as the al-sufficient and onely way of life And faith being wrought apprehendeth and applyeth Christ not onely habitually and passively as in infants but actively to the justification of life And in such it is true also which you say there is ever in the party a knowledge of the thing believed But I will not say as you doe That faith ever presupposeth the knowledge of the thing believed unlesse you meane habituall knowledge which is never wanting no not in infants where faith is For knowledge and faith are put one for another Esa 5.3.11 John 17.3 So that now take your own word having examined what you say as you desire by the rule of truth wee have seen and found that infants are capable of the holy Ghost and therefore of faith and being in the faith and faith in them they are in Christ and so united unto Christ 2 Cor. 13.5 And being in Christ there is no condemnation to them Rom. 8.1 And if no condemnation then justification belongeth to them And if union with Christ and justification by Christ belong to them then were they elected and predestinated thereto For none are called to union with Christ nor justified but those whom God hath predestinated thereunto Rom. 8.30 When therefore you enquire whether infants with reference to their nonage be the subjects of Gods election And secondly whether infants so considered bee subjects capable of glory And when you further suppose that none will affirme either Be it known unto you that as wee firmly believe both so we doubt not confidently to affirme both both that infants are subjects of Gods election and also subjects capable of glory Jacob was an elect vessell in his mothers wombe Rom. 9.11 neither was this his singular priviledge but common with him to all the elect of God who were elect vessells before the foundation of the world and therefore so too in their mothers wombe To say and grant as you seem to doe that though infants be subjects of Gods election yet not with reference to their nonage it would imply that you hold the election of God hath reference to their foreseen faith or works which they grow up unto in riper years otherwise in their nonage when you hold them uncapable of faith and obedience it seemeth you hold them also uncapable of election which is rank and palpable Pelagianisme and Arminianisme But seeing election it self is a grace of God infants being capable of election are capable of grace And thereby it commeth to passe that heaven and heavenly glory is as fit to receive them as they are fit to receive the holy Ghost such is the fruit of election And if they receive the holy Ghost as hath been shewed above then are they subjects equally capable of grace and glory But say you if God have elected them unto the end to wit unto glory then he hath elected them also unto the meanes and way that leadeth to that end to calling to justification by believing and free obedience unto him again All this is true for elect infants if they die in their infancy are made partakers of the holy Ghost by whom faith is begotten in their hearts in which they are in Christ and united to him which is their calling By the same faith dwelling in them they are justified yea and sanctified also and so their free obedience is fulfilled to that great commandement both of law and Gospel which containeth all the rest Be ye holy for I the Lord your God am holy Lev. 19.2 1 Pet. 1.16 And as concerning the resurrection of infants from death to life which was argued above could not be without union with Christ You answer First it is the power of God that raiseth the dead not union with Christ But the reply is ready the power of God raiseth indeed all the dead yet none from death to life eternall which is the life meant in the argument but by virtue of their union with Christ Rom. 8.11 1 Cor. 15.49 Secondly you answer again that when any of Gods elect can be shewed by the Scriptures to die in their infancy then it will bee granted that their bodies are raised to life eternall Reply first it seemeth then that till the death of some elect infants be shewed out of Scripture it will not be granted by you that their bodies are raised to life eternall So that it appeareth by your Tenent all the children that dye in their infancy none of them are elected nor saved an ungracious and uncomfortable doctrine which hath been refuted above whereto may be added that then there is some sort of mankind to whom the grace and redemption of Christ never reached It hath been said by the holy Ghost that Christ gave himself a ransome for all that is for some of all sorts But now there is a sort of mankind found out even all that die in their infancy which are many thousands for whom Christ gave himself a ransome Reply 2. If infants be elect before they be born and remain elect whilst they are living can they not dye whilst they are infants as well as any other of the elect of God of riper yeares Reply 3. What if it could not be shewed by the scriptures that any elect of God dyed in their infancy