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
A Treatise of Baptism WHEREIN That of Believers and that of Infants is examined by the Scriptures WITH The History of both out of Antiquity making it appear that Infants Baptism was not practised for Three Hundred Years nor enjoyn'd as necessary till by the Popes Canons here at large Four Hundred Years after Christ with the fabulous Traditions and erroneous Grounds upon which it was with Gossips Chrysme Exorcisme Consignation Baptising of Churches and Bells and other Popish Rites founded And that the famous Waldensian and old British Churches and Christians witnessed against it With the Examination of the Stories about Thomas Munzer and John a Leyden As also The History of Christianity amongst the Ancient Britains and Waldenses And A brief Answer to Mr. Bunyan about Communion with Persons Unbaptized That Persons Baptised in Infancy are to be Baptised after they Believe which is not to be esteemed Rebaptisation but Right Baptisme Pet. Bruis the great Waldensian Martyr Osiander Cent. 12. L. 3. P. 262. By H. D. Ephes 4.5 One Lord one Faith one Baptism Act. 17.28 As certain also of your own Poets have said London Printed for Francis Smith at the Elephant and Castle near the Royal Exchange in Cornhil 1673. The Preface AMongst all those Ordinances and Institutions of Christ that the Man of Sin hath so miserably mangled metamorphised and changed none hath been more horribly abused than that of Baptism which as to Matter and Form Subject and Circumstance hath suffered such apparent Alteration and Subversion that nothing but the very name of the thing remains and yet that also very improperly too if duly considered Which the better to Demonstrate you have here not only a Platform of the Primitive Institution in Christ's Commissâ—on the Apostles Precepts and Practice and the Spiritual Ends thereof plainly laid down from the Scriptures and confirmed by the Learned But the change it self of Believers into Infants Baptism traced out and detected with all the Foppish Ridiculous Superstitions and Fooleries made essential to it and concomitant with it and that according to Apostolical Tradition as their impious Forgeries would impose upon us Than which as nothing did ever more tend to defile and ruine the true Church and reproach the Wisdom and Authority of Christ their Head So nothing could rationally more establish and confirm the false or more apparently promote the Soveraignty aâ—d Dignity of Antichrist their Head which is so plain that he that runs may read For if the very Act of Sprinkling or pouring a little Water on the Childs Head or Face with the Charms attending it must give Grace Regenerate take away Sin save the Soul adde to the Church and give right to all the Ordinances as Mr. Pope hath been pleased sitting in the Temple of God as God to Ordain and Decree and that with Anathema's too against every one that shall not so receive it How naturally must it needs follow First That Christ's Conversion and the powerful Preaching of the Gospel his means to effect it must be slighted and despised Ignorance and Prophaness the true Interest of this State necessarily brought in Christ's Baptisme with all the Spiritual Ends and Vses outed and contemned the Jewish Antichristian Rites of a National Church and High Priest-hood with all the Apurtenances introduced But Secondly That as the Nations should accept this New Project of being made Christians and Church-Members by the Popes Christening they necessarily oblige themselves by receiving his Law to embrace also his Government and to be Ruled in chief by himself as the greatest part called Christendome have done accordingly who can deny it To the erecting a Throne for the Beast and to give that vile Person who blasphemously they call his Holiness cause to say looking over his goodly Fabrick with his Father of old Dan. 4.30 Is not this great Babylon that I have built by the might of my Power for the honour of my Majesty And so hath it become the Corner and â—oundation-Stone of the Antichristian Church and State For as they who take as far as they can judg living Stones called the Spiritual Seed Saints by Calling or Believers to build Christ a House or Church Orderly joyning them together by Dipping Do yield Obedience to Christs Command conform to the Primitive Patern of the New Testament-Churches ascribe honour and glory to the Lord Christ the Institutor So they who take the Carnal Seed viz. Ignorant and Vnconverted ones to make up the National or any particular Church joyning them together by Sprinkling do thereby yeeld Obedience to the Popes Canons conform to the Jewish and Antichristian Pattern and reflect Honour and Dignity to their Soveraign Lord the Pope the Contriver and Imposer thereof And is not this very observable that Pope Innocentius the first that Abaddon and Apollyon that had so many marks of Antichrist as you 'l find in the account here given of him was the first Confirmer and Imposer hereof But that which is most to be lamented is That the Protestant Reformers