Infants that when they shall be capable of the Sacrament of Confirmation the Lords Supper they may receive that also The Spirit acknowledgeth no other means of Regeneration then the incorruptible Seed the Word of God 1 Pet. 1. 23. which seeing Infants cannot receive they cannot be regenerate therefore their Baptism is effectless to Regeneration We answer The major appeareth false by Tit. 3. 5. St. Peter speaks there only of those Believers who had been taught by the preaching of the Gospel comprehending under it the Seal thereof Baptism the Laver of Regeneration which is taught in that Word as a means of Regeneration Faith must go before the Sign or Seal thereof as Abraham believed first and then received the Seal Circumcision Therefore until Infants can actually believe they must not be baptized We answer That if we speak of persons of years they must first believe or make profession of their faith because by Baptism they are to be admitted into the Covenant of God and Communion of his Church to which they were formerly Aliens and Strangers But it holdeth not in Infants born of Christian Parents they being already within the Covenant and Church and so having present right to the Seal thereof So in Isaac's Circumcision at eight days old the Seal went long before the faith or profession thereof God bringeth not the blinde into his Covenant but enlighteneth them that they may know the will of God for their Salvation But Infants as such are not capable of Illumination therefore they are not to be baptized We answer 1. God calleth the poor maimed halt and lame unto the great supper that is the Communion of Christ Luke 14. 21. 2. The Greek Divines were wont to call Baptism 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Illumination and it can be no less then impious presumption to affirm That God doth not in the Baptism of Elect Infants secretly infuse such a light as he knoweth sufficient to their salvation seeing that it is certain that as God dwelleth not in all that know him Rom. 1. 21. so neither do all those presently know him in whom he dwelleth by the spirit of illumination and regeneration until they have received such a further measure of the Spirit which is of God that they may know the things which are freely given to them of God 1 Cor. 2. 12. which appears in that Elect children are saved which without the Spirit of Regeneration none can be John 3. 3 5 and doubtless the soul of an Infant in Gods divine presence in heaven hath therein more illumination then the most knowing mortal in the world hath 3. Neither did the Apostles their selves presently understand all these things necessary to salvation which Christ taugh them neither did he propose Doctrines to them above their present capacity I have yet many things to say unto you but you cannot bear them now He patiently expected their future abilities with a What I do thou knowest not now but thou shalt know John 13. 7. which both Peter and the rest had experience of when the promised Comforter taught them and brought all things to remembrance which Jesus had said unto them and the Spirit of Truth guided them into all truth and shall we not believe that God will graciously bear with an Infants present defect of understanding which himself gives him by degrees and in such measure and time as his self appointeth 4. As Faith and Confession sufficed the penitent Thief without Baptism so Baptism the Seal of the Righteousness of Faith and Repentance sufficeth an Elect Infant dying without confession of Faith and actual Repentance and the living until he come of age and ability to know and make profession With the heart man believeth unto Righteousness and with the mouth confession is made unto Salvation Rom. 10. 10. But Infants can do neither of these therefore they profane the holy Seal who give it to them who cannot be profited thereby We answer 1. The same might have been objected against circumcision where the Seal sufficed until the sealed came to years and ability to believe and confess 2. The Apostles speaks there concerning persons of years it nothing concerns Infants as such 3. If giving the Seal to those who cannot be profited thereby be profanation of the same how often do you prophane the holy Seal How can any meer man know whom to baptize though of years and whom to put by None can foresee mens final estates but God alone We know that Judas and Simon Magus were baptized though whatsoever they confessed with their mouth 't is certain they did not believe with their heart unto righteousness Did their Baptizers profane Baptism If not how maliciously is this objected against us baptizing Infants of Believers Christ himself expresly avowing them as subjects of his Kingdom The Seals of the New Testament are perfect and spiritual But Infants are carnal and The natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God 1 Cor. 2. 