Examination of Marshalls Sermon About Infant Baptism, Part 4 – Inscription

Examination of Marshalls Sermon About Infant Baptism · Part 4 – Inscription

p. 151Infant-Baptisme, is a corruption of the Ordinance of BAPTISME. PART. IIII. Concerning the Objections against Infant-Baptisme.

§. 1. Of the first objectiō from institution, Mat. 28.19. and the practise of John Baptist, and the Apostles.Matt 28:19AGainst this argument severall things are objected, which I shall indeavour to r…move out of the way: First, it is said, that although infants are capable of these things, and they no doubt are wrought by Christ in many infants, yet may not we baptize them, because according to the Scripture patterne, both of Christs Command, Mat. 28. in his institution of Baptisme, where this was injoyned, and John the Baptist, Christs disciples and Apostles, they alwayes taught, and made them disciples by teaching, before they baptized any.

It is true, the institution of Christ, Mat. 28.19. and the practise of John Baptist, and the Apostles, are the great objections against Paedobaptisme; This principle being laid down as a truth avouched against the Papists, by Protestants generally, that it is a sinne of prophaning the Sacraments, when the institution is altered, by substraction, as when the cup is denied to the lay people, or by addition, as when chrisme and spittle, &c. are added to the elements: and by the nonconformists p. 152conformists of England, that it is will-worship to administer the Sacraments any other wayes, by addition of any thing to them, but circumstances, which are alike requisite to civill actions; now the persons to be baptized cannot be conceived a meere alterable circumstance, but to belong necessarily to the administration or worship, as the person baptizing, and as the persons receiving the Lords Supper, and therefore there must be warrant from institution for it, else it is a sinfull invention of man. But neither Christs institution, or John the Baptist,Cotton in his way of the Churches of Christ in New-England. Chap 4. sect. 6. And indeed the Commission which Christ gave his Apostles, holdeth it forth that they were by preaching to make disciples before they baptized them and their children, Mat. 28.19. Now a disciple is a Scholler in Christs schoole, and therefore when the Apostles were directed to make disciples, before they did baptize them, they were not onelyonly to cōvert them to the faith, but also to gather them as disciples or schollers into a schoole of Christ.Matt 28:19 or the Apostles practise, doe warrant the baptizing of infants, therefore it is will-worship: that the institution, Mat. 28.19. doth not warrant the baptizing of infants, is proved. 1. Because the institution appoints onelyonly disciples of all nations to be baptized; but infants are not such: therefore the institution doth not warrant their Baptisme. The Major and Minor of this Syllogisme have been made good, Part. 3. Sect. 13. 2. Because the order Christ appoints is, that teaching or preaching the Gospel, should goe before Baptisme; now the order of Christ, is a rule of administring holy things, as we argue in like manner, 1 Cor. 11.28. The Apostle appoints that a man is first to examine himselfe, then to eate of that bread; ergo, Children are not to have the Lords Supper; so in like manner wee may argue, wee must first teach persons, and then baptize them; therefore children that cannot be taught by us, are not to be baptized; To that which M^r Edwards answereth to this argument, that John is said, Mark. 1.4. to baptize and preach, I oppose the words of Beza annot. in Mark. 1.4. Quod autem Erasmus subjungit Joannem priùs baptizâsse, deinde praedicâsse baptismum, ejusmodi est ut ne refutatione quidem videatur indigere. Quid enim? cum diceret Joannes, Poenitentiam agite, appropinquat enim regnum coelorum, non docebat quos erat baptizaturus? Imò ve…ò nisi priùs docuisset in quem finem baptizaret, quis tandem ad ejus baptismum accessisset? Certe cum sacramenta sint foreign, necesse est ut praeeat doctrina quam obsignent. 3. Because the institution is to baptize into the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, that is, with invocation of the name of the Lord, as Acts 22.16. Paul is bid arise and be baptized, and wash away his sinnes, calling on the name of the Lord. Which infants cannot doe: with devoting themselves to the service and adherence of the Father, Son, and holy Spirit, which may be gathered from this, that Paul said, 1 Cor. 13.15. he had baptized none into his name, that is, he had not caused them in their baptisme to devote or addict themselves to him as their Master, but infants cannot so devote themselves p. 153to Christ, therefore they are not to be baptized according to this institution.Cotton: The way of the Churches of Christ in New-England. Chap. 1. sect. 1. prop. 4. In the times of John the Baptist, such as were received into baptisme they did first make confession of their sins, and therewith of their repentance, and of their faith also in him who was to come after him, Mat. 3.13. Act. 19.4, 5. And in the times of the Apostles Philip received …he Eunuch unto baptisme, not untill he had made professiō of his faith in Christ Jesus, Act▪ 8.37. Cham. Panstr. Cath. tom. 4. l. 5. c. 15. §. 19. Hiritus omnes professionis fidei, &c. ab ipsae baptismi institutione habuerunt originem: nec debēt omitti, tantum proaetatis ratione dispensari.Matt 3:13Acts 19:4Acts 19:5Acts 8:37 4. Christ bids the Apostles presently after baptisme teach them to observe what …ver he commanded them; but infants cannot doe this, therefore they are not to be baptized. Likewise baptizing, infants, doth not agree with the primitive practise of John Baptist, and the Apostles, who required expressions of repentance and faith afore Baptisme, Mat. 3.6. Mark. 1.5. Luk. 3.10. Acts 2.38. & 8.12, 13.37. & 9.18. & 10.47. & 11.17, 18. & 16.15.31, 32, 33. & 18.8. & 19.5.8.22.16. in which places, profession of repentance and faith is still made the antecedent to Baptisme: but this doth not agree to infants, therefore they are not to be baptized. Of these arguments you answer onelyonly to the two first from institution, and to the last from example; to the first from institution, you answered before, and there I examined your answer, part. 3. sect. 12, 13. To the second from institution, and to the last from example, you make some answer here, not denying that the order appointed by Christ is first to teach, and then to baptize: for that is so manifest, that your selfe page 35. doe so paraphrase the words, when you say, expresse command there is, that they should teach the heathen, and the Jewes, and make them disciples, and then baptize them: nor by denying that John Baptist, and the Apostles required expressions of faith and repentance afore Baptisme, nor by denying that the institution of Christ, and the Apostles example, are our rule in the administring the Sacraments, so as that we cannot vary from them without will-worship, and prophaning the worship of God by our inventions: for that is so confessed a truth, that there hath been a great while, scarce a Sermon before the Parliament, but hath asserted that rule, and pressed it on the Parliament, and our solemne Covenant supposeth it, the Churches of Scotland, New-England, &c. The Sermons in the Citie continually a vow it, and urge it, and upon this ground former and later reformations are urged. But you have two miserable evasions; You say, I answer. First, that of Mat. 28. is not the institution of baptisme, it was instituted long before to be the seale of the Covenant, it's only an inlargement of their commission, whereas before they were onelyonly to goe to the lost sheepe of the house of Israel, now they are to goe unto all the world. Whereunto I reply, 1. If this be not the first institution of baptisme, yet it is an institution, and the institution of baptisme to us Gentiles, and therefore the rule by which Ministers are to baptize, there being no other institution that I know of to regulate our practise by, but p. 154such as is gathered from John Baptist, the Apostles practise and sayings. 