who detected and cast away so many Antichristian Abominations should yet hold fast such a Principal Foundation-Stone of their Building though it is granted with the rejecting of many of its Superstitions and also upon other pretended Grounds For when the Rotteness of the Popish Grounds aforesaid did appear for Infants-Sprinkling it had certainly faln to the Ground but for some new Contrivances to support it though therein they have not been so happy to agree amongst themselves in their Conclusions For some are for Baptizing all Children whose Parents are never so wicked others only the Children of Professors whilst others are for the Baptising the Children of such Professors only whose Parents are Inchurched viz. Belonging to some particular Congregation Some are for Baptising Children upon their own particular Faith which with much confidence 't is affirmed they have Others deny that with great Vehemency affirming they ought only to be Baptised upon an Imputative Faith viz. upon the Faith of others though herein as you 'l find they vastly differ some saying it must be by the Imputative Faith of the Church others of the Gossip others of the Parent or Proparent in Covenant upon the account of Federal Right So that some are for Baptising upon an Ecclesiastical Faith some an Imputative some a Seminal some an Habitual some a Dogmatical some upon a Justifying Faith Upon which Variety of Differences you have Mr. Baxter himself in the beginning of his Book of the Sacraments say That it may seem strange that after 1600 Years use of Christian Baptism the Ministers of the Gospel should be so unresolved to whom it doth belong Yet so it is saith he and I observe it is a Question that they are now very sollicitous about and I cannot blame them it being not only about a matter of Divine appointment but a practical of such concernment to the Church And it is no wonder that such Contradictions should proceed from such contrary Principles
but nothing is more unreasonable than because he hath tyed all men of years and discretion to this way Therefore we of our own heads shall carry Infants to him that way without his direction The conceit is poor and low and the action consequent to it is bold and venturous Let him do what he pleases with Infants we must not A Second Scripture that hath been much leaned upon is that of Joh. 3.5 Joh. 3.5 Except a man be born of Water and the Spirit he can in no wise enter into the Kingdom of God From whence it is concluded that there is no other way to regenerate and save Infants and add them to the Church but by Baptism and therefore have they baptized them as the Canons and Decretals of Popes and the Opinions of the Antients do demonstrate But the Consequences drawn from hence to infer the Baptizing and Saving of Infants savours of so much Ignorance and Popish Darkness that we need say little to it for since the Reformation most of the Protestants have protested against this as erroneous Yet for the sake of others that yet cleave to it saying That in Analogy hereto Children are hereby made Members of Christ Children of God and Inheritors of the Kingdom of Heaven I shall refer them to Bishop Tayler for Solution whose words will have more weight than any thing I can say in the Case who in p. 231. Calls such a sence of the words a prevaricating of Christ's Precepts For saith he the Water and Spirit in this place signifie the same thing and by Water is meant the effect of the Spirit cleansing and purifying the Soul as it appears in its parallel place of Christ's Bâ—p izing with the Spirit and with Fire For although this was litterally fulfilled in the day of Pentecost yet morâ—lly there is more in it for it is the Sign of the effect of the Holy Ghost and his productions upon the Soul And you may as well conclude that Infants must also pass through the Fire as through the Water And that we may not think this a trick to elude the pressure of this place Peter saith the same thing For where he had said That Baptism saves us he adds by way of Explication not the washing away of the filth of the Flesh but the answer of a good Conscience towards God plainly saying That it is not Water or the purifying of the Body but the cleansing of the Spirit that doth that which is supposed to be the Effect of Baptisme But to suppose it meant External Baptisme yet this no more infers a necessity of Infants Baptism than the other words of Christ infer a necssity to give them the holy Communion Joh. 6.53 Except you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his Blood you have no life in you And yet we do not think these words a sufficient Argument to Communicate them If men therefore will do us justice either let them give both Sacraments to Infants as some Ages of the Church did or neither For the wit of man is not able to shew a disparity in the Sanction or in the Energy of its expression And therefore they were honest that understood the Obligation to be parallel and performed it accordingly and yet because we say they were deceived in one instance and