rejoined what ere they professe they may be hypocrites and then no more spirituall Infants then Judas or Simon Magus were If you say that in charity you take them for spirituall I answer That an opinion that may be so easily false and in which any man without speciall revelation may be deceived is a very unproportionable ground of so sharp a controversie as causeth your Clients to forsake the Church of Christ. Next I say had you but as much charity towards infants whom no actuall sins have yet stained you would as freely judge them spirituall infants and so by your own Principle to be baptized as those of years of whom possibly you may know much evill without all controversie they have many sins to be repented of and why should you not afford harmless Infants who cannot dissemble as much charity as you do to many hypocrites of whose spirituall regeneration or being spirituall Infants you cannot be certain And this seems to have been the sense of the primitive Church for in the age next to the Apostles they gave to all baptized persons milk and honey to represent unto them their duty that though in age of understanding they were men yet they were babes in Christ and children in malice c. Indeed we read of such a custome in Tertullians time but that was two hundred years after Christ but I find not the sense of the Church therein by him expressed to your purpose And Hierom mentioneth the same custom but giveth no such sense as you pretend to it being well known that he was for Infant-baptism And it appears not by any thing you here cite or say that such a custom proveth any thing against Baptism of Infants for whom milk and hony is fitter nourishment thâ—n for the strong 1 â—orinth 3. 2. Hebr. 5. 12 13. Your other conjecture is but feebly grounded yet you say But to infer the sense of the Pedo-baptists is so weak a manner of arguing that Augustine whose device it was and men use to to be in love with their own fancies at the most pretended it but as probable and a meer câ—njecture To which we answer 1. That things which Christ commanded to his Apostles could not be Augustines or any humane invention but a divine Institution such was baptizing of Infants as will appeare in due place And this is the ground of this whole controversie 2. That it was none of Augustines device or fancy with which he was therefore in love as being his own Augustine his self clearly testifieth S. Cyprian saith he not composing any new decree but holding the most firm faith of the Church to correct their error who thought that an infant might not be baptized before he were eight days old he with certain his fellow Bishops was of this sense that a new-born infant might rightly be baptized As for the words of Cyprian we have cited them a little before Cyprian with a Conncell of 66. Bishops resolved so not out of any then new-born opinion or decree but maintained that which was of old the firm faith and doctrine of the Church which was long before him And Cyprian flourished about the year of our Lord 22 and was crowned with martyrdom under the persecuting Emperour Valerian about the year 260. And St. Augustine flourished about the year 410. and died about the year 430. So that had Augustine as you say devised it iâ— must have 150 years years before Augustine was born been devised by Augustine which had been a singular device indeed Origen of whom you say Augustine had this tradition of Baptizing Infants pag. 237. N. 25 saith because we are all conceived and born in sin the Church hath received a Tradition from the Apostles to administer Baptism to little childâ—â— Now Origen lived about the same time with Cyprian How you can reconcile your self in that you here affirm that Pedobaptism was Augustines device and yet confesse that Augustine had it from Origen who died so many years before Augustine was born I say not to the truth but to your self I do not understand Justin Martyr whom Tertullian mentioneth as an Ancestor he lived under the Emperour Antoninus Pius and. Irenaeus speaketh of Infants baptized in his time Irenaeus speaking of Christs Baptism and entrance into his publique Ministery saith He sanctified every age by that similitude which was to himself for he came to save all by himself I say all who by him are regenerate to God infants and little ones boys young men and old therefore passed he through every age for infants he became an infant sanctifying infants c. This Irenaeus was so ancient that he saw Polycarp who was an hearer of some of the Apostles of Christ. It was therefore none of Augustines device 3. Whether this be true which you affirm that Augustine at the most pretended it but as probable and a meâ—â—conjecture to baptize infants as infants were circumcised let Augustine speak for himself who saith If any man in this thing look for Divine authority although that which the universal Church holdeth being no Decree of any Councell but hath been always observed that we must rightly believe to have been delivered no otherwise then by Apostolicall authority yet we may truly apprehend of what value the Sacrament of Baptism of Infants may be from the circumcision of the flesh which the former people received Abraham was justified before he received it as also Cornelius was endued with the gift of the holy Ghost before he was baptized c. why therefore was â—e commanded thenceforth to circumcise every male child on the eighth day seeing they could not yet believe with the heart c. but because the Sacrament it self is of it self of great moment so untrue is it that Augustine either devised Infant-baptism or so slightly pretended to it as you report But you go on And as ill successe will they have with their other Arguments as with this And what is that for which you cry victory in your former encounters I will not be so expensive of time or so much entrench upon the Readers patience as to repeat let him judge of what he hath read But what other battalio's come next up You say From the action of Christs blessing Infants to inferre that they are to be baptized proves nothing so much as that there is great want of better Arguments A gallant flourish indeed but seriously Did Christ take them up in his arms and bless them and are they not blessed Doth not Gods blessing give both end and means that we may be so Or spake Christ onely concerning the carnall seed of Abraham and not of the spirituall when he said Of such is the Kingdom of Heaven Surely if Christ adjudge and give the Kingdom of heaven which himself onely can give and in which none but the elect shall be to an infant it must be no less then impious in
man to abridge abjudge and bar him of admission into the visible Church of Christ by baptism which sinfull and ignorant man can administer and which reprobates as wel as the elect may and do receive But what follows The conclusion would be with more probability derived thus Christ blessed children and so dismissed them but baptized them not therefore infants are not to be baptized 'T is a pretty argument wherein both Antecedent and Consequent are lame 't is true and granted that Christ in his own person baptized them not but how prove you that he baptized them not by some one of his Disciples What because 't is not written The Apostle may give you satisfaction herein who saith There are also many other things which Jesus did the which if they should be written every one I suppose that even the world it self could not contain the books How invalid is the Moderators Agument à non scripto ad nonfactum Can there be a sound conclusion from rotten premises Christ blessed children and so dismissed them but baptized them not therefore Infants are not to be baptized Antonii gladios potuit contemnere si sic omnia dixisset Would it not as well follow à non scripto Jesus granted the Centurions request and cured his servant and so for ought we read dismissed them but baptized them not Mat. 8. 10 3. Christ healed the sick of the palsie and dismissed him but for ought we read baptized him not Matth. 9. 2 6 7. Mark 2. 23. 5. 11 12. He healed the woman of the bloody issue but for ought we read baptized her not Mat. 9. 22. Mark 5. 34. So the Ruler of the Synagogues daughter Matth. 9. 25. Mark 5. 41 42. So he dismissed the man out of whom he had cast many Divels Luke 8. 38 39. we read not that he baptized him So he pronounced pardon accepted the repentance and dismissed the penitent sinner in peace Luke 7. 50. It were too long to repeat all So he cured the lame at Bethesda John 5. 8. Where though so neer the convenience of water we read not that he so much as once spake of Baptism to him neither when finding him in the Temple he said to him thou art healed sin no more lest a worse thing come unto thee can any therefore reasonably conclude those men and women of years whose bodies Christ cureth whose repentance he accepteth whose faith his self testifieth who cannot be deceived were not and therefore are not though of years to be baptized He that had his time of doing those favours to them was free to take his time of enjoyning their baptism And how could you prove that these children were not baptized before or after they were brought to Christ Before you censure our Arguments as invalid and weak do your self the right to consider your own As we are sure that God hath not commanded Infants to be baptized True God hath not given the command to the Infant himself but to others whom it concerneth we are sure he hath if you mean the first you triste if the second you do upon the matter beg the question Quid ego festinat innocens aetas ad remissionem peccatorum was the question of Tertullian lib. de Bapt. he knew no such danger from their originall guilt as to drive them to a laver of which in that age of innâ—cence they had no need as he conceived Whether infants can make haste to baptism I appeale to experience Whether they are innocent and have no need of baptism as Pelagius affirmed I appeal to your own conscience Do you think there is no danger from infants original guilt which maks them stand in need of the laver of regeneration for the remission of their sin If you do not why do you urge against us an authority which your self consenteth not unto To let pass what Tertullian meant when he affirmed such a necessity of baptism as that he said It is prescribed that no man shall be saved without baptism which he inferreth from John 3. 5. pray teach me what he meant when he said Man from his beginning circumvented so as that he would transgress Gods command therfore was condemned to death whereby he also made all mankind being infected from his seed a traduction or derivation from one to another of his own damnation Think you damnation no danger or did not Tertullian know what he wrote How he forgat himself and the truth when he would have children come to Christ onely then when they could learn and know Christ whereas Christ said Suffer little children to come unto me and forbid them not I can give no better account then for other his errors onely let the Reader note that in the same place he affirmeth that the unmarried also are to be deferred and not baptized untill they are married or setled in continency but I spare this We look for truth and shall be glad to own and embrace it in what Author soever we find it but against the truth we are bound to none onely we may note that if Tertullian spake in the fore-cited place concerning Infants that Pedobaptisme was in his time in use in the Church and so it must appear most false which you before said that it was Augustines device What need all this stirre As infants without their own consent without any act of their own and without any exterior solemnity contracted the guilt of Adams sin and so are liable to all the punishment which can with justice descend upon his posterity who are personally innocent so infants shall be restored without any solemnity or act of their own c. What need this stirre you make to trouble the peace of Christs Church Why trouble you your self with our stir to do that which Christ commandeth us Shall we suffer the Wolf quietly to take away sheep from Christs flock as we daily see by the sleepy cowardize and dangerous silence of some temporizing Pastors who possibly have learned from that old Courtier Crispus qui nunquam direxirbrachia contra torrentem nay but we know there is a dangerous silence See Ezek. 3. 18. Ester 4. 14. But to the matter we say that as in Adam all die so in Christ shall all be made alive 1 Cor. 15. 22. which being restrained according to the Apostles intention to the faithfull and elect might reasonably conclude that as all men even the faithfull and elect were by naturall propagation condemnable in Adam God justly imputing to his whole posterity that his act whereby he not onely made his own person guilty but also corrupted his nature so are they by regeneration saved in Christ God mercifully imputing his merits to them for their justification so that as they were condemnable for that they did not in their own persons commit so shall they be saved by that which Christ not they did freely without the works of the Law but of what
from the womb for many dying young are saved which being conceived in sin and born the children of wrathâ— they could not be without regeneration and sanctification And truly when I consider what marvelous instinct God giveth to the new-cast young of beasts to take the brest as well as to new-born infants for their bodily preservation I cannot but conceive that the good God gives infants on whom he hath set his own image which consisteth in understanding sanctity immortality c. some admirable though to us secret light of mind and capacity of that which is snbordinate to the preservation of their immortal souls 2. Children under the Gospel have no less capacity then children under the Law had who yet received the seal of the same righteousness of faith in their infancy and were circumcised to newness of life Rom. 2. 29. But you say And then have they but one member of the distinction used by S. Peter they have that baptism which is a putting away the filth of the flesh but they have not that baptism which is the answer of a good conscience towards God which is the only baptism that saveth us I answer 1. You vainly dispute è non concessis 't is not granted nor can it ever be proved that elect children in baptism are not formed new in righteousness and holyness and so your superstruction concerning their having only that baptism which is a putting away the filth of the flesh but not the rest necessary to salvation is frivolous 2. The answer of a good conscience toward God is an effect of the inward baptism by the spirit of Jesus peculiar to the elect Now if your reason hence taken for the exclusion of infants from baptism the external seal were good by the same reason none but the elect or those who have the answer of a good conscience towards God must be admitted to baptism and whom then might you with good conscience baptize certainly but few and for ought you can certainly know none For in these last and worst dayes what know you but that they who fairly profess faith and repentance c. may yet notwithstanding be meer hypocrites And where is then their answer of a good conscience toward God 3. I say what secret light and sweet confidence elect infants have in God I know not sure I am they have that which is and shall be sufficient to their salvation in Christ though they die before man can teach them morâ—â— and why shall man exclude them from the external Seal of Gods Covenaut with them as being born within the Church of which they have as evident and a more easie capacity then children had of circumcision God gives Infants the incomparably greater and more excellent part sanctity and sealing to salvation and shall man presume to deny the less and subordinate part the external Seal of Christs visible Church whereof Reprobates born within the Church have a capacity 4. Faith good conscience repentance c. are in the elect those fruits whose seeds were sowen in baptism and as hath been said were it reasonable to say we may not sow untill the fruits thereof appear Nay but we therefore sow in hope that we may in due season see and reap the fruits thereof 5. Whereas you say that the answer of a good conscience towards God is the only baptism that saveth us I answer 1. It is not the answer of a good conscience that saveth any man though a good conscience be an excellent signe of our salvation by Christ for Being justified by faith we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ by whom also we have access by faith c. 2. Your reasoning is fallacious your medium being homonymical For allowing you the signe for the cause yet if that which saveth us though it may be true if understood concerning persons of years and as good conscience an undoubted effect of regeneration is opposed to the bare seal thereof without any inward effect of the spirit I say if it be understood of Infants as in your sense excluded from a capacity of good conscience or the acts thereof it is very false except you will also exclude all Infants from salvation which were against the express doctrine of Christ. As infants you say by the force of nature cannot put themselves into a supernatural condition and therefore say the Poedobaptists they need baptism to put them into it so if they be baptized before the use of reason before the works of the spirit before the operation of grace before they can throw off the works of darkness and live in righteousness newness of life they are never the near I answer 1. Neither can men of years by the force of naeture put themselves into a supernatural condition supposing you mean subordinate to salvation and what then can the use of reason without the works of the Spirit advantage them hereto Shall not they therefore that have the use of reason be baptized 2. What do you herein say which might not as well have been objected against the circumcision of infants Would you have concluded them never the neer because at eight dayes old they had not the use of reason to know what or why it was so done unto them before they could throw off the works of darkness and live in righteousness and newness of life 3. If you will have none baptized before the works of the Spirit before the operations of grace c. when and whom may you baptize For the wind bloweth where it listeth and thou hearest the sound thereof but canst not tell whence it cometh and whither it goeth so is every one that is born of the Spirit God can and doth sanctifie infants as in the elect infants dying such must be granted if you have so much reason or charity as to think that at least some of them are elected and saved and he can and doth sanctifie in age sometimes in the very last act thereof as appeared in the penitent thief how then will it follow that infants are never the neerer if they be baptized before the use of reason c. 4. We must understand that baptism comprehendeth first the sign water and the whole ceremony sprinkling washing or dipping into water in the Name of the Father the Son and the holy Ghost Secondly the things themselves signified by the visible and externall things which are sprinkling of the blood of Jesus on the baptized for the remission of sins mortification of the old man quickning the new man into certain hope of resurrection to eternall life to come Thirdly the commandement promise of Christ whence the sign hath authority and power of sealing and confirming these things unto the baptized They then that say baptism is an externall sign and washing of the body and therefore a bare and effectless sign do fallaciously dispute dividing that which God who cannot deceive us hath joyned together by giving us
