The Doctrine and Practice of Paedobaptism, Treatise 1

The Doctrine and Practice of Paedobaptism · Treatise 1

p. 1THE Doctrine and Practice OF PAEDOBAPTISME Aſſerted and Vindicated.

HEB. 6. 2.

The Doctrine of Baptiſmes.

BAptiſme, it is a Sacrament, a Sacrament of the New Teſtament, the firſt Sacrament of the New Teſtament, inſtituted by Chriſt, to be diſpenſed by his Miniſters; upon theſe particulars I have already inſiſted. It remaines now that we come The Subject of Baptiſme.in the next place to the Subject of Baptiſme, which becauſe at the preſent it is made the ſubject of great debate and controverſie, I ſhall therefore take leave to dwell a little the longer upon it.

Q. Who may and ought to be baptized.Q. The Queſtion is, Who they are that may and ought to be baptized?

p. 2A. Such as are in Covenant with God.A. To this we may returne a generall anſwer; viz. Such as are in Covenant with God. Baptiſme it is a ſeale of the Covenant, even as Circumciſion was; which is therefore called by the name of the Covenant [My Covenant Gen. 17. 13. 14Gen 17:13Gen 17:14ſhall be in your fleſh.] So is Baptiſme a ſeale of the Covenant, viz. the Covenant of Grace, and of that Covenant Baptiſme a ſeale of the Covenant already made.already made. Marke that: A Covenant is firſt agreed upon, the writings drawne, before it be ſealed. Thus men muſt firſt be in Covenant with God, before Gen. 17. 1. 2.Gen 17:1Gen 17:2they partake of this Seale. Thus it was in Circumciſion, God firſt maketh a Covenant with Abraham and his Seed; then for the confirmation of it he commandeth Verſ. 9. 10.him and his to be circumciſed. And thus it is in Baptiſme, perſons muſt firſt be in Covenant with God before they be baptized. They muſt be ſuch as lye under Act. 2. 38.Acts 2:38the promiſe. [Repent and be baptized (ſaith Peter to the Jewes) for the promiſe is to you and to your children.]

Perſons to be baptiſed muſt be [ſuch as are in Covenant] Such; underſtand it as we will, Incluſively, Excluſively: All ſuch, and onelyonly ſuch. Both true.

1All ſuch as are in Covenant, may and ought …o be baptized.1. All ſuch, of what Nation, ſex, age, condition ſoever; Iew or Gentile, male or female, young or old, bond or free, &c. being in Covenant with God, they both may, and ought to partake of this Seal of the Covenant. When God inſtituted the Sacrament of Circumciſion, Abraham and all his family were circumciſed. [In the …en. 17. 26. 27ſelfe ſame day was Abraham circumciſed, and all the men of his houſe.] And the like we read of Baptiſme: As it came in the ro…me of Circumciſion, being the initiall ſeal of the Covenant as Circumciſion was, ſo it was adminiſtred after the ſame manner, to the whole family. Where the head of the family believed, preſently we p. 3read that they, and all theirs were baptized. Thus we read in that 16. of the Acts; firſt of Lydia, v. 15. God having opened her heart, ſhe was baptized and her houſhold.] Then of the Iaylour, v. 33. being wrought upon by the Apoſtles Miniſtery, [he came and was baptized, he and all his.] Thus, be they what they will, being once in Covenant, they may and ought to be baptized. So runs the Apoſtles Commiſſion, [Go teach all Nations, Mat. 28. 19.]

R.And will you have the ground and reaſon of it, why the adminiſtration of this Ordinance ſhould be ſo univerſall, conſider but theſe two things; 1. The univerſality of mans ſin and miſery: and ſecondly, The univerſality of Gods offer of grace and mercy.

1. Mans ſinne and miſery univerſall.1. Mans miſery is univerſall. [All have ſinned. Rom. 3. 23.] And ſinning died. [Death paſſed upon all men, for that all have ſinned, Rom. 5. 12.] Such is the condition of all the ſonnes of men by nature. They are all concluded, and ſhut up under ſinne and death; ſo ſhut Gal. 3. 22.Gal 3:22up, as without the free grace of God in Chriſt pardoning their ſinnes, and healing their natures, they cannot poſſibly be ſaved. Even Infants that never ſinned after the ſimilitude of Adams tranſgreſsion, viz. by committing Rom. 5. 14.Rom 5:14actuall ſinne, yet being ſinners by nature, by nature Eph. 2. 3.Eph 2:3children of wrath, they ſtand in need of Chriſt as well as any other. And conſequently they ſtand in Tit. 3. 5.Titus 3:5need of this laver of regeneration, this Sacrament of initiation, whereby their ſpirituall waſhing from the guilt and ſpot of ſinne, and their ingrafting into Chriſt may be ſealed up unto them, and declared unto others. All ſorts of perſons ſtand in need of Chriſt, and conſequently of this Sacrament which ſealeth up their intereſt in Chriſt.

p. 42. The tender of Gods grace and mercy univerſall.2. And ſecondly, as mans miſery is univerſall, ſo is the tender of Gods grace and mercy, held forth to all men, [Goe teach all Nations, Mat. 28.] [Goe preach the Goſpel to every creature, Mark 16. 15.] Thus Chriſt ſent forth his Apoſtles; and thus he now ſendeth forth his Miniſters, with Commiſſion to offer Chriſt and ſalvation by Chriſt, to all that will receive him, beleeve on him, ſubmit to him. And reaching forth the thing ſignified, hee alſo reacheth forth the ſigne, even this Sacrament of Baptiſme, which is therefore to be adminiſtred alike unto all, becauſe Chriſt is offered alike unto all, (I meane Gal. 3. 28.Gal 3:28all ſorts of perſons) and is alike to all. [There is neither Iew, nor Greeke, (i. e. Gentile) there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female, for ye are all one in Chriſt Ieſus.] Being all alike in Chriſt, they ought alike to be 1▪ Cor. 12. 13.1 Cor 12:13baptiſed into him. [By one ſpirit we are all baptiſed into one body, whether we be Iewes or Gentiles, &c.] Thus all that are in Covenant ought to be baptiſed.

2. Only ſuch as are in Covenant may be baptiſed.2. And (in the ſecond place.) OnelyOnly they. This being a ſeale of the Covenant ought not to be adminiſtred unto any, but unto thoſe which are, or in the judgement of charity may be thought to be within the Covenant. By this rule muſt the Church proceed in diſpencing of this Ordinance, not by the judgement of Infallibility, The Churches rule, the rule of charity.and Certainty, but of Charity. To know infallibly who is within the Covenant, this none can doe but God, and a mans owne ſoule. The Churches rule is the rule of charity. Thoſe who by the law of charity may bee thought, and are to be reputed within the Covenant of Grace, they, all they, and only they may, and ought to partake of this Ordinance.

p. 5Q Who may be thought to be within the Covenant.Q. Here then the great Queſtion now falls in: Who they are that in the judgement of charity are to bee thought to be within the Covenant?

A. All that profeſſe the faith of Chriſt, and their children.A. Hereunto we anſwer: All that profeſſe the faith of Chriſt and their children. Both theſe the eye of charity looketh upon as Chriſtians, and being ſuch, it cannot deny them the badge of their Chriſtianity, the ſeale of that Covenant wherein they are preſumed to be.

Profeſſours of the faith baptiſeable.As for the former of theſe, we ſhall meet with no great difference about them. Perſons profeſsing the faith of Chriſt may, and ought to be baptiſed. For this Scripture is expreſſe: when the Eunuch put the queſtion to Philip, Act. 8. 36.Acts 8:36[See here is water▪ what doth hinder me to be baptiſed?] Philip returnes him this anſwer: If thou beleeveſt with all Verſ. 37.thine heart, thou mayeſt. Thoſe three thouſand Converts Act. 2. 41. upon the receiving of Peters word, his doctrine, they were baptiſed. Thus Simon Magus, and the reſt of Samaria, upon their beleeving, i. e. making Act. 12. 1….Acts 12:1a profeſſion of faith, they were baptiſed both men and women. Thus all that profeſſe the faith of Chriſt (profeſſing it with their mouthes, and not denying it in their lives) they have a right unto Baptiſme. And why? Becauſe in judgement of charity they are to be reputed Chriſtians, and to be within the Covenant.

