Children is used in Scripture shall by Children understand Infants must needs believe that in all Israel there were no men but all were Infants and if that had been true it had been the greater wonder they should overcome the Anakims and beat the King of Moab and march so far and discourse so well for they were all called the Children of Israel The fourth thing to be inquired into is Whether Circumcision was a Seal of the new Covenant to the Believers and their Seed To which I answer in the Negative that it was neither a Seal to them Circumcision only a Seal to Abraham not to Believers nor their Seed not much less a Seal to them of the new Covenant It is true it was a Seal Confirmation or Ratification of the faith that Abraham had long before he was Circumcised but so could it not be said of any Infant that had no faith It was a Sign put into the Flesh of the Infant but a Sign and Seal only to Abraham witnessing to him that he not only had a justifying faith but to the truth of the Promises viz. That he should be the father of many Nations Gen. 12.23 2dly The father of the faithful Rom 4.11 Heir of the World Rom. 4.13 That in hi◠all the Families of the Earth should 〈◊〉 blessed viz. in Christ proceeding fro◠him which was no wayes true of any Infant that ever was Circumcised for none had before their Circumcisio◠such a faith that intitled them to such singular Promises the scope in that place in the 4. Rom. being to shew That Abraham himself was not justified by Works no not by Circumcision but by faith which he had long before he was Circumcised and so but a Seal or Confirmation of that faith which he had before and to assure him of the truth of those special Promises made to him and his Seed both Carnal and Spiritual And to which purpose you have both Chrysostome and Theophylact Chrysost and The. as Mr. Lawr. P. 168. viz. It was called a Seal of the Righteousness of Faith because it was given to Abraham as a Seal and Testimony of that Righteousness which he had acquired by faith Now this seems to be the priviledge of Abraham alone and not to be transferred to others as if Circumcision in whom ever it was were a Testimony of Divine Righteousness for as it was the priviledge of Abraham that he should be the Father of all the faithfull as well Circumcised as uncircumcised being already the father of all uncircumcised having faith in Vncircumcision he received first the sign of Circumcision that he might be the father of the Circumcised Now because he had this priviledge in respect of the Righteousness which he had acquired by faith therefore the sign of Circumcision was to him a Seal of the Righteousness of faith But to the rest of the Jews it was a sign that they were Abraham 's Seed but not a Seal of the Righteousness of faith as all the Jews also were not the fathers of many Nations Secondly Much less was Circumcision a Seal of the new Testament as before for nothing is a Seal thereof but the Holy Spirit Eph. 1.13.4.30 Thirdly Neither is Baptisme more then Circumcision called a Seal It i◠called a Figure 1 Pet. 3.21 And 〈◊〉 is a sign as before But a sign and figure proper only to men of understanding representing Spiritual things and Mysteries And not as Circumcision which was a sign not improper for Infants because it left a signal impression in their flesh to be remembred all their days but so cannot Baptisme be to any Infants 5. Circumcision not administred only to believers their seed The fifth thing to be examined it Whether Circumcision was administred to Believers as Believers and to their See◠after them as such to which Baptisme was to Correspond It is answered by no means for it was an Ordinance which by the institution belonged to all the natural Linage and posterity of Abraham good or bad without any such limitation as was put upon Baptisme If thou believest with all thy Heart thou mayst Acts 8. or any such qualification to an Infant capable to receive it that he should have a believing Parent but will you deny Abraham to be a believing Parent and was not he a Father to them all What then he was a publick common Father which reaches not the case in hand for he was no such father to them neither have they any other in his stead therefore the Analogy holds not yet if they had would it avail for that Priviledge would not stand the natural Children of Abraham in any stead to admit them to Baptisme which though they claimed upon that account Mat. 3. John rejects them upon it calling them a Generation of Vipers bidding them bring forth fruits meet for Repentance and which only would give them admittance to the Baptisme of Repentance and that it was not enough to say they had Abraham for their father And to the same purpose doth our Saviour tell Nicodemus a Mr. in Israel that without the new Birth his Birth-priviledge would not avail him in the Gospel-priviledges Joh. 3. and with more severity doth he tell the Jews that however they bore up themselves as the Sons of Abraham yet without believing in Christ who could only make them free 6. Baptism came not in the room place use of Circumcision 1. Not in the room and stead they were Bond-slaves to sin and the Children of the Devil The sixth thing to be searched after is Whether Baptisme did succeed in the Room Place and use of Circumcision To which I answer by no means for the following Reasons 1. Not in the room and stead 1. Because then only Males not Females would be baptized because no other Circumcised but all believing women as well as men were to be baptized Acts 8.12 16.14.15 2. Because then some not all Believers should be baptized because not only women as before were not admitted but all Believers out of Abrahams Family to whom he was a Spiritual father because he was a Believer before he was Circumcised Rom. 4.11 12. Whereas all Believers according to the Commission were to be baptized 3. Because then the Circumcised needed not to have been baptized if they had been already sealed with the new Covenant-seal But Christ himself and all his Apostles and so many of the Churches were Circumcised yet nevertheless were baptized 2. Not to the ends and uses 2. Not to the ends and uses neither as suggested upon the following grounds 1. Because Circumcision was a sign of Christ to come in the flesh and Baptisme that he was already come in the flesh witnessing to his Incarnation Death Burial and Resurrection 2. Circumcision was to be a partition Wall betwixt Jew and Gentile but Baptisme testified the contrary viz. That Barbarian Scythian Bond and Free Jew and Gentile Male or Female were all one in Christ Cornelius the