being there to command them to preach and to set to the Seal of the Gospel-covenant mentioning no particulars but intimating that all those that were of capacitie should be taught and that those that were not of present understanding yet if born of such persons as had given their names to Christ should be admitted to the seal of the righteousness of faith in Christ that they might be instructed when and as they were able to learn There are two conditions of Baptism Beleeve and Repent which seeing Infants as such cannot do their baptism ought to be deferred until they can We answer 1 These are the conditions If the question were concerning persons of years to be baptised but it is concerning Infants on whom no such condition is or can reasonably for the present be laid 2 The argument is impious and ridiculous as if one should say the condition of eating is labouring which seeing Infants cannot do let their eating or feeding be defered till they can The Apostle saith If there be any that will not labour let him not eat 2 Thess. 3. 10. who of any sense doth not understand that of those that can and will not and why not so in believing and repenting seeing that God requireth impossibilities neither in things temporal nor spiritual 3 As in the baptism of those who are of years a previous faith is required so is a subsequent faith of those who are baptized Infants which if they afterward have not they forfeit the benefit of the Seal which they received 4 Though Infants as such cannot have actual faith yet have they the seeds thereof in baptism covered or shut up in the habitual beginning of grace which Christ both can and doth work in them Nor is it simply necessary that the Sacraments should in the same moment in which they are administred effect all things which they figure or represent yea a dilatory paction hath place when in the making thereof there is some invincible let to present performance as want of the present use of reason is to infants faith repentance and obedience to the Gospel unto which they are by Covenant bound in their baptism and indeed to be within the Covenant gives the Infant a just capacitie to the seal of the same Now Infants of believing and baptized parents are within the Covenant Gen. 17. 7. Act. 2. 39. Christ was not baptized in his Infancie although the Deitie hypostatically united dwelt in him fully but deferred the same untill he was about 30 years of age therefore what ever habitual faith or seeds of grace can be pretended to for infants they ought not to be baptized until they come of years to know what they do We answer 1 Christ requireth not that we should imitate him in all that he did which is proposed to us for doctrine but not for imitation for example he was both circumcised as being of the feed of Abraham under the Law the righteousness whereof he was to perform Mat. 3. 15. and also baptized if we should be so Christ should profit us nothing Gal. 5. 2. 2 The time was not come at the birth of Christ for the repealing of the seals of the ceremonial Law nor was the seal of the new Covenant to be instituted untill the time drew near wherein he was to publish it by preaching the Gospel and accomplishing the great work of our redemption in his bloud therefore he that was Saviour both of Jews and Gentiles was circumcised in his Infancie and baptized as soon as that Sacrament was instituted 3 They that herein require imitation of Christ intimate a necessitie of deferring baptism untill the age of 30 years which our Antagonists that I know of do not practise 4 A bare example without a precept doth not bind to imitation Christ administred the communion with unleavened bread after supper in an upper room to twelve men only and no women but seeing we find no precept in the Gospel which commandeth us to do the same we believe we are not bound by that example 5. There was neither neglect contempt nor danger in so long delaying Christs Baptism there must needs be some of all these in the delay of our childrens Baptism Christ had no sin but we have both Original and Actual he not only foreknew but foreordained as God the manner and time as of his nativity so also of his death We neither know nor can appoint the time of our departures hence therefore we may not defer our childrens Baptism they may suddenly dye 6. Christ would not before that age be baptized and enter into his publike Ministry among other causes for this also that the truth hereof might answer the type preceding in the Levitical Priests who although they were received into the Colledge of Priests at five and twenty yet were they not admitted to exercise their Ministry until they were thirty years old Numb 4. 3. The Lords Supper may not be given to Infants by reason of their incapacity On the same ground neither ought Baptism the other Sacrament We answer That the reason why we may not administer the Communion to Infants is because God hath given an express command Let a man examine himself and so let him eat of that Bread and drink of that Cup And there followeth a dreadful reason For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily eateth and drinketh damnation to himself not discerning the Lords body Now Infants can neither examine themselves nor discern the Lords body because they cannot understand the institution end use and condition of that Sacrament Therefore we do not administer it unto them until they can be instructed therein No such limitation can be shewed concerning Baptism for though Faith and Repentance be mentioned as conditions of Baptism and Remission of sins and Salvation to persons of years yet the case is far otherwise with Infants who though they cannot as such actually believe and repent yet we doubt not of their Remission of sins and salvation neither could those Infants who were circumcised actually believe and repent yet that barred them not from the Seal of the same Righteousness of Faith Again that which is said Mark 16. 16. is very considerable as hath been noted He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved but he that believeth not shall be damned It sheweth that the condition of believing is proposed to persons of years who may believe or obstinately reject the Gospel which Infants as such cannot do and therefore it cannot for present concern them without involving them all in the sentence of damnation which opinion were damnable and Antichristian Christ having positively pronounced for them Of such is the Kingdom of God To Infants to be born within Gods Covenant and to receive the Seal thereof obliging them to future Faith Repentance and Obedience is instead of all these Lastly Baptism is the Seal of Initiation Entrance and Admittance into the Church that therefore we give
we say further 1 That believers may be taken two ways first for such as do in heart believe unto righteousness this God alone can judge of and therefore man is not to expect his rule and direction for his ministration from hence Secondly for such as profess faith or shew good and probable signs and symptoms thereof as those hearers of Peter did for they received the word gladly and were baptized and before that there appeared an excellent sign of faith in them in that the word which they heard profited them to compunction of heart and repentance with desiring remedie but where the Word of God is not mixed with faith in the hearers it profiteth not as appeareth Heb. 4. 2. Therefore that assumption is irrational where you say they to whom the Apostle spake were not believers 2 There may be an amphibologie in the major believers being either such only in profession and bearing the external seal of the righteousness of faith or for such in the heart and so the sequel is unsound for the promise of Gods covenant was to all Israelâ— as being the seed of Abraham within that covenant although many of them through unbelief obtained not remission of sins and eternal life held out to them in the same which made not the promise of nose effect to them who believed and many unbelieving parents had and have believing children but a covenanted Parents unbelief barreth not his Infant born within the Church from the external seal of the covenant so that the promise did belong to them though their Parents had secretly been unbelievers and impious persons much more seeing they so expressed and professed their faith repentance and care to be saved If those children Act. 2. 39. were entitled to baptism in their infancie then they were or must have been baptized in their infancie but they were not baptized in their infancie but their fathers only who received the word gladly therefore they to whom the promise is Act. 2. 39. were not entitled to baptism in their infancie We deny your minor and you can never prove it their fathers were first baptized but it appeareth not that they only were baptized 1. It hath been often said and you need still to hear it it followeth not that it was not done because it is not written Christ spake and did many things which are not written 2 If you could from Scripture prove that de facto they were not baptized in their infancie yet that would not prove that de jure they might not be baptized The parents neglect of their duty or any other intercident obstructions could not make void the childrens interest Moses son was not circumcised on the eighth day nor many thousand Israelists Infants in the wilderness for 40 years yet we cannot hence conclude that they ought not to have been circumcised had there been no let or that they had no interest in the seal because there were lets Only Abrahams spiritual â—seed are to be baptized but Infants are not the spiritual seed of Abraham therefore Infants are not to be baptized We answer 1 This is the same argument under another synonimical dress to which we have answered there you said only believers are to be baptized here you say only Abrahams spiritual seed are to be baptized whereas believers and Abrahams spiritual seed are one and the same in the Apostles account Gal 3. 7. 2 Many thousands which were Abrahams carnal seed were baptized which were indeed not his spiritual seed that is true believers See Mat. 3. 5 6. Act. 2 41. which being done by John Baptist and Christs disciples and so precedentially to us shews the falshood of your major 3 If Abrahams spiritual seed by your own confession be to be baptized then Infants of believers within the Church must be baptized they being Abrahams spiritual seed except you will say that Gods promise was to some who were not within the covenant made with Abraham and indeed the whole mystical body of Christ is the spiritual seed of Abraham of which none can rationally deny Infants of covenanted Parents to be a part who acknowledge Christ to be their Saviour See Eph. 5. 28. and that out of him and his body the Church is no salvation So that by the way we may note that to exclude Christian Infants from being a part of Christs visible Church in general is to exclude them from the ordinary state and way to salvation and so to deny them to be Abrahams spiritual seed is to exclude them from the same and to leave them to an extraordinary means thereto in which some Pagans Turks and obstinate Jews c. by the mercie of God illuminating converting them to the faith of Christ by extraordinary means may be saved and this is to suppose Infants of Christian Parents as bad as Heathens without Christ aliens from the Common-wealth of Israel strangers from the covenants of promise-without God in the World Add hereto that if parents may not sorrow as men without hope for their deceased Infants they cannot have sound hope without faith nor faith without a promise or word of faith that is Scripture-promise to confirm ground it on and that not in general but such as properly concerns their children as that Gen. 17. 7. Act. 2. 39. Luk. 18. 16 17 c. Now to deny childrens interest herein or that they are the spiritual seed of Abraham is to leave afflicted Parents hopeless of their childrens salvation in that by such an an uncharitable impious tenet Parents must not believ those comfortable promises belong to their children and that God will not so much as by an external seal assure them that he is by covenant a God unto their Infants Nor can we think that ever any were saved ordinarily if at all touching whom God never made any promise neither in respect of internal and saving faith nor so much as in respect of external right to sealing thereto so that to avoid this we must say that Christian Infants are Abrahams undoubted spiritual seed therefore they have at least an ecclesiastical right as to the covenant made with Abraham so to the Church-priviledges respectively that is to baptism which is now the seal of Gods covenant in Christ exhibited CHAP. III. Infant baptism asserted and justified by sundry arguments by the Church of Christ alledged 1 ALl they who are members of Christs body the Church are to be baptized that they may be admitted into the same by the initiatory seal thereof which is baptism that they may be externally known to be of the Church but Infants of Church-priviledged persons are members of Christs body the Church ergo they ought to be baptized that they may be admitted into the same by the initiatorie seal thereof which is baptism c. The major is thus confirmed such persons as were circumcised under the Law that they might be known to be of the Church ought to be
baptized under the Gospel for the same end for baptism answereth circumcision and is called by the same name Col. 2 11 12. as having the same end effect to seal up the same grace unto faith mortification remission of sins admission into the visible Church If it be excepted that under the Law there was an express command for Infant-circumcision on the eighth day but there is none for Infant-baptism We say 1 Because there was an express command under the Law never repealed in the Gospel and the same end and use still remain therefore there need be none in the Gospel more then that general opening the kingdom of heaven to all believers in taking away the stop of the partition wall by that which is said Baptize all Nations None but Israelites and their proselytes were sealed under the Law none but male children at eight days old but now go baptize all nations without exception to nation age sex or condition 2 There is in all the Scripture no express prohibition neither can any by any sound consequence imply it The assumption is thus confirmed Those whom Christ saveth are members of his body for he is the head of the Church and Savior of the body Eph. 5. 23. But Christ saveth Infants of believing parents therefore Infants are members of Christs body the Church The major is evident for Christ saveth none but those who are members of his body the Church The minor is as evident it being granted that any Infants are saved which is apparent from the covenant of God Gen. 17. 7. and the words of Christ of such is the kingdom of God as also by this argument Those whom Christ loved and for whom he gave himself to deathâ— those he will sanctifie and cleanse with the washing of water by the Word Eph. 5. 26. that they may be received into the Church and be made partakers of the benefits of his death but Christ not only loved and gave himself for persons of years but also for Infants therefore he will sanctifie and cleanse Infants with the washing of water by the Word c. 2 All Infants were by Adam capable of sin and the expressions of Gods justice punishing the same by death sickness c. but Infants are not less capable of the grace and mercy of God in Christ in respect of the expressions thereof then they were of his justice in Adam Therefore Infants are capable of the expressions of Gods grace and mercie in Christ which in the ordinary dispensation thereof is baptism The major is evident Rom. 5. 12. 1 Cor. 15. 22. The minor Rom. 5. 20 where sin abounded grace did much more abound that is Gods grace doth more abundantly appear in holding out the visible remedy then his justice inflicting the denounced punishment which could not be if Infants visibly involved in the condemnatorie sentence and execution thereof should be excluded from the ordinary and visible means of recovery and salvation by Christ which in them can be no other external means but baptism the laver of regeneration it can be no less then a sacrilegious injury to the grace mercy of God in Christ to suppose that the sin of man is more powerful to hurt then the grace of God in Christ is to heal and save 3 If we ought not to baptize Infants then there must be some apparent let and impediment thereto either on Gods part prohibiting or on the Ministers part or in the Sacrament it self or in the incapacitie of the receiver but there is no apparent let or impdiment on the part or in any of these therefore there is none at all 1 There is no impediment on Gods part for God no where expresly or by good consequence saith Baptize not Infants or Baptize none but those who do first testifie their faith and repentance 2 There is no impediment on the Ministers part for he can as easily baptize Infants as persons of years 3 There is no impediment in respect of the Sacrament it self for all the essentials of baptism may be placed on children profession of faith repentance c. are conditions of baptism in persons of years and effects of it which may in due time appear and follow in baptized Infants those therefore are not of the essence of baptism nor so much as universal conditions thereof for the present sprinkling washing or dipping in water in the name of the Father the Son and the H. Ghost are the essence of baptism so are not faith repentance or newness of life for it may be a true baptism where these graces do neither precede nor follow it though without these preceding or following baptism cannot be effectual to salvation which need not seem strange to him that considereth that Judas Simon Magus and many who were and now are truly baptized are not saved 4 Neither can the let be in the Infant who cannot by any actual hardnes of heart impenitency or positive unbelief or contempt of the ordinance of God refuse or despise the grace of God offered in baptism Therefore they are to be admitted to that whereof they are apparently undeniably capable which is the external seal at least which is all that man for present can administer or we will contend for being most willing to leave secret things to God and to hope the best where the contrary cannot appear unto us only add hereto if the issue be put upon the capacitie or incapacitie of the Infant with relation to any condition so much insisted on let any of our Antagonists shew us how or wherin Infants under the Gospel covenant of grace in Christ have less capacity in respect thereof then Infants under the Law of Moses had or that baptism is not the seal of the same righteousness of faith in Christ wherof circumcision for the time was the seal 4 That which without any expressed exception to particulars Christs commission holds forth to all nations belongs to Infants as well as persons of years for Infants are alwayes a great part of all nations but Christs commission holds forth baptism to all nations without any expressed exception to particulars therefore baptism belongs to Infants of believing Parents as well as to persons of years 5 No man may forbid water that is the outward administration where God hath given the inward operation of his H. Spirit which maxim the Apostle built on in that then difficult question whether the Gentiles might be sealed into the covenant of grace But God hath given the inward operation of his H. Spirit to Infants Ier. 1. 5. Luk. 1. 15. 1 Cor. 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.
