A LEARNED AND FULL ANSVVER TO A TREATISE INTITVLED; THE VANITY OF CHILDISH BAPTISME. Wherein the ſeverall Arguments brought to overthrow the lawfulneſſe of Infants Baptiſme, together with the Anſwers to thoſe Arguments maintaining its lawfulneſſe, are duly examined. As alſo The queſtion concerning the neceſſitie of dipping in Baptiſme is fully diſcuſſed: By William Cooke Miniſter of the Word of God at Wroxall in Warwickeſhire.
Printed and entred according to Order.
But Jeſus ſaid, Suffer little children and forbid them not to come unto me, for of ſuch is the kingdome of heaven.
LONDON, Printed by I. L. for Chriſtopher Meredith, at the ſign of the Crane in Pauls Church-yard. 1644.
THe reaſon prevailing with my deare friend, this Authour, to deſire me in his abſence, to direct this Treatiſe to your patronage, was partly to teſtifie his gratitude; as for many other favours, ſo eſpecially that you were the chiefe meane in opening a doore to him for the exerciſe of his Miniſterie: partly becauſe he could find in your ſelfe and faimily a great inſtance of that truth in this book aſſerted; I meane a gracious covenant made, and made good in your family, from parents to children, to ſeverall generations. And could any dedication fall out more happily then this, when you are not more a Patron to, then a Patterne of the truth herein publiſhed? As concerning the book it ſelf, I ſhall ſay no more to you of it then this; when your leiſure ſhall reſpite you ſo as to read it, you will not repent that you holpe the Authour of it into the worke of the Miniſtery. To others, who am I that I ſhould take upon me to adde any thing to its valew? nay it ſelfe will be its owne abundant commendation; I doubt not but it will find acceptance with all that love this truth, from ſome great Patrons whereof, it had, when a Manuſcript, an ample and full teſtimony: and for others, however it doe not find them ſuch, yet if they will read it impartially, I doubt not, but by Gods bleſsing, it will make them ſuch. Sir, all I have to doe in this buſineſſe is in the abſence of, and at the deſire of my deare friend to offer theſe his firſt labours to your favour, and patronage, being not a little glad I have this opportunitie to acknowledge the many great favours you have ſometime heaped upon my ſelfe, as alſo becauſe of them to teſtifie I am
WE ſhould not be ignorant of the wiles and methods of Satan,2 Cor. 2.11. who being a lyar and murderer from the beginning,Joh. 8.44. hath made it his perpetuall practiſe by lies to ſeeke the deſtruction of ſoules. His lies are of two ſorts; one ſort whereby he indevours to perſwade men to embrace falſhood as truth, to call evill good, and ſwallow down deadly poyſon as wholeſome food. The other, whereby he labours to perſwade men to reiect truth as falſhood, and call good evill, that ſo mens ſoules may be famiſhed for want of neceſſary nouriſhment. This he doth in matters of eſtate, practiſe, faith, and worſhip; and the more errour he can entangle us in, the ſtronger hold he hath of us. His principall endeavour therefore is to keep us in diſlike and deteſtation of all good, and love and delight in all evill. If he cannot prevaile ſo farre, he labours at leaſt to intangle the ſoule in one or two dangerous errours, that will bring certaine perdition. Many he detaineth in ſottiſh ignorance, groſſe profaneneſſe, and heatheniſh impiety; perſwading them that their eſtate, practiſe, faith, and worſhip is good enough, ſo that they can ſay, God is mercifull; Chriſt died for ſinners; they profeſſe the true religion, and plead that all forwardneſſe in religion, which exceeds their lazie ſtraine, is but curious preciſeneſſe, and needleſſe now fangled ſingularitie. Thus he prevailed with many, (to the grievous ſcandall of religion, and danger of their own ſoules) even in the Apoſtles times, as may appeare by the lamentable profanneſſe, errour, and ignorance in ſome Churches,See 1 Cor. Chap. 5. & 6.8. & 10. & 15. & 2 Ep. &c. •. eſpecially that of the Corinthians. If he cannot thus prevaile with ſome who leave their ſinfull courſes, and deſire in all things to pleaſe God, and to make their calling and election ſure; and in maters of faith, worſhip, and practiſe, to be guided by the truth; he will raiſe in them ſcruples that they may ever be queſtioning Gods love unto them, the truth of their grace, and the ſoundneſſe of their religion: ſo farre as to hold them downe with deſperate diſcouragements, and deepe perplexities, and cauſe them to denie Gods gratious worke in them. How many doth Satan in our dayes abuſe, by leading them to miſ-iudge of their eſtates? One partie ſitting ſecurely without queſtioning the condition of their ſoules in reſpect of God; as if all things were ſo well with them that they need nothing more. Another party on whom God hath ſhewed much mercy, yet ever doubting and queſtioning. So for matters of faith, practiſe, and worſhip; a great part is held in ſuch careleſneſſe that any religion will content them, that ſuites with their carnall ends, and they take up their religion without examining the grounds thereof. Others as much be abuſed on the other hand, who becauſe they ſee ſome things queſtioned and proved unſound that havs gone for currant: therefore will make bold not onely to queſtion, but alſo in their manner to declaime and diſpute againſt many lawfull, warrantable, well grounded, yea, and neceſſary truths, and practiſes, taught, enioyned, or approved in the Scripture. As for example, the moralitie of the Sabbath, yea the uſe of the whole Morall Law, ſubiection to the civill Magiſtrate; the lawfulneſſe of an oath, preſence and communion in Gods worſhip, where all things are not performed punctually according to their humour; yea humane learning (and what not?) have been cried down as Antichriſtian. Amongſt the reſt the baptizing of infants of Chriſtian parents is condemned. Concerning which they doe not make ſober inquiſition, as deſirous to try all things, and hold faſt that which is good; but earneſtly diſpute, uſe vehement aſſeverations, and carry on the matter with ſo great confidence and boldneſſe, together with citation of many Scriptures, and pretence of ſincere love and zeale to the truth; that poſſibly the hearts of ſimple and upright Chriſtians may be troubled, if not enſnared; which hath been the ancient practiſe of Satan by his inſtruments, (whether they were ignorant of what they did, or knowing, I ſay not) Act. 15. See the magiſteriall peremptorineſſe of thoſe falſe teachers. And how apt Gods people are to be troubled with words, or writings of this kind appeareth. In the ſame place, Act. 15. verſ. 2. & 2.4. & 2 Theſſ. 2.2. Our darke mindes and corrupt wils being farre more prone to errour and vice, then to truth and vertue. And how Satan will beſtirre himſelfe by his inſtruments, and make uſe of the ignorance, pragmaticalneſſe, pride and malice of ſome men this way, we may ſee, Gal. 3.1, 2, 3. Which things I having had ſome experience of, and meeting with a Pamphlet intituled, The vanitie of Childiſh Baptiſme, &c. by A. R. and hearing that ſome are drawn away to admire and imbrace the opinions therein maintained, and that others were unſatisfied concerning ſome things that are therein delivered: I was troubled to ſee that ſuch ſtumbling blocks ſhould be laid before Gods people; but not ſeeing a ſpeedy remedie procured, by that ſo much wiſhed and prayed for way of a Synod of Gods faithfull Miniſters, to conſider of thoſe things that trouble the Church according to that example, Act. 15. Neither having ſeene any thing purpoſely written upon this ſubiect; (Though of many the unfitteſt, in regard of want of abilitie, helps, and time, wherewith others abound) I inclined my thoughts to anſwer the maine Arguments that the Authour brings againſt the baptiſme of infants, and to vindicate our Arguments againſt the Obiections here made. Though I confeſſe, conſidering the groſſe and manifeſt errours, the fantaſticall conceits, the taunts, ſcoffes, and raylings, and evident abſurdities, wherewith the Booke is ſtuffed, (which ſhew with what a ſpirit the Authour was led) it may ſeeme unworthy an anſwer: yet becauſe there are ſome truths ſcattered therein, many Scriptures alledged, (though impudently perverted) and much zeale and confidence pretended; many iniudicious people may conceive there is ſome matter of weight and moment in it. Therefore untill God ſhall be pleaſed to ſtirre up ſome fitter more fully to handle this ſubiect (if this controverſie be not rather to be buried in ſilence for the abſurdneſſe of the Adverſaries opinions) I have undertaken by the aſſiſtance of God and rule of the Scripture to examine this Authour. In which examination I will not follow him in his extravagancies, and impertinencies; neither ſhall I (I hope) imitate him in his bold and confident, yet groundleſſe aſſertions; much leſſe in bitter taunts and reproachfull ſpeaches which he uſeth towards our Miniſters and Church: (If I ſometime ſet forth the ridiculouſneſſe and weakneſſe of his reaſoning; or retort on him his own language, to ſhew how much fitlier it agrees to himſelfe then thoſe on whom he beſtowes it; I conceive I have warrant in Gods word, Prov. 26.5. 1 King. 18.27.) But in the feare and as in the preſence of God, I will make triall of his principall reaſons and grounds, ſo farre as God ſhall enable me by the light of his holy word; not intending to defend all the Arguments which he undertakes to anſwer; nor to reply to all his Anſwers of Obiections, whereof ſome (whether invented of himſelfe, or obiected by others) I owne not, ſeeing ſometime the truth may be pleaded for upon unſound grounds. The truth I ſtand for; not the weake grounds. But I hope that whatſoever he obiecteth with any ſhew of reaſon or weight I ſhall ſufficiently anſwer; and lay down grounds for the defending of the truth that may ſatisfie any intelligent Reader that ſeeks the truth: So I come to his Preface to the Reader.
YOu ſay,A. R. that In your ſerious thoughts you minded diverſe places of Scripture, which evidently ſet out Baptiſme to be an undoubted pledge from God to all the right ſubiects to whom it is applied, of the free pardon of ſinnes, Mark 1.4. & 16.16. Act. 2.38. and 22.16. 1 Pet. 3.31.
Anſwer. Anſ. If in your ſerious thoughts you had compared what is ſaid of circumciſion, which is anſwerable to baptiſme, you might have found that it was to the Iewes, Gods Covenant,Gen. 17.10, 11. (which comprehends all the bleſſings of the covenant) Gen. 17.10. A token of the covenant, verſ. 11. A ſigne or ſeale of the righteouſneſſe of faith, Rom. 4 10. Rom. 4.10.And ſo doubtleſſe a pledge of the free pardon and remiſſion of ſinnes, which is comprehended in Gods covenant, and in the righteouſneſſe of faith. And yet circumciſion was adminiſtred unto infants as the right ſubjects thereof.
Secondly,A. R. Baptiſme is deſigned to beleevers onely upon their making profeſſion of faith and willing ſubmiſſion thereunto: this you ſay, you find, Matt. 18.19. Ioh. 3.22. compared with 4.1. Act. 2.41. & 18.12.37.38. & 18.8.
Anſwer. Anſ. Neither you nor any one elſe hath found in thoſe Scriptures, that onely actuall beleevers, and profeſſours of their faith ought to be baptized and none elſe. Where is I pray you the particle onely, or any thing equivalent thereto? None of thoſe precepts or examples limite Baptiſme for all times onely to ſuch: Though ſuch as beleeved and profeſſed the faith be there ſpoken of; will it follow that none elſe have right to baptiſme? The Diſciples are neither forbidden to baptize others but profeſſours of the faith; nor limited to thoſe onely, for ought that can be gathered from thoſe places. Abraham which firſt received the2 ſeale of circumciſion,Gen. 15.6. with Gen. 17.1, 2, 3, &c. and in his own perſon actually entred into Covenant with God, was endued with the righteouſneſſe of faith, having not as a meere patient, but as an agent accepted the Covenant. Will you thence inferre that onely ſuch ought to be circumciſed under the old Covenant, as had in their own perſons as agents accepted of Gods Covenant, and were endued with the righteouſneſſe of faith,Gen. 17.10, 11. whereof they were to make profeſſion? the Text will confute that inference. Yet your collection is no better from ſome examples of perſons of ripe yeers which were out of the new Covenant before, and were now to be brought under it. Who becauſe they muſt beleeve, and profeſſe their faith before they were baptized; therefore their children though borne of parents within covenant, may not be baptized untill they actually beleeve and profeſſe their faith. For as upon Abrahams beleeving and receiving the Covenant, and ſeale of circumciſion, his family was received into covenant, and all his males circumciſed: ſo we have plaine examples in the New Teſtament of Governours of families, who beleeving and being baptized, had their whole families baptized alſo; where yet there is no word of the faith and profeſſion of any beſides the Governours, as Act. 16.15. & 31.32, 33. 1 Cor. 1.16. as ſhall be ſhewed more fully hereafter, God willing, in due place.
A. R.Thirdly, you ſay, that The right ſubiects of Baptiſme are not to be meerly paſſive,Mat. 3.2.6. Mar. 1.5. Act. 22.16. Gal. 3.27. Col. 2.12. with 3.1. but to performe ſuch duties as are incompatible to infants, and perſons deſtitute of underſtanding.
Anſwer. Anſ. This holds true of thoſe that were to enter firſt into Covenant; as Abraham muſt not be circumciſed before he could in his owne perſon accept Gods Covenant and actually beleeve; but this was not neceſſary to his poſteritie that were borne in Covenant. The like was ſhewed of Baptiſme in the examples foregoing.
A. R.Whereas you ſay, Vpon theſe conſiderations you could not without unfaithfulneſſe to God and your owne conſcience, but ſuſpect your own baptiſme, &c.
Anſwer. I anſwer. It is not alwaies an argument of faithfulneſſe to God, to pretend to follow the dictates of conſcience; ſuch is the deceitfulneſſe of the heart, and erroneouſneſſe of conſcience; and ſo much ſelf-conceitedneſſe, and wilfulneſſe is in men, for which they will hypocritically pretend conſcience.
A. R.Whereas you ſay, You remaine unſatisfied by our ſtrongeſt Arguments,3 and are more confirmed thereby in your perſwaſion of the unwarrantableneſſ of the baptizing of infants.
Anſwer. Anſ. This doth no more make againſt a truth, that you are exaſperated to oppoſe by ſo much more, by how much more it is confirmed with Arguments; then the rebellion of our corrupt hearts (by ſo much more reſiſting the Law of God,Rom. 7.8. by how much more powerfully it is preſſed upon us) proveth the Law to be evill.
Whereas you talke ſo much of The invaliditie and inſufficiencie of our Arguments, your faithfulneſſe to God and your conſcience: I hope it ſhall appeare what fidelitie and conſcientiouſneſſe you ſhew in abuſing the Scriptures, and what ſufficiencie and validity there is in your arguments and objections in the following examination. As for your peremptory, raſh and arrogant cenſuring the baptiſme of children to be a meere device of man, introduced and maintained for politique ends by mans ſubtiltie: It is not much to be regarded, ſo long as we know that we muſt not ſtand to your ſentence at the laſt Day.
WE will come to your five conſiderations whereby you would prove that, That which is adminiſtred in the Church of England under the name of Baptiſme, is not the Baptiſme of the New Teſtament: and thoſe are, Firſt, the End. Secondly, the Manner. Thirdly, the Power. Fourthly, the Ground. Fifthly, the Subject.
FOr the End you lay down for granted: Firſt,A. R. that the end of childrens baptiſme in our Church is regeneration. Secondly, that this appeares by divers paſſages in the Liturgie, Thirdly, you adde4 the Doctrine or iudgement of divers Authours which iuſtifie the ſame, as you ſay. Fourthly, you reaſon from this and ſome other principles againſt us. This is the ſumme of your firſt Argument, which at large to ſet downe were tedious and endleſſe.
Anſwer. Anſ. Though I will not go about to defend every expreſſion in the Liturgie, or the Authours brought by you: yet I may well deny, firſt, your propoſition as you expreſſe it: ſecondly, I deny alſo that the reaſons brought by you from the Liturgie, and Authours prove that in our Church the end of baptizing is regeneration, ſo that the act of baptizing ſhould regenerate the child.
But to come to your propoſition. If your meaning be that the end of our baptizing is properly to regenerate; as if our Church uſed baptiſme that they may (ex opero operato, as the Papiſts ſay) conferre grace and regeneration, it is a ſlander to ſay it. If you meane that they uſe it for this end that it may be a pledge, ſigne, ſeale, or confirmation of regeneration; or to ſpeake brieflier, that we uſe it ſacramentally to regenerate, or myſtically to waſh away ſinne, we avouch it; and this we beleeve is the right end of baptiſme, as you grant, viz. A pledge of the pardon of ſinne, which implies regeneration, ſo Rom. 6.3, 4. Mar. 1.4. Act. 22. &c. And in this ſenſe thoſe expreſſions in the Liturgie, and Authours may be warranted (if they intended any more let them anſwer for themſelves) as being agreeable unto the Scripture phraſe in ſacramentall matters. Exod. 12.1.12.13. Gen. 17.11, 12. Matt. 26.26.28. 1 Pet. 3.21.As the Paſchall Lambe was called the Paſſeover, though but a ſigne, pledge, or memoriall of the Angels paſſing over and ſparing the Iſraelites. Circumciſion is called the Covenant, though but the ſigne or token of the Covenant. Bread and Wine in the Supper, the Body and Bloud of Chriſt, though but ſignes and ſeales thereof. Baptiſme ſaveth us, though it be but a pledge, ſigne, or ſeale of our ſalvation. And why may not the ſame be ſaid to regenerate us, as well as to ſave us? Is not regeneration the beginning and alſo part of our ſalvation? Doth not the whole comprehend the part? And therefore we may and ought to pray for the regeneration of infants to be baptized, (that if begun, it may be continued, increaſed, ſealed, and perfected: if not, that it may be wrought in Gods due time; ſo that baptiſme may have its efficacie.) And give thanks that God hath given the ſeale of regeneration, and ſolemnly admitted them into that Covenant wherein he hath promiſed, the bleſſing it ſelfe.
5Let us ſee now what uſe you will make of this, that we hold infants baptized to be regenerated, viz. ſacramentally, as we have interpreted our meaning: whence you gather
That all infants baptized muſt be neceſſarily ſaved;A. R. which is acknowledged an abſurditie even by our Miniſters which call upon baptized perſons to repent, and preach regeneration unto them: Or elſe (ſay you) we ſhall be forced to leave our other principle, which we hold againſt the Pelagians, Papiſts, and Arminians. Namely, that True ſaving grace can never totally, or finally be loſt: And that they which have beene regenerate can never utterly fall away. This is the ſumme of your reaſoning wherein you are very large, as having gotten us at an advantage, in your conceit.
Anſwer. Anſ. Will any man ſay, that all that were baptized by Peter, or to whom baptiſme was applied in his time (of which he ſaith,1 Pet. 3.21. that it ſaveth) were certainly ſaved? Or that it was an abſurd thing to preach regeneration or ſalvation after baptiſme? Or that this doctrine, that baptiſme ſaveth or burieth with Chriſt, &c. is inconſiſtent with that other doctrine concerning the perſeverance of the Saints, ſeeing ſome of thoſe that were baptized in the Apoſtles time fell away and periſhed? Or in your baptiſme (if you uſe any) which you profeſſe is a pledge of the remiſſion of ſinnes; are all certainly pardoned? Or need you never to preach repentance and regeneration to them? If ſo, belike you are happier maſters to your diſciples, then Chriſt was to his.
And ſeeing now you thinke you have got our learned Divines (as you ſcoffingly call them) at an advantage, and follow them ſo eagerly with your horned argument, as if your blow were unavoidable,comparing your ſelfe to Chriſt, and them to the Scribes and Phariſees,Matth. 21.23. Let us try whether you would not by this Argument, baffle and nonplus the Prophets, Apoſtles, and Chriſt himſelfe. For this your Argument holds as ſtrongly againſt them as againſt us, who teach no other thing in ſaying that baptiſme regenerateth, and true grace can never be loſt (though ſome baptized periſh) then what we have received from Chriſt, the Prophets, and Apoſtles. Might you not as well have taken up Nathan for preaching unto David,2 Sam. 12. to bring him unto repentance and converſion. Why, what needs this Nathan? David received circumciſion the ſeale of the righteouſneſſe of faith, and of circumciſion of his heart in his infancie,Rom. 4.11. and had the ſpirituall grace beſtowed on him effectually; and muſt he now6 be regenerate and borne againe? And why ſhould David himſelfe upon Nathans exhortation and reproofe,Pſal. 51.10. pray that God would create in him a cleane heart, and renew a right ſpirit within him? (which, what elſe is it but the renewing of the worke of regeneration?Ezek. 18.21. Jer. 4.4.) Why ſhould the Prophets exhort the Iews to make them new hearts, and circumciſe their hearts, though they had received circumciſion? What would Nathan, David, and the Prophets have anſwered this ſubtill diſputant if he had examined them thus?
Or if you had been living in Pauls time, when he called upon the Romanes,Rom. 12.2. 2 Cor. 5.17. Epheſ. 4.23. & 24. Gal. 4.19. Rom. 6.3. Gal. 3.27. Corinthians, Epheſians and others, to repentance and renovation; to put off the old man, to put on the new man, to become new creatures, to be renewed in the ſpirit of their mind; profeſſing that he travelled to forme Chriſt in them againe. Belike this learned Divine (to uſe your phraſe) Paul would ſoone have beene daſht, if you had but riſen againſt him. Why, what's the matter Paul? Did not you teach that ſo many as have beene baptized into Chriſt, have put on Chriſt, are buried with him in baptiſme? What? have they put off Chriſt? riſen againe to ſinne?Rom. 8.38, 39. Phil. 1 6. Rom. 11.29. fallen away from grace, &c. This will not ſtand with your doctrine; that nothing ſhall ſeparate from Gods love; that God will perfect the good work which he hath begun; that the gifts and callings of God are without repentance. Therefore you were deceived in ſaying that Chriſt is put on in baptiſme; or in teaching that men cannot fall away from grace.
Or if you had had Peter in hand when he called Simon Magus to repentance, Act. 8, 22. though he had been baptized; you would belike have leſſoned Peter better. Why, what needs this Peter? Didſt not thou teach that baptiſme ſaveth, and is he that was ſaved even now damned againe?1 Pet. 3.21. ſure thou waſt miſtaken when thou ſaidſt baptiſme ſaveth; or when thou ſaidſt that the faithfull are preſerved by the power of God through faith unto ſalvation,1 Pet. 1.5. ſith Simon that awhile agoe beleeved and was baptized, hath need now to repent, as being in the gall of bitterneſſe, and bond of iniquitie.
Thus if you had diſputed, learned Peter and Paul belike had beene in great ſtraits what to have anſwered. It was well for them that none of theſe acute Anabaptiſts (as they are called) were ſprung up in thoſe dayes. One more inſtance I will bring. 7Our bleſſed Saviour preacheth unto his Diſciples neceſſitie of converſion, and becoming as little children,Matth. 18.3. as they would enter into the kingdome of heaven. Yet elſewhere he ſaith,Joh. 3.35. Except a a man be borne againe of water and the holy Ghoſt, he ſhall in no wiſe enter into the kingdome of God. Thereby (as you gather) aſſuring us that if a man be regenerate and borne againe, he ſhall ſee the kingdome of God. But I conceive you will not deny but the Diſcipcles had already beene borne againe by water and the holy Ghoſt. Sure in this caſe had you beene in his time you would have more troubled him with your Dilemma, then an hundred of the Scribes and Phariſees with all their Sophiſtrie. What? To teach that being borne againe by water and the holy Ghoſt,Joh. 10.28. they ſhall certainly enter into the kingdome of God: And that none ſhall pluck them out of his hands being given him of the Father: And yet now threaten them with the loſſe of the kingdome of heaven, unleſſe they ſhall be converted, become as little children? (which, what elſe is it but to be regenerate?)
Doe you thinke that this your arguing would have perſwaded the world that Chriſt was a falſe witneſſe of God? When your reaſoning thus againſt the Prophets, Apoſtles, and Chriſt himſelfe, ſhall be found unanſwerable, we ſhall be forced to yeeld unto you; but untill then we (who in this point have their doctrine for our warrant; That though Baptiſme ſave and regenerate, yet baptized perſons have need to be called upon to repentance and regeneration) need not to regard your bold, and confident aſſeverations.
I have the largelier ſet forth the manner of your reaſoning, only changing the perſons, (if it may be) to make you ſee your weakneſſe; if not, to make others aſhamed of their ſimplicitie which admire ſuch diſputers. You would not have reaſoned ſo, if you had conſidered: Firſt, that notwithſtanding ſome abuſe baptiſme, yet that hinders not but in regard of Gods inſtitution, baptiſme may be ſaid to regenerate or ſave. And ſo ſecondly, that they which have received baptiſme according to Gods appointment, as farre as we can diſcerne, may be ſaid to be regenerated and ſaved, viz. ſacramentally. Thirdly, that baptiſme is adminiſtred to the members of the Church; not onely as a pledge of remiſſion of ſinnes paſt, upon ſuppoſition of repentance and faith; but alſo of ſinnes to come; being both an obligation to us daily to renew our faith and repentance, and an aſſurance unto us, that upon8 the performance of that condition God will pardon; in ſo much that our regeneration, viz. ſacramentall in baptiſme is a main ground, why Miniſters ſhould call upon us being baptized to manifeſt our regeneration in our lives, ſeeing God hath given us the ſeale of regeneration to aſſure us of the grace it ſelfe, if the fault be not in our ſelves; and to bind us to repentance that we may be partakers of the remiſſion of ſinnes; and hence the Apoſtle urgeth converſion or ſanctification from baptiſme before received. Rom. 6.So that if in Chriſts and the Apoſtles time the baptized had need to be called to repentance or regeneration, though baptiſme ſaved and buried with Chriſt: what abſurditie is it if our Miniſters call to repentance, and regeneration, thoſe that were regenerated in baptiſme in the forenamed ſenſe? For even in the beſt times ſome that had profeſſed, and beene baptized, had done it unſoundly and hypocritically, and ſo had need to be called unto ſinceritie: whereunto when they were brought, their baptiſme though received in time of hypocriſie, ſhould be a pledge of the remiſſion of ſinnes;Act. 8. as in Simon Magus whom Peter bids to repent, but not to be baptized againe. Secondly, others might have the truth of grace and regeneration, and yet not give ſo cleare teſtimonie thereof to themſelves and others as was to be deſired. Thirdly, thoſe that had truely repented and beleeved, might have fallen and need to be reſtored. Fourthly, the beſt by ſuch exhortations are kept watchfull. None in this life are ſo fully regenerated or converted, but they need additions and increaſe. So that your conſequences that you draw againſt us from our principles are frivolous.
A. R.Now let us come to your anſwer to our Objections as you pretend: You ſay, that To ſophiſticate by ſome diſtinction, leſt all our gaine by this trade ſhould be taken from us; and as all the people gave care to Philip; ſo all the people ſhould give care to us, and ſo our kingdome ſhould be at an end: we uſe this diſtinction, that they are onely holy in the judgement of charitie, of the Church eſteemed regenerate; neither are any required to beleeve them to be regenerate as an Article of faith, but in the judgement of charitie: and then you ask, What is the ground of this our charitie?
Anſwer. Firſt, I would deſire to know, Whether the Baptiſme which you adminiſter regenerates and ſaves, or no. (I meane ſacramentally, for we ſay ours regenerates) If no, then it is not the Baptiſme that Chriſt & his Apoſtles uſed,1 Pet. 3. for Peter ſaith, it ſaved;9 Paul ſaith, it buried with Chriſt. If yea,Rom. 6. whether you beleeve that all that are baptized of you, are certainly regenerate and ſaved, or no; and then tell us, what is the ground of your beliefe.
Secondly, Whereas you diſlike this diſtinction, you ſhould have demanded of Peter and other the Apoſtles and Evangeliſts (that baptized ſome hypocrites no doubt, witneſſe Simon Magus, Ananias, Saphira, &c. and yet held that Baptiſme ſaveth and burieth with Chriſt) whether they held that theſe who received Baptiſme were ſaved and buried with Chriſt in the judgement of certaintie or charitie, and then you might have demanded a ground of that their judgement: And ſeeing you arrogate to your ſelf ſuch skill in Scripture, tell us what was Peters ground in ſaying Baptiſme ſaveth, when yet many that were baptized were damned; and what anſwer you ſhall make to this queſtion, haply may ſerve to anſwer your own queſtion to us.
Thirdly, We anſwer directly. Our ground on which we build this charitable opinion, (viz. that Baptiſme regenerateth ſacramentally; or that infants of Chriſtian parents baptized are regenerate) is Gods word. For doth not the Scripture tell us, that God is the God of the faithfull and of their ſeed, that he hath taken them into Covenant? Gen. 17.7.10.Thus God promiſed unto Abraham the father of the faithfull, not as any priviledge peculiar unto him; but as the common priviledge of all in covenant, and therefore proſelytes of what nation ſoever upon their entring into covenant had their children taken into covenant likewiſe. Again,Exod. 12.48. Act. 2.36. 1 Cor. 7.17. the promiſe is made not onely to the faithfull, but alſo to their children. Hence it is, that the children of beleeving parents are holy. Which places of Scripture ſhall in due place (God willing) be vindicated from your groundleſſe exceptions. Now whoſoever is in covenant with God, hath God for his God, hath the promiſes belonging to him, and is holy, muſt needs be regenerate, as he is in covenant, hath God for his God, &c. And therefore ſeeing that children are in the ſame condition with their parents (or thoſe that are in ſtead of their parents) in reſpect of outward covenant (which is all the ground we have for judging others;) So that if the parent be in covenant, the child remaines ſo untill by his own perſonall infidelitie and apoſtaſie he diſcovenant himſelf: if the parent be out of covenant, the child remaines ſo, untill by his own perſonall faith, he accept and enter into covenant. Hence it follows, if we have ſo much ground for our judgement10 of charitie, to hold that the parents are regenerate, as the Apoſtles had for thoſe whom they baptized, which was no more then their profeſſion of faith and repentance; we have the ſame ground for our judgement concerning the regeneration of their children. viz profeſſion of faith and repentance made by their parents; though we may oft be deceived in parents and children, and no marvell, even the Apoſtles themſelves were deceived: for they doubtleſſe baptized many hypocrites.
As for your other objections, whether fained by your ſelf and fathered on us, or found in any writings on our ſide; they are not worthy defending, nor your anſwer unto them worthy a reply. Who ſay, that The meere election of infants, whether all or ſome, is the ground of our baptizing them, or beleeving them to be regenerate. If any ſay ſo, let him anſwer for himſelf. But our ground, as hath been ſhewed, is the externall being in covenant; whereby they have right to the ſeale of initiation; which is not without its efficacy unto al; though ſome (whether they receive it in infancy or ripeneſſe) by their own fault may render it unprofitable to themſelves. Therefore your frivolous inferences have no place here, as that, Al men & women in the world are to be baptized: for all are not outwardly in covenant. And as for your confident aſſertion, that Faith manifeſted by the confeſſion of the mouth, is the only ground of Baptiſme to the elect, (if you meane it of the profeſſion of faith of the perſon to be baptized) it is not proved by thoſe Scriptures you alledge,Act. 8.37. Rom. 14.23. (as hath been partly ſhewed already, and God willing ſhall be ſhewed more fully hereafter) unleſſe you will make the Eunuches Baptiſme with all its circumſtances, a neceſſary rule to be followed by all to be baptized. So much may ſuffice to be anſwered to your firſt conſideration.
LEt us come to your ſecond conſideration, taken from the manner of the adminiſtration of Baptiſme. A. R.You ſay; The manner in which Baptiſme is adminiſtred in our Church is by ſprinkling or caſting a little water on the head or face. And your poſition that you oppoſe againſt us is this. Chriſts inſtitution requires that the whole man be dipped all over in the water. Hence your argument is this; The manner of the uſe of water muſt be either11 by infuſion or dipping. But Iohn the Baptiſt or Dipper, uſed the water by putting the party into the water, not by infuſing or ſprinkling water upon the party, as is proved, Matth. 3.7. 〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.I indeed baptize you in water, Mark 1.8. I indeed have baptized you in water, Ioh. 1.26. Act. 11.16.