Gentile must be baptized and have the Spirit given to witness that nothing must be called common or unclean where God had purified the Heart by believing 3. Circumcision initiated the Carnal Seed into the Carnal Church and gave them right to the Carnal Ordinances but Baptisme was to give the Spiritual Seed an orderly entrance into the Spiritual Church and a right to partake of the Spiritual Ordinances 4. Circumcision was to be a Bond and Obligation to keep the whole Law of Moses's but Baptisme witnessed that Moses Law was made void and that only Christ's â—aw was to be kept 5. Circumcision was administred to all Abrahams natural Seed without any profession of Faith Repentance or Regeneration whereas Baptisme to be administred to the Spiritual Seed of Abraham was only upon profession of Faith Repentance and Regeneration and which appears more fully by the following Instances compared 1. Because a Carnal Parent and a fleshly begetting by the the Legal Birth-priviledge gave right to Circumcision whereas a Spiritual begetting by a Spiritual Parent gave only a true right to Baptisme 2. Because a Legal Ecclesiastical Typical Holiness when Land Mountains Houses Birds Beasts and Trees were holy qualified for Circumcision whereas only Evangelical and Personal Holiness was a meet qualification for Baptisme 3. Because Strangers and Servants bought with Money and all ignorant Children of Eight days old yea Trees were capable of Circumcision whereas only men of understanding that were capable to believe with all their Heart and to give an account thereof with their mouths were to be esteemed capable Subjects of Baptisme 6. Circumcision was to be a sign of Temporal Blessings and Benefits to be enjoyed in the Land of Canaan whereas Baptisme was to be a sign as before of many Spiritual benefits viz. Remission of sins Justification Sanctification here and Eternal Salvation hereafter It is granted there are in some things an Analogy betwixt the one and the other both signifying Heart-Circumcision and an initiating into the Church though as a different Church so different Subjects and Church Members upon different grounds and to different ends as before and in a far different manner one to be done in a private House and by a private Hand and the other in some publick place and by the hand of some publick Minister appointed by the Church to administer the same But now because there is some Analogy in some things is there therefore ground to conclude it cometh into the room stead and use thereof by no means for by the same Argument we may as well conclude that it cometh in the room and stead of the Ark Manna Rock c. And from such like Arguments drawn from Analogies what Jewish Rites may not by our wits be introduced to the countenancing the Papists in their High Priesthood National Churches Orders of Priesthood Tythes and all other their innumerable Rites and Ceremonies that without any Institution of Christ or pretence of new Testament-authority they have intrâ—duced or imposed upon the account of Analogy with old Testament Rites and Services Concerning which you have the Lord Brooks in his Treatise of Episcopacy L Brooks P. 100 saying very well viz. That the Analogy which Baptisme now hath with Circumcision in the old Law is a fine ratiâ—nal Argument to illustrate a Point well proved before but I somewhat doubt saith he whether it be proof enough for that which some would prove by it since besides the vast difference in the Ordinance the persons to be Circumcised are stated by a positive Law so express that it leaves no place for Scruple but it is far otherwise in Baptisme where all the designation of Persons fit to be partakers for ought I know is only such as believe for this is the qualification which with exactest search I find the Scripture requires in Persons to be baptized and this it seems to require in all such Persons now how Infants can be properly said to believe I am not yet fully resolved And very full and most excellently you have to this point Dr. Taylor Dr. Tayl p. 228. Who saith That the Argument from Circumcision is invalid upon infinite considerations Figures and Types prove nothing unless a Commandment go along with them or some express to signifie such to be their purpose For the Deluge of Waters and the Ark of Noah were a Figure of Baptisme said Peter and if therefore the Circumstances of one should be drawn to the other we should make Baptisme a Prodigy rather than a Rite the Paschal Lamb was a Type of the Eucharist which succeeds the other as Baptisme doth to Circumcision but because there was in the manducation of the Paschal Lamb no prescription of Sacramental drink shall we thence conclude that the Eucharist is to be administred but in one kind And even in the very Instance of this Argument supposing a Correspondency of Analogy between Circumcision and Baptisme yet there is no Correspondence of Identity for although it were granted that both of them did consign the Covenant of faith yet there is nothing in the Circumstance of Childrens being Circumcised that so concerns that Mystery but that it might very well be given to Children and yet Baptisme only