Circumcision was instituted as appears Rom. 4. 11. to be a seal of the righteousnesse of faith But for the same end also was baptisme instituted to be a seal of the covenant of grace and the free remission of our sins by faith And though children in the old law before eight dayes had not actuall faith nor could make profession thereof yet they received the sacrament thereof Therefore by the same reason children under the gospel though they have not actuall faith nor can make profession thereof yet may and ought to receive the sacrament of baptisme which is a seal of the covenat of grace and righteousnesse by faith Children ought not to be baptized because there is no command for it Mark I pray how uncertain they are in their grounds sometimes they say that children are not to be baptized because they have not actuall faith which I overthrew but even now sometimes because there is no commandement for it Which as the future arguments disprove so see a punctuall refutation of this answer Infra art 2. ob jâ Prove it by scripture that they ought to be baptized So I will first I will alledge you the text of scripture and then frame my argument from it the place of scripture is Ioh. 3. 5. Verily verily I say unto you except a man he born of water and of the spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God My argument from this place for the baptizing of infants is this If none can enter into the kingdom of God but those that are born of water and the spirit that is those that are baptized with water and regenerated by the spirit then is there a necessity of baptizing children or else they cannot enter into the kingdom of God that is ordinarily for we must not tye God to outward means But the former is true Ergo the latter By this your reason it would follow that all that are baptized are regenerated and none regenerated but those who are baptized what becomes then of those who dye without baptisme I conceive the same of them as of those among the Jews who dyed before they were circumcised we leave them to the mercy of God conceiving charitably of their salvation because the children of the faithfull are comprised in the covenant Gen. 17. 7. and Acts. 2. 39. and the Apostle saith They are holy 1 Cor. 7. 14. All that I will conclude from this place is that no children enter into the kingdom of heaven by the ordinary way chalked out by Christ but those who are baptized or which comes all to one that the sacrament of baptisme ought to be administred to children as the ordinary means of their salvation This text speaks not of children but of men children are not men You might as well and better say that women are not men and doe you think that women ought not to be baptized this text speaks of children as well as those in riper years male or female for as the Apostle speaketh In Christ there is no difference of sex or age All that are to enter into the kingdom of God ought to be born of water and the spirit But children enter into the kingdom of God as well as men of ripers years Ergo children ought to be born again with water c. How prove you that children enter into the kingdom of God All those that are holy enter into the kingdom of God But the children of the faithfull are holy 1 Cor. 7. 14. Ergo they enter into the kingdom of God The Apostle meaneth that such are not bastards At which the company laughing as a ridiculous answer as if all that were not bastards were holy or that no children could be holy in the Apostles sense who were base-born Another Anabaptist came in and propounded a question concering Lay-mens preaching I will prove unto you M. Doctor that neither you nor such men as you are ought to preach but such only ought to perform that office of preaching as are appoynted by us How prove you that Those who are ordained ministers by ungodly men ought not to preach But you and others as you are be ordained by ungodly men Ergo you ought not to preach I denie both your propositions First because although we should suppose the bishops who ordained ministers to be ungodly men yet if they were themselves lawfully ordained and had power of imposition of hands the ministers ordained by them may and ought to discharge their function Iudas the Apostle and Nicholas the deacon were ungodly men yet the ministeriall acts they did either in preaching the word or administring the sacraments were never accounted void Secondly I denie that our bishops were ungodly men They that persecute good men are ungodly men But all your bishops persecute good men Ergo the bishops are ungodly men I answer first some of our bishops never persecuted any man as namely the Arch-bishop of Armagh and bishop Potter Secondly though some of our bishops by their places as they were high commissioners punished some men by Mulcts imprisonments or other censures yet they persecuted no godly man but executed justice upon delinquents namely factious schismaticks that disobey the Kings ecclesiasticall laws and disturb the peace of the church Yea but they are good men whom your bishops persecute and you cannot except the bishop of Armagh for when I was called in question before the high commission the Primate of Ireland sate there and by silence gave consent The Primate of Ireland was never a Judge in our high commission in England as it is well known sometimes he might sit with the rest but he had no power to give sentence in the high commission in England and if I might know truly for what cause you were brought into the high commission I doubt not but to prove the sentence given against you to be just for you are one who come not to church nor will hear our preachers but only some of your own sect and those no better then meer Lay-men We do no read of any such distinction in the word of God as Lay-men and Clergy-men these are popish distinctions the word Lay is not in all the scriptures No more is the word Trinity nor sacrament nor many others read in scripture yet the sense of them is there and so is the distinction of Clergy and Laitie for God commandeth that the people should learn the law from the Priests mouth the Priests were no other then the Clergy and the common people then the Laity Their Priest-hood was not the same with yours It was the same for substance but not for ceremony and manner of worship their Priest-hood was typicall ours evangelicall they by the figures of the ceremoniall law fore-shewed Christ to come we preach that Christ is come Can you prove any
baptized before they can hear and understand the gospel preached to them ANSWER 1. The setting preaching before baptizing doth no more prove that preaching must alwaies go before baptisme then the naming repentance before faith Mar. 1. 15. Repent and beleeve the gospel proves that repentance goeth alwayes before faith which the Anabaptists themselves hold not 2. Christ setteth in that place preaching before baptizing for two reasons neither of which make any thing against the baptisme of children The first is because it is the more principall act of the ministeriall function for it is preaching which through the operation of the holy Spirit begetteth faith which the sacraments only confirme preaching draweth the instrument as it were of the covenant between God and us whereunto the sacrament is set as a seal Secondly because Christ there speaketh of converting whole nations to the Christian faith in which alwayes the preaching of the word goeth before the administration of the sacraments For first men beleeve and after are admitted to baptisme but after the parents are converted their children being comprised within the covenant are admitted to baptisme and whensoever any proselyte is to be made this course is likewise to be taken they must professe their faith before they be received into the church by baptisme but the case is different in children they have neither the use of reason to apprehend the gospel preached unto them nor use of their tongue to professe their faith and God requireth no more of them then he hath given them the like course God himself took in the old law before any men of riper years were circumcised the commandement of God was declared and his covenant made known unto them but children were circumcised the eight day before they were capable of any preaching unto them or such declaration Nothing remaineth but that the two objections concerning the doctrine of the Trinitie in the beginning propounded by D. F. for no other end but to try how well verst these ring-leaders of the Anabaptists were in the more necessary points of catechisme he answered The first was framed out of Ioh. 17. 