Anſwer. Anſw. We will try how ſubſtantiall this reaſon is. Whereas you ſay; The uſe of water muſt be either by infuſion or dipping: In ſome ſenſe this is true, namely, if it be taken by way of enumeration, not of oppoſition; for Baptiſme which ſignifies waſhing, is done by applying the water to the party baptized or waſhed; But water is ordinarily applyed the one of theſe two wayes. viz. either by dipping or ſprinkling. In this ſenſe we grant your propoſition is true: viz. that Baptiſme muſt be either by dipping or infuſion, and ſo that it be either way it is ſufficient. But you take it not in this ſenſe, as may appeare by the manner of your reaſoning; for by the affirmation of the one, you inferre the deniall of the other; and if you ſhould take it in this ſenſe, it would make againſt your ſelfe, and overthrow your own argument. Therefore it appears you take it by way of oppoſition, and ſo we utterly deny it as falſe. Your reaſoning is like this, We come to the knowledge of Chriſt by reading the Scriptures, or hearing the word preached. Joh. 5.39.But Chriſt bids the Iewes to ſearch the Scripture, viz. by reading, that they might come to the knowledge of him. Therefore not by hearing the word preached. Or like this, The Miniſter muſt preach either ſitting or ſtanding. But Chriſt preached ſitting. Matth. 5.1. &c.Therefore Miniſters may not preach ſtanding. Or this, We muſt pray either ſtanding, or kneeling, or ſitting, or lying, &c. But Chriſt ſaith, when you ſtand praying. Mark. 11.25.Therefore it is not lawfull to pray with any other geſture but ſtanding. Who ſeeth not the weakneſſe of this reaſoning? yours is no better.
But to come to your aſſumption. But Iohn the Baptiſt or Dipper (as you ſay, according to the Dutch) did uſe the water: By putting the partie into the water, not by inſuſing or ſprinkling, Mat. 3.11. Mar. 1.8. Ioh. 1.26. Act. 11.16.
Anſwer. Anſw. Firſt, None of theſe places prove that Iohn put the partie into the water, much leſſe that the whole man was dipped all over in the water, which you undertooke to prove; But here is not the leaſt intimation of any ſuch matter.
Secondly, Whereas you gather from the Originall: that Iohn12 baptized in the water, and dipped the whole man all over in the water, and put the party into the water, you might as well ſay, that Chriſt baptized in the holy Ghoſt, and fire, and that he dipped the whole man all over in the holy Ghoſt and in the fire,Act. 11.6. Matth. 3.11. 〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. or put the party into the holy Ghoſt and fire; (which were a ſtrange interpretation) for the particle is the ſame.
Thirdly, Whereas you gather hence [A Baptiſme in water] not [a Baptiſme with water] I would have you tell me what were they baptized or waſhed with if not with water? as if there were an irreconcileable repugnancy between baptizing in water, and baptizing with water.
But that〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉doth not neceſſarily ſignifie [in,] you grant in our objection,〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. which you propound thus,〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉doth ſignifie [with] ſometime as in Revel. 19.21. And the reſt were ſlain with the ſword. Whereunto I might adde that not onely in this place, but frequently in the New Teſtament, the particle〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉(by an Hebraiſme) anſwering the prefixe ב ſignifies as well with as in. Matth. 5.13.〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. with (not in) what ſhall it be ſalted, Matth. 7.2. with (not in) what judgement. Act. 26.18. with (not in) the ſanctified. You anſwer this objection thus.
" 〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉is never taken for [with] after baptizo.
Reply. I reply. That is the thing in queſtion. And I would demand whether you thinke that our Tranſlatours, (and moſt or all others) who have Engliſhed it [with] knew not how to render the Originall in its proper ſignification as well as your ſelfe? Beſides theſe forementioned places,Mat. 3.11. Act. 11.19. ſpeaking of Chriſts baptizing with the holy Ghoſt and with fire, cannot be otherwiſe Engliſhed with any ſenſe.
Your peremptory deniall of〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉to ſignifie [with] after〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, you would confirme thus. Either the word Baptizo muſt ſignifie to ſprinkle, or the word〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉muſt not ſignifie [with.] But the word baptizo doth ſignifie to dip. Ergo, the word〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉muſt ſignifie [In] and not [with,] as is proved very clearely, and denyed of none who are not ignorant of the language.
Anſw. As for this your Syllogiſme, it ſhews your Clarklineſſe wherewith you ſcoffingly taunt our Miniſters. It is notoriouſly fond, it wants forme, hath foure termes: In the aſſumption you put [to dip] in ſtead of [not to ſprinkle,] as if one word might not ſignifie to dip and ſprinkle both. There is no neceſſitie in the propoſition. Your aſſumption wherein you ſay (But baptizo13 ſignifies to dip) if it be taken excluſively, as to debarre all other ſignifications (which it muſt, or elſe it is brought to no purpoſe) is falſe. Whereas in your concluſion, you ſay〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉muſt ſignifie [in] and not [with] which you ſay is denied by none, who are not ignorant of the language.
Anſwer. Anſw. What fond arrogancy this is, I ſhall make appeare by and by. But let us heare this criticall Linguiſt prove what he ſaith from the ſignification of the Greek word.
Anſwer. Anſw. Bapto indeed ſignifies Mergo or Tingo. 〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.Baptizo is a derivative that cometh thence, which ſometimes may ſignifie the ſame with its primitive. But if we look into the uſe of it in the New Teſtament, we ſhall finde it rendred, To waſh; where the Originall word to Baptize is not kept. as Mark. 7.4. And when they come from the market they eate not except they waſh. — The waſhing of cups and of pots, and of brazen veſſels, and of beds or tables. Again, verſ. 8. The waſhing of pots and cups. Here you have the verbe Baptizo to waſh, and the noune Baptiſmos, waſhing. And that this is the proper ſignification of the word may appeare (aaBez Lotiones Arias Mon. lotiones. vul. Baptiſmata. beſide the conſent of Tranſlatours) in that it is uſed as ſignifying the ſame thing with the other words, that alwayes ſignifiesaaBez Lotiones Arias Mon. lotiones. vul. Baptiſmata. waſhing, as verſ. 2. bb〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.With unwaſhen hands, and verſ. 3. bb〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.Waſh their hands. By which it appeareth, that〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉and〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉ſignifie the ſame thing. So Hebr. 9.10. And divers waſhings, where the Apoſtle ſpeaketh of the legall waſhings. So Luk. 11.38. The Phariſee marvelled that Chriſt had not waſhed before dinner. So that the word ſignifies properly to waſh, whether by infuſion or immerſion it matters not.
But ſhould we grant Baptizo and Bapto, to be altogether of the ſame ſignification (though the contrary have been ſufficiently proved,) what will you gain thereby? 〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉ſignifies, either mergo or tingo. Mergo ſignifies properly, to drown, overwhelm, ſwallow up, &c. If you will have your converts (according to this interpretation) ſo baptized as to drown them; you will make ſure work to prevent their ſinning any more. And ſo your Baptiſme will have a priviledge above the Baptiſme of Chriſt, Iohn or the Apoſtles; for their converts and baptized ones ſinned14 after Baptiſme. But if you will have Baptiſme taken and uſed in this ſenſe, I know none that will be your diſciples, unleſſe they be weary of their lives. The other word Tingo ſignifies to dip orccDan. 4.12. &c Interpreters render the word〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉which in ſound hath great affinitie with〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, ſome letters being tranſpoſed, by Intingitur. Iun. & Trem. Ar. Mon. Buxtorf. our Tranſlatours render it, to be wet. Where Intingo, cannot ſignifie to douſe over head, or to dip, but to beſprinkle or bedew, for it follows — with the dew of heaven. beſprinkle, to embrue, ſtain, wet, or waſh, &c. Now what reaſon is there, why it ſhould be reſtrained onely to the firſt ſignification? Nay if we compare Scriptures, we ſhall finde that what is rendred by ſprinkling in the Old Teſtament is expreſſed by this word〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉in the New. As if we conferre theſe two places, Rev 19.13. and Eſa. 63.3. In Rev. 10.13. Anddd〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉ſparſus, aſperſus, inſperſus fuit. vel active, aſperſit. 〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉conſperſus, tinctus, madefactus. Bez. veſte tincta ſanguine. Ari. veſtimention tinctum. Vulg. veſte asperſa. he was cloathed with a veſture (dipt) in blood, So our Tranſlatours, (or rather ſprinkled, ſo we,) Eſa. 63.3. Their blood ſhall be (ſprinkled) on my garments; To which place of Eſay it is certain that the holy Ghoſt in the Revelation alludes (that I ſay not that it may be a repetition of the ſame propheſis, pointing at the ſame time and thing) as it may appeare by the ſame ſimilitude of treading the wine-preſſe of Gods wrath, largely proſecuted in both places. See Eſa. 63.1 With dyed garments, verſ. 2. Red in his apparell, &c. verſ. 3. I have trod the wine preſſe, and compare Rev. 19. v. 15. &c. So that it is evident, that〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉doth expreſſe the ſame that was meant by〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉and〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Though our Tranſlatours render it dipped, becauſe the word in the Originall ſignifies either dipped or ſprinkled equally; Yea, Beza uſeth a word that equally ſignifies dipped or ſprinkled. So Arias Montanus. But the vulgar tranſlation hath a word that onely ſignifies beſprinkled, not dipped.
But you ſay. That Baptizo ſignifies, to dip, plunge, douſe over head, &c. is proved by Chriſts own Baptiſme. Andee〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. he was baptized into the Iordan. Mark 1.9. But it is not, the water was put upon him, as in ſprinkling the water is put on the partie.
Anſw. 1. Neither is it, he was dipped, plunged, douſed over head, or under the water, &c.
2. The force of your argument lyes in this particle〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which you will needs have tranſlated [Into] not [In.] But can you, who cenſure others for their ignorance of the language, be ignorant that [〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] ſignifieth very frequently In or by, not Into? as Matth. 2.23. ff〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.He dwelt in [not into] a citie called Nazareth. Matth. 4.13. He dwelt in [not into] Capernaum. Matth. 5, 45. Neither by the earth, neither by Ieruſalem,〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉&〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, are put in the ſame ſignification there. Matth. 10.9. Neither poſſeſſe money15 in [not into] your purſes. and 41. 〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.In [not into] the name of a Prophet. Matth. 13.33. She hid it in [not into] three meaſures of flower, &c. Thus you ſee〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉ſignifying in, ſo that it were abſurd to render it into, and ſo you have proved nothing for your purpoſe from the particle.
"You adde the teſtimonie of our Tranſlatours themſelves. For which I anſwer. Matth. 26.23. and Mar. 14.20. 〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉&〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, have the prepoſition ſet before them, which alters the ſignification and reſtrains it to ſignifie Dipping, in which ſignification the ſimple Verbe that we are about is not reſtrained unto. From Luk. 16.24. Ioh. 13.26.〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. you prove nothing but what we willingly grant without this labour; namely, that bapto ſometimes ſignifies to Dippe. But thence it followes not that it ſignifies ſo alwaies, or onely. Of〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Revel. 19.13. and the difference betweene Bapto, and Baptizo, I have ſpoken before. And here you confirme what I ſaid, and contradict your ſelf. For ſaying that in no Greek Authour, nor Scripture written by the Apoſtles in that Language, can be found that they differ:Mark. 7.4.Immediately you bring a place where Baptizo is taken in a ſenſe different from Bapto, which you never ſhewed, not have I read to ſignifie, to Waſh. So that you pull down with your owne hands, what you have beene building all this while. See before what hath beene ſaid to that place, where mention is made of ſuch a waſhing, as is ſo farre from neceſſarily implying dowſing into the water onely, that it will ſcarcely admit it as waſhing themſelves when they come from the market, and the waſhing of Beds or Tables. What you adde,That waſhing of cups, is putting cups into the water:is as true as waſhing hands or face is putting them into the water. May not cups be as well waſhed by infuſion of water in and upon them; as by putting them into the water?
Your conjecture from Ioh. 3.23. is as frivolous. As if there could be no reaſon why Iohn ſhould chuſe a place where were many waters, but this, that he might dip the whole man into the water, plunge and douſe them over head, or under water, (as your expreſſions are) But no ſuch reaſon is here expreſſed, nor ſo much as intimated. Rather the cauſe ſeemes this. Becauſe in thoſe hot countreys waters were rare,Gen. 21.15.19. Gen. 26.18. Judg. 1.15. and in ſome places could not be had in a great diſtance: therefore Iohn choſe places where were continuall running waters and ſtreames: eſpecially, ſeeing16 there came ſuch huge multitudes unto him to be baptized,Mat. 3.5, 6, 7. and it is more then probable that not onely Iohn, but alſo his diſciples baptized, as Ioh. 4.1, 2. Chriſt is ſaid to baptize thoſe whom his diſciples baptized: So Iohn may be ſaid to baptize thoſe whom he and his diſciples baptized together, a long the river at ſeverall places of the river, that they might make more ſpeedy diſpatch, with ſo great multitudes. Act. 2.41. Act. 16.15.33.Neither is it true that you ſay; A little font will ſuffice to beſprinkle a whole world with handfuls. Moreover, we reade of great multitudes baptized, even three thouſand in Ieruſalem, without mention of going to the rivers; and of whole families, without mention of going out to the waters, or fetching great ſtore of waters. It is like the waters they had within doores at midnight ſufficed.
Act. 8.38, 39.Your Collection from Philips going down to the water with the Eunuch, that therefore they uſed dipping; is as vain. Muſt not they go to the water where it was, if they would uſe it? would the water have come up unto them in the chariot any ſooner for ſprinkling then for dipping? Of the ſame ſtamp is your inference, from Matth. 3.16. Mark. 1.10. from Chriſts aſcending from the water. For as Chriſt was pleaſed to be baptized with water: ſo he was pleaſed to go where the water was. viz. in the channell, to which there was a deſcent, and from which there was an aſcent; ſo that he muſt go down to and come up from the water. But here is not the leaſt hint that Iohn douſed Chriſt over head or under the water. Nay, rather that conceit of yours is here confuted; for if our Bleſſed Saviour had been plunged of Iohn into the water, then it would rather have been ſaid; That Iohn caſt or plunged Chriſt into the water,〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. and took him out of the water. But it is onely implyed, that Chriſt went down unto the water and came up again from it.
From your other Scriptures, Col. 2.12. Rom. 6.4.5. 1 Cor. 15.29. what you goe about to gather I know not, unleſſe this, that as Chriſt was buried, abode in the grave three dayes, and then roſe again: ſo the party baptized muſt be put under the water, abide there ſome conſiderable time, and then come up againe (for if you preſſe a ſimilitude of Chriſts buriall in going down into the water, and of his reſurrection in coming up out of the water; why not alſo of his abode in the grave three dayes, by abiding three dayes, or ſome anſwerable time under the water?) which will make bad worke; neither can any ſuch thing be gathered17 from thoſe Scriptures. Now to uſe your owne words: Let any man that is not quite fallen out with his reaſon judge, whether in all theſe Scriptures be any ſyllable that ſpeaks more for dipping then for ſprinkling or waſhing with water? Men may well be at agreement with their reaſon, and yet perceive no ſuch thing as you inferre hence. Col. 2.12. Rom. 6.4, 5. 1 Cor. 15.29.But I would demand here two Queſtions: Firſt, How can you gather from theſe places, a dipping of the whole man over head and under water? and that a ſimilitude of Chriſts death, buriall, and riſing againe, to be repreſented by dipping into the water is ſignified here? Theſe Scriptures ſhew indeed that the end of our baptiſme is to ſeale our communion with Chriſt, in his death and reſurrection, by which we are dead to ſinne, and raiſed againe to holineſſe. But if you will preſſe hence a neceſſitie of reſemblance of Chriſts death, buriall, and reſurrection by our deſcending into, abiding in, and coming up out of the water;Pro. 30.6. Revel. 22.18. take heed leſt you be one of thoſe which adde to Gods word, leſt he reprove you as a lyer: and adde unto you the plagues written in his Booke. For I know not any word of God wherein this repreſentation is neceſſarily implied, much leſſe expreſſed. Beſides, if you urge death and reſurrection to be reſembled by deſcenſion into, and aſcenſion out of the water: you muſt urge alſo buriall (which is principally there expreſſed) by the biding of the whole man, head and all under for a time anſwerable to Chriſts three dayes buriall, which cannot be without danger (yea certainty) of drowning.
Secondly, If it ſhould be granted that a repreſentation and reſemblance of Chriſts death, buriall, and reſurrection is ſet before us in baptiſme; and ſo of our death to ſinne, and riſing again to holineſſe: Yet I would demand, why may not this be repreſented as well by infuſion of water, as by dipping? Can you give me an example of ſo many killed and buried by immerſion or dipping into the water; as I can give of them that have beene put to death and buried, by the infuſion of water? I am ſure a whole world of men and other earthly creatures (thoſe few that were in the Arke excepted) were buried in the univerſall Deluge at once, by infuſion, not by dipping. So that infuſion or ſprinkling,Gen. 6.27. & 7.11, 12. may well as clearely ſignifie death and buriall, as dipping. And to the preſervation of Noah and thoſe that were with him, by the Arke, (on which waters were poured) from drowning: the Apoſtle18 compares baptiſme, as its antitype. Wherefore you might doe well to be henceforth a little more modeſt, and not talke as if all men were fallen out with their reaſon which will not jumpe with you in your weake conceits.
Now we come to your inference or concluſion, which being built on the crazie and rotten foundation of ſuch vaine and fond premiſes, falls to the ground of it ſelfe. And whereas you ſay, that, The Greek wanted not words to expreſſe any other act as well as dipping. I anſwer. Neither did the Greek want words to expreſſe onely dipping of the whole man all over into the water; or dowſing and plunging over head and under the water (which you would have Baptizo to ſignifie, but neither have nor can prove that it doth) if the holy Ghoſt had meant any ſuch act. Neither doth the Spirit of God need your helpe to find out fit words. It ſeemed fit to that wiſe Spirit to uſe Baptizo, which ſignifies to waſh, whether by dipping or ſprinkling; waſhing onely being intended to be ſignificant, and not either dipping or ſprinkling. Whereas you ſay, that It cannot be proved that baptiſme was adminiſtred any other way then by dipping, for at leaſt a thouſand years after Chriſt.
Anſ. I leave the proofe and trialls of that to Hiſtorians and Antiquaries, as being unfurniſhed with the Records of Antiquitie: though I conceive your Aſſertion is as bold and groundleſſe as your others are proved to be. Secondly, Why do you not prove that dowſing over head, and under water, was uſed for at leaſt a thouſand years after Chriſt? Thirdly, How can you tell it cannot be proved that ſprinkling was uſed of all that time? Will you perſwade people that you have read over all the writings of the Ancients; or that you are ſo honeſt, faithfull, and unerring, that your word muſt be taken for an Oracle without proofe?
As for your cleare reſulting conſequence, as I ſaid, It is built on too weake grounds to ſtand, and therefore may be ſafely denied as a plaine untruth. And whereas you apply the words of Peter and Ananias unto us,Act. 2.38. Act. 22.16. 1 Sam. 15.23. as to unbaptized perſons, perſwading us to ariſe and be baptized: Intimating, that for us to refuſe this your Charge, is rebellion and ſtubborneſſe, as witchcraft, iniquitie and idolatrie. I would adviſe you take heed of, and repent for abuſing Scripture, as in theſe and a great part of your quotations you doe moſt groſly. God will not hold them19 guiltleſſe that take his name in vaine. When you come to us with the ſame ſpirit and authoritie, as Peter, Ananias, and Samuel had; we will hearken to you.
Now though what hath beene ſaid in anſwer to this diſputers Arguments againſt baptizing by ſprinkling, or infuſion; and for onely dipping or plunging might ſuffice; yet I will adde ſomething more to what hath been written, endeavouring to make it appeare, that waſhing, whether it be by dipping, or ſprinkling, is the externall act required in this Sacrament, to be uſed; and that ſprinkling, or infuſion, is as (if not more) agreeable to the nature and inſtitution of this Sacrament, as dipping, or immerſion.
Argument 1. As the word uſed ſignifieth waſhing, (as hath beene ſhewed) ſo the thing repreſented, ſignified, and ſealed in this Sacrament, is ſet forth in the Scripture by the phraſe of waſhing, or cleanſing, as 1 Cor. 6.11. But ye are waſhed,〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. but ye are ſanctified, but yea are iuſtified, &c. Now who queſtions but our juſtification, and ſanctification, or remiſſion of ſinnes, together with mortification, and vivification are ſealed, and ſignified by baptiſme, &c. But theſe are here called waſhing. So Tit 3.5. 〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.According to his mercy he ſaved us, by the waſhing of regeneration, and renewing of the holy Ghoſt. In the former of which expreſſions (waſhing) if here be not meant baptiſme it ſelfe, (which to deny I ſee no reaſon) yet certainely here is meant the thing ſignified by baptiſme, which is ſufficient for our purpoſe which way ſo ever it is taken. Heb. 10.22. 〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.Having our bodies waſhed with cleane water. 1 Ioh. 1.7. And the bloud of Ieſus Chriſt his Sonne ſhall cleanſe us from all our ſinnes. Heb. 9.14. The bloud of Chriſt ſhall purge your conſcience. Now we know waſhing, purging, or cleanſing, may be, and commonly is, as well by infuſion, or powring on the thing to be waſhed, as by dipping. Common experience teſtifies ſo much, and Scripture is not ſilent herein. Luk. 7.44. She hath waſhed my feet with tears, viz.〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. by powring or diſtilling, as the word ſignifies. And though it were granted that in thoſe hot Countries they commonly waſhed, by going downe into the water, and being dipped therein; whether in ordinary, or ceremoniall, or ſacramentall waſhing; that will no more inforce on us a neceſſity of obſerving the ſame in baptiſme now, then the example of Chriſt and his Apoſtles**Matth. 26.2. 〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Mar. 14.18. 〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Luk. 22.14. 〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Matth. 14.19. 〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. geſture in the Sacrament of the Supper ties us to the ſame, (which was leaning, and20 partly lying, which was their uſuall table geſture then.) Now the ordinary table geſture which is uſuall among us is moſt fit; ſo the uſuall manner of waſhing amongſt us is moſt fit to be obſerved in baptiſme; and that is by powring, as well as by dipping.
But it may be objected, That ſprinkling a little water, doth not ſo fitly repreſent the perfect waſhing away of all our ſinnes, as dipping or plunging, ſith here the whole body is waſhed, there onely the face or head onely. Anſw. Firſt, the Scripture no where requires the waſhing of the whole body in baptiſme. Secondly, with as good reaſon one might plead thus. It is moſt convenient that at the Lords Supper every communicant ſhould receive his belly full of bread and wine; and take as long as ſtomack and head will hold, to ſignifie the full refreſhment of the ſoule with the body and bloud of Chriſt. But who would endure ſuch reaſoning? Theſe outward elements of Water, Bread and Wine, are for ſpirituall uſe, and to ſignifie ſpirituall things; ſo that if there be the truth of things, the quantitie is not to be reſpected further then is ſufficient for its end; namely, to repreſent the ſpirituall grace: and that it be neither ſo little, as not clearely to repreſent it;2. Pet. 3.21. nor ſo much, as to take off the heart from the ſpirituall to the corporall thing. Not the waſhing away of the filth of the body in baptiſme; nor the glutting or ſatisfying of the naturall appetite in the Lord Supper is to be looked after, but the waſhing and refreſhing of the ſoule; which may well be repreſented by the ſprinkling of a little water; eating, and drinking of a little bread and wine. In Circumciſion a little skin was cut off.
Arg. 2The ſpirituall grace and inviſible act of God upon the ſoule ſignified and repreſented by the outward act of baptiſme, is oft expreſſed in Scripture by the phraſe of powring, and beſprinkling, and that in great probabilitie (if not certainly and unqueſtionably) with alluſion to the Sacrament of Baptiſme, either already adminiſtred,〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉of〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉fudit. Infudit, affudit, profudit, perfudit. 〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or to be adminiſtred. I mean the bloud of Chriſt, and the Spirit of God, (which are the inviſible grace of Baptiſme) are ſaid to be powred or ſprinkled on Gods people. Eſa. 44.3. For I will powre water on him that is thirſtie, and floods on the dry ground: I will powre my Spirit on thy ſeed, and my bleſſing upon thine off-ſpring. Here the Spirit is ſaid to be powred, and this benefit is ſignified by the type of powring water. Ioel 2.28. I will powre out my ſpirit on all fleſh. Which promiſe Peter citing, calleth upon the people to repent, and receive baptiſme, as being21 the ſigne and ſeale which God had appointed to repreſent, and exhibite this promiſed bleſſing by. Ezek. 36.26. 〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉And I will ſprinkle upon you cleane water, and you ſhall be cleane. This cleane water queſtionleſſe, is the blood and ſpirit of Ieſus Chriſt, repreſented by the water in baptiſme. Thus we ſee three ſeverall phraſes ſignifying, to ſprinkle, beſprinkle, powre. If we look into the New Teſtament we ſhall find the like phraſes, Act. 2.17. 〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.I will powre forth my Spirit upon all fleſh. Heb. 10.22. Having your hearts beſprinkled from an evill conſcience. 1 Pet. 1.2. By the ſanctification of the ſpirit, and ſprinkling of the bloud of Ieſus Chriſt. See Heb. 9. 13. and 14. verſes compared together; and Heb. 12.24. Now let any one without prejudice conſider theſe Scriptures, whether at leaſt ſome of them ſpeake not in alluſion to baptiſme, and whether they all hold not forth the thing ſignified in baptiſme; and whether baptiſme be not a lively reſemblance and repreſentation of the things here ſpoken off. And then withall let him conſider, whether the thing exhibited in this Sacrament be ever ſo fully ſet forth by dipping, and then I leave him to judge whether ſprinkling be not as (that I ſay not more) agreeable to the nature of this Sacrament, as dipping.
Arg. 3Thirdly, this douſing over head, and under water that A. R. pleads for, as eſſentiall to baptiſme, ſeems directly againſt the ſixth Commandement, and expoſeth the perſon baptized to the danger of death. For firſt, ſuppoſe the party be fit for baptiſme (as they account) in the ſharpe Winter as now beleeving, profeſſing, &c. He muſt immediately be taken to the river (as his tenet ſeemes to hold) and there plunged in over head and eares, though he come forth covered with yce. But if he eſcape periſhing with cold; how can he eſcape being choaked, and ſtifled with the water: if he muſt be plunged over head to ſignifie his death to ſinne: ſecondly, be kept under water, to ſignifie his buriall: and thirdly, be taken up, as this Diſputer ſeemes to reaſon? But whatſoever be the danger of freezing, or ſuffocation; it ſeemes this he holds the onely baptiſme, and therefore muſt not be ſwerved from.
Arg. 4Fourthly, will not this their manner of dipping be found alſo againſt the ſeventh Commandement in the Decalogue? For I would know with theſe new dippers, whether the parties to be dowſed and dipped, may be baptized in a garment or no? If they may, then happily the garment may keep the water from ſome22 part of the body, and then they are not rightly baptized; for the whole man, ſay they, muſt be dipped. Againe, I would aske what warrant they have for dipping, or baptizing garments, more then the Papiſts have for baptizing Bells. Therefore belike the parties muſt be naked, and multitudes preſent as at Iohns baptiſme, and the parties men and women of ripe yeares, as being able to make confeſſion of their faith and repentance: yet though they both ſinne againſt the ſixth Commandement, indangering life, and againſt all common honeſtie and civilitie, and Chriſtian modeſtie required in the ſeventh Commandement, they muſt have this way obſerved, becauſe they fancie it the onely baptiſme. Shall we thinke this was the baptiſme of Iohn, Chriſt, and his Apoſtles? But enough of this ſecond Conſideration; we come to the third Conſideration.
YOur third Conſideration againſt baptizing of infants amongſt us, is taken from the Calling, Office, Power, and Authoritie of the Miniſters, by whom they are baptized. Which ſubject becauſe it hath been largely handled by others, ſhall be lightly paſſed over. Yet we will try what you ſay to it with ſhew of truth, or weight.
A. R.Whereas you ſay, That our Miniſters power and authoritie was received from Biſhops, who received their power from the Antichriſtian State of Rome, as they confeſſe; ſo that the baptiſme is from Antichriſt, not from Chriſt.
Anſwer. 1I anſwer. Firſt, our Miniſters have their authoritie, and office, from Ieſus Chriſt; as many as being fitted for that function, upon due triall, and approbation of Miniſters, (though a Biſhop, or Biſhops have had an hand; yea, a chiefe ſtroke therein) and the choyce or acceptation of Gods people; have ſet upon the worke of the Miniſtery.
Anſwer. 2Secondly, a thing is not therefore forthwith unwarrantable, or Antichriſtian, becauſe it comes from a Biſhop, or from the Pope; or authoritie derived from them. Is the doctrine of the unitie of Gods Eſſence, Trinitie of Perſons, Creation of the world, &c. therefore unlawfull, or Antichriſtian, becauſe holden by them? If23 the Scriptures of the Old and New Teſtament have been in the cuſtodie of the Papiſts, as the Old Teſtament in the cuſtodie of the Iewes; ſo that we have no Bibles now, but what came ſucceſſively from the Iewes and Papiſts: Muſt we therefore reject the Scripture as Antichriſtian, or Iewiſh, and look for immediate revelations? Or if the Biſhops had a hand in the Tranſlation of our Bibles; muſt they therefore be caſt away as Antichriſtian: ſo that neither you nor your diſciples may meddle with them, becauſe they have paſſed through the hands of the Biſhops? If any of you have heard any Sacred truths from Miniſters (which have beene ordained by Biſhops) which you ſeemed to beleeve for a time: muſt you of neceſſitie caſt them away as falſhoods, and Antichriſtian Tenents, falſe doctrines or nullities? as you will make their baptiſme Antichriſtian baptiſme, the reaſon is the ſame. Take heed leſt in ſo doing you caſt away your ſoules.
Anſwer. 3Thirdly, many things that Antichriſt, and they that are held under Antichriſts tyranny, hold and profeſſe, are not Antichriſtian, but truly Chriſtian. As that the Canonicall Scriptures are the word of God, that God is one in Eſſence, yet three in Perſons; that Chriſt is the Sonne of God, &c. And many things taught by them, many acts done by them, are not Antichriſtian, but Chriſtian. For Antichriſt was foretold to ſit in the Temple of God;2 Theſſ. 2.4. which he would never have beene ſuffered to do, had he not profeſſed and practiſed ſome things that for their ſubſtance were of God. And as for the faithfull over whom he did tyrannize, while he ſate in the Temple of God: though they were abuſed and cheated by him, with many ſuperſtitions and errours, that he impoſed upon them: yet there were ſome ſaving truths that they profeſſed, and holy and acceptable worſhip, and practiſe which they did performe, which in Chriſt God was pleaſed to accept; ſo that it is fond to reaſon; Baptiſme, Ordination and the Scriptures were received from Antichriſt, therefore Antichriſtian.
Anſwer. 4Fourthly, the power and authoritie of the Miniſters doth not depend on the qualitie or ſtation (eſpecially in reſpect of the worſt part) of the perſon or perſons, chuſing or ordaining them. Elſe men could never be aſſured of their owne or others miniſtrie, whether it be true or falſe: (for the qualitie of men is onely knowne unto God, and in the ſtation of the beſt there may be ſomewhat irregular and wanting exact perfection) but principally on Chriſts inward call, diſcerned by the gifts, propenſitie,24 and ſincerity of the parties undertaking that office; al which are requiſite, if they will, to their own comfort, and with Gods approbation exerciſe their miniſterie; although the want of ſome of theſe hinder not, but that he which by Gods providence is called to the miniſterie, may have power and authoritie ſufficient from God to be an inſtrument of God, for the good of others, though he were weake and unfound himſelfe;Mat. 10.4. and 40. as we may ſee in Iudas: (who was one of thoſe to whom Chriſt ſaith, He that receiveth you, receiveth me, &c.) the Scribes and Phariſees, (concerning whom Chriſt gave a charge that they ſhould be heard and obeyed in thoſe things which they taught ſitting in Moſes chaire:Matth. 23.2, 3. Phil. 1.15, 16.18. Act. 6.5. Rev. 2.6. vide Brightman, in locum. though their lives were not exemplary) the envious, contentious, and unſincere Preachers of Chriſt (in whoſe preaching yet Paul rejoyced;) in Demas, and Nicolas the Deacon, who as Interpreters hold, proved afterward the ring-leader of the Nicolaitanes.) This (I ſay) Chriſts inward call either of approbation, as in the firſt; or of providence, as in the later, is the principall thing, whereon the power and the authoritie of the Miniſter doth depend. And then the leſſe principall are the ordination and choyce of them, by ſuch as are the Miniſters and people of God, by profeſſion (though ſomething Antichriſtian, or otherwiſe ſinfull may cleave unto them, in regard of their qualities or ſtations.) And laſtly, the expreſſion of the end for which they were ordained, viz. to adminiſter the holy things of God. By which two latter, viz. the outward calling, and the manifeſtation of the end, the hearts of Gods people may be aſſured of Chriſts inward calling, ſo farre as that they may be confident, that whiles they diſcharge the duties of Miniſters, it ſhall not be without efficacie for their good, if they be not wanting to themſelves.