Generall profeſſion makes a Chriſtian.True it is, if we ſpeake of Chriſtians in truth, in reality, then they only are Chriſtians who have received Chriſt into their hearts by faith and love, in whoſe hearts Chriſt is formed. [He is not a Iew▪ (ſaith the Apoſtle) which is one outwardly.] And ſo may we ſay, He Rom. 2. Gal. 4. 19.Rom 2Gal 4:19is not a Chriſtian that is one outwardly, that hath only the name and profeſſion of a Chriſtian. Yet in a large ſenſe, they which make ſo much as a generall profeſsion p. 6Act. 11▪ 26.Acts 11:26of Chriſt, of faith in Chriſt, and ſubjection to Chriſt, they are to be accounted Chriſtians. And by vertue therof they may and ought to be baptiſed. Upon this profeſſion Mat. 3.Matt 3Iohn the Baptiſt baptized thoſe that came unto him. And ſo did the Apoſtles thoſe which came unto them, Act 5. and 8.Acts 5however in ſome of them, that profeſſion was hypocriticall and unſound, as in Simon Magus, Ananias & Saphira, &c. yet the Apoſtles looking upon them with an eye of charity, and judging of them according to their profeſſion, they admitted them unto this Ordinance. Neither doe we read of any whom they refuſed, or yet brought to an exacter ſcrutiny and tryall, touching the inward worke of grace in their hearts, who did make ſuch a profeſſion and confeſſion.

Perſons come to years of diſcretion how they ought to be admitted to Baptiſme.And thus ought all thoſe who are come to yeares of diſcretion before they are baptiſed, be admitted to it. As viz. Pagans and Infidels, ſuch as are borne and brought up without the pale of the Church, not deſcended from Chriſtian parents. Before they be admitted to this Sacrament, they ought firſt to be inſtructed in the faith of Chriſt, in the principles and rudiments of Chriſtian Religion. Being thus inſtructed then they are to declare and teſtifie their voluntary imbracing of that faith, together with their repentance, by open Profeſsion and Confeſsion. Such was the manner of Iohns baptiſme▪ having to deale with unbeleeving Jewes: He Mat. 3. 6. Act. 19. 4.Matt 3:6Acts 19:4baptiſed them confeſsing their ſinnes, and profeſſing their faith in the Meſsiah: Thus the Apoſtles having to deal with unbeleeving Gentiles, heathens, they firſt preached to them as Iohn the Baptiſt did, and then baptiſed them upon the confeſſion of their ſinnes, and profeſſion of their faith. And ſuch was the practice of the Pri…i…e p. 7Church in like caſes. Having to deale with Infidels, they firſt catechiſed them, inſtructed them in the principles of Chriſtian Religion (whence they were called by the name of Catechumeni, perſons that were to be catechiſed.) That being done, and they brought to ſome meaſure of knowledge, then they declared and teſtified their repentance and faith by an open and publick confeſſion in the congregation where they were to be baptiſed. And this they did (as it ſeemeth) by anſwering unto ſome queſtions which were propounded to them by the Miniſter. To which practiſe St. Peter ſeemeth to allude, 1 Pet. 3. 21. where ſpeaking of Baptiſme, he calleth it, foreign the anſwere of a good conſcience towards The anſwer of a good conſcience in Baptiſme, what.God.] So our tranſlation renders it; though (as Beza notes upon the place) not ſo fully expreſſing the force of the word foreign which properly ſignifieth an Interrogating, a Queſtioning. So the vulgar Latine there renders it, Interrogatio bonae conſcientiae, the Interrogation of a good conſcience. Which though it be ſomewhat obſcure, yet it will lead us to the right underſtanding of that phraſe. Beza tranſlates it, Stipulatio bon… conſcientiae, the ſtipulation of a good conſcience. Now ſtipulation properly it is an anſwer to an Interrogation; when one being demanded concerning a thing, he returnes anſwer, and by his anſwer ingageth himſelfe to doe ſomewhat that is demanded and required of him. Such a Stipulation there was in Baptiſme, where the party to be baptiſed being demanded by the Miniſter concerning his repentance and faith, he made anſwer before the congregation, profeſſing both, and obliging himſelfe to both. Such an foreign ſuch a ſtipulation we finde betwixt Philip and the Eunuch, Act. 8. 37. 38. The Eunuch deſiring p. 8Baptiſme, Philip interrogates him concerning his faith, [If thou beleeveſt, &c.] To this the Eunuch anſwereth, [I beleeve that Ieſus is the Sonne of God.] And ſuch was the practice of the Primitive times. Thoſe which tendered themſelves to Baptiſme, being Adulti, able to anſwer for themſelves, (of which ſort then there were many) they had certaine queſtions propounded to them, to which they made anſwer; as, Credis? Credo. Abrenuncias? Abrenuncio. Doſt thou beleeve? (ſaith the Miniſter) I doe beleeve (ſaith the party) Doſt thou renounce the Devill and his pompes? &c. I doe renounce them. Such was their manner then of Baptizing perſons come Beza Annot. in 1 Pet. 3. 21.1 Pet 3:21to yeares of diſcretion; which as Beza notes upon that place of Peter) after ages out of a foreign, a perverſe imitation, drew downe and applied to the Baptiſme of Infants; but not ſo fitly, they being not able to anſwer for themſelves. And this was the ſtipulation which St. Peter there ſpeaketh of, and to which he attributes that ſaving property, [it ſaveth us,] which is the fruit and effect not of the outward Baptiſme, the putting away the filth of the fleſh, bodily waſhing: but the inward Baptiſme teſtified by the anſwer or ſtipulation of a good conſcience towards God. To which agreeth that of Tertullian cited there by Beza as an apt gloſſe upon that Text. Anima non lavatione, ſed reſponſione ſanatur. In Baptiſme the ſoule is healed not by waſhing, but by anſwering; even by that anſwer of a good conſcience. Thus were their Adulti, perſons come to yeares of diſcretion baptiſed then. And after the ſame manner ought they to bee baptiſed now. But I will not dwell upon this, wherein wee are all agreed.

p. 9Baptiſme of Infants.The maine buſineſſe we have to deale with, and that which I chiefly aimed at, when I fell upon this Subject, is touching the Baptiſme of Infants; whether they, or any of them may be baptized. Here the Anabaptiſts and we are at variance. We allow it to ſome, they deny it to all. Whence it is they are called by the name both of Anabaptiſts and Catabaptiſts; becauſe they oppoſe the Baptiſme of all Infants, as a thing not onelyonly inconvenient, but unlawfull; and in caſe any of them bee baptized in their infancie, they looke upon that Baptiſme as a nullity, and ſo impoſe upon them a Rebaptization when they come to yeares of diſcretion.

Anabaptiſme a dangerous errour.With this Errour of theirs I am now to encounter. An Errour not only oppoſing the conſtant and univerſall practice of all the Churches of God in the world, but dangerous and pernitious to them, tending directly not only to the unchurching, but unchriſtianing of them. Of ſuch conſequence is this doctrine of theirs, that if it be true, there are but a few Chriſtians to be found this day in the world.

To vindicate the truth of God, and the practice of the Churches; as alſo for the ſtaying of unſtable ſoules, who are ſubject in theſe unſetled times to be carried away into this Errour amongſt others: Come we as plainly as we can to joyne iſſue with them, putting it to the tryall, whether any Infants be baptizeable or no.