14. Therefore these Seals agree not to and with Infants present incapacity We answer The Apostle there speaks concerning the understanding of divine mysteries not comprehensible of profane and carnal men Now Infants being carnal as born of flesh want Regeneration that they may become spiritual and enter into the Kingdom of God and because they are by corrupted nature imperfect therefore they ought to be admitted to the ordinary means by God appointed to make them perfect The Apostle biddeth us Draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water Hebr. 10. 22. Which seeing Infants cannot for present do the washing of their bodies with the pure water of Baptism belongeth to others who can have a good conscience not to them We answer The Apostle there sheweth what we who are baptized and of age ought to do and with what confidence not who ought to be baptized and so it nothing concerneth Infants till they come of age Baptism which saveth us is with the testimony of a good conscience This Infants cannot have who have no knowledge Therefore Infants ought not to receive that Baptism which cannot save them We answer 1. The Apostle speaks not there of the subject of Baptism but of the fruits and effects thereof in those who are of ripe years the fruits which indeed Elect Infants if living shall here reap in due time and into which they are for present sealed Now the outward Administration of the sign of the Covenant concerning which our present question is is one thing and the inward effect thereof another As it is also in the Word preached the Administration must be indifferently to all Mark 16. 15. whether stony thorny highway or good ground Gods Seeds-men must diligently sow the fruit and efficacy will be to Believers only Hebr. 4. 2. but that no meer man can foresee 2.
we may not baptize them We answer 1 If you speak of Christs baptizing personally he baptized none Joh. 4. 2. but it followeth not that therefore none ought to be baptized 2 It cannot appear that Christ commanded not some of his Disciples to baptize those Infants neither that ever he commanded them not to baptize Infants 3 If it could appear that these Infants were not now baptized there might be some obstruction and let which we know not as possibly their parents were not yet baptized c. 4 These children were not brought to Christ that he should baptize them but that he should touch them and that he did for he layed his hands upon them and blessed them and his blessing them was as effectual to their salvation as if he had christned them for Christs grace dependeth not upon the vertue of the Sacrament but contrarily the vertue of the Sacrament upon his grace and blessing And that which Christ did to them is more then the ministrie of all the men in the world could or can do in baptizing or blessing them for Christs blessing maketh men truly and really blessed See what hath been said Reply num 14. sine Infants circumcised were inserted into the Covenant and Church priviledges by an express command but we have no such express command for baptizing Infants therefore we may not on that ground baptize them To that which hath been said we further add for answer because they were expresly commanded to put the seal of the same righteousness of faith on Infants therefore neither that faith nor the object thereof being changed in the change of the seal there needed not a particular or express command concerning the subject or persons to be sealed seeing the commission was so much enlarged as the whole World and the Nations thereof were greater then the land of Canaan and Abrahams carnal children therein planted Add hereto that which hath been noted those whom Christ sent to baptise were sealed in their infancie and daily used to Infant-sealing so that they needed no express command or other Information concerning Infants then that which they had sufficiently learned in Christs blessing Infants blessing and embracing them as it were with special affection to them and in that they could not be ignorant that baptism succeeded circumcision in all the substance thereof and that the same cause still remaineth for Infants reception of the seal to wit Baptism for the remission of sins Christ appointed the Sacraments for a remembrance of his death and blood-shedding for our redemption But Infants who have no acts of understanding cannot remember Therefore they ought not to be baptized We answer This Argument would conclude that Infants as such may not receive the Lords Supper because they cannot do it in remembrance of Christ nor shew his death thereby therefore we do not administer it unto them But Baptism is the Laver of Regeneration which they have present need of and whereof they are passively capable because their Parents are within the Covenant which is to them and their children and the Seal thereof is a part and condition of the same to their children as well as to themselves Neither was the Covenant on Abrahams part fulfilled any more then to halves before he had sealed his children and by proportion neither do we fulfil our Covenant with God in Baptism if we refuse to baptize our Infants who have as indefeasible a right to the same as we the same promise for the main being to us and our children Acts 2. 