Anſwer. 5Fifthly, as Paul proveth his Apoſtleſhip (when it was queſtioned amongſt the Corinthians by occaſion of the whiſperings of the falſe apoſtles, who could not otherwiſe inſinuate themſelves into the favour of the Corinthians, but by traducing Paul and bringing him out of favour with them, as no Apoſtle of Chriſt, which hath beene ever the guiſe of falſe Teachers (which practiſe is too rife now adayes) As I ſay, Paul proves his Apoſtleſhip amongſt other arguments from Gods bleſſing upon his miniſtery (Are not you my worke in the Lord? 2 Cor. 9.1, 2.If I be not an Apoſtle unto others; yet doubtleſſe I am unto you: for the ſeale of mine Apoſtleſhip are ye in the Lord;) Which muſt needs be a good argument,25 both becauſe the Apoſtle uſed it, who would not bring a weake and non-concluding argument; and alſo becauſe as God will not bleſſe any Ordinances but his owne, to work repentance, faith, and holineſſe; ſo neither will he bleſſe any Miniſtery but his owne Miniſtery: ſo through the mercy of God our Miniſters have a ſufficient anſwer for all that ſhall examine them concerning their miniſtery. The Converſion, Humiliation, Reformation, Faith, Conſolation, heavenly Ioy, and Holineſſe, which God thereby hath wrought in thouſands of ſoules (to his everlaſting glory be it ſpoken) evince them to be the Miniſters of Chriſt, whoſe worke and ſeale ſo many faithfull ſoules are, and prove that all thoſe which goe about to perſwade the people that they are Antichriſtian miniſters are ſlanderers:2 Cor. 9.13, 14, 15.Like thoſe falſe Apoſtles of which Paul ſpeaks, deceitfull workers, transforming themſelves into the Apoſtles of Chriſt; and no marvell, for Satan himſelfe is transformed into an Angel of light. Therefore it is no great thing if his miniſters alſo be transformed into the Miniſters of righteouſneſſe, whoſe end ſhall be according to their workes. Or like thoſe deceivers which had ſo bewitched the Galatians,Gal. 4.14, 15, 16, 17, 18. that whereas they had received the Apoſtle as an Angel of God, even as Chriſt Ieſus, &c. yet after a while accounted him their enemie, becauſe he told them the truth, whom they zealouſly affected but not well, deſiring to ſeparate thoſe Galatians from the Apoſtles, that they might have all their affection.But I will leave ſuch deceivers and thoſe which are deceived by them (if they doe not truely repent) to the judgement of him on whoſe Miniſters they raile; knowing that he who hath ſo farre honoured their faithfull labours, will vindicate them in his due time, from all thoſe contumelious aſperſions, wherewith on all ſides they are laden: if they continue faithfully and reſolutely doing his worke, notwithſtanding all oppoſitions.
Your reaſoning that you falſely ſay, the Non-conformiſts have taught you, is idle.Did the Non-conformiſts ever call midwives Antichriſtian miniſters? midwives were never capable of miniſterial functions, nor called to the miniſterie by the ordination of Miniſters, nor choyce or acceptation of the people; neither have they any miniſteriall power from Chriſt. But our Miniſters have, although there have beene ſome diſorder or defect, in the externall exhibition of this power, through the fault of men, which yet probably was nothing ſo great, as was the diſorder among26 the Iewes in calling the Scribes and Phariſees, whoſe miniſterie notwithſtanding our Saviour enjoynes the people to uſe.
Firſt, If you ſpeake of Biſhops being lawfull Elders, ſo as to be right Miniſters in all circumſtances, and particulars of their ſtation and calling, ſo that there needs no reformation: we doe not plead for them as lawfull Elders in that ſenſe; as knowing that ſome evill adhereth unto their Miniſtery, which being removed, they become lawfull Miniſters. But ſo farre we hold them lawfull Elders, as that their calling of Miniſters, Preaching, adminiſtring of Sacraments, (when done for the ſubſtance according to the rule of Gods word) are not meere nullities, nor prophanations of Gods Ordinances to Gods people or Miniſters that make uſe of them; but may be, and oft are, effectuall for their good; ſo that if theſe Biſhops will caſt away that which being Antichriſtian adhereth unto them;Act. 20.28. 1 Pet. 5.2. and faithfully diſcharge the office of Elders and Miniſters of Ieſus Chriſt, faithfully feeding the flock of God, they are to be imbraced as Chriſts Miniſters, and that without any new Ordination;Rev. 2.3. as may appeare, Revel. 2. and 3. Chapters: where the Angels or Miniſters which had left their firſt love,Rev. 2.13, 14. had them which held the doctrine of Balaam, which taught Balak to caſt a ſtumbling-block before the children of Iſrael,Rev. 2.20. to eate things offered to idols, and to commit fornication, and had them which held the doctrine of the Nicolaitans, which Chriſt hated; yea which ſuffered the woman Iezabel, which called her ſelfe a Propheteſſe, to teach and deceive Chriſts ſervants, &c. Rev. 3.15.Thoſe which had a name to live, and yet were dead, whoſe workes were not perfect, ſuch as were neither hot, nor cold, but luke-warme. Such, I ſay, are ſtill called Angels, bidden repent and doe their firſt workes; with a promiſe at laſt implied, that they ſhall keep their ſtations of Angels. And this is ſufficient to warrant unto us,Matth. 23.1, 2, 3, &c. per totum. the acts which they doe as Miniſters. The Scribes and Phariſees had many corruptions (in Chriſts time, and ſo had the Prieſts both before, and in Chriſts time) adhering to their27 function, and thoſe very groſſe; yet was not their miniſtery vaine to thoſe which according to Chriſts appointment made uſe of it.
Now to your poſition;That, they muſt be Elders choſen by a true Church, which is a congregation of beleevers.That I may know your meaning: I would demand of you,
Firſt, Whether you mean that of neceſſitie the whole Church and every particular member therof, muſt be preſent at the chooſing of a Miniſter, and give their voice expreſſely therein. If this be your meaning, it is neither proved in the Scriptures you bring, nor any other. Or whether by being choſen by a Church, you meane no more then to be choſen by ſome ſpeciall perſons in a Church, that repreſent the whole Church. If this be your meaning, I will concurre with you in that particular, as knowing that women and children have no voyce, though members. Nor is it neceſſary that every particular member of the reſt ſhould give his vote: ſith at ſuch times oft ſome are occaſioned to be abſent, and if preſent, they yet may be ſo many, that they cannot well give particularly their voices, and though many refuſe to give their votes, yet if the greater part vote for him it is ſufficient.
Secondly, Whereas you ſay. Conſtitute of Saints and beleevers by calling. I aske, whether you meane thoſe that are ſo effectually called, that they are really and truly become Saints and beleevers, ſo that there is not a wicked man or hypocrite among them, and that the mixture of wicked men or hypocrites among them which call the Elders, cauſeth them not to be true Elders. If this be your meaning, looke over that place which you brought for proofe of your opinion, and you ſhall finde it clearely confuted; 1 Cor. 1.2. if you compare that verſe with Chap. 3. v. 3. and Chap. 5. and 6. throughout. Chap. 8. and 10. and 11. and 15. and 2 Cor. 12.20, 21. and almoſt throughout both Epiſtles. By comparing which places you ſhall ſee, that theſe beleevers and Saints by calling, did not ſo walke, either in regard of ſoundneſſe of judgement, puritie of worſhip, or holineſſe of life, as to give cleare evidence of their effectuall calling or ſound ſanctification. So compare, Phil. 1.7. with Chap. 3.18, 19. and Rom. 1.7, 8. with Chap. 16. v. 17, 18. and then ſpeake your conſcience, whether you can judge all theſe down right beleevers effectually called, really Saints. But if by beleevers, or Saints by calling, you meane ſuch as are called to faith and holineſſe, and withall make a profeſſion by externally giving their names up to Chriſt, and accepting28 outwardly the covenant, promiſing faith and obedience unto Gods word; though there may be hypocrites and wicked livers: we concurre with you, as knowing that they muſt be Chriſtians by profeſſion, and partakers of the heavenly calling (not Iews, Pagans or other Infidels) that goe to the making up of a viſible Church; and ſuch are our Churches, whereby the Elders of whom we ſpeak have been choſen or accepted.
Thirdly, whether your meaning be the Congregation or people only, without the precedency, concurrence, examination, direction, and Ordination of Miniſters, muſt chuſe their Governours or Officers, or elſe they are not true Governours or Officers: If you meane ſo, looke backe on the Scripture cited by you Acts 14.23. with other places, Act. 6.3.6. 1 Tim. 4.14. and 5.22. where it appeareth, that Miniſters had the chiefe hand in making Miniſters.
Now theſe things propounded: I anſwer to your poſition, that we can eaſily ſhew, that our people in England, in regard of their generall and unanimous conſent to (and profeſſion of faith in) the ſame truth, contained in the book of God, acceptation of the covenant, and giving up of their names unto Chriſt, are a Church or Congregation of faithfull people or Saints by calling, though many doe not walke anſwerably to their calling (the greater is their ſinne, and ſhame, and ſhall be their condemnation unleſſe they repent.) And in regard of the many ſeverall companies of the faithfull, by whom Gods worſhip is performed apart one from another; there are many Churches or Congregations of Saints by calling in our Land. We can ſhew alſo, that although our Elders of whom we ſpeake, have not been choſen by the whole Congregations, in reſpect of every particular member; yet by ſome ſpeciall perſons (in behalfe of the whole Congregation) to whom that charge was committed by them, (or (which was their ſinne) uſurped from them) and that the people at leaſt by accepting them ſo choſen, did make choice of them in their own perſons. And that whatſoever diſorders or defects have been in the choice, do not nullifie their miniſtery. As for ſuch as have acknowledged the unlawfulneſſe of their miniſtery, or plead meere qualifications (of whom you ſpeake) let them anſwer for themſelves, how they can, we are not bound to ſtand to their principles, or maintain their opinions.
As for the ſeven next Objections, into the Anſwer whereof29 you digreſſe (moſt of them being belike fained of your ſelf, that you may finde ſomewhat to ſay) beſide extravagant impertinencies, malicious and maſter-like cenſures, and ſome unqueſtioned truths, which are yeelded by us, but do nothing profit your cauſe, nor hurt ours: I ſee nothing that it is worth while to anſwer, but what may be ſufficiently anſwered unto, by what hath been ſaid before. Neither do I intend to follow you in your idle roving. Onely it is to be obſerved, that this A. R. cannot endure to heare of a Synode, though a ſpeciall and maine ordinance of God, to compoſe differences, and quiet the hearts of Gods people, which have been diſquieted by trouble-Churches. See Acts 15. the whole Chapter.
Becauſe (ſaith he) a Synod cannot make a Laſt to ſuit every ones foot, which in plain Engliſh is this, they will not ſuffer Ieſuits, Papiſts, Arminians, idle Miniſters, Anabaptiſts, Antinomians, and Familiſts to have their own way in practiſe, worſhip, opinion, &c. Neither will they ſuffer every man to abuſe the Scripture after his owne fancie, and vent abroad his poyſonous conceipts among the ſimple, to draw diſciples after them. As if it were better to let every man follow his owne deviſes, and labour to draw others into his opinions (ſo that whoſoever is moſt cunning, pragmaticall and able to conform his doctrin to the humours of men, ſhall goe away with moſt diſciples, to the overthrow of thouſands of ſoules,) than that there ſhould be a conſultation of godly, learned, & conſcientious Miniſters, about the eſtabliſhment of religion. And here it is further to be noted, that the children of darkeneſſe, though in ſome particulars they be oppoſite one to another, as Papiſts, Arminians, ignorant, lazy and malignant Miniſters and licentious Atheiſts on the one ſide, and Anabaptiſts with Antinomians and Familiſts on the other ſide, doe differ from, yea directly oppoſe one another in ſome particulars; yet they agree together, as in oppoſing Gods faithfull Miniſters and people, ſo in hating the light, and refuſing to be brought unto the triall of Gods word, and to be tyed unto the Rules thereof, as they ſhall be found out and applyed by an Aſſembly of faithfull Miniſters.
Again, it is to be obſerved, That theſe men take it in high indignation, that any ſhould go about to reſtrain them from abuſing the Scripture, and carrying about the ſimple people with every wind of doctrin, by whom they may be had in admiration, while they are ſuffered to go on in their bold preſumption, and confident30 venting of their ignorant conceits, and malicious rayling againſt authoritie; which may appeare by this Authours abuſe of Scripture,for a colour of accuſation of thoſe that would reſtraine them, and by his tale of a Miniſter in the Weſt.But I come to the fourth Conſideration.
YOur fourth Conſideration then is taken from the ground of baptizing children; which as you are ſhort in urging, I will be ſhort in anſwering. A. R.Whereas therefore you ſay, The faith and repentance of the Sureties, is the ground of our baptizing, as you would prove from the queſtions propounded at the baptizing, and out of the Catechiſme. Whence you conclude, that it is not true Baptiſme; becauſe in true Baptiſme, the faith and repentance of the partie baptized is the ground.
Anſwer. I Anſwer. Not the faith and repentance of the Sureties as you pretend, is the ground of our Baptiſme, (neither do we ſay ſo) but Gods gracious Covenant which he hath made with the parents and their children; (of which hereafter) Which Covenant that parents may publiquely profeſſe themſelves to have intereſt in, and with them their children, it is convenient that they (and other Sureties, if they ſee it good, to joyne ſuch with themſelves, to undertake what they promiſe in the behalfe of their children, in caſe parents ſhould be negligent, ignorant, or by ſpeedy death, or otherwiſe diſabled to bring up their children religiouſly) I ſay it is convenient, that they ſhould make a profeſſion of their faith and repentance, which yet doth not at all prove that their faith and repentance is the ground of the childrens Baptiſme. But the tenour of Gods gracious covenant, under which they profeſſe themſelves (and with them their children) to be, is the ground of this act. Now though there may be ſome unjuſtifiable or unfit paſſages, in the Catechiſme or manner of Baptiſme, whence you fetch your Argument, (ſeeing that it is apparent, that our ground of baptizing Infants, is the Covenant of God made with the parents, or thoſe which are in ſtead of parents, which Covenant that they are in, they teſtifie by profeſſing their faith and repentance, and conſidering that the anſwering of Sureties, and the Catechizing of Children, doth nothing touch the eſſence of Baptiſme) thoſe paſſages nothing prejudice31 the truth of Childrens Baptiſme. But concerning this matter, viz. the ground of Childrens Baptiſme more hereafter.
THe fifth Conſideration,A. R. which yeelds an Argument againſt our Baptiſme, is taken from the ſubiects, on whom Baptiſme is adminiſtred, and thoſe are Infants, whereas (ſay you) the Scripture holds forth the Diſciples, or beleevers onely are to be baptized, which you prove thus. For the Commiſſion of Chriſt was onely to baptize diſciples, as appeareth, Matth. 28.19. the words being theſe. 〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c.Going therefore diſciple all nations, baptizing them, &c. Now the queſtion (ſay you) is to what this word (〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉them) hath relation, whether to〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, nations, or no. But (ſay you) it is cleare out of the words, that it hath not relation to nations, but to diſciples: for the word which is put for them in that place, is autous not auta, which it ſhould be, if it had relation to nations.
Anſw. 1. But I pray you, who (but your ſelf) ever ſaw in this Text, the word Diſciples, to which〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, them, may have relation? There is no ſuch word, either in any uſuall tranſlation, or in the Originall. 2. What neceſſitie or likelihood is there, that your ſuppoſed〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, diſciples, ſhould be antecedent to〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉them? Becauſe forſooth, it is〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, not〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Know you not, that〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Nations, though in voyce it be Neuter, yet in ſignification it is Maſculine: Signifying men in the Nations or Heathens (〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Homines in Gentibus, or Gentium, or Gentiles. You ſure would never have been ſo confident, that〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉muſt needs be referred to〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, diſciples, if you had but conſulted with Lylies Rules, who tels you of a figure called Syntheſis, when a ſentence is congruous in ſenſe,Syntheſis eſt ocatio congrua ſenſu, non voce. Gens armati. 〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. though not in voice; and brings an example like to this; The Armed nation: which figure is very frequent in the Greeke language; to inſtance onely in this ſame word〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Act. 15.17. And all the nations upon whom my name is called upon them, where you have〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, whom and them, anſwering to the antecedent〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉gentes. And I beleeve where you finde a Relative in Scripture, anſwering to〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, nations,〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. moſt frequently (if not alwayes) it is the Maſculine gender, as Act. 28.28. to the Gentiles is ſent this ſalvation32 and they ſhall heare. 〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. 〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.Act 13.48. The Gentiles hearing glorified the word of the Lord, and they beleeved, ſo many as were ordained unto eternall life. Rom. 2.14, 15. When the Gentiles not having the law, do by nature the things of the law, theſe having not the law, are a law to themſelves, which ſhew the work, &c. Inſomuch, that your Criticiſme hath greatly failed you here; and ſo your foundation which you have laid to prove, That all who are baptized according to Chriſts Commiſſion, proving but a meere conceit, or ſelf-deceit, your building that you reare thereupon will vaniſh away.
Obiect. If it be ſaid, Chriſt commanded the Apoſtles to teach or make diſciples, and then to baptize, ſo that none are capable of Baptiſme but thoſe that have been taught or made diſciples firſt.
Anſwer. 1To this I anſwer. Firſt, This cannot be gathered by any neceſſary conſequence from the connexion of the words; any more then it may be concluded from the ſame verſe: that none may Teach or Baptize but Apoſtles, or ſuch as have authoritie, and gifts of miracles and tongues, to goe to all nations. For, as Baptizing is joyned with Teach, ſo Teach ye, is joyned with Go ye (before) and All nations after. But if no wiſe man will deduce or yeeld to this concluſion (None muſt either Preach or Baptize, but thoſe which have gifts and authoritie to goe into all nations for that end) from the coherence of the words; you muſt excuſe us, if we yeeld not to the deducing of your concluſion from the coherence. viz. That none are to be baptized, but thoſe which have been firſt taught or made diſciples.
Anſwer. 2Secondly, I anſwer. It is true the Apoſtles were to teach thoſe among the Gentiles of ripe yeares, and make them diſciples before they or their children were to be baptized, becauſe they and their children were out of covenant, and ſo uncapable of the ſeales, and might not be received into covenant themſelves or their children, untill they gave up themſelves and theirs unto Chriſt by faith and repentance: which they could not ordinarily have wrought in them, but by hearing the Goſpel preached. Yet when parents had given up their names unto Chriſt, their children being alſo given up to Chriſt by them, were capable of Baptiſme. As by Abrahams giving up himſelf unto God in Covenant, not onely he, but alſo his children, and thoſe that were as his children, were received into Covenant, and had the ſeale thereof33 adminiſtred to them; by vertue of the unchangeable tenour of the Covenant of grace, I will be thy God, and the God of thy ſeed:Gen. 17.7. as hath been ſaid, and God willing ſhall more fully be ſhewed. Therefore the Commiſſion which was given to the Diſciples, makes nothing againſt baptizing the children of the faithfull: which are already in covenant with God, though they have not heard the word preached.
Anſwer. 3Thirdly, Yea I conceive it is no abſurditie, but a ſound truth, to ſay, that infants of beleeving parents are made diſciples of God and Chriſt: ſo that the Apoſtles in making parents diſciples that gave up themſelves and their children unto God; in that act made their clildren alſo diſciples; in two reſpects. Firſt, in that parents gave them up unto God, promiſing and purpoſing to bring them up in the knowledge of God, ſo ſoone as they ſhould be capable of outward teaching. This Abraham was bound unto by vertue of the Covenant; that as God would be the God of his ſeed, ſo he ſhould command and teach his children and houſhold after him, that they ſhould keep the way of the Lord, &c. Gen. 18.19. So all the Iſraelites, Exod. 12.26.26, 27. Deut. 6.6, 7. And the like obligation lies upon Chriſtian parents, Epheſ. 6.4. ſo that now they are the diſciples of Chriſt, in reſpect of Gods obligation, and the parents promiſe, purpoſe, and prayer.
Secondly, they may be ſaid to be Chriſts diſciples, in that they are now under the teaching of God and Chriſt, who hath promiſed to teach all that are in covenant, all the children of the Church, or faithfull (at leaſt ſome of all ſorts) from the leaſt to the greateſt. Eſa. 54.13. 〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉Edoctia Iehova, or Edocti Ievovae. 〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉And all thy children ſhall be taught of the Lord, &c. All, is an univerſall note, implying all ſorts, ſexes, ages, and conditions of thoſe which were children of the Church, or poſteritie of the faithfull. Ier. 31.34. And they ſhall teach no more every man his brother, ſaying, Know the Lord. For they ſhall all know me, from the leaſt to the greateſt of them. And ſo that thoſe which are ſo little, that they are uncapable of the teaching of men, are capable, and under the promiſe of Gods teaching. To which promiſes our Saviour having, as it ſeems, reſpect, ſaith, Ioh. 6.44. It is written in the Prophets, And they ſhall be all taught of God. Every one that hath heard of the Father, and learneth, cometh unto me: So that as there may be outward teaching without inward: ſo there may be inward teaching without the outward. Chriſt ſaith, Whoſoever hath heard of the Father, not whoſoever34 hath heard of the Preacher; for many may heare of the Preacher, and yet not come to God; and ſome may be taught of God, that are uncapable of the Preachers inſtruction: though the inward and outward both be ordinary, to thoſe who being of ripe yeares are effectually called. So that ſith God promiſeth, that in the time of the Goſpel, All even from the leaſt unto the greateſt ſhall become his diſciples, why ſhould the infants of beleevers be excluded, ſeeing they are capable of divine inſtruction, and the operation of the holy Ghoſt, even from their mothers wombe? Luk. 1.15. I have ſtood the longer on the anſwering of this Scripture objected, Becauſe theſe anſwers may ſerve for all the other reaſons, and Scriptures you bring, to confirme your laſt Argument againſt baptizing of children. Where having heaped up many Scriptures needleſly, you talk your pleaſure, and triumph as if the cauſe were your owne; as if your grounds were unmoveable, and your concluſion unqueſtionable. But though you plead againſt Childrens Baptiſme, you ſhould remember that you diſpute not with children. Neither have we need or will, By wit and ſophiſtrie to goe about to elude any truth, and juſtifie any errour, though never ſo groſſe and abſurd, as you ſay;Which imputation of yours, it may ſeeme, is you laſt ſhift; to anſwer thoſe that will not be carried about with every winde of your vaine doctrine, and ſubſcribe to your dictates.
Now for what followeth, I will not proceed in maintaining thoſe further objections; which either you deviſe of your owne head, or raiſe out of others words, to whoſe principles we are not bound; your anſwers whereunto either doe not concerne us, or if any thing therein ſeeme to beare ſhew of truth and weight, it may be ſufficiently anſwered from what hath beene already laid downe. Therefore I will not trouble my ſelfe with the repetition of the ſame things. So forbearing any further to meddle with your confident concluſions, Apology for your expreſſions, or other impertinent digreſſions, wherewith you fill up paper; I come to give our reaſons for the lawfulneſſe, and requiſiteneſſe of baptizing the infants of Chriſtian parents; intending to conſider all along your anſwers you have made to them.
Arg. 1Our firſt Argument therefore ſhall be: To whom the ſpirituall and inviſible grace repreſented, ſignified, and ſealed in baptiſme belongeth by vertue of Gods promiſe, to them baptiſme it ſelfe belongeth, Act. 2.38, 39.
35But to the children or infants of parents beleeving, or within Covenant, belongeth by vertue of Gods promiſe, the ſpirituall grace repreſented, ſealed, and ſignified in baptiſme; to wit, the teaching of God, and the Spirit of God, which doth include all the ſpirituall bleſſings ſignified by baptiſme; as ſanctification, or regeneration, wherein is comprehended virtuall faith, and therein, being beſprinkled with the bloud of Chriſt, and pardon of ſinnes, Eſa. 54.13. Ier. 31.34. Ioel 2.28. Eſ. 59.21. Act. 2.39.
Therefore Baptiſme belongeth to infants of Chriſtian parents.
Both the premiſſes me thinkes ſhould be undeniable with Chriſtians, as being built on the word; and ſo the concluſion certaine. But becauſe I would cleare this Argument, againſt the cavils of the captious, and doubts of the ignorant, or ſcrupulous; I will adde ſome what by way of explanation, and confirmation.
The propoſition, for ought I know, it is not doubted of by any. It is taken as an unqueſtionable principle by A. R. and many of his arguments againſt baptizing infants, are built upon this ground: becauſe they have not regeneration, faith, remiſſion of ſinnes. And it may further appeare by theſe Scriptures, Act. 8.38. Nothing now could hinder the Eunuch from being baptized, for now the ſpirituall bleſſing appertained to him, and therefore the externall ſigne: Act. 10.47, 48. Can any forbid water, that theſe ſhould not be baptized, which have received the holy Ghoſt as well as we? And he commanded them to be baptized, &c. And Chap. 11.17. The Apoſtle implies, that it had beene a withſtanding of God, not to have baptized them on whom the gift of the holy Ghoſt had been powred. And ſo ſtill upon the profeſſion of faith, and repentance, when in the judgement of charitie, the Preachers apprehended the parties to have intereſt, and right to the ſpirituall grace, they adminiſtred the outward ſigne, though queſtionleſſe they were deceived in many: as Ananias, Sapphira, Simon Magus, &c. Yet it was a ſufficient warrant to the Miniſters to baptize them: becauſe ſo farre as they could judge, they were under the promiſe. For if amongſt Chriſts few Diſciples, there was one traytour, ſonne of perdition, devill: doubtleſſe amongſt thoſe many thouſands that were baptized, upon their profeſſion of faith and repentance at the preaching of Iohn, and the Apoſtles, many were hypocrites; as may appeare by the great evils that brake out in the Primitive Churches. This I adde to36 ſhew that there is no infallible certainty of the inward grace required of, or poſſible to the Miniſter.
And that to whom the inward grace belongs, to them the outward ſigne belongs; appeareth in Peters exhortation in that place quoted in the propoſition, Act. 2.38, 39. And Peter ſaid unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you, in the name of Ieſus Chriſt, to the remiſſion of your ſinnes, and ye ſhall receive the gift of the holy Ghoſt: For the promiſe is to you, and to your children, and to all that are afarre off, even ſo many as the Lord our God ſhall call. Wherein he ſhews them that if they will repent, they have right unto baptiſme, as having right unto the thing ſignified in baptiſme, viz. the remiſſion of ſinnes, by the bloud of Chriſt powred on their ſoules; and the gift of the holy Ghoſt being the Spirit of Chriſt, powred on them; of which he had ſpoken before, ver. 17. both clearely repreſented and ſignified by the infuſion, or powring of water in baptiſme. And the rather to perſwade them to repent, and be baptized, that they might receive remiſſion of ſinnes, and the gift of the holy Ghoſt: Peter tels them, that the promiſe is to them and their children, and ſo many as God ſhould call, though afarre off: even among the Gentiles. So that if by faith and repentance they and the Gentiles ſhould accept the promiſe, they and their children ſhould have intereſt in the remiſſion of ſinnes, and the gift of the holy Ghoſt; and ſo conſequently in baptiſme; ſo that not onely the parents repenting, but alſo their children had title to the promiſe of the holy Gohſt; and ſo to the ſeale thereof.
A. R.Firſt, againſt this you object: It is not ſaid, your infants, but your children.
Anſ. Infants are not excluded I hope; for infants are children, though not onely infants: neither do we hold that the promiſe was made to infants onely. 〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.Peter uſeth a generall word that ſignifieth poſteritie, of what age ſoever, whether of ripe or tender years.
Secondly, you object: It is not ſaid promiſes, but promiſe; and that it is not promiſes, but promiſe; not infants, but children:You promiſe us ſatisfaction by looking back to what went before in the Chapter, after a long repetition wherof, you tell us what we may gather; to wit, that the gift of the holy Ghoſt, mentioned ver. 17. to be propheſied of by Ioel; and to be received of the Father, and ſhed forth by Chriſt, ver. 33. is repeated ver. 38.
37Anſw. All this maketh nothing againſt us; but for us.
Thirdly, you adde: You may ſee who are meant by children, viz. the ſame that were mentioned, ver. 17. under the termes of ſonnes and daughters that ſhould prophecie.
Anſw. As if the Spirit mentioned here, were onely a Spirit of prophecie. The Spirit hath divers operations; ſome ordinary, and ſome extraordinary, 1 Cor. 12.4.7, 8, 9, 10, 11. Neither is it ſaid, that all ſhall prophecie and dreame dreames.
Fourthly, you ſay: Therefore no infants are meant here who cannot prophecie, &c.
Anſw. Why may not infants be of the number of that all fleſh, on which God would powre his Spirit, though none of thoſe that prophecie, ſee viſions, dreame, &c. For theſe effects of the Spirit are not related as common to all, on whom God would powre his Spirit; but peculiar to ſome, which had extraordinary gifts. Secondly, What hinders but they may receive the Spirit in their infancie, by which they may prophecie in ripe yeares? as we ſee in Iohn the Baptiſt, Luk. 1.15. & 41. Thirdly, I anſwer; That this promiſe is not onely made concerning the extraordinarie gifts of the Spirit which were beſtowed in the times of the Apoſtle, by which men did prophecie, dreame dreames, ſee viſions, ſpeake with tongues, &c. but alſo of the ſanctifying Spirit which is common to all ages of the Church, even where ſuch miraculous and extraordinarie gifts are not beſtowed: may appeare, verſ. 30. The promiſe, ſaith the Apoſtle, was to all afarre off, whomſoever the Lord ſhould call: that is, all the Gentiles whom God ſhould call by the Goſpel to faith. Now no man I hope will ſay, that all whom over God called, dreamed dreames, ſaw viſions, prophecied, ſpake with ſtrange tongues, &c.
Fifthly, you adde:There is not ſo much as any colour, for baptizing of infants from hence. For the Text is not, Be baptized. For the promiſe is to you, and your children; as many in Print doe falſely alledge. But repent and be baptized, &c. and ye ſhall receive the gift of the Holy ghoſt. For the promiſe is to you and your children.
Anſw. If we ſhould take the words in your ſenſe, viz. that thoſe words For the promiſe is made, &c. are brought as a reaſon onely of the words going immediately before; it makes nothing againſt me, for ſo the 38. verſ. containes a pregnant proofe of my propoſition, and verſ. 39. of mine aſſumption.
38Secondly, I anſwer. There is no neceſſitie can appeare, no nor probable reaſon (I beleeve) can be rendred, why the reaſon (For the promiſe, &c. verſ. 39.) ſhould be referred onely to the words immediately preceding (you ſhall receive the gift of the holy Ghoſt; and not unto the exhortation, Repent, and be baptized, &c.) which untill you could have given ſome proofe of, you might well have ſpared your immodeſt language, and hainous accuſation of falſe alledging Scripture. For the context may either be analyſed thus. Firſt, Peter exhorts to repent, and be baptized; then he ſpurres them on by a reaſon taken from the effect, viz. remiſſion and the gift of the Spirit: ſecondly, from the promiſe that God had made concerning the thing ſignified, viz. powring his Spirit; which promiſe belonged to them and their children: therefore they ſhould receive the ſigne which God had inſtituted to ſignifie it, which may ſeeme the moſt genuine reſolution of the Text. Or ſecondly; This reaſon may be underſtood as brought both to the exhortation, (Repent, and be baptized) and the promiſe, (And you ſhall receive remiſſion of ſinnes, and the gift of the holy Ghoſt:) for conſidering that baptiſme, and the gift of the holy Ghoſt are correlatives, as the ſigne and thing ſignified, the reaſon well may (that I ſay not neceſſarily muſt) be referred to both. Or thirdly, if we grant that it is immediately referred to the foregoing promiſe, yet it muſt neceſſarily be taken as a reaſon of the exhortation at leaſt mediately: for ſeeing the promiſe of remiſſion of ſinnes, and the holy Ghoſt, is brought as a reaſon to perſwade them to be baptized; and theſe words, For the promiſe is to you, &c. is brought as a confirmation of the promiſe;Cauſa cauſae eſt cauſa cauſati. and conſidering that the cauſe of the cauſe is the cauſe of the cauſed, and the reaſon of the reaſon, is the reaſon of the thing proved by that reaſon, this (For the promiſe, &c.) muſt needs be brought as a reaſon why they ſhould be baptized; and ſo thoſe who bring this as a reaſon that the Apoſtle gives, why they ſhould be baptized, joyning the thing argued, and the Argument together, and omitting that which was interpoſed, as not pertinent to the purpoſe; are quit from your ſlander of falſe alledging Scripture; and you convinced to be a falſe accuſer of the brethren.
The next Objection that you frame I owne not. Aſſenting that it is true, that neither theſe Iewes, nor the Gentiles were in Covenant, untill they had entred into the ſame by repentance and39 faith, ſeeing that the old Covenant was now abrogated, and the Gentiles had beene hitherto foreiners: ſo that you will acknowledge that whenſoever Iewes or Gentiles ſhould receive the promiſe by faith and repentance, it did not onely belong unto them, but alſo to their children. For though it be expreſſed to the Iews, (That the promiſe was to them and their children) it is to be underſtood, to hold of the Gentiles alſo. For now the partition wall was removed, and the Iewes had no priviledge for their childrens having right unto the promiſe, any more then the children of beleeving Gentiles.
