to baptize their Infants but contrarywise he therefore gave them commission to baptize the Infants of such For the Parents being taught and sealed entituled their children to the Seal of the same Promise and Covenant of God which is joyntly to sealed Parents and their Children Gen. 17. 7. and so Christ commanded them to teach those who were capable of doctrine and only to baptize them who were capable of Baptism only as Infants 2. Christ not repeating there an exact copy of his commission formerly given them at sundry times and on sundry occasions for there he mentioneth not any particular heads of doctrine or discipline nor so much as the Eucharist but to those things relateth in general verse 20. Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you whereof he nameth the two first and and most usual things Teaching and Baptizing for the making of Disciciples and gathering a Church of all Nations So that he nameth not here the matter or subject of baptism in particular but saith in general Baptizing them c. Teaching them to observe all c. Now although children cannot be first taught before they are baptized as such as their Parents might and ought to be yet might they be first baptized and in due time taught as Christ commanded And it is here to be noted That children of sealed Parents were called Disciples and so accounted in both Testaments See Acts 15. 10. Iohn 9. 28. We are Moses Disciples said the Jews Now the only thing which entred them into the School of Moses or denominated them Moses Disciples was their Circumcision in their infancy which obliged them coming to years to the observation of the whole Law Gal. 5. 3. delivered by Moses So Baptism of Infants doth not anticipate profession of Christianity but oblige unto it in due time and therefore is Baptism a sign that the baptised professeth himself a Disciple of Christ who appointed it as a mark and cognizance of his Disciples Baptism makes Infants Disciples in the first form of his School into which they are thereby entred though not actually for the present taught because they are not yet capable of Doctrine Yet so is fulfilled in Infants-Baptism that same 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Christs commission Mat. 28. 19. Make Disciples baptizing them c. and children of Believers are counted Disciples Acts 15. 10. Why tempt ye God to put a yoke upon the neck of the DISCIPLES What yoke Why Circumcision as appears Verse 1. Now those upon whom the false Teachers would have laid this yoke are called by the Apostle DISCIPLES and that yoke of Circumcision was put upon children most commonly in respect of whom the Proselytes were very few And there is no great doubt but that those false Masters who would have grown Disciples circumcised as much at least urged that their children should be circumcised therefore Infants were accounted Disciples And I see not but that Christ spake of Infants Matth. 10. 42. as well as others Whosoever shall give to drink unto one of these little ones in the name of a DISCIPLE that is as is interpreted Mark 9. 41. because ye belong to Christ as do baptized Infants and so Matth. 18. 5. Whoso shall receive one such little child in my name receiveth me that is a childe which is a Christian Nor do the following words v. 6. Whoso shall offend one of these little ones which as our common translation hath it believe in me conclude that he spake there only of such as were little in their own eyes that is humble as 1 Sam. 15. 17. though of years or of such children as were of years to believe for the words may as wel be translated One of these little ones of those that believe in me or of believers in me that is any infant of a Believer or Chrstian 3. Christ Matth 28. 19 20. spake concerning the plantation of Christian Faith and Conversion of nations in which work preaching must go before Baptism So was it in the beginning and so must we do now if we were sent to convert Turks Pagans or Iews but where the Gospel is planted and believing Parents are received into the Church by baptism their children are first to be baptized and afterwards taught so soon as they are able to learn So that the cited place can conclude no more then that administration of baptism began first on the Parents that received the word and were made disciples by baptism and so it descended to their children So was it in circumcision 4 Children are to be taught when they are capable concludeth nothing against their present baptizing of which they are passively capable one affirmative excludeth not another thereto subordinate nor do affirmative precepts which bind alwayes bind to all and every particular time as negatives do teaching them therefore concludeth not a present teaching the baptized but a duty of teaching them as they became capable of being taught 5 The particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 relateth to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in general and indefinitely though it agree not Grammatically with it for Christ saith 〈◊〉 baptize some or only those who are taught in deed such a determination of the subject would have excluded Infants as such from baptism but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 baptizing them that is men women and children of believers and baptized Parents of all Nations it is not now as when Religion was as it were shut up in Iudea now the stop of the partition wall is broken down now Christ will have all Nations come and be sealed into the Covenant of his free grace and mercie and this Enallagie or change of Gender is often found in Scripture as Rev. 2. 26 27. Rev. 19. 15. Act. 15. 17. Act. 26. 17. Act. 21. 25. Eph. 2. 11. So here he saith collectively teach or disciple 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and distributively 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 baptizing them one by one of what Nation soever they are So Mat. 25. 