2. If institution or appointment of God must warrant our practise in Gods worship, which you once held in the Sermon cited before, part. 2. sect. 9. then you must shew another institution, else you cannot acquit paedobaptisme from will-worship, and your selfe from breaking the hedge God hath set about the second Commandement. But you adde further; And beside it is no where said, that none were baptized but such as were first taught, and what reason wee have to believe the contrary, you have before seene. Your selfe say presently in the next words, It is said indeed, that they taught and baptized, and no expresse mention of any other, then of the baptisme of persons taught, and you assigne a reason of it. And page 35. your selfe paraphrase the institution, Mat. 28.19. Expresse command there is, that they should teach the heathen, and the Jewes, and make them disciples, and then baptize them: and consequently, there is no expresse command for any other; and for the reason you have to beleeve that others are to be baptized which are not taught, it hath been examined in the weighing your virtuall consequence, which is grounded upon such a principle, as in time you may see to be a dangerous precipice, how ever for the present the great consent of Doctors in the reformed Churches dazzles your eyes; for my part, I cannot yet discerne, but that your grounds for paedobaptisme, are worse then the Papists and Ancients, who build it on Joh. 3.5. Rom. 5.12. But you yet adde. Secondly, it is said indeed, that they taught and baptized, and no expresse mention made of any other: but the reason is plaine; there was a new Church to be constituted, all the Jewes who should receive Christ, were to come under another administration: You say right, therefore none other were to be baptized, but taught persons, because though the invisible Church of the Gentiles were joyned to the invisible of the Jewes, Rom. 11.17. Ephes. 2.14, 15, 16. by faith of the Gospel, as Ephes. 3.6. it is expounded: yet the outward estate of the Church is new, and as you say, even the Jewes who should receive Christ, were to come under a new administration, even those who were Jewes by nature and not proselytes, were to be baptized as uncleane persons, contrary to their former administration, in which they were onelyonly circumcised; and this is a plaine evidence, that the administration of Circumcision, is not the administration under which wee are now, but that it did belong to that administration which is now abolished, which is enough to overthrow all your virtuall consequence from circumcision, to baptisme, and consequently p. 155all the former dispute of your first argument, in which circumcision of infants is indeed the alone prop of baptizing infants. As for that which you adde, "And their infants were to come in onelyonly in their right. This overthrows your second argument; for that is grounded upon this, that infants of believers, and particularly infants of believing Jewes, such as those are supposed to be Mark. 10.14. were partakers of the inward grace of baptisme, and if so, they came in by their own right. But that one mans right to baptisme, should give another right to baptisme, is a position that the Scripture doth not deliver, and inwraps sundry errors, which I now omit, because it comes in onelyonly upon the by. But you goe on. And the heathen nations who were to be converted to Christ, were yet without the covenant of grace, and their children could have no right, untill themselves were brought in, and therefore no marvaile though both John and Christs disciples and Apostles did teach before they baptized, because then no other were capable of baptisme. In this perioch, you grant many things which doe yeeld the cause; for, 1. you say, that both John and Christs disciples and the Apostles did teach before they baptized, because then no other were capable of baptisme; now by this reason you confesse, 1. that baptizing of infants is not according to Johns and Christs disciples and Apostles practise; 2. you say, then no other were capable of baptisme: Now this is true, either because then there were no children of believers that might be baptized: but that is absurd, that in all the time of Johns and the disciples and Apostles ministery, believers had no children to be baptized, and contrary to the allegation of Mark. 10.14. and other Texts, or because they had no Commission; I cannot conceive how else your speech can be true: But if John, the disciples and Apostles had no Commission to baptize infants, neither have we, and so to doe it neither have our Ministers any commission, for we have no other commission to baptize then they had. But you thinke to salve it thus; But when once themselves were instructed and baptized, then their children were capable of it by vertue of the covenant. Upon which I observe, 1. If the children were capable when once parents were instructed, and baptized, then they were capable, in Johns, and the disciples, and Apostles times, and so this speech overthrowes that before, that then no other but taught persons were capable of baptisme. 2. When you say, the children were capable by vertue of the covenant, it seems you could produce no institution in the new administration, but the institution of circumcision, the validitie of which hath been considered before. p. 156Besides, the covenant being the same at all times, as your Conclus. 1. holds, the children of believers were as capable in Johns time as after. So that your words plainly enterfere. But you put a case to be resolved. If any in the Jewish Church had received commission to goe and make other Cities proselytes to them, their commission must have run thus, Goe teach and circumcise, would it therefore have followed, that none might be circumcised, but such as were first taught? To this I answer, in this commission the precept of circumcising should have had reference in the execution of it, either to the old institution of circumcision, Gen. 17. and then they had been appointed to circumcise males at eight dayes old not taught, or to a new institution, and then it would have been told more plainly, what they were to circumcise and whom, and so they might have resolved themselves. But what this makes for baptisme of infants, I see not, unlesse it be supposed that baptisme and circumcision are all one, which like the string in the Lampry is an errour that runs along through your whole Sermon.