Thus farre I have digreſſed in anſwer to ſome objections made againſt the Scripture which was brought for the proofe of my propoſition, though it might be handled as well in the aſſumption; yet becauſe I have more to ſay on the aſſumption, I brought theſe objections under the propoſition. The ſumme of the propoſition muſt be remembred to be this. Where is right to the ſpirituall bleſſing promiſed in the word, and ſealed in baptiſme, there is right to baptiſme: which ſtands firme againſt whatſoever hath beene objected. I come to the aſſumption.
The places of Scripture quoted to confirme the aſſumption have beene ſpoken of before. Onely we may conſider now, Firſt, what things are promiſed in thoſe Scriptures expreſly. Secondly, what is implied. Thirdly, to whom theſe promiſes are made.
For the firſt, God promiſeth to be their teacher, yea though they be uncapable of humane diſcipline (They ſhall not teach one another, but they ſhall all be taught of God) Eſa. 54.13. Ier. 31.34. Againe, that he will give, yea powre his Spirit, and that his Spirit ſhall be upon them, Ioel 2.28. Eſ. 59.21.
Secondly, under theſe two expreſſions, yea each of them ſeverally, are comprehended all thoſe things that are requiſite for our being in Covenant with God; and all thoſe ſpirituall graces that give us right to the ſeale of entrance: as firſt Regeneration, which is the proper and certaine worke of the ſpirit of ſanctification, Ioh. 3.5. which ſpirit of regeneration to be ſignified by the water of baptiſme may appeare by that Scripture, Ioh. 3.5. & Tit. 3.5. Againe, this implies communion with Chriſt, which muſt needs be by faith, actuall or virtuall, Ioh. 6.45. Heb. 11.6. For whoſoever is taught of God, and hath the Spirit of Chriſt, muſt needs have Chriſt, and ſo it follows that ſuch have right unto remiſſion of ſinnes.
40Thirdly, theſe promiſes belong unto the children of the Church, the ſonnes and daughters of the faithfull, all of them from the leaſt to the greateſt; the ſeede of the faithfull, and their ſeeds ſeed, as may appeare in the Scriptures quoted; and here muſt be comprehended, infants as well as others, who have right unto the promiſe by vertue of their parents entering into Covenant with God, as Act. 2.39. The Apoſtle bids them repent and be baptized; (and ſo enter into Covenant) for the promiſe, ſaith he, is unto you and your children; ſo that there can no reaſon be given why infants ſhould be excluded from theſe promiſes: unleſſe any one ſhall ſay that infants are uncapable of theſe gifts, which this A. R. ſeemes to hold, in many places of his booke; which opinion is more worthy deteſtation then confutation. Are not infants capable of ſinne? Pſal. 51.5 and therefore of ſanctification: ſhall the firſt Adams diſobedience be available to bring guilt and defilement? and not Chriſts obedience to procure remiſſion, and ſanctification? Or is there no remedie for the poore infants of beleeving parents; but if they die before they come to the uſe of reaſon they muſt neceſſarily periſh, as being born the children of wrath, and being uncapable of remedie? Or doth this man hold, that they are brutes without ſoule in that he compares baptizing of infants to circumciſing of Camels or Aſſes? 2 Part, pag. 21.Are not theſe profane Atheiſticall conceits, contrary to the promiſes of God, cleare teſtimonie of Scripture, and example, as of Iohn the Baptiſt, who was ſanctified and moved by the Spirit even in his mothers wombe?
Queſt. But what muſt we then beleeve: that all the children of Chriſtians are already indued with the holy Ghoſt, taught of God, and ſanctified, &c. ſo ſoone as borne, or in their infancie?
Anſw. It is enough to prove their right to baptiſme, that they are under the promiſe and intereſſed therein, by vertue of their parents being (at leaſt externally) in Covenant: ſo that whether they have already received the Spirit, or have a promiſe thereof, it ſufficeth to give them a right to the Sacrament. As theſe are bid repent, and ſo come under promiſe (themſelves with their children) and then be baptized; and afterward they ſhall receive the holy Ghoſt.
Queſt. But muſt we think that all children of Chriſtian parents that are baptized, either have or ſhall receive the Spirit, and ſo be ſaved?
41Anſw. Iohn the Baptiſt, and the Apoſtles, though they were not to beleeve that amongſt thoſe multitudes whom they baptized, there were none but truely had or ſhould receive the Spirit, for it was after proved by the event, that many were hypocrites, yet they turned away none, becauſe by their externall confeſſion of ſinne, and profeſſion of faith and repentance, they ſhewed themſelves to be externally in Covenant, and ſo to have right to the outward ſeale, which they therefore adminiſtred to one as well as to another. So though we are not bound to think that all the children borne of parents in covenant are, or ſhall be ſanctified: yet becauſe they are outwardly in covenant and under the promiſe, (which promiſe God makes good as ſeemeth good in his eyes;) therefore the Miniſter, that is not to judge of the inward worke of ſanctification on the heart, whether preſent or future, but of the outward eſtate, (neither if he could diſcerne the inward eſtate might he withhold the outward priviledge from any (though wanting inward grace) that hath right thereunto by being under covenant outwardly) may and ought to adminiſter baptiſme to the children of all Chriſtian parents under his charge that requires it, ſo long as by wilfull Apoſtaſie from the faith, or juſt excommunication wherein they obſtinately continue, they with their children are not diſcovenanted.
Obiect. If any ſhould object, That thoſe promiſes of the Spirit, or Gods teaching, &c. made to the ſeed of the faithfull, to all both ſmall and great, &c, and the promiſe made to the faithfull and their children belong onely to the ſpirituall ſeed of the Church, viz. thoſe that are borne againe in the wombe of the Church.
Anſwer. I Anſwer. 1. Theſe promiſes made to the Chriſtian Church, are like to that promiſe made to the Iewiſh Church, Deut. 30.6. And the Lord thy God will circumciſe thine heart, and the heart of thy ſeed, to love the Lord thy God. Now this they were to underſtand, not onely or principally of Proſelytes that ſhould be converted to the Church, nor onely of their poſteritie, when they came to the uſe of reaſon; but even of Infants, as may appeare in that God appointed them to circumciſe their Infants. For circumciſion of the fleſh, was a ſign of circumciſion of the heart; which if infants had not been capable of, God would not have commanded the outward ſigne to have been adminiſtred unto them. And ſo theſe promiſes made to the Chriſtian Church, to their ſeed, to their ſeeds ſeed, to their children, from the leaſt to42 the greateſt, appertain to infants in the Chriſtian Church as well as others. The univerſall note being underſtood, De generibus ſingulorum, not de ſingulis generum, as they ſay; of all ſorts, ſexes, ages, and condition ſome: though every individuall of all ſorts be not comprehended therein. And therefore Baptiſme ſealing ſuch promiſes, belongs to Infants in the Chriſtian Church, as well as circumciſion did in the Iewiſh.
Secondly, I anſwer. It is abſurd to underſtand theſe promiſes onely of the ſpirituall ſeed, as if they belonged only to the regenerate; For what is it to be taught of God and have the Spirit powred, but to be converted or regenerated, and drawn to Chriſt; ſo that by this interpretation, the meaning of theſe promiſes ſhould be this much. I will powre my Spirit on whom I have or ſhall powre my Spirit, and they ſhall be taught of God, that are or ſhall be taught of God. It is true, God may here well promiſe a greater meaſure of the Spirit and illumination, where he hath given ſome meaſure. But withall it is certaine, here is promiſed the Spirit and illumination alſo, to thoſe that are quite deſtitute, and ſo to ſuch as are not yet the ſpirituall ſeed of the Church.
Thirdly, I anſwer. What matter of conſolation can this be to beleeving parents, if not withſtanding their prayer for, and religious education of their children, none of theſe or the like promiſes belong to them; but onely to the ſpirituall ſeed of the Church, that is, ſuch as are already converted, and declare their converſion by actuall faith? What ground of prayer for, or hope of the ſalvation of their children have they, more then of the Heathens, if this be admitted?
2. Argument. If Governours of families upon their beleeving and tendring up themſelves, and theirs to God and Chriſt, were not onely themſelves baptized; but all the perſons in their houſhold, and which were under their government, of what age ſoever, were baptized alſo; ſo that where there is no mention of preaching to, or the beliefe of any but the Governours themſelves; yet their whole houſholds were dedicated unto God in Baptiſme: Then it is lawfull (yea a dutie) to Chriſtian parents to tender their children (being part of their family) unto God in Baptiſme, and Miniſters have good ground, yea, ingagement for baptizing ſuch.
But Governours of Families upon their beleeving and tendering43 up themſelves and theirs unto God and Chriſt, were not onely themſelves baptized; but all the perſons in their houſhold, or which were under their government: ſo that where there is no mention of preaching to, or the beliefe of any but the Governours themſelves; yet their whole houſholds were dedicated unto God in Baptiſme. Act. 16.14, 15 and 31, 32, 33. 1 Cor. 1.6.
Therefore it is lawfull (yea the dutie) for Chriſtian parents or governours of families, to tender their infants, which are part of their houſhold, unto God in Baptiſme, and Miniſters ought to baptize ſuch being tendred of their parents.
The Major needs no confirmation, it being granted by all, yea, by the Adverſaries themſelves (as I conceive) taken for an undeniable principle, that the Apoſtles example in baptizing is a ſufficient warrant for us, and that ſuch are to be admitted to Baptiſme now, as were admitted by the Apoſtles: For moſt of their reaſoning is grounded hereupon, and they hence condemne our baptizing of Infants; becauſe (ſay they) it is not agreeable to the practiſe of the Apoſtles; ſo that that Baptiſme wch is agreeable to the Baptiſm of the Apoſtles, is warantable by their own grants: and ſo the ſequele ſtandeth firme and good. If in the Apoſtles times, whole families of beleeving governours were baptized, they ought ſo now, and ſo conſequently the infants of thoſe families, which are parts thereof, if there be any ſuch: For as Abraham and his Family, was a pattern unto all ſuch as ſhould enter into the Covenant of grace during the time of circumciſion; that as he and his Family were circumciſed, ſo ſhould all, whether of his poſteritie, or proſelytes, circumciſe all their Males, even the babes: So thoſe primitive Converts, that were the firſt fruits of the Gentiles, and when they beleeved were baptized with their whole families; are examples for the beleevers of all Ages to follow, in conſecrating themſelves and theirs to God in Baptiſm.
As for the Minor; thoſe places of Scripture cited prove it. Act. 16.31, 32, 33. To the Iaylour demanding, what he ſhould doe that he might be ſaved; Paul and Sylas anſwer, bidding him beleeve in the Lord Ieſus Chriſt, promiſing that he ſhould be ſaved and his houſhold. Teaching that the beleefe of a father, or governour of a family, is ſufficient to bring a whole family that is at his diſpoſing and to be ruled by him, into a ſtate of ſalvation, ſo farre, as that now they are within the Covenant, and ſo conſequently have right unto the ſeale of initiation. It is ſaid indeed,44 that they ſpake the word of the Lord unto him, and all that were in the houſe. viz. ſo many as were capable of inſtruction; But there is no word of the actuall beliefe or repentance by expreſſion, word, or action, of any in the family, except onely of the Iaylour himſelf, whoſe repentance and faith (at leaſt initiall) is expreſſed by the effects thereof. viz. his humiliation, and deſire of ſalvation, verſ. 29. and 30. and more fully by the fruits of them, declared verſ. 33. in taking them the ſame houre of the night, and waſhing their ſtripes,〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. and then it is ſaid, that he and all his were baptized ſtraight-way. Which evidently ſheweth, that the governours faith and repentance, or being within the Covenant, doth ſufficiently intereſſe their inferiours, that are at their diſpoſe, to the Covenant of Grace, and ſo to the Seale of entrance, at leaſt if they be not refractary, wilfully and ſtubbornly refuſing to be given up to God by their ſuperiours. The like may be ſaid of Stephanus his family, 1 Cor. 1.16. But moſt cleare, and expreſſe, is the example of Lydia, Act. 16.14, 15. When the Lord had opened her heart, to attend to thoſe things that were ſpoken of Paul, ſhe was baptized and her houſhold; Not a word ſpoken of preaching to, or actuall faith, and repentance of the reſt. So that it is apparent, that as upon Abrahams faith and repentance, and intereſt in God, his whole Family, whether thoſe that were born in the houſe, or thoſe that were bought with money, yea, even his infants of eight dayes old, had ſo farre intereſt in God, that (upon his tendring them up unto God according to his gracious appointment) now they had right unto the Seal of Circumciſion after God had once inſtituted it: ſo Chriſtian governours of families, or parents by their faith and repentance, are meanes of bringing ſalvation to their families, and intereſſing thoſe that are under them to God and Chriſt, ſo farre as that they have right unto Baptiſme; at leaſt except they ſtubbornly refuſe the Seale, and reject the Covenant.
A. R.To this Argument, eſpecially the Scriptures brought to confirme the aſſumption, you anſwer. There might be no Infants there (viz. in thoſe families which were baptized:) and my negative (ſay you) is as good as your affirmative.
Anſwer. This toucheth not the force of mine Argument, which hath ſhewed that upon parents or governours of families receiving the Goſpel, their families were accepted unto Baptiſme, their ſuperiours tendring them thereunto. Whether Infants or not, there is no exception of Infants or others.
45But you ſay your Negative is as good as our Affirmative, without proofe, and that you bring Scripture for your negative, as Act. 18.8. which Scripture maketh nothing againſt us.For firſt, if Criſpus beleeved in the Lord with all his Family, it doth not follow, that theſe families which we mentioned, had none but actuall beleevers in them, before they were baptized. Secondly, Criſpus may be ſaid to beleeve he and his houſhold, and ſo to be baptized, though they were not all indued with actuall faith, as Abrahams Family was a Family of beleevers, even the whole Family, when the Seale of the righteouſneſſe by faith had been ſet upon all the Males therein, although they did not all actually beleeve.
"You adde the example of the Iaylour, Act. 16.31, 32, &c. Anſwer. We have already ſufficiently conſidered, what is contained in verſ. 31, 32, 33. viz. though Paul and Silas preached the word unto all in the family (viz, that were capable of inſtruction) yet the faith and repentance of none but of the Iaylour himſelfe is manifeſted.
But you ſay:He and all his houſhold beleeved in God, as it isverſ. 34.
Anſw. If you looke into the Originall, you ſhall finde that that verſe makes nothing for your purpoſe. It is word for word. 〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.And he rejoyced (with all his houſe) having beleeved in God, or when he had beleeved in God. But becauſe the Engliſh cannot ſo fully and clearely give the ſenſe of the place, it may be noted〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, (having beleeved) being the Maſculine gender, and ſingular number (as the Grammarians ſpeake, cannot be referred to that〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉alone, or taken with〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the keeper; So that the ſenſe ſhould be, the whole houſe beleeved, or the Iaylour, and the whole houſe beleeved. I ſay the words cannot beare this ſenſe, as the skilfull in the language may eaſily ſee, and therefore in the tranſlation, beleeving (or rather having beleeved) in God, is to be read within a parentheſis, ſo that thoſe words with his whole family, is to be referred onely to the word rejoyced; Thus: And rejoyced (beleeving or having beleeved) in God) with all his houſe: So that though our Tranſlatours did well render the words, yet the want of obſerving the parentheſis, cauſeth the words at the firſt ſight, otherwiſe to ſound then indeed they do, to thoſe that looke on the Originall. Laetatus eſt cum omni domo credens Deo.So Arias Montanus. But under correction, and with ſubmiſſion to better46 judgements if I might be ſo bold: I conceive it might be rendered, more agreeably to the ſignification of the words, the ſcope of the place, and for the avoyding of ambiguitie. And having beleeved in God, he rejoyced (exulted or teſtified his joy openly by outward actions) in all his family, (or through his houſe, or all his houſe over). For (〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) beleeving, and (〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) rejoyced, are both the ſingular number, and ſo have reference to one alone. viz. 〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the Iaylour. 〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉(rendred, with all his houſe) is an adverbe, and ſo according to the ordinary uſe of that part of ſpeech, is referred to the verbe, to ſhew how the thing was done, not by whom. Beſide, the ſcope of the place, ſeemes to favour this Interpretation; for it is ſaid in the words before, that he brought them into the houſe, and ſet meat before them, or made them a feaſt, ſo that he expreſſed his rejoycing in his whole houſe, by making a ſolemn feaſt in all the family, as it were celebrating that night, as his ſpirituall birth-dayes ſolemnitie.
Now you come to compare that Scripture mentioned, which you apprehend to ſpeake of whole families beleeving before they were baptized, with theſe that ſpeake of baptizing families, where yet none are ſaid to beleeve, ſave the heads, and thence you gather,That it cannot be reaſonably imagined, but that the Apoſtle did baptize theſe families according to commiſſion, &c. and thoſe other places which are more ſilent, muſt be expounded by this which is more plain, and not this by thoſe.
Anſw. Firſt, No queſtion, the Apoſtle baptized according to commiſſion: but that their commiſſion bound them to baptize none, but thoſe which were brought to actuall faith, you have not proved, as may appeare by the foregoing examination of what you produced.
Secondly, Why ſhould not we interpret their commiſſion, by their practiſe, rather then draw their practiſe to that ſenſe which your fancy is pleaſed to put on the commiſſion? Their practiſe as a commentary on their commiſſion, ſhews in what ſenſe it was underſtood by them.
Thirdly, Why may not thoſe places, that ſpeake of the beleeving of the family before they were baptized (if you can produce any ſuch) be expounded by theſe that ſhew the heads of that the families beleeving and being baptized, and giving up themſelves and theirs unto God; the whole families were accounted beleeving families, and ſo baptized; eſpecially, ſeeing it ſo agreeth47 with Gods proceeding with Abraham the father of the faithfull?
Fourthly, Or what neceſſitie is there, that either thoſe Scriptures ſhould be expounded by theſe, or theſe by thoſe; when they are both equally plain and cleare? They may be both true according to the proper ſenſe of the letter and hiſtory. In ſome families, all might well be of ripe years and actuall beleevers, in others not, and yet both ſorts might be baptized without abſurditie.
Arg. 3Thoſe which are Saints, or holy ones, are meet members of the Church, and ſo have right to that Sacrament that ſeales admiſſion into the Church, Eph. 5.25, 26, 27. 1 Cor. 1.2.
But the children of Chriſtian parents are Saints or holy ones, Epheſ. 5.25, 26, 27. 1 Cor. 7.14.
Therefore they are meet members of the Church, and ſo have right to baptiſme, being the Sacrament that ſeales admiſſion into the Chriſtian Church.
The Propoſition, namely, that Saints or holy ones are members of the Church, and ſo to be admitted to the Sacrament of entrance thereinto; I know not to be queſtioned or denied by any; and (if it ſhould) may be confirmed by thoſe Scriptures, wherein the Churches have the title of Saints given to them, or Saints by calling; implying that a Saint, and a member of the Church, are termes convertible, conſidering that in ſome Epiſtles the faithfull are all called by the name of Church, the name of Saints or holy ones, not being uſed: and contrariwiſe, ſo that ſometime the Apoſtle calls them to whom he writes, Saints, not Church: ſometime Church, not Saints: ſometime both Church and Saints,Rom. 1.7. 1 Cor. 1.2. 2 Cor. 1.2. Epheſ. 1.1. Phil. 1.1. Col. 1.2. Gal. 1.2. 1 Theſ. 1.1. 2 Theſ. 1.1. as may appeare in the places quoted in the margine: ſo that all the members of the Church are Saints, all Saints are members of the Church. Yet it is to be noted by the way, they were Saints by calling, or called to be Saints. Not ſo, that every member of theſe Churches were truly ſanctified, but ſuch as had beene called to holineſſe; and made (at leaſt) an externall profeſſion of obeying this heavenly call. For ſome among thoſe ſanctified ones, or Saints by calling, were notorious offenders, and ſuch as were ſtained with groſſe errours; as 1 Cor. 3.3. & 5.1, 2. & 6.1.8.13. ſo Chap. 8.11. & 15. 2 Cor. 12.21. Gal. 3. Phil. 3.15. Yet it was ſufficient to make them Saints by calling, and members of the viſible Church, that they were partakers of the heavenly calling, Heb. 3.1. and ſo they had externall right to the Sacrament,48 although if they did not walke worthy their calling, they brought upon themſelves the greater condemnation.
Secondly, it is confirmed hence. In that holineſſe comprehends all the conditions, or qualifications that are requiſite to baptiſme. Holineſſe cannot be without communion with Chriſt, regeneration, and remiſſion by the Spirit and Bloud of Chriſt, 1 Cor. 6.11. 1 Ioh. 1.7. So that as much as a man is holy, ſo much he hath communion with Chriſt, regeneration and remiſſion. If indeed and truth, he be holy, then is he inwardly and really united unto Chriſt, regenerated, and juſtified: If outwardly and in profeſſion onely he be holy, then hath he communion with Chriſt, regeneration, and remiſſion onely outwardly, and in profeſſion, as Heb. 10.29. Thoſe Apoſtates are ſaid to account the bloud of the Covenant wherewith they were ſanctified prophane, and to doe deſpite to the Spirit of Grace. Theſe were not truly and inwardly ſanctified (for then ſhould they have never fallen away) but onely outwardly, faederally, and in reſpect of externall profeſſion. Yet this externall holineſſe is as much as the Miniſter can diſcern, or require as neceſſary, for receiving into the outward covenant and admitting to the ſeale of entrance.
Thirdly, this is confirmed by that Scripture cited in the Propoſition, Epheſ. 5.25, 26, 27. where it is ſhewed that the Church is ſanctified and purged by Chriſt in the waſhing of water in the word, that he might make it to himſelfe, a glorious Church, not having ſpot or wrinkle, or any ſuch thing; but that it ſhould be holy and unblameable. Wherein theſe two propoſitions (making for the confirmation of my Propoſition) are plainly contained. Firſt, that the Church is ſanctified by Chriſt, and that it is an holy ſocietie; which holineſſe is ſuch a proper adjunct or unſeparable propertie of the Church, that whoſoever is holy muſt needs be a member of the Church. Secondly, that this Church which Chriſt ſo loved, for which he gave himſelfe, which he hath made holy, he hath cleanſed with the waſhing of water in the word; which whether it be meant of the outward ſigne or thing ſignified in baptiſme, or rather both; doth apparently ſhew that the whole Church and all the members thereof being holy, have right to the outward waſhing of water in baptiſme.
To the Minor or Aſſumption; That the children of Chriſtian parents are holy. Firſt, it might be proved from the ſame place, Epheſ. 5.25, 26, 27. For otherwiſe unleſſe it be granted that all49 the children of Chriſtian parents are ſo faederally holy, that at leaſt ſome of them are ſanctified in deed and truth, it will follow that they are not loved of Chriſt, none of thoſe for whom Chriſt gave himſelfe, nor part of the Church at leaſt in their infancie, and conſequently thoſe children of Chriſtian parents that die before the years of diſcretion, and actuall faith, muſt unavoidably and remedileſly periſh; and that the parents of ſuch can have no hope at all of their eſcaping eternall damnation; not withſtanding all the promiſes that God hath made to his people and their poſteritie: which opinion, what Chriſtian heart doth not abhorre?
Secondly, but for the fuller proofe of the point, that children of parents whereof the one at leaſt is a beleever, are holy, that place, 1 Cor. 7.14. is moſt direct and cleare, where the Apoſtle ſaith, For the unbeleeving husband is ſanctified by the wife;〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. and the unbeleeving wife is ſanctified by the husband; elſe were your children uncleane, but now they are holy; whence we may note,
Firſt, that the word holy, is the ſame that is uſed elſe-where, for Saints, as the proper title of the members of the Church,〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Rom. 1.7. 1 Cor. 1.2, &c.
Secondly, that the reaſon why theſe children are ſaid to be holy, is the faith of the parents, or one parent at leaſt, to whom the other parent is ſanctified, by vertue of the beleeving parents faith, (according to thoſe generall rules, 1 Tim. 4.4, 5. Tit. 1.15.) Whence it was that the beleeving yoke-fellow had the lawfull and ſanctified uſe of the unbeleeving yoke-fellow. For though it be unlawfull for a beleever to marry an infidell, 2 Cor. 6.14. Yet when of unbeleevers, who were married together in the time of infidelitie, one is called, the other is not; the calling of the one to grace doth not diſſolve or annihilate their marriage (which is Gods ordinance, and therefore good) if the unbeleever be content to live in marriage fellowſhip with the beleeving mate. So that Gods Covenant with the beleeving parent, or parents, is the ground of the childes holineſſe; for (as hath beene touched before) in regard of externall covenant with God, the ſtate of the parents, or better parent, and of the child is the ſame. If the parent be in Covenant, the child (though by nature the child of wrath, yet by Gods grace) is borne in Covenant, and ſo he and his poſteritie continues untill any of them caſt themſelves and their poſteritie out of Covenant by Apoſtaſie. The child that50 is borne of parents out of Covenant, remaines out of Covenant, unleſſe either the parents, or ſome that are in ſtead of parents, being called of God, give up themſelves and the child unto God, or the child coming to yeares of diſcretion be called into the Covenant in his owne perſon.
Thirdly, Hence it followeth that the holineſſe of the children of beleeving parents, is not neceſſarily internall and reall holineſſe; ſo that it be externall and faederall, it ſufficeth to make them members of the viſible Church. For as of thoſe Corinthians and others that are called Saints, we cannot infallibly gather that all were internally ſanctified, it was ſufficient to make them externall members, that they were both Saints by calling: ſo it is ſufficient to make the children ſo farre holy as to be members of the Church and outwardly in Covenant, if their parents were outwardly in Covenant. What is inwardly wrought, it is not for man to judge.
Now let us ſee what A. R. objecteth to this place of Scripture.
A. R.For anſwer, you lay down ſome grounds: as, Firſt, There is but one Covenant now on foot, which is the Covenant of grace and ſalvation, Heb. 7.22. & 8.13. & 10.9.
Anſw. We grant you this, and more too. Namely, that never ſince Adams fall was there any Covenant, properly ſo called, made with mankind by God, but the Covenant of grace and ſalvation: Where read you of any Covenant of works and damnation?
Secondly, You ſay:That there is but one manner of entering and being in the Covenant, Ioh. 3.3.5.6. Heb. 10.19, 20, 21, 22.
Anſw. True, If you meane being in that Covenant inwardly, ſpiritually, and ſavingly, and the ſame ever was the manner of being and entering into Covenant ſince Adams fall, viz. by Ieſus Chriſt, or regeneration.
Thirdly, You ſay:There is but one holineſſe now acceptable unto God; which is inward, ſpirituall, and in truth, without which no outward obedience, or conformitie to any worſhip is warrantable or acceptable, Ioh. 4.23, 24. Heb. 11.6.
Anſw. If you underſtand it of ſuch warrantableneſſe, as finds acceptation with God in the party performing it, as your latter ſeemes to expreſſe the former: This is not queſtioned nor denied by any that I know. But why doe you limit your propoſitions by51 the particle [Now,] as if though now outward obedience and conformitie to any ordinance, be not acceptable without inward holineſſe; yet it ſometimes had been? which is utterly untrue, as may appeare, Gen. 4. Pſal. 50. and 51. Eſa. 1. Ier. 6. and almoſt every where.
Now you come directly to anſwer. Hence (ſay you) it followes, that if beleevers children be in Covenant, and have true holineſſe, then they are all ſaved old and young. But all beleevers children are not ſaved, no not of faithfull Abraham himſelfe, Eſa. 10.21. with Rom. 9.27. Therefore the children of beleevers are not in the Covenant now on foot, nor ought to be baptized.
Anſw. You might as well reaſon thus. If Simon Magus, Ananias, and Sapphira, with many other hypocrites, in the Primitive Churches, whom yet the Apoſtles baptized, and called Saints, and faithfull, were in the Covenant, and had this true holineſſe, or were truly Saints; then they muſt needs be all ſaved. But they were not all ſaved. Therefore they were no beleevers or Saints, nor in the Covenant now on foot; and therefore ſhould not have beene baptized. The Apoſtles belike, wanted you to direct and controll them, and ſhew whom they ſhould have baptized, and whom not.
Secondly, I anſwer directly. Though true holineſſe be neceſſarie for ſpirituall and internall being in Covenant, and for eternall ſalvation; yet the outward holineſſe of the party conſiſting in externall being in Covenant, is ſufficient to warrant a Miniſter to baptize; otherwiſe he ſhould never have warrant to baptize: for none knowes the heart, (ſo as to judge of inward holineſſe infallibly) but God.
Anſw. Secondly, though they were under the old Covenant legally diſpenſed, wherein grace was more obſcurely and ſparingly communicated to Gods people then it is under the Goſpel: yet the old Covenant was a Covenant of grace, which all muſt needs grant, unleſſe they thinke that the Patriarks, Prophets, and that holy nation of the Iews were a graceleſſe people out of favour with God, either not at all ſaved, or ſaved by workes. (For there is no way to be ſaved, but by grace or workes; and no ſalvation by grace, but in a Covenant of grace) But I hope you will not be ſo blaſphemous as to ſay this.
Secondly, If the old Covenant ſtood not by faith (to uſe your phraſe) and circumciſion of the heart, how is it that God promiſeth circumciſion of the heart, Deut. 30.6. and living by faith, Hab. 2.4. and the Prophets call upon the people for circumciſion of the heart, Ier. 4.4. and for faith, Pſal. 37. Eſa. 7. 2 Chron. 20. and that the Apoſtle ſhews, Heb. 11. that under the old Covenant the godly were famous for their faith? Were thoſe promiſes of God, exhortations of the Prophets, and practiſe of thoſe Worthies ſpoken of concerning faith and circumciſion of the hart, more then was comprehended in the Covenant under which Gods people at that time were?
Thirdly, whereas you ſay the Church of the Goſpel doth ſtand on faith and circumciſion of the heart: Is your meaning that there is no Church of the Goſpel, but all that are therein, and profeſſed and acknowledged members thereof, are indued with faith and circumciſion of heart? If ſo; experience of the Scripture, and all Chriſtian Churches, will confute you; ſith ſtill chaffe is mingled with graine, tares with wheat; the children of the wicked one, with the children of the kingdome. Or is your meaning that faith and circumciſed hearts, is required of all in the Church of the Goſpel; and is truly in thoſe that are internall and living members of the ſame? This is granted, and may be ſaid as truly of the Church of the Iewes; and therefore this can make no difference being common to both.
Fourthly, Can you tell what you meane when you ſay, That the old Covenant ſtood onely by nature, and circumciſion of the fleſh? I cannot tell how you are to be interpreted but one of theſe three waies: Either, firſt, that this Covenant was grounded on53 nature. Or ſecondly, that it promiſed onely naturall or temporall bleſſings. Or thirdly, that it was made with all and onely the naturall ſeed of Abraham: all which are groſſe and notorious errours, openly croſſing the Scriptures. For if you meane that this Covenant was grounded in nature, this is falſe: for God choſe Abraham and Iſrael of free grace and love above all other people, Ioſh. 4. Deut. 7.7, &c. neither did they differ in nature from others. Or ſecondly, if you meane that God onely required of them outward circumciſion and cutting off the naturall foreskin, and promiſed only naturall and temporall bleſſings; this opinion is fitter to be abhorred, then confuted. Or thirdly, if you meane, that to be of the naturall ſeed of Abraham, and to be circumciſed in the fleſh, was ſufficient and neceſſary for being in that Covenant, ſo that their being in Covenant conſiſted in being the naturall ſeed of Abraham; this is as falſe: for firſt, Were not many Proſelytes joyned with the Iſraelites in the ſame Covenant? ſo that to be of Abrahams ſeed was not neceſſary. Secondly, Did not they want circumciſion in the wilderneſſe fourty yeares, and yet remaine in Covenant. Thirdly, Did not Iſhmael and Eſau grow out of Covenant, though the ſeed of Abraham; and ſo ten Tribes ceaſed from being Gods people long before the old Covenant was antiquated; and did not the Prophets ſhew that Legall obſervations were nothing worth without ſinceritie?