32. before him shall be gathered 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all Nations and he shall separate them one from another some on the right hand and some on the left but all by particulars must be distributed without exception of any person age or condition otherwise it might seem that some Nations should be gathered to judgment and not some others which cannot be because God is impartially just If the children of Israel had only a ceremonial holiness then the pretence from circumcision to baptism of Infants is invalid but the children of Israel had only a ceremonial holiness ergo c. The minor being denyed was thus attempted to be proved If the Covenant Gen. 17. 7. c. was only for the land of Canaan then the Israelites had only a ceremonial holiness but the Covenant Gen. 17. 7. c. was only for the land of Canaan ergo c. We answer 1 If by ceremonial you mean federal holiness as appertaining by Gods
the covenant of grace But God hath given the inward operation of his H. Spirit to Infants Ier. 1. 5. Luk. 1. 15. 1 Câ—r 7. 14 therefore no man may forbid water or the outward administration for the baptism of Infants The reason of the major is that all they who are partakers of the grace both signified exhibited in baptism have right to the sign and sacrament thereof and therefore may not be barred from it for that were to withstand God Act. 11. 17. In reason where God hath bestowed the grace signified man may not deny the signifying element and in common right the apparent heirs are unjustly denied the deeds and evidences whereby that right is assured upon them for these are a part of their inheritance and ought by right to follow the same moreover 't is impious to divide that which God hath join'd the sign from the thing signified as they do who allow children grace remission of sins and salvation by Christ and yet deny them baptism into Christ they will yeild them the Jewels but not the Cabinet the Treasure but not the Purse 6 All that are capable of the initiatorie seal of future faith ought to be baptized but Infants are capable thereof therfore they ought to be baptized So under the law Infants were capable of circumcision the seal of their future faith our Infants have no less capacitie thereof then they had 7 All they to whom Gods covenant of Grace extends are to receive the initiatory seal thereof for sealing of the covenant respectively is a part thereof Gen. 17. 10 11. Mark 16. 16. but Gods covenant of Grace in Christ extends to Infants of covenanted persons therefore Infants ought to receive the initiatory seal of the covenant which is baptism The assumption is proved from Act. 2. 38 39. Be baptized evâ—ry one of you for the remission of sins for the promise is unto you and to your children What promise that upon which the Covenant was sealed to Abraham and his seed the faithful and when where or how have Infants of Christians forfeited their right to the seal who as such cannot forfeit 8 If circumcision and baptism were for substance both respective seals of the same covenant of God in Christ then those sorts of men who were capable of the one are capable of the other but circumâ—ision and baptism were for substance both respective seals of the same covenant of God in Christ therefore those sorts of men to wit Infants as well as persons of years who were capable of circumcision are capable of baptism The major may appear in that God never made any covenant of grace but only in Christ and the same Gospel was preached to Abraham and he believed in the same Christ Gal. 3. 8. add hereto there is the same efficient primary cause to wit God making a covenant with his and appointing the respective seals thereof the same necessity on the receivers part original sin in Infants who have therefore as much need of regeneration and admission into the covenant of â—od for remedy as they had under the law and there is the same power and efficacie of the holy Ghost still remaining otherwise Gods grace in the New Testament and covenant in Christ exhibited should be more restrained and of less latitude then it was in the Old under that severe Schoolmaster the Law and which were impious to affirm then Christs coming into the world should be so much disvantageous to believers as that the Gospel should take away the seal of Gods covenant of grace from our children which the Law allowed them under the severity therof No part or condition of the covenant by God appointed for remission of sins and salvation may be withheld by man from those who have right to the covenant and promise of God under severe punishment but the initiatory Sacrament Baptism now is a part or condition of the covenant by God appointed for remission of sins and salvation whereto Infants have right therefore it may not be withheld from such Infants as are within the covenant and have right thereto and to the promise of God See Exod. 4. Luk. 3. 3. Act. 2. 38 39. Tit. 3. 5. now the initiatorie seal of the covenant was and is a part or condition of the same Gen. 17. 10 11. Mark 16. 16. Ioh. 3. 5. 10 All they whom God accounteth holy have a capacity of baptism the seal thereof but God accounteth children of believing parents holy 1 Cor. 7. 14. Therefore children of believing parents have a capacitie of baptism nor doth that ridiculous interpretation which Anabaptists have borrowed of the Jesuites concerning legitimacie overthrow this argument 11 All those who being redeemed by Christ have right to the kingdom of heaven have right to the ordinary Port and Inlet into the same that is baptism but children of believers have right to the kingdom of heaven Mark 10. 14. Mat. 19. 13. therefore children of believers have right to baptism Christ expresseth the entrance or means to regeneration and the kingdom of heaven Ioh. 3. 