will it therefore follow that no infants are the elect of God What if it cannot be proved by Scripture that any elect Queens dyed in their Regency will it therefore follow that either no Queens are elected or if they bee they cannot die in their Regency Reply 4. It hath been expressely shewed above from scripture that infants have dyed as at an 100 years old onely because they were as truly seasoned with grace and as ripe and ready for glory in their infancy as if they had fulfilled the age of an 100 yeares Esa 65.20 Reply 5. If none of Gods elect did dye in their infancy then all outward things did not fall alike to all contrary to the Scripture Eccles 9.2 death may by your Tenent befall and often doth to carnall infants but never to elect infants And thus elect infants whilst infants should be immortall which is a paradox I suppose the Church of God never heard of before now since the world began Reply 6. If none of Gods elect did die in their infancy then in ease any of the faithfull should come to bury any of their children in their infancy as many doe they might have cause to sorrow for them as without hope for they can have no hope of their salvation or resurrection to life seeing their infants dying infants were never subjects capable of Gods election and so must needs dye uncapable of glory But for Christians to sorrow for their dead as others that have no hope is contrary to the precept of the Apostle 1 Thes 4.13 I would not be understood so to oppose infants Silvester as to exclude them from salvation but leave all in respect of them as a secret thing
weaknesse of your Argument will weaken the strength of the Apostles Argument For the Apostle is to prove that we are compleat in Christ not only in the inward Circumcision of the heart which taketh away the sinfull body of the flesh but also in the signe and seale of it even our Baptism which doth confirme the same things unto us and giveth us as effectuall fellowship in Christs death and buriall to the putting away of sinne as they had in circumcision But take away the Baptisme of Infants and the Apostles argument will faile For it might be objected that the Jewes in their circumcision of themselves and their Infants had a signe and seale that God would circumcise not onely their owne hearts but the hearts of their Infant-seed also but wee in our Baptisme though we have a signe and seale that God will wash and purifie our hearts yet not so the hearts of our Infants also And therefore we are lesse compleat in Christ in our Baptisme then the Jewes were in their circumcision which if it were admitted would utterly evacuate the Apostles argument who pleadeth our compleatnesse in Christ notwithstanding our want of circumcision in that we enjoy the like fulnesse of benefit in our Baptism as the Jews did in their circumcision But admit the Baptisme of our Infants as well as of our selves to succeed in the place of circumcision to the Jews and their infants and then the Apostles argument proceedeth fully and concludeth invincibly That we are as compleat in Christ in our Baptism as the Iews were in their circumcision Put us not off therefore with a difference of Order in the New Testament and in the Old The New Testament say you succeedeth the Old must it needs therefore follow that the same order be observed now as then For though the order may bee changed in succession yet the extent and amplitude of the subjects is not changed especially not straitned or diminished but inlarged in a growing state The order of Solomons house who succeeded David was changed not a little in point of magnificence from the order of Davids house but yet the subjects were the same or rather more abundant and numerous none of Davids subjects being excluded It is true in a declining and decaying state the extent and amplitude of Rehoboams subjects were not so large as those of Solomons whom he succeeded But I hope you will not make Rehoboam a type of Christ in his folly and decay of his Dominion but rather looke at Solomon as an intended type of Christ even in the latitude of his Dominion that above Davids from Sea to Sea from the River unto the ends of the earth The Lords Supper succeedeth the Passeover Silvester but though all the whole houshold of every family as well children as other were to eate the Passeover Exod. 12.3 4. yet infants are not approved as fit communicants of the Lords Supper because they are not capable subjects But how doe you make it appeare I pray you Silvanus that infants were to eate the Passeover a roasted Lambe with unleavened bread and sowre herbs is no meat for infants neither doth it appeare by the Chapter which you alledge Exod. 12.1 that children of more growth were admitted to partake of the Passeover till they were able to discerne the spirituall nature and use of it According to what is writen v. 26 27. of that chapter When your children saith Moses shall say unto you What meane you by this service ye shall say It is the sacrifice of the