Fifthly, though the outward cleanſings and ceremonies of the Law have ceaſed, and ſo that outward & faederall holineſſe be at an end: yet there is an outward and faederall holineſſe of the new Covenant, whereby Chriſtians are diſtinguiſhed from other people. They have their outward Baptiſme and the Lords Supper, prayer in the Name of Chriſt alone, the Word, and profeſſion of the Goſpel, by which they are diſtinguiſhed from unbeleevers. Act. 2.41.42. There are reckoned up: firſt, Baptiſme: ſecondly, the Apoſtles Doctrine: thirdly, Fellowſhip, or Communion with the faithfull: fourthly, breaking Bread: and fifthly, Prayers: as diſtinctive markes of the Church, by which it then was, and to this day is diſtinguiſhed from all other ſocieties whatſoever. 1 Cor. 5.12. There is a diſtinction expreſſed of thoſe that were within the Church, or Covenant, and members of the Courch, and thoſe that were without; whereof theſe were not ſubject to the judgement or cenſure of the Church, thoſe were. But how are theſe diſtinguiſhed? (that the Church may neither goe beyond,54 nor neglect her office within, her bounds) By inward holineſſe? that none ſees but God, and each mans owne conſcience; and therefore cannot be a note of diſtinction unto men that cannot diſcern the heart. By outward holineſſe of life? Not ſo; for ſome of thoſe that were within, were guilty of more groſſe profaneneſſe then thoſe that were without, as in the ſame Chap. 1 Cor. 5.1. and 11. Therefore there muſt be ſome note of diſtinction, or faederall holineſſe, by which thoſe that were wicked in heart, and life, and yet Saints by calling, and members of the Church, and ſo under the Churches juriſdiction, might be diſcerned (from them that were without) and ſo ſubjected to the Churches cenſure, 1 Cor. 5.11, 12, 13.
Yet you ſay further. There is now onely the new Covenant, which is a covenant of grace and ſalvation, and brings certaine ſalvation to all thoſe that rightly enter into it; which is onely by faith. Hence it is ſaid, Act. 2.47. That the Lord added to the Church daily ſuch as ſhould be ſaved.
Anſw. It is as true that the old Covenant made with the Iewes, was a covenant of grace and ſalvation, which brought certaine ſalvation to all thoſe that rightly entered into it, and that it was onely by faith. Heb. 11.And as for the Scripture you cite, it is ſaid indeed, That the Lord added to the Church ſuch as ſhould be ſaved. But it is not ſaid, onely ſuch as ſhould be ſaved were added to the Church; or that all thoſe who were added to the Church were ſaved.
You proceed:And that the holineſſe of children is not meant of any holineſſe in relation to any Church-covenant will appeare further by theſe reaſons. Firſt, that which is an effect of regeneration is not brought to paſſe by generation (though the parents be holy.) But to be of the covenant or kingdome, is the proper effect of regeneration, Ioh. 3.3. without which none can ſee it, (much leſſe be of it) or enter into it. Therefore it cannot be brought to paſſe by generation, though the parents be holy.
Anſw. We ſay not (neither can it follow from our grounds) that the children of Chriſtian parents are in covenant with God by generation, but by vertue of Gods gracious promiſe, and from the nature of the covenant of grace; wherein God is pleaſed to accept parents together with their children for his. Secondly, to be of, or in the covenant outwardly (of which being in covenant55 we ſpeak, and which is ſufficient to make an externall member of the Church, and give right unto the outward ſeales) you can never prove to be the proper effect of regeneration, untill you have proved that all thoſe who were baptized by Iohn the Baptiſt, and the Apoſtles, and ſo admitted into the covenant as members of the Church, were truly regenerate; which to hold, were to contradict the Scripture.
Your ſecond reaſon is this:Secondly, contradictions cannot be the effect of one and the ſame covenant, in one and the ſelfeſame reſpect. But for one parent to be a beleever, that is of the Church, when the other parent is not, to produce an holy ſeed that is in covenant, 1 Cor. 7.14. and for the other parents to be one a Iew, the other a Babylonian; the one a member of the Church, the other not; to produce an unholy ſeed that is out of covenant, and to be put away both wiſe and all borne by her, as Ezr. 10.3. is a contradiction in one and the ſelfeſame reſpect; and therefore cannot be the effect of one and the ſelfeſame covenant.
Anſw. Not to examine the forme of this Argument, nor to ſtand upon the ſtrangeneſſe of your expreſſions: I conceive I apprehend what you would ſay, and anſwer. It is no contradiction for the ſame covenant to require that the Iewes ſhould caſt away their Babyloniſh wives, and the children which they had by them as unholy, and out of covenant: and yet allow the Primitive Chriſtians, their retaining of their yoke-fellowes; (though unbeleevers; in hope that they might be brought within the covenant, and wonne unto Chriſt) and the retaining of their children, as being already in covenant and holy. I ſay here is no contradiction, for here is not the ſame reſpect, which is neceſſary in contradictions. Firſt, the Iewes were forbidden to take wives of any, but of Abrahams, ſeed and their owne Tribe. Chriſtians are not tied to any Tribe for their yoke-fellowes; which hinders not but the covenant was the ſame with us and them, though ſome circumſtances varied. Secondly, the Iewes took Babyloniſh women; (for I will not contend about the name Babylonian, but give you leave to call theſe ſtrange wives Babylonians) after they themſelves were in covenant with God; which made their marriage with them altogether unlawfull, and their ſeed an unholy, offſpring. But thoſe Corinthians to whom Paul writeth, were married before their calling into covenant with God, as your ſelfe56 write. 2. Part. pag. 10. And after marriage the one was called to the faith, the other remained unconverted, as may appeare, verſ. 20.21.24.27. ſo that their former marriage being lawfull in it ſelfe, and not forbidden of God: (but rather approved, for marriage even among infidels, as well as eating and drinking is Gods ordinance, neceſſary for the due conſervation of the world) and it not being the unbeleeving yoke-fellows fault that his yokefellow is an unbeleever; the unbeleevers ſinne ſhall not prejudice the beleever, to hinder their poſteritie from the priviledge of faederall holineſſe.
Anſw. That ſcripture Exod. 14.48. doth not neceſſarily require, that both parents whoſe male children ſhould be circumciſed, ſhould become Proſelytes, and ſubmit themſelves to Gods Covenant. It was ſufficient that the man who had principall Authority and power to diſpoſe of his children, ſhould circumciſe his male children, though his wife ſhould refuſe to become a Proſelyte; (for ought that can be gathered from that or any other ſcripture) or the Proſelyte wife (if either ſhe ſhould be forſaken of her husband, or become a widdow, or be permitted of her husband to diſpoſe of her children, though he were never converted) might have given up her ſelfe and her family to the God of Iſraell by circumciſing her males, for it is ſaid the ſtranger (not his yokefellow, or both the parents) ſhall circumciſe his males. So that your reaſons (being diſproved) prove nothing.
You bring us in objectingThey are termed holy, and ſo to be eſteemed: to which you anſwer, So were the unbeleeving Iewes, when they were broken off, Rom. 11.16. and ſo is the unbeleeving wife, and yet neither of them to be baptized, for their being termed holy: and therefore neither children for their being termed holy.
Anſw. Neither are the unbeleeving Iewes called holy as unbeleiving, for the Apoſtles calls thoſe Iewes an holy lumpe and holy branches (not that were rejected through unbeleefe, but)57 that had been, and were to be converted to the faith and ſaved, as is apparent by the coherence: for whom he calls holy here, Rom. 11.16. he ſpeaks of their fulneſſe (or full and generall converſion) verſ. 12. and v. 15. he ſpeakes of their converſion which ſhalbe life from the dead, and ſaith that they ſhalbe ſaved, v 26. So that it is evident that he calls the Iewes holy, not in reſpect of the unbeleevers which were broken off and diſcovenanted; but of their holy anceſtors, and thoſe whoſe fulneſſe ſhould be a glorious inriching of the Gentiles, whoſe receiving ſhould be life from the dead, and who ſhould be ſaved and obtaine mercy. And ſo they are called holy, as a people conſidered for the future to be taken again into Covenant, and to have right to the ſeale of the Covenant.
Secondly, Neither is the unbeleeving wife called holy in this place, indeed ſhe is ſaid to be ſanctified to the husband, ſo that he hath an holy and comfortable uſe of her as of other temporall bleſſings: But to be ſanctified for ſuch an uſe or to ſuch a perſon, differeth farre from being holy.
Anſ. Becauſe you have a good faculty, in repeating the ſame things againe and againe, and denying without proofe whatſoever makes againſt you; I will be content to caſt away ſome more time in anſwering you, though the ſame for ſubſtance that hath been ſaid; and reply: If you meane that holyneſſe which accompany faith, vertuall or actuall, is only available to internall admittance into the ſtate of the Goſpell, ſo as to be made living and reall members of the Church: we aſſent to this aſſertion. But the queſtion is not now; who is a true and ſpirituall Member of the Church, and infalliblely admitted to the ſpirituall and ſaving benefits that Chriſt hath purchaſed for his Church? But who is an externall Member and may be admitted to the outward ſeale? No queſtion, Iohn the Baptiſt and Chriſts Diſciples, admitted many to baptiſme, of whoſe ſaving faith yet they were not undoubtedly aſſured.
Wheras you goe about largly to ſhew, That in the ſtate of the Iewes, and old Covenant ſome were faederally and outwardly holy, and ſome uncleane: But now that all ſuch diſtinctions are taken away, and that the Apoſtle now meant not any ſuch holyneſſe,58 for beleevers children to have, neither is there now any ſuch kind of holyneſſe in the world; neither is there any other kind of holyneſſe, ſave only that true holyneſſe which accompanies the new creature available to baptiſme: this is the ſumme of your ſpeach, wherunto I Anſwer.It hath ſufficiently been ſhewed before, that there is a federall holyneſſe in the new Covenant or Chriſtian Church, aſwell as there was in the Church of the Iewes. Neither doth your long diſcourſe or many abuſed ſcriptures prove any thing to the contrary. To repeat what was ſaid before. Whence was the Church of the Corinthians holy, or a Congreation of ſaints, (ſith there were ſo many really profane and carnall amongſt them) but from federall holyneſſe, by which they were diſtinguiſhed from them that were without; though ſome in the Church were more notorious for vice, then thoſe that were without? whence were the Hebrews called holy brethren, but becauſe they were partakers of the heavenly calling; though ſome were ſo faſtned to the Ceremonies,Heb 3.2. and inclined to backſliding, that the Apoſtle uſeth ſharp and ſevere language towards them ch. 6.10. and 12? How is it ſaid that they had been ſanctified by the blood of the Covenant, that afterwards trampled on the Sonne of God by apoſtaſy, accounting the blood of the Covenant profane, and doing deſpite to the ſpirit of grace: if men may not in the ſtate of the Goſpell, have a federall holyneſſe, without inward holyneſſe that accompanies the new creature and ſaving faith? So 1 Pet. 2.9.10. the Apoſtle calls the Chriſtians to whom he wrote, a choſen generation, a royall prieſthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people, a people of God, that had obtained mercy. Muſt we think that all theſe (to whom Peter wrote) were undoubtedly indued with true faith, and holyneſſe that accompanies the new creature; ſo that there was no hypocrite amongſt them? that we have no ground for. How then are theſe glorious titles beſtowed upon them all? By vertue (doubtleſſe) of Gods calling and their outward accepting of Gods Covenant; though there was but a part only amongſt thoſe Churches, to whom theſe clogies properly belonged, for there were tares among the wheate.
Anſw. If the ſame be the rule or ground for juſtification and ſalvation, and for baptiſme: then muſt Miniſters have no rule for baptiſme, unleſſe they can know the heart, as God who juſtifies and ſaves; and ſo conſequently the baptizer muſt either be (〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) the knower of the heart, that is God alone;Act 1.24. or baptize beſide or without rule, that is unlawfully; for the true holyneſſe that accompanies the new creature and ſaving faith, is known to none but God and the ſpirit of man which is in him. 1. Cor. 2.11.
Anſw. To what purpoſe is it, to ſay, this is an infallible and eternall rule, Whoſoever beleeves ſhall be ſaved: unleſſe you prove the other, that is in queſtion. viz. that ſaving faith is the only rule of Baptiſme, and that none might be baptized, but they that did actually beleeve, with the faith that accompanies the new creature, and that this rule is true as God is true? which yet I conceive you will not be ſo bold as to ſay (which unleſſe you ſay, you ſay nothing to purpoſe.) For hence it would follow, that all whom Iohn and the Diſciples, &c. regularly baptized, had true faith, and conſequently were ſaved, that they failed, yea were raſh and preſumptuous and ſinned grievouſly (as going beyond commiſſion) when they baptized any hypocrite; that ſuch an one after he came to repentance, muſt neceſſarily be baptized againe; for his former baptiſme was applied beſide the rule, and ſo was a falſe baptiſme. Yea if faith be the rule both of baptiſme and juſtification alike, it will follow that as all and only beleevers were juſtified, and all and only the juſtified were beleevers: So all and only the faithfull60 muſt be baptized, and all and only the baptized are faithfull, and conſequently whoſoever is baptized is a beleever and a juſtified perſon, and whoſoever is not baptized is neither beleever nor juſtified. But to leave theſe abſurd conſequences that neceſſarily follow upon your abſurd opinion; It is evident that God never appointed ſaving faith to be the rule of baptiſme, by which his Miniſters ſhould be directed in adminiſtring baptiſme. For it is impoſſible for a Miniſter to know infallibly whether another ſavingly beleeveth, and ſo whether he may baptize him according to the rule (if faith be the rule.) That cannot be a rule to us to worke by, which we muſt neceſſarily be ignorant of. God never ordained ſuch an uncertaine, yea incomprehenſible rule for his ſervants to worke by.
Anſw. There is no more danger of failing in judging an Infant to be an Infant, then in judging a man to be a man. But there may be failing in judging an Infant to be truly and really holy and in Covenant, though all the children of Chriſtian parents are called holy: aſwell as there might be failing in judging this or that man in the Corinthian Church to be a ſaint indeed; though the whole Church were called ſaints. For as the Apoſtles did according to the rule of charity, judge men to be beleevers, and ſo baptized them, when they made a profeſſion of faith, and did not manifeſtly diſcover the contrary; though afterwards many proved otherwiſe: So we are to judge Infants of Chriſtian parents to be holy, and ſo within Covenant, and to be baptized, becauſe Gods word teſtifies that they are holy, (and neither your ſhifts and ſophiſticall evaſions, nor all the policie of Satan can diſprove it) though afterwards ſome of them are proved to have been only outwardly, not inwardly in Covenant.
Here you bring in ſome authours teſtifying, that baptiſme of children is but a tradition, a cuſtome of the Church, invented by the Pope &c.Which teſtimonies I cannot for the preſent examine, as not being furniſhed with the bookes of the authours. Though if one ſhould caſt away ſo much time as to follow you, in examining theſe teſtimonies: in probability you would bee found no honeſter in citing them, then you have been in citing many ſcriptures. For he that will be ſo bold as to pervert, and abuſe61 Gods word, will not ſpare mans. But becauſe we are not bound to ſtand to the teſtimony of humane authors, neither will you as I conceive. I will anſwer no more at this time to your humane authorities, but theſe two things: Firſt, that if you would ſtand to the verdict of authors; I make no queſtion but more and more approved authors might eaſily be brought againſt you, then thoſe you have brought for your ſelfe. Secondly, what credit is to be given to your authors, who manifeſtly contradict one another? In a word to give a touch, Origen the prime and ancienteſt of thoſe whom you cite, which lived about 200. yeeres after Chriſt, overthrowes what you bring out of him, or other authors for your purpoſe. For whereas you ſay he calls it a ceremony or tradition of the Church, (which yet it may be well called, and withall be of divine inſtitution, as being delivered to, and uſed by the Church, in which ſenſe Baptiſme in generall, and the Lords Supper may be called Ceremonies and traditions of the Church which is the keeper and uſer of them, not the author or inſtitutor of them) elſewhere he ſpeaks of it, as an unqueſtionable practiſe of the Church in his time, thus, in his ſecond tome and 14. homily on Luke, cited by**Parvuli baptizantur in remiſſionem peccatorem. Quorum peccatorum? aut quo tempore peccaverunt? aut quomodo poteſt ulla lavacri in parvulis ratio ſubſiſtere, niſi juxta illum ſenſum de quo paulo ante diximus? Nullus mundus a ſorde, nec ſi unius dici quidem fuerit vita ejus ſuper terram. Et quia per baptiſmi ſacramentum nativitatis ſordes deponuntur, propterca baptizantur & parvuli, Orig. Tom. 2. Hom. 14. in Luc. citat. Polan. Synt. Tom. ſecundo lib. 6. cap. 55. Polanus in his Syntagme, Little ones are Baptized for the remiſſion of ſinnes. Of what ſinnes? Or at what times have they ſinned? Or how can there be any reaſon of waſhing in little ones, but according to that ſenſe of which we ſpake a little before? There is none cleane from filthineſſe, no though he hath lived but one day on earth. And becauſe by the Sacrament of Baptiſme, the filthineſſe of birth is put away; therefore little ones are alſo Baptized. Wherein this Authour ſeems (for I have not his Booke) from the Baptizing of Infants, as from an unqueſtionable practiſe of the Church in thoſe Primitive times, to demonſtrate as from a cleare principle, that Infants even of one day old were polluted with ſinne: And yet you ſay Luther ſaith that for one thouſand yeares ſince Chriſt and the Apoſtles it came to be in uſe in the Church, and was eſtabliſhed by Pope Innocentius. Surely your Authours are honeſtly cited by you, or worthy credit with us, when you bring them ſpeaking ſuch flat and irreconciliable contradictions.
Anſw. It is well yet that you give leave to wiſe men to uſe their owne judgement, and doe not tie them upon neceſſitie of ſalvation to ſubſcribe to your fancies.
You goe on, I ſay then it is ſuch an holyneſſe as is oppoſite to ſome kinde of uncleanneſſe, which holyneſſe I take to be this; as if when they are ſaid to be holy, it is no more then to ſay they are not uncleane, (to wit) no baſtards.
Anſw. Who ever before (but**Note reader that this is Bellarmines interpretation of this place. Liberi tales dicuntur, non inmundi, i. e. infames & ſpurij, ſed ſancti, i. e. legitimi & liberi a civili ignominia. Whether A.R. borrowed this anſwer of Bellarmine, or invented it of himſelfe (as it is the hapineſſe of the good wits and holy affections of Ieſuiticall and Anabaptiſticall heads & hearts to jumpe in the ſame thing) let others judge. Bellarmine or ſuch Ieſuiticall perverters of Scriptures) tooke it ſo, putting uncleane for baſtards, or holy for legitimate?
Anſw. But let any man that is not given over to ſtrong deluſions to beleeve lies, judge whether there be any ſyllable favouring this interpretation, or proving that by holy muſt be meant only No-baſtards, or whether you can with all your cunning, wrack the Apoſtles ſpeaches to ſpeak any thing for you, yet now we muſt take your word for it, becauſe you ſay it clearely appeares to be ſo.
Further;This (you ſay) may likewiſe appeare, Mal. 2.14, 15, &c. In which words it plainly appeareth, that the ſcope of the place is, that thoſe children which are generated by one man and one woman lawfully married, are a godly or an holy feed, and thoſe that are generated otherwiſe, are not ſo, but baſtards. And the reaſon of this holineſſe, ariſeth not here from any relation they had to the Iewiſh State, not from any Church covenant; but meerely from Gods firſt inſtitution of marriage in the creation, and his then providing one woman for one man; and which therefore is of univerſall concernment to all mankind, by the law of creation.
Anſw. No ſuch thing plainly appeareth, as you would beare men in hand. For the ſcope of the Prophet in that of Malachi, ſeemes to be this, which in the 16. verſ. he concludes; viz. that God hates putting away, that is, divorcement; whereby the Iſraelites alienated their owne wives that were Iſraelites, that they might marry ſtrangers: and this he proves by divers reaſons, to be odious before God. Firſt, becauſe by this meanes they prophaned the holineſſe of the Lord, in breaking his covenant, by putting away their owne wives, that were Iſraelites; and marrying the daughters of ſtrange gods; viz. heatheniſh63 wives, which God in his covenant had forbidden: by which meanes they would ſoone grow out of covenant, and ceaſe to be an holy people, verſ. 11. Secondly, becauſe by this meanes they cauſed the Altar of the Lord to be covered with teares ſo that no ſacrifices were acceptable, (which ſhould have beene offered in joy) becauſe the poore ſorrowfull wives that had been put away, could not but teſtifie before the Altar the ſorrow for the wrong that had been done unto them, verſ. 13. Thirdly, becauſe in ſo doing they dealt treacherouſly againſt the wife of their youth, which was the husbands companion, and the wife of his covenant, verſ. 14. Fourthly, becauſe God had made them one, verſ. 15. In the firſt inſtitution of marriage appointing that two onely ſhould be made one fleſh by marriage, appointing alſo that they ſhould be of one ſtock, viz. of the Tribe of Iſrael of one Religion, viz. worſhippers of the true God of Abraham, inclining by his ſpeciall providence theſe couples to make choyce of one another. So that now for them to divorce their wives, is to caſt away part of themſelves. In all theſe reſpects it may be ſaid that God made them one, viz. in regard of the firſt inſtitution of marriage, in regard of lineage, Religion, their mutuall choice one of another, whereby they became one; and in regard of the nature of marriage, which is to make one man, and one woman no more two, but one fleſh. And though God had the reſt of the ſpirit, that is, the diſpoſition of all perſons, and the inclination of their hearts, in his power; yet as to Adam he gave but one wife, ſo to theſe that are here reproved he gave to each of them but one wife, with whom their ſeverall husbands ſhould become one; inclining their ſpirits at their firſt choice, to mutuall and conjugall affection one to another: though it was in his power, to have given them other yoke-fellows, if it had ſeemed fit to him. Therefore they are bidden to take heed to their ſpirits, verſ. 15. & 16. that is, looke to their hearts that they ſhould not wander after adulterous luſts. Fifthly, the fifth Reaſon or Argument, to ſhew that this putting away was odious to God, which the Prophet brings is: Becauſe God therefore made them one, as in other forenamed reſpects, ſo principally in Religion, (for that he ſpeaks principally, if not onely, of this, appears in that he complains of marrying the daughter of a ſtrange god) to the end that he might ſeek a godly ſeed, or ſeed of God: that is,〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 that there might ſucceſſively proceed from them, a ſeed in covenant with God: whereas otherwiſe64 the holy ſeed would be ſtained, and God provoked, to diſcovenant them, and their poſteritie, ſo many as ſhould marry idolatreſſes. This ſeemes to be the meaning and ſumme of this Scripture, whereon I have ſtood the longer, becauſe it is ſomewhat obſcure. But howſoever A. R. will gather that the godly ſeed here, or holy ſeed, as he will metaphraſe it, muſt needs ſignifie a ſeed onely legitimate, or borne in lawfull matrimony; and ſo conclude that no more is meant by holy, 1 Cor. 7. His ground I can ſee to be none other, but becauſe God is ſaid to make one ſeeking an holy ſeed. But I anſwer: Firſt, that this place is too farre fetcht to gather clearly therefrom, that all children begotten in lawfull matrimony are an holy ſeed; and that unholy ſeed is ſo called in reſpect of the firſt inſtitution onely of marriage, which is the ground of the marriage of Heathens and Infidels. Secondly, I have ſhewed that in divers other reſpects, God may be as truly ſaid to have made them one; as in reſpect of the firſt inſtitution of marriage, which may as pertinently to this place, and agreeably to the ſcope of the H. G. & to the truth it ſelf have place here. Thirdly, I ſhewed that the ſcope of this Scripture imports that oneneſſe in Religion muſt needs here be meant (whether with or without the other ſignifications, I ſay not) which quite overthrowes his ground; for if unitie in the true Religion muſt needs concurre in parents, (at leaſt as the caſe ſtood with them) to make an holy ſeed, then they that are of a falſe religion cannot produce an holy ſeed, let their marriage be never ſo lawfull. Fourthly, though I ſhould grant (which yet you can never prove, nor will I yeeld) that this making one to ſeek a godly ſeed, were to be referred onely to Gods firſt inſtitution of marriage: yet will not your concluſion at all follow, Therefore all children borne in lawfull matrimony of what Religion ſo even, are an holy ſeed. For if God at firſt intending to have a holy ſeed from Adam and Eve, and ſo ſucceſſively, that ſhould be in covenant with him, appointed that one man ſhould have but one woman; and ſet down this as a law of nature to be obſerved by their poſteritie; to the end that they ſhould not pollute themſelves with promiſcuous copulation, and ſhould be diſcerned from other people; as by other pious converſation, ſo by their chaſtitie in marriage, and avoyding of polygamy and wicked divorces: will it hence follow that what parents ſoever avoyd polygamy and live chaſtly in marriage, generate a godly feed? in no wiſe: For that a people may be Gods people, and55 their ſeed a godly ſeed, or ſeed of God, many things are required, as that they be worſhippers of the true God, that they be no idolaters, no witches, blaſphemers, murderers, &c. and divers things more both affirmative and negative, are required in the covenant. Whereof if a man performe one or two, he is not forthwith in covenant, nor his ſeed a godly ſeed. Beſides, what an abſurd collection is it which you make hence, that all legitimates or not baſtards, are a holy or godly ſeed? for now you that pleaded againſt the holineſſe of Chriſtians children, will have all children, though of Turkes, Indians, and moſt groſſe Idolaters to be holy, ſo that they be borne in lawfull matrimony, which you grant may be (and it is plaine commonly is) among the heathen. You ſay,This that is here ſpoken of a godly ſeed is of univerſall concernment to all mankind by the law of creation.But I anſwer. It is plaine that the Iſraelites onely in regard of the covenant with God, were called the holy ſeed, Ezr. 9.2. 〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉Semen ſanctitatis, or ſemen ſanctum, i. e. vocatum ad ſanctitatem & Dei gratia ab aliis ſeparatum. Trem. & Jun. For they have taken of their daughters for themſelves and for their ſons; ſo that the holy ſeed have mingled thēſelves with the people of the Lands; yea, the hand of the Princes and Rulers have been chiefe in this treſpaſſe. So Ezek. 16.20, 21. The little ones which the Iewes had offered to idols, and cauſed to paſſe through the fire, were borne unto God and were Gods children; ſo that theſe places ſpeaking of a godly ſeed, an holy ſeed, children born to God, Gods children; to wit,〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 thoſe that were borne of a people in covenant, make directly againſt you, as ſetting forth the ſinne of the Iſraelites, who being a godly ſeed by covenant, would mingle themſelves with the heathen that were out of covenant, and ſo profane and diſcovenant their ſeed, and offer thoſe children to idols, which by vertue of the covenant were dedicated to God: which places ſhew clearely how that in Malachi is to be underſtood.
You adde. In the ſame ſenſe is that to be taken, Heb. 13.4. Marriage is honourable in all, but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge. And gather hence, if marriage be honourable, & the bed undefiled; then the iſſue of the bed muſt needs be undefiled, that is, cleane and holy: on the other ſide, the iſſue of unlawfull conjunctions are unclean, illegitimate, and baſtards. Now this holineſſe or unholineſſe of children, proceeds not from the holineſſe or unholineſſe of parents: but from the lawfull or unlawfull conjunction of parents, in the begetting of66 children; for the Apoſtle in this place ſpeakes of all men univerſally.
Anſw. Let any indifferent man judge, whether this be not an uncleane, illegitimate, and ſpurious interpretation of, and drawing concluſions from the Scripture. For firſt; What comfort or reſolution had this beene in the ſcrupulous parent, to tell him that his children were holy, that is, legitimate and no baſtards, but legitimates becauſe they were begotten in lawfull matrimony that had beene contracted before converſion; whereas by your interpretation of theſe Scriptures, if they had continued ſtill unconverted both of them, their children had beene as holy, that is, legitimate and no baſtards? Secondly, how can this place [Marriage is honourable in all, &c. and the bed undefiled] be underſtood of all men univerſally (as you ſay) viz. unbeleevers as well as beleevers? Tit. 1.15.When the Apoſtle ſaith: Vnto the pure, all things are pure; but unto them that are defiled and unbeleeving, is nothing pure, but even their mind and conſcience is defiled; how can the marriage bed then be undefiled to ſuch? It is evident therefore, (that we make not the Spirit of God contradict it ſelfe) that the univerſall note (all men) is to be reſtrained to the ſubject matter, viz. all ſorts of beleevers, (for to ſuch he wrote) of what qualitie, condition or calling ſoever.
Thirdly, But I pray you ſee (and if you will not, let others conſider) how all this while in interpreting this Scripture, 1 Cor. 7.14. and wreſting, wiredrawing, and pulling in (as it were, obtorto collo) other Scriptures which you would force to favour your interpretation, you have directly and manifeſtly contradicted the Apoſtle, and corrupted the Text. The Apoſtle tells the beleeving yoke-fellows, that their children are holy, though their yoke-fellows were unbeleevers: becauſe they are ſanctified to them; (viz. by their faith) you ſay, therefore the children are holy, becauſe their matrimonie was lawfull: If the Apoſtles meaning were that which you would have it, he ſhould have ſaid, You were lawfully married, therefore are your children holy. But he ſaith, The unbeleever is ſanctified by (or to) the beleever, elſe were your children uncleane, let their marriage be never ſo lawfull. Paul gathers the holineſſe of children from grounds peculiar to the faithfull: viz. the faith and being in covenant at leaſt of one of the parents, ſhewing plainly that were it not for this, the children muſt needs be uncleane. You would draw it from67 grounds common to Infidels, viz. lawfull matrimony; affirming that whoſoever is borne of parents (though infidels) lawfully married, is holy in the Apoſtles ſenſe. Thus when men ſet themſelves to maintain errours, they are not afraid nor aſhamed plainly to contradict the Spirit of God.
Anſw. It is even falſe (though you dictate it as è cathedra, or è tripode) and a manifeſt contradicting of plain Scripture, as hath beene before demonſtrated. Your two next objections doe not concern us; and therefore I paſſe them by.
Yet one more objection you bring us in making: Have the children of beleevers no more priviledge then the children of Heathens, Turks, and Infidels? you anſwer. In reſpect of the Covenant of grace and ſalvation, none at all; and bring thoſe Scriptures, Ioh. 3.7, 8. Act. 10.34, 35. to ſhew that the Covenant of grace cometh not by any naturall birth, but by a new birth. Onely their priviledge (you ſay) is in reſpect of the meanes of ſalvation; for beleeving parents may be a means to bring their children to the knowledge and faith of Chriſt.
Anſw. What Chriſtian heart doth not abhorre this aſſertion as being directly contrary to the tenour of Gods Covenant, Gen. 17. (of which more hereafter) and repugnant to Gods gracious promiſes frequently inculcated in Scripture, Exod. 20.5, 6. Act. 2.39. Eſa. 59.21? Doth not this ſtrike at a maine pillar of a Chriſtians comfort grounded on thoſe precious promiſes? ſo that by this tenet, if the children of Chriſtian parents die before they be capable of the outward meanes of ſalvation, or their parents be taken from them before they come to yeares of diſcretion; they muſt be parted with as the children of Turkes or Infidels, as being out of the ſtate of ſalvation, as being in a loſt and hopeleſſe condition, as having no right to the Covenant, notwithſtanding all the gracious promiſes that God hath made to the faithfull to be their God, and the God of their ſeed, to ſhew mercy to their poſteritie, even to thouſands, that the promiſes doe belong unto them and their children, that his word and Spirit ſhall abide on68 their ſeed, and their ſeeds ſeed. Let men judge whether the father of lies can ſpeake more contradictorily to Scripture, for the extenuating of Gods rich grace, and daſhing the comfort of Gods people.
Thus have I vindicated the ground of my third argument. Yet notwithſtanding all ſhifts we ſee this truth remaines firme, that the children of Chriſtian parents are faederally holy, and members of the Church, and ſo have right to the ſeale of admiſſion into the Church.
4. Arg.4. Arg. To thoſe that are in Covenant with God, the Sacrament or ſeale which God hath inſtituted to repreſent and ſeale admiſſion into Covenant, is to be adminiſtred, Gen. 17.10, 11. Exod. 12.48.
But children of beleeving parents are in Covenant with God, Gen. 17.7. Exod. 12.48. Eſa. 59.21. Therefore children of beleeving parents are to be admitted to the ſeale of entrance into the Covenant, which now is baptiſme in the time of the Goſpel.
For the confirmation, and explication of the former propoſition, I conceive it is hardly queſtioned but that when God hath made a Covenant with his people, and appointed a ſeale to ſignifie and repreſent admiſſion into the ſame; then the ſeale or ſigne belongs to thoſe which have entred into Covenant under what kinde of adminiſtration ſoever the Covenant be diſpenſed. So Philip reaſons, If thou beleeve with all thine heart, thou maiſt be baptized. So Peter, Can any one forbid water that theſe ſhould not be baptized, &c. For actuall faith, at leaſt in profeſſion, was neceſſary to thoſe that at firſt entered into the new covenant, and received the ſign or ſeale thereof; to wit, baptiſme: as well as it was neceſſary to Abraham who entered firſt into the old Covenant which was ſealed by Circumciſion, though actuall faith was not required of his poſteritie as neceſſarie to their being in Covenant. Neither for ought that I ſee doth the Adverſarie deny this propoſition. Yet if it be queſtioned, it is fully proved in Abraham, Gen. 17.10, 11. with whom we read that God firſt made an expreſſe and formall Covenant, and inſtituted a ſigne or ſeale to ſignifie enterance into that Covenant, and diſtinguiſh the Church from other Societies. And this was not required of Abraham alone and his family: but of all foreiners alſo, that ſo ſoone as they ſhould enter into covenant, they ſhould have this ſigne and ſeale of admittance,, Exod. 12.48. And ſtill in the New-Teſtament as69 ſoone as men had given evidence of their entrance into the new Covenant, they were baptized.