5. to wit water of baptism by which the H. Ghost doth ordinarily work thereto and presently gives the reason that which is born of the flesh is flesh that as such cannot enter into the kingdom of God 1 Cor. 15. 50. now Infants are from their natural birth but flesh and blood Ps. 51. 7. Eph. 2. 3. therefore if they must enter into the kingdom of God they must be born again of water and the H. Ghost it is true that God can and doth regenerate many Infants without baptism by his H. Spirit 〈◊〉 that they dying without the Sacrament are yet saved in an extraordinary way but for us to deny them baptism and to put their salvation upon extraordinary means where God hath appointed and declared the ordinary is as much as man can do to shut them from the kingdom of heaven and so though their want of baptism shall not be their eternal loss whom God hath elected yet is it their great sin who neglect or despise the ordinance of God and thereby except in case of repentance they shall exclude themselves 12 Whatsoever Christ commanded Ministers to do and which the Apostles in the ordinary office of Ministers did do that is right and just to be done and we ought to do but Christ commanded Ministers to baptize all nations without exception of children and that the Apostles did do for above all contradiction they obeyed Christ therein therefore it is right and just to baptize Infants as being a great part of all nations and we ought to do it 13 That which agreeth with the nature of the seal of the righteousness of faith and the institution of Christ ought to be done but Infant-baptism agreeth with these therefore it ought to be done it agreeth with the institution of Christ who commanding to baptize all nations well knew that there were many Infants therein yet makes no exception of them
left arbitrary and falling under the Rule of Decency and Order which yet are not Will-worship Next we say That the substance and Institution of Gods worship must have an express precept for it or it will fall under the notion of Will-worship but in the circumstances and accidents it is not alwayes so for example had not Christ somewhere commanded to baptize it had been Wil-worship for any man to have instituted that Sacrament but though Christ say nowhere baptize children at seven dayes six months seven years or though he say nowhere Baptize women yet neither of these are Will-worship because the substance and institution of Baptism is grounded on his express command age and sexe are accidents Lastly If the major proposition be particular the rule is well known Of meer particulars nothing is concluded 2 There was an express command for the sealing of Abrahams sons in their generations in their infancie Gen. 17. 7. c. and Believers are expresly the sons or children of Abraham Gal. 3. 7. that is his spiritual seed who have no less priviledge in things belonging to falvation then his carnal seed And the Apostles who were Jews and brought up amongst them who were sealed in their infancie did not that we read of so much as ask Christ any question what they were to do with Infants and Christ giving them no prohibition concerning them he did thereby sufficiently intimate that he having not repealed the law of sealing Infants into his covenant would have them proceed according to the Analogie of the first seal of his covenant The greater doubt might possibly have been concerning baptizing of females who were not formerly sealed the doubt concerning the Gentiles sealing being removed by an express precept Baptize all Nations Mat. 28. 19. 3 On this very ground on which Anabaptists deny Infant-baptism the old Sadduces denyed the resurrection of the dead because they found it not expresly written in the books of Moses which only they received See what hath been answered to the Pleader near the end 4 Although we read not in terminis and so many words and syllables in holy Scripture Baptize Infants yet we read it in most firm and evident consequence if we but hold these three certain conclusions 1 That Children are conceived and born in sin the children of wrath 2 That God would not have them perish but rather be brought into the holy communion of Christ and his Church that they may be saved 3 That he hath appoinâ—ed no other external ordinary means to us known for Infants regeneration but baptism 5 If the matter must be put upon express words of Scripture let our Antagonists shew us where they are expresly forbidden to baptize Infants where is there any syllable express or probable for re-baptizing any where have they any express precept for dipping over head and ears where have they any express precept for their long prayers for baptizing women or administring the communion to them shew us any express precept for the change of the Sabbath That which we read not expresly mentioned in Scripture that the Apostles did that we may not do but we read not in express words in Scripture that the Apostles ever baptized Infants therefore we may not baptize them We answer 1 If your principle were true it might thence be concluded that the Lords Supper may not be administred to women for we no where read in express words that the Apostles ever administred it unto them 2 Express words in Scripture are not alwayes necessary to prove a thing which necessary consequence doth conclude we have no express words in Scripture naming an holy Vnitie in Trinitie and Trinitie in Vnitie most undeniable consequence we have Mat. 28. 19 1 Ioh. 5. 7. Again we have no express word that the Apostles were baptized for Christ himself baptized none Ioh. 4. 