Q. Whether Infants be baptizeable, or no.So I ſhall ſtate the controverſie, and that to prevent impertinent diſputes, and collaterall differences, which otherwiſe might fall in betwixt us, and the Semi-Anabaptiſt, or elſe ſome others of our Brethren, who deny baptiſme unto ſome Infants, though borne of beleeving parents, upon other grounds, which now I forbeare p. 10to mention. My quarrell here is with the compleat Anabaptiſt, who holdeth that Infants quâ Infants are not baptizeable, let their parents be never ſo holy, and the adminiſtration in all other reſpects never ſo pure, and regular. To meet with them, I propound the queſtion in theſe tearmes.

The Queſtion ſtated.Q. Whether children of the holieſt parents, and in the pureſt Churches, may and ought to be baptized in their infancie? Of this Queſtion we maintaine the Affirmative, that they may, and ought; they the Negative, that they neither ought, nor may. It remaines then that we come to ſee what can be ſaid of either ſide. I ſhall beginne with the Affirmative, ſhewing you what grounds, what warrant we have for our doctrine and practiſe. Then come to the Negative, ſhewing what they can ſay by way of oppoſition againſt it.

Infan…s of beleeving parents are ſubjects capable of Baptiſme.Begin with the former, pleading for our ſelves, and all the Churches of Chriſt; whoſe very practiſe in all ages, in all places of the world for ſo many hundred yeares together ought not to be deſpiſed by us. But letting that paſſe. Infants of beleeving parents are ſubjects capable of baptiſme. This we might prove by divers Proved by arguments.arguments. Take but two or three of the principall; and thoſe no new ones. New arguments in this cauſe are not to bee expected, onelyonly the improving of old ones, the driving home of thoſe nayles which have beene heretofore faſtened in the head of this Siſera by the Maſters of the Aſſemblies.

… Children may be baptized, becauſe within the Covenant.The firſt whereof is that which I have already laid downe in the deſcription of baptiſme, where I make the ſubject of baptiſme to bee perſons that are in covenant. From hence we argue, that if children of beleeving parents p. 11be within the Covenant then they may be baptized: But they are within the Covenant; Therefore they may be baptized.

The former of theſe is evident (and I thinke it will not be denyed.) To whomſoever the covenant it ſelfe belongeth, to them belongeth this ſeale of the Covenant. Abrahams poſterity being in Covenant, they were to receive the ſeale of the Covenant, viz. the ſigne of circumciſion. Thus Chriſtians the ſpirituall ſeed of faithfull Abraham, being in Covenant with God, they are capable of baptiſme, this initiall ſeale, which ſealeth up unto them, and teſtifieth unto others their entrance into Covenant.

The maine difference here betwixt us and the Anabaptiſt will lye about the ſecond of theſe; viz. Whether Infants of beleeving parents be in Covenant or no? This Infants of beleeving parents, are to be reputed in Covenant.they deny, alleadging that the Covenant, being a Covenant of Grace, it doth not runne along with the blood, it is not tranſmitted from the parent to the childe, neither is it intayled upon any family, any kindred. No, That which is borne of the fleſh is fleſh] (ſay they.) As for children, they are all alike borne children of wrath; neither are the children of beleeving parents herein priviledged. [There is no difference (ſaith the Apoſtle) for all have ſinned, and are deprived of the glory of God.] No Rom. 3. 22. 23.Rom 3:22Rom 3:23difference here between the children of Chriſtians, and Pagans; Beleevers, and Infidels; the one is no more in Covenant then the other by nature. Neither are men brought into Covenant by naturall generation, but by ſpirituall Regeneration. They muſt firſt be borne againe; otherwiſe they have nothing to doe with the Covenant. Thus they. But with what truth, it will appeare by theſe Proved by 3 Arguments.two or three arguments.

p. 12Arg. 1. Taken from Act. 2. 38. 39.Acts 2:38Acts 2:39Children of beleeving parents are within the covenant. What elſe (in the firſt place) meanes that of the Apoſtle St. Peter in that knowne place? Act. 2. where he telleth thoſe new Converts, that The promiſe was to them, and to their children, v. 39. and thereupon inviteth them to come and be baptized, as you have it in the verſe foregoing. [The promiſe is unto you and to your children.]

Explication.For the explicating of that Text, and for the vindicating of it from the cavills and evaſions of our Adverſaries, I ſhall open and unfold unto you theſe two things: 1. What is there meant by the Promiſe; and ſecondly, what by their Children.

Q 1. What meant by the Promiſe.1. For the former of theſe, we finde the An abaptiſts nibling at it; ſome of them referring it to the words immediately foregoing, viz. [The receiving of the Holy Verſ. 38.Ghoſt.] This is the promiſe (ſay they) here ſpoken of, A.viz. of the extraordinary gifts of the Spirit. But againſt them the evidence is cleare. The Promiſe here ſpoken of is the great Promiſe of the Goſpel, called here by way foreign.of emphaſis, [The Promiſe,] viz. the promiſe of Remiſsion of ſinnes, which he willeth them to ſeeke, in, by, and thorough Chriſt. This promiſe he here holdeth forth unto them; and for the bearing up of their drooping dejected ſpirits, he tells them that that Promiſe belonged to them, and their children. Not the promiſe of the Holy Ghoſt in thoſe extraordinary gifts, which was peculiar to that age, and to ſome peculiar perſons therein, not common to all that were baptized into the name of Ieſus Chriſt.

Q. 2. What by children.But what is here meant by their Children?

To this the Anabaptiſt anſwers, not Children in age, young Infants. Who then? Why either children by p. 13regeneration, (So Calvin tels us ſome of them expound Calv. ad lo…. Not children by Regeneration, Or Succeſſion.the word there in a metaphoricall ſenſe, purpoſely to evade and elude the force of it:) Or elſe (as the greateſt part of them carry i…) children by ſucceſsion, their poſterity that ſhould come after them being come to yeares of diſcretion. So they alleadge the word (Children) to be often uſed in Scripture. Act. 3. 25. Ye are the children of the Prophets. Act. 13. 26. Men and brethren, Children of the ſtock of Abraham.] Thus would they have the word here underſtood. [You and your Children] i. e. (ſay they) the lineally deſcended ſons of Abraham, men and women of full age.

But children in Age.A. But to this cavill of theirs we reply. The word (Children) there muſt be taken literally and properly, and be underſtood of Infants, Children in age.

Vid. Robinſon Bap. of Infants Arg. 5.For proofe of this, I finde the ſcope and drift of the place brought in by ſome, which ſeemeth (I confeſſe) to favour this conſtruction. But in as much as I find that variouſly carried according to divers apprehenſions of it, I ſhall paſſe it by, faſtening upon that which I conceive to be more demonſtrative and convincing. I take it from the words themſelves, Wherein we may take notice of three ſeverall ranks or conditions of perſons to The Promiſe ſaid to belong to three ſorts of perſons.whom the Apoſtle here affirmes this promiſe to belong. 1. The Iewes themſelves there preſent; 2. Their Children; 3. Thoſe which were a far off; But who were they?

Q. Who were thoſe a far off; Calvin; Piſcator. A Lapide.Q. Who were thoſe a far off?

The opening of that clauſe will conduce much to the clearing of the former. [Them which are a far off.] This I know Expoſitors generally, both Proteſtant and Papiſt, underſtand of the Gentiles, who were then afar off, at a great diſtance from p. 14Not the Gentiles, as it is uſually expounded. Epheſ. 2 17.Eph 2:17the Iew in point of Religion. For countenance of this expoſition, they bring in that known place of the Apoſtle, Eph. 2. 17. where ſpeaking of the Iews & Gentiles, he deſcribeth each by a Periphraſis, the one a people a far off, the other neer. The Gentiles before the comming of verſ. 13.Chriſt they were a far off. [Ye who ſomtimes were a far off are made nigh by the blood of Chriſt. 13. of that 2. Eph.] Thus they expound Peter by Paul, generally looking upon theſe texts in 2. Epheſ. as a Comment upon that in the 2. of the Acts.