Now here is to be noted, that the Covenant of grace was ever one and the ſame for ſubſtance; though for the manner it have beene variouſly diſpenſed, Heb. 11. through the whole Chapter, and Heb. 13.8. Epheſ. 4.5. as ſhall be ſhewed (God willing) more fully hereafter.
Secondly, before Abrahams time we read not of any diſtinct and full manifeſtation of the Covenant of grace expreſly in the termes of a Covenant, nor of any gathering of a Church out of the world, as a diſtinct body whereunto the faithfull were to joyn themſelves; nor of any viſible ſeale or ſacred ſigne of admiſſion into Covenant with God; though God had a people in covenant from the beginning, yet the covenant was more ſparingly, obſcurely, and implicitly revealed, and no diſtinctive outward note of entrance into covenant (that we read of) appointed.
Thirdly, ſince the Covenant was made with Abraham, and the ſigne of circumciſion inſtituted, in the old and new Covenant, there hath ſtill beene a ſolemne ſigne or Sacrament of admiſſion, to which all that were in Covenant had right; ſo that Abraham that was the firſt expreſſe Covenanter is called, the father of the faithfull, or of thoſe that were in covenant with God; and is to be imitated by the faithfull in all thoſe things that are eſſentiall to the covenant.
For the Aſſumption. The words of the Text are cleare. Firſt, that God made the Covenant with Abraham and his ſeed, Gen. 17.7. Secondly, that we ſhould not thinke that that externall covenant belonged onely to thoſe that imitated his faith, it is made with his naturall ſeed, all that ſhould be begotten of him, Gen. 17.10. Even all that ſeed wherein God promiſed to make Abraham fruitfull, ſhould ſo farre be in Covenant, as to have right to the onward ſigne, untill they ſhould fall away from the outward covenant by wilfull Apoſtaſie, verſ. 6, 7, 10. Thirdly, that you may ſee this was not peculiar to Abraham and his poſteritie alone that proceeded from his loines; the ſame is commanded concerning his ſervants borne in his houſe, or bought with his money, that the males who onely were capable, ſhould receive the ſeale of the Covenant, verſ. 12, 13. Fourthly, that you may know that this did not belong onely to Abrahams family, but was a thing common to all that ſhould enter into covenant, viz. that their children70 ſhould be acknowledged to be in Covenant alſo, by having the ſeale of entrance adminiſtred to them; ſee Exod. 12.48. Laſtly, that we may underſtand that this was not proper to the old covenant in the Legall diſpenſation, but common to the Covenant of grace under whatſoever diſpenſation, as well Evangelicall as Legall; a promiſe of the ſame priviledge is made to beleeving parents, even from the time of the Goſpel, Eſa. 50.20, 21. compared with Rom. 11.26, 27.
A. R.Now I come to your anſwers, which is: That neither Abraham nor his ſeed was circumciſed, becauſe the Covenant was made with him.
Anſw. Who denies this? or what is this to the purpoſe? we know that God might have made a Covenant without a ſeale, if it had pleaſed him. They were circumciſed, becauſe God did inſtitute circumciſion for a ſeale, and appointed it to thoſe that were admitted into Covenant. The faithfull we know were in covenant before Abrahams time; though there be no formall or full expreſſion of the covenant, nor of any ſigne or Sacrament of entering thereinto.
Anſw. No ſuch thing appeareth in the places cited. It appeareth indeed that God had made a promiſe to Abraham long before of making him a great Nation, and bleſſing him; but there is no word of the Covenant, or that God would be a God to him and his ſeed, in thoſe places before, Gen. 17.2. (though we know that Abraham from his firſt call was in covenant with God; as were Abel, Enoch, Noah, and all the faithfull before Abraham, as the covenant is generally taken. But here we ſpeake of the Covenant in regard of its expreſſe manifeſtation and ſpeciall adminiſtration, with Abraham, and afterward, ſince the inſtitution of a ſeale thereunto.) And it appears that in Gen. 17. verſ. 2. is the firſt expreſſion of Gods making a covenant with Abraham, at which time alſo circumciſion was inſtituted. And if God had made a covenant never ſo long before with Abraham, neither he not his ſeed muſt have uſed circumciſion untill God had inſtituted it. But after God had appointed it, all that were in covenant71 were to be circumciſed, that were capable, even all males of eight dayes old and upward.
Anſw. We know that the Covenant was not made with Abraham for his being a faithfull man; neither yet for his being ſuch a faithfull man, &c. as you would have it. But Abraham was made by God a faithfull man, and taken into covenant of Gods free grace, that he might be a patterne to future beleevers, and a father of many Nations, &c. Abrahams faithfulneſſe ſo qualified, was not the cauſe why God took him into covenant. But Abrahams faithfulneſſe, acceptance into covenant, and being a patterne of beleevers, a father of many Nations; in whoſe ſeed all Nations are bleſſed, were effects of Gods good pleaſure, and free grace. Secondly, neither doe thoſe places of Scripture produced by you yeeld the leaſt ſhew of proofe, that Abraham was taken into covenant and his ſeed for being ſuch a faithfull man as God was pleaſed to chooſe and ſet out a patterne to all beleevers, &c. Thirdly, ſeeing Abraham was taken into covenant, that he might be, or at the moſt, as being (I dare not ſay (with you) for being) ſuch a faithfull man, whom the Lord was pleaſed to chooſe, and ſet out a patterne to all beleevers, and to be a father of many Nations; and in whoſe ſeed all the Nations of the world ſhould be bleſſed: then it is the dutie of all that are beleevers, children of Abraham, and will be bleſſed in Abrahams ſeed, that is, Chriſt, to imitate Abrahams example, in laying hold on the covenant for themſelves and their children; and giving them up to God even in their infancie, by requiring the ſeale of the Covenant to be adminiſtred unto them, and not to looſe any part of that inheritance that God entayled upon Abraham and his children: ſeeing as it hath been proved, it is no peculiar priviledge of Abraham to have his ſeed in covenant; nor his peculiar dutie to lay hold on the covenant for his children: but the common priviledge and dutie of all the faithfull.
Anſw. Firſt, If the conſequence will not follow, Becauſe God is the God of Abraham and his ſeed; Therefore he is, to all the faithfull, and their ſeed: how is Abraham a father of the faithfull and patterne of beleevers? Or how will it follow that Abraham performed any dutie, or received any priviledge; Therefore all beleevers ought to doe thoſe duties, may receive thoſe priviledges? Secondly, your reaſon that you bring for your deniall of our conſequence, is a bold aſſertion manifeſtly repugnant to plain Scripture: as Exod. 20.5.6. Where God having laid downe the ſumme of the covenant, verſ. 2. bindes his people to his true worſhip, and to avoid Idolatrie, with a promiſe of mercy unto thouſands of thoſe that ſhould love him, and keepe his commandements. Now theſe thouſands are meant of the godly mans poſteritie, as appeareth by the Antitheſis of verſ. 5. viſiting the ſinnes of the fathers on their children, unto the third and fourth generation, &c. Doth not this promiſe belong to all that are in covenant with God, and are bound to the obedience of the morall Law, and to the pure worſhip of God, and abſtinence from idolatry? ſo Eſa. 59. laſt verſ. Act. 2.37. What is meant by Gods ſhewing mercy to a thouſand generations, making a covenant that his Spirit, and word ſhall be continued to their ſeed, and ſeeds ſeed, that the promiſe is made to them whom the Lord doth call and their children; but the ſame that God promiſeth unto Abraham, that he will make a covenant with him and his ſeed; be a God to him and his ſeed? So that this anſwer to your boldly-affirmed, but never-proved aſſertion, (that to Abraham and his ſeed onely the promiſe was made) may ſuffice to overthrow the inferences you bring thereupon, and your abſurdities that you would father upon us mingled with divers untruths (as may appeare to any intelligent Reader) not worth anſwering. Onely that which you lay downe in the beginning:For beleevers onely are the ſeed; and in the concluſion, Abraham hath not two ſorts of ſeeds in the ſenſe and acceptation of the Goſpel.Vpon which as upon a ground-work of all, your reaſoning is built;73 that the rottenneſſe of the foundation being diſcovered, it may appeare how eaſily the ſuperſtruction will come down of it ſelfe. I anſwer therefore:
Anſw. We read in the Goſpell or new Teſtament, of three ſorts of Abrahams ſeed: Firſt, Chriſt is called his ſeed, Gal. 3.16. Secondly, the faithfull of what Nation ſoever are called his ſeed, Gal. 3.29. Thirdly, thoſe who naturally deſended from his loynes, Iohn. 8.37. 2. Cor. 11.22. And in this laſt kind to be Abrahams ſeed, was ſufficient to intreſſe men to the outward Covenant, and the ſeale thereof; and the promiſe was made to Abraham, Gen. 17. literally and properly in this laſt ſenſe, not in the firſt or ſecond, as is apparent by the text. For with that ſeed God made the Covenant in Abraham; and to that ſeed God became a God, which was to be circumciſed at eight dayes old, in reſpect of the males, & (as you ſay) the females in the males. But the natural iſſue of Abraham was to be circumciſed at 8 dayes old, in reſpect of the males, & in them the females: See Gen. 17.7.10.11.12. for proofe of both propoſitions. Therfore the naturall iſſue of Abraham, is the ſeed to which according to the litteral and proper meaning of the Scripture, God promiſes to be a God in Covenant. And ſo it appeares to be falſe which you ſay; that beleevers only were the ſeed of Abraham, ſith many naturally deſcending from Abraham, and circumciſed, and ſo outwardly in Covenant, were unbeleevers.
Anſw. But I hope Gods people are not ſo ſimple as to beleeve your bare words, againſt Gods expreſſe truth, (though you were an Angell from heaven or an Apoſtle,Gal. 1. •. much leſſe being as you are diſcovered) and to think that in former times indeed Infants were in Covenant with God, but now are excluded, that now all Infants of chriſtian parents dying without actuall faith, and under yeares of diſcretion, muſt certainly periſh as aliens from the Common-wealth of Iſrael, and out of Covenant with God; that grace is ſo farre ſtraitned under the Goſpell in compariſon of what it was under the law, that whereas God was then a God to parents and to children even to many generations, yea74 to the children of Proſelytes, Exod. 12.48. of what Nation ſoever; now the holyeſt Chriſtian parents can apprehend no benefit from the Covenant for their children, at leaſt till they come to yeares of diſcretion and actuall faith; and till then muſt accompt them infidells and wholly under the power of the devill. Is this to advance Gods Grace, to extoll the Goſpell and glorifie Ieſus Chriſt? Or rather is it not a tricke of the devill greatly to obſcure, and indeavour the utter extinguiſhing of the glory of Gods grace, the virtue of Chriſts death, the luſtre of the Goſpell, and the comfort of a Chriſtian all at once? They that will hearken to ſuch deceits as theſe, let them make account at the laſt to be cheated of all grounds of comfort in Gods word. Act. 2.39.Doth not the Apoſtle ſay, the promiſe is to you and your children, and to them that are afarre off, &c. when the Iewes Church-ſtate and old Covenant were abrogated.
But let us come to conſider the many reſpects wherein you ſay that the Church of the Goſpell differs from the Iewiſh ſtate or old Covenant, whence you would prove that Infants are now caſt out of Covenant: wherein becauſe you repeat for ſubſtance ſome toyes and fancies of your owne braine, that you have vented before, I will not think it burdenſom to anſwer you, though in ſome things the ſame for ſubſtance that hath been ſaid before.
Anſw. I pray you, can you tell what you meane when you ſay that the Iewes Church-ſtate was conſtituted upon nature and the naturall ſeed of Abraham? I am ſure you ſpeake not according to Scripture (that I ſay not, nor according to ſenſe or reaſon.) As far as I can apprehend, when you ſay it was built upon nature (If you have any meaning in theſe words, and doe not let them fall from you at randome) it muſt be underſtood either, firſt, that nature was the ground & cauſe of this covenant; or ſecondly, that naturall bleſſings were onely beſtowed in this covenant; or thirdly, that this covenant was made onely with the naturall children of Abraham: all which are manifeſtly falſe. For firſt, if your meaning be that this covenant was grounded on nature, ſo that nature was the cauſe of it; you muſt either meane the nature of God as contradiſtinguiſh't to his will and good pleaſure: or the nature of Abraham. The nature of God was not the cauſe of it,75 for what God doth by nature (his nature being the cauſe) he doth eternally, neceſſarily, unchangeably, ſo as he cannot but doe it; as to know himſelfe and all things knowable, to love himſelfe. Or if you meane that the nature of Abraham was the ground of this covenant, it is as falſe; for there was nothing in Abraham by nature, that put difference between him and others, Deut. 7. Ioſh. 24. Rom. 4. Or if you meane God onely beſtowed temporall bleſſings in this covenant, that is palpably and execrably falſe alſo. God was their God in the old covenant, circumciſed their heart to love him, feare him, and obey him, and truſt in him; he gave remiſſion of ſinnes and ſanctification under that Covenant, which were not naturall bleſſings. Or thirdly, if you meane that that Covenant was made with Abrahams naturall poſteritie, there is no appearance of truth in it; for bond-men and thoſe that were bought with money, and Proſelytes of any nation or ſtock whatſoever, were admitted into this Covenant, Gen. 17. Exod. 12.
Anſw. So was the old Covenant (to uſe your phraſe) conſtituted on grace, Gods free favour was the cauſe of it, and the graces of the Spirit beſtowed as truly under it (though not ſo plentifully, and clearely as now) as theſe phraſes expreſſe:Gen. 17. Deut. 30. Mal. 2.5. I am God all-ſufficient. I will be thy God. I will circumciſe thy heart, and the heart of thy ſeed, to love the Lord thy God, &c. My Covenant was with him of life and peace. Secondly, if you meane by the ſpirituall ſeed of Abraham, Ieſus Chriſt the ſeed of the woman that was to breake the Serpents head,Gen. 3. Joh. 8. Rev. 13. 1 Tim. 2. in whom the Covevant was made with our firſt parents fallen; at the ſeeing of whoſe day Abraham rejoyced, in whom God promiſes, that all the Nations of the earth ſhould be bleſſed: the old Covenant was made with Abraham in him; who is the Lambe ſlaine from the foundation of the world; who is the onely Mediatour between God and man, and by whom alone, Abraham and all the faithfull have had communion with God.
Anſw. No ſuch thing appeareth in thoſe Scriptures. Take heed how you falſifie Gods word, would you perſwade men, that God76 gave not circumciſion of heart under the old Covenant? that becauſe all were not right Iſraelites that were Abrahams ſeed, therefore none were? that becauſe he is not a Iew that is one outwardly: therefore none under the old covenant were inwardly Iews? becauſe true Chriſtians are circumciſed with a circumciſion without hands; therefore the Iewes were not circumciſed but onely with hands, not ſpiritually. Let any man examine thoſe Scriptures, and ſee whether from thē it can be gathered, that all under the old covenant had onely circumciſion of the fleſh, and that all under the new covenant have circumciſion of the ſpirit. It will appeare to any judicious Reader, that here are two or three notorious falſehoods, with a groſſe perverting of Scripture in this ſhort ſentence. The firſt: That the Iewiſh Church-ſtate, or old covenant is called Iſrael, according to the fleſh, or circumciſion of the fleſh; but the Goſpel-ſtate Iſrael, according to the ſpirit, or the circumciſion of the heart, (wherein are infolded more untruths then one.) Secondly, that therefore they are ſo called, becauſe that was conſtituted on the naturall ſeed of Abraham, &c. The abuſe of Scripture appeares, that theſe Scriptures neither prove the antecedent, nor ſequele, nor conſequent, neither make any thing for his purpoſe; as if it would not be overtedious to ſtand upon, and needleſſe to any men of judgement, might be ſhewed. But ſuch uttering of falſhoods, and then propping them with Scriptures to abuſe the ſimple, is ordinary almoſt in every page, and ſometimes frequent in one page, as may appeare by the anſwer, though I have not ſaid ſo much in expreſſe words before; neither ſhould have ſaid ſo now, but that I conſider ſuch is the weakneſſe of ſome Readers, that what they read, if Scripture be brought for proofe thereof, though never ſo impertinently, abuſively, and perverſely, they thinke it muſt goe for currant.
Anſw. That under the Old Teſtament the Church of the Iews was an heire, yea lord of all: (though in regard of its infancie and immaturitie, nothing differing from a ſervant, as being held under the tutourſhip of the Law) this I ſay, is ſufficient to prove that the Church of the Iewes, and the Chriſtian Church, is one and the ſame, for ſubſtance, and under the ſame Covenant in all eſſentialls. For all know that a ſonne and heire is the ſame for77 ſubſtance and in perſon, at three yeares old, and at thirty; though altered in ſome accidentall priviledges at riper yeares. And hence your fancie of the Iewiſh Church being conſtituted on nature, is quite overthrowne. For if the Iewiſh Church was heire and lord of all, beleevers were then children, though in minoritie and under tutourſhip. How were they children? not by nature; for Chriſt onely is the Sonne of God by nature; therefore by grace, and ſo they were under a Covenant of Grace. Thus powerfull is the word of truth to overthrow thoſe errours that ignorant men would abuſe, and force it to maintaine, and yet you are not afraid nor aſhamed to father this errour upon Chriſt himſelfe, and would force his words to the Iewes to ſound this way, Ioh. 8.31. And among other your toyes, that you would faſten on him, (which are not worth the examining, unleſſe a man had more time then he knew how well to beſtow) you bring him in ſpeaking thus in the concluſion of your paraphraſe that you make on his words to the Iewes. You ſee then how that Covenant of Circumciſion made with Abraham and you his naturall ſeed, was to be an everlaſting Covenant in your fleſh; to wit, in me that was to come of your fleſh, Gen. 17.13.
Anſw. Firſt, is not this notorious preſumption to father ſuch a fancy as this on Chriſt? to call the fleſh of the Iews fore-skinne, Chriſt himſelfe? for that by the fleſh in which Gods covenant was, is meant the fore-skin, wherein God ſet the ſigne and ſeale of his covenant, is apparent by comparing the 10, 11, & 12. verſes of Gen. 17. together. Secondly, If that were an everlaſting Covenant which God made with Abraham, and the Iſraelites; and made with them in Chriſt (though Chriſt was not that fleſh in which circumciſion was made) both which you grant here, and the Scripture plentifully proveth; then certainly was the covenant made with the Iewes, and with us, all one for ſubſtance: ſeeing they and we have one Mediatour, and ſeeing the old diſpenſation of the covenant is abrogated; how was that an everlaſting covenant; but as the ſame covenant is perpetuated now in the Evangelicall diſpenſation of it?
Anſw. Was he ſo? Was Chriſt to come of the fleſh of ſtrangers, and Proſelytes, or of all the poſteritie of Abraham, which78 had the covenant in the fleſh? Did Chriſt come of the fleſh of all that were circumciſed? (which muſt needs follow on this conceit) What prodigious opinions doth this mans braine conceive and father on Chriſt?
Anſw. No ſu h thing is apparent from theſe Scriptures; as is, firſt, ſufficiently ſhewed by the foregoing reaſons. Secondly, by the fore examination of thoſe Scriptures and grounds you build upon. Thirdly, in none of thoſe places doe you finde baptiſme ſo reſtrained to thoſe that profeſſe the faith, that it ſhould be lawfull for none elſe to have it. Fourthly, I adde, if abuſing the Scriptures and inventing and avouching new and monſtrous errours, may make your opinion for which you plead to be apparent truth, then indeed you have made appparent what you ſay, otherwiſe not. Fiftly, though in mine anſwer to that Scripture, Matth. 28.29. I hope ſufficient hath been ſaid to anſwer all other Scriptures of that kind; yet becauſe ſome put great confidence in that Mar. 16.15.16. for this opinion, though it be the ſame for ſubſtance with the other,Mar. 16.15, 16. I will adde a little in this place, though happily the ſame for ſubſtance that hath beene ſaid. The words of Chriſt are theſe: Go ye into all the world, and preach the Goſpel unto every creature. He that beleeveth and is baptized, ſhall be ſaved, he that beleeveth not ſhall be damned To make it appeare that nothing can be gathered to confirme the adverſaries opinion, note theſe foure things.
Firſt, Here our Saviour doth not forbid his Diſciples to baptize any that want actuall faith, or confine baptiſme to beleevers; or expreſſely ſhew who ſhould be baptized, and who not; onely he ſhews who ſhould by ſaved, viz. thoſe that beleeve and were baptized; and who ſhould be damned, viz. thoſe that beleeved not: ſo that it is ſtrange that men ſhould promiſe to themſelves any patronage for Anabaptiſme from this place. Secondly, If any ſhould ſay, that though here it be not expreſſed that beleevers79 onely are to be baptized; yet it may be hence gathered, and is implied from the order and connexion of the words, (He that beleeveth and is baptized) ſo that men muſt beleeve before they be baptized. I adde, ſecondly: That no ſuch thing can be neceſſarily implied by the ſeries of the words, which I prove by this very Text. Firſt, it would by as good conſequence follow, that none ought or can preach the Goſpel, be meanes of working faith, baptize, or helpe toward ſalvation; but thoſe who have received Apoſtolicall authoritie, and gifts to goe into all the world, and preach unto every creature, for the connexion and order is alike; but no man will yeeld this conſequence. Secondly, by as good and better conſequence you might gather, that none ſhall be ſaved but thoſe that beleeve and are baptized, which is falſe; for whatſoever you hold, I conceive that none but thoſe that are given over to ſtrong deluſions will hold that all the children of Chriſtian parents that die before they come to actuall faith, muſt remedileſly periſh: and as for the abſolute neceſſitie of baptiſme to ſalvation, if with the Papiſts you hold it, will eaſily be confuted from this Scripture, ſhewing that not want of baptiſme (where it cannot be had, and is not wilfully contemned) but unbeleefe condemneth. Yet there is as good reaſon for theſe inferences from this place as for that you would imply hence. Or thirdly, that nothing but unbeliefe can be the ground of damnation might as well be concluded hence, as that nothing but faith can be the ground of baptiſme; whereas not onely unbeleife, but every ſinne is damnable, and without repentance will bring damnation.
Thirdly, I anſwer to this Scripture, that though it were granted that the Apoſtles, who were to gather a Church out the unbeleeving world, and take them into Covenant that were out of Covenant, might not baptize any but thoſe who by profeſſing faith tooke hold of the covenant, from which before they were aliens, and their families, who were now received into covenant with them: yet it doth not follow, that the children of parents in covenant (and ſo in Covenant themſelves) ſhould be denied baptiſme; though they want actuall faith: for there is not the ſame reaſon of a Church gathered, and to be gathered: as that latter part, He that beleeveth not ſhall be damned; if it be underſtood of actuall faith, muſt be reſtrained to the preſent time and matter: for to thoſe that were out of Covenant, actuall faith was neceſſary to bring them and theirs within covenant. So that the80 Gentiles to whom the Apoſtles were to preach, muſt of neceſſity actually beleeve, elſe they could not be ſaved. But this muſt not be extended to all perſons and times: for then it ſhould follow that no child of Chriſtian parents dying before yeares of diſcretion and actuall faith, could be ſaved; which is directly contrary to thoſe Scriptures that ſhew, that God will be a God to the faithfull and their ſeed; will ſhew mercy to thouſands of their poſteritie, to the childrens children of thoſe that keepe covenant, Pſal. 10•.1•, 18. that the promiſe is to the faithfull and their children, that their children are holy, and ſuch places before cited, which will not ſuffer any one that beleeves Gods word to hold that the children of the faithfull dying in their minoritie, muſt unavoidably be damned all of them.
Fourthly, I adde for anſwer to this Scripture, that infants of Chriſtian parents, as they are within the covenant, and are holy, ſo they may be ſaid to have a virtuall faith, or that which is analogicall thereto, that giveth them right to baptiſme, as much as the converted heathens profeſſion; for being in covenant with God, and being holy, cannot be conceived to be without anſwerable faith, or ſomewhat equivalent.
At laſt you having triumphantly concluded your diſpute, come to ſhew your diſciples what they may ſee by what you have taught them. I will examine a few of your words.
Anſw. Yes, we may ſee what you inferre, as we may ſee falſe ſhapes by falſe glaſſes, or one falſhood by another. Secondly, may not ignorant phantaſticks poſſiblely fall into groſſe errours aſſoone as great clarks? Thirdly, as for the differences that you put between the Covenant of the Law, and of the Goſpell (as you call them) Firſt, we grant that the Covenant which God made with the Iewiſh, and that which he made with the Chriſtian81 Church, differ as old and new. But this is too narrow a difference to make them diverſe in ſubſtance: as he that was of old a child is a new become a man, yet differs not in ſubſtance from what he was, but is the ſame perſon. God gave that old commandement to the Iewes: Thou ſhalt love thy neighbour as thy ſelfe, Lev. 19.18. Chriſt ſaith to his Diſciples, A new commandment I give unto you, that you love one another, Ioh. 13.34. Muſt theſe commandements needs differ in ſubſtance? or muſt they be accuſed of groſſe miſtake that hold that theſe commandements agree in ſubſtance as being the ſame? The Apoſtle Iohn, 1. Ioh. 2.7. ſaith he writes no new commandement, but the old, yet verſ. 8. he ſaith he writes a new commandement. Will you ſay, That great clark Iohn was groſſely miſtaken in ſaying that he wrote no new commandement, but an old: and yet preſently ſaying he wrote an old commandement? Becauſe in your conceit old and new ſo farre differ, that the ſame thing cannot be ſaid to be old and new, though in different reſpects, and in regard of ſome circumſtances.
Secondly, In your ſecond and third difference you (how great a Clark ſoever) are groſſely miſtaken in calling the old Covenant made with the Iewes a Covenant of works, and a Covenant of nature. Where finde you the Scripture calling it ſo? Will you perſwade men that Abraham, Iſaac, and Iacob, Moſes, David, and the faithfull before Chriſt, where without faith and grace? That either they were ſaved by works and nature (for you will allow them to be under no covenant, but works & nature you, exclude them from faith and grace) or elſe to have periſhed remedileſly? The one whereof muſt needs follow upon your tenet. But of this we have heard before, & this your opinion is ſo abſurd and unchriſtian, that it deſerves rather to be abhorred then confuted.
I Anſwer: Firſt, there is no ſuch thing proved by that Scripture, that the old covenant was the adminiſtration of condemnation, and a killing letter. Secondly, neither can any ſuch thing be conceived; unleſſe we ſhall ſay that all which were under the old Covenant were condemned, and killed, deſtitute of righteouſneſſe and life, and that God made a Covenant with his people to kill82 and condemne them (which will neceſſarily follow upon that tenet) which were blaſphemy.
Thirdly, the Apoſtle indeed calleth the law, which was an addition to the covenant of promiſe, a killing letter, & the adminiſtration of condemnation, not as it was given and intended by God primarily, who gave it primarily and properly, to humble that ſtubborne people, drive them to the promiſe, and exerciſe them in obedience, and to be taken along with, (not apart from) the promiſe, and to traine them up for, draw them to, and direct them how to walke in, Chriſt, which is the end of the Law, not to drive them from Chriſt. But as it was in it ſelfe conſidered without the promiſe and without Chriſt, ſo it was a killing letter, and the miniſtrie of condemnation; and as it was miſunderſtood and abuſed by falſe-teachers, hypocrites and Iuſticiaries: who before the comming of Chriſt forſaking the promiſe, and ſince his comming, forſaking the Goſpell; (both which held forth Chriſt, in whom alone righteouſneſſe is to be ſought) or at leaſt mingling the Law and Goſpell together in point of juſtification, ſought righteouſneſſe by the works of the Law either alone, or with the Goſpell; to them it became a killing letter. And the addition of the Law to the promiſe, was a teſtimony, and an occaſion of greater condemnation to ſuch as they who abuſed it, ſought righteouſneſſe in it,Rom. 7.12.14. Gal. 3.21 24. and made their boaſt of it, but were not humbled, nor driven to Chriſt thereby, though in it ſelfe the Law was ſpirituall, holy, and good, not contrary but ſubordinate to the promiſe. As the Goſpell is an occaſion of greater condemnation even to thoſe that are externally under the Covenant of the Goſpell, who abuſe it 2. Cor. 2.16. Heb. 10.29. Iud. 1.4. Yet will it not hence follow that the Covenant of the Goſpell or new Covenant is the miniſtry of condemnation, though it turne to the greater condemnation of ſome for their abuſe of it.
Anſw. Tis true, the Law given on mount Sinai (for of that the Apoſtle ſpeakes) as it was taken without the promiſe, and that Covenant which God made with Abraham, and as men ſought juſtification by it, whether without the promiſe before Chriſt, or without the Goſpell ſince Chriſt, or whether they ſought juſtification by the Law together with the promiſe or the Goſpell, which was not Gods end in giving the Law to his people, but83 mans abuſe of it: ſo it brought men into a ſtate of bondage, and ſo the obſtinate Iews, that thus abuſe the Law, are caſt out as Iſhmael, and Hagar. And as the faithfull were under the diſcipline and padagogie of the Law, they were in a ſervile condition, in compariſon of that great freedome (from thoſe intolerable burdens of ceremonies, and great diſcomfort and feare accompanying the ſame) which the faithfull have under the Goſpel. But notwithſtanding their bondage, they were ſonnes and heires and lords of all, Gal. 4.1. and ſo they were under a Covenant of grace, though legally adminiſtred.
Anſw. I account this wild talke, being the evaporations of a giddy braine, intoxicated with a drunken ſlumber whereof you complaine, worthy no other anſwer but this. Of every idle word you muſt give an account at the day of judgment, Matt. 12.36. much more of ſpeaking evill of thoſe things you know not, railling upon dignities, and authorities, deſpiſing dominions, 2, Pet. 2.9.10.11.12. Iud. 4. & 8 9. &c. and of calling evill good, and good evill, putting darkneſſe for light, and light for darkneſſe, Eſ. 5.20. Which places of Scripture I would intreate you, when you ſhall awake out of your drunken ſlumber to conſider, and ſeriouſly ponder.
So much for the fourth argument, and clearing it from exceptions: Now I come to the fifth, which is of affinity with the former (and confounded with it by A. R. and therefore his anſwers to it, mingled with his anſwers to the former) but not the ſame, and therefore we will conſider it apart, and ſet downe his anſwers of any weight, and replie to them (God willing,) and this is taken from circumciſion.
845. Argument, If Infants of beleeving parents (or parents in Covenant) under the old Covenant, might and ought to be conſecrated unto God, and initiated into Covenant by circumciſion: then Infants of beleeving parents under the new Covenant, ought to be conſecrated to God, and ſolemnly entred into Covenant by Baptiſme.
But Infants of beleeving parents, under the old Covenant, might and ought to be conſecrated to God, and initiated into Covenant by circumciſion, Gen. 17.10.11. Exod. 12.48.
Therefore Infants of beleeving parents under the new Covenant, ought to be conſecrated unto God, and ſolemnly entred into Covenant by Baptiſme.
For the clearing and confirming of the ſequele of the propoſition (for of the aſſumption, there is no queſtion) I will lay downe two or three conſiderations.