Lords Passeover who passed over our houses in Egypt when hee smote the Egyptians It is true that you say children are not capable subjects of the Lords Supper For receiving whereof the Apostle requireth wee should examine and judge our selves But Infants are as capable subjects of Baptisme now in the dayes of the New Testament as the Infants of the Jews were of Circumcision For circumcision and baptisme being both of them alike signes and seales of our new birth either wrought or to be wrought and in our new birth we being meerely passive children are as capable subjects passively to bee wrought upon to a new birth as men of riper yeares But the Lords Supper being a signe and seale of our spirituall growth in Christ and dispensed not in milke but in strong meat bread and wine whereunto holy preparation was requisite Infants are not capable subjects of this though they bee of the other Silvester But why then are Faith and Repentance required unto Baptism which was not of old time required unto Circumcision Silvanus Faith and Repentance and the Profession of both were of old required in men of yeers not to make them capable subjects of Circumcision but to receive them into the fellowship of the Covenant to themselves and their seed Hence Abraham was found faithfull before God did receive him into this Covenant Nehem. 9.8 And the like is to bee thought of all the Gentile Proselites for the first in every kinde is an example and pattern to all that follow after And so the Lord describeth the estate of Proselites Isai 56.3 to 8. Silvester But why should then John Baptist and Philip and the Apostles require the profession of Faith and Repentance even of the Jewes and Proselites who were in Covenant before before they would admit them as capable subjects unto Baptisme Silvanus Because the Messiah being then come who was the chief blessing of the Covenant yea the very substance of the Covenant and is therefore himself called the Covenant Isa 42.6 and 49.8 Hee I say being come it was necessary that they who relyed upon the Covenant of Abraham as all the Jewes and Proselytes did should hold forth also their reliance on Christ in whom the Covenant and the promises thereof were confirmed to them and their seed For then was the Axe laid to the root of the Tree even to the stock of Abraham and to all the branches that grew upon it and were ingraffed into it So that now if they did not bring forâ—h this good fruit to beleeve in Christ who was then come they and their Children were cut off from the Covenant of Abraham and must say no more Wee have Abraham to our Father But if they did hold forth Repentance and Faith in Christ then the Covenant and Promise which was made to them and to their Children before did still continue unto them and to their Children And that is the very ground and meaning of Peters exhortation to the Jewes and Proselites Act. 2.38 39. Repent saith hee and bee Baptized every one of you in the name of the Lord Jesus c. For the Promise is to you and to your Children c. as hath been opened above Silvester To keep to the point in hand wee are here speaking of Infants whom you wake to bee capable subjects of Baptisme as well as the Jewish Infants were of Circumcision and yet not capable of
of such is his Kingdome Mar. 10.14 whose divine testimony of them is as clear an evidence to us that God giveth them right unto the fellowship of the Church and to the seal thereof as the testimony of men can give unto themselves or others by their verball profession or any other visible effects of Faith Doe not say that you are farre from denying in the least measure salvation unto Infants For if Infants dye in their Infancy you have apparently declared it above that you doe not acknowledge them to bee subjects capable either of election to grace and glory or of Union with Christ or the Covenant of Grace And then how wee should beleeve you when you say you doe not in the least measure deny salvation to Infants and yet deny all such meanes of salvation without which it is impossible they should bee saved judge you But to come to the ground you work upon in denying to them Baptism whereas Circumcision was granted to them of old and in both a promise of salvation sealed up to them untill they came to reject it Though Baptisme you conceive succeed Circumcision yet you put a great difference between them both in matter and manner in persons and things And what might that great difference bee in so many particulars Circumcision say you sealed to things temporall and carnall as well as to spirituall and so were the subjects carnall as well as spirituall Baptisme onely sealeth to Faith in Christ and to Grace in the New Birth I pray you doth not Baptisme seale to the Covenant of Grace as well as Circumcision in whose room it succeedeth And doth not the Covenant of Grace contain promises of temporall and carnall or outward blessings as well as spirituall Hose 2.18.21 22 23. Hath not godlinesse in the New Testament as well as