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 a 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 Inheritance a. Your instance importeth onely a circumstantiall not a substantiall difference 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 that very seal of Gods Covenant which they bare in their flesh served for a witnesse against the soul of the Covenant-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 so also they must be capable of Reason either in act that they may presently understand those 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 to 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 he 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 Suffer little children to come unto me and forbid them not for of such is the Kingdom of Heaven Mark 10. 14. Luke 18. 16. I demand quojure 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 flesh 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 effectuall 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 baptism 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 ens 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 â—ver 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 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
consequence is solemnity Would you have our fall in Adam and repair in Christ run literally parallell even to circumstances But what manner of arguing this were we have often said How many ridiculous consequences would you thence inferre concerning a man a woman and a Serpent and no more in the Scene a garden a fruit c. But remembring that we are speaking of sacred things we resolve that a Sacrament which is instituted of God to this end that it may be a solemn receiving into the Church and a severing or sign of distinguishing the whole Church all her parts from all other Sects ought to be ministred solemnly that others may take notice of the same and that it may be the stricter bond to the baptized when they come to years to hold them into saith obedience renunciation of the world impious desires and carnall affections into which condition they were solemnly and before many witnesses admitted by baptism And it is you say too narrow a conception of God Almighty because he hath tied us to the observation of the Ceremonies of his own institution that therefore he hath tied himself to it We never had that conceit you mistake the matter we say not that God is tied to his own Ordinances as if he could no otherwise save any but that we are tied to Gods Ordinances because they are the revealed will of God which man is bound to obey And though God be the most free Agent and not tied yet it doth not hence follow that baptism is not the ordinary means of regeneration to which we are tied God hath not in your sense tied himself to the baptism of persons in years as may appear in the penitent thief who unbaptized was saved Luke 23. 43. It is so in his other ordinances It pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe 1 Cor. 1. 21. Therefore ordinarily faith is by hearing the word Rom. 10. 17. yet God hath not so absolutely tied it to preaching but that he could at his pleasure convert Saul breathing threatnings Acts 9. Neither is he tied to the Eâ—charist would you conclude hence that men and women of years are not tied to be baptized hear the word or receive the Lords Supper because God and his free grace are not tied to these externall and ordinary means If not what meaneth that your medium God hath not tied himself and what can it more conclude against Infants baptism then against the baptism hearing receiving the Eâ—charist by persons of years Yet we affirm that when God made the promise to Abraham being willing more abundantly to shew to the heirs of promise the immutability of his councell confirmed it by an oath that by two immutable things in which it was impossible for God to lie we might have a strong consolation c. Heb. 6. 17 18. In which sense God hath bound himselfe to make good to us all that which the Seals of his Covenant by himself appointed hold forth unto us But you add Many thousand ways there are by which God can bring any reasonable soul to himself We answer The admitting of the one is not always the excluding of all other and we question not Gods power herein but his will here is an Ignoratio elenchi What think you of the validity of that Argument which is from Gods power to his will He can open the eys of the blind and convert the hearts of temporizers and professed enemies of his Church and Truth I would I were assured that he would now do so But you say nothing is more unreasonable then because he hath tied all men of years and discretion to this way therefore we of our own heads shal carry infants to him that way without his direction Here is again a fallacious arguing You take the thing in question for your medium The question is Whether baptism of Infants he a divine or humane institution upon which dependeth wholly whether we ought oâ—ught not to baptize Infants Now you would prove that we ought not to carry infants to Christ by baptism because he appointed or directed us not so to do but as you say we do it of our own heads Nay but confining sacramentall administrations to such time age or other circumstance by Christ never limited or enjoyned it will-worship and mans invention This your conceit is so poor and low that a puny Sophister would be ashamed of it Onely this you say that God hath as great a care of Infants as of others c. Here is another argument as feâ—ble as the fore-going What because God hath as great a care of them as of others therefore we must have no care of them in the application of the ordinary means so hath he a care for their bodily preservation and sustenance doth that prove that we ought not to feed or cloath them God respectively careth for all the Creatures he giveth to the beast his food Psal. 147. 9. Were it good Georgicks to say Trouble not your self to fodder your cattle or loose them from their stall that they may drink Who knoweth not that God hath appointed ordinary meane although he can do it without such means and though he say not that he will not otherwise preserve them but leave them to the dictates of common reason to conclude God you say will by his own immediate mercy bring them thither where he hath intended them but to say that therefore he will do it by an externall act and ministery is no good Argument c. Prove that one Assertion That God will by his own immediate mercy save Infants and have no means used thereto and you have the Cause but Christ hath appointed baptism for the ordinary means to bring people into his visible Church that they may be saved that he doth otherwise that is by an immediate act of mercy save some to whom his all-disposing providence hath not given time or means as in Infants dying before they were or could be baptized this varietâ— not the Rule for our question is not concerning them and to say that therfore he will do it by an external act because he will save them or bring them thither whither he hath intended them by his own immediate mercy is no good Argument you may lay your life oâ—'t Immediatly signifieth without means so that Immediately by means is a contradiction in the adject this were to my sense so farre from a good argument that I should doubt whether such a Disputant were awake or not Immediatly by an external act and ministery none of ours ever so reasoned And why cannot God as well do his mercies to infants now immediatly as he did before the institution either of circumcision or baptism Once again we say We question not Gods power truly nor his will in many Infants dying before they could be baptized the question is whether we may or ought according to Gods revealed will baptize them
infants have right to the holy CoÌ„munion as they have to strong meat but not a capacity as such or while they are infants and God hath in express terms restrained the Lords supper to those who can actually apprehend remember declare forth Christs death 1 Cor. 11 26. which because infants cannot do we give them not the Communion Secondly God hath denounced a grievous curse or punishment against any that shall presume without due examination of himself to eat of that bread drink of that cup but not so concerning Baptism it being the seal of our new-birth and reception into the visible Church and Covenant which hath no such condition annexed as may justly exclude Infants in respect of any present non-performance thereof But the Lords Supper is the Seal of our groâ—â—h in grace and spirituall strength instituted for the confirmation of our admittance into and our continuance in the Church of Christ whose death and passion for our redemption we thereby shew forth and commemorate for our spirituall perfection nourishment and strengthening in faith and other graces of his Spirit for our assurance that God having once received us into his favour will continue his mercy to us in Christ By these disparities the invalidity of the Pleaders Argument may appear And if it were true which he further saith that the wit of man is not able to shew a disparity in the sanction c. yet the wisdom of God is able and hath declared this difference in holy Scripture and the same can shew more then the wit of man can discern and hath shewed more then the learned Pleader doth or will understand who I conceive doth not yet know all that the wit of man or all the world can inform him of but is it not better even for those who have been in the Mount with God to cast the veil of modest humility over those excellencies which they have received and with which they shine to others admiration then to ostent them to the contempt of others The Apostle of Christ was rap't up into the third Heaven and yet professed we know in part and we prophesie in part 1 Cor. 13. 9. But you further say Since the ancient Church did with an equall opinion of necessity give them the Communion c. That which you said a little before They are as honest and as reasonable that doe neither to wit baptize infants or give them the Comunion as those that understood the Obligation to be Parallel we may very well believe and wish that either of them may prove honest hereafter But to that which you say That the ancient Church did with an equall opinion of necessity give them the Communion I answer 1. with Tertullian That is of the Lord and true which was first delivered but that is extraneous and false which is afterward received in And with Cyprian We ought not to heed what some before us have thought was to be done but what Christ did who was before all for we ought not to follow the custom of men but the truth of God 2 Your own rule must binde you though it cannot others who consent not thereto they who reject tradition when 't is against them must not pretend it at all for them pag. 237. Numb 25 3 It is considerable in that custome of the church as some other incoveniences which Augustine saith It is saith he one thing which we teach and another which we endure one thing which we are enjoyned to command and another thing which we are commanded to amend and untill we amend we are compelled to endure it And again who is eaten with the zeal of Gods house why he that endeavoureth and desireth to amend all that he sees amisse he resteth not if he cannot amend it he endureth it he sigh's the grain is not tossed out of the floor it endures the chaff that it may enter into the granary when the chaff is winnowed out 4 We adhere not so to tradition that we universally receive all that which was done or said of old things delivered by some but not generally received by the Church we esteem but superstructions of particular men or superseminations which possibly may spread farre as many pernicious opinions have done yet no sober man ever took them for Apostolicall or so much as Ecclesiasticall traditions we neither reject any tradition which appeareth to be Apostolicall if not peculiar to their times or suited peculiarly to certain times places or persons nor do we rashly receive any tradition for such except we are certain that the Scripture determineth nothing against it or where strong consequence from thence justifieth it 5 We conceive Augustines rule herein to be good In those things saith he concerning which divine Scripture determineth nothing certainly the custome of Gods people or institution of our ancestors are to be held for a law otherwise endlesse contention will arise also we must beware that the calm of charity be not clouded by the storm of contention 6 We will not rashly dissent from reverend antiquity wherein it dissenteth not from the truth we love peace with all who hold that in fundamentalls at least and therefore will follow Augustin's advice in that he piously saith concerning his reader where saith he he knows his errour let him return to me where mine let him recall me our rule being that of the Apostle 1 Cor. 11 1. be yee followers of me even as I also am of Christ more no good man will require nor render lesse to Ancestors 7 Lastly we say that the Scripture which you cite Joh. 6. 53. except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood you have no life in you is not spoken concerning a Sacramentall but a spirituall feeding and although * some of the Jesuites and other Papists contend against us herein yet â—â— some of the most sober of them acknowledge that those words are not to be understood concerning eating or receiving the Lords super which ours generally maintain you might do your self right to joyn with us and not with the most eager Jesuites concerning the spirituall feeding of infants to eternall life by the merit of Christ applyed to them for their Union with him and salvation in and by him we willingly accord the manner of effecting by the secret power of the holy Ghost we enquire not after because it is not revealed but for the reasons alleaged we give them not the communion Next you say If Anabaptist shall be a name of disgrace why shall not some other name be invented for them that deny to communicate infants which shall be equally disgracefull c That would be a rare invention indeed but if to call Anabaptists Anabaptists be just why find you fault with it if evill or unjust why consult you how to imitate it by way of revenge is it not a shame to be such as we are or may well be ashamed to be
called truely we allow not any disgracefull name or reviling but know that the name injureth not where the thing it self is not disgraceful some name we must distinguish them by if you can invent a more true and proper one we shall be beholding to you for an invention and they for a new name Next you say That the discourse of S. Peter which is pretended for the intitling infants to the promise of the holy Ghost and by consequence to baptisme which is supposed to be its instrument and conveyance is wholly a fancy and hath in it nothing of certainty ordemonstration and not much probability We answer your words carry a dangerous shew of blasphemy but we desire to allow them the fairest interpretation which can be made of them and suppose you meant not to say as the connexion of your words imports that S. Peters discourse is wholly a fancy c. but either that the pretence from these words intitling infants to the promise of the holy Ghost and so by consequence to baptisme or as you after affirme that baptisme is not the meanes of conveying the holy Ghost some of these you take to be wholly a fancy To which we reply that we neither affirme nor conceive that these words of S. Peter had a promise for infants as such to receive the extraordinary and visible gifts of the holy Ghost which then flourished in the primitive Church and which men of yeares commonly after baptisme then received but that promise was for present addressed to S. Peters hearers which were prickt in their hearts and said unto Peter and the rest of the Apostles men and brethren what shall we doe and to whom Peter said repent and be baptised every one of you c. to which he encourageth them by three arguments or motives first from Gods abundant mercy in the remission of their sins however grievous Secondly from his gracious benificence as well in giving as forgiving and ye shall receive the gifts c. for your confirmation Thirdly from the extent of Gods federall promise for the promise is to you and your children that promise is recorded Gen. 17. 7. I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee to be a God unto thee and thy seed after thee c. these words S. Peter relateth to when he perswaded them to receive baptisme the seal of Gods new covenant with them in Christ a seal of the same righteousnesse of faith in Christ and he bringeth down infants right to the seal of the covenant with Abrahams carnall seed that is circumcision to their right to the seal of the covenant with his spirituall seed under the gospel that is baptisme for the remission of sins so that if S. Peters argument may passe with you for demonstration and not be mistaken for a fancy this shew's the right and title which infants have to baptisme grounded on the sure promise of God which the Apostle well knew was first sealed with infant-circumcision as well as circumcision of proselyted men of yeares and therefore applyeth it to the seal of the promise under the gospel to wit baptisme Be baptized every one of you◠who all those to whom the promise of God is that is you and your children for the promise is to you and them But you say This is a promise that concerneth them as they are reasonable creatures c. This is a reasonlesse assertion for it baptisme concern them as they are reasonable creatures then all such are concerned herein and so the promise which S. Peter there mentioneth is to all reasonable creatures Jewes Turkes Painims for these are all reasonable creatures and may in their conversion have a title to it in proportion to their nature The argument is fallacious à non causâ pro causâ except the causa stolida or causa sine quâ non though none but reasonable creatures have interest herein yet all reasonable creatures have it not neither alwayes as in unbelief impenitency or out of the covenant as infants of unbelieving parents it is not their reason but Gods covenant which gives them interest in the promise of salvation and all things thereto subordinate and belonging Note here to what unreasonable conclusions willfull errour will lead men at last what more perverse then in the prosecution of their dislike to infant-baptisme to allow more to children of professed enemies of Christ as Turkes and Jewes then to infants of Christian parents with whom God made his covenant of grace and mercy They affirme that even infants of Turkes and Jewes are sanctified in the moment of their birth but will not allow children of believing parents baptisme which is but the externall seal of the covenant which the very reprobate may and doth sometime receive at their hands who cannot judge of any persons finall estate and who knowes not that sanctification is incomparably greater and more excellent then the external seal this man can give that God onely can give and giveth it to the elect only and without that the externall seal shall availe nothing But you go on Besides this I say the words mentioned in S. Peters Sermon which are the only record of the promise are interpreted upon a weake mistake the promise belongs to you and to your children therefore infants are actually receptive of it in that capacity Certainly Gods promise is of that invincible strength that whosoever pleads against it none no not the gates of hell shall ever overthrow it and as certainly the inference was strong once upon the same ground when God had made the promise to Abraham and his seed and therefore and then his infants in that capacity were receptive actually receptive of the seal of the same righteousnesse of faith and certainly infants do no lesse belong to the covenant and Church of God then those that are of yeares of discretion which is evident by Gods promise made unto Abraham I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee this is my covenant every male child among you shall be circumcised he that is eight dayes old shall be circumcised the very same promise doth S. Peter rehearse and expound Act. 2. 39. for to you is the promise and to your children and to all that are a farre off even as many as the Lord our God shall call for indeed by one spirit we are all baptised into one body whether we be Jewes or Gentiles c. And let the reader marke that after the Apostle had exhorted every one 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
women not only under the Law but now also have and ever will have for ought you can say the 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 ambodexter 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 God did more for the children of the Jews 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 maâ—tious is this calumny of yours But you say He made a covenant of spiritual promises on his part and spiritual 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 to children 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 covenant and spiritual promises on his part presently belong to them who shall be saved for many of them presently die or mean you byâ— 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 same 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 Jews 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 Jesus in their regeneration the work is done in them and no otherwise was it in the Jews children for he is not a Jew 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. 28 29. Col 2. 11 â—2 and the Jewish children were no otherwise sealed then into the same faith of Jesus 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 tempts 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 preventeth our baptising them but to neglect the ordinary means of our own or others salvation and to put it on the extraordinary power of God is to tempt God if I should ask you why you eat or feed your infants seeing God can preserve you and them without food you would easily say to neglect the ordinary means were to tempt God so 't is here