3. This is life eternall to know thee to be the only true God and whom thou hast sent Iesus Christ. If the Father be the only true God how is the Son or the holy Ghost very God Hereunto the Anabaptists gave two answers the first blaspemous the second unsufficient and impertinent as appears in the beginning of the conference The true answer is that Christ Ioh. 17. prayeth to God and not to any of the three Persons particularly for though he useth the word Father v. 1. yet Father is not there taken for the first Person in Trinity but as a common attribute of the deity as it is also taken Mat. 6. 9. Our Father v. 14. your heavenly Father Gal. 1. 4. God and our Father Jam. 1. 27. Before God and the Father 1 Pet. 1. 17. If you call him Father who judgeth without respect of persons So then the meaning is O God Father of heaven and earth This is life eternall to know thee to be the only true God and whom thou hast sent Iesus Christ. According to which interpretation this text is parallel to that of the Apostle one God and one Mediator betwixt God and man the man Christ Iesus 1 Tim. 2. 5. The second objection was out of Ioh. 15. 26. The spirit of truth which proceedeth from the Father If the spirit proceed from the Father only how do we say in the Nicen creed and that other of Athanasius and in the Letany which proceedeth from the Father and the Son To this none of the Anabaptists gave any answer at all yet the answer is very easie for the spirit is said to proceed from the Father in the place above alledged because he proceedeth from the Father originally not because he proceedeth from the Father only for he is elsewhere called the spirit of the Son as well as of the Father Gal. 4. 6. And in this very text Ioh. 15. 26. it is said the spirit whom I will send you from the Father which sheweth that the holy Spirit hath a dependance from both To whom three Persons and one only true God be ascribed all glory honour power and dominion for evermore FINIS A TRACTATE against the ANABAPTISTS CHAPTER I. Of the name and severall sorts of Anabaptists THe name Anabaptist is derived from the preposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and signifieth are-baptizer or at least such an one who alloweth of and maintaineth re-baptizing they are called also Catabaptists from the preposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifying an abuser or prophaner of baptisme For indeed every Anabaptist is also a Catabaptist the reitteration of that sacrament of our entrance into the church and seal of our new birth in Christ is a violation and depravation of that holy ordinance Of these Anabaptists or Catabaptists who differ no more then Bavius and Maevius of whom the poet elegantly writeth Qui Bavium non odit amat tua carniua Maevi Alstedius maketh fourteen sorts first the Muncerians 2. the Apostolical 3. the Separatists 4 the Catharists 25 the Silents 6. the Enthusiasts 7. the Libertines 8. the Adamites 9. the Hutites 10. the Augustintans 11. the Buchedians 12. the Melchiorites 13. the Georgians 14. the Menonists But in this as in other things he is more to be commended for his diligence in collection then for his judgement in election For although there are schismaticall and hereticall persons that have neer affinitie with Anabaptists known by all these names yet these are not so many distinct and severall sorts of Anabaptists For some of these differ only in respect of their doctors or teachers and not of their doctrines as the Muncerians Hutites Menonists others were hereticks more ancient then the Anabaptists properly so called as namely the Apostolicall the Catharists the Adamites and Enthusiasts though as I shall shew hereafter some of our present Anabaptists trench upon their heresies the Augustinians Melchiorites and Georgians are Anabaptists aliquid amplius though they agree with them in their main doctrine of re-baptizing yet they go beyond the ordinary Anabaptists holding far more damnable tenents then they For the Augustinians beleeve that none shall enter into paradise till the prince of their sect Austine the Bohemian shall open the way The Melchiorites expect Melchior Hofmannus to come with Elias to restore all things before the last day The Georgians blasphemously boast that their master David George was a holy person composed and made of the soul of Christ the third person in the Trinitie Lastly he omitteth one sort of Anabaptists called Hemerobaptists who in the summer time quotidiè baptizabātur were christened every day senserunt enim aliter non posse hominem vivere si non singulis diebus in aqua mergeretur ita ut abluatur sanctificetur ab omni
not for every circumstance But the reason and equitie of the law of circumcising children still remaineth for nothing can be alledged why children then should be by circumcision admitted to the church not now as well by baptisme hic aqua adversariis semper haeret Thirdly if the children of Christian parents should be excluded from baptisme they should be in a worse condition then the children of the Jews were under the law for they by receiving the sacrament of circumcision were admitted into the visible congregation of Gods people and accounted partakers of his promises But it were absurd nay as Calvin further enforceth this argument execrable blasphemie to think that Christ should abridge those priviledges to the children of the faithfull under the Gospell which God granted to children under the law ARGUMENT V. All they who are comprised within the covenant and are no where prohibited to receive the seal thereof may and ought to receive it But children are comprised within the covenant of faith whereof circumcision was a seal Rom 4. 11. and now baptisme is Ergo children may and ought to receive baptisme Of the major or first proposition there can be no doubt for it is unjust to deprive a man of the confirmation of that to which he hath a true right and title And for the minor or assumption it is as clear for so are the words of the covenant Gen. 17. 7. I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee ANABAP ANSWER That promise there belongs only to the seed of Abraham according to the flesh and not to us REPLY First this answer is in effect refuted by the Apostle Rom. 4. 13. The promise that he should be the heir of the world was not given to Abraham or his seed through the law but through the righteousnesse of faith as he was the father of all the faithfull and in that notion we are as well his children as the beleeving Jews and we read expressely Act. 2. 39. that the promise is made unto you and to your children and to all that are afar off and even as many as the Lord our God shal call and Gal. 3. 7. Know ye therefore that they that are of faith are of the children of Abraham Secondly the covenant which God made with Abraham and his seed is said to be eternall the chief head whereof was that he would be their God but this is not verified of Abrahams seed according to the flesh for very few of them for these many hundred years have been Gods people being professed enemies to Christ and his church this promise therefore must necessarily be understood of his children according to promise among which all true beleevers and their children are to be reckoned and if they are comprised within the covenant why should they not receive the seal of their initiation and admittance thereunto which was circumcision but now is baptisme every way corresponding thereunto As is solidly proved and clearly illustrated by S. Cyprian l. 3. ep 8. Lactan. l. 4. divin justit c. 15. Augustinus ep ad Dardonuns 57. cont Iul. Pelag. l. 2. ARGUMENT VI. Such who were typically baptized under the law are capable of real and true baptisme under the Gospell for the argument holds good à typo ad veritatem from the type to the truth from the signs in the law to the things signified in the Gospell But children were typically baptized under the law for they with their fathers were under the cloud and passed through the red sea but their washing with rain from the cloud