in the Old the Promises of this life as well as that which is to come 1 Tim. 4.8 Doth not Baptisme expressely seale up unto us our deliverance out of Affliction as well as out of corruption yea to the raising up of our bodies out of death in the grave as well as of our soules out of the death in sin 1 Cor. 15.29 It is therefore utterly untrue that Baptisme sealeth onely to Faith in Christ and to grace in the New Birth For it sealeth to all the blessings of the Covenant as well those of this life as of that which is to come That which sealeth to this grand blessing of the Covenant that God will bee a God to such or such sealeth unto all other gifts of God also God never giveth himself alone but hee giveth his Son and his Spirit also And hee that giveth us his own Sonne saith the Apostle shall hee not with him give us all things else also Rom. 8.32 Yea where Christ is given hee giveth Repentance unto Israel and conversion or turning of the hearts of the Fathers to the Children and of the Children to the Fathers and both of them to the Lord. Act. 5.31 and Luk. 1.16 17. And Baptisme is a seale of these promises as of the whole Covenant And therefore Baptisme is not onely as you say a seale to Faith and to the Grace of the New Birth as if it onely confirmed our own Faith touching our own estates and our own New Birth But it confirmeth also our Faith that God will give Faith and Repentance to our Children and turn their hearts both to the Lord and to us And therefore hee powreth the water of Baptisme upon our Children that hee may confirme this promise of Grace the powring out of clean water of his Spirit and of his blessing as well upon our seed and off-spring as upon our selves Isai 44.3 Another difference which you put is that Circumcision sealeth to things to come as under Types and shadowes and so to subjects in a cloud and darknesse whereas Baptisme confirmeth Faith in things come and already done and hath for its subjects Children of the light in the clear evidence of the Spirit with face open Suppose this difference were true That Circumcision sealed to things to come and Baptisme to things come Circumcision to things vailed Baptisme to things open Yet this is but a circumstantiall difference in the manner of revealing the blessings promised but this argueth no materiall difference at all in the persons the subjects of the seale It will onely argue thus much that whereas the same Christ and the things of Christ were sealed up to them and to their seed more darkly they are sealed up to us and our seed more clearly and plainly Besides it is not altogether true that Circumcision sealed up to them things to come For both Baptisme and Circumcision doe seale to both things come and things to come Circumcision sealed to Abraham God to bee his God and the righteousnesse of Faith both which were already come to Abraham before hee was circumcised It sealed up also sundry things to come to him and his seed as their deliverance out of Egypt their inheritance of Canaan and the comming of the Messiah But when the Israelites came to enjoy Canaan Circumcision did not then seal to their deliverance out of Egypt or to their inheritance of Canaan as things to come but as to things come and already done Circumcision sealed to the children of Israel that God would circumcise their hearts and the hearts of their seed Deut. 30.6 which was a thing to come to such of them as were unregenerate But after they were Regenerate the same Circumcision was a seale of that blessing which God had already done for them So is it with Baptisme Now that Christ is come in the flesh Baptisme sealeth that to us as a thing already done which to them was a thing to come And yet the comming of Christ into our hearts is a thing partly done in the Regenerate and yet more fully to bee done even to us and to many of our children it is a thing to come To the children of God that walk in darknesse and see no light which is the case of many and at some time or other of all the return of the Comforter is a thing to come and Baptisme is a seale thereof and yet it is a seale also of the first fruites of the Spirit which are already come Baptism is a seale of the Redemption of Christ which is already wrought for us And it is a seale of our deliverance from all afflictions and from all temptations and from all corruptions and from all enemies even from death it self and many of these are yet to come So that I can but wonder why such a difference as this should bee alleged to prove a personall difference of the subjects of Baptism and the subjects of Circumcision If it bee said as you partly expresse and partly imply that wee who live under Baptisme are the children of light but they that lived under Circumcision were the children of darknesse and therefore though their children being in
