SECT. V.
BUt come we to the great Argument, which all use, and that wherewith I was assaulted. Matth. 28.19. and Mark 16.16. Only Believers are to be Baptised. To which I Answer,
This took with me in my Meditations, I thought there was strength in it.
Had the Gospel-Church been first erect∣ed amongst the Gentiles, and had Baptism been first Instituted in the Gentile-Churches, then the Anabaptists Argument from hence, would have carryed me. But the first Gos∣pel-Church was erected among the Jews, in Jerusalem, and Baptism was Instituted in the Jewish-Church first, where the Anabap∣tists cannot deny but the Infants were Mem∣bers Page 82with their Parents, and under the Seal of the Covenant. So that they must first prove that by this Text, the Children of the Believing Jews in the Gospel-Church, were not Members with their Parents, which I am sure cannot be forced from this Text, nor doth it in the least prove the Re∣pealing of Abraham's Covenant with his Seed.
Circumcision did Seal up the Promised Seed, in whom all Nations should be Bless∣ed, or Christ to come; and surely requi∣red, therefore their Faith in the Messiah to come. After Christ's Ascension, in the Gospel-Church Baptism seals up this Promi∣sed Seed, or Christ now come, with a full and clear Revelation of him; the differ∣ence of the Faith as to the Object of it, is only Christ to come, and come. If then the Children of the Jews, while the Parents did believe in the Messiah to come, were un∣der a Covenant, Reputed Members of the Church, and Circumcised; should, when their Parents believe in Christ come, be cast out of Covenant, out of the Church, and not Baptised, I know no Reason, nor Warrant from God's Word; this would have made strange work.
If the Anabaptists say the Jews did not be∣lieve in the Messiah to come, they must prove it; the Messiah ran much in their minds, Page 83we may see by the Woman of Samaria. Joh. 4.25. Read Acts 26.7. and by the Jews. Joh. 1.19, 20, 21. If Christ were then clearly revealed, why should this cast the Infant out? the Infant is not therefore guil∣ty of the more Sin, when Christ was clearly revealed, and so deserve to be cast out.
We are to consider Ordinances in their Institution, wherefore God appointed them, what they carry in them, in their own Nature, and what Men ought to do who partake of them, not what Men do; we know what Baptism signifies, what it im∣plies, and what they ought to do who par∣take of it, though Men abuse it. The Case was the same as to Circumcision.
That this was one thing it Sealed up, as I said, the Promise of Christ to come, the Ana∣baptists cannot deny, and it is the true An∣swer which Pererius gives, from Aquinus, to that Question, what was the difference be∣tween the Circumcision of the Jews, and of other Nations? for that other Nations did Circumcise besides the Jews, not only Cypri∣an, de ratione Circumvis, & Hierom. on Jer. 9. ult. [who upon that Text I think well;] but also Herodotus, who lived some hun∣dreds of years before Christ in Xerxes's Time, tells us, insomuch, that Herodotus saith the Jews took it up from the Egyptians; among Page 84whom it was in so much esteem, that there was no entrance into the most Honourable Offices amongst them, unless they were Circumcised. Now Pererius makes this dif∣ference: Other Nations used it, taking it up as a custom and right, transmitted to them from their fore-Fathers, whom they had in Honour. But the Jews used it, as it was a Sa∣crament containing in it, the Profession of their Faith and Obedience towards God, and the Divine Promise of the Messiah to come; he adds, And Expiation of Original Sin, as the Ancients speak of Baptism, and so many do now.
That other Nations do not use it as a Seal of God's Covenant, it appears by the time of Circumcising; the day God appointed, was the eigth day, but Ishmael's Posterity, Cir∣cumcise in the thirteenth year of their Age, then Ishmael was Circumcised; so that it is meerly in Honour of him, so Josephus tells us. l. 1. c. 12.
To go on, If then the Seed of the Jews believing in Christ come, be still under the Covenant, and Church-Members with their Parents, and if so, ought to be Baptised, by Mr. Tombe's Concession; Then let the Be∣lieving Gentiles and their Seed come in also for now no difference between Jew and Greek, Gal. 3.28. And for more full proof, Page 85the Apostle tells the believing Ephesians, and so all believing Gentiles, Ephes. 2.19. We are no more strangers [from the com∣mon-wealth of Israel, v. 12.] but Christ ha∣ving broken down the middle Wall of Partition between the Jews and us, v. 14.] we are now fellow-citizens with the Saints, and of the Houshold of God.
