, yet it cannot make fools of us. Thus we argue against your Paralogism and wicked fallacy, and we challenge you to answer us: viz. Christ and the Spirit of Grace are ordinary means of salvation. But elect infants that die unbaptised are saved by Christ and the Spirit of Grace, Ergo Elect infants that die unbaptised, the saved by ordinary means of salvation. Let elect infants die unbaptised, yet they are saved by Christ and the Spirit of Grace, and so (by necessary consequence) by ordinary means of salvation. There is no fallacy, nor sophistry in this Syllogism, and both propositions are undeniable; and we need no such shifts to maintain God's truths as you have, to put a colour upon your heresies. And this takes away your thick covering, whereby you went about to darken knowledge. Again you say, that an elect infant can have no faith wrought by the ordinary means: And this assertion is groundel too, upon a false supposition; for the outward ordinary means of faith are not the only ordinary means of faith. An elect infant may have faith by Christ, the Author of faith; and by the Spirit of Grace, the Spirit of faith; and Christ and the Spirit are ordinary means of faith. And of avail too, when the outward are wanting. But the outward are of no avail, where these are wanting. And that an elect infant that dies unbaptised hath faith, may thus be evinced. You say, That without faith we cannot please God, than such as please God have faith. Thus I argue then: viz. Such as please God, have faith. But elect infants that die unbaptised, do please God, Ergò Elect infants that die unbaptised, have faith. The proposition (I suppose) you will not gainsay; the assumption haply you require me to make good. Thus than I prove it: viz. Such as go to heaven, and are saved, do please God. But elect infants (say you) that die unbaptised, go to Heaven, and are saved, Ergò Elect infants that die unbaptised (say I) do please God. But haply you do not so much deny their having of faith, as their having of faith by ordinary means. That then I thus evince: viz. Christ and the Spirit of Grace are ordinary means of faith. But elect infants that die unbaptised have faith by Christ and the Spirit of Grace, Ergò Elect infants that die unbaptised have faith, by ordinary means of faith. And thus you see, that all is trash on your side, and mere juggling, and you can as well maintain your cause, as your title to the Crown of England. Anabaptist. And thus we have run over your chiefest arguments, at brief as we could. We desire you would not take it offensively from us, that we have been so tedious in writing unto you, for we could have been larger in many things, but that we were fearful of tediousness. And if there be any thing, wherein we are mistaken, we desire information, and we desire to submit to the judgement of judicious and reasonable men, whether your reasons be not answered. If you can overthrow clearly (by the Word of God) these answers, we will cry peccavi; if you cannot, we expect according to your former promises, that you should cry peccavi. Answer. You have run over my arguments indeed, but you have not refuted any one of them. They all stand unmoveable as Mount Zion, and the glory of the Lord is upon them. And as for your tediousness, that's not so offensive unto me, as your absurd reasonings. And for your mistakes, I have showed them unto you for your information. And if you will submit to judicious and reasonable men, so will I; And for this cause I have published this Treatise. And whether I have dealt unfaithfully with God's holy Word, either in my Sermons, or in this mine Answer to your Objections, I leave to the censure of the godly learned. And if you, or any of your side, can say any thing more, that is material against the point of Paedobaptism, I shall (by God's help) give you such satisfaction, whereby you (through God's blessing) shall be able to see, that they were from the Devil, and not from Christ, that led you into this way of rebaptising. Anabaptist. And thus we desire the Lord to add his blessing to our weak endeavours, as to persuade your hearts to embrace every truth of Jesus Christ, that as yet you oppose; and so likewise for ourselves. And thus we commend all to the disposing of Almighty God, in whom we rest. Answer. Your meaning is (perhaps) that I do oppose the way of the Anabaptists, and stand for Paedobaptism, and that herein I oppose a truth of Christ Jesus. If your meaning be this, your prayer is impious, and a taking of God's Name in vain. And you pray unto God to bless your wicked endeavours, in going about to persuade my heart, to embrace not a truth, but a lie. This proves evidently, that God is patiented, and that the Devil is impudent. And is this the good stuff that you would have to be read before the whole Congregation at Cranham, as you desire in your Postscript? Your desire is more than granted, you desired to have it as public as Cranham, and I have made it as public as England. It's now in a fair way to be read at London, at York, at Exeter, at Bristol, at Gloucester, at Worcester, and where not, as God shall direct it. And I hope my brethren will make it known to more Congregations than Cranham, for the information of God's people in the truth. I hope that was your end in desiring leave to have it read to the whole Congregation at Cranham, and not revenge on me for keeping wavering souls of that Congregation, from running into Severne after you. But now to your three Questions, which you subjoin as an appendix to your exceptions. 1. You demand What express warrant we have in Scripture for the baptising of Infants? Unto this we say, that the question savours more of curiosity, than of conscience. But seeing you may make bold (as you say) to propound this question unto me, and desire me to answer you punctually by the Scripture, or not at all. I make bold to urge you with one argument, and desire you to answer me, either by Scripture, or Right reason. Thus I argue in express answer to your demand and quaere. All persons known to be under the Covenant of Grace, are to have the Covenant put under the initial seal unto them by express warrant of Scripture. But all infants of Christians are known to be under the Covenant of Grace, Ergo All infants of Christians are to have the Covenant of Grace put under the initial seal unto them by express warrant of Scripture. Deny this Syllogism, or deny either proposition if you can. The major (I presume) you will not deny: The minor is as undeniable. But, if Lamb's blasphemy must pass for orthodox with you, that you will contradict. Thus therefore I make it good: If all Christian parents are under the Covenant of