the Jews were broken off onely for their want of actuall believing the Gospel and for their opposing of the same simply For Stephen beareth witnesse against them they had resisted the holy Ghost from the days of their Fathers And that there was none of the Prophets but whom their Fathers had persecuted as themselves had also betrayed and murthered the Lord Jesus Acts 7.51 52. But yet after all this actuall unbeliefe in Christ and their opposition against Christ the Apostles still kept communion with them as the Church and people of God as hath been shewed above Acts 3.1 13.15 26. untill they did not onely not believe and actually oppose the Gospel but wilfully and obstinately malignantly and blasphemously resist and persecute the cleare light of the Gospel Act. 13.45 46. And as upon the Parents actuall malicious persecution of the Gospel not onely themselves but their children also were cast out of the Covenant who had yet no hand in their parents blasphemy and persecution so the Gentiles upon their actuall believing and profession of the faith they were received into Covenant and by like proportion their children also who did not expresse their actuall faith for receiving in â—o more then the children of the Jews did expresse their actuall unbeliefe for their casting off Againe it is not true that you say the Word condemneth none but for actuall sinne For by the offence of one to wit of the first Adam judgement or guilt came upon all men to condemnation Rom. 5.18 And by that one man sinne entred into the world and death by sin and so death passed upon all men even upon them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adams transpression to wit actually and of their owne accord as Adam did Rom. 5.12 14. And whereas you say the Word doth not justifie any but with respect to actuall faith There is an ambiguity in your word actuall faith for actuall faith may be meant either faith actually indwelling in the heart or faith actually expressing it selfe in some acts or fruits of profession If you meane actuall faith in the former sense it is true what you say but nothing to the purpose For though God doth not justifie any but with respect to actuall faith yet many are within the Covenant whom God doth not justifie else all the house of Israel whose carkasses fell in the wildernesse and with whom God was not pleased had been all of them justified for they were all in the Covenant If you mean actuall faith in the latter sense your speech is untrue For God doth justifie many whose faith doth not actually expresse it selfe in fruits of profession For they who are filled with the holy Ghost from the wombe as John Baptist and Jeremy were they are sanctified And they who are sanctified are also justified And yet their faith did not at that age expresse it selfe actually in fruits of profession Neither is it a commodious or true speech that as every mans owne faith in Christ enrights him to life so every mans owne faith in Christ enrights him to the priviledges of life For faith it selfe is the life of the soule the just man liveth by his faith and is it a convenient speech yea is it not absurd to say faith enrights to it selfe But what is it that enrights to faith and and so to life by faith Is it not the Covenant of grace by which God hath promised to write his Law even the Law of faith as well as of all holinesse in the hearts of the chosen children of his Covenant Jer. 31.33 As for the priviledgâ—â— of life if you meane justification glorification and the saving mercies of the Covenant your speech is true every mans owne faith enrights him to them but that is nothing to the purpose For many have had right in the Covenant who yet have fallen short of the sure mercies of the Covenant But if you meane by the priviledges of life the Covenant and the seale of it it is not true that every mans faith and none else enrights him to such priviledges of life For the faith of Abraham enrighted Ismael and the saith of Isaac enrighted Esau to the Covenant and to the seale thereof Circumcision and not their owne faith which they never had Silvester The generall scope of the Apostles discourse in this 11 Chapter to the Romans is concerning the breaking off of the Jews and the occasion thereof as also their calling by the Gospel Now the Jews were the people of God in a twofold consideration First as a Nationall people descending from the loynes of Abraham by naturall generation after the flesh Secondly some of them God owned in a more speciall manner with reference to his gracious Covenant made with Abraham and established with Isaac and his seed after him for an everlasting Covenant which cannot bee the estate of the whole Nation for then all of them had been in a true saving estate of grace and so all saved or else fallen from grace But in this whole body there was a Church consisting of an holy Assembly of Worship and Worshippers a spirituall state all the whole body with these held â—â—mmunion together because God tooke into one body that whole Nation for his own people And all these springing out of Abrahams loynes did assume to themselves an equall right and priviledge in Gods gracious