prefigured our washing in baptisme and by the spirit and the red sea in which Pharaoh and his host were drowned was an emblem of Christs blood in which all our ghostly enemies are drowned and destroyed Ergo children are capable of true and reall baptisme under the Gospell ANABAP ANSWER The cloud and the red sea and the rock that followed them were not types but only metaphors and allegories from which no firm arguments can be drawn in this kind REPLY First this answer whets a knife to cut their own throats For as Gastius affirmeth it is the doctrine of the Anabaptists that all sacraments are nothing else but allegories if then the cloud and the red sea were allegories signifying our spirituall washing according to their own tenets they are sacraments and if children were partakers of sacramentall ablutions under the law why not under the Gospell Secondly the Apostle saith expressely ver 6. that all these things were types or figures or lively patterns to us and ver 2. that all were baptized in the cloud and in the sea the cloud therefore and the sea were types of our baptisme and not meer tropes or allegories They may happily object that as we read in the canon law that a Pastor or Rector may have a Vicar endowed sed vicarius non habet vicarium that a Vicar cannot have a Vicar endowed under him and likewise in Philosophie that the voice may have an echo by the repercussion of the aire but that the echo hath no echo so that the promises of God have types or sacraments representing them but that the types and sacraments themselvs have no types and sacrament to prefigure them But the answer is easie for we may say with Nazianzen that either there may be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an obscure type of a clearer and a rude draught or imperfect modell of a more perfect such were the legall types of the Evangelicall sacraments or to speak more properly circumcision and the Pascall Lamb were not types of our baptisme and of the sacrament of the Eucharist but of the things represented by them viz. of the circumcision of the heart and our spirituall nourishment by feeding upon the Lamb of God that takes away the sinnes of the world ARGUMENT VII All they who belong to Christ and his kingdom ought to be received into the church by baptisme But children belong to Christ and his kingdom as Christ himselfe teacheth us Mar. 10. 14. and Luk. 18. 16. suffer little children to câ—me unto me and forbid them not for of such is the kingdom of God verily I say unto you whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child he shall not enter therein vers 15. and he took them up in his arms and put his hands upon them and blessed them Ergo children ought to be admitted into the church by baptisme ANABAP ANSVVER This place is put in to be read at the sprinkling of children for the whore hath sweet words as sweet as oyle with these fair speeches she maketh the nations yeeld to her Prov. 7. 21. but the simple only beleeve her for this place maketh nothing for the baptisme of children the children mentioned in the Gospel were not sucklings for it is said they came to Christ neither did Christ christen any of them though he took them into
gain nothing by their fathers or mothers faith but rather lose For if they remained still in their Judaisme not beleeving in Christ yet their children were to receive the outward seal of the covenant to wit circumcision whereby they were reckoned among Gods people and had such outward federall holinesse as that sacrament might give them Sith therefore this glosse of the Anabaptists no way agreeth with the scope and intention of the Apostle nor with the truth it selfe it remaineth that we admit of that interpretation which the best of the ancient and latter Expositors give of the text to wit the unbeleeving husband is so far sanctified by the faith of the wife and the unbeleeving wife by the faith of her husband that their children thereby are entitled to the covenant of grace and therefore the Ministers of God have a good ground and warrant to administer baptisme unto them which is the seal of their entrance into that covenant ARTIC 3. Concerning set forms of prayer ANABAPTIST NO set or stinted forms of prayer ought to be used in publike on private but all that pray ought to pray by the spirit in a conceived form variable according to severall occasions THE REFUTATION Though we condemn not all conceived or ex tempore prayer especially in private when we lay open our wants to our Father in secret and rip up our consciences before him yet set or stinted forms of prayer in publike are not only warrantable by Gods Word and verie profitable but in some case necessarie ARGUMENT I. What God appointed in the old testament as appertaining to his substantiall worship it being no part of the abrogated rites of the ceremoniall law may and ought to be observed by us under the Gospell But set forms of blessing thanks-giving and prayer were appoynted by God in the old testament and are no types and figures of Christ nor parts of the ceremoniall law Ergo they may and ought to be observed by us under the Gospell Of the major or first proposition there can be no doubt for that cannot be evill whereof God is the author and though the rites and ceremonies are different yet the substance of Gods worship is the same both under the law and under the Gospell The assumption or minor proposition is confirmed by the expresse letter of these texts Numb 6. 23. 24. 25. 26. Speak unto Aaron and his sons saying on this wise ye shall blesse the children of Israel saying unto them the Lord blesse thee and keep thee the Lord make his face shine upon thee and be gracious unto thee the Lord lift up his countenance upon thee and give thee peace And Deut. 26. 5. And thou shalt speak and say before the Lord thy God a Syrian readie to perish was my father and he went down into AEgypt and sojourned there with a few and became there a nation great mightie and populous c. And Hosea 14. 2. Take with you words and turn to the Lord and say unto him take away all iniquitie and receive us graciously so will we render the calves of our lips And Ioel 2. 17. Let the Priests the ministers of the Lord weep between the porch the Altar and let them say spare thy people O Lord and give not thine heritage to reproach that the heathen should rule over them wherefore should they say among the people where is their God ANABAP ANSWER The forms mentioned in holy Scripture were composed by those that were prophets and immediatly inspired by the holy Ghost such are not the composers of our liturgies and therefore the argument will not follow from the one to the other REPLY First the question is not now whether we ought to use no form but such as is immediately inspired by the holy Ghost but whether set or stinted formes either inspired or not inspired may or ought to be used in the church that they may we prove by Gods own command which must not be restrained to prayers immediately inspired and dictated by the holy Ghost for then none should pray but Prophets and by that reason as none that are not immediately inspired might use set forms of prayers so neither conceived or extempore prayers Secondly though none now pray by immediate inspiration yet we have now the spirit of supplication and we pray by the assistance of the holy Spirit and if our prayers in matter and form are agreeable to Gods word they are acceptable unto him and they cannot be unacceptable unto him hoc nomine for that they are delivered in set formes because God himself was the first author of them and hath left them in scripture for our direction and imitation Thirdly in our Liturgies a great part of the formes of prayer and thanksgiving used by us are formes composed by prophets immediately inspired by the holy Ghost as namely the Lords Prayer the Psalmes of David the Magnificat the Benedictus Nunc dimittis and the close of all our prayers The grace of our Lord Iesus Christ c. Why then doe they not at the least joyn with us in rehearsing these set formes If these may be rehearsed without quenching or restraining the Spirit why may not others also framed according to these patterns ARGUMENT II. Whatsoever the prophets and saints of God practised in the substantiall worship of God under the law may and ought to be a president for us But they used set or stinted forms of prayer and thanksgiving Ergo their practice may and ought to be a president for us The major or first proposition needs no proof because the substance of Gods worship is the same under the Law and under the Gospel and what the prophets and holy men of old did or spake they did or spake as they were moved by the holy Ghost 2 Pet. 1. 