to men of Reason because Circumcision left a Character in the flesh which being imprinted upon Infants did its work to them when they came to age and such a Character was necessary because there was no word added to the Sign but Baptisme imprints nothing that remains on the Body and if it leaves a Character at all it is upon the Soul to which also the word is added which is as much a part of the Sacrament as the Sign it self for both which Reasons it is requisite that the Parties 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 since therefore the Reason of this Parity does wholly fail there is nothing left to infer a necessity of complying in this Circumstance of aâ—e any more then in the other Annexes of the Type then the Infants must also precisely be Baptized upon the Eighth day and Females must not be baptized because not Circumcised but it were more proper if we would understand it right to prosecute the Analogy from the Type to the Antitype by way of Letter and Spirit and signification and as Circumcision figures Baptisme so also the adjuncts of the Circumcision shall signifie something Spiritual in the adherences of Baptisme and therefore as Infants were Circumcised so spirial Infants shall be Baptized which is Spiritual Circumcision for therefore Babes had the Ministry of the Type to signifie that we must when we give our names to Christ become Children in malice and then the Type is made compleat c. Thus far the Dr. 7. Whether the not Baptizing Infants makes the priviledge under the Gospel less then under the Law who had then Circumcision 7 Not baptizing of
any of them and whether it is not contradictious to common sence and Experience for any to assert it For what Repentance or Faith are they capable to profess What present Regeneration can they evidence What Testimony of a good Conscience can they give in striking or keeping Covenant with God herein And how can they embrace or improve the Covenant on Gods part for Pardon Purging Justification Sanctification and Salvation And therefore is Mr. Faxter forced to confess in his plain Scripture proof p. 301. That as to the Ends of Baptisme they are rather to be fetched from the Aged then Infants and that because the aged 1. are the most fully capable Subjects 2. The most Excellent and Eminent Subjects 3. Of whom the Scripture fully speaks c. But on the contrary as for Infants Baptisme be acknowledgeth in the same place that the Scripture speaketh darkly of it Yea that it is so dark in the Scripture that the Controversy is thereby become not only hard but so hard as he saith he finds it Wherein if he hath not said more in a few words for the baptizing of Believers and against that of Infants then all his great book can answer Let all the world judge though he calls it in contradiction hereto plain Scripture Proof for Infants Church-Membership and Baptisme CHAP. V. Wherein the Baptisme of believers is proved to be the only Baptisme from the New-testament-dispensation so differing from that of the old THe Old Testament Church Fifthly from the new Testament Dispensation we find was national consisting of the Natural and Fleshly Seed of Abraham Therefore were Infants by the Ordinance of Circumcision added thereto Wherein they had a worldly Sanctuary Carnal Ordinances a Temporary Priesthood and multitude of Ceremonies The New-testament-church was by Christs appointment to be a separated people out of the Nations consisting only of the Spiritual Seed of Abraham and therefore believers upon profession of Faith by the Ordinance of Baptisme were added thereto Acts 2.31 1 Cor. 12.13 Wherein aâ— in the Spiritual house the true Tabernacle they partake of Spiritual Ordinances in Communion of Spiritual Members And by an unchangeable Priesthood do offer Spiritual Sacrifices and Worship God as true Wroshippers in Spirit and Truth And therefore upon this change you have John Baptist discharging that Priviledge of Abrahams natural Seed that admitted into the old Church from any such Rite in the new Mat. 3.9 c. telling them in express terms That now in Gospel dayes they must not say within themselves That they have Abraham for their Father viz. That they are the Children of a godly Parent No that which mâ—ght have served turn under Moses will not a vail nor must not be admitted now under Christ Nothing now but fruits meet for Repentance give right to the Bapâ—isme of Repentance and nothing short of the Spirits birth can orderly admit to Water-birth and Spiritual Ordinances And the Genuine Reason Christ himself gave to that Doctor in Israel though yet it seems ignorant of the Mystery of the new birth which only gives the right of admission into the New testament church Because saith he that which is born of the flesh is but flesh Regeneration being not entailed to Generation To which purpose therefore Dr. Owen Dr. Owen very excellently in his Catechisme about Government p. 106. Our Lord Jesus Christ hath laid down saith he as an Everlasting Rule that unless a man be born again he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God John 3.3 Requiring Regeneration as an indispensible condition in a Member of his Church a Subject of his Kingdom for his Temple is now to be built of Living Stones 1 Pet. 2.5 Men Spiritually and savingly quickned from their death in sin and by the Holy Ghost whereof they are partakers made a meet habitation for God Eph. 2 21 22 1 Cor. 3.16 2 Cor. 6.16 Which receiving Vital supplies from Christ its Head increaseth in faith and holiness edifying it self in love Thus far the Doctor Under the Law Ceremony Shadow Letter and Carnal Seed suited to Carnal Ordinances But when the substance and Spirit was come under the Gospel then only a spiritual Seed as most meet and suitable must attend the spiritual Worship and spiritual Ordinances Dr. Tayl. And herein doth Dr. Taylor very well accomodate this