Beza ad loc.But herein I find Mr. Beza diſſenting from them, and that (as I conceive) not without good ground and warrant. By thoſe a far off in that place (ſaith he) cannot be Proved by two reaſons.underſtood the Gentiles. Why not? Take a double reaſon for it, each convincing.

1Peter was not yet fully inſtructed in this myſtery touching the calling of the Gentiles. Act. 10. Verſ 13. 28. 34.Acts 101. The calling of the Gentiles was as yet in a great part a myſterie to Peter himſelf, A ſecret which was not yet clearly unfolded unto him. So much we may collect from that viſion preſented to him, Act. 10. whereby taking away the difference betwixt the cleane beaſts and uncleane, bidding him ſlay and eat, &c. The Lord taught him not to put a difference betwixt Iew and Gentile. So as it is evident, Peter was not ſo well inſtructed in this myſterie before, as that he ſhould tell the Iewes ſo expreſly, that the promiſe belonged as well to the Gentiles, as to them.

22. Suppoſe Peter had underſtood this myſterie, yet No fit time to preach this doctrine.was this no fit time to have preached and publiſhed this doctrine to theſe weak Iewes, being then but novices, beginning to look towards Chriſt; to whom it might rather have been a ſtumbling-block to keep them back, then any incouragement to bring them to Chriſt. To heare p. 15that the Gentiles were alike intereſted in the Promiſe with them, it could be no argument to perſwade them to come in unto Chriſt. VponUpon theſe grounds he concludes (and I think very rationally) that by thoſe a far off cannot be meant the Gentiles.

But the poſterity of the Iewes, a far off in time.Who then? Why the poſterity of theſe Iewes, who were to ſucceed them in the ages to come, who were then afar off in time. Mark it. Not Gentiles a far off in ſtate and condition, but Iewes afar off in time, ſuch as were to be born in afterages. That the phraſe here muſt be ſo underſtood, Beza well evinceth it from the originall: where he takes notice of a remarkable difference betwixt Pauls words, and Peters: Paul ſpeaking of the Gentiles in that 2 Epheſ. he calleth them foreign but Peters words here are foreign the one importing a diſtance of ſtate, the other of time. And ſo indeed the Greek phraſe foreign properly ſignifieth; ſuch as are a far off in time, foreign (as Piſcator makes it out) longè poſt futuris (as Beza tranſlates it) ſuch as were to be born a long time after.

What meant by Children.Now then (to winde up what I have ravelled) If by thoſe a f…r off, be meant not the Gentiles, but the Iewes afar off in time, then by their Children here muſt be underſtood, not their Poſterity which was to come after; but their preſent iſſue, the children that already were, or ſhould be born of their bodies, what ever they were, whether of riper, or younger yeares, even Infants. To them (ſaith the Apoſtle) as well as you, belongeth this promiſe, this great promiſe, the promiſe of the Meſsiah, of life and ſalvation by Chriſt. So ran the promiſe made to Abraham: It took in his ſeed, his children: and to you ſhall that promiſe be made good, in caſe you repent p. 16and believe, and ſo approve your ſelves the children of faithfull Abraham, the promiſe will reach both you and your children. So then, (to cloſe up this Argument) the promiſe belonging unto the children of believers, they are alſo in Covenant, and being in Covenant, the Seale of the Covenant is appliable unto them.

Object. [As many as the Lord our God ſhall call] how to be underſtood.Here I am not ignorant of that beaten muſe w^ch the Anabaptiſts generally think to creep out at, that evaſion whereby they think to elude the force of this argument. They find it (as they conceive) in the laſt clauſe of the verſe, which they make uſe of as the Sea-man of his Rudder in the Stern, whereby he turns about the whole Ship; ſo they think hereby to turn about the whole Argument. This promiſe (ſay they) it belonged to them, and their children, and to thoſe a far off, but how? viz. upon their Calling, So run the words; [As many as the Lord our God ſhall call.] Now indeed (ſay they) be they who, or what they will, they may lay claim to the promiſe, being once called, out not elſe.

A. To this we anſwer, That this Cavill of theirs, what force ſoever there may ſeem to be in it, yet it cannot reach the Argument in hand, inaſmuch as that clauſe ſtands in reference only to the clauſe next foregoing, viz. [Thoſe which are afar off] not reaching to the former, [them and their children.] As for them, the words run roundly and abſolutely, putting them and their children together, without any note of diſtinction betwixt them, (as it is obſervable in all the originall copies that I can meet with) extending the promiſe alike unto both, and that without any limitation or reſtriction, [The promiſe is unto you and your children] Not to as many of them as the Lord ſhall call, (as they would reſtraine it) p. 17but indefinitely to all of them; and [to thoſe which are afar off, even as many as the Lord ſhall call,] as many of them that ſhould ſucceed in after-generations, as the Lord ſhould effectually call to repent and believe, they ſhould partake in the ſame priviledge, The Promiſe ſhould reach to them and to their children. So that let our adverſary make what improvement he can of this allegation, unleſſe he ſtretch it beyond the ſtaple, and extend the words of the Apoſtle further then ever they were intended, and further then with any congruity they can reach, it cannot ſo much as touch, much leſſe ſhake the Argument now laid down.

I paſſe to a 2^d, a ſecond Argument to prove Infants of believing Parents to be within the Covenant.

Arg. 2. Some Infants were in Covenant under the Old Teſtament.Infants of believing parents were in Covenant under the Old Teſtament, therefore they are ſo under the New.

As for the Antecedent, the former part of this Enthymeme, viz. That ſome Children were in Covenant under the Old Teſtament, I think it will not be denyed. If it ſhould, the evidence is clear… ▪ wherefore elſe were they circumciſed? God did not put that this his Seale, to a Blank. [This is my Covenant] (ſaith the Lord) viz. a Gen. 17. 10, 11Gen 17:10Gen 17:11ſigne, a ſeale, a token of the Covenant, not to be adminiſtred unto any but ſuch as were preſumed to be in Covenant with God. Now from hence we inferre, Therefore ſome are in covenant now. Proved by 3 Arguments.If they were in Covenant then, then they are in Covenant now; If under the Old Teſtament, then under the New. This inference I ſhall evince and make good by three arguments.

Otherwiſe Infants ſhould be loſers by the comming of Chriſt.Arg. 1. Otherwiſe, Children now under the New Teſtament 1ſhould be in a worſe condition then they were under the Old; & ſo in ſtead of receiving benefit by the comming p. 18of Chriſt, they ſhould be indamaged by it; They ſhould be loſers by Chriſt, which is monſtrous to conceive. Niſi fortè arbitramur Chriſtum in ſuo adve…u Patris gratiam imminu…ſſe aut decurtaſſe, quod execrab…li blaſphem…â non vacat. Calv. Inſtit, l 4. c. 16. S. 4.That the Fathers were gainers by the coming of Chriſt, brought into a better conditiō, Papiſts maintain: but that their Children ſhould be loſers by it, methinks Anabaptiſts ſhould not dare to affirm. But ſo they muſt be, and great loſers too, if whereas they were in Covenant before his comming, ſince his comming they ſhould be excluded. Certainly, little cauſe had Iohn the Baptiſt to have ſprung for joy in his mothers wombe at the preſence of Chriſt in his conception, had his birth been ſo diſadvantagious to him, and others in that condition. Far be it from us to give way to ſuch a thought. The comming of Chriſt, it Luk. 2. 10.Luke 2:10was joyous to all, to all nations, all ſexes, all conditions, all ages; advantagious to all, even to Infants.