39. In the Old Testament it was not lawful to offer sheep or goats so soon as they were cast but at a certain age and maturity of their perfection This figured Infants not presently to be offered to God or Sealed We answer 1. By the same Argument if it were good neither ought the Jews to have circumcised their Infants on the eighth day 2. Allegorical Arguments when they are well applyed illustrate rather then prove And if you will plead thus tell us why every first-born of man or beast so soon as it came into the world that is every male was sacred to the Lord and the first-born of the unclean beast was to be redeemed or destroyed and why seek ye further omitting the type of Circumcision Christ saith He that believeth and is baptized shall be â— saved Mark 16. 16 without believing there is no salvation nor saving effect of Baptism But Infants cannot believe Therefore their Baptism is effectless and vain We answer 1. That wholly concerns those who are of years who when the Church was to be collected and setled were first and generally such persons as were first to be instructed in the faith of Christ and then to be baptized it concerned not Infants 2. That which immediately follows But he that believeth not shall be damned manifesteth that it concerned not Infants who though they cannot actually believe yet shall not all be damned though dying Infants 3. If those words were to be presidential to all Churches and times as a rule what persons we are to baptize and what not that is that we ought to baptize none but such and so qualified as are there described then it would follow that you must baptize none but those who appear to have a justifying faith for such there Christ speaks of and only such relating to their salvation And how few have this and how can you who baptize discern this Secondly They must be such as can cast out Devils speak unstudied Languages take up Serpents and if they drink any deadly thing it shall not hurt them such as can cure the sick For Christ there thus marked out Believers of those times 4. He saith not He that believeth not shall not be baptized for that indeed might have concerned Infants Baptism But he saith He that believeth not shall be damned which cannot concern Infants except you will say they have faith and so you must grant them a capacity of Baptism or pretend that they all are damned who dye in Infancy which is a damnable fancy Lastly We must distinguish between an interest in and the effects of Baptism Many thousands born within the Covenant have therefore a just interest in the Covenant of Grace and the Seal thereof who neither believing nor obeying have no effects thereof nor grace of the Covenant So some put on Christ only sacramentally and others to sanctification and salvation also It is absurd and to no purpose to baptize any unto they know not what Such is Infants-Baptism Therefore they are absurdly and to no purpose baptized 1. We answer Circumcision was to Isaac and Evangelical Ordinance and Seal of Gods Covenant of the same Grace common to him and us yet that being administred to him at eight days old he knew not what he was circumcised to yet was it neither in vain nor absurdly administred to him 2. Some mysterious
the covenant of the righteousness of faith and as a pattern and example to which we must frame our lives in faith and obedience faith is the condition of our covenant with God in Christ made with Abraham and his seed that is believers and thereupon the first seal of the righteousness of faith was given to his natural seed and now a believing Parent being by faith of the seed of Abraham the first seal of the present covenant is by the same proportion to be given to his natural-born Infants In that commission in which those only are meant which are capable of being taught and to learn Infants are neither named intended nor meant but such is that commission Mat. 28. 19 20. therefore there is no commission to baptize Infants For proof of the minor which was denyed was offered this reason He that gives commission to teach persons before they are baptized requires no more to be baptized then are capable to be taught c. ergo Though enough hath been said to satisfie herein yet to satisfie your instance we say further 1 The minor is fallacious the condition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is here considerable without which it is a Paralogism or fallaeious disputing we affirm not a present capacitie or actual docibility of Infants but an habitual that is that Infants have reason whereby they will in time to come be capable of being taught though for the present they have so slender an use thereof that they cannot apprehend spiritual things otherwise we might not baptize them could they not bear the image of God to baptize bells altars c. or beasts were a most detestable and blasphemous prophanation of the holy Sacrament 2 If capable of being taught and to learn be taken for a present capacitie and the sense of your proposition runs thus in that commission in which only persons of years are meant Infants are not intended or meant ◠'t is easily granted but then your minor being this in that commission Mat. 28. 