Truth P. 242. They saith he that baptize Children make Baptisme to be wholly an outward Duty a Work of the Law a Carnal Ordinance it makes us adhere to the Letter without regard of the Spirit to be satisfyed with Shadows to return to Bondage to relinquish the mysteriousness the substance and spirituality of the Gospel which Argument is of sâ— much the more consideration becausâ— under the Spiritual Covenant or thâ— Gospel of Grace if the Mystery goâ—â— not before the Symbol which doeâ— when the Symbols are consignations oâ— Grace as the Sacraments are yet iâ— always accompanies it but never followâ— in order of time And this is cleâ— in the perpetual Analogy of Holy Scripture CHAP. VI. Wherein Believers Baptisme is confirmed to be the only true Baptisme from the constitution of the Primitive Churches who were formed not of Ignorant Babes but of professing Men and Women that upon Baptisme were joyned together to observe all the Ordinances of Christ which is also further evidenced by the Dedications of the Epistles to the Churches as well as Contents of the same THe Truth whereof appears not only from the Order directed unto in Christs Commission 6. From the constitution of the Primitive Churches which as already observed requires that men be first taught in the Faith 2. That then they be baptized into the Faith And then thirdly that they be edified or taught in the Faith viz. in the place of teaching the Church or School of Christ The contemning which Order as Mr. Baxter saith is to contemn all Rules of Order Sect. 1 But also from the pattern and example the Apostles gave in observation of the aforesaid direction in planting the New Testament Churches we read of As first the Church of Jerusalem Jerusalem Acts 2.41 42. Then they that gladly received his Word were baptized and the same day there were added to them 3000. Souls The them that they were added to appear to be the Baptized Disciples mentioned Acts. 1.15 21 22. And so they continued in the Apostles Doctrine fellowship breaking of Bread and Prayers Where you have the order fully observed 1. Receiving or believing the Word 2. Baptizing 3. Church fellowship in Doctrine breaking Bread and Prayer And so in like manner you will find the self-same order was observed in all the Churches As Secondly The Church of Samaria Samaria Acts 8.12 Where it is said that when the Samaritans believed Philp Preaching the things concerning the Kingdom of God and the name of Jesus they were baptized both Men and Women but not a Word of Children Thirdly The Church at Cesarea Cesarea Acts 10 47 48.
hath not sent me to Baptize but Preach the Gospel saith This must not slightly be understood as if he were not sent to to baptize at all but that teaching should go before Baptisme for the Lord commanded his Apostles both to Preach and also to administer the Sacraments Erasmus Erasmus paraphraseth that upon those words in Mat 28. When you have taught them the Word of God if they then believe you and receive it if they begin to repent themselves of their former life and are ready and willing to embrace the Doctrine of the Gospel then let them be baptized with Water in the Name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost that they may be marked with his Mark and written amongst the number of those which trust that are through the merits of his death freed and washed from their sins and received to be Children of God Ludovicus Vives in his Comment aforesaid L. Vives l. 1. c. 27. None saith â—e were baptized of old but those that are of Age who did not only understand what the Mystery of the Water meane but desired the same the perfect Image whereof we have yet in our Infants Baptisme for it is askt of the Infant Wilt thou be baptized for whom the sureties answer I will Melancton upon 1 Cor. 11. In times past saith he those in the Church that had Repented them were baptized Melanc and was instead of an Absolution wherefore Repentance must not be seperate from Baptisme for Baptisme is a Sacramental sign of Repentance Beza Beza upon 1 Cor. 7.14 saith That to permit all Children to be Baptized was unheard of in the primimitive Church whereas every one ought to be instructed in the Faith before he were admitted to Baptisme Bucer Bucer in his Book entituled The Ground Work and Cause saith That in the Congregation of God Confession of sins is always first the which in times past went before Baptisme For commonly Children were baptized when they came to their understanding and that in the beginning of the Church no man was Baptized and received into the Congregation but those that through hearing the Word wholly gave over and submitted themselves to Christ Chamier Chamier Tom. 4. l. 5. c. 15. Ser. 19. saith Who seeth not that the Custom of the scrutiny of the Baptized was not in that time when scarce the 1000 Person was Baptized before he came to Age and was diligently exercised in Catechisme Dr Ham Dr. Hamond in his Chat. Lib. 1. l. 3 p 23. saith That all men were instruâ—ted in the Fundamentals of faith anciently before they were permitted te be baptized Dr. Field Dr. Field on the Church p. 729. saith That very many that were born of Christian Parents besides those that were converted from Paganisme put off their Baptisme for a long time insomuch that many were made Bishops hefore they were baptized Ch. Cate. The Doctrine of the Church of England held sorth in their publick Catechisme gives Testimony to this Truth where it is asserted That Repentance whereby we forsake sin and faith whereby we stedfastly believe the promises are required in every one that is to be baptized confessing also that Children can neither repent nor believe Which though they would salve by saying they do both by their Sureties upon which invention they lay the stress of the whole for if there be no warranty for Sureties in the Case they have in these few words