Firſt, that the old and new covenant were one and the ſame for ſubſtance; Abraham, Moſes, David, and all the faithfull before Chriſt were under the ſame Covenant, that all the faithfull ſince Chriſt are under. For ſince Adams fall, there hath been but one way of ſalvation, common to all that have been ſaved; which way is revealed, and exhibited only in the Covenant of grace, as hath been partly ſhewed before, ſee Rev. 13.8. & 14.6. Heb. 11. through the Chapter, and 13.8. Hath been demonſtrated by the godly learned: and muſt be needs acknowledged by all that will without prejudice conſider that,Exod. 34.6.7. firſt, God conſidered as a mercifu l Father, a gratious & long-ſuffering God, abundant in goodneſſe and truth,Ezeh. 16. is the Authour of the old Covenant, as well as the new: ſecondly,Ioſh. 24. Exod. 33.19. That man conſidered as a miſerable ſinner, yet weary of ſinne, deſiring mercy, profeſſing and promiſing, repentance, faith, and obedience,Eph. 1.12. upon his being received into this Covenant, is the other Covenantier or confederate in the old aſwell as in the new. Thirdly,1. Cor. 10.4. that Chriſt is the Mediatour in both, being the Lambe ſlaine from the foundation of the world,Gen. 3.15. Ioh. 8. Pſ. 110. Exod. 34.7. the promiſed ſeed, who brake the ſerpents head, whoſe day Abraham ſeeing rejoyced. A prieſt for ever after the order of Melchiſedek. Fourthly, that the principall good things promiſed in both, were pardon of ſinnes,Pſ. 32.1.2. adoption, ſanctification, perſeverance, and eternall ſalvation. Fiftly,Gen. 15.6. that the condition required is repentance, faith and obedience in the old Covenant, aſwell as the new. Sixtly, that the end in both is the ſame,Act. 15.10.11. to wit, the glory of Gods rich mercie; in powring85 ſpirituall, temporall, and eternall bleſſings upon his people. And ſeventhly, that the ſumme of the Covenant is the ſame, viz,Rom. 4. Exod. 19.5, 6. Deut. 4.29, 30. & 10.16.19 & 11.22. I will be thy God, and thou ſhalt be my people. All which are undenyably the ſame in the old Covenant and new. So that conſidering they agree in Author, Object, Mediator, Good things promiſed, Duties required, End, Effects, in a word, in Matter, Forme, and Definition, there can be no eſſentiall difference. Only they differ in ſome Accidents. As there the Covenant was made in Chriſt to come: Here in Chriſt already come. There with a few people, and after Abrahams (or at leaſt Moſes his) time, only with the houſe of Iſrael, and thoſe that ſhould joyne therewith: Here with more, even with all nations. Then diſpenſed by darker propheſies, and more obſcure ſacraments, ſacrifices, and ceremonies or types; now by cleare revelation, and plaine or open ordinances, without the vaile of ſhadowes, types, and darke ceremonies. Then grace was more dimly, ſcantly, and with mixture of legall ſlavery, ordinarily beſtowed; now more plainly, plentifully, comfortably and freely; all which are but circumſtantiall, or graduall differences.
Secondly, when the new Covenant ſucceeded the old, then Baptiſme ſucceeded in the place of circumciſion; as the Lords Supper in ſtead of the Paſſeover. Exod. 12 48. Rom. 4.11. 1 Cor. 12.13. Act. 22.16. Col. 2.11, 12.I ſay Baptiſme ſucceeded in the roome of circumciſion, and is to us of the ſame uſe that circumciſion was to the Iewes, to wit, a ſigne of entrance into the Church, a ſeale of the righteouſneſſe of faith, which comprehends remiſſion of ſinnes, Baptiſme of the ſpirit, and circumciſion of the heart; which are the things ſignified in Baptiſme. Inſomuch that the Apoſtle puts circumciſion without hands, in puting off the body of ſinnes &c. and buriall with Chriſt in Baptiſme, &c. for one and the ſame thing, implying that though we now want outward circumciſion with hands, yet we have inward circumciſion without hands, ſignified and ſealed in Baptiſme to ſo many as have Chriſt. And ſo though the beleeving Iewes before Chriſt, wanted the outward ſacrament of Baptiſme; yet they were inwardly partakers of Baptiſme without hands, in remiſſion of ſinnes and mortification (ſealed by circumciſion) aſwell as we. So then if by being buried with Chriſt in Baptiſme, we are partakers of circumciſion without hands; It appeares that Baptiſme is of the ſame uſe to us, that circumciſion was to the Iewes, whereof one particular among the reſt, was to be a ſigne of entring into the86 Church or Covenant, as may be ſeen in the generall uſe of both the Sacraments, and which our Saviour (it may ſeem) would in ſpeciall teach us by his example, in that at the eight day he was circumciſed, as a profeſſed Member of the Iewiſh Church; but after when he would ſet up the new Covenant or Chriſtian Church, he was initiated thereinto by Baptiſme. So that though in ſome things circumciſion and baptiſme differ: as, firſt, in the ourward ceremonies. Secondly, in regard of the ſexes to which applyed, (for circumciſion was applied only to males, the females being uncapale, and ſo being received into Covenant, in or with the males, whereas Baptiſme is applied to both ſexes, being both alike capable of it.) Thirdly, in the exact determinate time, required in the one, viz, circumciſion, tied to the eight day; but left free and undetermined in the other, ſo that it be done as ſpeedily as conveniently may be, after the party is apprehended and acknowledged to be within the Covenant, and ſo to have right to the ſacrament. And fourthly, in the adjuncts or effects. Circumciſion with ſpilling of blood, Baptiſme without blood, becauſe the true blood of the Covenant is ſhed, and therefore no more to be ſhadowed by bloody ſacrifices or ſacraments as aforetime. Yet they agree in the maine end and uſe. Circumciſion and Baptiſme being ſignes of entrance into the Church, as the Paſſeover and the Supper, ſignes of continuance; and ſo conſequently circumciſion and Baptiſme to be applied to thoſe that were but newly in Covenant, as to Infants of beleevers, and infidels newly converted; the other to be uſed by them that had attained to ſome growth. Thoſe to be applied but once to one perſon, as ſignifying our ſpirituall birth, which is but once; but theſe often to be uſed, as ſignifying ſpirituall nouriſhment and growth, which muſt be often and continuall untill we come to perfection, though we bee not bound to the diſtinct times, in uſing Baptiſme and the Lords Supper, that were appointed for circumciſion and the Paſſeover, viz. the eight day from the birth for the one, or the foureteenth day of the firſt moneth yearely for the other.
Thirdly, conſider that Gods bounty and grace on the one ſide; or mans dutie, and obligation on the other ſide, is nothing diminiſhed or ſtraitned in the time of the New Teſtament, in compariſon of what was under the Old: but rather much increaſed and inlarged, in reſpect of manifeſtation, more abundantly to Chriſtians then Iewes; as the whole courſe of the Scripture87 ſhews. So that if God was pleaſed graciouſly to accept into covenant, parents together with their children then; and to become the God of the little infants, as well as of the parents; and to ſet the ſeale of the covenant upon the infants, for the confirmation of faith, and comfort of the parents for the time preſent, and of the children for the future, when they ſhould come to underſtanding: And if he were then pleaſed to binde parents to offer and dedicate their children unto him by the ſeale of entrance into covenant: much more he vouchſafeth the former, and requireth the latter, now under the Goſpel.
Anſwer. Anſ. It was ſhewed before that the reſtraining of circumciſion to males, and tying of it to the eighth day, were accidentall, and peculiar to circumciſion: as being the ſeale and ſacrament of entrance into the old covenant, whereas ſome things are eſſentiall and common to the ſeales of entrance in both covenants. And therefore though the argument hold not from one Sacrament to another in thoſe things that are accidentall and proper to the one: yet it holds from one to another, in thoſe things that are common and eſſentiall, as we juſtly maintaine againſt our adverſaries the Papiſts; that every Sacrament is a ſeale of the covenant of grace, or of the righteouſneſſe of faith: becauſe circumciſion was ſo, to which you ſeeme to aſſent, calling Baptiſme a pledge of remiſſion of ſinnes; though the name of pledge or ſeale be not expreſly given to other ſacraments in ſcripture. Now we learne, by the Iſraelites frequent uſing of the Paſſeover, that the Sacrament of the Lords Supper is oft (not once onely, as Baptiſme) to be received88 by Chriſtians; (though otherwiſe we have no expreſſe clear command for the oft receiving of it) howbeit we be not reſtrained to one in the yeare onely, nor to the time of Paſſeover, nor to the uſe of unleavened bread, and ſuch things as were proper to the Paſſeover: ſo though we doe not in baptiſme obſerve the ſame ceremonie, nor preciſe time, nor ſex that was peculiar to circumciſion; yet we juſtly gather, that baptiſme belongs to ſuch perſons for age, viz. Infants (though there were no expreſſe command in Scripture for it) and that upon the grounds aforementioned.
Secondly, Gods command to Abraham as he was the father of the faithfull, is ſufficient warrant for our actions, though we have no ſpeciall command for the ſame, ſet downe in the New Teſtament, much leſſe brought to us by any ſpeciall revelation as to Abraham; even when in regard of ſome ſpeciall acts, and many circumſtances we may not doe as Abraham did: yet by vertue of Gods commandement to Abraham, we are bound to doe that which is analogicall thereunto. Gen. 17.1. Gen. 17.23. Gen. 22. Gen. 18.19.For example, God commanded Abraham to walke before him and be perfect. This binds us as well as Abraham, though Abrahams circumciſion of himſelfe and his family, his purpoſe and endevour to offer up his ſonne Iſaac; his commanding and teaching his children and houſhold not onely in morall duties, but alſo ceremoniall, in reſpect of circumciſion and ſacrifices, were parts of his walking before God, and being upright: yet we may not imitate him in thoſe very particulars. But in thoſe duties required in the New Teſtament, which are analogicall and proportionable to theſe; as giving up our ſelves and ours unto God, in the uſe of thoſe Ordinances which he for the preſent hath appointed, in denying our ſelves in our deareſt comforts, and bringing up our children in feare and information of the Lord. And ſo whereas God promiſeth to Abraham to be his ſhield, and exceeding great reward, and his All-ſufficient God: we may apply theſe promiſes to our ſelves, though our condition be not the ſame in all things with Abrahams, though we be not in danger of having the nations to riſe up againſt us for reſcuing Lot, &c. So God promiſeth to be God to Abraham and his ſeed, and requires that he ſhould lay hold on the promiſe by faith, not onely for himſelfe, but alſo for his children, and ſo give up his children unto God in circumciſion; which is a ground ſufficient for Chriſtian parents to lay hold on the promiſe of God for themſelves and their children, & give them up to God89 God in baptiſme, notwithſtanding ſome circumſtances, wherein the promiſe and command made to Abraham differ from them, as they are applied unto us So God gave a command and a promiſe unto Ioſhua: I will be with thee,Joſh. 1.5.6. to the 9. I will not faile thee nor forſake thee. Be ſtrong and of a good courage, &c. This promiſe and command we may, and ought to apply to our ſelves in any worke that God calls us unto, as if it had beene made unto us in particular, Heb. 13.5. Though we be never made Captaines of hoſts; to goe againſt Canaanites, or take poſſeſſion of a promiſed land; or be types of Chriſt, the true and reall Ioſhua, or Ieſus, all which were peculiar to that Worthy: yet the command and promiſe concern us as well as him, as the Apoſtle in that place ſheweth. Elſe if you will not grant, that we are bound to beleeve promiſes, and obey commands, made to Abraham or ſome other ſpeciall perſons; unleſſe we obſerve all circumſtances and particular actions, in obeying the command; and jumpe with their eſtate in every particular qualification, in receiving the promiſes: you will deny that we have any thing to doe with any command or promiſe of God, and ſo go about to overturne all the conſolation of the faithfull, and diſcharge them of all their dutie. But ſeeing none, I hope, is ſo fooliſh as to follow ſuch abſurdities, we may ſafely hold, (notwithſtanding what you object) that Abrahams promiſe for his children, and command to circumciſe them; is a good ground for Chriſtian parents, to lay hold on the covenant for their children, and to preſent them to God in baptiſme.
Anſw. I hope your meaning is not, that we muſt have immediate revelation from God, as Abraham had; for if untill then we ſit ſtill, we ſhall never obey nor beleeve. Otherwiſe ſo many as are the children of Abraham acknowledge themſelves bound by Gods command to him, to give up himſelfe and his children unto God, to doe the like; though they have no new revelation from God, neither are bound to obſerve all circumſtances that Abraham was.
Anſw. God doth not declare there, Gen. 17.18, 19. and cited by you, nor any where elſe that Iſhmael was not in covenant; for though the covenant was eſtabliſhed with Iſaac, ſo that he and his poſteritie ſhould continue in covenant untill the promiſed ſeed ſhould come of his poſteritie: yet Iſhmael was outwardly in covenant, Gen. 17.10, 11, 12, 13, 14.23.25. untill he diſcovenanted himſelfe.
Secondly, whether is it fit that we ſhould beleeve you, or God himſelfe ſpeaking, Gen. 17. and Paul (interpreting that place, Rom. 4.) who had the mind of Chriſt, and the Spirit of God? you ſay, that circumciſion was not ordained by God, nor underſtood by Abraham to be to the perſon circumciſed, a ſeale of their being in covenant, much leſſe of their being in the faith, and regeneration, (though we ſay not that it was ſo:) God ſaith, Gen. 17.10, 11. This is my Covenant which ye ſhall keepe between me and you, and thy ſeed after thee: every manchilde among you ſhall be circumciſed, and you ſhall circumciſe the fore-skinne of your fleſh, and it ſhall be a token of the Covenant betwixt me and you. And Paul ſaith, that Abraham received the ſigne of circumciſion, a ſeale of the righteouſneſſe of faith, &c. Let men judge whether of theſe two parties teſtimonies is more worthy credit.
Thirdly, It is not to be queſtioned but thoſe Scriptures, Gen. 9117.7. Rom. 14.11. muſt be underſtood as the Apoſtle applieth them. But ſo farre is the Apoſtles application there, from excluding or denying our interpretation of thoſe Scriptures, viz. that God ordained, and Abraham underſtood circumciſion to be a ſeal of their being in Covenant, and ſo a ſeale of faith and regeneration to thoſe that worthily uſed it; that the Apoſtles application preſuppoſeth this, and therefore gathers, becauſe circumciſion was a ſigne of the Covenant, and a ſeale of the righteouſneſſe of faith, that righteouſneſſe comes by faith, not by workes.
Fourthly, If the ſame was not the uſe of circumciſion to Abraham and his poſteritie for the ſubſtance, to wit, to be a ſigne of their being in covenant, and ſeale of the righteouſneſſe of faith, in your opinion; why doe you not ſhew the difference of Abrahams circumciſion and theirs? If you ſay, it was to Abraham a ſeale of his faith, righteouſneſſe, and regeneration, that he had already, to them of that which they were to have: I anſwer, this is but a circumſtantiall difference, and gives what we deſire, and maintaine. If you ſay, that many who were circumciſed were never juſtified by faith, or regenerated; this was mans abuſe, and fault, who being received into ſuch a Covenant, wherein God promiſed to be his God, and was ready to performe his promiſe, yet would not performe the conditions required in the covenant. For if ſome that received circumciſion, were never internally in Covenant, nor indued with the righteouſneſſe of faith, that hinders not but that circumciſion was a ſigne of their being outwardly received into that covenant wherein God was ready to beſtow faith and regeneration, if through their owne default they did not deprive themſelves thereof. Beſides, if there was not the ſame uſe of circumciſion to Abraham, and his children circumciſed by Gods appointment: How doe you ſay, in your Preface to the Reader, That baptiſme is an undoubted pledge from God of the free pardon and remiſſion of ſinnes to the right ſubjects thereof: ſith it may with as good reaſon be ſaid, though it were ſo in our Saviours time, yet it is not ſo now; as you ſeeme to beare men in hand: Though circumciſion was a ſeale of the righteouſneſſe of faith, and a ſigne of the covenant between God and him to Abraham; yet it was not ſo to his poſteritie, though they were the right ſubjects thereof, whom God had appointed to be circumciſed. But if you rightly gather that Baptiſme is an undoubted pledge of the pardon of ſinne to the right ſubjects thereof92 now becauſe it was ſo to thoſe which were firſt baptized; we may as well gather, that circumciſion was a ſigne of the Covenant, and ſeale of the righteouſneſſe of faith, to thoſe infants which by Gods appointment received it, as it was to Abraham.
Hitherto of thoſe Arguments of ours, whereunto this Diſputant anſwers. As for the other Arguments and Objections which he brings and anſwers, I ſhall leave them to defend them that owne them. I will adde briefly one or two Arguments more.
4. Arg. Arg. 6. If the baptizing of Infants born of Chriſtian parents (or parents within the new covenant) be not according to the rule of Gods word, then there is no rule or warrant in the Scripture for baptizing the poſteritie of beleevers, under the New covenant at all, and ſo conſequently the children of beleevers muſt not be baptized at all, neither young nor old; for we muſt do nothing without Scripture warrant.
But that the poſteritie of Chriſtian parents ought not to be baptized at all; is moſt abſurd and falſe, as I think will be acknowledged of all that beare the names of Chriſtians. For how can it be ſuppoſed, that the faith and Chriſtianity of the parents, ſhould be ſo prejudiciall to the children, as to deprive them of the pledge of the remiſſion of ſinnes, though they repent and beleeve; when yet the poſteritie of Infidels may be baptized, upon their faith and repentance? Therefore the Antecedent muſt needs be falſe, (viz. that the baptizing of infants of Chriſtian parents is not according to the rule of the word) and conſequently the contradictory thereto true. viz. that the baptizing of infants borne of parents in covenant is according to the rule. The Aſſumption I conceive needs no proofe ſeeing Chriſt hath appointed, that the Sacraments of the New Teſtament ſhould be perpetuall to the end of the world, Matth. 28.19.20. 1 Cor. 11.26. to thoſe that ſhould be in Covenant.
For the confirmation then of the propoſition, and making cleare its conſequence: Conſider, firſt, there is no command, example or other teſtimony in Scripture, can be given to ſhew that the children of teſtimony in Scripture, can be given to ſhew that the children of beleeving parents ſhould be kept from baptiſme, untill they could in their owne perſons actually repent, beleeve, and make confeſſion of their faith. But ſtill when parents were converted to the faith and baptized, their whole families were93 baptized with them. Neither is there any word concerning the poſteritie of Chriſtian parents, (who were borne of them, being in covenant) to have been baptized in riper yeares.
Secondly, thoſe commands and examples of baptizing them that repented, beleeved, and profeſſed the faith, are all of ſuch as had before been out of the New covenant, and were come of parents that had never been under the covenant of the Goſpel; and therefore with leſſe reaſon can be applied to the poſteritie of Chriſtian parents, when they come to yeares of diſcretion, then when they were infants. For thoſe examples and commands ſhew that ſo ſoone as one is in covenant with God in the time of the Goſpel, he hath right unto baptiſme. Neither can it without ſinne to God and injurie to the perſon be denied to him, but ought to be adminiſtred ſo ſoone as it may conveniently be had. And therefore as they that had beene out of covenant before, ſo ſoone as they had repented and beleeved, (at leaſt profeſſed ſo much, which was neceſſary to their being taken into covenant) ought to be baptized, as ſoone as might be conveniently,Act. 8.36, 37, 38. Act. 10.47. Act. 22.16. and might not without injurie be hindred by others, or ſinne in themſelves neglect it: So the children of Chriſtian parents being in covenant, as hath beene proved, and cannot be denied with any ſhew of truth, (that I ſay not, without blaſphemy) cannot without injurie be denied baptiſme ſo ſoone as it may expediently be adminiſtred to them.
This Argument for more evidence and cleareneſſe may be propounded thus.
The poſteritie of beleevers either muſt be baptized in their infancie, or when they are able to make a profeſſion of faith, and do it really, or they muſt not be baptized at all.
But to hold that they ſhould not be baptized at all; but that all the children of beleevers ſhould be debarred baptiſme though they prove never ſo godly, is abſurd and wicked; that they ſhould be baptized onely when they come to yeares of diſcretion, and make profeſſion of faith and repentance, there is no warrant in Scripture, neither by command, practiſe, or otherwiſe, as hath been ſhewed.
Therefore they are to be baptized in infancie.
Arg. 7. If Chriſtian women that are under the new covenant, have right to the Sacrament of the Lords Supper, and may and ought to be admitted thereunto (neither can without great injurie be detained therefrom) notwithſtanding their ſexe; though94 there be no cleare, expreſſe, direct and immediate command or example in the Scripture for the ſame: then may and ought infants of Chriſtian parents being in covenant, to be admitted to the Sacrament of Baptiſme; neither can without great injurie be debarred there from, notwithſtanding their age; though there were not any clear, expreſſe, direct & immediat command for the ſame.
But Chriſtian women have right to the Sacrament of the Lords Supper, and may and ought to be admitted thereunto; neither can without great injurie be detained therefrom, notwithſtanding their ſexe; though there be no cleare, expreſſe, direct and immediate command in Scripture, for womens being received to the Sacrament of the Lords Supper.
Therefore may and ought infants of Chriſtian parents being in covenant, to be admitted to the ſacrament of baptiſme; neither can without great injurie be debarred therefrom, notwithſtanding their age: though there were not any clear, expreſſe, direct and immediate command or example in the ſcripture for the ſame.
For confirmation of the ſequele in the major or firſt propoſition note: Firſt, there is as much cauſe to queſtion womens title to the Lords Supper, in regard of their female ſex, as there is cauſe of queſtioning childrens baptiſme, becauſe of their infant age; eſpecially, conſidering the female was deprived of one Sacrament in the old covenant; and there is no more (if ſo much) ſpoken in Scripture for womens being admitted to that, then for infants being admitted to this. Secondly, whatſoever can be ſaid or gathered by good conſequence from Scripture for Chriſtian women receiving the Lords Supper: the ſame, as much, or more, may as truly, and by as cleare conſequence be ſaid for the baptizing of infants of Chriſtian parents. Are Chriſtian women of ſome ſtanding, and continuance in the covenant of grace, and ſo have title to the ſeale and Sacrament that ſignifies growth in grace, and continuance in Chriſt? No leſſe are infants of Chriſtian parents entred into the covenant of grace, by vertue of the covenant made with their parents, as hath been proved (and will not be denied I thinke by any that cares and knows what he ſaith) and ſo have title to the ſeal of admiſſion, or entrance into covenant. Have they (at leaſt in judgement of charitie) right to the thing ſignified in the Lords Supper, viz. Chriſt his body and bloud, with all the benefits of his death and paſſion? No leſſe have theſe (in the like judgement of charitie) right to the thing ſignified in baptiſme, viz. the Bloud and Spirit of95 Chriſt, pardon of ſinne and regeneration. Were they being the inferiour ſexe comprehended under the ſuperiour ſexe of men in the command? Why might not theſe as well being inferiours in age, and wholly at their parents diſpoſe, be comprehended under the command of baptizing the parents? Were they never forbidden nor excepted, or exempted from the Lords Supper, though not expreſſely commanded to receive it? The ſame may be ſaid concerning childrens baptizing. Have women need of the Euchariſt to ſtrengthen faith, and quicken them to obedience as well as men? ſo have infants need of baptiſme to confirme faith in Gods gracious covenant, and incite to obedience, their parents for the preſent, and themſelves for the future. Is it more then probable that (although at the firſt inſtitution of the Lords Supper, there were no women, becauſe Chriſt had none preſent, but onely his owne family, and peculiar flock of his Diſciples who were all men; yet) Act. 2.42. (if breaking bread unqueſtionably ſignifie the uſe of the Sacrament there) and Act. 20.7. and 1 Cor. 11. when mention is made of the Lords Supper, there were women, though it is not expreſſed? No leſſe probably may it be gathered, that in thoſe families that were baptized, there were ſome children. In a word, were women admitted to eate of the ſacrifices and ſacrament of Paſſeover in the time of the old covenant among the Iewes? It is known that infants were received to the Sacrment of circumciſion in the old Covenant likewiſe. So that I ſee no reaſon why the one ſhould be queſtionable when the other is not called into queſtion.
For the Aſſumption or minor propoſition, it hath two things in it to be confirmed: firſt, that there is no direct, expreſſe, immediate command, or example in the Scripture, for women receiving the Sacrament of the Lords Supper, more then for childrens being baptized. This is eaſily proved by turning over to all thoſe places of Scripture that ſpeak of the Lords Supper, which are not many, Mat. 26.26, 27, 28. Mar. 14.22, &c. Luk. 22.19, &c. Act. 2.22. & 20.7. 1 Cor. 10. & 11. neither do I remember any other places that ſpeake expreſly of this Sacrament, in all which places is no mention of women.
The ſecond part of the aſſumption is, that notwithſtanding this is not expreſſed in ſo many words in Scripture, that beleeving women ſhold receive the ſacramēt of the Lords Supper; yet that they may & ought to be admitted, neither can without injury be debarred:96 which is ſo univerſally (for ought I know) acknowledged, that I never heard it queſtioned: And he that ſhould queſtion it, might ſeeme worthy of deteſtation or contempt, rather then anſwer, or diſputation. It may be confirmed by ſuch grounds, as were intimated in my confirmation of the propoſition, And my reaſon why I ſay this is an unqueſtionable truth, Beleeving women have right to the Lords Supper aſwell as men, & that by Scripture warrant, is the received maxime in Divinity, that what is contained in Scripture in expreſſe words, or may be gathered from the Scripture by juſt conſequence, hath ſufficient warrant from Gods word, and is a matter of faith. Or, as it is expreſſed by ſome, thus. A ſcripture commandeth, promiſeth or threatneth, whatſoever is contained in it, though not expreſſed; and that is contained in it, which may juſtly, and truly be gathered from it, though by never ſo many conſequences or inferences. Now I hope none queſtions, but that it may by juſt and undenyable conſequences be proved, that beleeving women aſwell as men, ought to receive the Supper, and ſo it hath been proved, that children ought to be baptized; otherwiſe if we will not admit that we have ſufficient ſcripture warrant, not only for that which is expreſly ſet downe in ſcripture; but alſo for whatſoever by juſt conſequence is or may be deduced therefrom: we ſhall deprive our ſelves of all or moſt Scripture-promiſes or priviledges, and exempt our ſelves of all or moſt commands. Seeing what is ſet downe in the Scripture, is not ſpoken immediatly and expreſſely to us in particular, but only by juſt conſequence or inference is derivable and appliable unto us. And therefore let thoſe that either out of ignorance and ſcruple, or wilfulneſſe and prophaneneſſe, think that there is warrant or obligation for nothing to be done, as an act of faith and obedience, but what is ſet downe or they are commanded expreſſely and clearely in the ſcripture, in ſo many words, take heed they doe not at once, deny to God all obedience, and to their ſoules all comfort in the promiſes. This laſt argument may be ſummed up briefly thus.
If it be not warrantable for children to be baptized, then it is not lawfull for women to receive the Lords Supper; for as much may be ſayd for that, as for this, and againſt this as that. But the conſequent is abſurd; therefore the antecedent is falſe. And this I would wiſh thoſe women to conſider, which by reaſon of the weakeneſſe of their judgment, are apteſt to be deceived, by thoſe97 that creep into houſes, and leade captive ſilly women laden with ſinnes, led away with diverſe luſts, ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledg of the truth. For if they ſhould yeeld to this perſwaſion, their children muſt not be baptized in their infancie, becauſe the Scripture doth not expreſſely command it; On the ſame ground, they muſt yeeld that they themſelves have nothing to doe with the Supper; and ſo by degrees they may be cheated of all Gods Ordinances and their comforts, priviledges, and obedience, on the ſame grounds. As alſo I would wiſh that the foregoing argument may be conſidered by them, who have refuſed to have their children baptized in infancie, and ſhew what ground they have in Scripture for baptizing them when they come to yeares of diſcretion. I cannot ſee but they have as great cauſe to queſtion, whether ever their children may be baptized as whether they may baptize them in infancy. Let them give an example or command in ſcripture, expreſſe or by juſt conſequence, of a beleeving Father which kept his child unbaptized, untill he actually beleeved, and then brought him to baptiſme. And then let them bethinke themſelves whether the iſſue will not be, either their poſterity muſt not be baptized at all, (though they beleeve and repent never ſo much) and ſo they caſt themſelves and their children out of Covenant; or they muſt be baptized without warrant, or commande (for all thoſe examples and commands that are in ſcripture of faith required in thoſe that ſhould be baptized, ſpeake of them who themſelves and their parents till that time had not been under the new Covenant.) Or laſtly, if they will have thoſe commands and examples for their warrant and applyable to them; they and their children muſt become infidels, and perſons out of Covenant, and deny that ever they were in Covenant before, or had received any ſpirituall and Evangelicall favour, that ſo now at laſt entering newly into the Covenant of grace by faith and repentance, whereunto they profeſſe that they have been hitherto ſtrangers, they may receive the Sacrament or pledge of admiſſion into Covenant. Which how injurious it would be to Gods grace, and their own ſouls and poſteritie, if ever they taſted of Gods mercy, or were but externally in Covenant, let all men judge.
It is uſuall in controverſies of this kinde, after Scripture proofes and reaſons deduced therefrom and grounded thereon, to produce the conſent and teſtimony of the Godly and learned, whether98 Ancient or Modern; eſpecially, the former, that were moſt neere the Primitive pureſt times; And I doubt not if a man had helps and leiſure for ſearching Antiquitie, it might be eaſily ſhewed, that the baptizing of Infants was long in uſe before Antichriſt got to his throne, (contrary to the opinion of this diſputant) yea in the Primitive times (unleſſe Authors be ſilent in this point, (becauſe no controveſie then roſe above this matter) or corrupted:) But as I have ſaid, neither having the books of the Ancients, that ſpeak of this ſubject, nor time well to turne over thoſe volumes, if I had them, I muſt forbeare. Onely let the Reader again take notice of theſe two firſt-mentioned and Prime Authors whom A. R. cites for his purpoſe. For as touching Origens giving teſtimony, that baptizing children was a ceremony or tradition of the Church, (not to examine how truly theſe words are cited out of the Author, which I cannot for the reaſon aforementioned, but to take the words on his truſt) This teſtimony ſhews that in his time, who lived but 200. yeares after Chriſt, it was a thing ordinarily practiſed, and (as I ſhewed before in vindicating my third Argument) an unqueſtioned practiſe, from which as an undeniable principle, that holy man ſeemes to prove that Infants of a day old are not free from ſinne. And let none be offended that it is called a ceremony, though that name, as it is uſed for humane traditions beſide or contrary to Gods word, is odious, yet the word may in its proper ſignification be uſed for any rite, either humane or divine, and both Baptiſme and the Lords Supper may fitly be called ceremonies now; as well as Paſſeover, Circumciſion, and other Divine Ordinances, inſtituted by God among the Iews. Neither let any be troubled at the word Tradition, for that is uſed not onely to note things taken up by men, but alſo for the Doctrine of God,〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. and Inſtitutions of the Apoſtles, 1 Cor. 11.2. 2 Theſſ. 2.15. And whereas it is ſaid, a ceremony or tradition of the Church, there is no neceſſitie that it ſhould be underſtood that the Church was the Authour thereof, but the ſubject (in which it was uſed, and by which it was delivered to poſteritie) may well be meant, by that phraſe. So Auguſtine (who lived in the fourth Century after Chriſt) calles it a cuſtome (as he ſaith) of the Church. Which yet he might well doe, and yet it be a divine ordinance, for all Gods ordinances are or ſhould be in cuſtome in the Church. But if it were a cuſtome of the Church in Auguſtines time, (and a ceremony or tradition of the Church99 in Origens) ſure it is ſtrange that it ſhould be brought into uſe a thouſand yeares after Chriſt, as one of his Authours ſaith, and be a deviſe of Antichriſt, as he holds. For cuſtomes are things that have been of long uſe and ancient ſtanding. And whereas ſome Authours ſpeake of ſuch as were Catechized and inſtructed by the Church, before they were baptized, and muſt give a reaſon of their faith before they were admitted to Baptiſme, and that they uſed to Baptize ſuch at two times of the yeare onely. I beleeve it will be apparent to thoſe who looke into theſe Authours, that they ſpeake not of the children of beleeving parents: but that thoſe Catechumeni, who were firſt Catechized and then baptized, were Pagans (who lived in thoſe parts where the Church was) which were quite out of Covenant, and therefore, becauſe God did not ſo miraculouſly and ſuddenly bring ſuch to the faith, as in the times of the Apoſtles, ſome ſpace was required to inſtruct them in the principles of Religion, before they could be judged fit for Baptiſme. But as I ſaid, I may not meddle with the examination of his authorities, nor produce any humane authoritie for this; ſeeing it hath been ſufficiently confirmed by Arguments drawn from Scripture grounds; though it were an eaſie thing, I ſuppoſe, to beat this Adverſary with his own weapon. And it might be an uſefull worke if ſome Antiquary would take the pains to turne over the ancient Writers, and ſhew what they have left on record concerning this ſubject.
I will come to make ſome practicall uſe and improvement of this diſpute, and ſo end. Seeing all thoſe Arguments that have been brought againſt the baptizing of Infants, have been anſwered, and our Arguments for it defended (through the help of God and in his feare, how ſufficiently let others judge) ſo that the weakneſſe of the Adverſaries Arguments hath beene detected, and the truth vindicated againſt cavils, and it hath been proved from Scripture grounds, that children of parents within Covenant have right to Baptiſme; this diſcourſe may ſerve.