Robinſon, bap. of Infants.It is well obſerved, Chriſt did not only take the nature of man upon him, but the ages of man alſo, viz. Childhood, Youth, Manhood. He paſſed through all theſe eſtates, to ſhew that he was the Saviour, the Redeemer of all, and that ſome of all theſe eſtates ſhould have benefit by him, and amongſt others, Children; to whom he ſhewed a peculiar affection when he was upon earth, (as God willing I ſhall ſhew you hereafter.) A plain evidence that he came not to diſadvantage them in the great buſineſſe of ſalvation, but to promote and further it.

22. Again (ſecondly) if Infants ſhould be in Covenant The grace of God ſhould be more large under the Old Teſtament, …hen the New.under the Old Teſtament, and not under the New, then the grace of God under the Old Teſtament ſhould be more large then under the New; and under the New more ſtraite then under the Old. Under the Old Teſtament, the Covenant was, [I will be thy God, and the God of thy ſeed.] The grace of God then extended not to the Parent p. 19only, but to the Childe. Now, if this grace ſhould now be reſtrained only to the Parent, not reaching unto the Child, then the grace of the New Teſtament ſhould be more ſtraite then of the Old, which cannot be imagined without great wrong and injury to Chriſt himſelf, and his Goſpel. As for Chriſt, we know he brought grace Joh. 1. 17.John 1:17along with him, (as the Sun doth his beames.) Grace and Truth came by (and with) Ieſus Chriſt.] Grace, and that ample grace. Such is the grace of the New Teſtament, reaching and ſpreading further then that of the Old. [The grace of God which bringeth ſalvation, hath appeared Tit. 2. 12.Titus 2:12to all men] (ſaith the Apoſtle) i. e. to all ſorts, ages, and conditions of men. Therein is this grace more ample then it was under the Law. There the grace of God in an ordinary diſpenſation it was appropriated to the Iews. They were then the foreign, Gods favourites, to whom his grace in Chriſt was manifeſted. But now that grace hath appeared to all men. The grace of the Goſpel is more ample, and every wayes greater grace then that before, or under the Law [God having provided Heb. 11. 40.Heb 11:40ſome better thing for us] (ſaith the Apoſtle.) The priviledges of the Goſpel are more, and greater, and better, then thoſe under the Law. Surely therefore, Infants being in Covenant then, they are not excluded now. Which if they be,

Infants no where caſt out of the Covenant.3. Let it be ſhewed (in the third place) by what act they 3are excluded. If once they were in Covenant, let it be ſhewed when, and how they came to be ejected: how this Magna Charta, this Great Charter, granted firſt to Abraham, came to be forfeited, or when it was called in. How they who were once of Gods family, and wore his livery, came to be caſhiered: How they, who were p. 20once members of the myſticall Body, came to be cut off. If our adverſaries can ſhew us a ſpeciall warrant for the calling in of this act of grace towards them (as they muſt, before we can give way to it) a ſpeciall and expreſſe order to prohibit Infants from laying any further claime to that priviledge under the Goſpel, which for ſo many ages they had beene peaceably poſſeſſed of under the Law; then we will hearken to them. Otherwiſe we muſt hold Infants to be in ſtatu quo, in the ſame, or in a better ſtate and condition now, then they were in under the Old Teſtament. Being in Covenant with God then, they are in Covenant with him now. And being in Covenant, they have right to this initiall ſeale of the Covenant.

I know what the Anabaptiſt will here reply to this Argument. Give me leave to meet with it, that I may cleare the way as I goe.

Replic. Theſe are two diſtinct Covenants.That Infants ſhould be in Covenant under the New Teſtament, becauſe they were ſo under the old, it followeth not (ſay they;) why? In as much as theſe are two diſtinct Covenants, not the ſame. For this (ſay Jer. 31. 31. Heb. 8. 6.Jer 31:31Heb 8:6they) Scripture is expreſſe; calling this Covenant which we have under the Goſpel, a New Covenant, and a better Covenant, eſtabliſhed upon better promiſes, &c. As The old Covenant aboliſhed. Heb. 7. 18.Heb 7:18for that old Covenant it is antiquated, and abrogated, being (as the Apoſtle tells us) diſanulled by reaſon of the weakneſſe and unprofitableneſſe thereof.] That Covenant then is now determined, neither have we any thing to doe with it under the Goſpel. This is a new Covenant, nor like the former.

A. The old Covenant, what.A. For anſwer to this, in as much as it will make much to the clearing of this doctrine, and tend greatly p. 21to the ſatisfaction of thoſe who deſire it, give me leave briefly to ſhew you what the old Covenant was, which is there oppoſed to this new Covenant, and ſaid to bee abrogated, and aboliſhed, &c.

Where, let God himſelfe be his owne Interpreter In that 31. of Ieremy, v. 32. cited by the Apoſtle, Heb. 8. v. 9. the words are expreſſe. [Behold the dayes come (ſaith the Lord) that I will make a new covenant with the houſe of Iſrael, &c.] What Covenant? why marke what followes. Not according to the Covenant which I made with their fathers in the day that I tooke them by the hand to bring them out of Egypt, &c.] Marke it. This Not that made with Abraham, but the Covenant at Mount Sina which werewas the old Covenant ſo much ſpoken of in that Epiſtle to the Hebrewes. Not that Covenant which God made with Abraham, Gen. 17. But that Covenant which he made with Iſrael at their comming out of Egypt, Exod. 19. Theſe were two diſtinct Covenants: diſtinct, I ſay, whether in kinde, or only in manner of adminiſtration, Two diſtinct Covenants.I will not contend. A point worthy to be obſerved, as letting in much light to the controverſie now in hand.

Six differences betwixt them.Many remarkable differences there are betwixt them. To glean ſome of the handfulls that others have let fall.

1. (In the firſt place) they differ in time. The Covenant Vid. Mr. Robinſon Bap. of Infants, p. 77.made with Abraham was long before that other Covenant, even foure hundred and thirty yeares. So the Apoſtle tells us expreſſely, Gal. 3. 17. The Covenant 1In time.that was confirmed before of God in Chriſt, the Law which was foure hundred and thirty yeares after cannot diſanull. So long was this Covenant after that Covenant made with Abraham.

Place.2. As they differ in time, ſo in place. The one made p. 222at Mount Sina, Exod. 19. the other firſt made with Abraham in Vr of the Caldees, Gen. 12. after renewed, and confirmed in Canaan, Gen. 15. and 17.

3Manner of making and diſpenſing. Exod. 19.Exod 193. They differ in the manner both of their making, and diſpenſing. The Law was given after a terrible manner, to declare the Iuſtice of God againſt the violaters and tranſgreſſours of that Covenant. But the Covenant made with Abraham, was made with all ſweetnes of love and mercy, breathing forth nothing but free grace. And for the manner of their diſpenſation; that legall Covenant it was diſpenſed under types and figures, and ceremoniall obſervances. It had Ordinances of divine ſervice, and a wordly Sanctuary, &c. (as the Apoſtle ſpeaketh, Heb. 9. 1.) But the Covenant made with Abraham was more plainely and ſimply diſpenſed, having no other Ceremony annexed to it, but only Circumciſion, which was a ſeale of that Covenant.