given up the Controversy For they grant that Faith and Repentance are requisite to qualifie to Baptisme and ingeniously acknowledge that Children are not capable of either but that they do repent and believe by their sureties which how Consonant to Reason Rule and Righteousness lâ—t all the upright judge and concerning which Practice take the judgment of Dr. Taylor Bishop of Downe Dr. Tayl. p. 239. of his Lib. of Pro. I know saith he God might if he would have appointed God-fathers to give answer in behalf of Children and to be fiduciors for them but we cannot find any authority or ground that he hath and if he had that 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 for the Question is askt of believing in the present and if the God-fathers answer in the name of the Child I do believe it is notorious they speak false and ridiculous for the Inâ—ant is not capable of believing and if he were he were also capable of discenting and how then do they know his mind and therefore said he Tertullian and Gregory Nazianzen gave advice that the Baptisme of Infants should be deferred till they could give an account of their own faith How this invention of Gossips came in and by what Pope it was instituted and how they were required in the Baptisme of Bells and Churches as well as Infants you will hear farther in the other Historical Part. We shall now conclude this Chapter with that wonderfull Testimony given by Mâ— Baxter in his 20th Argument to Mr. Blake in these words Mr. Bax. Here note saith he speaking of the Eunuchs not being admitted 〈◊〉 Baptism till he made a profession of his Faith first that Baptisme as received is the Seal of our Faith how much soever denied by Mr. Blake as it is the Seal of Gods Promise secondly That the constant order is that Baptisme follow Faith thirdly That it is 〈◊〉 better then an impious prophanation of it if it go without Faith that is firsâ— if the Party seek it without the presence of Faith secondly if the Pastor administer is without the profession of Faith Thus you see by plentifull Evidence that the Lord hath not left himself without witness hereto from men and that in several Ages not only before but since the Antichristian darkness took place but that which is most to be admired and adored in this Providence is that much of this blessed Testimony for Truth hath proceeded from the Pens of some of its chiefest Adversaries whereby the Wisdom and Power of God hath much appeared who cannot only out of the mouths of Babes and Sucklings but out of the very mouths of Enemies also create and perfect his own praise And make even their own Tongues to fall upon themselves for what is esteemed better Evidence and Testimony amongst men then the confession of Parties themselves But it may be Objected Object that howâ—ver you improve many of these sayings of the Pedobaptists to justifie your way and condemn theirs yet they have another meaning which will well enough reconcile such Principles to their Practice of baptizing Infants and whereby you will be found mistaken in in the supposed advantage for is it to be thought possible that such pious wise and learned men should so positively contradict themselves as you seem to make them do Answ To which I answer That whatever their meaning may be yet their word and reasons
for God and the Shoulders anointed to be inabled to bear God's burden After Baptism the Neck must be anoynted with Chrisme that the mind may be better disposed for God and holy contemplation which by Chrism is signified being made of shining Oile and healing sovereign Balsome They must be endewed with white Garments to hold forth that Innocency which is received in Baptism as well as the Glory which they are to pertake of at the Resurrection And a burning Taper put into the hand that the Word of God may be a light to his Feet Gulielmus saith That as to the form of Baptism the Virgin Mary A blasphemous addition is to be added to the Father Son and Holy Spirit viz. I Baptize thee in the name of the Omnipotent Father Son and Holy Spirit and the blessed Virgin Mary 419. Thom. saith there are seven Sacraments 7 Sacraments viz. Baptism Confirmation Eucharist Penance Extream-Vnction Order and Matrimony Two whereof viz. Baptism and the Eucharist were instituted by Christ and the other five by the Apostles as Alexander 406. Which seven Sacraments were after confirmed by the Councel of Trent with Anathema to those who should deny them When and by whom Tyths first granted Pope Gregory X. was the first in Anno 1271. granted Tythes to the Churches Those that opposed and witnessed against Infants Baptism and other Popish Superstitions in this Age were the Albigenses and Aumionenses Magdeburg Cent. 13. P. 554 c. CENT 14 15 16 17. That the Baptizing of Infants with all the Rites and Ceremonies still continued especially in the Romish Church we need not question when we read the Canons of the Council of Trent which was called on purpose as to establish their old Superstitions and Idolatries so to suppress the Light and Truth that especially did shine in the Empire In which Council which ended 1564. we have the following Canons The Canons of the Council of Trent about Inf. Bapt. In the 5th Session about Original Sin in the 4th Canon It was Decreed That they who shall deny Baptisme to young Children from their Mothers Womb for the taking away Original Sin Let them be accursed Os 16 Cent. c. 60 380. In the 7th Session about Baptism in the 13 Canon It was Decreed That whosoever puts not young baptised Children amongst the faithful or saith they must be re-baptised at the years of discretion or that it is better to omit their vaptism till then Let them be accursed And in the 14 Canon It was decreed That whosoever shall say that baptised Children when they come to Age ought not to be enjoyned to ratifie the promise made in their name but to be left to