19 20. only persons of years are meant is a gross begging of the Question which is whether in that commission Christ intended only the baptism of persons of years and for the present apt to be taught and learn or also with such Infants of Christian Parents which we affirm 3 It appeareth by that which hath been formerly answered to Obj. 5. that Christ saith in the cited place 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 make Disciples baptizing them c. and though children as such cannot be taught yet they may be made Disciples of Christ by being admitted into his school their Parents giving their names to Christ both for themselves and their families and in Christs commission in that place teaching doth follow baptizing them in the Name of the Father of the Son and of the Holy Ghost which we do teaching our baptized Infants so soon as they become fit to be taught what Christ hath commanded 4 Though Infants as such are not capable of teaching yet are they capable of baptism that is of being washed with water in the name of the Father the Son and the holy Ghost of being prayed for and of being received into Christs congregation and so were Infants capable of circumcision the eighth day Those that are not in the cited place commanded to be baptized are not to be baptized But Infants are not there commanded to be baptized therefore they are not to be baptized We answer 1 The minor is false It is there commanded to baptize Infants 2. If you mean that the command is not addressed to Infants you trifle the Amphibologie being in those that are not commanded and so that being understood personally of Infants there is an Ignoratio Elenchi in the Minor we not affirming that which you assume to wit That Infants in their own persons are commanded 3. The Major is fallacious in another respect in this word Commanded which may import either Implicitely Comprehended so are Infants commanded to be baptized or explicitely and in terminis which if you mean which say again neither are women nor persons of years there or elsewhere in terminis commanded to be baptized though by the series of holy Scipture and necessary consequence it is certainly implyed See more Obj. 14 The Apostle 1 Cor. 7. 14. intended by holy legitimacie not sanctity for if it were not the faith of the parents but their matrimonie which the Apostle there spake of then it was not sanctity or holiness but legitimation which he there intended But it was not faith but their matrimony that the Apostle there spake to ergo c. the argument for Infant-baptism thereon grounded is invalid We answer 1 The scruple of the Corinthians was concerning spiritual pollution by a believers cohabiting with an husband or wife not converted the Apostle answereth in effect that they need not fear that for the unbelieveng husband is sanctified 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the wife that is in respect of the wife not as if an unbelieving husband were made holy by the faith of the wife but because the believing wife may with good conscience live as a wife with such an husband for why should anothers conscience make her guiltie of sin for unto the pure by faith all things are pure Tit. 1. 15. marriage meats all being sanctified by the Word allowing them and promising a blessing to believers as also by prayer of faith obtaining the same This he proveth by their childrens holiness as from the absurditie and falshood of the contrary else were your children unclean but now are they holy that is within the covenant of the Lord who saith I will be a God unto thee and thy seed after thee and this he leaveth on a known and common practice of the Churches everywhere that if but one of the Parents were a believer the children of him or her were brought to baptism as the seal of the Covenant 2 This cannot reach to children born of both unbelieving parents though so born in lawful matrimonie they were civilly legitimate for that would make the Apostles supposition void for what was it to his purpose to speak of legitimacie or illegitimacie of Panims children neither could civil legitimacie give them any priviledge in Gods covenant out of which can be no holiness nor illegitimacie exclude those from the seal thereof who converted professed their faith and desired the same That which is said Deut. 23. 2. A bastard shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord even unto his tenth generation is not to be understood as if it bar'd them from salvation or any means thereto subordinate the covenant of God seals thereof sacraments or publick service of God but that it excluded them from a right to bear any publick office Ecclesiastical or Civil neither may Jophta's extraordinary calling to publick office make void the general rule in the forecited place it is said the Ammonite or Moabite shall not enter into