44. Againe they differ in their Conditions. The condition Conditions. Mr Robinſon ibid.of that legall Covenant at Mount Sina, was even the ſame for ſubſtance with that which God made with Adam in Paradiſe. [Doe this and live.] A legall condition; promiſing life, all earthly and heavenly bleſſings, upon the condition of perfect obedience to all the Commandements. Whereupon this Covenant, through mans corruption, and inability to keep it, it is ſaid to be weake. [It was weake through the fleſh, Rom. 8. 3. and unprofitable, Heb. 7. 18. It was diſanulled for the weakneſſe and unprofitableneſſe thereof.] But now the condition of that Covenant made with Abraham was Evangelicall, viz. Faith, and Evangelicall obedience. Rom. 4. 11.Rom 4:11Faith; Circumciſion the ſeale of that Covenant was to Abraham a ſeale of the righteouſneſſe of Faith; ſealing up p. 23unto him righteouſneſſe and life, not upon the condition of doing, working, but beleeving, which was accounted to him for Righteouſneſſe, (as the Apoſtle ſets it Verſ. 9. 22.forth, Rom. 4.) Obedience; not exactneſſe, but uprightneſſe, Gen. 17. 1. Walke before me, and be upright, or ſincere.

End and uſe.5. Againe (fifthly) they differ in the end, and uſe of 5them. That legall Covenant, it was given chiefly becauſe of tranſgreſsions. So the Apoſtle tells us, Gal. 3. 19. wherefore then ſerveth the Law, it was added becauſe of tranſgreſsions. viz. to diſcover them, to bridle and reſtrain men from them, to denounce puniſhments for them (for that is a threefold uſe of the Law, 1. Detegit. 2. Fraenat. 3. Punit.) to convince men of ſinne, and of their miſery by reaſon of ſinne, that ſo they might come to ſee the need they have of Chriſt, and be driven to him, according to that of the Apoſtle, Gal. 3. 24. The Law was our School-maſter to bring us unto Chriſt. But that other Covenant made with Abraham, it was to aſſure him, and his ſeed of their intereſt in the Meſsiah, and the promiſe of life through him.

Continuance.Sixtly, and laſtly, They differ in their duration and 6continuance. That legall Covenant it was but temporary, to continue but till Chriſt ſhould come. So ſaith the Apoſtle, Gal. 3. 19. The law was added becauſe of tranſgreſsions, untill the ſeed ſhould come to whom the promiſe was made.] i. e. untill Chriſt ſhould come. Then that legall Covenant as a Covenant with the Church, ceaſed. But the Covenant made with Abraham it was an everlaſting Covenant. So the Lord tells him, Gen. 17. 7. I will eſtabliſh my Covenant between me and thee, and thy ſeed after thee for an everlaſting Covenant, &c.

p. 24So then you ſee that theſe Covenants were two diſtinet Covenants. That Covenant which God made with Iſrael at Mount Sina, it was not the ſame with that which he had made with Abraham before.

And of that Covenant it is that the Apoſtle there ſpeaketh in the 7. and 8. chap. of the Hebrewes. Not of the Covenant made with Abraham, which was an Evangelicall Covenant, and for ſubſtance the ſame with that which we are now under; But of the Covenant made at Mount Sina, that legall Covenant. That is the Covenant which the Apoſtle there compareth with the new Covenant, and of which he telleth us that it is now diſanulled and aboliſhed.

Q. The Covenant at Mount Sina, why called the old Covenant, and firſt Covenant A. 1. In oppoſition to the Covenant of Grace under the New Teſtament.Q. Why but (ſaith our Adverſary) how could that be called the old Covenant, and the firſt Covenant, when as it was 430. years after the Covenant made with Abraham? This was rather the firſt Covenant, and old Covenant.

A. To this it is anſwered: That legall Covenant is called the old Covenant, 1. In oppoſition to the Covenant of the Goſpell under the new Teſtament, which becauſe it was revived and renewed, and confirmed by the comming of Chriſt, the promiſed ſeed, it is therefore peculiarly called the new Covenant, and that legall Heb 8. 13.Heb 8:13Covenant in oppoſition to it, is called the old Covenant.

2Waxing old.2. The old Covenant, becauſe it waxed old, and through age decayed. So ſaith the Apoſtle of it in the place laſt named. Heb. 8. laſt. [In that he ſaith a new Covenant, he hath made the firſt old, new that which decayeth, and waxeth old is ready to vaniſh aw…y.]

3The ſame for ſubſtance with the firſt Covenant made with Adam in ſtate of innocency.3. The old Covenant, and the firſt Covenant, becauſe p. 25for ſubſtance it was partly the ſame with that firſt Covenant which God made with Adam in ſtate of innocencie. The Law (the morall part of it) publiſhed upon Mount Sina, it was no other but the ſame Law that was given to Adam at the firſt. What was there written in Tables of ſtone was but a counterpane of 2 Cor. 3. 3.2 Cor 3:3what was written in the fleſhy Tables of the heart of man at the beginning. And being ſo, well might it be called the old Covenant, and the firſt Covenant, being before the Covenant of Grace made with Abraham, I, or with Adam either.

The old Covenant diſanulled.You ſee then what the old Covenant is, that legall Covenant whereof Moſes was the Mediatour. And of this Covenant it is true, it is diſanulled, abrogated, ſo as there is now no more uſe of the Law as a Covenant to the Church. Marke that, as a Covenant: Other uſes there are of it many, which are ſtill in force as much as ever: But it is no longer a Covenant. This Covenant is diſanulled. But ſo is not that Evangelicall Covenant Not the Covenant with Abraham.made with Abraham, which is (as I told you) an Everlaſting Covenant, and for ſubſtance the very ſame with that which Beleevers are now under; viz. the Covenant of Grace promiſing life and ſalvation upon the condition of beleeving. So much the Apoſtle tells us expreſſely, Gal. 3. v. 8. The Scripture (i. e. the Spirit of God ſpeaking in Scripture) foreſeeing that God would juſtifie the heathen (the Gentiles) through faith, preached before the Goſpel unto Abraham, ſaying, In thee ſhall all Nations be bleſſed.] Marke it. When God made this Covenant with Abraham, declaring and promiſing that in his ſeed all the Nations of the earth ſhould be bleſſed, he then preached the Goſpel to him, making a Covenant p. 26with him concerning Chriſt, and ſalvation by Chriſt. So much Zacharias in his ſong acknowledgeth, Luke 1. 72, 73. where ſpeaking of the exhibiting and ſending of Chriſt into the world, he calls it, An holy Covenant, the oath which God ſware unto our father Abraham. The Covenant made with Abraham then was no other but the Covenant of Grace, even the ſame Covenant that we are now under. All the difference is, the Covenant now is new drawne, and ſo put into another forme, ſet forth and expreſſed more clearly and fully, then that with Abraham was, (even as our evidences and conveyances, now they are more large and full then they were wont to be in the dayes of our forefathers, though in effect the ſame) but for ſubſtance they are one and the ſame.

And being ſo, (to cloſe up this ſecond Argument) that Covenant is an everlaſting Covenant, (I will make Jer. 32. 40.Jer 32:40an everlaſting Covenant with them, ſaith the Lord, ſpeaking of the renewing of the Covenant of Grace with them, Ier. 32. 40.) A Covenant that is not waxed old (as that legall Covenant did) that is not, nor ever ſhall be diſanulled, but is in force ſtill as much as ever. And conſequently children of Beleevers being once in Covenant, they are ſtill in Covenant. And being in Covenant, they have a right to this ſeale of the Covenant.

Arg. 3. Proving ſome Infants to bee within the Covenant:Arg. 3. I paſſe now to a third Argument to prove children of Beleevers to be within the Covenant. I take it from that known place of the Apoſtle, 1 Cor. 7. where he tells us expreſſely that the children of holy Becauſe they are holy.and beleeving parents, (I, if but one of them be a beleever) are Holy. [Elſe were your children uncleane, but now they are holy, v. 14.

A Text which neither Papiſt nor Anabaptiſt can look p. 27upon, but it will make their eyes dazle. In this Text the Papiſt (unleſſe he ſhut his eyes) cannot but ſee, that children of beleeving parents may be in a ſtate of ſalvation, though they dye without Baptiſme. Why? becauſe they are to be accounted holy by birth. And in this text the Anabaptiſt (if he will not (as he ſaid) Quaerere feſtucam, ſeek ſtrawes to put out his owne eyes withall, as indeed in this point they doe) cannot but ſee that Infants of beleeving parents are within the Covenant, and conſequently have a right to the ſeale of the Covenant, and that becauſe they are holy.