§. 2. Of the second objection, and therein of the condition prerequisite to Baptisme.THe next objection you thus expresse; But it is expresly said, That he that believes and is baptized, shall b… saved; faith in Christ is the condition upon which men may be baptized; and this is the most common objection among the Anabaptists, unbelievers may not be baptized; children are unbelievers, therefore they may not be baptized; wee have, say they, cleare evidence that faith is a condition required in those that are to be baptized, no evidence of any other condition that makes them capable of baptisme. Others of them adde, that under an affirmative command, the negative is to be included, believing is the affirmative, unbelieving is the negative, therefore where believers are commanded to be baptized, unbelievers are forbidden to be baptized: this objection they much glory in, and some of them dare all the world to answer it. The objection framed in this later way I own not, and consequently I may well let passe the answer; for the truth is, Mark. 16.16. is not a command, but an enuntiation; onelyonly that text, with others, specially that, Acts 8. 37. where when the Eunuch asked Philip, What letteth me to be baptized? Philip answered, if thou believest in the Lord Jesus with all thy heart thou mayest; and thereby intimated, that faith professed is a prerequisite to baptisme, and the defect of it an hindrance, confirme the objection as it is the first way formed, which may be further strengthned from the baptisme of Lydia, the Jaylor, Crispus, &c. and is confirmed p. 157in that in the subsequent practise of baptizing a Confession of faith was made by the person baptized, as appeares out of plaine passages in the Ancients, Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Cyprian, Videatur Chamierus Panstr. Cath. tom. 4. li. 5. c. 15. Grot. annot. on Mat. 28.19.Matt 28:19and Augustine, lib. 8. confes. c. 2. where speaking of one Victorinus, who was to be baptized, Deni que ut ventum est ad horam profitendae fidei, quae verbis certis, retentis que memoriter de loco eminentiore in conspectu populi fidelis Romae reddi solet ab iis qui accessuri sunt ad gratiam tuam, &c. Lastly, when it was come to the houre of professing the faith, which is wont in certaine words, and gotten by heart to be rendered from an higher place in the sight of the faithfull people at Rome by those that shall have accesse in thy grace; and when it was offered him by the Presbyters, that if he would he might then make his confession more secretly, he refused it and made his confession publiquely, with great acclamation. But this is a thing confessed by you, pag. 47. and it is usually answered, that this was onelyonly in the baptisme of growne men: but infants might be baptized without such a confession. I reply, this answer might serve turne, if either by institution or practise primitive, there could be proved any other baptisme then of confessors of faith: in the meane time, till that be done, the argument is good, sith primum in unoquo que genere est mensura reliquorum; The first in each kinde is the measure of the rest; and this was a prerequisite condition in the first practise, therefore it ought to be so still, especially considering that God in his providence hath still preserved in all ages an image of the first practise in the interrogatories propounded to the baptized, even to infants, and thought necessary to be answered by some one for them, and the altering of it hath been a great cause of many corruptions in the Church of God, that so men might see what evils have followed the swerving from the rule: and might be directed what is necessary to be reformed. And so I passe to the third (as you call it) objection, which you thus expresse.

§. 3. Of the third so called objection, and therein of the knowledge requisite concerning the person to be baptized.BVt suppose they are capable of the inward grace of baptisme, and that God doth effectually worke in some of the infants of believers, is that sufficient warrant for us to baptize all the infants of beleevers? if wee knew in what infants the Lord did worke, then we might baptize those infants, say some of them: but that he doth not make knowne to us, wee cannot know of any one infant by any ordinary way of knowledge, that they are inwardly baptized with the holy Ghost, and therefore wee may not baptize any of them, but waite to see when and in whom God will worke p. 158the thing signified, and then apply the signe to them. This that you here put among the objections, is rather an exception to your second argument, grounded on Act. 10.47. & 11.17. In answer to which it is granted, that those who have the inward grace, meaning it actually, are not to be debarred of baptisme, for then they are believers and disciples: But then it is rightly added, that this can make no ordinary rule for baptizing the infants of believers indifferently; sith there is no certainty that any one infant of a believer, now existent, hath the inward grace of baptisme: and it is certain that all have not, and experience sheweth very many have not when they come to age, nor can it be known who have and who have not, but by extraordinary revelation, which if given, would be sufficient authoritie to baptize those infants, though the ordinary rule be not to baptize infants of believers indifferently. As the extraordinary spirit of Elijah, and Phinehas, and Peter, in killing Ananias and Sapphira, were sufficient authoritie to them to doe those things which agree not with ordinary rule. And this I grant to Mr Blake, that those that are thus intituled through want of an institution, are not to be excluded: for according to this supposition, in this case, the institution is cleare for them; for they are sanctified persons, and so believers and disciples of Christ, and besides the extraordinary revelation for that end, would be an institution of that particular act. But the thing that he and you would infer from this concession, is that we may then make it an ordinary rule to baptize infants. But that can never be; for extraordinarium non facit regulam communem, That which is extraordinary, makes not a common rule. If it did, James and John might call for fire from heaven, as Elijah did; a man in his zeale might kill a wicked man without a legall triall, as did Phinehas. But let us heare what reply you make to this concession, you say thus; Our knowledge that God hath effectually wrought the thing signified, is not the condition upon which we are to apply the signe, God no where required that wee should know, that they are inwardly and certainly converted, whom we admit to the Sacrament of Baptisme, the Apostles themselves were not required to know this of those whom they baptized, if they were they sinned in baptizing Simon Magus, Alexander, Hymeneus, Ananias and Sapphira, with others: wee are indeed to know that they have in them the condition which must warrant us to administer the signe, not that which makes them possest of the thing signified; fallible conjectures are not to be our rule in adminis…ring Sacraments, either to infants or growne men, but a p. 159knowne rule of the Word, out of which rule wee must be able to make up such a judgement, that our administration may be of faith, as well as out of charity: In baptizing of grown men, the Apostles and Ministers of Christ administred the signe, not because they conjectured, that the parties were inwardly sanctified, but because they made that profession of faith and holinesse, of which they were sure, that whoever had the thing in truth, were received by Christ into inward communion with himself; and that whoever thus made it, that Christ would have them received into the communion of his Church, though possibly, for want of the inward work, they were never received into the inward communion with Jesus Christ. Indeed, when such a confession was made, Christian charity, which alwayes hopeth the best, and thinketh no evill, bound them to receive them, and think of them, and converse with them, as with men in whom the inward work was wrought, untill they gave signes to the contrary: But this their charity, or charitable conjecture, was not the ground of admitting them to the Ordinance, but the profession and confession of the party made, according to the Word which they were bound to rest in; yea, I greatly question, whether in case Peter or Paul could by the Spirit of revelation, have known that Ananias or Alexander would have proved no better then hypocrites, whether they either would, or ought to have refused them from Baptisme, whilest they made that publique profession and confession, upon which others were admitted, who in the event proved no better then those were; so that I conclude, not our knowledge of their inward sanctification is requisite to the admitting of any to Baptisme, but our knowledge of the will of Christ, that such, who are in such and such a condition should by us be received into the communion of the Church.