of reason and age what doth God when he said to Abraham and in thee all the families of the earth shall be blessed doth he meane only all persons of age are children in their nonage excluded from the blessing in Christ Nay but the Apostle saith expresly the promise is unto you and to your children and such Christ blessed and of such is the kingdome of heaven Doth the Scripture 21â— saying all flesh dyed every man meane onely all of reason and age were the infants excepted many places of Scripture may shew the vanity of this your assertion but if your proposition be particular that is that sometimes the Scripture by whole families means persons of reason that is who have the use of reason and age we can grant it you I adde somtimes all signifieth only a great part as Mat. 10. 22 ye shall be hated of all men for my name sake that is of many times in the Hebrew manner of speaking it signifies none or not any one as Psal. 147. 20. he hath not done so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to all or every nation that is not to any so Exod. 12. 43. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. every son of a stranger shall not eate thereof that is none now would you have the sense of Christs words goe and baptize all nations to be go and baptize some nations or a major part of the nations the evidence of the truth is against that as well as against the other go and baptise none but you would faine have it go and baptize those that are persons of reason and age within the nations shew us any such precept of Christ and we will obey it in the meane time we must do that which we know he commanded us that is baptize all nations all against whom we finde no exception and why should we look for exception in families seeing we find none mentioned by our Saviour in nations but you would have here a limitation to capacity which you think infants have not first we say shew us any Scripture-proofe for such limitation secondly we say that although the incapacity of an infant limit a command where there appeareth a present impossibility of doing that which God in generall commandeth as where he saith believe repent confesse your sins sing unto God praise him c for God commandeth no impossibilities yet where it is possible that the command may be fulfilled there lieth no such limitation now you will not say that 't is impossible for infants to be baptized if you say they ought not to be baptized untill they can actually believe repent c. we must answer you with your own this is unmanlike to build upon such slight and aery conjectures as are humane fancies to forbid infants baptisme and when you can bring us no solid ground for that you would have to beg the question But you say Tradition by all meanes must supply the place of Scripture and there is pretended a tradition Apostolicall that infants were baptized c. You seem here to speake three things first that when we cite traditions we use them in place of Scripture or for defect of Scripture-proofe which to deny is confutation enough untill you can shew which of us so pretend to tradition Secondly in your following words you pretend that we sometimes reject Apostolicall tradition for of that you speake to which we say that when the quaestion is concerning a tradition of the gospel or Apostles as Epiphanius speakes we receive it and with an ancient Council wish that those things may be done in the Church which were delivered by divine Scripture or Apostolical tradition which we adde hereto though we have no reason to admit of all that is alledged for such as for those things which the Apostles desivered in complyance with particular times places or persons as anointing with oyl saluting with an holy kisse love-feasts c. they were necessary then and to that people who had been long accustomed thereto of whom a gospel-Church was now to be gathered but they were neither universally prescribed neither do they concern us now Next we say with S. Augustine the whole Church holdeth by tradition the baptism of infants and that beeing continually observed we justly believe to have been delivered and confirmed by Apostolicall tradition But you say So farre as it can appeare it relies wholly upon the testimony of Origen for from him Augustine had it c. Yet before you affirmed that infant-baptisme was Augustin's device how had Augustine it from Origen if it were Augustin's device That it was neither his device neither that it relyeth wholly upon the testimony of Origen many other testimonis by us alleaged make manifest as Dionysius Jrenaus Cyprian Ambros Jerom Cyril Gre. Nazianzen Basil c. as also ancient Councils as that of â—arthage Anâ— 407. the Milevitan Anâ— 420 c. to conclude we rely not upon the testimony of man though we reverence holy antiquity but on the command of Christ and the Apostles practises baptising whole nations without any appearing exception to infants of believing parents and therefore you following inferences either nothing concern or nothing hurt us You say further There was no command of Scripture to oblige children to the susception of it No command to children to oblige them a dainty caption neither was there any command to infants to oblige them to the susception of circumcision for they could neither act nor understand that or any other command The command was to the parents for present and to children for the future therefore if you meaâ—e that there was no command of Scripture to oblige â—s to the baptizing of infants the contrary appeares Matth. 28. 19. But you require expresse termes we rejoyns what expresse termes in Scripture have you to prove that there is an holy Trinity in the unity of the deity or for the abrogating the Jewish Sabbath and observation of our Lord-day Sabbath or for womens receiving the Lords supper or for your rebaptizing or dipping over head and ears But you say The necessity of pedobaptism was not determined in the Church till in the eighth age after Christ but in the year 418. in the Milevitan Councel never till then What necessity speak you of de necessitate medii in respect of infants salvation as if they could not be saved without it we maintain it not if you mean such a necessity on our part as bindeth us to obedience that is to baptize infants of believing parents we say with S. Augustin the custom of our mother the Church in baptizing infants is not at all to be despised or by any means to be esteemed superfluous nor to be believed any other then an Apostolical tradition the ground hereof is laid down l. 3. c. 24. Contra Donat. before by us cited to which I refer the reader the sum is That whatsoever is universally observed in all Churches and no man can say by what
Councel it was determined or when it began must be thought to have descended from the tradition of the Apostles themselves and therefore we hold it as we are commanded 2 Thes. 2.15 and we believe it is necessary to be held because 't is so commanded That which you say that it was not determined in the Church till in the eighth age after Christ and but in the year 418. in the Milevitan Councel will easily appear false for the Councel of Carthage in Cyprians time who flourished about the year 250. determined that children might be baptized and that even before the eight day against the opinion of Fidus as was before noted out of Cyprian but you say that infant-baptism was not determined in the Church untill the Milevitan Councel 1. I demand Doth a determination by a succeeding Councel exclude a determination of the same thing by a foregoingâ— or doth it conclude a thing to be no Apostolical tradition What think you then of our Christian Sabbath will you say that the abrogation of the Jewish Sabbath that our Christian Sabbath might succeed was not an Apostolical tradition or that it was not sufficiently determined in the Church untill about the year 364. because then there was a Canon made for the same in the Councel of Laodicea Nay but the practice of the Apostles was a sufficient determination thereof And truly Ecclesiastical Canons as also municipal Laws and Statutes may with good reason be made for confirmation of things rightly and long before sufficiently determined where some emergent opposition to the former requireth a due revisal and further expression interpretation or confirmation of the same 2. I say that there needed no determination by a general Councel before any opposition was made publickly against a received custome of the Church but so soon as it was questioned and openly opposed by the Pelagians then the second Milevitan Councel was called against Pelagius and Celestius It were but a weak argument against an Apostolical tradition if we should find little or no mention thereof in any writer in some ages of the Primitive Church seeing that besides that there were some of them obscure generally without Ecclesiastical Writers what necessity can be alleadged that in every age some writers must make particular mention and rehersal of all Apostolical traditions or practices of the Church when an uninterrupted peace thereof sufficed and no opposition gave occasion of providing for defence Indeed when any turbulent and disobedient spirit of contradiction brake out to disturb the peace and unity of the Church then the Ministers disputed preached or wrote as need required or Councels were called which could not come together from divers Nations without much trouble and charge and therefore they were not assembled except in case of some urgent necessity and then their Canons were agreed upon for suppressing of emergent errors and that in all reason for what need arming without an enemy to make Statutes provisions Ordinances or Canons without some present danger might possibly teach men to offend or erre who without such occasion had not minded it at all The first Apostolical Synod had an apparent cause certain men taught the brethren saying Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses ye cannot be saved Then the Apostles and Elders â—ame together to consider of this matter So the four first Councels had their several occasions The Nicen Councel was called by Constantin to suppress the damnable heresie of the Arians The Councel of Constantinople was called against Maedonius and Eunomius denying the deity of the holy Ghost in the reigne of Gratian and Theodosius The Councel of Ephesus in the reigne of Theodosius the younger against Nestorius and Caelestius and the Calcedon Councel was gathered against the heresie of Eutychus and Dioscorus so was the Councel of Gangris against Eustathius The first Councel of Carthage against the rebaptizing Donatists the Arelatense was occasioned by their appeal and the second Milevitan Councel was called against Pelagius and Caelestius his great Factor denying infants original sin and baptism So that the non determination of a thing for many ages in the Church the Church constantly holding and practising it proves nothing but that no body opposed it all that time and had Pelagiâ—uâ—s heresie concerning infant-baptism after the Milevitan Councel and after the writings of Jerome Augustin Optatus and others still slept I know not why any man should now have written or spoken against it I grant you say it was practised in Africa before that time and they or some of them thought well of it and though that be no argument for us to think so yet none of them did ever before pretend it to be necessary none to have been a precept of the Gospel St. Augustin was the first that ever preach'd it to be absolutely necessary and that was in his heat and anger against Pelagius who had warmed and chased him so in that question that it made him innovate in other doctrines possibly of â—â—re concernment then this You grant the practice of infant-baptism in Africa and that some of them thought well of it It hath been proved that an ancient Councel there established it as a custome of the Church derived from the practice or tradition of the Apostles obeying Christ's general precept to baptize all nations that none of them before Augustin pretended it to be necessary cannot be true for they would not have practised a thing of so high concernment except they â—ad held it to be necessary on the part of the administrers Further I say that the Churches of Africa were of a very ancient plantation as were also the Churches of Asia of which was Justin Martyr by birth a Samaritan which is of Asia the greater and he was for infant-baptism above all controversie the sound of the Apostles preaching went into all the earth and their words unto the ends of the world and therefore all the Christian Churches were first planted according to the Gospel and traditions of the Apostles among which we have shewed infant-baptism to be one for good cause therefore they thought well of it and so do we That none of them did ever before Augustine pretend it necessary is apparently false for it was in liking and use in Cypriant time as hath been proved therefore if Augustin were the first that ever preached it to be absolutely necessary to salvation and in his heat against the Pelagians did something innovate it hurteth not our cause who do not affirm so rigid a necessity of baptism as we have said formerly But you sa Nor at all in other places we have the testimony of a learned Pedobaptist Ludovicus Vives who in his annotations upon S. Augustin de C. Dei l. 1. c. 2â— affirms neminem nisi adultum antiquitùs solere baptizari That infant-baptism was not at all practised in other places is very untrue as appeareth by that which hath been alleadged out
of Ireneus who was of France and Justin Martyr Jerom Ambrose c. That which you cite out of Ludovicus Vives neminem nisi adultum antiquitùs solere baptizari I suppose you may read in some index or marginal â—â—â—e or in Bellarmin with a little change the words of Vâ—â—â— in the cited place are ne quis fallatur hoc loco nemo olim sacro admovebatur baptisterio nisi adultâ jam aetate c. lest any should be deceived in this place none anciently was moved to the sacred font but such as were come to full age c. Certainly Augustin spake there concerning those who being of years could understand what the sacred mystery signisied and could desire the same What is the cause saith he why we should spend times in exhorting them wherein by speaking we endeavour to enflame the baptized either unto virgin integrity or vidual continency or unto a conjugal fidelity c. he meant not such words to infants What did vidual continency or conjugal fidelity concern infants as such and L. Vives words immediately following intimate the same The image of which thing saith he we yet see in our baptizing of infants If this were not his meaning as it was Augustins it was frivolous enough and such as I cannot easily believe so learned an Author and so well acquainted with Augustins sense and judgement in this matter could be guilty of possibly his olim related to the baptism which was administred in ecclesiâ constituendâ when the partition wall being broken down and the natural branches broken off that others might be grassed into Christ which was and could no otherwise be then by instructing people in the faith of Christ and then baptizing them that their children might afterward be baptized as being within the covenant by their fathers priviledg and their own as being children of believing parents so that in the constituting a Christian Church the Ministers first and most general work of administring baptism was with persons of years by their preaching to them converting to the faith but in ecclesiâ constitutâ it is much otherwise our general work of administration of baptism is with infants of enchurched parents we seldom meeting with any Turk or Pagan or Jew converted and desiring baptism to conclude if L. Vives by you cited had been of your opinion to spare the mentioning the authority of Ireneus Cyprian Augustin Jerom c. or the African or other Councels who much better knew the custom of the ancient Churches then Lud. Vives could we can ballance Vives with Polydor Virgil another learned Author who saith As infants among the Jews were circumcised the eight day from their nativity so are they for the most part with us baptized which yet the English do in the very day wherein they are born that which S. Cyprian by many reasons proveth may be done But you say besides that the tradition cannot be proved to be Apostolical we have very good evidence from antiquity that it was the opinion of the Primitive Church that infants ought not to be baptized and this is clear in the sixt Canon of the Councel of Neocaesâ—rea c. It is proved to be Apostolical and therefore above controversy it can be proved You talk of very good evidence from antiquity that it was the opinion of the Primitive Church that infants ought not to be baptized and this you say is clear in the sixt Canon of the Councel of Neocaesarea so then it is likely that one testimony is very good and clear evidence for you and shall not many and of them some more ancient witnesses be good for us Origen Ireneus Cyprian with the whole Councel of Carthage held about anno 258. were more ancient then the Councel of Neocaesarea held about the year 316. and those as hath been shewed were for infant-baptism as many others also express Augustin as we have before noted on Num. 13 calleth it ecclesiae fidem firmissimam and fundatissimum morem the most firm faith of the Church and the most grounded custom And again that which was delivered by Apostolical authority But let us now behold how clear it is in the sixt Canon of the Councel of Neocaesarea which you alleadged The Canon saith A woman with child may be baptized when she please for the baptism of her that is to be delivered in this matter concerneth not the infant to be born because every ones own choice or purpose is manifested or declared by his own confession the mothers baptism doth not so concern the infant that is to be born as if that needed not to be baptized when 't is born The woman must for the present make her confession of faith whereby she may declare he choice and so must the child for his own part when he comes to age and can shew that he embraceth the Christian faith Mark how clear this Canon makes it that Infants ought not to be baptized Here 's not one word forbidding infant-baptism the whole scope being rather to shew that the infant must be baptized for himself because the mothers baptism in whose womb he then was cannot excuse him from being baptized Add hereto that which some observe That regeneration by baptism presupposeth a precedent natural birth which the unborn child hath not therefore the unborn infant cannot be regenerate in his mothers baptism Indeed it gives him a right hereto if he have none by the fathers side 1 Cor. 7. 14. So that if any man lift to think that the Councel spake Gospel yet it will no more thence follow that infants ought not to be baptized because they cannot yet make confession of their faith then that all that which is said of the adult is precisely to be applyed to inâ—ants for present as that 2. Thes. 3. 10. This we command you that if any would not work neither should he eat which concerneth infants no otherwise then when they should be able but in the mean time would you not have them eat you know that though the rule bear a shew of universalityâ— yet it concerneth persons of age and ability not infants so here the Ministers interrogating persons of years to be baptized was simply necessary for how else should it have been known whether they were fit to be admitted into the Church priviledges by baptism that therefore they did not admit infants to baptism because they did not examin them follows not except you could shew that they admitted none to baptism but persons of years which is the question in hand and therefore may not be a medium to prove your assertion by as for asking them questions to be answered by Sponsors Godfathers and Godmothers we shall speak anon And to supply their incapacity by the answer of a Godfather is but the same unreasonableness acted with a worse circumstance and there is no sensible account to be given of it We say that by your present confession such sponsion by
God-fathers is but a circumstance therefore the sponsors supply not any incapacity of infants in the respect of the substance of baptism which is to be sprinkled washed with or dipped in water in the name of the Father the Son and the holy Ghost for this their own capacity is sufficient they being born of believing parents and within the Church without the supply of any answer of others for them which if you grant us we have the end of our dispute as for circumstances neither commanded nor forbidden by God in the holy scriptures we shall willingly submit to the authority and practice of the Church in which we live If you dispute from the circumstance or any pretended inconvenience therein to the anulling the substance controverted you know how unreasonable that fallacia accidentis is and what sensible account can be given of it But you say That which some imperfectly murmur concerning stipulations civil performed by Tutors in the name of their Pupils is an absolute vanity c. Have a care that you be not answered with à turpe est Dactori c. Do you not vainly argue that in the use of God fathers c. God is tyed and Christian Religion transacts her mysteries by proportion and compliance with the Law of the Romans concerning which something hath been answered before I only add here that God neither commanding nor forbidding God-fathers it is no vanity to obey authority herein But to disturb the peace of the Church and make schismes for things in their own nature indifferent and commended to us by venerable antiquity is not only vain but impious And how is God tyed where he neither forbids nor commands To the rest we say not that Christian Religion must transact her mysteries by complyance with Roman Laws or humane customs but that in some things she may in things circumstantial and no waies repugnant to the word of God You say further I know God might if he would have appointed God fathers to give answer in behalf of children and to be fideiussors for them but we cannot find any authority or ground that he hath and if he had then it is to be supposed he would have given them commission to have transacted the solemnity with better circumstances and given answers with more truth We answer 1. In that you can find no authority or ground for it nor against it as we know it can be no other then adiaphorous or indifferent and in or for such things as are meerly circumstantial and in their own nature indifferent to dissent from antiquity disobey the Churches authority and break the sacred band of unity let your own consciences tell you what you do 2. Whereas you would bespatter this custom of imputation of will-worship and untruth in the users thereof I say first That whatsoever God hath commanded or forbidden in holy Scriptures that is necessarily to be observed and this faithfull word we must hold fast Tit. 1. 9. But those things which he hath neither commanded nor forbidden neither expresly nor by necessary consequence fall under the general rule belonging to things arbitrary and indifferent Let all things be done decently and in order ◠Cor. 14. 4◠which then only can be when we unanimously and uniformly do that which a general consent and constant practice of the Church warranteth not that which every private spirit liketh or disliketh There can be no decency without order nor order in confusion of practices therefore God having left many things circumstantial arbitrary as to the authority of the Church we ought to tender her unity and reverence her authority the contempt whereof hath opened so wide a dore to schism as now troubleth the Christian world Secondly there may be falshood in some mens answers though no fault in the order which God will it being his perfection that he is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God that cannot lie Tit. 1. 2. and it is the inviolable holyness of his will that he will not neither can will any evil and it is certainly true which Fulgentius saith As there is no sin in him so there is no sin of him For the question you say is asked of believing in the present and if the God-fathers answer in the name of the child I do believe it is notorious that they speak false and ridiculously for the infant is not capable of believing c. For answer we may say with Augustin Who knows not that to be baptized is in or for infants instead of believing And again they are borne to Church and although they cannot run thither on their own feet yet go they on others feet that they may be healed our mother the Church lendeth them others feet that they may come others heart that they may believe others tongue that they may confess that for as much as in that they are sick they are more grievously burthened with anothers sin that is which they acted not in their own persons so when these are cured they may be healed or saved another confessing for them But I demand Why may we not here with better reason understand present for future believing then you do children of believers holyness which the Apostle 1 Cor. 7. 14. pronounceth in the present by a designation to the service of Jesus Christ and the future participation of the promises But Augustin saith very well If the Sacraments had not a certain similitude of those things whereof they are Sacraments they should not at all be Sacraments but by reason of this likeness they oftentimes receive the very names of these things themselves therefore as after a certain manner the Sacrament of Christs body is the body of Christ the Sacrament of Christs blood is the blood of Christ so the Sacrament of faith is faith Now to believe is nothing else but to have faith and so when 't is answered that the infant believeth who hath not yet the affection of faith we answer that he hath faith in respect of the sacrament of faith and that he converteth to God in respect of the sacrament of conversion because even that very answer appertaineth unto the celebration of the Sacrament as the Apostle speaketh of baptism it self We are saith he Buried with him by baptism into death he saith not we signifie burial but altogether saith We are buried therefore he called the Sacrament of so great a matter by no other name then of the thing it self So that faith though it be not yet such as 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 other doctrines this the Church ever had ever held c. doubtless the custom is very ancient Histories tell us of it in the time of Higinus who was coetaneous with Polycarp a disciple of S Johns 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 circumâ—â—sed 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. lunius 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 Nazianzâ—n 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 â—ender 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 reckons up severall sorts of those whose Baptism was deferred some for sloth or insatiable desire of sinning others are not in ability to receive it either for their infancy or some sudden and violent accident disabling them so that they cannot receive this grace if they would True infants have neither ability nor will to come to Baptism nor can those though of years who are accidentally disabled they have not power though they have a will