Grace, than all infants of Christian parents are under the Covenant of Grace. But all Christian parents are under the Covenant of Grace, Ergo All Infants of Christian parents are under the Covenant of Grace. Haply you will deny the sequel of the major proposition, but therein you will but show your ignorance, and irrational stupidity: For sequela ab indivisis est valida. Thus than I make it good; viz. If the Covenant of Grace joins parents and children together, as inseparable and immediate companions; then if all Christian parents are under the Covenant of Grace, all Infants of Christian parents are under the Covenant of Grace, all Infants of Christian parents are under the Covenant of Grace also. But the Covenant of Grace joins parents and children together, as inseparable and immediate companions; saying, I will be thy God, and the God of thy seed. Ergo If all Christian parents are under the Covenant of Grace, than all infants of Christian parents are under the Covenant of Grace also. And now answer, or give over your fooleries, nay sacrilegious practices, and impious dissolution of God's holy Covenant with his people, and their seed. A wickedness haply not so well seen of you, whom subtle heads seduce with good words, and fair speeches, the very method of the Devils agents: Rom. 16.17, 18. And thus we have shaken your triumphal argument, with which you have misled many an honest heart, the more is the pity: And it may be just with God to scourge this Nation for our too much connivance at you. High offences deserve sharper censures. And to forbear correction, is to dishonour God's image in Superiors, and to throw down Authority for Sedition to trample upon. If your way must stand, adieu Religion; and let us all turn Atheists. And so much for answer to your first quaere. 2. Your second question is, What Infants do receive in Baptism? Which question (as propounded by an Anabaptist) implies this blasphemy: viz. That Infants receive no benefit by baptism. But unto this quaere we say, that Infants of Christians, by baptism have the Covenant put under seal unto them, as their native privilege. The Covenant under which they were borne, makes them holy by birth. And Baptism under the Gospel is the initial seal of that holy Covenant. A seal by divine institution annexed unto that holy Covenant. And unto this determination we desire either your brotherly subscription, or rational dissension from the same. 3. Your third and last is, Why, and to what end we baptise Infants? And this is answered already, as in all our discourse, so in our answers to your two former questions. But further we say, 1. That infants of Christians are part of God's portion and inheritance, and therefore we will not let them lie in the cursed condition of aliens, but seal them into God's peculiar. For it were sacrilege to make those common, and unclean, which God hath set apart unto himself as holy. 2. For the children's good we consecrate them unto God's care, by baptising them into the name of the sacred Trinity. God the Father is now their father, and they are his children: God the Son is their Saviour, and they are his members: God the Holy Ghost is their Sanctifier, and they are his Temple. Ob. But you say, that the Covenant made them such before. Sol. True, and baptism is nothing but a putting of the Covenant under seal unto them. Ob. But you baptise all without difference; if you baptised only the elect, the matter were more tolerable. Sol. Though divers borne within the Church are reprobates, yet as they come one and one unto us, we cannot say, that this or that child is a reprobate: He may be an elect vessel for aught we know. And the adequate end of baptism administered, is not salvation of the baptised. The glory of God is the principal end, namely the glory of God's singular mercy in the salvation of his elect; and the glory of God's Justice in the unexcuse of the reprobate, as all outward ministrations in the Church serve for the glory of God's mercy and justice. We put them all under the initial seal of the Gospel, that they may be made subject to the Gospel, and be judged by the Gospel. For the secret of election and reprobation we leave that unto God. Their being borne under the holy Covenant, is sufficient to warrant our ministration. And to know who are elect, and who are reprobates, is no more needful to the ministration of baptism, than it was to the ministration of circumcision among the Jews; that being the initial seal of the same holy Covenant unto them, as baptism is now unto us. For they by circumcision were incorporated into Christ to come, by that type of Christ upon their flesh, and we by baptism are incorporated into Christ already come. And by our being washed with water in baptism, we are assured that Christ hath shed his blood to wash away our sins, and to make us clean in God's sight, and that that Jesus the Son of the Virgin Mary, which the Jews put to death under Pontius Pilate, (and hanged him on a tree) was the very Christ, and that we do depend on him alone for Salvation, and do look for no other Saviour. And now because you boast of a new light, which God in former ages hath not held forth to his Church, haply by this light you may answer Saint Augustine's argument against rebaptising Donatists, which none of your side could ever answer hitherto to this day. You say we have no true baptism in our Church, because our baptism is administered always to persons in their infancy. If no Baptism, than no Church, saith Saint Augustine, etc. But to apply his argument to our Church against you Donatists. If there be no Baptism in our Church, than no Church; if no Church, then whence had you your Church and Baptism. Show us your Commission to set up a new Church, and Baptism new. I wonder that your A. R. a man so throughly versed in the Fathers (as he would make his reader believe. page 2.) had not untied this knot. To say that Christ the head may be without a body for some time in this world, is Arminianism. For if the Church, and with it Baptism was lost, then for that time Christ had no body in this world. And to say that the Church was lost here, and not show that you have derived your Commission elsewhere, is to speak absurdly, and to deal wickedly. Show out of God's Word your Commission then, I say not to baptise believers, and persons grown up, but to baptise at all: Which Commission until you produce, I shall conclude that you are rather infatuated by the Devil, than inspired by the Holy Ghost. And now if you can reply any thing material, you shall (by God's help) be answered. But for your giddy fooleries and idle nonsense, I shall throw it aside among my waste papers. FINIS.