21. The assumption or minor is abundantly proved by manifold allegations out of the old Testament as namely Numb 10. 35 36. And it came to passe when the Ark set forwards that Moses said rise up Lord and let thine enemies be scattered and let them that hate thee flee before thee and when it rested he said Returne O Lord unto the many thousands of Israel and 1 Chron. 25. 6 7. All these were under the hands of their father for song in the house of the Lord with Cymbals Psalterie and Harps for the service of the house of God according to the Kings order to Asaph Ieduthun and Heman so the number of them with their brethren that were instructed in the songs of the Lord was 288. And 2 Chron. 29. 30. Moreover Hezekiah the king and the princes commanded the Levites to sing prayses to the Lord with the words of David and of Asa the Seer and they sang prayses with gladnesse The words of David are those which are extant in the book of Psalmes under the name of David the words of Asa are comprehended in those Psalmes which bear this title A Psalme of Asaph as namely Psal. 73 74 75
of the Gospel both by the Law of God and by the Law of nature vers 7. Who goeth a warfare on his own charge who planteth a vineyard and eateth not of the fruit thereof or who feedeth a flock and eateth not of the milk of the flock and vers 13. Doe ye not know that those that minister about holy things live of the things of the Temple and they that wait at the Altar be partakers with the Altar even so hath the Lord ordained that they which preach the Gospel should live of the Gospel He saith not God permitteth or alloweth of it but ordaineth and commandeth it And lest these two strings should not be strong enough to keepe the bow still bent he addeth a third to wit an Apostolical injunction let him that is taught in the word communicate to him that teacheth in all good things Moreover when we read that Abraham and Iacob gave tithes I demand by what Law whether by the Law of nature or the Leviticall or Evangelicall not by vertue of the Leviticall for that Law was not then enacted and by that Law Levi was to receive not pay tithes Yet Levi himselfe in Abraham paid tithes to Melchisedech if they paid it by the Law of nature that bindeth all men if by the Evangelicall Law it bindeth all Christians to pay their tithes towards the maintenance of Melchisedechs Priesthood which endureth for ever And Saint Austine fearfully upon this ground threatneth all those who refuse willingly to pay their tithes that God would reduce them to a tithe and blast all the nine parts of their estate Thirdly I except against the thirty ninth Article viz. that baptisme is an ordinance of the new Testament given by Christ to be dispensed only upon persons professing Faith or that are disciples or taught who upon a profession of Faith ought to be baptized Here they lispe not but speak out plaine their Anabaptisticall doctrine whereby they exclude all the children of the faithfull from the sacrament of entrance into the Church and the only outward meanes of their salvation in that state but the best of their proofes fall short the word only which only can prove this their assertion is not found in any of the texts alledged in the margent nor can the sense of it be collected from thence For though it is most true and evident in the letter of those texts that all Nations that are to be converted and all men in them of yeers of discretion that have been taught the principles of Religion ought to make profession of their Faith before they are baptized as all that came to mens estate among the Jews or proselytes ought both to know and to give their assent to the covenant before they received the seal thereof to wit circumcision yet no such thing was or could be required of children who notwithstanding were circumcised the eight day so by the judgement of all the Christian Churches in the world the children of beleevers who are comprised in the letter of the covenant may receive the seal thereof to wit baptisme though they cannot make profession of their Faith by themselves for the present but others make it for them and in their stead the affirmative is true that all that make profession of their Faith and testifie their unfained repentance are to be baptized but the negative is most false that none are to be baptized who have not before made such profession of their Faith when by reason of their infancie they are not capable to be taught But this hereticall assertion is at large resu'ed by manifold Arguments drawne from Scripture Fathers and reason and all their cavils and evasions exploded Article 2. to which I refer the Reader Fourthly I except against the fortieth Article viz. The way and manner of dispensing of this Ordinance the Scripture holds out to be dipping or plunging the whole body under water it being a signe must answer the things signified which are these 1. The washing of the whole soul in the blood of Christ 2. That interest the Saints have in the death buriall and resurrection of Christ 3. Together with a confirmation of our Faith that as certainly as the body is buried under water and riseth again so certainly shall the bodies of the Saints be raised by the power of Christ in the day of the resurrection to reigne with Christ. This Article is wholly sowred with the new leaven of Anabaptisme I say the new leaven for it cannot be proved that any of the ancient Anabaptists maintained any such position there being three wayes of baptizing either by dipping or washing or sprinkling to which the Scripture alludeth in sundry places the Sacrament is rightly administred by any of the three and whatsoever is here alleadged for dipping we approve of so far as it excludeth not the other two Dipping may be and hath been used in some places trina immersio a threefold dipping but there is no necessity of it it is not essentiall to Baptisme neither doe the Texts in the margent conclude any such thing It is true Iohn baptized Christ in Iordan and Philip baptized the Eunuch in the river but the Text saith not that either the Eunuch or Christ himselfe or any baptized by Iohn or his Disciples or any of Christs Disciples were dipped plunged or dowsed over head and eares as this Article implyeth and our Anabaptists now practise Againe the bare example of Christ and his Apostles without a precept doth not bind the Church and precept there is none for dipping it is certaine Christ and his Apostles celebrated the Communion after Supper and in unleavened bread and with such a gesture as was then in use among the Jewes yet because there is no precept in the Gospell for these things no Christian Church at this day precisely observeth those circumstances and therefore dato non concesso that Christ and Saint Iohn or their Disciples used dipping in Baptisme it will not follow that we ought to baptize in the like and no other manner Besides it ought to be noted that in the beginning Christians had no Churches nor Fonts in them and there being many hundreds nay thousands often to be baptized together there was a kind of necessity that this Sacrament should be administred in rivers or such places where were store of waters as there were in Enon neare Salem where John baptized But now the Church hath better provided there being Christian Oratories every where and Fonts in them most convenient for this purpose whereunto I shall need to adde here no more having fully handled this point both 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the discussion of the first Article Fiftly I except against the 41. Article viz. The persons designed by Christ to dispence this ordinance the Scripture hold forth to be a preaching Disciple it being no where tyed to a particular Church Officer or Person If the eye be