to come What is this to our deferring Infants Baptism in the Rule which in some cases may reasonably and lawfully be done As for example Suppose an infant neer some Mahumetan border were found and the parents not known we may and ought to demur But what makes this against baptizing infants of parents known to be within the Church But you say To which if we add that the parents of S. Augustine S. Hierom and St. Ambrose although they were Christian yet did they not baptize their children before they were 30 years of age it will be very considerable in the Example and of great efficacy for the destroying the supposed necessity or derivation from the Apostles This may make a formidable noyse in some vulgar ear 't is true which Mr. Homes notes pag. 188. that the opinions or practices of some few conclude no more against the generall tenet and practice of the Church then the Hills and Vallies do against the roundness of the world But to what purpose do you propose any of these examples to your clients imitation If not why inferre you them Possibly the parents of some great and excellent men might erre in such omission of duty or there might be some in vincible lets or obstructions to their desires however you would not have your childrens Baptism deferred â—0 years To the particulars I say Possidonius in the life of Augustine saith that he was born of honest and Christian parents and that he received of St. Ambrose Bishop of Milan both the wholesome doctrine of the Catholick Church and the Divine Sacraments But Augustine saith he believed and desired baptism from his childhood the cause of the delay thereof he putteâ—h on a sudden great sickness and his fathers unbelief but if the parents were then Christian when he was born and either understood not or neglected his Baptism what is this to our cause I know nothing hence following but that if so they neglected they were culpable We read of his dangerous estate while he was a Maniche and his mothers constant and importunate tears and intercession for his conversion as her sorrow for the delay thereof which at last happily obtained according to that which the Prelate answered her It cannot be that the son of those tears should perish After his conversion he seriously learned and happily taught others not to defer infant-baptism as may appear by that which hath been alledged out of him As for St. Hierom they also say that both his parents were Christian and that he was diligently taught and brought up of them at home and that with Bonosus presently even in his Parents embraces and Nurses gentle language he received in Christ and presently he was instructed in the rudiments of Christian piety which very probably importeth his infant-baptisme rather then that he had any Nurses at his being â—0 years old That which Erasmus who gathered his story out of other Authors after saith on Hieroms Epistle to Damasus that he would follow the saith of that Citie in which he had received the garment of Christ as the same Erasmus gives the sense in the life of Hierom proves not that he was not baptized before he was 30 years old for Hieroms words are to this sense because the Eastern Churches have rent the seamless Coat of Christ by their schismes so that it is hard there to know where the Church is therefore I thought it meet that I should consult with Peters Chaire and the faith commended by the Apostles mouth Rom. 1. thence now requiring food for my soul where long since I tooke on me the garment of Christ. What was it which he called Peters Chair What the Citie of Rome Was that faith which the Apostle commended onely there or then when Hierom wrote in all the Western Church his words concerning the Eastern Churches divisions by reason of the Arian faction and the following concerning the great distance at which Hierom being then in Syria near Antioch was make it plain that he spake of the Western Church in which he was baptized probably in oppido Stridonis where he was born not in Rome As for Erasmus's opion of his being baptized in Rome 't is grounded but upon an opinor I think saith he he meaneth it not of his Priesthoâ—d or orders And what solidity is there on these conjectures to conclude that Hieroms parents though Christian defer'd his baptism until he was 30 years old or what wil it advantage you if it were true there may be such lets to sealing as to Israel in the Wilderness and God bare with them 40 years together yet they should have circumcised the male children at eight dayes old upon a severe penalty Gen 17. 14. an inevitable necessity varieth not the rule Concerning the last instance in Ambrose I find that his Father was Deputy or Governor of France but whether Christian or not I find nothing in Paulinus who wrote his life and you avouch no Author for that you say We read that after he was chosen Bishop of Milan after Auxentius the Arian by the joynt suffrages of the discordant parties and being though much against his own will confirmed in that charge by Valentinian the Emperor he was baptized and with the Church held Infant-baptism against Pelagius and the Donatists upon this ground Because every age is subject to sin therefore every age is fit for the Sacrament let the reader mark how this also is very considerable in the example and of what great efficacy it is for the destroying the supposed necessity or derivation from the Apostles as the pleader saith But seeing he can raise no stronger batteries against it he might more easily and certainly conclude that it will stand whether he will or no. But however saith he it is against the perpetual analogie of Christian Doctrine to baptize infants This is gallantly spoken if he could tell how to prove it or any part thereof Besides that Christ never gave any precept to baptize them c. This is his Argument all that for which Christ never gave any precept for the doing it and which neither himself nor his Apostles that appears did is against the perpetual Analogie of Christs Doctrine but Christ never gave any precept to baptize them c. ergo I answer This foundred Argument lame on both feet doth poorly charge 1. 'T is not true that all is against the perpetual Analogie of Christs Doctrine for which no express precept of Christ or practice of himself or his Apostles appears for there are many things circumstantial and indifferent neither commanded nor forbidden which yet on second thoughts you will not say are against the perpetual Analogie of Christs Doctrine I might instance the postures or numbers or sexes or places where in the receiving the Lords Supper Where do you read of any command of Christ or practice of himself or Apostles that the Communicants should stand or sit or
kneel or lie down one of these or if you can think of any other must needs be shew us either precept or practice obliging to either where is any precept of Christ obliging to a set or determined number of Communicants where are we commanded to administer to women where is any precept obliging to a place who knows not that these and the like things are left under the general rule Let all things be done decently and in order which observed they are not against the Analogie of Christs Doctrine Again what think you of the Sabath is that which we now doe therein against the Analogie of Christs Doctrine because we find no express precept or practice of Christ or his Disciples for the translation of it That it is and ought to be the Christian Sabbath is grounded on necessary consequence but no express precept 2. It is also notoriously false that Christ never gave any express precept to baptize all Nations without any exception to infants within the Covenant and who knoweth not that infants ever were and are a great part of every Nation what then though he never said in so many syllables or by naming infants go and baptize them also is it not sufficient to name all Nations without enumeration of particulars Indeed he needed not give such an express command concerning children seeing that he sent them to administer this seal of the new Covenant and Sacrament of initiation who were in the old their selves sealed in their infancy by circumcision and so used to that Doctrine of childrens being within the Covenant with believing parents and the daily practice of their initiation and reception into the communion of a visible Church that it might have seemed very superfluous to say any more then Go baptize all Nations There is also much difference Inter ecclesiam constituendam constitutam the Apostles business was generally to baptize Heathens and converted unbelievers but we have to deal with a Church constituted therefore faith and repentance were so often mentioned in the story of the Apostles practice but we living in a setled Church have to deal with baptizing infants who cannot yet actually believe or repent But in that no particulars are mentioned in Christs universal command to baptize it sheweth that all within the Church-priviledg and Covenant of God are included Again whereas you require a command in terminis for baptizing infants I demand Where doth he in terminis say Baptize men of years or Kings peasants rich poor high low men women Citizens Countrey-men Fishers Husbandmen Threshers Shooemakers Taylors Shop-keepers or Mechanicks He commandeth that all be baptized of what sex age condition or estate whatsoever they be which appertain to any Nation So in general Prescripts Laws Grants and Franchises the rehersal of particulars is not requisite because such things pass on the whole kind therein contained and will that the censure or priviledg concern all particulars within that general except in case of any exemption of some specified particular or exception made by him who made the Covenant or granted the Priviledges We cannot find 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in these very words in any place of Scripture Baptize Women or administer the Lords Supper to women yet from these general precepts Baptize all Nations take eat this is my body and dâ—iâ—k ye all of it now it is evident that the twelve Apostles only were then present when he instituted this Sacrament and that he spake and administred it unto them only yet I say we all without quarrel about it baptize women and respectively administer the Lords Supper to them as included in the general precepts and why are we not contented with a general precept including childrens baptism seeing no exception of the Covenant-maker can appear to the contrary Lastly we say again that the reason why Christ gave his Disciples no express or peculiar command concerning baptizing infants but included them in the general was because the Apostles were so well acquainted with childrens reception into the Church-priviledges and sealing into the same that they could not reasonably make any question of baptizing infants having a general command to baptize all Nations infants being under the Law circumcised and knowing moreover that the grace of God was not more strict or restrained in the new Testament then in the old but contrarywise more diffused or large and therefore a greater and more difficult question might have been concerning the baptism of women there being neither analogie from circumcision nor particular precept to induce them to baptize them but that they knew that the general precept was authority sufficient without specifying particulars in terminis You say more All that either he or his Apostles said concerning it requires such previous dispositions to baptism of which infants are not capable and these are faith and repentance Your whole scope is fallacious form your Argument Christ and his Apostles in all that he or they said concerning baptism required faith and repentance as previous dispositions to baptism but no infant can believe or repent ergo infants are not previously disposed to or capable of baptism according to that Christ or his Apostles ever said 1. We say here is a Paralogism or fallacy à dicto secundum quid ad dictum simplicitèr Your Major is true if you speak of persons of years to be instructed but false concerning children because he never requireth any impossibility 2. He that appointed Infants baptism requires no other previous disposition to infant-baptism but such as they are capable of that is of being admitted into the visible Church and sealed with the external Seal thereof into the future profession of faith and repentance Adde hereto that children under the Gospel are thus capable of the seal of faith as children were under the Law although they cannot actually repent or believe which were and are no less previous dispositions if we speak of persons of mature years to be baptized But if your dispute be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 your ignoratio elenchi may not pass for current reason if by previous dispositions to baptism of men of years you would obtrude the same on infants concerning whom we say that actual faith or repentance are no more previous dispositions to baptism then they were to circumcision And so you see that I might reasonably answer all that you say herein by rejecting your consequence but for the prudent Readers further satisfaction I say 3. Aprevious disposition necessary to the capacity of a thing is considerable either as it is in or of the subject 1. A previous disposition in the subject we may understand either as a self-disposing by some intrinsecal and inward faculty or as a being extrinsecally disposed and fitted by some other power to a capacity or receptibility of something which yet it hath not neither was capable thereof before such a disposition Now this in our present instance presupposeth or speaks some change of the mind
by illumination faith remorse of conscience purpose of leading a new life and desire to be implanted into Christ and the communion of Saints by baptism and so it is internal or professing of that endeavour of knowing the mysteries of the Gospel faith and repentance testified before men and so these dispositions are external or expressed to men whom it may concern these are necessary in persons of years coming to baptism 2. there is a previous disposition of the subject without any present change of the mind which springeth from his relation to some other or some others act So some titles of honour come on children in their fathers Charters without any present change of the childs mind so Lands and Inheritances by right of adoption may be setled on them in their infancy without their present change or knowledg so also the believing parents priviledg and being within Gods Covenant made with them and their children previously disposeth infants to the seal thereof to wit by giving them a certain right thereto and so was it in circumcision But if a Proselyte were to receive the seal of the Covenant he must necessarily be prepared and first disposed thereto by the knowledg of Gods Law and Covenant faith repentance or at least the profession thereof and those other rites which the Law required on that behalf The infants previous disposition to circumcision was no other then his fathers and his own priviledg and being within Gods Covenant Of the child was neither faith nor repentance required for the present but future so must we understand concerning baptism the seal of faith under the Gospel And not say you to instance in those innumerable places that require faith before this Sacrament there needs no more but this one He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved I answer 1. Deal fairly dispute ad idem and shew me one place of Scripture which universally requireth faith before this Sacrament and you shall be excused for the innumerable places which you speak of We can shew that the rule holds not universally that faith must precede the Sacraments for though Abrahams faith preceded the seal thereof yet Isaaks seal preceded his faith Mr. Calvin expresseth the reason hereof Why saith he doth in Abraham the Sacrament follow faith and in Isaak his son it goeth before all understanding because it is meet that he which being in full-grown age is received into fellowship of the Covenant from which he had hitherto been a stranger should first learn the conditions thereof but an infant begotten of him needed not so which by right of inheritance according to the form of the promise is even from his mothers womb contained in the Covenant And certainly in this respect God calleth the infants of covenanted parents sons and daughters born unto him Ezek. 16. 20. 23. 37. be esteeming them his children who are born of those parents to whom God made the promise to be a God unto them and their seed after them which promise as truly concerns us and our children as it concerned Abraham and his 2. If the argument be good from that place Mark 16. 16. He that believeth and is baptized faith is first named and then baptism ergo faith must precede baptism Why shall not the Argument from other places be good to the contrary as John 3. 5. Except a man be born of water and of the spirit he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God Baptism is first named and then regeneration therefore baptism must precede regeneration So again Ephes. 5. 26. Washing with water that is baptism is mentioned before the word ergo we must first be baptized and afterward receive the word 3. If this argument were good how many men and women of age must by the same reason be denyed baptism For all have not saith but the truth is that to be born in the Church is unto or in infants instead of profession of faith and repentance as to the outward seal for which we contend and profession of faith and repentance is to and for the adult instead of the same for their right to the desired seal so was it to Ismael and Esau whom God hated because they were born of covenanted parents 4. Sure it is that Christ in the forementioned place speaketh of men and women of years For you confess that infants as such cannot believe and what then must follow if your cruel principles were true Christ saith But he that believeth not shall be damned If this were as you would have it spoken concerning infants also what should become of all those that die in their infancy what are they damn'd Here appears an inexcusable perversness of these men who when children are proposed to their interest in general terms granted them there they would exclude them except they shew a particular warrant and baptize all Nations without a baptize infants shall not advantage them for the seal of their admission into Christs visible Church But where a general rule is mentioned from whence they are in reason and all charitable construction to be exempted there it must include them for their disadvantage even to damnation without any particular warrant for such inteterpretation Mr. Cobbet observeth well That the Covenant-priviledges of grace are ever to be expounded in favour of the principal or less principal counterparties unless any exception be made of persons or priviledges by him which was the Covenant-maker To avoid this you must either acknowledg that the place you cite is either to be understood of those of years who contumaciously reject the Ordinances of God being hardned in wilfull blindness and unbelief and so that iâ— doth not concern children as such or else you must allow infants some secret seeds of faith and regeneration and so you shall justly acknowledg their capacity of baptism Plainly you say thus faith and baptism in conjunction will bring a man to heaven but if he have not faith baptises shall do him no good True in those who though baptized as Simon Magus are yet but in the gall of bitterness but this is a meer ignoratio elenchi hence to conclude against infants baptism our question not being whether all that are baptized shall be saved but whether children of believing parents ought to be baptized which if you would thus disprove whosoever have not a saving faith that the Sacrament may do them good may not be baptized but children have not such faith that baptism received may doe them good ergo children are not to be baptized your reasoning would appear unreasonable both Propositions being false or fallacious The Major because baptism is but the external seal of admission into the visible Church into which elect and reprobates may enter as it were into the outward Court of the Temple And if saving faith finally doing the baptized good or which is the same if the inward baptism by the holy Ghost were the rule by which the baptizing Minister must