we say further 1 That believers may be taken two ways first for such as do in heart believe unto righteousness this God alone can judge of and therefore man is not to expect his rule and direction for his ministration from hence Secondly for such as profess faith or shew good and probable signs and symptoms thereof as those hearers of Peter did for they received the word gladly and were baptized and before that there appeared an excellent sign of faith in them in that the word which they heard profited them to compunction of heart and repentance with desiring remedie but where the Word of God is not mixed with faith in the hearers it profiteth not as appeareth Heb. 4. 2. Therefore that assumption is irrational where you say they to whom the Apostle spake were not believers 2 There may be an amphibologie in the major believers being either such only in profession and bearing the external seal of the righteousness of faith or for such in the heart and so the sequel is unsound for the promise of Gods covenant was to all Israelâ— as being the seed of Abraham within that covenant although many of them through unbelief obtained not remission of sins and eternal life held out to them in the same which made not the promise of nose effect to them who believed and many unbelieving parents had and have believing children but a covenanted Parents unbelief barreth not his Infant born within the Church from the external seal of the covenant so that the promise did belong to them though their Parents had secretly been unbelievers and impious persons much more seeing they so expressed and professed their faith repentance and care to be saved If those children Act. 2. 39. were entitled to baptism in their infancie then they were or must have been baptized in their infancie but they were not baptized in their infancie but their fathers only who received the word gladly therefore they to whom the promise is Act. 2. 39. were not entitled to baptism in their infancie We deny your minor and you can never prove it their fathers were first baptized but it appeareth not that they only were baptized 1. It hath been often said and you need still to hear it it followeth not that it was not done because it is not written Christ spake and did many things which are not written 2 If you could from Scripture prove that de facto they were not baptized in their infancie yet that would not prove that de jure they might not be baptized The parents neglect of their duty or any other intercident obstructions could not make void the childrens interest Moses son was not circumcised on the eighth day nor many thousand Israelists Infants in the wilderness for 40 years yet we cannot hence conclude that they ought not to have been circumcised had there been no let or that they had no interest in the seal because there were lets Only Abrahams spiritual â—seed are to be baptized but Infants are not the spiritual seed of Abraham therefore Infants are not to be baptized We answer 1 This is the same argument under another synonimical dress to which we have answered there you said only believers are to be baptized here you say only Abrahams spiritual seed are to be baptized whereas believers and Abrahams spiritual seed are one and the same in the Apostles account Gal 3. 7. 2 Many thousands which were Abrahams carnal seed were baptized which were indeed not his spiritual seed that is true believers See Mat. 3. 5 6. Act. 2 41. which being done by John Baptist and Christs disciples and so precedentially to us shews the falshood of your major 3 If Abrahams spiritual seed by your own confession be to be baptized then Infants of believers within the Church must be baptized they being Abrahams spiritual seed except you will say that Gods promise was to some who were not within the covenant made with Abraham and indeed the whole mystical body of Christ is the spiritual seed of Abraham of which none can rationally deny Infants of covenanted Parents to be a part who acknowledge Christ to be their Saviour See Eph. 5. 28. and that out of him and his body the Church is no salvation So that by the way we may note that to exclude Christian Infants from being a part of Christs visible Church in general is to exclude them from the ordinary state and way to salvation and so to deny them to be Abrahams spiritual seed is to exclude them from the same and to leave them to an extraordinary means thereto in which some Pagans Turks and obstinate Jews c. by the mercie of God illuminating converting them to the faith of Christ by extraordinary means may be saved and this is to suppose Infants of Christian Parents as bad as Heathens without Christ aliens from the Common-wealth of Israel strangers from the covenants of promise-without God in the World Add hereto that if parents may not sorrow as men without hope for their deceased Infants they cannot have sound hope without faith nor faith without a promise or word of faith that is Scripture-promise to confirm ground it on and that not in general but such as properly concerns their children as that Gen. 17. 7. Act. 2. 39. Luk. 18. 