Covenant made with Abraham and his seed supposing God had bound his Covenant generally upon him and his seed in his naturall generation after the flesh But God respected in the same onely his chosen in Christ with whom hee confirmed his Covenant with Isaac in reference to Christ Gen. 17. Gal. 3. Whom in Gods owne time he calleth to the faith and these the Apostle ever defends against the generall rejection of that Nation For though such were rejected as were not elected yet this made not the promise of God of none effect to those who stood firme in the Covenant by grace in Christ Jesus as branches in their root which grace the â—â—st opposed and were cast off for their unbeliefe And when the fuâ—nesse of Gods time is come to call them to beliefe they shall be received againe into their former estate as alive from the dead as Rom. 11.23 24. Luke 15.24 Therefore the Apostle after hee hath proved the rejection of the Jews hee labours to make good the faithfulnesse of God in his promise of grace and the effectuall power of the Gospel in the saving effects thereof in such as believe through grace though the Jewes in their Nationall respect were rejected and few of them gained to the truth And hee giveth a reason of it thus Though the Jewes were all of them under an outward forme of profession of Gods name and truth yet there was but a remnant whom hee approved of in the Covenant according to his election of grace unto whom the promise of life did belong Rom. 11.5 7. Now to these Gods speciall care
faith think you be built upon the word of man for the truth of his baptisme But be willing to call to mind the Lord Jesus upbraided his eleven Apostles with their unbelief and hardnesse of heart because they believed not them which had seen him after hee was risen from the dead Mar. 6 14. And yet some of them mentioned in the former part of the Chapter were but women and others of them were private disciples neither sort of them were Apostles The truth is if one Proposition in a Syllogisme be found in the Word of God and the other Proposition be found certaine and evident by sense or reason the conclusion is a conclusion of faith As for example it is a proposition found in Scripturâ— Thâ—t the City which raigned over the Kings of the earth â—n Iohns time is that woman the great Whore Babylon which shall bee destroyed Revel 17.18 But Rome is that City which reigned over the Kings of the earth in Johns time This proposition wee have by certaine and evident testimony of the histories of those times Therefore Rome is that woman the great whore Babylon which shall be destroyed This Conclusion is a Conclusion of faith not built upon the word of men but upon the word of God Apply the like manâ—â—r of arguing to the point in hand thus Every disciple of Christ that is every believer and his sâ—ed that is baptized by a Minister of the Gospell in the name of the Fathâ—r Son and holy Ghost is truly baptized This Proposition iâ— delivered in the Gospell But I the child of a bâ—liever was baptized by a Minister of the Gospell in the name of the Father Son and holy Ghost This Proposition is confirmed by so many eye-witnesses and such approved records that no reasonable man can doubt of it The conclusion then is a conclusion of faith Therefore I the child of a believer was truly baptized CHAP. X. Silvester FOr a seventh Argument against the Baptisme of Infants I have met with this To baptize Infants maketh the holy Ordinance of God a lying signe because none of those things can bee expected in an Infant which the said Ordinance holdeth forth or signifieth in the administration thereof which is the parties Regeneration and spirituall new Birth a dying and burying with Christ in respect of sin and a rising with him in a New life to God and a confirmation of Faith in the death and Resurrection of Christ and a free remission of sin by the same as Rom. 6.3.4 Col. 2.12 1 Pet. 3.21 Act. 2.38 None of all which can bee expected in an Infant Silvanus That which hath been found in some Infants as in John Baptist and Jeremiah and many moe that they have been sanctified by the holy Ghost from their Mothers wombe there is nothing hindreth but the same may bee desired and expected in any Infants of beleeving Pâ—rents The Faith of beleeving Parents hath prevailed with Christ to cast out an evill spirit out of their children And wheresoever the good spirit of grace entreth there wanteth not Regeneration fellowship with Christ in his death buriall Resurrection there wanteth not Faith nor Remission of sins But besides suppose that none of these things were found in Infants yet it is a profane and blasphemous speech to say that the Baptisme of Infants maketh the holy Ordinance a lying sign because none of those things are found in Infants which the Ordinance holdeth forth and signifyâ—th unlesse you were able to make it good that Baptisme holdeth forth and signifieth nothing but what is already found in the Infants But you cannot bee ignorant that