wholly fail there is nothing left to inferre a necessity of complying in this circumstance of age any more then in the other annexes of the type It wholly holds in substance for ought you have said to the contrary and therefore your following instances are frivolous As concerning baptizing the eighth day we answer 1. That whereas God appointed no set day for baptism we have the greater liberty to do it at the most convenient season on the first second third fourth c. or on any day so that we neither contemn Gods ordinance nor unnecessarily delay it 2. As hath been noted baptism sucâ—â—eded circumâ—ision not in every circumstance but in the thing signified in the end and use 3. This your argument is a fallacious and childish caption à fallacia accidentis from the subject to the accident from the substance to the circumstance as the learned Dr. Featly observeth such a fallacy is this What the Jews were commâ—nded in the fourth Commandement that we Christians are bound to perform But the Jews were commanded to keep holy the seventh day from the creation Therefore we Christians are bound to keep that day Such is this Paralogism If Baptisme succeeded Circumcision then children ought to be baptized the eight day it no more followeth then that children ought to be baptized in the same part where thâ—y were circumcised it will follow rather That because Circumcision was administred to the infant as soon as it was capable thereof or could receive the Sacrament without danger therefore children ought to be baptized as soon as conveniently they may But you say The case is clear in the Bishops question to Cyprian for why shall not infants be baptized just upon the eighth day as well as circumcised If the correspondence of the Rites be an Argument to inferre one circumstance which is impertinent and accidentall to the mysteriousnesse of the Rite why shall it not inferre all The case is as clear in the Question of Fidus the Presbyter whom you call Bishop as it is in your objecting it Fidus made a querie or rather affirmed that Infants ought not to be baptized on the second or third day but that the law of ancient circumcision ought to be considered so that he thought the newâ— born infant might not be baptized within â—r before the eigâ—â—h day Cyprian answereth There is one eâ—uality of the Divine gift to all whether they are inâ—ants or old men for as God is no accepter of persons so neither is he of ages buâ— he shews himself in an even-ballanced equality alike to â—ll as to their attaining heavenly grace if to grievous offenders and to those who have before that much sinned against God and no man is prohibited baptism and grace how much less ought the infant to be prohibited who being new-born hath committed no sin onely that in Adam He hath in his first nativity been infected with the contagion of ancient death But concerning the cause of infants who you say are not to be baptized at two or three dayes old and that we are to consider the law of ancient circumcision so that yâ—u think that a child born may not be baptized before the eighth day all that were in our Councell are of a far different judgment for no man consenteth to that which you thought was to be done but we all rather judged that the merâ—y and grace of God is to be deâ—ed â—o no man born Let the Reader judge bow clear the case is in the Bishops question to Cypriâ—n To the rest of your Arguments we say you dispute ex non concessis We do not say that â—â—e correspondence of Rites inferre the circumstances but the substanceâ— but errors are fruitfull and one absurdity granteâ— many easily follow For that you say from your own fancy which you run away withall And then also fâ—mâ—les must not be baptized because they were not ciâ—cumcised We answer 1. As we have said before baptism succeeded circumcision not in every circumstance which your selves justiâ—ie in that you baptize women but in the substance the thing signified the end and use or as others say in the inward mystery in the promises in use in effects 2. God expressly â—estrained circumcision to males Gen. 17. 10 1â— 14. yâ—t the females were comprehended in the males and to be born of circumcised parents was to them in 〈◊〉 of circumcision and so were they born to God and in his account Daughters of Abraham Luke 13. 16. and so within his covenant of grace and mercy and the sealing of males was then limited to the eighth day but now in baptism the circumstances of sex age and a fixed day are not expressly mentioned but we have a generall commandement to baptize all without exception to any time sex or age 3. Though women were not capable of circumcision and therefore it was not enjoyned them yet the female is as capable of baptism as the male and therefore without exception to sex they who are all one in Christs account must equally be baptized into him 4. Circumcision and Baptism agreeing in substance did yet differ in many circumstances First in the Rite or Ceremony Secondly in the manner of signifying For Circumcision held out grace in the Messias then to come but baptism presenteth it in Christ exhibited Thirdly in the particular testimony annexed to make good the promise for then God promised not onely a covenant with his Church but a pâ—culiar place for the same the land of Caâ—aan untill the coming of the promised Seed but baptism hath no particular promise of this or that fixed place Fourthly in the manner of binding Circumcision did oblige the circumcised to the observation of the whole Law Morall Ceremoniall and Judiciall but