proceed what man were sufficient for that Office The examples of Simon Magus Judas Demas c. shew enough that the most discerning men may be deceived in others fair profession and who can foresee the final estates of men and women baptized I cannot reasonably think that you take all those for elect whom your selves baptize or that your baptism shall doe them all good And if you dispute 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 concerning one and the same faith in several degrees that is if you mean the seeds or habit of faith that Minor is false for elect infants have the seeds of faith in baptism though they be not formed in them yet by the secret working of the spirit the seeds thereof for a time lying hidden in them shall flourish and shew their growth in them in newness of life If you mean it of actual faith that want of that condition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 discovereth the Paralogism And we say infants want of actual faith in present infancy thereof incapable concludeth nothing against their having of it in mature age and so as little against their baptism I cannot conclude so well as in Augustins words But some may say the things do some men no good what must the Medicine therefore be neglected because some mens pestilence is incurable So that if baptism be necessary then so is faith and much more for want of faith damneth absolutely I demand then Do infants believe Why do ye deny them baptism or because they have not faith do you conclude them all damned who die in their infancy That were a damnable assertion and to pay you with your own coyn Against the perpetual analogie of Christs Doctrine who commanded infants to be brought unto him bless them and positively affirmed that Of such is the Kingdom of heaven Further I say If your Proposition be universal it is notoriously false for all want of faith doth not absolutely damn For 1. They who pray for faith or the increases thereof as the Disciples did want faith yet were they not damned he that hungereth and thirsteth for the righteousness of faith wanteth the same for hunger and thirst are of emptiness yet Christ pronounceth such blessed 2. He that now believeth not may hereafter believe It was Pauls case had you seen him persecute the faith and faithfull in ignorance and unbelief would you presently have devoted him to absolute damnation Judg not that you be not judged I know no man living that wanteth not faith and I pray the good Lord to help my unbelief and exhort you otherwise to express your fancies that they prove not snares to weak and afflicted consciences Then you say it is sottish to say the same incapacitâ— of reason and faith shall not excuse from the actual susception of baptism c. A very acute and witty assertion indeed but we answer 1. By this principle you might have been as blasphemous against Gods Ordinance in circumcision had you lived under the Law 2. We say not but that infants by their incapacity are excused from actual susception of baptism for they cannot act thereto But parents are not excusable if they contemn or neglect their parts in sealing those that are joynt heirs of the Promises and Covenant of God with them and their children because they have a capacity to promote and effect it and this appeareth in the History of Moses Exod. 4. 24 25. We very well know that infants cannot come and desire the Seals their present incapacity excuseth them from that they cannot possibly do but their parents or friends can intreat it for them and present them to it so that infants have a passive capacity they cannot profess faith and repentance but their parents professing of the same interesseth them in all those external Church-priviledges whereof they are capable and so to be born in the Church is to them and for them instead and in place of their profession What your terms of reasonably and humanely received do mean if to any purpose want interpretation The conclusion you say is that baptism is also to be deferred till the time of faith Why might you not say the same also concerning circumcision It is certain that by the same you may conclude that many thousand persons of age must never be baptized because they never come to believe as for their profession no man can say whether it be hypocritical or not Since faith is necessary to the susception of baptism c. True in adult is what is this to our present question concerning infants We have often said that this your arguing a dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter is fallacious and not passable among young Sophisters and we owe no other answer then denying the consequence Our contest is about Infant-baptism wherein we say a present actual faith is not required It is necessary or at least the profession thereof in those who present to or administer baptism we cannot say so of infants to whom God doth not yet give the use of reason therefore they cannot first believe and after receive the Seal as Abraham did But therefore they are to be baptized that they may attain faith and salvation So the word preached profiteth not if it be not mixed with faith in them that hear yet is the preaching thereof an effectual means whereby God will work faith in the hearers To conclude Baptism profiteth not without faith yet is it an effectual means whereby God worketh regeneration and salvation therefore none within his Covenant are to be barred from it It is not improbably conjectured by some that therefore the Disciples forbad them to bring children to Christ because they thought children have not faith nor can any teach them who are yet incapable of doctrine Possibly they did not yet understand the abolition of the old Seal for the introduction of the new nor how baptism was to succeed circumcision that was sometime after disputed and determined Actâ— 1 â—â— 2. but Christ was much displeased with it rebuked them and seriously protested that of such is the kingdom of heaven Whatever can be said to take off from the necessity of actual saith all that and much more you say may be said to excuse from the actual susception of baptism True in adultis but most faise in infants I am weary of telling you of your fallacious arguing à dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter Again if here by actual susception of baptism you mean that infants are to be excused from it we have answered in the foregoing 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 saith 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
order to baptize and be baptized for the remission of sins freely for Christs sake into whom we are implanted by Baptism How false then must it be which you upon the matter affirm that we shall be never the neerer if we cannot contribute somthing to the efficacie of Baptism in the use of our own reason Certainly Gods Spirit accompanieth his ordinance in the elect sooner or later If the reprobate be never the nearer salvation for his baptism that is accidentall maketh nothing against the effectuall sealing of the elect to eternall life in their baptism There are many sorts of hearers of the Word some like the stony ground some like the thorny some like the high-way shall the Apostasie unbelief and barrenness of the greater part make the ordinance of God of none effect to believers To conclude it is but the outward ministration which is committed to us the capacity or incapacity fruit-bearing or sterility of receivers belongs to God to judge of not to us we must do our duty and leave the issues to to him But you say From the pains of hell they shall be saved by the mercies of God and their own innocency though they die in puris naturalibus and baptism will carry them no further What Popery and Pelagianism twisted together If you speak of childrens salvation by the mercies of God to his elect so far we accord if you say by their own innocency that Pelagians and Donatists taught who affirmed that infants were born without originall sin and therefore would not have them baptized Against this heresie the second Milvetian Councel determined Canon 2. as hath been noted For that you say they shall be saved though they die in puris naturalibus that is such as they are by nature without regeneration it is against the express word of God as may clearly appear in that all are conceived and born in sin the children of wrath by nature That which is born of the flesh is flesh and flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God that is such as it is by and in the state of corrupted nature therefore except the infant be regenerate he cannot enter into the kingdome of God That which you say that Baptism will carry infants no further then from the pains of hell smels strongly of Popery They say that children dying without Baptism shall have poeâ—am damni non sensus that is they shall be free from hell fire but that they shall not enter into heavenly joys But Augustine so far said well there is not to any and middle place that he can be any where but with the Divel who is not with Christ. Certainly the Scripture mentioneth onely heaven for the elect and blessed and hell for the reprobate and damned For that Baptism that saveth us is not onely the washing with water of which onely children are capable but the answer of a good conscience towards God of which they are not capable till the use of reason till they know to chuse the good and refuse the evill If you mean by washing with water baptism according to Christs institution administred we say also it is not that onely which is the Ministers part to give which saveth us but the power and grace of Gods Spirit inwardly baptizing sanctifying regenerating and cleansing us from our sins by the pretious blood of Jesus that saveth us Now that infants are not hereof capable till the use of reason is evidently false if you but hold these three Principles 1. That no unregenerate unclean person can be saved 2. That all mankind is born in sin Rom. 5. 12. 3. That some infants dying before their use of reason are saved That which you say that infants are capable of washing with water that is of baptism or else you trifle we asserâ—t to and desire you to say no more infants of believing parents that is of professed Christians are capable of baptism for the rest we contend not we refer the effect thereof in particulars to God who alone knoweth his elect and how and when to give them the inward fruit of his own ordinances we neither affirm that all the baptized shall be saved neither can we or you determine which shall and which shall not but indifferently as charity requireth hope well of every one whom we baptize concerninig whom we can say nothing to the contrary But you say All vows made by persons under other names stipulations made by minors are not valid till they be by a supervening act after they are of a sufficient age to racifie them To which we answer 1. though all be not valid in such case it is enough that some are 2. Your assertion if granted that is that all vows or which is more then you affirm if no vows made by persons under others names or stipulations made by minors or persons in their minority are not valid untill by a supervening act after they are of sufficient age to ratifie them they are confirmed what could this make against our duty of Infant-baptism the case being much different between stipulations of men and the covenant between God man as hath been shewed as appeared in circumcision which was with Infants eight days old Mr. Cobbet well observeth that the covenant of grace is as well a testament 1 Cor. 11. 25. Heb. 9. 15 c. Now a testament may be and useth to be made in reference to little ones without knowledge nor do any use to deny a childs right in the Testators will because it understood not the same and that many Infants with whom God made the covenant Gen. 17. dying such were yet saved and that they restipulate in their Parents knowing acceptance of the covenant and professed owning of it upon the Covenant terms as wel on their childrens parts as their own they restipulate in a passive reception of the Covenant condition bond to afâ—er imitation of their father Abrahams faith obedience Again our question is not concerning the ratification or effect of Infant-baptism by their act or acts to make it good to themselves and effectuall when they come of age but concerning a Church-priviledge on Infants part which is to be admitted unto the externall seal of Gods Covenant with his Church it being to Parents and their children and this dependth on Gods institution to appoint it and his inward working to make it good Secondly in the confirmation of children come to age they then professing faith obedience repentance newness of life c. into which in their infancy they were baptized that is then ratified which others promised and stipulated for them as concerning outward profession which is in your language a supervening act to make the former appear valid Thirdly the question is not concerning the final effect of baptism in particulaâ—â— baptized which cannot fall under the Ministers cognizance it being kept in heaven in the archives and secret counsel of God but concerning their right
to baptism who are born within the verge and precincts of the Church Whether such infants doe afterwards believe repent and amend their lives to salvation by Christ or not we cannot foresee nor have we any exception to supersede or limit our duty of administring the outward seal of baptism For as much as children born of Christian parents and within the Church are thereby partakers of the Covenant of grace even they who are not partakers of the grace of the Covenant Fourthly we answer That children in Gods account do vow confess and avouch the Lord in their parents vowing confession or avouching him as they did of old which the learned Mr. Cobbet observeth from Deut. 26. 17 18. where we read Thou hast avouched the Lord this day to be thy God and to walk in his waies c. and the Lord hath avouched thee this day to be his peculiar people as he hath promised thee and Deut 19. 10 11 c. Ye stand this day all of you before the Lord your God Your Captains and your Tribes your Elders and your Officers with all the men of Israel your little ones your wives and strangers that those shouldest enter into a Covenant with the Lord thy God and into his Oath which the Lord thy God maketh with thee this day that he may establish thee to day for a people unto himself and that he may be unto thee a God as he hath said unto thee and as he hath sworn unto thy fathers to Abraham to Isaak and to Jacob c. whereof see Gen. 17. 7. Though therefore some stipulations made in minority and nonage bind not the person under age except he confirm it when he cometh to age yet you will not say that the same is not valid if made by Parents Governors or Guardians for children and so in some publick Covenants and Acts of one City or State with another which concern the present and future ages the infants within that City or State as being in minority free Denisons are bound by the same Covenant and Act though as such they could neither transact speak nor consent to the same but all was agreed on and done by their Parents or Commissioners of years thereto designed in their own and childrens name which may apear in Israels Covenant with the Gibeonites which though the stipulators were beguiled yet Israels children were bound to and when Saul out of a perverse zeal about 380 years after would needs violate how hinding that Covenant was God declared in a severe judgment on Sauls Family and all Israel But upon this invalid supposition you build another quere Why were it not as good they stayed to make it till that time before which time if they do make it it is to no purpose this would be considered It would or should be considered that it is very dangerous playing thus with the sacred Ordinances of God You confess that baptism is the only inlet into the Church of Christ and is it to no purpose to be let into his Church and Covenant out of which you say there is no salvation 'T is true that all are not saved that are within the Church and Covenant but no man is saved out of it God hath appointed baptism to be a seal and token of our receiving and entrance into the Church is it to no purpose to obey him in his Ordinances God would not only have all the Citizens of his Church thus enfranchised but those who are not baptized when they may he will not have reckoned in the number of his Church And say you 't is to no purpose to have children marked for members of Christs Church Baptism is Gods mark whereby he will have his people discerned from all other false Churches and Sects and think you 't is to no purpose to have Gods mark set on children that they may not with a perishing world be toucht by the destroyers Yet you say Our way is the surer way for not to baptize children till they can give an account of their faith is the most proportionable to an Act of Reason and humanity and it can have no danger in it How often hath Satan in tempting to sin misled the incaucious with this suggestion there can be no danger in it 't is the surer way 't is neither reasonable not humane wilfully to act his part and as much as in us lieth to shut infants from the kingdom of heaven and so to doe that which much angred Christ in the daies of his flesh to wit to barr or forbid children to come to him this would be considered And why is it more proportionable to an act of reason and humanity to defer childrens baptism then in due time to baptize them Infants were circumcised long before they could give any account of their faith and yet that act was proportionable to reason and Moses was near a sad affliction for delaying it You say further For to say that infants may be damned for want of baptism c. I know no Protestant that ever said so but take heed you damn not your selves by teaching contempt of the Sacrament We are well satisfied that the privation thereof shall not condemn infants it not being their fault if they want it it may be and certainly is theirs who teach men to deny it them And then consider in the inviolable justice of God whose the damnation will be We cannot conceive that a meer privation of circumcision condemned those Hebrew babes who died before the eighth day because God is unchangeably just who confined their sealing to that day yet you will grant that it was a great sin except in case of evident and inevitable necessity as during Israels marches in the Wilderness a great sin I say of parents to neglect the administration thereof for God never threatned any punishment such as is mentioned Gen. 17. 14. but in respect of great sin much more was it obstinately to deny it them It is certainly true which hath been noted out of Augustine There may be conversion of the heart without baptism but it cannot be in the contempt of baptism for it can by no means be called the conversion of the heart to God when the Sacrament of God is contemned And so take your dirt back again into your own faces which you cast at ours Whosoever will pertinaciously persist in this opinion of Anabaptists and practice it accordingly they pollute the bloud of the everlasting Testament and in the Apostles sense Heb. 4 5 6. They crucifie to themselves the Son of God afresh and put him to open shame who being once baptized and thereby planted together in the likeness of his death Rom. 6. 4 5. Who having once died dyeth no more death hath no more dominion over him will yet be baptized again The Apostles saying It is impossible for those who were once enlightned that is baptized as the Syriac Interpreter rendreth it and as
out to fill up the measure of impious calumny You say They invocate the holy Ghost in vain doing as if one should call upon him to illuminate a stone or a tree 1. I wonder what they will be ashamed to say who blush not at such assertions 'T is true that the Apostle useth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be illuminated for to be baptized as the Syriac Interpreter gives it Hebr. 4. 6. Hebr. 10. 32. and that the Greek Fathers so commonly used the word and it is no improbable conjecture that there was an allusion to the Hebrew manner of speaking who by one and the same word express illumination and a River or Source of water and by a Metaphor Illumination of the mind For they who are baptized by water and the spirit of Jesus are in Gods good time and the measure he knows fit illuminated and find not only a River of elementary water but of that water which floweth to eternal life whereof Christ spake John 7. that is the spirit of illumination and sanctification 2. I would desire you again consider is the case all one or alike when we pray that God would be pleased to illuminate sanctifie and save an elect infant for whom Christ shed his precious bloud for whose salvation he came from heaven became an infant and man of sorrows to the death whom he blessed of whom he said Of such is the kingdom of heaven and except ye become as one of these ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven Is I say the case all one when we pray according to Gods word and promise for these as if we should pray God to illuminate sanctifie and save a stone or a tree hath a stone or tree any habitual faith or reason or any capacity of the holy Ghost illumination or sanctification Do any creatures under the degrees of man bear the image of their Creator in immortality sanctity and light of understanding Would God you could be ashamed of blaspheming and laying such pernicious stumbling-blocks before the blind to make them fall Since you say there is no direct impiety in the opinion of Anabaptists nor any that is apparently consequent to it and they with so much probability do or may pretend to true perswasion they are with all means Christian fair and humane to be redargued or instructed I hoped that the Plea being ended the Pleader would have come to himself again but this and another strain promise no more but a lucid interval I answer As to your charitie towards the persons of the Anabaptists I also wish they may by all Christian fair and humane means be reproved convinced or instructed but that there is no direct impietie in their opinion nor any that is apparently consequent to it is apparently untrue for that which is displeasing to Christ is directly impious and such is with-holding Infants from him that which is uncharitable is direct impietie and such is that opinion which barreth Infants from the Seal of Gods Covenant with them and the Communion of Saints as also in that it damneth so great a part of the world presupposing that God had no Church in the world for so many hundred years as Infant-Baptism hath been the general inlet to the same except a little while in the schism of Pelagians and Donatists and again when the same Heresie revived in Germany in Charls 5. his reign and now again in these distracted and calamitous times much more hath been and might be said herein but I shall be so far from being their accuser that I heartily pray the Lord to open their eyes that they sleep not in death only I say to the Pleader who would so courteously vail others impietie 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Lastly you say that you think That there is much more truth then evidence on our side and therefore we may be confident as for our own particulars but not too forward peremptorily to prescribe to others much less to damn or to kill or to persecute them that only in this particular disagree That we may be confident of the truth on our side I assent likewise that none be too forward peremptorily to prescribe except where the Word of God and necessary consequence from thence prescribeth that none should persecute kill or much less for opimons less then blasphemous against God or destructive to Religion and salvation of souls saving to Supreme Authoritie their lawful right agenda est ut sit voluntas Longe diversa sunt carnificina pietas I also assent to but can by no mean◠be of your opinion that there is less evidence then truth or our side as any ways intimating a defect of evidence therefore I say 1. That evidence sensu forensi in common sense of controversies or matters of judicatuye importeth sufficient proof so we say that witnesses give in evidence that is not alwayes in terminis and express words as in actions of case is requirable nor as they say ore rotundo as to say Verres is a Thief c. but from considerable circumstances or necessarie consequences sufficient to evince and to inform to sentence This evidence on our side you will not denie in this case nor I suppose affirm that falshood hath more proof or evidence in Scripture then truth 2. Sometimes we speak of evidence in relation to the partie or parties to be informed in which not only his or their capacitie is considerable but also other circumstances as the Informers expression which possibly may be defective the Informeds attention for want whereof that may not appear which were otherwise sufficiently evident Again In case of Gods judgment over the disobedient given over to strong delusions that they should believ lyes and he damned who received not the love of the truth of it self evident enough ◠that they might be saved here of see Isa. 6. 9 10. Mat. 13. 13 14 15. To a blind man or one that winketh in the clearest most evident light no colours or proportions are evident because men if blind cannot if obstinate schismatical wil not see understand 3. There is a notius natura and a notius nobis if in the evidence you speak of you mean the first and that errour and falshood is more known in nature that is manifestly false for the truth is first and best known in nature If you mean the second that is that we less know the truth then the evidence what blame you in our cause or advantage your Clients If you say we see no evidence nor can the blind see the Sun what can you gain hereby it may be and certainly is that the Gospels light is hid to some the Apostle will tell you to whom and why 2 Cor. 4. 3 4. It is hid to them that are lost in whom the God of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not lest the light of the glorious Gospel of Christ should shine