To the assertion here delivered, I assent, that not our knowledge, that the person to be baptized hath inward grace, is necessary; but our knowledge of the will of Christ, and the person to be baptized, his having the condition, which is the profession of faith and holiness, is sufficient warrant to baptize him. And I agree, that a judgement of charity, is not that a Minister is to proceed by in this case, but a judgement of faith, as you speak, and of ministeriall prudence: For a Minister in this case is to act as a Steward, who is to deal according to his Lords will, not his own minde, otherwise his own understanding or affection, which are but a Lesbian rule, should be his rule, which would be intolerable. Thus far I agree with you: only whereas in the case by you framed, your resolution inclines to the negative, I rather incline to the affirmative, and conceive they would p. 160have refused them, and that they ought; because I conceive the end of such an extraordinary revelation would be to warne them not to admit such persons, and so equivalent to a prohibition; and in that case the baptizing them, would be a plain prophaning the Ordinance, which is not to be given to Dogs and Swine: And I conceive, that which Chamier tom. 4. panstra. Cath. lib. 5. c. 15. Sect. 13. speaks in justification of the scrutiny heretofore made in examining the competentes so strictly, confirms this resolution. But to keep to the present businesse, that which is granted, doth neither prove that upon extraordinary revelation of the present inward sanctification of an Infant, that Infant may not be baptized without staying for its profession: For, though it be true that we are not to stay from baptizing them that professe the faith, because we have not a spirit of discerning to know them to be reall Believers, yet we may, having a spirit of discerning that an Infant that cannot professe the faith, yet hath true faith, or is inwardly sanctified, baptize that Infant without staying for his profession, partly, because of the principle used by Peter, Acts 10.47. and partly, because the revelation of the faith of that Infant to that end, doth authorize that act: Nor doth this concession advantage you to prove baptizing of Infants by ordinary rule, which is the thing you and M^r. Blake aim at. But your words concerning the knowledge of the will of Christ, as the rule of baptizing, rather advantage the Antipaedobaptists, who know no other rule to baptize by, but the condition you truly propound of profession of faith, and therefore conceive your words a good plea for them.

But you further say: And in this the rule to direct our knowledge, is as plain for Infants as for grown men, the rule having been alwayes this: that grown men, who were strangers from the covenant of God, unbelievers, Pagans, Heathens, should upon their being instructed, and upon profession of their faith, and promise to walk according to the rule of the covenant, be received and added to the Church, and made partakers of the seal of their entrance, and their Infants to come in with them, both sorts upon their admission, to be charitably hoped of, untill they give signes to the contrary, charity being bound from thinking of evill of them, not bound to conclude certainly of any of them, because they ought to know, that in all ages all are not Israel who are of Israel, and that many are called, but few chosen.

That the rule for baptizing Infants should be so plain, as the rule to direct our knowledge about baptizing grown men, professors of p. 161faith, I wonder you should say it, much more that you should preach and print it; sith your selfe confesse, pag. 34. no expresse command in the new Testament that they should be baptized; no expresse example where children were baptized: but on the other side, pag. 35. you say, expresse command there is, that they should teach the Heathen, and the Jews, and make them disciples, and then baptize them. And I hope you do not imagine, that a rule gathered by virtuall consequence is so plain as that which is expresse; it may be as true, but it is not possible it should be so plain. But the truth of that additionall rule of Infants coming in with their parents, hath been examined, and as yet it hath been found to me, neither plain nor true.

§. 4. Of the fourth Objection, & therein of the stipulation of Baptisme.YOu go on to the fourth Objection: But all who enter into covenant, and receive the seal of the covenant, must stipulate for their parts, as well as God doth for his; they must indent with God to perform the Believers part of the covenant, as well as God doth to perform his part; as even this Text, 1 Pet. 3. requires, that Baptisme which saves us, must have the answer of a good conscience to God. Now, although it be granted, that Infants are capable of receiving the first grace, if God be pleased to work it in them, yet what answer of a good conscience can there be from Infants unto God, they having not the use of reason, and not knowing what the covenant means?