baptism bindeth us onely to the observation of the Morall â—aw that is faith repentance and newness of life according to the holy Rule of Gods will revealed in the Moral Law from the curse whereof in respect of non-performance we are delivered in Christ into whom we are baptized Fifthly in their appointed continuance Circumcision was appointed onely for Abrahams posterity and to continue onely unto the coming of Christ but baptism was instituted for all Nations and times unto the worlds end Lastly in circumstance of sex and age so far as circumcision was limited to males and the eighth day So that to argue as you do from the substance to the circumstance or that which is accidentall is fallacious and captious as hath been shewed You say Therefore as Infants were circumcised so spirituall Infants shall be baptized c. This you think a right understanding of the business after your shuâ—â—ling together many strange impertinencies to tell us of baptizing spirituall Infants To which we answer If you mean by Spirituall Infants such as are born again of water and the holy Ghost then you would have them twice regenerate or born If you mean Believers onely
profit was there of circumcision the Apostle saith much every way and what is the advantage of the believing Christians child and Gods covenant with them what no more then of Turkes and Iewes where is then that promise I will be a God unto thee and thy seed interpreted by S. Peter the promise is to you and your children and to as many as the Lord our God shall call what is it of force only to men and women of yeares where 's the infants part where is his priviledge of federall holynesse as being borne of believing parents What must they be interessed onely when they come to that act of which by nature they have the faculty That is the act of understanding â—aith and repentance In those acts the persons and children of Turks and Iews have a right in the same promises you cannot exclude any person from baptism who believes in Christ repenteth and desireth baptism at your hands Thus you make the promise of God concerning the children of the faithfull of no effect by your tradition and vain opinion But to amend this you say Baptism is not the means of conveying the holy Ghost I suppose you mean the ordinary gifts and graces of the holy Ghost as faith love hope sanctity c. if not there may be a double fallacy in your assertion First in the term conveying and next in the term holy Ghost both whiâ—h may be homonymically intended and then your discourse is meerly captious and to discover it is a sufficient answer and indeed by your following words God by that miracle did give testimony c. it seems you mean that baptism is not now the ordinary means of conveying the holy Ghost that is the gift of miracles unto the baptized if so here is both an homonymia and an ignoratio elenchi Your reason being reducd to a Syllogisme you might take these words the holy Ghost for the ordinary gifts and graces of God necessary to salvation in the one proposition and for the extraordinary in the other and so the question were mistaken which is not whether baptism be an ordinary means of conveying the extraordinary gifts of the holy Ghost into the baptized as speaking divers unstudied languages curing the sick raising the dead casting out devils c. which we affirm not but whether baptism as the word preached be not the external ordinary means by God appointed to seal us up to a lively hope in Christ to beget faith and to engage us to repentance and newness of life to which all that you here triâ—le concerning imposition of hands and insinuation of rite to confirmation is nothing to purpose neither is the case of Cornelius and Peters argument thereon any waies advantagious to you for you confess it a miracle and how then is it pertinent to our present question You say that God by that miracle did give testimony that the persons of the men were in great disposition to heaven and therefore were to be admitted to those rites which are the ordinary inlets into the kingdom of heaven I then demand if that argument be good Are not children of believing parents to be admitted to those rites which are the ordinary inlets into the kingdom of heaven seeing they are also in great disposition to heaven whom Christ blessed and proposed for paterns to all that shall enter therein But we answer 1. That the great disposition which you talk of was not so much the gift of miracles as the persons inward baptism by the spirit of regeneration and sanctification for the gift of miracles is not of it self any certain argument of salvation see Matth. 7. 22 23. but this was a sufficient warrant to Peter to baptize them as being marked out thereby for the visible Church at least into which elect and reprobate may come 2. To the main we answer That as by delivering a key putting in possession of an house is not only signified but also livery and seisâ— the conveyance and chirogrophum are passed confirmed and actually made sure So in baptism by water the washing which is wrought by the blood of Christ is not only figured but also at last fulfilled in the elect by Christ. 