unto them we undertake not to make the truth evident to every gain-sayer and despiser thereof but say of such an one as Elisha for his servant at the beleaguered Dothan 2 King 6. 17. Lord I pray thee open his eyes that he may see The most manifest light of the Gospel had not evidence enough with the Pharisees whom Christ pronounced blind and it concerned them chiefly which he said they have winked with their eyes c. an unbeliever may doubt of any truth and then it is not evident to him The old Academicks were wont to question the testimonie and evidence of their own senses with a quid si falleris being not confident of the truth of that they saw with their eyes and heard with their ears Carneades doubted of all things yet certainly many things were evident of themselves to those who could and would see and know manifest truths though not to him 4. They who deny convincing evidence in Gods Word not only erre not knowing the Scriptures but tacitely accuse the Wisdom and Providence of God for mans salvation of insufficiencie for how shall matters of controversie concerning faith and manners be decided without sufficient evidence and if you think there is not sufficient evidence in Scripture to keep us from errour and to direct us in the way of truth and salvation in what other rule or testimonie will you place such evidence as you would have what in Traditions and unwritten verities where shall we feek these among our adversaries nay but no man can be edified by that which is destructive or in Enthusiasms and Revelations but what evidence can there be in those things whose authority cannot be proved and whose truth cannot be infallible nothing less then that which cannot be false can be the ground of faith and religion whatsoever falleth below that supreme certaintie is but opinion at most Now the Word of God only is infallible because he cannot lye Tâ—â— 1. 2. and therefore his Word is profitable for doctrine for reproof for correction for instruction in righteousness that the man of God may be perfect throughly furnished unto all good works 2 Tâ—â— 3. 16 17. 5 If it be rejoined that in our present question and some other cases the Scripture saith nothing expresly and positively to evidence the truth I answer 1 with Tertullian I am confident to say that the Scriptures themselves were so disposed by the will of God that they might administer matter to Hereticks seeing that I read there must be Herefies which could not be without Scriptures 2 That is Scripture truth which the Scripture proposeth or enjoineth by necessary consequence though not in express words and whosoever disbelieveth or disobeyeth that so far he rejecteth the Scripture in his errour and ignorance of Scripture So the Sadduces denyed the resurrection of the dead among other vain arguments so principally a non scripto because Moses whose writings only they received did not in terminis or express words and syllables say the dead shall rise again now though that is true Moses did not expresly say so yet our Saviour told them that therein they erred not knowing the Scriptures Mat. 22. 29. where he meaneth not express words of Scripture but necessary consequence for certainly they knew the express letter yet thought they had not evidence enough from Scripture because they found nothing there in terminis against their errour which Christ yet justly chargeth on them Ye do erre not knowing the Scriptures as touching the resurrection of the dead have you not read that which was spoken unto you by God saying I am the God of Abraham and the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob Well what express Scripture is here to prove the resurrection of the dead that Christ should charge those that denyed the same with errour and ignorance of Scriptures Truly no more then we find for Infant-baptism in appearance much less yet thus he who could not be deceived chargeth them because denying necessary consequence they required express words now the consequence was thus God is not the God of the dead but of the living therefore the dead shall rise again To the folding up of all I might repeat sundry things which as necessarily conclude our Infant-baptism as Infants circumcision into the same faith Gods Covenant with Abraham and his spiritual seed that is all Beleevers Christs honouring Infants with sacred embraces proposing them as heirs and patterns designed for the Kingdome of heaven the extent of Gods federal promise to us and our children childrens capacitie of the inward baptism signified in the external sign whole Families and Nations baptized of which children are and ever were a great part Christs absolute command to baptize all Nations without any tittle of exception to Infants Infants federal and ecclesiastical holiness by their parents and their own right But that I would not be irksom to the prudent and pious Reader to whom I heartily wish a right understanding in all things constancie in the truth and unitie of the holy Spirit that we may all meet in Gods eternal kingdom of glory AMEN A SURVEY OF The Controverted Points CONCERNING INFANT-BAPTISM c. THE SECOND PART CHAP. I. Infants of Christian Parents ought to be baptized I Need not be long in describing this Sacrament only I say that Baptism is a Sacrament of the New Testament succeeding Circumeision the Seal of the Old appointed by Christ for our Inlet into his Church our implantation into Him and the similitude of his death and resurrection in which the water sanctified by the word representeth the blood of Christ sealeth and exhibiteth to the Elect all the benefits of his inestimable merits death passion and resurrection to our regeneration remission of sins and cleansing our bodies and souls from them all though not presently so that we have no sin yet so as that believing in Christ we have no guilt of original or actual sin imputed to us to condemnation for the water by the Ordinance of God touching the body the Spirit of Jesus baptizeth body and soul. Hence Baptism is said to save us 1 Pet. 3. 21. the end of Baptism is that being baptized we might be illuminated being illuminated we might be adopted sons of God being adopted we might be perfected that we may become immortally blessed In our being baptized in the Name of the Father the Son and the Holy Ghost we do as it were by a solemn Oath or Covenant declare and protest that we are wholly devoted to one God in Trinity of Unitie and God on his part herein testifieth that by this Seal of his Covenant he receiveth us into the participation of his free mercies in Christ and into the holy communion of his Church the body of Christ I Joh. 5. 7 8. The Protestant Church holdeth That the subject of Baptism are all they who either are
or professing faith repentance c. desire to be admitted into the Church and Covenant of God and that Infants of Christian Parents being within the same ought to be baptized forasmuch as the Covenant and Promise of God is to Parents and their children The Pelagians and Douatists long since condemned of Heresie by the Church and now again of late the Anabaptists deny the baptism of children to be lawful until they come to years that they may be taught and profess their faith and repentance and desire of baptism upon these and the like grounds Christ saith Go therefore and teach all Nations baptizing them in the Name of the Father the Son and the Holy Ghost therefore Teaching must go before Baptism and consequently Infants may not be baptized before they be taught Unto which we answer 1 That in the cited place there was not intended an exact and compleat model of Christs commission to the Apostles for there is no mention of the Lords Supper Christ only nameth the two more usual things for making or initiating disciples for the gathering of a Church that is teaching for them who were capable therof and baptizing for them and their children not yet capable of doctrine that having their names given unto Christ and being admitted into his school they might as they grew up to capacitie be instructed concerning the mysteries of salvation in Christ neither was this the first institution of baptism for when Christ spake these words he was about to ascend up into heaven he had some years before that time appointed baptism among the Iews converted to the faith and confirmed it by his own reception of baptism not that he needed it or had any sin to be washed away therein but to sanctifie the element of water by his sacred body to the use and end of baptism that is to appoint for us a laver of regeneration and in the cited place being to leave the world he enlarged the commission of baptism on the receivers part as if he had said Hitherto ye were not to go into the way of the Gentiles but to the lost sheep of the house of Israel but now go and call the Gentiles also go baptize and teach all Nations the mysteries of the Gospel as I have taught you now therefore the order and laws of Baptism are not hence to be derived 2 Christ then sent his Disciples to convert and baptize those Gentiles who possibly had not so much as heard of Christ much less of faith in him and baptism into his Church it was necessary therefore that the Apostles should first instruct them what they were to do in baptism and why but when the parents were baptized and instructed so that there were Churches setled among the Gentiles then their children were also to be baptized into the same Covenant of God which runneth to covenanted parents and their children which before their parents sealing and admission into Christs Church might not be so that as hath been often noted we must distinguish between a Church to be constituted and setled and a constituted or setled Church as also between persons of years and Infants presented to baptism In a Church to be constituted and converted from Judaism or Paganism those that are of years must necessarily first be taught and afterward baptized but in a constituted or setled Church Infants are first to be baptized and then to be taught when they are able to learn no otherwise was it in circumcision which was the former Seal of the same Covenant and righteousness of Faith into which we are now under the Gospel baptized When Abraham according to Gods commandment came to circumcise the men of his family doubtless he first instructed them and preached to them the reason use and end of that sacrament according as the Lord said Gen. 18. 19. I know him that he will command his children and his houshold after him and they shall keep the way of the Lord but when Isaac was born he did not expect till he was come to years of discreetion to learn but circumcised him on the eighth day Gen. 21. 4. 3 In the cited place the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth also make Disciples which was to gather a Church both by preaching the Gospel and administration of Baptism the Sacrament of initiation and first entrance of Infants thereto So these two means are expressed in the very next words of Christ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. that is Baptizing them in the Name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost teaching them to observe all that I have commanded Some do well observe that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is to teach them that are strangers to doctrine that they may become Disciples and so in any humane school also scholers are entered or admitted before they are therein taught but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies to teach them that are Disciples So Mat. 27. 57. it is said of Joseph of Arimathea 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 who also was Jesus Disciple And so the same word is expounded Job 4. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to make Disciples the Pharisees heard that Jesus made and baptized more Disciples then John And so the Hebrews from their word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 didicit assuevit derive their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Talmid a Disciple or Scholar So that here appeareth no such necessitie of the order by our adversaries pretended to as can conclude that none may be baptized but such as are first taught 4 If the order of those words must determine the order of the actions then by the same reason repentance must be before faith for Mark 1. 15. it is said Repent ye and beleeve the Gospel So Rom. 10. 9. If thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Iesus and shalt believe in thine heart c. thou shalt be saved Doth it follow therefore a man may make confession of Christ with his mouth to salvation before he believeth in him in his heart and indeed if the order of words may determine in what order we must act in this business then from other places of Scripture it may be concluded that Baptism must precede teaching as Mark. 1. 4. John did baptize in the Wilderness and preach the baptism of repentance and Mat. 28. 19 20. when Christ had said baptizing them c. he presently inferreth teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded So Joh. 3. 5. the water is named before the Spirit and Eph. 5. 26. the washing of water that is of baptism is named before the Word 5 Christ doth not in the cited place in one syllable prescribe or limit the Apostles whom they should baptize and whom not but only enjoineth that they baptize all Nations in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the H. Ghost teaching them to observe all those things which he had formerly taught them his principal end
Infants that when they shall be capable of the Sacrament of Confirmation the Lords Supper they may receive that also The Spirit acknowledgeth no other means of Regeneration then the incorruptible Seed the Word of God 1 Pet. 1. 23. which seeing Infants cannot receive they cannot be regenerate therefore their Baptism is effectless to Regeneration We answer The major appeareth false by Tit. 3. 5. St. Peter speaks there only of those Believers who had been taught by the preaching of the Gospel comprehending under it the Seal thereof Baptism the Laver of Regeneration which is taught in that Word as a means of Regeneration Faith must go before the Sign or Seal thereof as Abraham believed first and then received the Seal Circumcision Therefore until Infants can actually believe they must not be baptized We answer That if we speak of persons of years they must first believe or make profession of their faith because by Baptism they are to be admitted into the Covenant of God and Communion of his Church to which they were formerly Aliens and Strangers But it holdeth not in Infants born of Christian Parents they being already within the Covenant and Church and so having present right to the Seal thereof So in Isaac's Circumcision at eight days old the Seal went long before the faith or profession thereof God bringeth not the blinde into his Covenant but enlighteneth them that they may know the will of God for their Salvation But Infants as such are not capable of Illumination therefore they are not to be baptized We answer 1. God calleth the poor maimed halt and lame unto the great supper that is the Communion of Christ Luke 14. 21. 2. The Greek Divines were wont to call Baptism 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Illumination and it can be no less then impious presumption to affirm That God doth not in the Baptism of Elect Infants secretly infuse such a light as he knoweth sufficient to their salvation seeing that it is certain that as God dwelleth not in all that know him Rom. 1. 21. so neither do all those presently know him in whom he dwelleth by the spirit of illumination and regeneration until they have received such a further measure of the Spirit which is of God that they may know the things which are freely given to them of God 1 Cor. 2. 12. which appears in that Elect children are saved which without the Spirit of Regeneration none can be John 3. 3 5 and doubtless the soul of an Infant in Gods divine presence in heaven hath therein more illumination then the most knowing mortal in the world hath 3. Neither did the Apostles their selves presently understand all these things necessary to salvation which Christ taugh them neither did he propose Doctrines to them above their present capacity I have yet many things to say unto you but you cannot bear them now He patiently expected their future abilities with a What I do thou knowest not now but thou shalt know John 13. 7. which both Peter and the rest had experience of when the promised Comforter taught them and brought all things to remembrance which Jesus had said unto them and the Spirit of Truth guided them into all truth and shall we not believe that God will graciously bear with an Infants present defect of understanding which himself gives him by degrees and in such measure and time as his self appointeth 4. As Faith and Confession sufficed the penitent Thief without Baptism so Baptism the Seal of the Righteousness of Faith and Repentance sufficeth an Elect Infant dying without confession of Faith and actual Repentance and the living until he come of age and ability to know and make profession With the heart man believeth unto Righteousness and with the mouth confession is made unto Salvation Rom. 10. 10. But Infants can do neither of these therefore they profane the holy Seal who give it to them who cannot be profited thereby We answer 1. The same might have been objected against circumcision where the Seal sufficed until the sealed came to years and ability to believe and confess 2. The Apostles speaks there concerning persons of years it nothing concerns Infants as such 3. If giving the Seal to those who cannot be profited thereby be profanation of the same how often do you prophane the holy Seal How can any meer man know whom to baptize though of years and whom to put by None can foresee mens final estates but God alone We know that Judas and Simon Magus were baptized though whatsoever they confessed with their mouth 't is certain they did not believe with their heart unto righteousness Did their Baptizers profane Baptism If not how maliciously is this objected against us baptizing Infants of Believers Christ himself expresly avowing them as subjects of his Kingdom The Seals of the New Testament are perfect and spiritual But Infants are carnal and The natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God 1 Cor. 2. 14. Therefore these Seals agree not to and with Infants present incapacity We answer The Apostle there speaks concerning the understanding of divine mysteries not comprehensible of profane and carnal men Now Infants being carnal as born of flesh want Regeneration that they may become spiritual and enter into the Kingdom of God and because they are by corrupted nature imperfect therefore they ought to be admitted to the ordinary means by God appointed to make them perfect The Apostle biddeth us Draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water Hebr. 10. 22. Which seeing Infants cannot for present do the washing of their bodies with the pure water of Baptism belongeth to others who can have a good conscience not to them We answer The Apostle there sheweth what we who are baptized and of age ought to do and with what confidence not who ought to be baptized and so it nothing concerneth Infants till they come of age Baptism which saveth us is with the testimony of a good conscience This Infants cannot have who have no knowledge Therefore Infants ought not to receive that Baptism which cannot save them We answer 1. The Apostle speaks not there of the subject of Baptism but of the fruits and effects thereof in those who are of ripe years the fruits which indeed Elect Infants if living shall here reap in due time and into which they are for present sealed Now the outward Administration of the sign of the Covenant concerning which our present question is is one thing and the inward effect thereof another As it is also in the Word preached the Administration must be indifferently to all Mark 16. 15. whether stony thorny highway or good ground Gods Seeds-men must diligently sow the fruit and efficacy will be to Believers only Hebr. 4. 2. but that no meer man can foresee 2.