1. c. and we read not where or when Iohn Baptist baptized them yet certainly they were baptized we read not expresly that the Apostles in baptizing mentioned the Father the Son and the holy Ghost but most certain consequence concludeth it because Christ so appointed it and it was of the essence of the Sacrament and why should we more tie the baptism of Infants to express words then any of these fundamental things are tyed and on the like consequential grounds why should we doubt whether the Apostles did indeed usually baptize Infants of Christians because it is not expresly written seeing that many other words matters and actions of the Apostles and Christ himself were not written 3 Christ expresly commanded to baptize all Nations in no one syllable title or word therein excepting Infants who are and ever were a great and numerous part thereof and that which concerneth all alike concerneth every part thereof When Peter was asked what was needful to be done for the Iews prickt at heart Act. 2. 37 38. he said Repent and be baptized but Infants can neither actually repent nor contribute any thing towards their baptism therefore they ought not to be baptized And again Mat. 3 they confessed their sins and were baptized which Infants cannot do We answer 1 Forasmuch as Infants cannot actually as such repent or confess it concludeth that these things for the present concern not Infants for no impossibilitie is reasonably enjoined any but belong to persons of years or those who were not yet sealed into the communion of Christs Church and it is apparent that unto such Peter spake as far as his words concerned Infants is also express be baptized every one of you in the name of Iesus Christ for the remission of sins for the promise is to you and to your children What promise why that Gen. 177. To what children was that promise made what to those who had been children but were now of years to be taught believe and repent No but to those first who were to be sealed the eighth day after they were born who certainly could then no more actually believe or repent then can our Infants now therefore 't is plain to those who will understand that persons of years to be taught must first repent c. but Infants to whom the promise covenant or seal thereof jointly belongeth must be sealed as joint-covenanters with their Parents before they can actually believe or repent for why else after this exhortation to repentance and baptism doth he mention their children were they no wayes liable to this double precept repent and be baptized every one of you who they only who can actually for the present repent nay but Peter knew well that children of whom he spake could not do that by reason of their present want of the use of reason yet he knew they had need of remission of sins by Christ and that the promise of God was made to them without which 't were but vain for men to seal and as firmly concerned them as their enchurched parents and therefore he mentioned
although it be a Doctrine justly condemned by the most sort of Christians upon great grounds of Reason WE say That denying Baptism to Infants is justly condemned by all true Christians we cannot understand them to be such who renounce their Saviour Christ by a pretended Baptisme in their rebaptizing never warranted by preâ—â—pâ— or example in holy Scripture or those who by their Doctâ—â—◠〈◊〉 and make void their Baptisme by a kind of self-excommunication Again we say That to condemne the Doctrine of Anabaptâ—sts upon great grounds of Reason seems to lay too narrow a ground and possibly too unsound a foundation for our profession specially if we consider what is here said Sect. 10. Num. 2. concerning the pretended authority of Reason and following his guide so far as his Reason goes along with him Or which is all one he that follows his own Reason c. which guidance by Divine Revelation and I know not what other good means he meaneth he saith hath great advantages But to leave ambiguities of words and confusion of senses we affirm That the word of God is our ground and guide in matters of Faith and Religion which even the greatest pretenders to humane authority and undervaluers of holy Scriptures do acknowledge in their soberer fits and that the Spirit of God illuminateth the elect whom he calleth guideth and enableth to obedience against the dictates of carnall reason and the corrupt affections of flesh and blood If he mean any other Divine Revelation then that which is consonant to the known and invariable Rule of Gods word I know not what greater advantage Satan could desire for leading beguiled souls to hell blindfold then to find them following their own reason and putting their salvations upon pretended revelations our faith is on Gods truth not humane Reason which in this life is not so absolutely purged from the contagion of sin ignorance and error since the Apostles being furnished with infallibility of Spirit but that it is subject to some errors and therefore though we disclaim all blind obedience to man in acts of Religion yet we submit to God in believing every thing which he saith adoring his Truth which we cannot by any strength of humane Reason examine Moreover we say seeing that only may and can be the ground of our Faith which cannot erre or be false and seeing that we are built upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets Iesus Christ himself being the chief Corner-stone Ephes. 