Baptisme signifieth and sealeth up not onely good thingâ— found already in the baptized but also good things promised and as yet to come as Resurrection from the dead 1 Cor. 15.29 Saving out of afflictions and persecutions which were then ready to overwhelme all the Churches in the Romane Empire as Noahs flood did the wholâ— world which is the meaning of Peters words in the place which you quote 1 Pet. 3.21 To say nothing that â—aptisme signifieth and sealeth up the growth of all spirituall gifts and blessings as well as the gift of them And growth is a blessing future to the baptized as well as the gift may bee future to some Infants baptized Yea it is an holy truth of God that Baptisme is as well the signe and seale of the promise of God as the signe and seale of any gift of God already bestowed Now Promises are of blessings to come Circumcision was a signe and seale of the Land of Promise to bee given as well as of the righteousnesse of Faith to Abraham which hee had already received Yea the same Circumcision which was to Abraham a signe and a seale of the righteousnesse of the Faith which hee had already received waâ— to Isaac a sign and seale of the righteousnesse of Faith promised but not received Yea that gracious Promise of God that hee would circumcise the hearts of his people Israel and of their seed Deut. 30.6 what was it else but an exposition and declaration of the meaning of their Circumcision that as they had received the outward signe in the flesh so they should receive they and their seed the thing signified in their heart and spirit It is no lying signe that holdeth forth and sealeth that which is done or which is promised to bee done in due time as much as iâ— meet for him to doe that promiseth The Baptisme of Ananias and Sapphira of Simon Magus and Demâ—s was no lying signe though they neither were Regenerate when they were Baptized nor ever afterwards came on to bee Regenerate because the lye lay not in the Lords Covenant nor in the signe of it but in their affected hypocrisie which would not bee healed CHAP. XI THe eighth Argument against the Baptisme of Infantâ— is because the subject of Baptisme is to bee Passive but an Infant is no way passive as that Ordinance requirâ—th I mean a passive subject threefold 1 A thing uncapablâ— and thus is a stone 2 A thing forced and thus is an Infant who opposâ—th his Baptisme to the utmost of his ability so farre is it from being passive in the same 3 A thing is passive by a subjecting power producing thâ—â—ame in the subject by bringing it to a free and voluntary subjection And thus is the true subject of Baptisme None can bee passive to receive grace Silvanus but by grace because it consisteth of self-denyall Obedience to Christ ought to bee free but Baptisme is forced upon an Infant against its will I will not examine the termes of your Distinction of a threefold passive subject though I would not have you taken with it which is indeed neither Naturall nor Artificiall nor spirituall For when you make the first sort of a passive subject a thing uncapable as is a stone I might demand whether you mean uncapable lawfully or unlawfully If you mean a stone is uncapable
your next exception against our Baptisme in England CHAP. XVIII THe second exception against our Baptisme received in England Silvester is taken from the false ground upon which it is administred as the former was from the false power by which it is administred Now that false ground upon which it is administred is the faith and profession not of the Parents whose Covenant you are wont to stand upon but of the God-fathers and God-mothers whose Covenant doth not reach by any Institution of God to their gossips children whatsoever it may doe to their owne I doe willingly acknowledge where the Parents of the baptized are still living and doe intend to educate the children themselves Silvanus there the use of God-fathers and God-mothers as they call them in Baptisme though it bee ancient yet it is a sinfull superaddition to the institution But when the Parents are dead or absent and the child is to bee brought up in the house of a Christian friend and brother the Covenant of such a Christian brother extendeth to all that are borne in his house and bought with his money And hiâ— profession before the Church to bring up the child committed to him in the way of the Covenant of Grace it is as acceptablâ— for the receiving of the child to Baptisme as the Covenant of Abraham was available to bring not onely his sonnes but also all that were borne in his house or bought with his money under the Covenant and seale of Circumcision Gen. 17.12 13.2 I may further answer and testify upon knowledge that many children have beene and are baptized in England without God-fathers and Godmothers and without any Interrogatories propounded to them onely upon the Covenant and profession of their parents 3. When children are baptized upon the profession of their God-fathers and God-mothers It is not the intendment