For the word Fellow-citizens, in the City or Church of the Jews: I pray, who were esteemed Citizens? Were not the Children put into Abraham's Charter: were not they then Citizens with their Parents? What, hath God sent his Quo Warranto, and taken away Abraham's Charter, when the Pa∣rents, the Citizens, believe in Christ sincere∣ly, and keep Covenant with him, and walk in the steps of Abraham: will now God take away their Charter, and cast out their Seed from being Citizens? What, hath Christ by his blood made us both One, taking down the partition-wall between Jew and Gen∣tile, v. 14. And doth he now set up the par∣tition Wall between the Jewish believing Parent and his Seed, bringing now the Seed of the believing Jews into that con∣dition the Gentiles were in before Christ came, Ephes. 2.11, 12. Shall the Anabaptists make us believe this, unless God hath said so in express terms? What a Bar had this Page 68been against the Jews ever receiving the Gospel: Did they any where make this Objection against it? Now we Gentiles be∣lieving, are Fellow-citizens with them of the same Houshold of God with them. Are not Children part of the Houshold? Were not the Jews Children part of the Houshold of God? then the Apostle tells us, we also are Fellow-citizens, and of the Houshold of God, as the Jews are.
As for the Texts, Matth. 28. and Mark 16. Blessed Jesus, the Promised Seed to A∣braham, in whom all Nations should be blessed, is now come; fulfilled the Law, Crucified, Dead, Ascended: Salvation is onely to be had in him. Now this was the great Doctrine the Apostles were to preach, first to the Jews, than to the Gentiles, and call all Nations to believe in this Christ, that they may be blessed, according to the Promise made to Abraham. True, none but Adult persons, or persons of under∣standing, can understand this Doctrine, and actually believe in Christ. No more could any but Jews Adult, or of ripe years, understand the Promise of Christ to come, in whom all Nations should be blessed; but yet the Jews Children were reputed with them Believers in the Messiah to come, by Gods Covenant with them, and the Church Page 87Constituted of them. So now Believers in Christ come, their Seed are Reputed with them.
Musculus [whom my Author hath put in his Catalogue of Authors, [hoc. com. p. 603.] which makes the ignorant Anabaptist think he is on their side; but rancks the Anabap∣tists in a second, or lower degree of Here∣ticks, for denying Infant-baptism, and an Oath.] In answer to an Argument of the Anabaptists, there was a Command for Cir∣cumcising, but no express Command for Bapti∣sing. Thus writes, Facit hoc non contra nos, sed pro nobis, &c. [ibid. 338.] This doth not make against us, but for us, saith he, the sum of his answer [being too long to tran∣scribe all] is this.
Sure I am, this express Command the Anabaptists require for Baptising Infants, will cast out the Lord's-Day, and Magistracy out of a Christian Common-wealth, Wo∣men from the Lord's Table; For though there were divers Women attended Christ, Luke 8.2, 3. yet there was not one of them with him at his Institution of the Lord's Supper: nor do we read expresly, that Women were at the Lord's Table in their Churches; For him that would prove it from the words, 1 Cor. 11.28. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, there tell us, That 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is of the Epiceen Gender, and includes Male and Female.
I answer, If 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 did alwaies signi∣fy Male and Female, and not the Male only, then it were a good proof: but I told twen∣ty places in Matthew's Gospel [I looked no further] where it signifies only the Male. Besides, what Gender is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 of, which is joyned with it? Nor can we have ground to Excommunicate Women, if they walk impenitently scandalous in the Church.
Partly upon their Principle, who call for express Command, and partly because the casting out of the Seed of Believers, and Re∣pealing the Covenant, are so strange, that it cannot be proved by any Consequence I Page 90have yet met with, therefore I call for Srciptures as clear at least as express Commands, or signification of God's Will.
To return to Infants, They must be re∣generate, and have Faith some way, else they must all perish; what should make the thing so impoisible they should have the Ha∣bit or Seed of Faith, and of all saving Graces in them? I hope it is not because Christ is known only by Revelation. I pray, what Act of Faith in God, what Act of Love to God, or Fear of God, &c. did Isaach or John put forth towards God, when, being Infants they were Circumcised? yet I am con∣fident they had the Seeds of all these at that time they were sanctified then, and why not then a Seed of Faith in Christ? had not John it when he leaped? &c.
In the first Synod held in New-England, this was one question discussed; Whether we be justified by the Habit, or the Act of Faith? Arguments were brought pro and con, some were for the Habit of Faith, then why not Infants justified by a Habit of Faith? Dr. Ames in his proofs for Infant-baptism, makes this his first Argument; That in the very beginning of Regeneration, the Soul is a meer passive, the Infant is as capable of a passive re∣ception of Christ and Grace, as another Man: Page 91but Baptism Seals to our Regeneration. [modul. theal. c. 4. th. 12. Got. of grace, p. 27. &c. So∣cin. pro. flig. p. 781.]