2. â—0 we cannot consent to be taken off from that infallible certainty and to be set upon the moveable and loose sand of onely Great grounds of Reason or any thing lesse known certain and infallible then the holy word of God which we know cannot deceive us It will neither be unpleasant nor unprofitable to draw a short Scheme of plea for each party the result of which possibly may be that though they be deceived yet they have so great excuse on their side c. Surely unpleasing to God it is to make sport with matters of so high concernment and to play with holy things for so this plea must be except you are in earnest for the Anabaptists or for â—ear or favour of men so to temporize as thereby to endanger as much as you can the Cause and Truth of Christ. And how it can be either pleasing to any good Christian which displeaseth God or profitable which causeth any to erre from the truth in pleading for that which you acknowledge to be a Doctrine justly condemned I confesse I understand not Possibly Ioash would here have replied to such a short Scheme of plea Will ye plead for Baal That their error is not impudent or vâ—â—cible To say an impudent error is but an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and impropriety of speech which in more exact expression I suppose you would render they are not impudent in defence of their error If so I onely appeale to experience As for that which you say They have so great excuse on their side that their error is not vincible seems a contradiction in the adject who believes any error to be invincible who believeth that Christ the Truth Iohn 14. 6. hath sufficiently delivered that heavenly light in the Gospel which though God permit it sometimes to be clowded shall shine clear and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it but it shall put to flight and overcome every darkness of error specially in things pernitious and about the foundation I say not to the sense of those whom God justly giveth over to strong delusions thaâ— they may perish who receive not the love of the truth that they might be saved but to the Goshen and Israel of God appointed to salvation How else should it be that our faith should be the Victory that overcometh the world except it be in the invincible truth and faith in him who hâ—th overcome the world Iohn 16. 33. For by World Christ here meaneth and comâ—reâ—enâ—eth leth all that which is contrary to the salvation of the Elect specially those falsehoods and errors which Satan by any means broacheth to corrupt and overthrow the true Faith See Heb. 11. 1 c. Mat. 16. 8. The Baptisme of Infants rests wholly on this Discourse If that were true your plea for Aâ—abaptists were lesse condemnable but the contrary will appeare in due place But whether they have originall sin or no Indeed the Pelagians an old Sect of Hereticks denied that Infants were born in originall sin And Celestius affirmed That Adams sin hurt onely himself but not mankind And others that Infants are born in the same state in which Adam was before his transgression But the holy Scripture plainly condemnes this Heresie See Iob 14. 4. Psalm 51. 5. Iohn 3. 5. 1 Cor. 15 50. Rom. 5. 12. 1 or 15. 22. Eph. 2. 3. So do all the Reformed Churches and Papists too vid. Bellar. l. 4. de amissione gratiae stat peccati Besides woful experience teaching us that children die demonstrateth that they brought that guilt into the world with them which subjected them to the sentence of death and participation of the punishment of Adams sin which could not be except they were partakers of his guilt because God is just That they have contracted the guilt of Adams sin you confesse pag 230. Num 16. Infants cannot by any act of their own promote the hope of their own salvation which men of reason and choyce may by acts of vertue and election Faith and hope of salvation are not of our selves but the gift of God Eph. â— 8. And what hope infants have or acts of reason how God applieth the merit of Christâ— to Infants who became an infant that he might also save them is a secret uâ—known to me and therefore I do neither anxiously enquire nor rashly determine That men of reason and choyce may promote their hope of salvation by acts
that iâ— might very well be given to children and yet baptism to men of reason This Argument is a childish caption We say that Baptism succeeded Circumcision in substance not in circumstance in the end and use as hath been said and whereof we shall say more anon To what purpose do you argue from the circumstance But you say Circumcision left a Character in the flesh which being imprinted upon Infants did it work upon them when they came to age We answer 1. That the word Character may be taken for any sign or note distinguishing one thing from another so Baptism may be also said to be a character distinguishing Christians from unbelievers not as an absolute quality but as a relative thing as â— tessera militaris by which God wil own his who fight under the Banner of Christ and by which the baptized have a comfortable assurance that they are marked for the children of God when they believe in Christ according as it is written In whom also after that ye beleeved ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise which is the earnest of our Iâ—heritance 2. Your instance importeth onely â— circumstantiall not a substantiall diffâ—rence Now the variety of signes vary not the thing signified It is the same Christ the same Faith under the Gospel and under the Law though the Sacraments by God appointed for the one and for the other were much different And the ends of Circumcision and Baptism are the same to implant us into Christs visible Church to be an in-let and door to the same to seal up the admitted to faith repentance mortification and newness of life which work is as truly done to the baptized Christian when he cometh to age as it was to the Israelite circumcised to wit to and in them that believed and repented to others the work was so farre from being done that tâ—at very seal of Gods Covenant which they bare in their flesh served for a witnesse against the soul of the â—ovenant-breaker to his greater condemnation and so it is proportionably with the baptized Apostate which may be a warning to your Clients to repent before it be too late You say again It is requisite that the persons baptized should be capable of Reason that they may be capable both of the word of the Sacrament and the impress made upon the Spirit We answer 1. This weakly follows from unsound premises was there no word added to Circumcision How doth that appear Was there not a word of Institution Genes 17. 