yet the Obligation all the world cannot reasonably say but is the same they are honest and as reasonable that do neither And sure the Antient Church did with an equal opinion of Necessity give them the Communion and yet men now adays do not Why should men be more burthened with a prejudice and a name of obliquity for not giving the Infants one Sacrament more than you are disliked for not affording them the other And farther p. 242. If we must suppose Grace to be effected by the external work of the Sacrament alone how doth this differ from the Opus operatum of the Papists save that it is worse for they say the Sacrament doâ—h not produce its effects but in a Suscipient disposed by all Requisi es and due Preparatâ—ves of Piety Faith and Repentance though in a subject so disposed they say the Sacrament by its own virtue doth it But this opinion says it doth it of it self without the help or so much as the co-existence of any condition but the meer reception M. Baxter Mr. Baxter to this point p. 306. of his plain Scripture-proof That Baptism in it self can work no such Cause for the Water is not a subject capable of receiving Grace or of conveighing it to the Soul it cannot approach or touch the Soul nor infuse Grace into it if it could Amesius in Bel. Enervat Tom. 3. L. 2. c. 3. Outward Baptisme saith he cannot be a Physical Instrument of the infusing of Grace because it hath it not in any wise in it self Zwingli Zwinglius denieth Baptism of it self worketh any Grace or pardoneth Sin or reneweth as Tom. 2. p. 119 120 121. Dr. Owen Dr. Owen in his Theolog. l. 6 ch 5. p. 477. upon the point saith That the Father of lies himself could not easilier have invented a more pernicious Opinion or which might powre in a more deadly poison into the minds of Sinners A Third Scripture insisted on is the Commission it self Mark 16.16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved Mar. 16.16 But Infants are Believers Therefore according to the Commâ—ssion they are to be baptized In whâ—ch though all Parties agree yet how they do believe and what faith this is there is great confusion and contradiction Viz. The Antients said they had the Faith of the Sacrament as Austin The Papists the Faith of the Church as Tho. Aquinas which is intailed to all within the Pale thereof The Lutherans say they have a proper Faith which they hotly desended at the Conference with the Calvinists at Montpelgart and therefore Baptize all whether the Parents be good or baâ— The Calvinists say they have an imputative Faith from the Parent in Covenant as Musculus Oecolampadius and others at that Conference maintained and therefore baptize only the Children of Believers The Prelatick Protestants affirm they have the Faith of the Gossip or Surety but none of their own as the Com. Catechisme tells us Most of the Non Conformists do agree with the Calvinists that it is an imputative Faith from the Parent or Pro-parent in Covenant Mr. Baxter in his Right to Sacraments as before saith They have a Justifying and Mr. Blake his opposite allowes but a Dogmatical Faith some say it is a Physical some a Metaphysical and some a Hyperphysical Faith some saying as before that Baptisme is an Instrument to conveigh real Grace to Infants some say to all as Mr. Bedford and others some only to the Elect as Dr. Burgos And thus you see they are not agreed in their Verdict nor who shall speak for them But for an Answer hereto I shal again refer you to Dr. Tayler
it is manifest that the Promise understood of Spiritual blessing pertaineth not to the Carnal Seed of Abraham but to the Spiritual as the Apostle himself saith Rom. 4. 9. Chap. For if you understand the Carnal Seed saith he then that Promise will belong to none of the Gentiles but to those alone who are begotten of Abraham and Isaac according to the Flesh Estius Ann. Gen. 17.7 Ainsworth on Gen. 12.7 Ainsw thy Seed That is all the Children of Promise the Elect who only are counted Abrahams Seed Rom. 9.7 8. And in Christ are Heirs by Promise as well the Gentileâ— as the Jews Dr. Owen Dr. Owen in his Book called the Doctrine of Saints perseverance in Chap. 4. arguing from the Covenant of Grace to prove the unchangableness of the love of God begins with Gen. 17.7 saying That the effectual dispensation of the Grace of the Covenant is peculiar tâ— them only who are the Children of Promise the Remnant of Abraham according to Election with all that in alâ— Nations were to be blessed by him and his Seed Jesus Christ Ishmael though Circumcised was to be put out and not to be Heir with Isaac and a little after he writes thus what blessing then was here made over to Abraham All the blessings saith he that from God are conveyed in and by his seed Jesus Christ iâ— whom both he and we are blessed are wrapped therein what they are the Apostle tells you Eph. 1.13 They are all Spiritual blessings if perseverance if the continuance of the love and favour of God towards us be a Spiritual blessing both Abraham and all his Spiritual Seed all faithfull ones throughout the world are