3. In a right use of the Sacraments the things therby signified are ever held out and convey'd together with the signes which are neither fallacious empty nor void of a due effect or without the thing represented because they are of God who cannot deceive and is able to give the effect if the receiver do not ponere obicem therefore the Sacraments are rightly called the Channels or Conduits of grace that is the ordinary means to convey the graces of God into the receivers 4. God confirms his mercies to us by the Sacraments wherein the Minister by Gods own deputation beareth his person or place in the Church as well as in preaching the word so that what they doe who are his Ministers by his appointment he doth both in respect of the institution and effect So the Lord is said to have anointed Saul whereas Samuel anointed him so Jesus made and baptized more disciple then Iohn whereas Iesus baptized not but his disciples by his assignement Therefore although these signes neither convey grace nor confirm any thing to them for good who keep not the Covenant for God made no promise to them yet are they means to convey the graces of God to those that do To conclude we affirm not that baptism conveyeth Gods grace to all that are baptized but to the elect only as that whereof he hath made a peculiar promise to them and that so certain as are those things which God himself sealeth covenanteth for and testifieth in heaven and earth as 't is written There are three that bear record in heaven the father the word and the holy Ghost and there are three that bear witness in earth the spirit and the water and the blood Now if we receive the witness of men the witness of God is greater Under the mouth of two or three witnesses every word must be confirmed and taken for sure how much more when we have by Gods blessing the same witnesses of our faith who are also the promisers workers and sureties of our salvation But from thence you say to argue that wherever there is a capacity of receivinig the same grace there also the same signe 〈◊〉 to be ministred and from thence to infer poedo-baptism is an argument very fallacious c. Quis tulerit Gracchos your dispute is fallacious upon your grounds on which we go not and so all your impertinent superstruction here falleth together They that are capable of the same grace are not alwaies capable of the same signe for women under the law of Moses although they were capable of the righteousness of faith yet they were not capable of the signe of circumcision I would gladly be resolved quanta est illa propositio is your meaning Some of them
that are capable of the same grace are not alwaies capable of the signe thereof If so alta pax esto We say so too for infants being capable of the same grace which is exhibited and received in the Lords supper are not alwaies that is while they are children capable of the same signe because they cannot examin themselves nor shew forth the Lords death and women nâ—t only under the Law but now also have and ever will have for ought you can say thâ— same incapacity of circumcision what makes this to conclude childrens incapacity of baptism this is to argue à genere ad genus though women had not a capacity of that signe they have a capacity of baptism infants had then a right to that whereof they had a capacity let them have so still and the controversie is ended You further say The gift of the holy Ghost was ordinarily given by imposition of hands and that after baptism By this it appears that your foregoing argument was fallacious you intending the extraordinary gifts of the holy Ghost which we pretend not to and what is this dispute to us now or to the present question seeing they are long since ceased But beware your lying too near a wind and mentioning crisme or confirmation and sanctifying the holy Apostles displease not your clyents and you be taken for an aâ—bodexter But you say After all this lest these arguments should not ascertain their cause they fall on complaing against God c. Tell true and shame the devil where to whom when which of all the reformed Churches ever did so We clearly affirm that God is ever and alike to be believed whether by signes or by words which signifie his will we say not that Goâ—â—id more for the children of the Iews but that your peevishness denying children baptism would have it seem so Do we then complain against God when we complain of the Anabaptists abridging children of that which God hath allowed them How vain and malitious is this calumny of yours But you say He made a covenant of spiritual promises on his part and â—piritual and reall services on ours What are these real services and whose if of children what can they as such perform but you say this pertains 〈…〉 when they are capable but made with them assoon as they are alive that is in the mothers womb what this this covenant so the words seem to import nay but undeniably Gods covenan and spiritual promises on his part presently belong to them who shall be saved for many of them presently die or mean you by this spiritual and real services on our part belong to children when they are capable Surely then they cannot have this covenant made with them as soon as they are born otherwise then by baptism because for the present they can perform nothing real If you mean spiritual and real services of parents in relation to their covenanted infants as such they cannot yet teach them they can only present them to the Church that the publick seal of Gods covenant being set to them they may according to their true interest in her external communion be thereby marked and known for parts and members of the sameâ— and this indeed pertaineth to children when they are capable that is as soon as they are born That which you infer to shew a disparity between Christian infants and the Iews babes is frivolous for thoug there appear some shew of difference in circumstance as the particular promise of the inheritance of Canaan c. yet for substance there is none there being as real a promise of blessings to Christians and their children in every kind for godliness hath the promise of this life and that which is to come and the present seal of faith marketh them for Gods peculiar people the effect whereof being wrought and perfected by the spirit of Iesus in their regeneration the woâ—â— is done in them and no otherwise was it in the Iews children for he is not a Iew which is one outwardly neither is that circumcision which is outward in the flesh but circumcision is that of the heart in the spirit Rom. 2. 