10 11 12. Was not the reason of the Covenant declared to Abraham Did not he and others preach the same to all of age to be circumcised as Proselytes and to the circumcised infants when they came to age capable of Doctrine so doe we to the baptized but to persons of years we preach the Gospel first and then baptize them infants we baptize first and instruct them when they come to be capable 2. That it is requisite that the persons baptized should be capable of Reason that they may be capable both of the word c. We say 〈◊〉 also they mâ—st be capable of Reason either in act that they may presently understand tâ—ose things or in habit that they may afterward understand the same to what end else should we baptize infants or why were they circumcised into future faith repentance and newness of life We utterly dislike Popish baptizing of Bels Churches Altars c. 3. We say further That Covenants between man and man require that both parties expressly understand know the tenour substance and particulars of the same but in Covenants between God and his Creatures that Rule doth not universally hold for here God stipulateth and principally transacteth with the creature according tâ— that which he will have done or do in or by them So he established his Covenant with Noah and his seed after him and with every living creature the Fowle Cattell Beasts c. Gen. 9. 10. How much more rationally may â—e make covenant with infants though yet without the actuall use of reason Again sometimes such covenants are made between men as that the parent or parents covenant for or in stead of their children because they are not yet of age to understand the words and purport of the covenant and it standeth good How much rather may God covenant with an infant whose mouth and Advocate Christ Jesus said expressly Suffâ—r little children to come unto me and forbid them not for of such is the Kingdom of Heaven Mark 1â— 14 Luke 18. 16. I demand quo jure by what right is the Kingdom of Heaven theirs What by descent from naturall parents Nay but that which is born of the flesh is flesh John 3. 6. And flâ—sh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of God 1 Cor. 15. 50. It must therefore be by the free covenant of God with them out of which it can belong to none by right of any infant-innocency seeing all are conceived and born in sin the children of wrath but for the grace and covenant of God with them which they yet understand not yet is it valid and effâ—ctuall to their salvation as we may also understand in case of Circumcision in which the circumcised Child understood as little what was said or done as the baptized infant now doth and yet it was Gods covenant with them Gen. 17. 7 10 11 12. and effectual for them To conclude if you mean that it is requisite that none should be admitted to bapâ—ism but those that have the actuall use of reason that is men and women of years you beg the question of the Sacrament and the impress made upon the Spirit Concerning a Character or impress set upon the baptized the Schoolmen and Jesuits have moved sundry questions whether it be an absolute or relative quality which yet they say sticks fast upon them also that are in hell Whether it be an â—ns rationis or a relatio realis Whether a quality action or passion And if a quality of what kind it is Whether the subject thereof be the soul or some active or passive faculty thereof Whether it be a figure or form Whether the Sacraments of the old Testament made the like impress c. In all which and the like vain speculations we may not unprofitably note the just judgment of God giving them over to unfruitfull delusions who forsaking the true and constant light of his holy word give themselves over to follow the ignes fatuos of their own fancies I hope you are not of their sense though you mention this impress Concerning the seal of our implantation into Christ I have spoken a little before and onely add that we receive grace and the obsignation thereof but are not sensible of all untill we receive a greater measure that we might know the things that are freely given unto us of God Since therefore say you the reason of this parity does
consisteth in the will of believers yet the very Sacrament of that faith makes a baptized infant faithfull or a believer For as 't is answered that he believeth so is he called a believer not signifying that thing in the very mind but in respect of his receiving the Sacrament of that very thing to wit of believing and giving his name to Christ. But what unreasonableness acted with a worse circumstance is there for God-fathers thus answering All this I steadfastly believe wherein though possibly there may be untruth because the Sponsor doth not as he professeth steadfastly believe yet so may there also be when persons of years answer for themselves that they believe seeing the lawfulness of baptizing infants is affirmed on condition of their parents believing and Church-priviledge which is often testified personally by the very parents Grand-fathers Grand-mothers and sometimes in defect or necessary absence of such by some fellow-believers testifying for them and the childs priviledg and baptism but your sensible account is that they speak false and ridiculously if you can bear the eccho of your own words we therein answer you yet for the sober readers sake we further answer after Augustin treating of the same argument Let no man whisper to you â—ther doctrines this the Church ever had ever held c. doubtless the custom is very ancient Histories tell us of it in the time of Higinâ—s who was coetaneous with Polycarp a disciple of S Iohns they lived under the reigne of Antoninus Pius about the year 140. some think it came into the Church from the custom of those who were Catechumenists who being examined before they were admitted to baptism concerning their faith and repentance