Apostles without a precept doth not necessarily binde the Church as may be proved by many instances for Christ washed his disciples feet before his supper and he administred it at night and to twelve men onely and no women yet we are not bound so to do In the Apostles dayes widows were maintained to serve the Church at the publike charge yet we are not bound to have such Likewise the first Christians sold their possessions and goods and parted them to all men and lived together and had all things common Acts 2. 44. yet are not we obliged so to do Secondly The reason is not alike at the beginning Christians had no Churches nor Fonts in them and therefore they were constrained to Baptize in such places where were store of waters besides the climat of Iudea is far better then ours and men in riper yeers that were converted to the Christian Faith were Baptized in great multitudes and they might without any danger go into the Rivers and be Baptized after such a manner but now the Gospel having been long planted in these parts we have seldome any Baptized but children who cannot without danger to their health be Dipt and plunged over head and ears in the Font or Rivers especially if they be infirm children and the season very cold and the air sharp and piercing Lastly They urge the custome of many ancient Churches in which a three-fold Dipping was used and if they Dipt those that were Baptized three times it should seem they thought Dipping very necessary But we answere First that what those Ancients did they had no precept for it and if they follow some of the Ancients in Dipping the Baptized why do they not follow the example of all the ancient Churches in Christening children Secondly Those ancient Churches which used the trina immeâ—sio they speak of did it for this end To expresse the three Persons which may as well be done by thrice sprinkling or washing the Baptized as well as thrice Dipping But the truth is that neither is requisite because the Trinity is sufficiently expressed in the very form of Baptisme when the Minister saith I Baptize thee in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy Ghost Thirdly We answer with the Apostle That though some of the Ancients had such a custome for a time yet now we have no such custome neither the Churches of God 1 Cor. 11. 16. ARTICLE II. Concerning the baptizing of children ANABAPTIST NOne ought to be Baptized but those that professe repentance and faith and consequently no children ought to be Christened THE REFUTATION The children of such parents as professe Christian religion and are members of the visible church sith they are comprised within Gods covenant made to the faithfull children of Abraham and their seed may and ought to receive the seal of that covenant which was Circumcision under the law but now is Baptisme which I prove ARGUMENT I. That which extends to all nations belongeth to children as well as men for children are a great part if not the half of all nations But Christs command of Baptizing extendeth to all nations Matth. 28. 19. Go therefore teach all nations baptizing them and Mark 15. 16. Preach the Gospel to every creature he that beleeveth and is baptized shall be saved Ergo Christs command of Baptizing belongeth to children and they ought to be baptized as well as men ANABAPTISTS ANSWER Christs command extends onely to such as are capable of teaching and instruction which children in their infancy are not for Christ saith Teach all uations baptizing them REPLY First the words of onr Saviour are not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 teach but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is make disciples and though children in their non-age cannot be taught yet they may be made Christs disciples by being admitted into his school their parents giving their names to Christ both for themselves and their families And in Christs precept teaching doth not goe before but follow Baptizing ver 20. teaching them to observe all things c. which is punctually observed in the children of the faithfull who after they are Baptized when they come to yeers of discretion are taught to observe all things whatsoever Christ hath commanded Secondly Though children in their infancy are not capable of teaching or instruction because therein they must be active both by apprehending what is delivered to them and assenting to the truth thereof yet are they capable of Baptisme wherein they are meerly passive being washed in the Name of the Trinity prayed for and blessed and received into Christs congregation this may fitly be illustrated by Circumcision which by the command of God was to be administred to children at the eighth day though then they were no way capable of teaching or instruction in the Spirituall meaning of that outward signe made in their flesh and our Argument drawn from the analogie of Baptisme and Circumcision may be truly called in regard of the Anabaptists pons asinorum a bridge which these asses could never passe over for to this day they could never not hereafter will be able to yeeld a reason why the children of the faithfull under the Gospel are not as capable of Baptisme as they under the Law of Circumcision If they alleadge that these cannot be taught being but sucklings neither could they If they alleadge that these know not what is done unto them nor have any sense at all of the Sacrament neither had they save that they felt the pain of the knife as these do the coldnesse of the water and often shed tears at their Christening as the others did at their Circumcising If it be further said That they were of the seed of Abraham according to the flesh it may be truly rejoyned that these are of the seed of Abraham according to promise and his children as he is the father of the faithfull and so they have the better title of the two Thirdly It is no way safe to defer Baptisme till riper yeers for by this means millions of children might go out of this world without the ordinary means of their salvation which were an unsufferable if not a damnable abuse for though we like not of that rigid opinion of the schools ascribed to S. Augustine who in that regard was stiled durus pater infantum that children dying unbaptized are necessarily damned yet we must take heed of declining to the other extream in denying Baptisme to be the ordinary means of salvation for them and thereby slighting our Lords precept It is true God is not tied to his own Ordinance he may and in charitie we beleeve doth save thousands of the children of the faithfull who are still-born or dye before baptisme neither will he punish the child for that which it is no way guiltie of yet Gods ordinance ties us and the parents and governours are guiltie of a hainous crime before God who in contempt of Christs command or
the Anabaptists in this section And therefore I come briefly to examine his second assertion or rather aspersion of the whole Christian world in these words in the frontis-peece of his book Against the anti-christian faction of pope Innocentius the third and all his favourites that enacted by a decree that the baptisme of the infants of beleevers should suâ—ceed circumcision These words vertually contain this proposition that the christening children is the practise of an Anti-christian faction which was brought first into the church by the decree of Pope Innocentius the third Of which enunciation I may say as Tertullian doth of the Chameleon quot colores tot dolores or rather quot dicta tot maledicta so many words as there are so many grosse errors and scandalous reproaches For the baptizing infants is not the practise of a faction nor a part but of the whole not Anti-christian but truely Christian church Neither was it introduced by Innocentius the third but is of far more ancient date and was derived even from the times of the Apostles themselvs First it is well known that the Greek and Latine churches or the Eastern or Western were the membra dividentia of the whole church and that the christening of infants was approved of and practised by the Greek church is evident by the testimonies of Gregorie Nazianzen orat 40. in bap Origen hom 8. upon Leviticus and 14. of Luke and that it was likewise approved and practised in the Latine church is clearly collected from Ambrose lib. de Abrahamo Patriarcha Ieron cont Pelag. l. 3. Augustin l. 10. de Gen. ad lit c. 23. Cyp. ep 59. ad Fidum Now if the Greek and Latine churches were Anti-christian where were there any Christians in the world Secondly Pope Innocentius the third as it is well known to all the learned lived in the twelfth age of the Church and flourished about the year 1215 in which year he called the great Councell at Lateran Before him Gregorie the great whom M. Cornwell himself alledgeth page 11. out of M. Fox in his book of Martyrs about the year of our Lord 599. above six hundred yeares before Innocentius the third resolved Austine the Monk that in case of necessitie infants might be baptized as soon as they were born and two hundred yeares before Gregorie S. Austine wrote a treatise de baptismo parvulorum and for the lawfulnesse thereof in his 28 epistle and in his third book de pec mer. remiss and by occasion elsewhere also alledgeth a testimonie out of S. Cyprian to that purpose who wrote in the year of our Lord 250. nay which is most considerable Origen in his Comment upon the epistle to the Romans c. 6. l. 5. quoted by M. Cornwell himself p. 10. affirmeth in expresse tearms that the church from the Apostles received a tradition to baptize children whence I thus frame my argument All Christians ought to hold the traditions which have been taught them by the Apostles either by word or epistle 2 Thess. 