their will if they refuse Not compelling them to Christian life but denying them other Ordinances Let them be accursed In the 3 Canons about Confirmation it was Decreed That whosoever said It was an idle Ceremony not a Sacrament properly or that it was formerly used that Children might give an account of their faith 2. That to give vertue to Chrysome was tâ— wrong the Holy Spirit 3. Thaâ— every simple Priest is the ordinary Minister for confirmation and not thâ— Bishop only Let them be accursed Os 16 Cent. pag. 417. And as a standing Rule to justifie themselves in their Determinations they conclude and Decree A blasphemous Decree That their Traditions should bâ— observed Pari Pietatis affectu with the same pious affection with the Holy Scriptures Charl. V. his Interim In that Instrument called the Interim That Decretal of Charles the Fifth made till the Councels Canonâ— could be perfected it was determined That young Children by the faith and confession of the Sureties should be Baptised And that all Ancient Ceremonies that pertained to the Sacrament 〈◊〉 Baptisme should be continued as Exorcisme Chrysme c. Osiander p. 482. Among the many Aâ—â—â—christian oppressions the Princes of Germany exhibited to the Pope from their Convention of Norimberg they complained oâ— that of baptizing Bells wherein they say The Suffragans have invented Baptizing of Bells complained of by the Princes of Germany that no other but only themselves may Baptize Bells for the Lay-people Whereby the simple people upon their affirmation do believe That such Bells so baptized will drive away evil Spirits and Tempests Whereupon a great number of God-fathers are appointed especially such as are rich which at the time of the baptizing holding the Rope wherewithal the Bell is tyed the Suffragan speaking before them as is accustomed in the baptizing of young Children they altogether do answer and give the name to the Bell the Bell having a new name put upon it as is accustomed to be done to the Christians after this they go to sumptuous Feasts whereunto also the Gossips are bidden that thereby they may give the greater reward to the Suffragans their Chaplins and Miâ—â—sters whereby it happeneth oft-times that even in a small Village an hundred Florins are consumed in such Cristenings which is not only superstitious but contrary to Christian Religion a seducing of the simple People and meer Extortion Wherefore such wicked unlawful things are to be abolished Fox's Acts and Monum 990. Pius the Fifth baptized the Duke of Alva 's Standard Standard Baptized and called it Margaret Dr. Morison de Depra Bel. p. 24. The German Protestants about Infants-Baptism Luther August Confessâ—oÌ„ The Lutherans in their Augustan Confession made 1530. do declare That Baptism is necessary to Salvation That Gods Grace is conferred thereby That Children ought to be baptised who by Baptism are dedicated and received into the grace and favour of God condemning the Anabaptists who deny Baptism to Children and who affirm that Children without Baptism may be saved Osiand 16 Cent. p. 153. In the Smalkald Articles 1536. the Lutherans say In the Smalkald Articles Concerning Infants we teach that they are to be baptized For inasmuch as they do belong to the promised Redemption made by Iesus Ehrist the Church ought to baptize and to declare the promise to them Osiand Cent. 16. p. 278. In the Conference betwixt the Calvinists and Lutherans at Mumpelgartens 1529. In the Conference at Mumpelgart It was agreed that Baptisme came in the room of Circumcision and that the Children of the Christians are to be Baptized Osiand Cent. 16. 1020. Though about the Ground of Baptizing them they differed The Lutherans affirming that they had a proper and peculiar Faith to intitle them thereto The Calvinists asserting they had none but ought to be baptized by vertue of the Faith of the Parent in Covenant In the Book of Concord In the Book of Concord 1580. by the Lutherans They agree that the Tenets of the Anabaptists are to be renounced that say Infants are not to be baptized because they have no use of reason Osiand 16 Cent. p. 254. The English Protestants about Infants Baptism In the Reformation begun in Edward the Sixth time In the
D. Tayler p. 240. speaking so much my mind and the truth herein saith he Whether Infants have Faith or no is a Question to be disputed by persons that care not how much they say and how little they prove First Personal and Actual Faith they have none for they have no acts of Understanding and besides how can any man know that they have since he never saw any sign of it neither was he told so by any that cold tell Secondly Some say they have Imputative but then so let the Sacrament be too that is if they have the Parents faith or the Churches then so let Baptism be imputed also by deriuation from them and as in their Mothers Womb and while they hang on their Mothers Breasts they live upon their Mothers Nourishment So they may upon the Baptism of their Parents or their Mother the Church For since Faith is necessary to the susception of Baptisme and they themselves confess it by striving to find out new kinds of Faith to daub the matter up such as the Faith such must be the Sacrament for there is no proportion between an actual Sacrament and an imputative Faith this being in immediate and necessary order to that And whatsoever can be said to take off from the necessity of Actual Faith all that and much more may be said to excuse from the actual susception of Baptisme The first of these devices was that of Luther and his Scholars the second of Calvin and his and yet there is a third Device which the Church of Rome teaches and that is that Infants have habitual Faith but who told them so How can they prove it What Revelation or Reason teacheth any such thing Are they by this habit so much as disposed to an actual Belief without