2â— 29. Col 2. 11. 12. and the Iewish children were no otherwise sealed then into the same faith of Iesus nor otherwise saved then by faith in him neither less saved then we and our childâ—en This say you is the greatest vanity in the world What vanity you say to affirm that unless this mercy be consigned by baptism as good not at all in respect of us because we want the comfort of it This is the vanity well let it be so and let them own it that will I known not whom you mean I am sure there appears vanity enough in your following assertion and reason offered for proof Shall not say you this promise this word of God be of sufficient truth certainty and efficacy to cause comfort unless we tempt God and require a signe of him Yes Gods promise is of sufficient truth and certaine efficacy thereto therefore we baptize our children and it had been sufficient on Gods part and it must have been on ours had he not seen good further to confirm us by a seal set to his promise or had he not required more of us as our duty and a condition and seal of his covenant with us our children for as Augustine saith how much available even without the visible Sacrament of baptisme is that which the Apostle saith Rom. 10. 10. with the heart man believeth unto righteousnesse and with the mouth Confession is made unto salvation was declared in the penitent thiefe but then it is invisibly fulfilled when not any contempt of religion but a point or moment of necessity excludeth or preventeth baptisme for it might have seem'd much more superfluous in Cornelius and his friends to be baptized who had already received the gift of the holy Ghost then in the thiefe yet they were baptized and in that act the Apostolicall authority is extant as also the necessity of obeying God in his ordinance now how childish and perverse is that cavill unlesse we tempt God and require a signe of him Do you account obedience to God and his holy ordinances to be a tempting of God is bringing children to Christ which he commandeth and that by baptisme which you confesse is the ordinary inlet into the kingdome of heaven to require a signe of him or is it to receive a signe of him by his own appointment and what certainity of comfort could we concieve if on the contrary we should wilfully disobey neglect and contemn Gods ordinance as your clients do were it not rather to tempt God if as much as in us lies we should shut up the doore and inlet into his kingdome against infants man can do no more to shut them out then by denying them baptisme 't is true that God can and often doth save them without our ministry as when death
are to be excused from it we have answered in the â—oregoing paragraph if you mean from administration of infant baptism we deny your assertion and expect proof The second device you say was of Calvin and his You said before that some said infants have imputative faith and by the number you now attribute it to Calvin indeed Mr. Calvin saith as I have noted That infants are baptized into future repentance and faith which although they be not yet formed in them yet by the secret operation of the spirit the seed of either lieth hid in them and in the same chapter he saith as Paul there reasoneth That the Iews are sanctified of their parents so in another place he teacheth That the children of Christians receive the same sanctification of their fathers Also in the same chapter he saith not that I mean rashly to affirm that they be indued with the same faith which we feel in our selves or that they have at all knowledg of faith which I had rather leave in suspence c. but concerning imputative faith I find neither device nor approbation of Calvins Why did you not rather say that this device was P. Lombards who mentioneth the Imputative faith you speak of or some of the following Schoolmen Or Polydor Virgil who in his fourth book concerning the Inventors of these things cleareth Calvin from this invention saying Seeing infants by reason of their age cannot testifie their own faith as Cyprian saith it was providedâ— from the beginning that they should profess their faith by oâ—hers that aâ— anothers fault to wit Adam â—ur first parents sin was evil to them in so much that from their birth they were subject to originall sin so others endeavour might be good to them who therefore as Ambrose saith in his second book concerning the calling of the Gentiles believe and are baptized by anothers confession Or why do you not rather lay the invention hereof to Iustin Martyr who living long before any of these saith They are made worthy of the good things of Baptism by their faith who present them to be baptized The Reader may hence gather how little Calvin said for imputative faith and if he had affirmed any such thing yet how untrue it is that Calvin or any of his invented it But the pleader saith further Can an infant sent into a Mahumetan Province be more confident for Christianity when he comes