were not only to answer in their own persons but to have sponsors as witnesses of their faith conversion and baptism It is not improbable which some here propose that As children were baptized when their Christian parents had formerly made confession so sureties confessed in relation to themselves that they might be fit to stand as a kind of parents c. Seeing therefore this custom is nothing repugnant to holy scripture neither hath in it any appearance of evil but rather of profit and edification though it be not of the essence of baptism but a ceremonial circumstance 't is foolish and impious to quarrel it and for it to break unity and disturb the peace of the Church But you say The infant is not capable of believing and if he were he were also capable of dissenting and how then do they know his mind If it be necessary to baptism that the baptizer know the mind of the person to be baptized how can you baptize men of years You will say they express their minds and so we baptize them I grant you may know their words their minds you cannot because they may dissemble If you say you are in charity to believe the best once more we say Be but as charitable towards infants of whom you can know no actual evil nor shew any just cause why you should suspect it for the future And I pray how could the Priest under the Law know the minds of children to be circumciâ—ed To conclude 't is nothing material whether we know the infants mind 't is behoofull that we know his priviledg as being born within the Church and Covenant of God which giveth him a sufficient right to the seals thereof But you say Tertullian gives advice that baptism of infants should be deferred till they could give account of their faith I answer 1. Tertullian speaking of deferring baptism lest they should rashly give it as to persons out of the Covenant or unbelievers instanceth specially children that is extraneorum non foederatorum as the learned Fra. Iunius interpreteth the same so that this concerneth not our present question which is of children of Christians 2. This shews then that the practice of infant-baptism was none of Augustins device as you charge him seeing it was in use in the time of Tertullian 3. But let us hear the rest of Tertullians advice was it only concerning the deferring infants baptism Let them come when they can learn when they are taught whither they come let them be made Christians when they shall be able to know Christ nay but presently he saith For no less cause the unmarried also are to be delayed in whom the tentation is prepared both in virgins by their maturity and widows by their going up and down untill they are either married or confirmed in constancy Will you follow Tertullians advice herein But what if they never marry must they never be baptized If not give us leave to decline it in the other or to take it in the sense he meaneth it as may appear in that he specifieth widows who being at that age are necessarily to be supposed either baptized after their first marriage or out of the Covenant And the same you say is also the Councel of Gregory Bishop of Nazianzum c. Gregory Nazianzen in his fortieth Oration which you cite in your margent saith Sow when the time of sowing is plant prune thy vine when the season is c. But at all times intend thy salvation and think that any time is seasonable or appointed for baptism among other ages of man be instanceth in Infancy Hast thou an Infant saith he let not wickedness take away the occasion let it be sanctified from its infancy let it be dedicated to the Spirit from it tender years fearest thou the seal in respect of the infirmity of Nature How poor a spirited mother art thou and of how little faith But Anna promised Samuel unto the Lord before he was born c. You say concerning Gr. Nazianzen that his reason taught him that which was fit true for he allowed Infant-baptsm yet he was over-born with the opinion of his Age c. So far also I consent as this relates to that they thought that Infants dying without Baptisme should neither he glorified nor punished That which you further say although he allowed them to hasten in case of necessity falleth under a double consideration First in respect of those times appointed for Baptism in the primitive Church to wit Easter and Whitsontide or Pentecost which he mentioneth But when he cometh to the question whether Infants should be baptized he answereth positively By all means if any danger urge and sheweth it from the Analogy between Circumcision and Baptism He taketh away the objection from the years at which Christ was baptized which was indeed to be deferred untill the fulness of time for the worlds redemption was come and that we are not to imitate all the actions of Christ. To that which you say Yet in another place he makes mention of some to whom Baptism was not administred 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by reason of Infancy we say you utterly mistake for Nazianzen in the same Oration speaking of delay in performance of that duty