For my part, I own not this objection taken from the generall nature of the covenant, as if it did exclude Infants, or that particular text, 1 Pet. 3.21. For the word used for a Covenant, may be as well translated a Testament; and the Holy Ghost, Gal. 3. and Heb. 9. doth use it in that notion, and it may be, that covenants of another may be by interpretation of Law, as their covenant;Cotton: The way of the Churches of Christ in New-England, ch. 4. Sect. 5. The Word of God receiveth none to the fellowship of the seals of the covenant, but such as professe their tak…ng hold of the covenant. as in the covenant of the Israelites with the Gibeonites. And for that text, however Beza translates foreign, by stipulation, and in his Annotation on that place sayes, The Apostle had respect to the interrogations of Catechists, in which the catechised even then did witnesse their inward baptisme to be confirmed by the outward, as Acts 8.37. whereto, sayes he, belongeth the Apostles Creed, and that translated from the baptisme of grown persons to the baptisme of Infants by a greater error, if you consider the Infants themselves: Dost thou believe? I do believe: Dost thou renounce? I do renounce. Whence that of Tertullian, which is, as it were, in the stead of a Commentary on this place, in his book of the resurrection of the flesh; The soul is established, not by washing, but by answering. I say, though Beza do upon second p. 162thoughts, and neerer consideration conceive this to be the meaning, yet I build not on it, as being doubtfull, and in mine apprehension, it rather notes an effect of Baptisme and the resurrection of Christ, then a prerequisite condition; and there are other plain places before alledged which do prove the thing, that the baptized were to professe and promise; or, to use your phrase, seal (which I deny not to be the phrase of John Baptist, Joh. 3.33.) as Acts 8.37. &c. So that the objection is the same with the second. Now let us see what you answer: you say thus,

The Infants of the Jews were as much tied as the Infants of Believers under the Gospel, every one who was circumcised, was bound to keep the whole Law, Gal. 5. And these men professe that Israelitish Infants were within the old covenant, when yet they knew not what it meant, nor could have the same use of it with their parents and others of discretion; look what answer they will make for the Jews Infants if true, will abundantly satisfie for the Infants of Believers under the Gospel.

It is true, this answer serves turn against those that argue from the generall nature of a covenant; but it is no answer against those that only urge Instituton and Apostolicall practice as our rule. As for that which you here, and all along in your Book, suppose that there is the same reason of the mixt covenant made with Abraham, as with the pure Covenant of the Gospel, and of every Believer, as of Abraham, and of Baptisme, as of Circumcision, it is the foreign, chief error, which misleads you throughout your Sermon, and makes you speak and write in a dialect, which in the Scripture is unknown. And for that which you say, that the Infants of the Jews were as much tied as the Infants of Believers under the Gospel; if you mean it of common duties, of Euangelicall obedience, it is true; if you mean it thus (which alone serves for your purpose) that persons to be baptized now, are no more tied to make profession of faith before Baptisme, then Infants of the Jews were tied to make profession of faith afore Circumcision, it is false: For, there is now plain Text for the requiring of it before Baptisme, but not before Circumcision. But you say, every one that was circumcised was bound to keep the whole Law, Gal. 5. True, and therefore circumcision was in the use of it diametrally opposite to the use of Baptisme. You say, and these men professe that the Israelitish Infants were within the old Covenant, when yet they knew not what it meant, and then say, look what answer p. 163they will make for the Jews Infants, if true, will abundantly satisfie for the Infants of Believers under the Gospel. If you mean this concerning the reason why the Christians Infants should not be baptized, though the Jews Infants were circumcised, this is a true and satisfactory answer, that God commanded the one, but no where the other; and your self say, pag. 84. Our knowledge of the will of Christ, is that which is the only direction we are to follow.

But you adde a second answer, which I let passe, because it is but a declaration of your own conceits, how you conceive a childe may seal the covenant in his infancy, telling us, that their name is put into the Deed, and that a child may seal, fi…st in infancy, and then after agnize it; and that God is pleased to seal to Infants while they are such, and to accept such a seal as they can give, without any proof, but only spinning out the simile of a seal; as if Gods wayes were like mans wayes, or a simile did g…deare in omnibus, a similitude were even in all things; only where you say, that in the mean time, Jesus Christ, who is the surety of the covenant, and surety of all the covenanters, is pleased to be their surety; this speech is further to be examined. 'Tis true, Jesus Christ is the surety of a better Testament, Heb. 7.12. he is the surety of all the covenanters, he doth strike hands, and becomes a surety of the whole covenant, and of every condition in it, take it in the largest sense, and this of all, both on Gods part and ours, as very rightly and excellently M^r. Thomas Goodwin in his Teatise intituled, Christ set forth. Sect. 3. Chap. 3. And to like purpose, M^r. Rutherfurd, The triall and triumph of Faith, serm. 7. But are any other among men covenanters, but the elect who are purchased by the blood of the everlasting covenant? Heb. 13.20. It is a very inconsiderate boldnesse in you, to make every baptized person, or at least every baptized Infant of a Believer a covenanter, for whom Christ is a surety, and one to whom God seals, when the Scripture makes Christ the surety only for his redeemed ones, as may be gathered out of sundry places in the Epistle to the Hebrews; but I doubt not but when you have considered it a little better, you will easily espie your error in these dictates, and therefore I passe on to the next objection.

§. 5. Of the fifth Objection, and therein of the benefit that comes by Infant-Baptism…BVt what benefit comes to children by such kinde of sealing as this is? it seems then (say they) by your own confession, that this is but a conditionall sealing on Gods part, viz. that they own it p. 164and ratifie it when they come to age; and if they then refuse to stand to it, all is then nullified; were it no… therefore better to deferre i… to their yeers of discretion, to see whether they will then make it their own voluntary act, yea or no.