to be a man then if he had not been baptized Pag. 241. Yes caeteris paribus for though the Sacraments work not the same effect in all receivers yet Gods holy Spirit deserteth not his ordinance in the elect though for causes ever just though most unknown to us it doth not always alike shew its power in the recipient It is true that the seal and ministration of man can nothing profit where God giveth not the inward Baptism by his holy Spirit though the inward may save without the outward as hath been noted but your supposition being rightly laid concerning an elect infant baptized and so carried away you must grant that God whose election can by no means be defeated or made voyd will give and make effectuall the means to the end that is salvation whether by acquainting the party baptized with his will declared in his word preached to him or by his secret work within him if he will take him away in infancy in the adult coming to the knowledg of Gods covenant in Christ and of his own sealing in infancy it must make him more confident of his implantation into Christ then if he knew that he never had been baptized What then Must this be by vertue of baptism by water onely or the externall ministration thereof No but by the power of Gods Spirit working on his ordinance and accomplishing his own decrees do we follow your supposition dividing preaching of the word to such when they come to years from the precedent seal Truly such a strange invention were absolutely without Art without Scripture reason or authority I would say as is your argument here alledged against infant-baptism but that you call it Demonstrative and Vnanswerable but consider how to overcome before you cry victory To answer your supposition suppose that an infant were not by any habituall faith so much as disposed to any actuall belief without a new master what could this conclude more then that it is necessary to the actuall faith of an infant come to fit years that he be taught the doctrine of faith repentance c. which we constantly affirm what makes this against infant-baptism We unanimously confess and solemnly profess that the infant so soon as it shall be able to learn ought to be and shall be taught the mysteries of eternall life and salvation by Christ so your demonstration proves but a poor fallacie you utterly mistaking or willingly dissembling the question We affirm not that the Word ought to be divided from the Sacrament whereof new-born infants are capable but that the word is to be preached to them they are to be instructed in all the Rudiments of Christian Religion so soon as they shal be able to learn I only add hereto what have you said in this your so much applauded argument against infant-baptism which might not as reasonably and religiously have been urged against infant-circumcision Could they if sent into Painim-Countreys with all the terms of your supposition have been more disposed to an actual belief without a new Master yet they had and we have right to the seal of the righteousnesse of Faith not for any excellency or ability to produce any good and saving effect in our selves bâ—â— through the merits of our Saviour the free mercy of God and the right of our Fathers with whom God made his Covenant for their persons and posterity Next you say To which also this consideration may be added That if baptism be necessary to the salvation of infants upon whom is the imposition laid Concerning Baptism in generall 't is considerable which Tertullian saith The Lord himself who owed no repentance was baptized and was it not necessary to sinners his reason will reach possibly beyond his opinion to infants also except we should say with Pelagius that they are not sinners Further we say that Baptism the â—aver of regeneration is necessary to the salvation of infants yet in case of privation or impossibility they are saved by the peculiar and extraordinary goodness and providence of God So that the necessity of Baptism as hath been avowed is not absolute as if none could be saved without it but necessary on our part who are to obey the ordinance of God God is not tied to his ordinance but we are he can otherwise save but we cannot be saved in the contempt thereof God saith Tertullian hath bound faith to the necessity of Baptism therefore Cornelius and those that were with him after they were sanctified by the holy Ghost were yet baptized neither
of them to be baptised for the remission of sins he deriveth not the ground and reason thereof from their age nor from their repentance nor from their years of discretion but from the promise of God which was no lesse to their children in that very capacity then to themselves for the signe of the covenant Baptisme appertaineth to them also as being partakers of the common salvation in Christ Lastly how our infants have forfeited or lost the capacity which 't is most certaine the infants of Iewes had I know nor nor will the pleader ever make it appeare to us You say further But he that whenever the word children is used in Scripture shall by children understand infants must needs believe that in all Israel there were no men but all were infants and if that had been true it had been the greater wonder they should overcome the Anakims and beat the King of Moab and march so farre and discourse so well for they were all called the children of Israel We know the word children importeth not alwayes infants what then because it doth not in every place of Scripture signify infants therefore doth it not any where no not where infants are