Therefore the signing of Believers children with the sign of Gods Covenant which is Baptism is still in force 24. That which dependeth not on any age or act of man but on the meer institution and gracious promise of God as its ground may not be denyed by man to any comprehended under the general term of All Nations in respect of any age or defects thereof as want of understanding and the acts thereof in faith repentance c. in Infants But Baptism depended not on any age or act of man as its ground but on the meer institution and gracious promise of God therefore tought not by anyman be denied infants in respect of their present defect or want of understanding or the acts thereof in faith repentance c. they being comprehended in All Nations The minor appears in S. Peters answer to his hearers prickt in heart Repent and be baptized every one of you for the remission of sins For the Proâ—ise is unto you and unto your children c He saith not Be baptized for ye have repented ye are of age and a good understanding but Be baptized c. for the Promise is to you and to your children though they cannot yet actually believe repent understand c. yet they have Gods promise for the ground of their sealing on whose grace and ordinance the whole power and vertue of the sacrament dependeth But his grace and Ordinance depend not on any excellency ability or act of man therefore the Apostle fetched not the reason of his Exhortation from their â—ge or repentance but from the promise and mercy of God calling them who were far of 26. For conclusion I take up this congeriem of arguments out of the â—earned Vrâ—inus That opinion is pernicious which robs poor Infants of their right which obscureth the grace and mercy of God who would that Infants of Believers should from the womb be reckoned members of his Church which derogates from the grace offered in the new Coveâ—â—nt making it less then that in the old which weakneth the comfort of the Church and faithâ—â—l Parents which denyeth Iâ—fants that seal which should differ them from the children â—f Ieâ—s and Pagans which 〈◊〉 the Apostles reason Can any man forbid water that these should not 〈◊〉 baptiptized which have received the holy Ghost aswell as we which keepeth Infants as much as man can from Christ he expresly saying Suffer little children to come unto me which without a Covenant they cannot do spiritually nor without the external seal sacramentally Now such is the opinion of Anabaptists denying Christians Infants Baptism CHAP. IV. Anabaptists Arguments concerning the necessity of Dipping over head and ears in Baptism examined and answered THe envious Philistims will still be casting earth into Isaacs wells of livings waters to stop them up Satan envying man these waters of life in the Laver of Regeneration eftsoon casteth in scruples to obstruct and make void the holy ordinances of God to deluded souls by causing them to renounce their Baptism and Christ whom they sacramentally had put on therein by taking on them another Baptism under a vain pretence that they were not susceptive of Baptism in their infancy nor lawfully baptized neither at all truly if happily they were not dipped under water for they say the institution of Christ requireth that the whole man be dipped all over in water so that the Anabaptists now hold that dipping the whole body into water is essential to baptism so necessary that except they are so dipt they are not duly and truly baptized according to the institution of Christ. Since the infancy of the Gospel Satan hath not ceased to trouble the Church concerning baptism Some of the Jews would have circumcision joyned with baptism the Archontici condemned baptism with a curse the Novatians deferred it to the last because they understood not the power of this ordinance of God to cleanse the whole life but thought that there was no mercy for him who sinned after baptism Liberius the Monk as also Fidus would have childrens Baptism tyed to the eighth day Anabaptists not only deny believers children Baptism as the Pelagians and Donatists did of old but affirm That dipping the whole body under water is so necessary that without it none are truly baptized as hath been said So the subtil enemy still assaileth Baptism in one part or another that we may not unaptly apply that to him his factors which Tertullian once said concerning the most impious Persecutor Nero He that knows him well may understand that nothing but some great or singular good thing is condemned by Nero And indeed we ought more highly to esteem Gods favor in sealing us into his Covenant of grace and more seriously and carefully endeavour to answer thereto in newness and sanctity of living by how much more the enemy regeth against it The Protestant Church holdeth that the word and the element make the Sacrament and that neither sprinkling is simply necessary nor washing or dipping unlawful but that according to the convenience of times places and persons either sprinkling washing or dipping in the name of the Father the Son and the Holy Ghost is the true form of Baptism and that caeteris paribus either of these three applications of the water have the same effect and may as convenience serves indifferently be used being fit to signifie the application of the benefit of Christs blood for the remission of sin and cleansing therefrom But our Antagonists say We are buried with Christ by baptism into his death that like as Christ was raised up from the dead even so we also should walk in newness of life Rom. 6. 4. But Christ in his burial was covered that he might thence rise out of the earth therâ—fore in Baptism we must be covered and as it were buried under water that we may rise again as Christ did We answer 1. Similitudes run not on four feet types signs and similitudes are not to be extended beyond the scope and meaning of the Speaker as might be shewed in almost innumerable instances lest not only absurdities but horrid blasphemies should be thence inferred The Ark in the Deluge was a type of Baptism 1 Pet. 3 20 21. what must the type and truth agree in all things must all the world be drown'd and only eight persons saved I doubt you would hardly agree among your â—elves which should be the eight The red-sea and cloud figured baptism 1 Cor. 10. 1 c. what would you have your disciples baptized with the sprie of two neighboring seas and a cloud of fresh water raining on their heads Ionah's being in the Whales belly was a type of Christs burial and resurrection you would not have your disciples in their conformity be three days under water These instances may shew the vanity of stretching types and signs to every fancy of Hectic braines and now deal ingenuously what reason or