In what sense baptiz…ng may be called sealing, I have above shewed, Part. 3. Sect. 12. but I cannot allow of this,D^r. Twisse: The doctrine of the Synod of Dort, & Arles, &c Part 2. § 3. p. 121. I willingly confesse, that the Sacrament of Baptisme is the seale of the righteousnesse of faith unto us Christians, as Circumcision was un…o the Jews, Rom. 4. which is as much a… to say, that it assures us of the remission of our sins, as many as believe; and I conceive it to be a visible signe of invisible grace, and that not of justification only unto them that believe, but of the grace of regeneration also, but how? not at that instant collatae, but suo tempore conferend…, to wit, when God shall effectually call a man; and it is very strange unto me, that regeneration should go before vocation. S…e more to the same purpose in the same Author, part. 3. §. 6.Rom 4 to say, that God seals to every one that is baptized. It is true, that Baptisme is in its nature a seal of the righteousnesse of faith, 1 Pet. 3.21. but yet God doth not seal this to every one that is baptized, but only to true believers: For, what is Gods sealing, but the confirming of his promise? But God promiseth righteousnesse only to Believers; therefore he seals only to Believers. As for the sealing by God upon condition persons agnize the covenant, it is but a notion, the Scripture makes not Gods promise in the covenant of Grace conditionall in that sense: For Gods promise is for those he enters into covenant with, That he will put his Law in their hearts, and in their mindes will write them, Heb. 10.16. Nor do I know any but Corvinus in his Examen of Moulins Anatomy, chap. 9. sect. 6. and the Arminians, that do so speak of Gods covenant of Grace, as if it were common to the elect and reprobates, and conditionall in this sense, as if God left it to mens liberty, to whom he had sealed, to agnize or recognize that sealing, or to free themselves, if they please, and so nullifie all; yet so as to afford them a while the favour and priviledge of being in covenant with him, as you speak. I appeal to them who have been conversant in the writings of the Arminians, whether these speeches do not symbolize with their language. And therefore this that you make an objection, I look on as a frivolous supposing a Chimaera, and then disputing about it: But yet there are some things I shall take notice of in your answer.

The question is, What benefit to Infants by such a sealing: you answer thus: This objection lay as strongly against Gods wisedome in requiring the Jews Infants, even in their infancy thus to seal; and therefore argues no great wisdome, or modesty in man, who would thus reason with God about his administrations.

p. 165It is true, God appointed the male children of Abrahams family to be circumcised, and thereby they were bound to keep the whole Law, and it were a sinfull presumption to reason with God about it; and in like manner, if God had appointed Infants to be baptized, it would silence all arguings about it, though we knew not the reason: but how it is to be understood, that God required the Jews, even in their infancy to seal, I do not well understand; our sealing to God is believing, Joh. 3.33. I do not finde that God required this of the Jews Infants in their infancy, nor of our Infants; nor was Circumcision it self the Infants duty, required by God of the Infant, though it were its priviledge, it was the parents duty, Exod. 4.24.

You say, secondly, God hath other ends and uses of applying the seal of the covenant to them who are in covenant with him, then their present gain, it's … homage worship, and honour to himself; and it behoves us even in that respect, to fulfill all righteousnesse; when Christ was baptized and circumcised, he was as unfit for the Ordinance through his perfection, as children through their imperfection, being as much above them as children are below them.

It is true, Baptisme is a worship of God; but Paedobaptisme, for ought yet appears, is but a will-worship. Christs Baptisme, it is true, was of a transcendent nature, as is said before; that children are unfit for the Ordinance, is not to be imputed to their imperfection, but to the defect of Gods appointment; if God did appoint it, there would be no doubt of their fitnesse. But you adde further:

3. I answer, The benefit and fruit of it at the present, is very much, both to the parents and to the children: to the parents, first, whilest God doth thereby honour them, to have their children counted to his Church, to his Kingdome and Family, and to be under his wing and grace, whilest all the other Infants in the world have their visible standing under the prince, and in the kingdome of darknesse, and consequently, whilest others have no hope of their childrens spirituall welfare, untill they be called out of that condition, these need not have any doubt of their childrens welfare, if they die in their infancy; nor if they live untill they shew signes to the contrary; God having both reckoned them unto his people, and given them all the means of salvation which an Infants age is capable of.All this passage is but dictates; what, or how much of it is true or false, hath been considered before, only that you say; all the other Infants of the world have their visible standing under the prince, and in the kingdome of darknesse; and consequently, whilest others have no hope of their p. 166childrens spirituall welfare, untill they be called out of that condition; If you mean by all other Infants, all that are unbaptized, though the Infants of Believers in the Church, it is a very harsh and uncharitable speech; and you oppose those that in dispute against the Papists concerning the necessity of Baptisme to salvation, do hold that Infants of Believers are holy, and in the Church afore they be baptized, and joyn with Lutherans and Papists, denying it; if you mean only the unbaptized Infants of Infidels, what comfort do you give more to believing parents, that have their children baptized, then belongs to them, though their children were not baptized? And when you say, that all others have no hope of their childrens spirituall welfare, if you mean it of believing parents that baptize not their children, it is in like manner an uncharitable speech, and doth border too neer on the opinion of the necessity of Baptisme for Infants to salvation; and when you say, these need not have any doubt of their childrens welfare, if they die in their infancy, if you mean it of parents, because their children are baptized, you do speak like one that did hold that Baptisme doth conferre gratiam ex opere operato, conferre grace by the work done; but for ought you can shew out of Scripture, a believing parent hath as much ground of hope for his Infant that dies unbaptized as for the baptized, and as much reason of doubt concerning the baptized as the unbaptized. And therefore, what you here speak, doth no whit encourage parents to baptize children, if it be well weighed, except there can be proved an institution and a promise. But you say, secondly, here is much priviledge and benefit to the children, when as (beside what inward secret work God is pleased to work in them) they being members of the Church of Christ, have their share in the communion of Saints, are remembred at the Throne of grace every day by those that pray for the welfare of the Church, and particularly, in those prayers which are made for his blessing upon his Ordinances.