That servant of Christ Mr. Tho. Hooker, proves that Children may have Faith, and hath a pretty large discourse upon it; The Socinians say it is a Dream [if they mean Actual Faith, who do not say it] Caelonius in answer to them, proves by ten or eleven Arguments, that Children may have Faith, to be sure, we may observe that they whom the Holy Page Records to be Godly [except Menasseh] were so from their Child-hood. Isaac, Jacob, Samuel, Hezekiah, Josiah, David, Obadiah, Jehoshaphat, where do you read of the Saints first running a course of wicked∣ness, and then Converted? How many Children may we observe, that we may say as Dr. Thomas Goodwin said, are sanctified from the Womb. What is the matter then, that all Infants are cast out of the Church, and must not be Baptised?
Object. If you say, If you could tell which they are, they should be Baptised.
Answ. Can you tell who have saving-Faith and Grace, though they make Actu∣al Profession, and tell you they have it? they who you say are Dross, Chaff, Cana∣anites, no true Israelites, in your Baptised Congregations, they told you they had Faith, Page 92when you Dipped them, but you were mi∣staken.
2. If that be yielded, that Infants may be Regenerate, may have Faith and Grace Seminally, then this Text which you do so talk of does not cut them off from Bap∣tism.
3. By Abraham's Covenant, let the Pa∣rents be visible Believers, by their compe∣tent knowledg of Christ, profession of their Faith in him, and Conversation in some measure becoming Christians, giving up themselves to the Ordinances, and Rules of Christ's House, prove themselves thus to be visible Christians: and we can as regularly Baptise the Children of such Believers, as you Baptise your Adult persons, though as to the reality of saving Faith, we are mista∣ken, and so are you.
Once more take the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Mat. 28.19. as Dr. Hammond saith it ought to be Translated, Disciple ye all Nations, or make Disciples. Hence the Argument.
All they that are Disciples ought to be Bap∣tised.
But the Children of Believing Parents are Disciples.
Therefore the Children of Believing Pa∣rents ought to be Baptised.
This Argument I gave to him who op∣posed Page 93me, but he could not tell which Pro∣position to deny; a fit Man to dispute in a Congregation.
For the proof of the Argument.
The Major, is the plain Text, there is no opposing of that.
The Minor, that such Children are Dis∣ciples, our Divines have so cleared it from Acts 15.1. and 10. v. compared, and other Texts, that I will not say what they have said before.
I give my thoughts thus, They are Dis∣ciples.
1st. By God's Reputation he esteems them so; they are mine saith God, born to me. Ezek. 16.20, 21.
2ly, They are so by their Parents Dedi∣cation of them to Christ.
3ly, They are so by their Parents Edu∣cation of them for Christ.
4ly, They are so, as I may say, jure Gen∣tium, or rather jure Religionum, all Nati∣tions, all Religions, take their Children to be the same that the Parents are.
Did not the Jews take their Children to be Moses's Disciples, as well as themselves? John 9.28.
Do not the Turks take their Children to be Mahomet's Disci•les, as well as them∣selves? Page 94Should you deny it, you should hear of it, if not feel it.
Yea, go the Indians whose Religion [i• I may call it so] is very Devilish and Su∣perstitious, were it not too good a word. When the English first began to dwell in New-England, Massasoit the Sachem of Mount Hope, made a League with the English at Plymouth to live in Amity with them; The Articles were Seven; he kept the League well: A little before his death, he comes to renew his League for himself and his two Sons, Alexander and Philip, this was on September 25, 1630. But in his Treatise he urged this, That the English should engage never to attempt to draw any of his people to the Christian Religi∣on: he insisted upon it very much; but the English were resolute, and would make no League upon such terms. But this we see by this Heathen, that he would have his Posterity to be reckoned as he was, though his Religion was Devilish.
If then the Children of Jews, Turks, Pa∣gans be reckoned with the Parents, why must not the Children of Believers in Christ be reckoned Disciples of Christ with their Parents.
The Reader I suppose will pardon me, Page 95though I make a little Digression: The Wars between the Indians and the English in New-England, I suppose must have heard. This Philip the Son of Massasoit, before-mentioned, was he that began the Wars with the English, 1675. which lasted till 1677. The English when they saw Massa∣soit stand so upon that Article, then said, That God would root out the Posterity of that Massasoit; and so now it is come to pass.
That Story which my worthy Friend Mr. William Hubbard gives us of Passalo∣naway, [the most noted Paneaw or Sor∣cerer; and I believe the oldest man in the Country. When I saw him, he was reck∣oned one of the oldest men of the Indians, but I perceived by the time of his dying, he lived about thirty years after] is wor∣thy the observing. About Merimach Ri∣ver, Anno 1660, several Sagamoors meet∣ing together, there was a great Dance: These Solemnities, are the Times when the most Ancient tell Stories, and transmit them to their Posterity. Passalonaway be∣ing present made his last Speech, and took his Farewel: thus,