Q. How Infants of beleeving parents are ſaid to be holy. A. Not free frō originall ſin.Q. Holy? but how holy? what are all the Infants of beleeving parents inwardly inherently holy, truly ſanctified by the Grace and Spirit of Chriſt? and born ſuch?

A. Not ſo. Herein, what ever the Anabaptiſts hold about originall ſinne, which moſt of them deny, (for that is their doctrine (I will not ſay of all, but of many, of moſt of them) that, no Infants are conceived and borne in originall ſin, (point blank to that of David, Pſ. 51. 5.) neither are children of wrath by nature, &c. we freely acknowledge it, that in this there is no difference. The childe of a beleever is as well conceived in ſinne as any other, all being alike ſinners by nature, and guilty of eternall condemnation. In this ſenſe children of beleeving parents are not ſaid to be holy. Not but that God may and ſometimes doth ſanctifie children from, and in the wombe, as it is ſaid of Ieremy and Iohn the Baptiſt. But that is not the holineſſe which the Apoſtle there ſpeaketh of.

But viſibly holy.What then? why an outward, viſible holineſſe. Herein the Anabaptiſts (moſt of them) and we agree. But p. 28what outward Holineſſe is it? whether a Civill or Religious holineſſe. Here is the difference. The Anabaptiſt to evade the blow of this Text, taketh the former way, underſtanding the Apoſtle there to ſpeake only of a Civill Evaſion.holineſſe, oppoſite to a Civill uncleanneſſe. [Now are 1Not only with a Civill Holineſſe.your children holy.] i. e. (ſay they) they are legitimate, no baſtards. Thus generally they conſtrue that place. And for countenance of that interpretation they bring that Text of the Prophet Malachy, Mal. 2. 15. where the Prophet tells us, that at the firſt, God made but one man and one woman, joyning them together in marriage, viz. that he might ſeeke a godly ſeed (or holy ſeed) i. e. ſuch as ſhould be borne in lawfull marriage: And by that they interpret this Text of the Apoſtle, [Now are your children holy,] i. e. legitimate, lawfully begotten, not ſpurious, no baſtards.

A. Vide P. Mart. & Parae. ad l…oc.To this we reply, that this interpretation (however it muſt be acknowledged to have ſome conſiderable advocates for it, both ancient and moderne) yet it cannot be the ſenſe of the Apoſtle in that place. We ſhall not need to ſpend much time about it. The errour will ſoone appeare if we doe but oppoſe the parts of the Apoſtles diſ-junction there one againſt the other. [Elſe were your children uncleane, but now they are holy] That is, (ſay they) elſe were they baſtards, but now they are legitimate. Now the former of theſe is not true, viz. that in caſe the unbeleeving wife were not ſanctified by the beleeving husband, but both were unbeleevers, then their children ſhould be uncleane, i. e. Baſtards. This is not true. For the children of Pagans, where both parents are Infidels, yet being borne in lawfull wedlocke, they are no more baſtards then the children of Chriſtians p. 29are, but are as legitimate, and as free from civill uncleanneſſe as any other.

So that (whatever ſenſe be put upon that place of the Prophet Malachy) yet this cannot be the ſenſe of the Apoſtle in this place, where he ſpeaketh of a holineſſe that was peculiar to beleevers, not common to Infidels as well as them. The caſe is cleare to them who will not heere ſhut their eyes againſt the light.

Evaſion.2. Others there are of them who would elude the force of that place another way. They will tell us that 2Nor only ſanctified to the uſe of the parents.Paul in telling them their children were holy, he meant no more, but that they were ſanctified unto them. Even as the unbeleeving wife (ſay they) is ſanctified to the beleeving husband, i. e. ſanctified to his uſe, even ſo, and no otherwiſe, are their children ſaid to be holy, i. e. ſanctified to the uſe of their parents in the duties of relation; ſo as the parents may both own them, and keep them, and uſe them as children, and that in a Chriſtian and comfortable way.

A.A. But to this it is as ſoone anſwered as to the former. (Beſides that theſe children cannot be ſaid to bee ſanctified to both parents, the one being an unbeleever, to Tit. 1. 15.Titus 1:15whom nothing is pure▪ nothing holy, beſides that,) There is a broad difference between being ſanctified to the uſe of one, and being holy. To a beleever all things are ſanctified. [Every creature of God is go…, for it is ſanctified by the Word, and Prayer, 1 Tim. 4. 5.] [To the pure all things are pure, Tit. 2. 15.] foreign, but not foreign, Pure, but not Holy. This cannot be ſaid of all creatures that they ſhould be holy, holy in themſelves, as here it is ſaid of the children of beleeving parents, who are ſaid to be not only foreign, but foreign, not onelyonly ſanctificati, but p. 30ſancti, not only ſanctified to the uſe of the parent, but holy, holy in themſelves.

Q. But what holineſſe then is it that that the Apoſtle here meanes?

But holy in reſpect of federall holines.A. Why, briefly; It muſt be a Federall holineſſe, the holineſſe of the Covenant. So Calvin, Beza, P. Martyr, Paraeus, and almoſt the whole ſtreame of Proteſtant Expoſitors carry it. As for Papiſts indeed, they here Vid. A Lapid. ad loc.joyne hands with the Anabaptiſt. Not induring to hear of the holineſſe of Children, holineſſe by birth, becauſe that being admitted, their abſolute neceſsity of Baptiſme, whereof they are rigid and cruell patrons, muſt fall to the ground. But amongſt Proteſtant Interpreters it is generally received. And that not without good warrant from the word, which uſually calleth them holy who are borne under a holy Covenant. The Covenant it ſelf is holy; ſo called by Zacharias in that place prealleadged, 1. Luke 72. And ſo are they which are borne under it. Thus were the Iewes holy. [Thou art a holy people unto the Lord thy God.] Ye have it often repeated in Deut. 7. 6 c. 14▪ 2. 21.Deut 7:6that book of Deuteronomy, i. e. under a holy Covenant, And in this reſpect they were all alike holy. It is that which Corah and his company tell Moſes and Aaron. Num. 16. 3.Num 16:3[All the Congregation is holy every one of them.] A truth in it ſelfe, though not as they intended it. They were all holy in reſpect of a federall holineſſe, though not ſo holy as Moſes and Aaron whom God had ſanctified and ſet apart to ſpeciall and peculiar ſervices. The Jewes being in Covenant they were ſaid to be a holy people, and a holy ſeed. So you have it Ezra 9. 2. where it is ſaid that the Holy ſeed had mingled themſelves with the people of the land.] And in this ſenſe the Apoſtle (ſpeaking p. 31in the knowne phraſe, and language of the Scripture) calleth the children of beleeving parents holy, viz. ſo holy as the children of the Iewes formerly were. This was the priviledge of the Iewes; they were a holy ſeed, they and their children: In that differing from Gentiles that were out of Covenant. [We (ſaith the Apoſtle) Gal. 2. 15.Gal 2:15who are Iewes by nature, and not ſinners of the Gentiles.] the Gentiles being out of Covenant, their children were borne ſinners, i. e. aliens and ſtrangers to the Covenant. But it was otherwiſe with the Iewes, their children were holy, borne ſuch, viz. in reſpect of a federall holineſſe. In this priviledge doe beleeving Gentiles now partake with them, (the partition wall being now broken downe,) Eph. 2. 14.Eph 2:14they being incorporated into the ſame body with them, being made Burgeſſes of the ſame heavenly Ieruſalem with them, they are alſo infranchized and made partakers of the ſame priviledges and prerogatives that they were. Amongſt which this is one, that they and their ſeed are holy: that is, they are no longer Pagans and Heathens, but Chriſtians, members of the Church, in Covenant with God, ſo to bee taken, ſo to bee reputed.