2. 15. But the baptizing of children is a tradition received from the Apostles as Origen affirmeth loc sup cit Austine l. 10. de Gen. ad lit c. 23. de bap cont Donatis l. 4. Ergo the baptizing of children ought to be retained in the Christian church Thus M. Cornwell hath spun a fair thred of which a strong cord may be made to strangle his own assertion Yea but M. Cornwell chargeth all ministers deeply to answer this his negative demonstration saying O that the learned English ministerie would informe me lest my bloud like Abels crie aloud from heaven for vengeance for not satisfying a troubled conscience how shall I admit or consent to the admittance of the infant of a beleever to be made a visible member of a particular congregation of Christs body and baptized before it be able to make confession of its faith and repentance lest I consent to separate what God hath joyned together That which God hath joyned together no man ought to separate But faith and baptisme God hath joyned together Mar. 16. 16. Acts 8. 37 38. 16. 33 34. Gal. 3. 27. Ephes. 4. 5. Ergo faith and baptisme no man ought to separate ANSWER This argument is so far from a demonstration that it is not so much as a topicall syllogism but meerly sophisticall therin any who hath ever saluted the University and hath bin initiated in Logick may observe a double fallacy The first is fallacia homonymiae in the premises The second is ignoratio elenchi in the conclusion First the homonymia or ambiguity is in the tearm joyned together for the meaning may be either that faith and baptism are joyned together in praecepto in Christs precept and that no man denieth all that are commanded to be baptized are required to believe and all that believe to be baptized or joyned together in subjecto that is to say all who are baptized have true faith and that none have true faith but such as are baptized in this sense it is apparantly false and none of the texts alledged prove it for the thiefe on the crosse had faith yet not the baptism we speak of as also the Emperour whom S. Ambrose so highly extolleth in his funerall and many thousands besides again Iulian the Apostata and all other who after they came to years renounced their baptisme and Christian profession had baptisme yet no true faith which as M. Cornwell himself will confesse cannot be lost totally or finally Secondly in the former syllogisme there is ignorantio elenchi he concludes not the point in question they who most stand for the baptizing of children will not have faith and baptisme severed for they baptize children into their fathers faith and take sureties that when they come to yeares of discretion they shall make good the profession of the Christian faith which was made by others at the font in their name and for them nay so farre are they from excluding faith from infants that are baptized that they beleeve that all the children of the faithfull who are comprised in the covenant with their fathers and are ordained to eternall life at the very time of their baptisme receive some hidden grace of the Spirit and the seeds of faith and holinesse which afterwards beare fruit in some sooner in some later Neither is this any paradox or new opinion for S. Ierome advers Lucifer and Austin ep 57. ad Dard. and Zanchius de tribus Elohim affirm that the holy Spirit moveth upon the waters of baptisme and that as the Spirit in Genesis 1. 2. rested upon the waters incubabat aquis that he might cherish and prepare them for the producing of living creatures so the holy Ghost resteth upon the waters of baptisme and sits as is were abroad upon them and blesseth them and thereby doth cherish the regenerate and animate the elect S. Leo speaketh most elegantly and fully to this point in his sermons of the birth of
the institution of circumcision then they ought to observe it in everie thing and baptize males only and that precisely on the eighth day ANSWER This argument is fallacious and childish called in the schools fallacia accidentis as when a Sophister argueth on this wise If thou didst eat that which thou boughtest in the market thou didst eat raw flesh but thou confessest thou didst eat what thou bought'st therefore by thine own confession thou didst eat raw flesh The argument is captious and fallacious wherein the Sophister subtily argueth from the subject to the accident from the substance to the circumstance it is true he ate what he bought in substance or kind were it flesh or fish but not in what qualitie or condition he bought it for he bought it raw he are it rost or boyl'd in like manner M. Bradbourn fallaciously argued before the High Commission for the observation of the Saturday or Jewish sabbath What the Iews were commanded in the â—ourth commandement that we Christians are bound to perform But the Iews were commanded to keep holy the seventh day from the Creation therefore we Christians are bound to keep that day In this syllogisme as the former there is fallacia accidentis For the Sophister as I noted before argueth from the substance to the circumstance from the same day specie to the same day numero in the week It is true we Christians are bound by vertue of that command to appoynt a certain day for the publike service of God and no lesse then one in seven or a seventh day every week yet are we not bound precisely to keep that seventh day viz. from the Creation which they did The Quartodecimani used a like Sophisme if our Easter succeed the Jewish passe-over then we ought to keep the fourteenth day precisely as the Iews do But our Christian Easter doth succeed the Jewish passe-over therefore Christians ought to keep their feast of Easter precisely on the fourth day of the month whether it fell on the first day of the week or not In like manner A. R. argueth If baptisme succeed circumcision then all children ought to be baptized on the eighth day this will not follow no more then that children ought to be baptized in the same part where they were circumcised The answer is very easie the one sacrament is to succeed the other in substance but not in each circumstance their circumcision was expressely confined to the males and to the eighth day so is not baptisme Only it will follow that because circumcision was administred to the infant as soon as it was capable thereof or could receive the sacrament without danger therefore children ought to be baptized as soon as conveniently they may And this is agreeable to the resolution of S. Cypr. 1400. years ago in his Epistle to Fidus and of a Councell held at Africk in his dayes The third argument I find p. 25. None may be warrantably baptized untill they do manifest and declare their faith by profession thereof this is apparant by the doctrine and practise First of Iohn Mat. 3. 6. 89. Mar. 1. 4. Secondly of Christ and his Apostles Ioh. 3. 22. compared with the 4. 1. 2. Act. 2. 20. 41. and 8. 36. 37. and thirdly by the tenor of the commission Mat. 28. 29. Mar. 16. 15. 