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 salvation 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 appointed 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 Unitie in Trinitie and Trinitie in Unitie most undeniable consequence we have Mat. 28. 19 1 Joh. 5. 7. Again we have no express word that the Apostles were baptized for Christ himself baptized none Joh. 4. 1. c. and we read not where or when John 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 Jews 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 Jesus Christ for the remission of sins for the promise is to you and to your children What promise why that Gen. 17. 7. 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 besealed 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 them There appears neither act nor habit of regeneration in Infant-baptism until they be taught the Word neither any more promptitude to learn it then is in unbaptized children coming to years therefore their baptism is effectless and consequently unlawful We answer 1 The Kingdom of God cometh not with observation Luk. 17. 20. and the internal acts of the Spirit are secret for what man knoweth the
we may not baptize them We answer 1 If you speak of Christs baptizing personally he baptized none Joh. 4. 2. but it followeth not that therefore none ought to be baptized 2 It cannot appear that Christ commanded not some of his Disciples to baptize those Infants neither that ever he commanded them not to baptize Infants 3 If it could appear that these Infants were not now baptized there might be some obstruction and let which we know not as possibly their parents were not yet baptized c. 4 These children were not brought to Christ that he should baptize them but that he should touch them and that he did for he layed his hands upon them and blessed them and his blessing them was as effectual to their salvation as if he had christned them for Christs grace dependeth not upon the vertue of the Sacrament but contrarily the vertue of the Sacrament upon his grace and blessing And that which Christ did to them is more then the ministrie of all the men in the world could or can do in baptizing or blessing them for Christs blessing maketh men truly and really blessed See what hath been said Reply num 14. sine Infants circumcised were inserted into the Covenant and Church priviledges by an express command but we have no such express command for baptizing Infants therefore we may not on that ground baptize them To that which hath been said we further add for answer because they were expresly commanded to put the seal of the same righteousness of faith on Infants therefore neither that faith nor the object thereof being changed in the change of the seal there needed not a particular or express command concerning the subject or persons to be sealed seeing the commission was so much enlarged as the whole World and the Nations thereof were greater then the land of Canaan and Abrahams carnal children therein planted Add hereto that which hath been noted those whom Christ sent to baptise were sealed in their infancie and daily used to Infant-sealing so that they needed no express command or other Information concerning Infants then that which they had sufficiently learned in Christs blessing Infants blessing and embracing them as it were with special affection to them and in that they could not be ignorant that baptism succeeded circumcision in all the substance thereof and that the same cause still remaineth for Infants reception of the seal to wit Baptism for the remission of sins Christ appointed the Sacraments for a remembrance of his death and blood-shedding for our redemption But Infants who have no acts of understanding cannot remember Therefore they ought not to be baptized We answer This Argument would conclude that Infants as such may not receive the Lords Supper because they cannot do it in remembrance of Christ nor shew his death thereby therefore we do not administer it unto them But Baptism is the Laver of Regeneration which they have present need of and whereof they are passively capable because their Parents are within the Covenant which is to them and their children and the Seal thereof is a part and condition of the same to their children as well as to themselves Neither was the Covenant on Abrahams part fulfilled any more then to halves before he had sealed his children and by proportion neither do we fulfil our Covenant with God in Baptism if we refuse to baptize our Infants who have as indefeasible a right to the same as we the same promise for the main being to us and our children Acts 2. 39. In the Old Testament it was not lawful to offer sheep or goats so soon as they were cast but at a certain age and maturity of their perfection This figured Infants not presently to be offered to God or Sealed We answer 1. By the same Argument if it were good neither ought the Jews to have circumcised their Infants on the eighth day 2. Allegorical Arguments when they are well applyed illustrate rather then prove And if you will plead thus tell us why every first-born of man or beast so soon as it came into the world that is every male was sacred to the Lord and the first-born of the unclean beast was to be redeemed or destroyed and why seek ye further omitting the type of Circumcision Christ saith He that believeth and is baptized shall be â— saved Mark 16. 16 without believing there is no salvation nor saving effect of Baptism But Infants cannot believe Therefore their Baptism is effectless and vain We answer 1. That wholly concerns those who are of years who when the Church was to be collected and setled were first and generally such persons as were first to be instructed in the faith of Christ and then to be baptized it concerned not Infants 2. That which immediately follows But he that believeth not shall be damned manifesteth that it concerned not Infants who though they cannot actually believe yet shall not all be damned though dying Infants 3. If those words were to be presidential to all Churches and times as a rule what persons we are to baptize and what not that is that we ought to baptize none but such and so qualified as are there described then it would follow that you must baptize none but those who appear to have a justifying faith for such there Christ speaks of and only such relating to their salvation And how few have this and how can you who baptize discern this Secondly They must be such as can cast out Devils speak unstudied Languages take up Serpents and if they drink any deadly thing it shall not hurt them such as can cure the sick For Christ there thus marked out Believers of those times 4. He saith not He that believeth not shall not be baptized for that indeed might have concerned Infants Baptism But he saith He that believeth not shall be damned which cannot concern Infants except you will say they have faith and so you must grant them a capacity of Baptism or pretend that they all are damned who dye in Infancy which is a damnable fancy Lastly We must distinguish between an interest in and the effects of Baptism Many thousands born within the Covenant have therefore a just interest in the Covenant of Grace and the Seal thereof who neither believing nor obeying have no effects thereof nor grace of the Covenant So some put on Christ only sacramentally and others to sanctification and salvation also It is absurd and to no purpose to baptize any unto they know not what Such is Infants-Baptism Therefore they are absurdly and to no purpose baptized 1. We answer Circumcision was to Isaac and Evangelical Ordinance and Seal of Gods Covenant of the same Grace common to him and us yet that being administred to him at eight days old he knew not what he was circumcised to yet was it neither in vain nor absurdly administred to him 2. Some mysterious
and set apart to him according to him own appointment which priviledge neither the wisdom power honour will of man consent of Nations nor any civil Laws or Ordinances of man ever could or can give but God alone who freely bestoweth that favour and appointeth the conditions thereof Only believers are the lawful subject of baeptism that is such as appear to believe with all their heart Act. 8. 37. but children appear not to believe so therefore they are not the lawful subject of baptism We answer 1 That such are to be baptized is granted so that you may conclude affirmatively for such persons of years but this cannot conclude negatively to the exclusion of Infants born within the Church of Christ. 2 If believing with all the heart were the rule of lawful administration of baptism who could securely presume to baptize persons of years concerning whose hearty believing they cannot be certain as for outward appearance that many times deceiveth the most discerning men Jerusalem and all Judea c. came and were baptized of John Baptist yet many of them proved blasphemers and persecutors of Christ some of them came so far as to be professed Disciples and yet proved Apostates others were said to believe in Christ yet he discerning their hearts would not commit himself unto them Joh. 2. 23. Ananias and Saphira came up to so real a profession as to sell their possession for the advancement of the Gospel and did these believe with all their heart or were they not baptized I might add hereto Judas Demas and Simon Magus all these shew that outward appearance demonstrateth not faith in the heart and therefore if only believers that is with all their hearts be the lawful subject of baptism either your supposed rule of baptizing leaves it uncertain to you whom you may or may not baptize or else admitteth of hypocrites whom God abhorreth and on whom Christ denounced so many woes and excludeth believers Infants from the seal of Gods covenant in which God himself testifieth children of such are and whom Christ embraced in his sacred arms testifying that of such is the kingdom of heaven 3 Shew us a rule in all the New Testament in terminis as you require of us for Infant-baptism for baptizing only persons of ripe years to make profession of their faith and at once if you can set an end to this unhappy controversie which hath so much troubled the Church put it out of doubt that none may be baptized untill there be an appearance of their faith and repentance or give us some infallible proof that all those whom you baptize are indeed and certainly belonging to the kingdom of heaven nay shew us any necessary consequence for the exclusion of our Infants from baptism what because those of years professed their faith and confessed their sins therefore Infants who cannot so do may not be baptized it follows not nay yet further were there an express precept if any believe not with all the heart baptize them not it would no more exclude Infants from their right to baptism then that which the Apostle saith as hath been noted if any would not work neither should he eat excludeth them from their right to be fed To conclude we shew you an infallible word of Christ that Infants belong to the kingdom of heaven and therefore the appearance from these words of Christ and the covenant of God with believing parents and their children is as good and certain that the kingdom of heaven belongs to the Infants of constant professors whom we baptize as any profession of new Converts can shew for men and women may and often do deceive men who know not the heart or future condition of professors whatsoever they now seem or say but Christ who knows all things yea the secrets of every heart and ends of all that are or shall be could not be deceived in so judging of Infants The foundation of the Lord remains sure and hath this seal the Lord knoweth who are his and his covenant being that he will be to the covenanted his seed a God whose promises are therefore sure to them and the parent as such being as well known to be converted as any new proselyte is or can be known to be converted Gods promise to me concerning my children is more sure to me then mans judgment concerning the sincerritie of any new Convert can be whatsoever appeareth in his words or professions 4 The interest of sealing into the covenant of grace dependeth not on the sealed persons worthiness or unworthiness sexe age or condition but upon God the author and free appointer thereof so circumcision was one and the same in the external seal to the elect and reprobate Infant or Proselyte of years The commandment of God did not put any difference but equally enjoined it to all sorts of males within the pale of Israel he said not circumcise only believers the penitent c. though in persons of years that was to be understood but circumcise every maleâ— child the eighth day when `t is sure they could neither actually believe repent nor make any appearance thereof as then the external seal was one and the same though the effect in the sealed was variable so is it in baptism the secret unworthiness or Apostacie of the receiver foreseen only by God did not make them uncapable of the seal therefore man administring was to do his part according to the general command of God and to leave the particular success and effect to God and so is it in baptism 5 Though unbelievers who reject the word of God may not as such be baptized yet Infants who at most may be called but negatively unbelievers cannot be included in that rule which excludeth contemners seeing they have faith as they have reason in the seed not in the fruit in the root though not in the leaf in some inward operation though not in any outward expression as Tidenus cited by the learned Dr. Fearly well observes 6 None are required to manifest their faith and repentance before baptism but such as having the use of reason have been taught and instructed in the same for God requireth no impossibilities in respect of the abilities which himself ever gave so that in common reason all texts of Scripture which require confession of faith repentance c. are to be understood of such as have the use of reason and tongue whereby they are enabled so to do If the parents to whom the Apostle spake Act. 2. 39. were not believers then the promise was not to them and their children but they were not believers ergo c. We answer The Apostle saying expresly the promise is to you and to your children your dispute labouring to prove that the promise was not to them and their children is point blanck against the express Word of God and you denying that principle are not worthy of further answer yet for the pious Readers sake
of man as its ground but on the meer institution and gracious promise of God therefore â—t ought not by anyman be denied infants in respect of their present defect or want of understanding or the acts â—hereof 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 sâ—â—â— For the Promise 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 age 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 learned Ursâ—â—â—s 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 Covenant making it less then that in the old which weakneth the comfort of the Church and faithful Parents which denyeth Infants that seal which should differ them from the children of Jews and Pâ—gans which contradicteth the Apostles reason Can may man forbid water that these should not be baptiptized which have received the holy Ghost as well as we which keepeth Infants as much as man can from Christ he expresly saying Saffer 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 eâ—tsoon 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 if 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 Neroâ— 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 rageth 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 eartâ— therefore 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 selves 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 Jonah'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 warrant have you to wrest this similitude to what you please in those similes which are most apt there may be many disconveniences found Or what commission can you dream of that gives you authority to draw this alledged Scripture beyond the Apostles scope and purpose rather to that which seems to favour your fancy and practise of immersion then to another sense 2. Those expressions Rom. 6. 4. are meerly figurative and therefore do not at all bind us to any external or literal sense or observance in the maner of baptizing if the
they performed see Numb 19. 2◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the 70. gives it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the water of Separation hath not been Sprinckled upon him so is it often named there and Leviâ— 4. 17. The Priest shall dip his finger in the blood and Sprinkle it Seven times c. 70. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So Lev. 14. 16. and Lev. 16. 14 15. he shall take the blood of the bullock 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and shall sprinkle it with his finger So Numb 8. 7. Thus shalt thou do unto them to cleanse them Sprinkle water of purifying upon them So Numb 19. 18 19. A clean person shall take hysope and dip it into the water and Sprinkle it upon the Tent and upon the persons so Exod. 24. 8. Moses took the blood and Sprinkled it on the people and said Behold the Blood of the Covenant which the Lord hath made with you which signified the blood of Christ to cleanse them from sin as the water of Baptism now doth And these very Sprinklings the holy Ghost calleth Baptisms Heb. 9. 10. 13 2c where the mystery is clearly unfolded 2. From the truth thereby signified So Ezek. 36. 25. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 70. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I will sprinkle you with clean water or clean water upon you and ye shall be clean how The Apostle telleth us 1 Pet. 1 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 unto obedience that is by the Spirit of Sanctification and Sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ as Heb. 10. 22. Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith having our hearts Sprinkled from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water that is the water mentioned by Ezekiel the purifying water of baptism and Heb. 12. 24. We are come to Jesus the Mediator of the new Covenant and to the blood of Sprinkling that is the application of the blood and merit of Christ in Baptism for the remission of our sins 3. From necessary consequences from the common use of the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Scriptures where they cannot reasonably be interpreted by dipping but by washing or sprinkling as Matth. 26. 23. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. he did not dip his whole fist into the dish but only wet his fingers therein So Matth. 20. 23. Christ mentioneth his baptism which all understand of his blood-shedding not dipping therein but besprinkling therewith So Luke 11. 38. when the Pharisee invited Christ to dinner he wondred 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that he had not first washed before dinner it cannot there reasonably be interpreted that he had not first been dipt over head and ears in water So 1 Cor. 10. 2. They were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea No reasonable man can think that all Israel with their wives and children were dowsed into the sea nay but they passed through dryâ— foot nor were they dived into the cloud but only as those who were rinsed or wetted under a rainy cloud by the drops thereof distilling on them So Mark 7. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the letter Except they baptizeâ— or be baptized he meaneth not by dipping the whole into the water but as it is clearly manifested by the Holy Ghost the best interpreter of himself a little before they ear not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with common hands that is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 unwashen and in the same place as hath hath noted we read also 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the letter Baptisms of beds which was not by dipping into but though understood of tables which they commonly made of Couch-beds set together by sprinkling them with a little wateâ— which manner of purification they too superstitiously and commonly used As for the second clause of our minor proposition we appeal to Scriptures whether there be any express example or precept restraining baptism only to dipping over head and ears 2 In the Lords Supper the efficacie of the Sacrament is not in the quantitie of the element a little bread therein is as good and effectual as a whole loaf so hereâ— it is not as hath been said in the quantitie of the element but in the ordinance of God and operation of his Spirit Now herein Christ never gave any precept concerning the quantum the Word and the Element make the Sacrament and a few drops sprinkled are as truly water as all Jordan 3. If Baptism in the type thereof were administred by God by sprinkling then it is lawfully and effectually so to be administred by man in the truth for in the main Analogy the truth must answer the type But Baptism in the type was administred by sprinkling infants as well as persons of years for all Israel were baptized under the Cloud 1 Cor. 10. 2. Therefore Baptism may lawfully and effectually be administred by sprinkling of water 4. That administration of Baptism whereby Christ cleanseth his Church is lawfull and effectuall But Christ cleanseth his Church with the washing of water through the word Ephes. 5. 26. Therefore that administration of Baptism which is by washing with water according to his precept Matth. 28. 19. is lawfull and effectuall 5. The Goaler Acts 16. 33. was baptized about midnight and it is improbable that he had any such store and convenience of water in his house as to dip himself and family or that they went out to some river at such a season neither was it probable that three thousand added to the Church in one day dursâ—in those times when Christians were so eagerly persecuted go publickly with the Apostles to the poole of Bethesda Siloam or the brook Cedron or any like place to be doused more probably they were baptized by washing or sprinkling with water as they had private accommodation thereto nor could so many in one day have been baptized by a few Apostles if all had been baptized by dipping 6. If immersion were simply necessary and of the Essence of Baptism then it might not be dispensed withall in case some sick Convert should desire it before his death for the comfort and peace of his afflicted conscience which were extream uncharitableness which belongs not to any Ordinance of God Therefore it cannot be simply necessary 7 That which can neither be proved by example of Christ John Baptist or any of the Apostles baptizing nor by any precept of Christ concerning the same is not essential or simply necessary to baptism but dipping or dowsing in baptism can neither be proved by example c. or any precept of Christ concerning the same therefore diping or dowsing is not essential or simply necessary to baptism and indeed were there to be found in Scripture any example hereof without a precept to lay the same universally upon the Ordinance it were not binding as hath been proved from Christs administring the communion with unleavened bread after supper in an upper room