The Anabaptiſt injurious to Infants.Where, before we paſſe any further, take notice how injurious the Anabaptiſt is unto the children of beleevers, whom they bereave of this ſpirituall priviledge, this excellent Prerogative, caſting them out amongſt the children of Heathens and Infidels: peremptorily affirming, That there is no difference betwixt the one and the other: The one as holy as the other, the one no more in Covenant then the other; and conſequently the one hath no more right to the ſeal of the Covenant then the other.

p. 32Infants of Beleevers and Infidels differ.No difference? True, by nature we yeeld it, there is none. [There is no difference (ſaith the Apoſtle) for all have ſinned, Rom. 3. 22.] I, and all have alike ſinned; all alike guilty of Adams ſinne by a juſt imputation; and all alike tainted and ſtained with Adams corruption by a reall communication. But hath Grace made no difference? 1 Cor. 4. 7.1 Cor 4:7[Who maketh thee to differ from another? (ſaith the Apoſtle.) Not nature, but grace. This made the Iew to differ from the Gentile, and the children of the one from the children of the other: And this is that makes as beleevers themſelves, ſo their children to differ from Infidells: Of whom the Apoſtle ſaith that they are holy. And what? Is there yet no difference? Will our Adverſaries ſay the ſame of the children of Infidels and Pagans, that they are Holy?

But we ſhall not need to wonder at this, that they equalize them with the children of Pagans and Infidels, when as they doe not ſticke to compare them with Dogs and Cats, boldly affirming, (ſo ſome of that way have lately done) that the one hath as much right to Baptiſme as the other. To which blaſphemy of theirs, I ſhall returne no other reply but that of Michael to the Devill, when Jude 9.Jude 1:9he ſtrove with him, The Lord rebuke thee.]

Thus you ſee this firſt and grand Argument for the Baptiſme of Infants ſufficiently ſupported. If Infants of beleeving parents be in Covenant, then they have right to this Seale of the Covenant: But they are in Covenant. This we have made good by three ſubordinate Arguments. 1. The Promiſe belongeth unto them. 2. If they were in Covenant under the Old Teſtament, then alſo under the New. 3. They are holy.

To theſe many other might yet be added. That of the p. 33Apoſtle to his Romans ſeconds that to his Corinthians. If the roote be holy, ſo are the branches, Rom. 11. 16.] Holy parents, a holy ſeed. The one being in Covenant ſo is the other.

1 Theſſ. 4. 13.1 Thess 4:13Againe, if they be not in Covenant they are without hope (as Paul ſaith of unbeleeving Gentiles) there being no way whereby ſalvation can be obtained but by the Covenant of free grace in Ieſus Chriſt. But to exclude all Infants dying in their infancie from ſalvation, I think is greater cruelty then the Anabaptiſt will own. Nay cleane contrary to their doctrine, who by denying Originall ſinne, (as many of them doe) put all Infants dying in their infancie into a ſtate of ſalvation, (larger charity then the Scripture will maintaine) and if ſaved, then they muſt firſt be in Covenant.

Q. Whether … Infants of believing parents be in Covenant.Q. But what then (it may be ſaid) are all Infants of beleeving parents in Covenant?

A. I anſwer in the outward viſible Covenant they are. As for the Covenant it ſelfe, to ſpeake properly, and ſtrictly it depends upon Gods election. Neither doth it A. Viſibly they are.belong to any but thoſe who are elected. But this is to us a ſecret. Now the rule is, De …ccultis non judicat Eccleſia. [Secret things belong unto the Lord, but things revealed Deut. 29 29.Deut 29:29to us and our children.] Amongſt which this is one, [I will be thy God, and the God of thy Seede.] And this are we to hope and believe touching all the children of believers, that they are Gods children as well as theirs, untill the contrary be ſome wayes manifeſted.

Q. How the Covenant is tranſmitted.Q. But how commeth this Covenant to be tranſmitted from the parent to the childe? what doth it run along with the blood? Is it tranſmitted by the way of naturall generation?

p. 34A. Not by naturall generation.A. Not ſo. This (what ever our Adverſaries in this particular would faſten upon us, both Anabaptiſts and Papiſts (for in this they are agreed) we renounce and diſclaime. Foedus non transfundit…r per carne…, ſaith P. Mart. in 1. Cor. 7. 14.1 Cor 7:14P. Martyr rightly. The Covenant is not propagated, and tranſmitted by the way of naturall generation. No. [That which is borne of the fleſh, is fleſh.] The parent communicates his nature and the corruption of it unto his child, But by vertue of the promiſe.but nothing of Grace. That is the free gift of God. And this it is that bringeth the childe of the believer into Covenant as well as the parent, even the free and gracious promiſe of God made both to the parent, and to the childe: making over the heavenly inheritance unto both as joynt heires of the Kingdome of God.

To draw to a concluſion of this firſt Argument. You ſee that Infants of believers are in Covenant, and how they come to be ſo. Now being in Covenant, they have right to this initiall ſeale of the Covenant.

Repl. Infants have no right to the Lords Supper.Repl. But to this the Anabaptiſt will yet once more reply, that by the ſame reaſon they ſhould have right to the other Sacrament as well as this, to the Sacrament of the Lords Supper, that being alſo a ſeale of the Covenant.

A. They have a right to it, though not in it.A. To this I anſwer briefly. A right they have to both the ſeales of the Covenant, both to Baptiſme and the Lords Supper. Though for the preſent they be not capable of the latter, yet they have a right in it, or rather a right to it. I…s adrem, though not I…s in re. A right to it, though not in it. Even as a childe under age, an Infant lying in the cradle, being an heire, he hath right to ſuch a houſe or land, which yet he cannot for the preſent take up, and make uſe of. Even ſuch a right have the p. 35children of beleevers in, or to the Sacrament of the Lords Supper, a right to it, and a right to partake of it, when they are capable of it, which for the preſent they are not.

Q. Infants, why not capable of both Sacraments.Q. And why not as capable of the one Sacrament, as of the other?

A. Becauſe the one is a Paſſive, the other an active Ordinance.A. I anſwer, becauſe the one is a paſsive, the other an active Ordinance in reference to the receivers. Baptiſme is a paſsive Ordinance, even as Circumciſion was, which required nothing in the perſon to be actually done by him, but only to ſuffer the fleſh of his foreskin to be cut: So in Baptiſme now, the perſon baptized is a meere patient in the act of baptizing: But it is otherwiſe in the Lords ſupper. Even as in the Paſſeover there was ſomewhat more required then a bare ſuffering, viz. a taking, and eating, &c. Even ſo in the Lords ſupper, the Communicant is more then a meer patient, he muſt be active in that Ordinance. Take and eat, take and drinke, both in remembrance of Chriſt. This muſt the Communicant do in the act of receiving. Beſides, in way of preparation to it he muſt examine himſelfe, and that as for other things, ſo for his abilitie to diſcerne the Lords body. Which becauſe Infants cannot do, therefore they are debarred from that Sacrament, though received to the other.

Baptiſme is a paſsive ordinance, wherein the perſon baptized is a meer patient. Such is a man in the beginning of the new birth, the firſt act of converſion, a meere patient; As in Generation, ſo in Regeneration. Now Baptiſme, we know, is a Sacrament of our Regeneration, and conſequently Infants are capable of this Sacrament, thoughnot of the other, even as Infants under the Old p. 36Teſtament were capable of Circumciſion at eight dayes old, when they were not capable of eating the Paſſeover, though they had a right to the one, as well as the other.

But I ſhall dwell no longer upon it. I paſſe to a ſecond generall Argument.