16. ANSWER Though the sinews of this Argument have been cut before and the texts alledged answered yet for the further satisfaction of the reader I further adde First that none are required to manifest and declare their faith before baptisme but such who have been taught and have use both of reason and speech For the rule of the schools nemo tenetur ad impossibile holdeth in all sacramentall acts as well as others neither can they hence infer that children therefore ought not to be baptized because they can make no declaration of their faith no more then it will follow that children ought not to eat because they cannot labour for their living For though the Apostles rule be generall Let him not eat that will not labour yet all agree it must be understood of such as are able to labour so likewise all the texts of Scripture which require confession of faith must be understood of such who have the use of reason and of the tongue wherewith they may confesse Secondly children make profession of their faith and repentance both at their baptisme by their sureties and if they live to years of discretion in their own persons PART 2. The last argument I find p. 30. The administration of baptisme which over-throws the vese nature of the covenant of grace and whole Gospell of Christ is Anti-christian and abominable But the administration of baptisme upon infants doth so because it stands upon the ground and interest which they have in the covenat by naturall generation only or by the meer profession of faith in the parents or sureties without faith in their own persons whereby faith is made void and the promise which is the Gospell and object of faith is also made of none effect and so the preaching thereof becomes uselesse and vain also Rom. 4. 14. Therefore the administration of baptisme upon infants is Anti-christian and abominable ANSWER Here is thunder without lightning thundering in the conclusion the baptisme of infants is anti-christian abominable but no lightning in the premises no proof at all that the christening children overthroweth the nature of the covenant of grace the whole Gospell of Christ. For that which is built upon the covenant of grace to wit I will be thy God and the God of thy seed and is nothing else but the setling to the seal of the covenant of grace upon pre-supposition of faith present or future in the person of him that is baptized can be no over-throwing of that covenant but a confirmation and establishing it rather If we taught that children were heirs of the covenant by the law then as the Apostle teacheth us we should make faith void and the promise of none effect But now sith we teach that Abraham the father of the faithfull and all his seed are heirs of the kingdom of heaven not through the law but through the righteousnesse of faith we confirm the covenant of faith and in the christening of children accomplish the promise Act. 2. 39. The promise is to you and your children and to those that are afar off and to as many as the Lord shall call by the ministerie of the Gospell into his church Yea but saith he the administration of baptisme upon infants stands upon the ground and interest which they have in the covenant by naturall generation only or by the meer profession of faith in their parents and sureties without faith in their persons This is a false charge we teach no such thing but that children have interest in the covenant by vertue of Gods promise above mentioned and not without faith in their own persons as without may signifie the
were circumcised under the law they ought to be baptized under the Gospell For sith they are comprised in the covenant why should not they as well receive the seal thereof set to it in the new law as well as the children of the Jews received the seal set thereunto by the old Secondly I have produced before both command for baptizing of children Argument 1. and example of it Argument 3. and promise also unto it Argument 5. The command of baptizing all Nations Mat. 28. 29. the examples of baptizing whole families Act. 16. 15. 33. 1 Cor. 1. 16. and the promise made to us and our seed Act. 2. 39. evidently extend to children They argue from Scripture affirmatively our Lord Jesus Christ in that great charter Mat. 28. 18. 19. 20. saith Go teach all nations baptizing them in the name of the Father Son and holy Ghost teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you and Mark 16. 15. Go ye into all the world and preach the Gospell to every creature he that shall beleeve and be baptized shall be saved but he that will not beleeve shall be damned From these texts they would infer that none ought to be baptized but such who are first taught and instructed in the principles of Christian faith and consequently that no children ought to be baptized because they are not capable of teaching That the placing the word teaching before baptizing in that text doth no more conclude that teaching must alwayes precede baptisme then the setting repentance before faith in those words Repeâ—t ye and beleeve the Gospell Mark 1. 15. and setting water before the spirit Ioh. 3. 5. except a man be born of water and the spirit necessarily infer that repentance goeth before faith which yet is but a fruit of faith or that the outward baptisme with water goeth before the inward baptisme of the spirit whereas the contrarie is clearly proved out of that speech of Peter to Cornelius Act. 10. 47. Can any man forbid water that these should not be baptized which have received the holy Ghost as well as we Secondly if there be any force in this argument drawn from the order of the words it maketh against them for thus we wound them with their dudgeon-dagger Christ saith baptize them in the name of the Father teaching them to observe all things baptizing therefore must go before teaching especially in children who may be baptized before they can be taught Thirdly they mis-translate the words for Christ saith not go teach all nations baptizing them and teaching them to observe all things neither is there a tautologie in our blessed Saviours words for his words are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. go make disciples among all nations baptizing them and teaching them Now though children cannot be taught before they are baptized yet they may be after a â—orâ— made Christs disciples by their parents or god-fathers offering them unto God and undertaking for them that they shall be brought up in the Christian religion Fourthly Christ speaketh here of the plantation of the Christi an faith and the conversion of whole nations in which alwayes the preaching of the word goeth before the administration of the sacrament First men are taught to repent of their sins and beleeve the Articles of the Christian faith and after they have made confession of the one and profession of the other then they are to be received into the church by baptisme This course was taken by the Apostles in the beginning and must at this day be taken by those who are sent into Turkie or the East and West Indies to convert Pagans or Mahumetans or unbeleeving Iews to the Gospell They are to baptize none before they have taught them the principles of Christian religion but after the Gospell is planted and the parents are beleeverâ— and received into the church by baptisme their children are first to be baptized and afterwards taught so soon as they are capable of teaching They argue from examples after this manner such are to be baptized who with the Iews in Ierusalem Mat. 3. 6. confesse their sins who with the Proselytes Act. 2. 41. gladly receive the word who with the Samaritans Act. 8. 6. give heed to the word preached who with those of Cornelius familie Act. 10. 44. receive the holy Ghost by the hearing of the word who with Lydia have their hearts opened to attend the things that are spoken by the Apostles Act. 16. 14. who with the Gaoler hear the word preached and seek after the means of salvation Act. 16. 