or doctrine of the Church to baptize them upon the Covenant and profession of their God-fathers but to binde the sureties that when the childe groweth up to yeares of capacity they shall assist the parents in the Christian Education of the childe that he may learn and practice those good things which at his baptism they promised undertooke for him as appeareth by the charge given to the sureties 4. The superfluous superaddition of the sureties or Witnesses to the Sacrament of Baptisme doth not make Baptisme a nullity no more then the superaddition of Love Feasts to the Lords Supper doth make that a nullity Wood Hay and stubble layed upon a good foundation doth not take away the foundation And hee that so buildeth doth not lose his foundation but his superstructure the superfluous worke which hee built upon it 1 Cor. 3.12 13 15. If a defect in the faith of man doth noâ— make the faith of God of none effect Rom. 3.3 4. much lesse doth a defect in the manner of the profession of the faith to wit by a Deputy rather then by a mans owne mouth make the Covenant or the Seale of the Covenant of none effect CHAP. XIX Silvester GOE on a long and tell mee what you answer to the third exception against our English Baptism that is the false manner in which it is administred to wit by sprinkling not by dipping Silvanus I might answer you truly that if dipping were the onely way to bee chosen in which children are to be baptized yet even so by dipping is Baptisme appointed to bee administred in England by the very Rubrick in the Common-prayer booke The Minister saith the Rubricke shall take the childe in his hands and asking the namâ— shâ—ll dip it in the water so it bee discreetely and warily done And iâ— the childe bee weakâ— it shall suffice to poure water upon it Blame not therefore the Baptisme in England for being administred in such a mannâ—r aâ— your selfe desire and not directing the other way but in case of the childes weaknesse wherâ— God himselfâ— would â—ather accept of mâ—rcy then sacrifice But I see not how sprinkling in any case can bee true Baptisme Silvester For 1. Baptisme never signifyeth sprinkling but dipping So that sprinkling iâ— against the Institution whereby the Apostles arâ— commanded to baptize Disciples which is to dip them not to be-sprinkle them 2. The examples of Baptisme in the New Testament shew that Baptisme was administred by Dipping not by sprinkling Iohn Baptist baptized â—y Dipping Ioh. 3.23 Mat. 3.16 so did Philip the Evangelist Acts 8.38 39. 3. Dipping doth lively Represent our fellowship with Christ in his Death Buriall resurrection not so sprinkling It is utterly untrue that Baptisme never signifyeth sprinkling Silvanus but dipping It signifyeth generally washing whether by dipping or sprinkling infusion or affusion In Acts 22.16 Bee baptized and wash away thy sinnes the latter word interpreteth the former In 1 Cor. 10.2 the Israelites are said to have been al baptized in theâ— cloude and in the sea Wherein neverthelesse they were not dipped nor drenched nor doused but onely sprinkled for they went over dry-shod Exod. 14.22 In Heb. 9.10 where it is said in the Greeke the service stood in divers Baptismes the translation readeth iâ— in divers washings In Dan. 4.33 where it is translated he was wet with the dew of Heaven the Greeke Septuagint expresseth it in the same word whereof Baptizing is derived Touching the second instance whereby you pleâ—d for dipping from the exâ—mple of Iohn Baptist and Philip I willingly acknowledge that Dipping is a lawfull manner of Baptizing Buâ— if you contend from these exampleâ—â— that dipping is the onely way of Baptizing and such a dipping as amounts to drenching or dousing that is to dipping of the whole body over head and eares those examples doe not prâ—â—se upon us either of these For though Iohn Baptist did baptiâ—e sometime in Iordan sometime in Aeâ—â—n where there might 〈◊〉 water enough to drench the baptized yet where hâ—d thâ— Apostlâ—â— water enough in the streets of Hierusalem to dâ—â—nch the 〈◊〉 pâ—rsoâ—â— whom they baptized in one day Acts 2.41 It is much more probable that they either sprinkled them with water or poured water upon their face or heads For it is not said that the Apostles carryed them away from thence to any poole or river where they might bee drenched In Philips baptizing of Eunuch it is said they went down both together into the water to wit both Philip and the Eunuch Acts 8.38 But their going downe into the water was not part of the Baptisme For Philip went downe into the water as well as the Eunuch And it was no part of Philips meanning to baptize himselfe Besides the words translated they went downe expresseth no more but that they descended out of the Chariot into the water but how deep is not at all mentioned Furthermore It is a consideration of weight with mee that though the person baptized bee said to descend into the water yet the baptizing lay not in the descending or dipping of the body into the