spoken of the promise before specified was to all Israel and their infants and unto them the seal of the covenant and promise appertained but because the men of wisdome and valour were included under the name of children were there no infants among them or doe you not take a child of eight dayes old when it was by Gods command and covenant to receive the seal to be an infant and why not now seeing the promise is as well and sure to us who though then farre off have now by the free mercy of God been called to the saving knowledge of the gospel for that promise of God to Abraham did not so belong to his seed according to the flesh as that it appertaines not unto us also for the Apostle clearly testifieth that it was not given to Abraham or his seed through the law but through the righteousnesse of faith and he was the father of all them that believe though they be not circumcised that righteousnesse might be imputed to them also and again he saith they which are of faith the same are the children of Abraham so Christ said that Zache converted to the same faith was that day the son of Abraham and indeed the eternall covenant which God made with Abraham's seed that he would be their God is not chiefly verified in his carnall seed for very few of them for some hundred years last past have been Gods people but rather professed enemies to those that are and therefore that covenant must be understood of Abraham's children according to that promise which is as sure and well to us who believe as ever it was to the Israelites and so we and our children are as justly to be reckoned children of Abraham and heirs of that promise as they ever were and if within the covenant and heires of the same promise what incapacity barreth our children from the same priviledges thereto subordinate and from the seal of admittance unto the same more then barred the carnall or naturall children of Abraham from the seal of the covenant which then was in use And for the allegation of S. Paul that infants are holy if their parents be faithfull it signifies nothing but that they are holy by designation just as Ieremy and Iohn Baptist were sanctified in their mothers womb that is they were appointed and designed for holy ministeries c. We answer whether you mean literally by holy ministries the office of priest or prophet or mystically a royall priesthood to offer up spirituall sacrifice acceptable to God by Iesus Christ that which you affirme will appeare very false for many of the children of believers are neither priests prophets nor so sanctified as to offer up spirituall sacrifice acceptable to God now the Apostle saith not else were some of your children unholy but now are they holy without exception of any so that his words being inâ—allibly true there must be some such holinesse there intended as universally concernes all that are born of believing parents which cannot be true in your sense of disignation to holy ministries nor in the other sense concerning sanctification by the spirit of adoption and regeneration peculiar to the elect of God nor is it to be understood as some think of a meer political cleannesse seeing that out of the Church also there is a difference between the legitimate and spurious children it must be understood therefore of a federall or ecclesiasticall holinesse to which reprobates if born of believing parents or at least of either parent being a belâ—ever and within the covenant may have right as well as the elect so had Ismael Esau and millions more as well as Isaack and Iacob by this federall or ecclesiasticall holinesse they have right unto the seal of initiation and admittance into the Church whereas they who are born of both parents without the Church are counted unclean that is Gods promise and the seal thereof appertaine not unto them neither may they be baptised untill growing up and being instructed they repent and embrace the faith of Christ and it is not improbable which some say that the form of the Apostles speaking seemeth derived from the Leviticall law in which it was ordained that some persons should for a time be barred as unclean from comming within the tents of Israel so the children of infidels are unclean and not presently to be admitted into the Church by baptism which is the doore and inlet thereto ever standing open to the clean and as under the law some beasts were clean and some unclean that is by a Leviticall or ceremonial cleanesse or uncleanesse for it was neither spirituall nor civill so the Apostle 1 Cor. 7. 14. understandeth an ecclesiâ—sticall holinesse that is a Church-priviledge to be admitted to baptisme so that indeed the Pleader weakly mistaketh when he concludeth that just so the children of Christian parents are sanctified that is designed to the service of Iesus Christ and the future participation of the promises but he saith further And as the promise appertaines not for ought appeares to infants in that capacity and consâ—stence but only by the title of their being reasonable creatures and when they come to that act of which by nature they have the faculty c. No colour or proportion can appeare to the blind or those who willfully shut their eyes nor any truth be it never so evident to them on whom is the curse Isai. 6. 9. 10. As for that you say concerning the title of their being reasonable creatures I referre the reader to that which hath been answered Numb 19. Onely adding here if the promise of God appertaine to infants onely as they are reasonable creatures what was the priviledge of the Iew or what