30. But children can neither confesse their sins nor attend to the word preached nor actually beleeve nor desire baptisme they therefore ought not to be baptized But we answer all that can solidly be concluded from these examples is but this in the affirmative all such who were so qualified as these were viz. hearers of the Gospell penitent sinners and true beleevers unfainedly desiring the means of their salvation ought to be admitted into the church by baptisme which we freely grant but they cannot conclude from these examples negatively that none other ought to be Christened No more then it will follow that those of Cornelius his family received the gift of the holy Ghost and spake with divers tongues before they were baptized with water therefore none but such who have received such gifts of the holy Ghost may and ought to be baptized To confesse sins and actually professe faith makes a man more capable of baptisme yet dumb men who can do neither if they have a good testmonie of their life and conversation and by signs make it appear they unfainedly desire the sacraments may receive them Secondly if there be any force at all in an argument drawn from examples affirmatively it must be from examples in the like kind as from men to men from children to children not from women to men or from men to children or from children to men For it will not follow women in the Apostles times were covered in the church therefore men ought to be so or men may speak in the church therefore women may or children are usually fed with milk and not strong meat therefore men in ripers years ought to use such dyet no more will it follow men in riper years who are capable of instruction ought to hear the word to give their assent thereunto and enter into a strict covenant with God to lead a new life before they have accesse to the Font. Therefore the like duties are required of children who have not yet the use of reason nor knowledge of good or evill By this reason they might starve children because the law is he that will not labour let him not eat It holds in men but no way in children who are not able to labour in any calling by reason of the infirmitie of their joynts and want of reason and understanding Baptisme is a seal of the righteousnesse of faith
therefore it ought to be administred only to beleevers else we set a seal to a blank But children are no beleevers nor can be while they are such because they cannot understand the word nor give assent thereunto Ergo children ought not to be baptized But we answer that unbeleevers or not beleevers may be either taken for first such as when they hear the word of God reject it or secondly such who neither have means to hear it nor desire it such unbeleevers are to be excluded from baptisme For to give baptisme to such were worse then to set a seal to a blank it were to give holy things to dogs and cast pearl before swine Or thirdly for such who are born within the precincts of the church and care is taken that they shall be taught the principles of faith as soon as they are capable thereof These though they cannot give yet an actuall consent to the mysteries of faith are not to be rearmed infidels or unbeleevers positively but negatively only and we ought in charitie to beleeve that they will actually beleeve as soon as they shall have use of reason and God by his spirit shall open their hearts to attend to the word preached to unbeleevers in this latter sense as circumcision the seal of the righteousnesse of faith under the law was given so may baptisme though not in token of their present yet of their future faith Secondly the children of the faithfull parents whom the Apostle calleth holy receive some measure of grace even in their infancie as the text saith expressely of S. Iohn Baptist he shall be filled with the holy Ghost from his mothers womb Luke 1. 15. 41. as Elizabeth heard the salutation of Mary the babe sprang in her womb Upon which words S. Ambrose commenting saith Iohn Baptist while he was yet in his mothers womb received the grace of the holy Ghost and his leaping with joy argued some sense and apprehension of that joyfull message Now sith children that dye shortly after baptisme have the full sight of Gods face in heaven why may they not have some glimpse of it even whilst their soul is in their bodie S. Austine is confident that God after a most hidden manner infuseth his grace into children and in his 57. epistle ad Dardanum it is a wonderfull thing yet true that God dwels not in some who know him as the philosophers Ro. 1. and he dwelleth in some who know him not as in infants baptized We may safely therefore conclude with Tilenus children have faith as they have reason in the seed though not in the fruit in the root though not in the leaf in some inward operation though not in any outward expression They argue also ab absurdo indeed absurdly after this manner signum frustra datur non intelligenti it is a vain and absurd thing to administer the sacrament to such as know not what it means as it is to no purpose to present a beautifull picture to a blind man or sound a silver trumpet in a deaf mans eare or minister physick to a dead bodie But children know not what the sacrament means when the cold water is powred on them they are offended with it and expresse their dislike with crying and tears therefore it is vain to christen children But we answer in this objection the Anabaptists Gyant-like fight with God For if there be any force in this argument at all it will be as available to overthrow the circumcising of children instituted in the old law by God himselfe as their baptisme in the new For the children among the Iews under the law who were circumcised the eighth day knew no more what circumcision meant then ours do what baptisme only they felt the pain of the knife as these do the coldnesse of the water yet were they circumcised by Gods expresse command Will they say that Christ uttered many parables and wrought many signs and wonders before his disciples and other of the Iews in vain because at the present they understood them not though afterwards they understood them and made singular use of them In like manner dare they affirm that Christ did in vain lay his hands upon children and blessed them because children knew not what it meant or that ministers in vain baptize them because at that time they know not what it signifieth or why it is done Secondly it is not in vain to offer to any that which may doe them good whether they be sensible of it or no Physick is ministred to children naturall fooles and mad men to cure them although in the case they are they have no knowledge what good it may doe them A man that is in a swoon hath strong water poured down his throat even when he is past sense and it fetcheth him again so though children perceive not what they receive yet the sacrament may be and is soveraign unto them for their soules health Thirdly though children for the present understand not why they are baptized and what is undertaken for them and what fruit they reap by baptisme yet order is taken by the Church that as soon as they come to yeares of discretion and actuall use of reason they shall understand and be perfectly instructed in this mysterie and that which is done to them in their infancie after they have notice of it will be altogether as beneficiall unto them as if they had known it at the time when the sacrament was administred unto them They argue from the effects of baptisme baptisme is the laver of regeneration the burying of the old man the putting on of Christ the putting away the filth of the flesh with a confident demanding of a good conscience But children are not regenerated nor renewed in their mind nor have buried the old man nor have put on the new nor can confidently demand with a good conscience out of a certain perswasion of faith therefore they ought not to be baptized But we answer the texts of scripture upon which they ground their argument namely Coloss. 2. 11 12. Tit. 3. 5. Heb. 10. 22. 1 Pet. 3. 21. contain in them high commendations of baptisme but no prohibitions of administring it to children for all these effects the Spirit of God produceth in all the elect that are baptized but not all at an instant but by degrees as we grow in faith and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour they are begun at our baptisme but perfected afterwards unlesse the partie immediately die after baptisme when no doubt God supplyeth that by the extraordinarie work of his Spirit which riper years with the ordinarie means of faith would have brought forth if God had spared them life Children are regenerated by the impression of Gods image in their soul which in processe of time shineth most bright in them by supernaturall light in the understanding and puritie in the heart and conformitie in their