a new Master Can an Infant sent into a Mahumetan Province be more confident for Christianity when he comes to be a Man than if he had not been baptized Are there any Acts precedent concomitant or consequent to this pretended Habit This strange Invention is absolutely without Art without Scripture Reason or Authority But the Men are to be excused unless there were a better To which saith he this Consideration may be added That if Baptisme be necessary to the Salvation of Infants as the Fathers of old and the Church of Roms and England since upon whom is the imposition laid To whom is the Command given To the Parents or the Children Not to the Parents for then God hath put the Salvation of innocent Babes into the Power of others and Infants may be damned for their Fathers carelesness or malice It follows that it is not necessary at all to be done to them to whom it cannot be prescribed as a Law and in whose behalf it cannot be reasonably entrusted to others with the appendent necessity and if it be not necessary it is certain it is not reasonable and most certain it is no where in terms prescribed and therefore it is presumed that Baptism ought to be understood and administred according as other Precepts are with reference to the capacity of the subject and the reasonableness of the thing And again to this purpose p. 242. And if any Man runs for succour to that exploded Cresphugeton that Infants have Faith or any other inspired Habit of I know not what or how we desire no more advantage in the world than that they are constrained to answer without Revelation against Reason common Sense and all the Experience in the World The Argum. from federal Holiness examined 4. Argum. From Federal Holiness examined The other Scriptures we shall speak to are those that are supposed to hold cut a Covenant-Right to the Children of Believers and from whence Arguments are drawn for the Baptizing of them which are principally 1 Cor. 7.14 Gen. 17.7 compared Rom. 4.11 and Acts 2.39 From whence it is asserted That the Children of Believers being a holy Seed and in Covenant that to them therefore belong the Seals of the Covenant which we shall examine with care and circumspection so much stress being laid thereon And as previous to our Answer thereto shall in the fir place take notice that this way of arguing hath been the new way which since the Reformation hath been taken up to prove Infants-Baptism by Antiquity of the Argum. from Federal Holiness For when the unsoundness and rotteness of the antient ground of Infants-Baptisme appeared they being loath to part with the Tradition endeavoured to build it upon this new Foundation for when it was discovered that Infants might be saved without Baptism and that they were not damned if they died without it and that the Sacrament did not give Grace by the bare work done nor took not away Original Sin it was high time to lay a new Foundation for it or else it would have faln therefore is this new way of Covenant-Holiness found out upon which our Congregational-Men especially both in Old as well as New-England seem to go of which Zwinglius about 120 years since forasmuch as I can learn was the first Founder wherein he was singular from all that went before him And which he seems himself to owne in his Book of Baptisme Tom. 2. Fol. 57. Saying That all those who have from the Apostles times written of Baptism have not in a few things erred from the scope he having it seems found out a way freer from Error and Exception than all the Tracts of the Antients Having observed to you the Antiquity of this new Foundation we shall in the next place weigh and consider the Arguments themselves The First and chiefest is from 1 Cor. 7.14 Else were your Children unclean The Arguments from Foederal-holiness examined 1 Cor. 7.4 but now are they holy From whence this Argument is raised That they who are holy with a Covenant-holiness may be baptized But the Infants of Believers are holy with a Covenant-holiness for it is said in the Text but now are they holy therefore they may be baptized In which Argument we have these two things asserted but not at all proved First that the holiness in the Text is a federal or Covenant holiness Secondly That Federal or Covenant holiness qualifies Infants for Baptism Both which are positively denied upon the following Grounds First Because the Holiness in the Text be it what it will whether Moral Federal or Matrimonial is neither here or elswhere assigned to be a ground of baptizing Children upon it being only the ground laid down in the Institution that can warrant the same The Female as well as the Male Children under the Law had all of them a Legal or Federal Holiness yet must none of them be Circumcised because God had not so ordained And for twenty Generations before the Law Circumcision was neither administred to Male or Female for the like Reason It being Gods Word only not our Reason or the Inventions or Persuasions of Learned Men that can warrant our practice in Gods