By your parenthesis, you intimate some inward secret work God is pleased to work in the Infants baptized, by Baptisme. If you conceive a bestowing of grace, ex opere operato, by the work done: or, baptismall initiall regeneration of the elect, supposed to be in the Infants in baptisme, notwithstanding till death they live wickedly, speak plainly that we may know what you mean, and then an answer may be framed to your spe…ch. As for being members of the Church, if you me…n the invisible Church, neither I nor you can affirm or deny; its in p. 167Gods bosome alone; if you mean the visible, you must make a new definition of the visible Church afore Infants baptized will be proved members. For their remembring at the Throne of grace daily, if you mean it particularly, and by name, I do not finde that to be in use after Baptisme any more then afore, and I think they are remembred by the godly in generall as well afore Baptisme as after; and for the praying for Gods blessing upon his Ordinances, if Infant-baptisme be not Gods Ordinance, this prayer in reference to Infant-baptisme at that time might be better spared. You say; And lastly, it's no small priviledge to have that seale bestowed on them in their infancy, which may afterwards plead when they are growne, and come to fulfill the condition.

When, where, and how Baptisme should be pleaded, as you shew not, neither doe I well conceive. It is not Baptisme of it selfe that will yeeld a plea of any force, either in foro soli, in the Court of earth, or in foro poli, in the Court of heaven, but the promise of God, and the condition of faith in Christ. And these will be good pleas in praye…s to God, and in the court of conscience, when Infant-baptisme will stand in no stead. The plea of the Apostle will hold, Rom. 8.31, 32, 33, 34. which baptisme rightly administred doth strengthen, 1 Pet. 3.21. But I never knew any Saint that pleaded his infant-baptisme in such cases.

§. 6. Of the sixth objection, and therein of Infant-cōmunion, by vertue of their being in the Covenant, & the Lords Supper succ…eding the Passeover.YOu say further; But if their being capable of the spirituall part, must intitle them to the outward signe, why then doe we not also admit them to the Sacrament of the Lords Supper, which is the seale of the Covenant of grace, as well as the Sacrament of Baptisme? And this is urged the rather, because (say they) the infants of the Jewes did eate of the Passeover as well as were circumcised; Now if our infants have every way as large a priviledge as the infants of the Jewes had, then can we not deny them the same priviledge which their infants had, and consequently they must partake of the one Sacrament as well as the other.

This argument is good, ad homines, against the partie opposite, proceeding upon the Paedobaptists hypotheses or suppositions; to wit, 1. That those to whom the Covenant belongs, to them the seale belongs; 2. That to the infants of believers, the Covenant belongs; 3. That the Lords Supper is a seale of the Covenant as well as Baptisme. And these are your hypotheses. Now then if this be a good argument, children are to be baptized, because they are in the Covenant, and the seale belongs to p. 168those in Covenant, by the same reason they are to receive the Lords Supper, because they are in Covenant, and the seale belongs to those in Covenant. Now this argument is strengthened from other hypotheses, as that the Lords Supper succeeds the Passeover, as Baptisme Circumcision, but children not of yeares of discretion had the Passeover, therefore they are to hav… the Lords Supper. And this is confirmed by the practise and opinion of the Ancients that gave the Lords Supper to infants, for 600 yeares after Christ as well as baptisme. To this you say;

I answer, that infants are capable of the grace of Baptisme we are sure, not sure that they are capable of the grace signed and sealed in the Sacrament of the Lords Supper.

This answer supposeth that there is grace sealed in the Lords Supper, which is not sealed in Baptisme. To me that Sacrament that confirmes the covenant of grace, confirmes all the promises in it, and therefore if Baptisme be the seale of the covenant, it seales all the graces and all the promises in it, and therefore you are as sure that infants are capable of all graces annexed to the Covenant, as of one. But you say; For both of them are seales of the new Covenant, yet it is with some difference; Baptisme properly seales the entrance into it, the Lords Supper properly the growth, nourishment, and augmentation of it; Baptisme for our birth, the Lords Supper for our food. Now infants may be borne againe while they are infants, have their originall sin pardoned, be united to Christ, have his image stampt upon them; but concerning the exercise of these graces and the augmentation of them in infants while they are infants, the Scripture is altogether silent.

You spake somewhat to like purpose before, which I examined part. 3. sect. 15. To me it is yet as a paradoxe, that Baptisme seales properly the entrance into the Covenant, and the Lords Supper, the growth, nourishment, and augmentation of it. If you make the entrance at remission of sins, justification, or mortification; the Lords Supper that seales Christs death, seales the entrance into the Covenant, Mat. 26.28. And for Baptisme, it seales dying with Christ, and rising with Christ, Rom. 6.3, 4, 5. Gal. 3.27. Col. 2.12. 1 Pet. 3.21. and therefore not onelyonly the first worke of conversion, but also after-growth and exercise of holinesse. And the Lords Supper, signifies the same receiving the Spirit, which Baptisme doth, 1 Cor. 12.13. And according …o the doctrine of Protestants, Baptisme seales as well the pardon of other sins, as of originall sin. And so Peter, Acts 2.38. and Ananias, p. 169Act. 22.16. And therefore this difference you put, is a difference which the Scripture makes not; that I say nothing of your strange phraseology of the growth, nourishment, and augmentation of the Covenant. But you say; And what is said concerning the infants of the Jewes eating the Passeover, to which our Sacrament of the Lords Supper doth succeed, there is no such thing mentioned in the Book of God. It is said indeed that the severall families were to eate their Lambe, if the houshold were not too little for it, and that when their children should aske them what that service meant, they should instruct them about the meaning of it, but no word injoyning, nor any example witnessing tha… their little children did eate of it.