blessed with it in Jesus Christ and if Gods continuing to be a God to them for ever will enforce this blessing being but the same thing in another expression it is here likewise asserted Amesius Amesius de Praedest Chap 8. Ser. 6. saith There are many of the Seed of Abraham to whom the word of Promise doth not belong as Ishmael and Ishmaelites But if so there be many of the Seed of Abraham to whom the word of Promise doth not belong Then the rejection of many Jews who are of the Seed of Abraham doth not make void the word of Promise From whence may we not safely conclude that if the natural Posterity of Abraham were not within the Covenant of Grace by vertue of the Promise Gen. 17.7 Then much less are our natural Posterity but the former is true Rom. 9.6 7 8 9 10 11 12. so is the latter To which we might add divers others but let these suffice And from the contrary perswasion what dismal Consequences would arise The evil Consequences of the contrary For if God made his Covenant of Grace with the Posterity of Believers as this Doctrine asserts Then all the Posterity of Believers should certainly have Crace bestowed upon them for it is the Covenant of God which doth convey Grace Rom. 4.16 2 Cor â— 30. None missing of Grace from Goâ— faithfulness which Mr. Blake doth 〈◊〉 confidently affirm Mr. Bla. P. 6. saying Thâ— Christianity is hereditary that as tâ— Children of a Noble man is Noble tâ— Child of a Free man Free of a Turk Turk and of a Jew a Jew so the Chiâ— of a Christian is a Christian in contrâ—diction not only of Scripture whicâ— saith we are Children of wrath bâ— Nature but of all former and latter experience Then would Grace be a Birth Prâ—viledge and Regeneration as before tyed to Generation contrary to Jâ— 3.3 Jo. 1.12 13. Then must all the Posterity of Believers be saved without you will necessitate the Doctrine to be true thâ— men may fall from Grace Then must we tie up and confine thâ— Grace of Gods Covenant to the Children of Believers only and then whaâ— hope for the Children of unbelieverâ— contrary to the Experience of all Ageâ— For was not Grace extended to thâ— Gentiles who were not the Children oâ— Believers when the natural Brancheâ— the Children of believing Abraham were â—ut off Then is the Covenant of Grace it self overthrown concluding an Interest without faith Rom. 4.14 deriving a Tiâ—le by natural Generation And as to the other Scripture of the 2. Acts 38 39. Act. 2.38 answ urged as a Parallel to the other It is so indeed rightly understood but not at all in the sence supposed For first it is to be observed that the promise there made is the giving the Sperit called the promise of the Father prophecied of by Joel 2.28 and doth follow the receiving of Christ in the Gospel Eph. 1.13 Gal. 3.14 and the obeying his commands Acts 5.32 Therefore in the 38. Ver. Peter exhorts them to Repentance and faith in order to the receiving of it because the Promise is to them and their Children viz. to the Jews and to them that are afar off to the Gentiles also eâ—even as many of both as the Lord should call therefore the Promise is not made but upon condition of Calling and Faith and Baptisme Secondly It is remarkable that the Apostle doth first exhort to Repentance then to Baptisme shewing the order that Christ had directed to in the Commission neither is the Promisâ— mentioned as though of it self it gave right to Baptisme without Repentance but as a Motive why they should repent and be baptized that they mighâ— also as others had done before theâ— Eyes be made partakers of the Holâ— Spirit which the Prophets had foretold and Christ had promised where in Infants neither capable of Faith Repentance and Calling are not concerned in the Text and by Childrâ—â— spoken of are no other meant then thâ— posterily of the Jews for who know not that they are so called and that mâ— Child is my Child though 40. or 50 years old upon which Text Dr. Hamond in his Resolution concerning Infaâ—â— Baptisme Dr. Ham Sect. 81. hath to this purpose In the next place saith he 〈◊〉 attempted the disproving of all Arguments brought in defence of Pedobaptisâ— from Peters words Acts 2.39 Tâ— which saith the Dr. I answer That 〈◊〉 any have made use of that unconcludeâ—â— Argument I have nothing to say in defence of them I think the practise is founded upon better Basis then so and the word Children there is really the posterity of the Jews and not particularly their Infant Children And Dr. Talor upon this Scripture Dr. Tal. Page 233. saith That the words mentioned in St. Peters Sermon which are the only Records of the Promise are interpreted upon a weak mistake The Promise belongs to you and your Children therefore Infants are actually receptive of it in that capacity that is the Argument but the Reason of it is not yet discovered nor ever will for to you and your Children is to you and your Posterity to you and your Children when they are of the same capacity in which you are receptive of the Promise But he that whenever the word
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