16 17 c. Now to deny childrens interest herein or that they are the spiritual seed of Abraham is to leave afflicted Parents hopeless of their childrens salvation in that by such an an uncharitable impious tenet Parents must not believ those comfortable promises belong to their children and that God will not so much as by an external seal assure them that he is by covenant a God unto their Infants Nor can we think that ever any were saved ordinarily if at all touching whom God never made any promise neither in respect of internal and saving faith nor so much as in respect of external right to sealing thereto so that to avoid this we must say that Christian Infants are Abrahams undoubted spiritual seed therefore they have at least an ecclesiastical right as to the covenant made with Abraham so to the Church-priviledges respectively that is to baptism which is now the seal of Gods covenant in Christ exhibited CHAP. III. Infant baptism asserted and justified by sundry arguments by the Church of Christ alledged 1 ALl they who are members of Christs body the Church are to be baptized that they may be admitted into the same by the initiatory seal thereof which is baptism that they may be externally known to be of the Church but Infants of Church-priviledged persons are members of Christs body the Church ergo they ought to be baptized that they may be admitted into the same by the initiatorie seal thereof which is baptism c. The major is thus confirmed such persons as were circumcised under the Law that they might be known to be of the Church ought to be
17. In reason where God hath bestowed the grace signified man may not deny the signifying element and in common right the apparent heirs are unjustly denied the deeds and evidences whereby that right is assured upon them for these are a part of their inheritance and ought by right to follow the same moreover 't is impious to divide that which God hath join'd the sign from the thing signified as they do who allow children grace remission of sins and salvation by Christ and yet deny them baptism into Christ they will yeild them the Jewels but not the Cabinet the Treasure but not the Purse 6 All that are capable of the initiatorie seal of future faith ought to be baptized but Infants are capable thereof therfore they ought to be baptized So under the law Infants were capable of circumcision the seal of their future faith our Infants have no less capacitie thereof then they had 7 All they to whom Gods covenant of Grace extends are to receive the initiatory seal thereof for sealing of the covenant respectively is a part thereof Gen. 17. 10 11. Mark 16. 16. but Gods covenant of Grace in Christ extends to Infants of covenanted persons therefore Infants ought to receive the initiatory seal of the covenant which is baptism The assumption is proved from Act. 2. 38 39. Be baptized every one of you for the remission of sins-for the promise is unto you and to your children What promise that upon which the Covenant was sealed to Abraham and his seed the faithful and when where or how have Infants of Christians forfeited their right to the seal who as such cannot forfeit 8 If circumcision and baptism were for substance both respective seals of the same covenant of God in Christ then those sorts of men who were capable of the one are capable of the other but circumcision and baptism were for substance both respective seals of the same covenant of God in Christ therefore those sorts of men to wit Infants as well as persons of years who were capable of circumcision are capable of baptism The major may appear in that God never made any covenant of grace but only in Christ and the same Gospel was preached to Abraham and he believed in the same Christ Gal. 3. 8. add hereto there is the same efficient primary cause to wit God making a covenant with his and appointing the respective seals thereof the same necessity on the receivers part original sin in Infants who have therefore as much need of regeneration and admission into the covenant of God for remedy as they had under the law and there is the same power and efficacie of the holy Ghost still remaining otherwise Gods grace in the New Testament and covenant in Christ exhibited should be more restrained and of less latitude then it was in the Old under that severe Schoolmaster the Law and which were impious to affirm then Christs coming into the world should be so much disvantageous to believers as that the Gospel should take away the seal of Gods covenant of grace from our children which the Law allowed them under the severity therof No part or condition of the covenant by God appointed for remission of sins and salvation may be withheld by man from those who have right to the covenant and promise of God under severe punishment but the initiatory Sacrament Baptism now is a part or condition of the covenant by God appointed for remission of sins and salvation whereto Infants have right therefore it may not be withheld from such Infants as are within the covenant and have right thereto and to the promise of God See Exod. 4. Luk. 3. 