The Commands were, that all the males should thrice a yeare appeare before the Lord; one of which was the Passeover, Exod. 23.17. Exod. 34.23. Deut. 16.16. And at that time there was no other food to be eaten, but the unleavened bread, and the paschall Supper. Therefore those males that could eate, though not come to yeares of discretion fit to receive the Lords Supper, yet were to eate the Passeover. Ainsworth notes on Exod. 12.26. So both the outward rite, and the meaning of it was to be taught to their children. Touching whom, the Jewes hold from the Law in Exod. 23.14.17. Deut. 16.14.16. that every child that could hold his Father by the hand, Cotton: The way of the Churches of Christ in New-England. Chap. 1. sect. 2. To the Passeover all Jewes were admitted young and old, unlesse defiled with some pollution.and goe up from Jerusalem (gates) to the mountaine of the Temple, his Father was bound to cause him to goe up and appeare before God with him, to the end he might catechize him in the Commandements. And who sow as bound to appeare, was bound to keep the feast. Maim…ny in Hagigah, Chap. 2. sect. 3, 4. Also they say. A childe that is able to eate a marsell of bread, they catechize him in the Commandements, and give him to eate so much as an Olive of the unleavened bread. Maimony Treatise of leaven and unleavened bread, c. 6. sect. 10. But you say;

If they say as some of them doe, that those little ones who were able to enquire concerning the meaning of that service, and capable to receive instruction about it, did eate of the Passeover with their parents; I answer, (although the Scripture speaks nothing of their eating, yet if that be granted) it is no prejudice to us, because the Gospel prohibites not such young ones from the Lords Supper, who are able to examine themselves and discerne the Lords body.

True; but children that were to appeare at the Passeover, and to partake of it, were many of them such as might be instructed concerning the meaning of that service, and yet too young to examine p. 170themselves, or to discerne the Lords body: so that if the Lords Supper succeed the Passeover, and a rule may be drawne from the Passeover to the Lords Supper, children unable to examine themselves, may be admitted to the Lords Supper.

§. 7. Of the first use, and the Anabaptists supposed bloudy sentence.THe rest of your Sermon is application, which being not argumentative, I shall let it passe. OnelyOnly whereas you charge Anabaptists with a rash and bloudy sentence, condemning infants as out of the state of grace, condemning all the infants of the whole Church of Christ, as having nothing to doe with the Covenant of grace; and then tragically aggravate this thing, as parallel, or rather exceeding the cruelty of Herod and Hazael, in slaying and dashing the infants of Israel against the wall, till you produce some testimonies of those you call Anabaptists, so determining, I shall take it to be but a false accusation, and a fruit of passion, not of holy zeale. For the thing it selfe I have shewed part. 2. sect. 10. that it doth not follow on the doctrine of Antipaedobaptisme: and I conceive that if to be in the Covenant of grace be rightly explained, to wit, so as to signifie the having of the promise of justification and salvation by Christ Jesus, (besides which I know not any other Evangelicall Covenant of grace) your selfe will be found to exclude them from the covenant of grace as much as they. As they dare not say that this or that particular infant of a believer is in the covenant of grace, that is, certainly elected, justified, and to be saved, so neither dare you. Your owne words are pag. 48. Charitie being not tyed to conclude certainly of any of them: because they ought to know that all are not Israel who are of Israel, and that many are called, but few are chosen. If you should, you would gainsay the Apostle, Rom. 9.6, 7, 8. And on the other side, as you will not say they are damned, so neither will they I am perswaded: but suspending any sentence concerning this or that in particular, leave them to God, who is the soveraigne Lord both of them and us.

§. 8. The Epilogue containing some expressions and motions of the Author.THus have I, at last, in the middest of many wants, distractions, discouragements, and temptations, with the assistence of God, who hath never failed me (to him be the praise) examined your Sermon, and thereby shewed that it doth not satisfie, and how little reason you had to say in your Epistle, I am assured that it is Gods truth which I have preached, and which he will blesse. Notwithstanding which confidence, I presume you will see cause to consider more exactly of p. 171this matter upon the reading of this answer. I dare not thinke any otherwise of you then as of one who loves and seekes the truth. Nor doe I know any reason why you should conceive that I have taken this paines for any ends crosse to the finding of truth. My reall intention in this worke is to discover truth, and to doe what is meete for mee in my calling, towards the reformation of these Churches according to Gods Word: unto which wee have both bound our selves by solemne Covenant. I have endeavoured not to let passe any thing of weight, either in your Sermon, or Master Thomas Goodwins, which I could well remember, or Master Blakes, or any other that have published any thing about this matter of late. It is an endlesse businesse to make a severall answer to every one. I chose to answer yours, because you are stiled the antesignanus, Ensigne-bearer in print; and for other reasons given in the Prologue.M^r Stalhams Epistle before a Conference at Terling in Essex. My motion is that there may be an agreement among those that have appeared in publique in this cause, to joyne either in a reply to this examen of your Sermon, or in some other worke, in which I may see together the whole strength embattailed, and not be put to weary out my selfe in reading every Pamphlet, of which there are too many indigested ones now adayes printed, even with License: and for the buying of which, as now my estate is, I doubt whether my purse will furnish me. If I may have foreign, daily bread for mee and mine in a narrow compasse, it will be as much as I may looke for. The small stipend I had is likely to be even now subtracted. If there be any willingnesse in you to have any conference with mee, to consult about a way of brotherly and peaceable ventilating this point, I shall be ready upon notice to give you the meeting, and I hope it shall appeare, that I shall not be foreign, stiffe in opinion, in case truth shining before me, present my errour to my view; and I hope the like of you. I shall waite a monethmonth after your receiving this writing, to know whether any of these motions take place with you, hoping you will not disdaine to let me have advertisement of your minde, by some letter or message. I would faine have truth and peace and love, goe hand in hand, if it may be: though of these three foreign, it is meet to preferre truth, as Aristotle said long since. It will be no griefe of heart to you at the day of resignation of your spirit, that you have done nothing against the truth, but for the truth. You have now my writing, p. 172as I have yours: one day Jesus Christ shall judge us both. Consider what I say, and the Lord give you understanding in all things. Thus prayeth

From the house belonging to the Rectory of Gabriel Fanchurch in London. December 7. 1644. Delivered to him Dec. 9. 1644. Your brother and fellow-servant in the worke of Christ, JOHN TOMBES.

Inscribed thus; To the reverend and worthy M^r Stephen Marshall, B. D. these present.

As it is now printed, it is enlarged in sundry places, occasioned by sundry Books published since the first writing of it.