Ordinances That Profession of Faith and Repentance is a substantial ground to Baptize upon is undeniably proved from Scripture and consented to by themselves But that foederal Holiness or any other Qualification in Infants is any Scriptural ground for the same is yet to be proved this Text being altogether silent herein But Secondly If it should be granted that Federal Holiness was a ground to baptize Children upon under the Gospel as it was to circumcise them under the Law which must not be owned by any means Yet from substantial Arguments it will appear that no such Holiness is intended here First No such Federal Holiness in the N. T. Because there is no such Holiness in the New Testament as a federal Holiness belonging to Children That because the Parents are Believers and in the New Covenant their Natural Seed must therefore be so esteemed and have the like right thereby to the Evangelical as the Children under the Law had to the Legal Ordinances which as no where to be found so not to be admitted upon the following Considerations 1. Because it contradicts the Gospel Dispensation as before 2. Because such apprehensions intails Grace to Nature Regeneration to Generation in contradiction to that of our Saviour John 3. That which is born of the flesh is flâ—sh And that we are all the Children of wrath by Nature Eph. 2. 3. Because it contradicts all the experience both of former and latter times wherein Godly Men have had Wicked Children and wicked Men good Children as Abraham had an Ishmael Isaac an Esau David an Absolom and on the contrary wicked Ahaz begat good Hezekiah wicked Abia good Asa wicked Amon good Josia 4. Because it necessitates an owning the Doctrine of Falling from Grace 2. The Text intends an other Holiness viz Matrimonial Secondly Because the Text intends another Holiness viz. A Civil or Matrimonial Holiness in opposition to Fornication Uncleanness Bastardy And which doth fully appear First From the Scope of the place The Question propounded by the Believing Corinthians for Solution was 1. From the scope of the place Whether their new Spiritual Relation to Christ in the Gospel did not dissolve their Carnal Relation entered into in Unbelief and whether they could without defilement maintain their Converse without Sin any more than they could in Ezra and Nehemiah's time To which the Apostle replies That the Civil Relation before orderly entered into was clean now as before The unbelieving Husband is as much clean and sanctified to his believing Wife and that she might as freely converse with â—im in the Conjugal State now as before the Spiritual difference happened betwixt them For Religion breaks no Bands nor Civil Contracts They being as true Man and Wife as before the Marriage as Honourable as before And therefore the Apostle adviseth that they should abide in the state and Calling Religion findeth them in Ver. 20. And that by no means the believer should depart and upon that account break the Relation but that he should maintain his Civil in expectation of gaining her over to a spiritual Relation And in confirmation hereof brings an Argument ab absurdo for otherwise the Children that they had together would be unclean viz. if they should depart from their Relations from the unlawfulness of the Marrage and uncleanness of the bed what would they make their Children but Bastards or unclean But in as much as they had no question of their legitimacy or holiness neither had they any cause to scruple the other And farther also the believer had the least ground to doubt hereof because to him all lawfull things are clean whether Husband Wife Child Estate c. which is all the Holiness I conceive can be meant in the Text agreeable to the Holiness 1 Thes 4.3 4. Mal. 2.15 the Bastard being amongst the unclean and unholy Deut. 32.2 as Mr. Calvin upon Mal. 2.15 saith wtll namely Calvin Wherefore hath God made one to wit seeking a Seed of God a Seed of God is here taken for Legitimate as the Hebrews do name that Divine which is pure from any fault or spot therefore he sought a Seed of God that is appointed Marriage from whence should be born a Legitimate and pure Offspring secretly therefore doth the Prophet here shew that they are all Bastards that shall be born by Poligamy because they neither can nor ought to be accounted legitimate but they who are begotten according to Gods institution but where the Husband violates the faith given to the Wife and takes to himself another as he perverts the order of Marriage so also he cannot be a lawfull father thus Calvin 2. The holiness the same spoken to be in the unbeliever A second Argument why it is a Holiness of this kind and not such a faederal Holiness as suggested because the Holiness of the Children is of no other nature then that spoke of the unbelieving Parent in the Text and if one will intitle to the Ordinance so the other A third is from the consideration that Children in the Text is not to be limited to Infants or such Children that they might have since the Religious difference happened 3. Children not to be taken for Infants only but of grown Children for a Mans Child is his Child whilst he lives through 30 40 or 50 years old and we suppose it would be as absurd to say a Heathenish Son should be baptized upon a faederal Holiness as to say the unbelieving Parent should so be A fourth Argument 4. Ber. it cannot be known why this cannot be a new Covenant-holiness that must qualifie and intitle to Baptisme first because that cannot be known for if the Parent professing faith be a Hypocrite and not in Covenant themselves then may you baptize a wrong subject as well as a right one And secondly such an absurdity would follow that no unbelievers Child is in Covenant or Elect which is notoriously false for as before Hezekiah was the Son of wicked Ahaz and Asa of Abia and Josia the Son of wicked Amon. Thirdly from the concurrent Testimony and Confession of many learned Commentators 3. From the confession of Commentators upon the place and parties themselves Austin Austin a great asserter of Infants Baptisme as before saith hereupon It is to be held without doubting whatsoever that Sanctification was it was not of power to make Christians and remit sins Jerom saith Because of Gods appointment Marriage is Holy Ambrose Ambrose thus upon the place The Children are Holy because they are born of lawful Marriage Melanc Melancton in his Commentary upon the place thus Therefore Paul answers that the Marriages are not to be pulled asunder for their unlike opinions of God if the impious Person do not cast away the other and for comfort he adds as a Reason The unbelieving Husband is sanctified by the believing Wife meat is sanctified for that which is Holy in use that is granted