Firſt, To admoniſh ſuch as the Authour of this pamphlet anſwered that are ſo pragmaticall in broaching their new conceits, that they would impartially, and without prejudice, weigh and examine their owne tenents and grounds by the Scripture, before they proceede with ſuch confidence, and heate, to commend them to, and urge them upon others, deride, rayle upon and condemne, as Antichriſtian and Deceivers, all that will not receive their100 doctrines as infallible. I would wiſh them to conſider whether this be the truth of God that they pleade for, and maintaine, with ſuch groſſe perverting, abuſe, and falſifying of Scripture, as hath beene ſhewed throughout the booke; whether hath the cauſe of God neede to be upholden with manifeſt errors, and thoſe of very dangerous conſequence, bordering on blaſphemie, ſuch as have beene diſcovered in this Authour; as calling the Covenant under which the faithfull were before Chriſt, a Covenant of workes, of Nature, and of condemnation: And caſting out all infants of the holieſt Chriſtian parents from the Covenant of Grace, and making them equall with the Children of Turkes, at leaſt whiles infants, and many errors of like ſort, and that againſt playne Scriptures. Doth God neede mens lyes to maintaine his truth? It may be, theſe errours, abuſes of Scriptures, and bold aſſertions of untruths, and thoſe not one or two but many, proceeded from ignorance, and zeale without knowledge. (For ſuch is our weakeneſſe of judgement, that wee are apt to take up, embrace, and maintaine error for truth.) If ſo, I hope ſuch perſons upon conviction may be humbled and give glory to God in confeſsing the power of his truth, in overcomming them. But if otherwiſe they proceede out of pride, vaineglory, and they be thus active out of a deſire to gather Diſciples after them, that they may be followed and admired of the ſimple, creeping into houſes and leading captive,Act. 20.30. ſilly women laden with iniquitie, ever learning but never coming to the knowledge of the truth;•Tim 3.6, 7. pretending to ſerve the Lord Ieſus, when indeed they ſerve their own bellies, and by good words,Rom. 16.17. and faire ſpeeches deceive the hearts of the ſimple; profeſſing zealouſly to affect Gods people,Gal. 4.17. that they may exclude and withdraw them from Chriſts Miniſters: I would wiſh them to conſider, that though Satans Miniſters may be ſuffered for a time to transforme themſelves into the Miniſters of righteouſneſſe,2 Cor. 11.13. and 14.15. yet their end ſhall be according to their works. And though there may be falſe Teachers amongſt Gods people,2 Pet. 2.1, 2, 3. who may privily bring in damnable hereſies, denying the Lord that bought them, they ſhall bring upon themſelves ſwift deſtruction. Yea, though they ſo farre inſinuate themſelves into people, that many ſhall follow their pernicious wayes, by reaſon of whom the way of truth ſhall be evill ſpoken of, &c. yet their judgement lingereth not, and their damnation ſlumbereth not. Neither will God ſuffer ſuch abuſe and perverting of his Scriptures, venting of101 errours, railing againſt authoritie, ſpeaking evill of his Miniſters, ſeeking to ſeduce his people, and impoyſoning many unſtable ſouls, with fond opinions, goe unpuniſhed;1 Cor. 11.19. 2 Theſſ. 2.11, 12. Though for a time he may (for the correction and tryall of his own people, the diſcovering of the ſound, and puniſhing of the unſound, by giving them over to ſtrong deluſions to beleeve lyes) ſuffer ſuch perſons to eſcape; yet ſurely men at laſt ſhall know what it is with a great ſhew of Scripture, and under pretence of zeale, to oppoſe the truth and draw people from the wayes of holineſſe. I know the beſt of Gods ſervants may erre in judgement, aſwell as faile in practiſe; But ſuch will bleſſe God for diſcovering their errour, and be thankfull to the inſtrument which he uſeth for that end, and to ſuch doubtleſſe God is ready to ſhew mercy in forgiving their errours. But as for them who for their credit ſake (as they thinke) when their errours are diſcovered, and oppoſed, ſhall be more bold in aſſerting them, fly out in rayling and bitterneſſe againſt thoſe that would have given an helping hand to the reducing of them to the truth, ſet their wits a worke, to invent new Arguments to maintaine falſhood againſt their own conſcience, and ſo to uphold one errour by another, (for no truth will patronize an errour) and conſequently run from one fond opinion into another; ſuch we are commanded after once or twice admonition to reject,Tit. 3.10, 11. as knowing that they are ſubverted and ſinne being condemned of themſelves.
Secondly, It may ſerve for a warning to thoſe who have beene too apt to liſten to the perſwaſion of ſuch buſie pragmaticall perſons; that they ſhould not be ſo ſimple, as to thinke the greateſt confidence, and boldeſt peremptorineſſe, and faireſt ſhew of zeal, is an infallible ſigne of the beſt cauſe maintained, or beſt heart in the maintainer. Hypocriſie oft is attended with appearance of zeale, and ignorance is ordinarily accompanyed with peremptorineſſe. For none uſually are more pragmaticall, buſie, and bold, then they that are moſt ignorant;1 Tim. 1.13. none more deſirous to teach others, ther they that underſtand not what they ſay, nor whereof they affirme; none ſo unruly and hard to have their mouthes ſtopped, perverting whole houſes, by teaching thoſe things which they ought not, as thoſe that are but vaine talkers, and meere deceivers, when they come to bee tryed. Chriſtians ſhould try the Spirits, whether they be of God or no, not beleeving a tenent forthwith, becauſe men come with it to us,1 Joh. 4.1. under a pretence102 of love,2 Cor. 11.13, 14, 15. zeale, humility, &c. Seeing Satan can change himſelfe into the likneſſe of an Angell of light, and his Miniſters are taught his art. God hath given us his word as a touchſtone, that we may try all things and hold faſt that wch is good. He hath appointed the Miniſters & Miniſtery of his word to this end, that we may not be henceforth ſuch children,Eph. 4.11, 12, 14. as to be carryed about with every wind of vaine doctrine, by the ſleight of men and cunning craftineſſe whereby they lie in waite to deceive; and ſeldome doe we ſee any inſnared in theſe, and ſuch like errors, till they leave the Miniſtery of the word; the ſpeciall meanes which God hath appointed to prevent them. It is true all Chriſtians ought to make tryall of their tenets, practiſe and worſhip, and not take them up meerely of cuſtome, becauſe they are generally received. But it is not ſafe for people to leave the Miniſtery of the word, and hearken to none but thoſe that wil humour them in their opiniōs & ſay as they ſay. It is an argument that peoples opinions and practiſes are workes of darkneſſe, when they refuſe to come to the light to have them tryed. How miſerably may Satan and his inſtruments abuſe ſilly ſoules, if they can perſwade them to come into no company, but ſuch where they may be confirmed in their errours? I would intreat ſuch to take heede leſt being drawn to renounce their Baptiſme received in infancie (which is the drift of theſe men, by perſwading them that it is no Baptiſme) and keeping their Children unbaptized, they caſt themſelves and their poſterity out of Covenant, reject God the Father, Sonne and Holy Ghoſt, to whom they were conſecrated in Baptiſme by their parents, and ſo caſt away their Chriſtianity, their ſoules and ſalvation all at once; and not onely their owne, but their poſterities too. It cannot but bee very offenſive to God, whereas he hath offered himſelfe to be our God from our infancy, and taken us into his family, having made the promiſe and covenant to our parents and us their children, and ſealed the ſame Covenant to us, and really beſtowed on us (at leaſt ſome of us, and is ready to beſtow on us all if we be not wanting to our ſelves) what was in Baptiſme ſealed, namely remiſsion of ſinnes, regeneration, and the ſpirit of adoptions; if all this notwithſtanding we ſhall hearken to the enemy of Gods glorious grace and our ſoules greateſt comfort, perſwading us that neither wee were in Covenant with God, in our infancy, by vertue of the Covenant made with our parents; neither our children in any better condition then the children of Turkes and Pagans, untill the103 time of actuall faith. If we ſet ſo little by Gods ancient mercies conveyed to our parents and us ſucceſſively, for many generations, according to his mercifull promiſe and covenant; let us take heede, leſt wee provoke him to caſt us off, and give us over to ſtrong deluſions, becauſe we have followed lying vanities, and forſaken our owne mercies.
Secondly, ſeeing the children of the faithfull have right to the promiſes of thoſe bleſſings which are ſealed in Baptiſme, and not onely the beleeving Governours of families themſelves, but alſo the whole families were baptized, the children of the faithfull are holy, within covenant and have right to Baptiſme, as well as infants in the Iewiſh Church had right to Circumciſion; upon which and the like grounds it hath beene proved that they ought to be baptized: This ſhould call upon Chriſtian parents that have or ſhall dedicate their children to God in Baptiſme, and all the poſterity of the faithfull that have beene conſecrated to God in their infancy by Baptiſme, both highly to eſteeme this priviledge and ancient faederall mercy of God; ſo that they doe not ſuffer themſelves to bee cheated of it by impoſtors: And ſo thankfully, holily and fruitfully to uſe it, that it may be a meanes to ſtrengthen their faith, and confirme them in the aſſurance of Gods love, and a ſpeciall ſpurre to holineſſe, and curbe to reſtraine from profaneneſſe; and by all meanes take heede of ſo abuſing it, that it ſhould be an occaſion of Gods diſhonor (by cauſing this holy ordinance to be blaſphemed,) the offence & ſtumbling of others, and their own greater condemnation. And this they ſhould the rather look unto:
Firſt, becauſe ſo many Chriſtians by profeſſion bring their children to baptiſme meerly of cuſtom; neither regarding the grounds on which, nor the end for which, nor the manner how, they ought to do this; neither conſidering the mercies which God offers to them, and their children, in this ſacred ordinance, nor yet the duties whereunto they and their children are herein obliged; as if Gods ordinances whereunto he cals us, the priviledges which he beſtowes on us, and the duties whereunto he bindes us were but matters of faſhion or ſport. And in like manner, many when they come to yeares of diſcretion, no more regard their baptiſme then a trifle, hardly ſo much as inquiring, why they were baptized.
Secondly, becauſe as the Apoſtle ſaid of circumciſion,Rom. 2.25. that it became no circumciſion, if men kept not the Law: ſo may I ſay, Baptiſme becomes no baptiſme to thoſe which walke not according104 to the Goſpel. Let us not thinke that the meere worke done makes us ſufficient Chriſtians. If men perſwade themſelves they may live ignorantly, profanely, and carnally; and yet hope to be ſaved, becauſe they have been baptized; let them read 1 Cor. 10. verſ. 1. to the 12. for confutation of their errour, and diſcovery of the dangerouſneſſe and damnableneſſe of that opinion.
Thirdly, as the name of God was blaſphemed by the Gentiles, through the vicious lives of the Iews,Rom. 2.24. who were by circumciſion conſecrated to God, and made his people by profeſſion: ſo is God, and Chriſt blaſphemed, and this holy Ordinance of Baptiſme ſpoken evill of, by occaſion of the wickedneſſe of many that have beene baptized. For not to ſpeake of the blaſphemy of Turkes, Pagans, and Papiſts, caſt upon the Chriſtian Religion, for the profaneneſſe of Proteſtants; doe not we heare that ſome hence make bold to ſpeak evill of the Baptiſme of Children, as if it were the cauſe of all profaneneſſe and impietie that is in the Church? which though it be a moſt falſe calumnie, (and I know not how it can be excuſed from blaſphemy;) For are not many of thoſe that were baptized in infancie, pious, wiſe, and garcious Chrſtians? How can baptiſme then in infancie be the cauſe of profaneneſſe; ſeeing where the cauſe is, it produceth the effect? Were not there among the Iewes as many profane, ignorant, and diſordered perſons, as among us? ſhall men ſay, that circumciſing their children in infancie was the cauſe of it? that were plaine blaſphemie. Was there not notorious profaneneſſe in the Primitive Church, as among the Corinthians, &c. Was baptiſme, whether of infants, (which yet I thinke they will not ſay) or of profeſſours of faith and repentance, the cauſe of it? This imputation a Chriſtian eare will abhorre. Is not the word of God a ſavour of death and occaſion of hardning to ſome? the Sacrament of the Lords Supper an occaſion to ſome of temporall and ſpirituall judgements? Yet what Chriſtian dare ſay, that theſe are the cauſes of ſinnes in the Church? Yet I ſay, though this be a falſe and wicked imputation, that the baptizing of infants, is the cauſe of evils in the Church: let them looke to it that give occaſion of ſuch blaſphemy.
Fourthly, all Chriſtians ſhould be ſtirred up the rather to make a good improvement of this priviledge of Chriſtian parents, in having God not onely for their God, but alſo for the God of their children; and ſo of the baptizing of their children, becauſe we ſee105 Satan ſo buſie to rob them of this moſt comfortable doctrine, and precious priviledge, concerning childrens being in covenant, by vertue of the covenant made with their parents; and ſo to drive Chriſtians to renounce their baptiſme received in infancy, and diſſwade them from tendering their children to God in baptiſme, and ſo to overthrow a maine ground of our comfort in Gods ancient love to us, and a ſpeciall motive to obedience.
Fifthly, in a word; If we doe not prize, and profit by this ancient love of God to us, which he hath ſhewed us from our birth, in taking us into externall covenant, wherein he is ready to beſtow the internall bleſſings: If we doe not take God for our God, repent of ſinne, and beleeve in Chriſt, according to the obligation of the covenant of grace, that was ſealed to us in baptiſme: If the baptized doe not give up themſelves to God actually in their own perſons when they come to yeers of diſcretion: And if parents be not carefull to bring up their children, whom they have preſented to God in baptiſme; we muſt know that all theſe mercies of God offered unto us; all the profeſſions of faith and obedience we have made, will riſe up in judgement againſt us and increaſe our condemnation, above the condemnation of thoſe that never were in outward covenant. Other men are not ſo faſt tied unto God as we that are baptized, who are now, no more our owne, but Gods tied unto him by covenant, which if we breake, it will be to our greateſt perill.
If it be demanded wherein this dutie of highly prizing, and holily improving this priviledge of baptiſme in infancie conſiſts? I anſwer.
Firſt, we ſhould labour to be well inſtructed and ſettled in the grounds of this action, viz. baptizing infants, which are Gods gracious covenant and promiſe, &c. as hath been ſhewed before; that we may give a reaſon of our being baptized in infancie. That ſeeing our priviledge beſtowed by God, we may not ſuffer our ſelves to be ſophiſticated out of it by any; ſo as to be driven from our hold in the covenant of mercy, which God hath made to us and ours. To this end we ſhould ſolidly ſtudy the doctrine of Grace and of Baptiſme, and thoſe Arguments that have beene before handled. The reaſon why we ſo eaſily be driven by temptations from faith, and obedience, duties, and priviledges; is becauſe we doe not well meditate on, and throughly digeſt the grounds thereof. But when we are well and throughly perſwaded106 on Scripture grounds, that this is a dutie enjoyned, and a priviledge beſtowed by God, we ſhall ſee there is cauſe to contend for the faith delivered to the Saints, Iud. 3.
Secondly, let parents looke that they offer up their children to God in baptiſme, with faith, prayer, and unfeigned purpoſe of heart to conſecrate them wholly unto God. And that they may make it appeare that they doe ſo indeed, let them look that they give up themſelves unto God in holy obedience, repentance and faith, praying earneſtly for their children; and when they be capable of inſtruction, let them give them good example, bring them up in the feare and inſtruction of the Lord, putting them in minde of the covenant whereinto God hath taken them, and uſe all holy meanes to bring them to actuall faith, and holineſſe; and let them know that this is a neceſſary dutie required at their hand, whereunto (at leaſt implicitly) they obliged themſelves, when they tendred their children to baptiſme, wherein they may not be negligent without grievous ſinne of diſobedience to, and mocking of God, and moſt heinous injurie, and dangerous hazard to their owne and their childrens ſoules, Deut. 6.7. Prov. 4.4. Epheſ 6.4.
Thirdly, all thoſe that have beene baptized, remembring that now they are not their owne, but given up to God in the covenant of grace, and ſolemnly tendred to his Majeſty in this ſacred Ordinance of Baptiſme in the preſence of the Angels, and the congregation of the faithfull, (which act of their parents was not arbitrary, but neceſſary; and that whereunto they were abſolutely bound by Covenant, viz. to take God for their God, and the God of their children; and give up themſelves and their children to God) All Chriſtians, I ſay, conſidering this that they were given up unto God in baptiſme, and that God graciouſly tooke them into covenant, and admitted them into his family, before they knew the right hand from the left, muſt (ſo ſoone as they are able to doe a morall act) give up themſelves unto God in their owne perſons, voluntarily, and gladly aſſenting unto, and ratifying that covenant which their parents entred into in their behalfe; ſeeing it is not now in their owne choyce to be of what Religion or converſation they will. They are bound to be Chriſtians and Saints, and that not onely by vertue of the creation, preſervation, and redemption which God hath wrought for men: but alſo, by ſolemne promiſe, vow, and covenant. Inſomuch as thoſe107 who having beene baptized, live in wilfull ignorance, ſuperſtition, unbeliefe, profaneneſſe, covetouſneſſe, following the luſts of the fleſh, continue all that while in moſt treacherous breach of covenant, and rebellion againſt God, whoſe ſervants they have bound themſelves to be, and yet ſerve his ſworne enemies; namely, the devill and their owne luſts. So that they have not onely forfeited their bonds, and deſerved for ever to be deprived of all thoſe glorious and incomprehenſible benefits contained in the covenant of grace: but alſo have deſerved to be dealt with as perfidious Apoſtates, and traiterous revolters from their Lord and King. Which breach of Covenant, though the Lord will not impute to thoſe which ſeaſonably, heartily, and ſincerely repent, when they come to ſee what they have done (for they are in a covenant of grace which admitteth repentance:) yet when people come to conſider how they have ſinned againſt God in this kinde, muſt be the more humbled by this conſideration, that ſo many yeares after they were conſecrated unto God, they dealt traiterouſly and rebelliouſly againſt him; and for the future be the more carefull to redeeme the time, and by ſo much more diligently and zealouſly to honour him for ever after, by how much careleſſe and looſe they have beene before. But they that doe not thus repent, and take care to keepe touch with God, ſhall know to their woe,Gal. 6.7. that God will not be mocked; and that it had been better many waies never to have beene baptized, or heard of the covenant of grace,Eccleſ. 5.4, 5. 2 Pet. 2.21. then to live wickedly and impenitently in a profeſſion of Chriſtianitie. Let Chriſtian parents whet theſe and ſuch like conſiderations on their children; yea let all Chriſtians from the youngeſt that are capable to the oldeſt, whet them on themſelves, and one on another, that they may be ſtirred up to give up themſelves wholly and really to God.
Fourthly, whenſoever Chriſtians finde themſelves tempted to ſinne, or drawne from holineſſe, inclined to looſeneſſe, or backward to good duties: let them looke backward unto their baptiſme, and their conſecration unto God, and their abrenunciation of the world, and the devil, tranſacted therein: and remember that they were buried with Chriſt in baptiſme, and profeſſed a death unto ſinne, and a reſurrection to holineſſe, ſo that now it were a monſtrous and abſurd thing to live in ſinne, as for a dead man to riſe, or a living man to lie in the grave. Remember you are not your owne, but Chriſts, who is your Lord and Maſter, and108 ſo reſolve to continue ſtill doing his worke, and reſiſting his and your ſoules enemies. Thus the Apoſtle teacheth us from baptiſme to fetch arguments of ſanctification, both for the mortifying of our corruption, and for the quickning of us to holineſſe, Rom. 6.1, 2, 3, 4, &c.
Fifthly, In times of doubt, deſertion, temptation to diſtruſt, &c. Chriſtians ſhould have recourſe to the conſideration of their baptiſme, and remember the ancient love of God to them in their infancy, in taking them into his family, and undertaking to be their God in baptiſme, wherein the whole Trinitie, Father, Sonne, and Holy Ghoſt, became ours, giving us under ſeale aſſurance of pardon, and peace, direction and ſupport, perſeverance and ſalvation. So that let our temptations, miſeries, and diſcomforts, be what they will; if we can but caſt our eye back on baptiſme, and the covenant of grace ſealed therein, we may gather ſtrong conſolation therefrom. And if we can in theſe and ſuch like particulars teſtifie our prizing and improvement of our baptiſme, we ſhall not eaſily be cheated of it, or drawne to queſtion whether we were ever truly baptized, ſeeing we daily find the comfortable fruits and effects thereof: not ſhall we give occaſion to others to queſton whether our Infant baptiſme were true baptiſme, when we give a reall demonſtration to them that by vertue of the covenant of grace ſealed therein unto us, we walke as Chriſtians in all holy converſation.
Sixthly, this may ſerve to ſtirre up the Miniſters of Chriſt, (among whom I profeſſe my ſelfe the meaneſt and unworthieſt of any) that ſeeing there are ſo many pragmaticall deceivers abroad to ſeduce Gods people, not afraid to call in queſtion well-grounded truths, buzzing into the eares of the ſimple, ſuch things as tend to the overthrow of Chriſtian conſolation and chearfull obedience; ſpeaking perverſe things, by which they overturne whole houſes: This, I ſay, ſhould ſtirre us up if there be any conſcience of our owne weightie duty, and dreadfull charge, any ſparke of compaſſion to mens ſoules, love to the truth, or zeale for Gods glory, to endeavour to prevent the inundation of errours, rents, diſtractions, licentiouſneſſe and profaneneſſe that will unavoidably follow, upon the plucking up of theſe floodgates, to the overflowing of the Church, if ſome ſpeedy remedy be not applied, which belongs to the Miniſters of Chriſt principally: ſhould it not grieve us to heare this holy function of the109 Miniſtery, ſpoke of ſo diſdainfully (as it is in this Pamphlet anſwered) as if our Miniſters were but a company of ignorant, covetous, and ambitious men. And oh would, too great occaſion of this imputation were not given, by too many of our Miniſters! Woe to the world, (ſaith Chriſt) becauſe of offences;Luk. 17.1, 2. but woo to them by whom offences come. They that runne into theſe errours of Anabaptiſme by occaſion of the badneſſe of ſome Miniſters, ſhall not thereby be excuſed, nor eſcape the woe, unleſſe they repent: But it had beene better for thoſe men, never to have meddled with the Miniſtery; yea to have beene throwne into the bottome of the ſea, with a milſtone about their necks, when they undertooke the charge of ſoules, who by their ignorance, lazineſſe, covetouſneſſe, pride, and ſuperſtition, have given occaſion unto ſome to raile on our Miniſtery, as Antichriſtian. And it is apparent that theſe errours are growne ſo rife and over-ſpreading through the ſilencing of good Miniſters and ſetting up and maintaining of ſuch as have beene careleſſe and ſcandalous. Therefore it greatly concerns all good Miniſters to ſeek a remedie to this evill,1 Tim. 4.15. 2 Tim. 2.15. 2 Tim. 4.2. by giving attendance to reading, exhortation, and doctrine. To ſtudy to ſhew themſelves approved workmen of God, that need not to be aſhamed, rightly dividing the word of truth; yea to preach the word in ſeaſon, and out of ſeaſon; rebuking and reproving, and exhorting with all long-ſuffering and doctrine, ſeeing the time is come when people will not endure ſound doctrine, but after their owne luſts, heape to themſelves Teachers having itching eares. If ever they had need, (tis now) to hold faſt the faithfull word, that they may be able by ſound doctrine, both to exhort,Tit. 1.9, 10, 11. and convince the gain-ſayers. Becauſe there are many unruly vaine-talkers, and deceivers, whoſe mouthes muſt be ſtopped, who ſubvert whole houſes, teaching things which they ought not. There is great need that Miniſters ſhould take heed to themſelves,Act. 20.28, 29, 30. & to the flock over which the holy Ghoſt hath made them Overſeers, to feed the Church of God which he hath purchaſed with his owne bloud; ſeeing grievous wolves are entred among us, not ſparing the flock; and from among our ſelves are men riſen which ſpeak perverſe things to draw diſciples after them. Theſe exhortations of the holy Ghoſt, and many more in Scripture to call us to our dutie, were never more ſeaſonable and neceſſary. In obedience to which charges of God, let us therefore by painfull ſtudie, conſtant preaching, fervent prayer, and holy110 converſation, fit our ſelves for, employ our ſelves in, and procure authoritie to, the work of the Miniſtery, that we may be free from the bloud of all men, and that the people may be no more as children carried about with every winde of doctrine; nor for want of plenty of pure ſtreames, be forced to drink up the puddle waters of errours and deluſions.
Laſtly, The conſideration of the pragmaticalneſſe of many in theſe dayes, to impoyſon the mindes, and trouble the hearts of Gods people, with ſtrange doctrines and dangerous errours; who doe not onely creepe into houſes to pervert the ſimple, but alſo are ſo bold as to divulge their opinions to the danger of many ſouls, as it appeareth by this Pamphlet anſwered, and the effects it hath wrought: The conſideration, I ſay, of the boldneſſe of ſuch perſons, and of the diſtractions and unſettledneſſe of the hearts of Gods people by occaſion thereof, ſhould ſtirre us up every one in his place, to doe what we can for applying a remedy to this miſerable diſtraction and ſpreading ſore. Let us receive the truth in the love thereof,2 Theſſ. 2.10, 11. 1 Joh. 4.1. leſt God be provoked to give us over to ſtrong deluſions to beleeve lyes. Let us not be ſo fond as to beleeve every ſpirit, but try the ſpirits whether they be of God. Let us labour for ſoundneſſe of judgement, that we may diſcern between things that differ. But eſpecially, that we may procure a generall remedy not onely for our ſelves, but for our whole kingdome alſo. Let us by our repentance, and prayers, and all pious endeavours, religious and civill, help our Religious, Honorable, (and with all praiſe and thankfulneſſe to God ever to be mentioned) Parliament, into whoſe gracious hearts the Lord hath put a ſincere deſire, and ſtirred up to expreſſe an holy reſolution of endeavouring to finde out a remedy to this evill, that their holy endeavours may be bleſſed.
Firſt, earneſtly craving of God, That as he hath been pleaſed ſo farre to honour the Honourable Aſſemblies endeavours, and his poore peoples prayers, as to call together an Aſſembly of Gods faithfull Miniſters, being men of approved pietie, ſinceritie and abilitie: ſo he would vouchſafe to ſtirre them up, direct and inable them, in the feare of God, without prejudice, by the Rule of the Scripture, to examine all ſorts of tenents that are controverted in the Church, giving libertie to every one that hath any thing to ſay for the truth (though but in pretence) to ſpeak their minde freely; that ſo Gods truth being cleared, and eſtabliſhed,111 and errour unmasked and ſuppreſſed, Gods peoples hearts may be quieted. That this means is likely by the bleſſing of God to prove effectuall, if our ſinnes doe not hinder and deprive us of it and its expected bleſſing, may appeare by Chriſts promiſes Matt. 18.18, 19, 20. and the Apoſtles practiſe together with the Primitive Church, Act. 15.1, 2, 3. to 32.
Secondly, Let us penitently, humbly and heartily crave of God, his bleſſing on his ſervants endeavours, for the ſettling of an able, painfull, and godly Miniſtery in this Land, and rooting out of the ignorant, idle, and ſcandalous Miniſtery, (ſeeing the abounding of this, and the want of that, hath been a principall cauſe of ignorance, errour, Popery, Separation, and Anabaptiſme in the Land.) That every Congregation being furniſhed through Gods mercy (if we may be accounted worthy ſuch an happineſſe) with a faithfull Miniſtery, and Gods pure Ordinances, might be faithfully inſtructed in the truth of God: So that all Superſtition and Reliques of Popery on the one ſide being rooted out, and all phantaſticall opinions on the other ſide, confuted and exploded, Gods people may be guided in the even and cleare way to heaven; ſo that they may neither turne to the right hand nor to the left.
Thirdly, We ought by our prayers, Repentance and all holy endeavours to promote and help forward that Religious deſigne of ſettling Church Government,1 Tim. 1.4. Rev. 2.2. and the Diſcipline of Ieſus Chriſt amongſt us. That an Authoritative charge may be laid on them that bring in ſtrange doctrine, that they proceed not to diſturbe the Church. And thoſe which ſay they are Apoſtles but are not, may be found lyers. That by it all truth, pietie, and ſinceritie, may be eſtabliſhed, approved, and maintained, with all means furthering the ſame. And that all things that tend to the maintaining of ſuperſtition, profaneneſſe, and ignorance, and occaſioning of diviſions, jarres, and ſeparations, may be removed. That theſe things have been, and ſtill are intended and laboured for, by that Honourable and Gracious Councell, and that Religious and Learned Aſſembly, we have had large teſtimonies. It remaines, that we finde out and remove (as much as lyes in us) what hinders ſuch a mercy, moſt humbly and earneſtly intreating our gracious God, on whoſe bleſſings depends the ſucceſſe of all holy endeavours, and in whoſe hands are the hearts of all men: That he will ſtill proſper the labours of his ſervants, and ſtirre up112 the hearts of thoſe whoſe concurrence in this moſt Chriſtian deſigne is of great concernment, to joyne with them, and further them therein: and remove out of the way whatſoever are the impediments thereof. 1 Cor. 1.10.That ſo occaſions of diviſions being removed, we may be perfectly joyned together in the ſame minde, and in the ſame judgement,Eph. 4.3. and 12, 13, 14, 15. in the truth. Endeavouring to keepe the unitie of the ſpirit in the bond of peace. That ſo the body of Chriſt may be edified; till we come in the unitie of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Sonne of God, unto a perfect man, unto the meaſure of the ſtature of the fulneſſe of Chriſt. That we henceforth be no more children toſſed to and fro, and carryed about with every wind of doctrine, by the ſleight of men, and cunning craftineſſe, whereby they lye in wait to deceive. But ſpeaking the truth in love, may grow up in him in all things, which is the head, even Chriſt: to whom with the Father, and the holy Ghoſt, three Perſons, but one onely wiſe God our Saviour, be all Glory, and Majeſtie, Dominion and Power, now and ever. AMEN.
(EEBO-TCP ; phase 2, no. A80416)
Transcribed from: (Early English Books Online ; image set 111961)
Images scanned from microfilm: (Thomason Tracts ; 2:E9[2])
Created by converting TCP files to TEI P5 using tcp2tei.xsl, TEI @ Oxford.
EEBO-TCP is a partnership between the Universities of Michigan and Oxford and the publisher ProQuest to create accurately transcribed and encoded texts based on the image sets published by ProQuest via their Early English Books Online (EEBO) database (http://eebo.chadwyck.com). The general aim of EEBO-TCP is to encode one copy (usually the first edition) of every monographic English-language title published between 1473 and 1700 available in EEBO.
EEBO-TCP aimed to produce large quantities of textual data within the usual project restraints of time and funding, and therefore chose to create diplomatic transcriptions (as opposed to critical editions) with light-touch, mainly structural encoding based on the Text Encoding Initiative (http://www.tei-c.org).
The EEBO-TCP project was divided into two phases. The 25,363 texts created during Phase 1 of the project have been released into the public domain as of 1 January 2015. Anyone can now take and use these texts for their own purposes, but we respectfully request that due credit and attribution is given to their original source.
Users should be aware of the process of creating the TCP texts, and therefore of any assumptions that can be made about the data.
Text selection was based on the New Cambridge Bibliography of English Literature (NCBEL). If an author (or for an anonymous work, the title) appears in NCBEL, then their works are eligible for inclusion. Selection was intended to range over a wide variety of subject areas, to reflect the true nature of the print record of the period. In general, first editions of a works in English were prioritized, although there are a number of works in other languages, notably Latin and Welsh, included and sometimes a second or later edition of a work was chosen if there was a compelling reason to do so.
Image sets were sent to external keying companies for transcription and basic encoding. Quality assurance was then carried out by editorial teams in Oxford and Michigan. 5% (or 5 pages, whichever is the greater) of each text was proofread for accuracy and those which did not meet QA standards were returned to the keyers to be redone. After proofreading, the encoding was enhanced and/or corrected and characters marked as illegible were corrected where possible up to a limit of 100 instances per text. Any remaining illegibles were encoded as <gap>s. Understanding these processes should make clear that, while the overall quality of TCP data is very good, some errors will remain and some readable characters will be marked as illegible. Users should bear in mind that in all likelihood such instances will never have been looked at by a TCP editor.
The texts were encoded and linked to page images in accordance with level 4 of the TEI in Libraries guidelines.
Copies of the texts have been issued variously as SGML (TCP schema; ASCII text with mnemonic sdata character entities); displayable XML (TCP schema; characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or text strings within braces); or lossless XML (TEI P5, characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or TEI g elements).
Keying and markup guidelines are available at the Text Creation Partnership web site.
This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Early English Books Online Text Creation Partnership. Searching, reading, printing, or downloading EEBO-TCP texts is reserved for the authorized users of these project partner institutions. Permission must be granted for subsequent distribution, in print or electronically, of this EEBO-TCP Phase II text, in whole or in part.