3. Act. 2. 38 39. Tit. 3. 5. now the initiatorie seal of the covenant was and is a part or condition of the same Gen. 17. 10 11. Mark 16. 16. Joh 3. 5. 10 All they whom God accounteth holy have a capacity of baptism the feal thereof but God accounteth children of believing parents holy 1 Cor. 7. 14. Therefore children of believing parents have a capacitie of baptism nor doth that ridiculous interpretation which Anabaptists have borrowed of the Jesuites concerning legitimacie overthrow this argument 11 All those who being redeemed by Christ have right to the kingdom of heaven have right to the ordinary Port and Inlet into the same that is baptism but children of believers have right to the kingdom of heaven Mark 10. 14 Mat. 19. 13. therefore children of believers have right to baptism Christ expresseth the entrance or means to regeneration and the kingdom of heaven Joh. 3. 5. to wit water of baptism by which the H. Ghost doth ordinarily work thereto and presently gives the reason that which is born of the flesh is flesh that as such cannot enter into the kingdom of God 1 Cor. 15. 50. now Infants are from their natural birth but flesh and blood Ps. 51. 7. Eph. 2. 3. therefore if they must enter into the kingdom of God they must be born again of water and the H. Ghost it is true that God can and doth regenerate many Infants without baptism by his H. Spirit so that they dying without the Sacrament are yet saved in an extraordinary way but for us to deny them baptism and to put their salvation upon extraordinary means where God hath appointed and declared the ordinary is as much as man can do to shut them from the kingdom of heaven and so though their want of baptism shall not be their eternal loss whom God hath elected yet is it their great sin who neglect or despise the ordinance of God and thereby except in case of repentance they shall exclude themselves 12 Whatsoever Christ commanded Ministers to do and which the Apostles in the ordinary office of Ministers did do that is right and just to be done and we ought to do but Christ commanded Ministers to baptize all nations without exception of children and that the Apostles did do for above all contradiction they obeyed Christ therein therefore it is right and just to baptize Infants as being a great part of all nations and we ought to do it 13 That which agreeth with the nature of the seal of the righteousness of faith and the institution of Christ ought to be done but Infant-baptism agreeth with these therefore it ought to be done it agreeth with the institution of Christ who commanding to baptize all nations well knew that there were many Infants therein yet makes no exception of them but gives them so high an eulogium that we may know that the initiatory seal belongeth principally to them as it did under the Law what though God name not Infants to be baptized in so many words and syllables yet seeing he neither nameth men of years nor women it must needs be that under these words all nations he comprehended all those of which nations as their integrant parts consist which are men women and children it agreeth also with the nature of the seal which
the things are received after one manner and the signes after another one is given by God alone without the observation and knowledge of man and the other onely by the ministry of man and before men As at first John Baptist baptized with water and Christ baptized with the holy Ghost though he baptized not with water but his Disciples and substitutes neither did John baptize with the holy Ghost but Christ So is it now Christ baptizeth elect infants by the secret influence of his holy Spirit the fruits whereof appear in their season and his Ministers according to his appointment baptize with water To all this you say the Anabaptists give a soft and gentle answer Sure you do but herein landando praecipere and by saying they do so rather shew them what they should do then us what they do M. Fisher in his Position at the Disputation at Ashford in Kent stiled the maintainers of Pedobaptism an evill and adulterous generation this is one of their soft and gentle answers Mr. Francis Cornwell in his Sermon at Crambrock in Kent called Pedobaptism an Antichristian Innovation a humane Tradition c. Mr. Cha. Blackwood Title-page calleth his Pamphlet against us The storming of Antichrist John Spislbury calleth Pedobaptism Baptism administred and received in a false Antichristian estate and by the power of Antichrist Edward Barber calleth it Antichristian and abominable And before he saith conterning Mark 10. 14. This place is put in to be read at the sprinkling of children for the Whore hath sweet words c. Is this as you say for your Clients to give a soft and gentle answer or a Boyish manner of contest to call Whore and all ill names where they have not other power to prevail Let all judge who have any sense of humanity whether this be a soft and gentle answer to call his mother Whore and the worst of such Antichristian whereas in spight of calumnies with other reformed Churches the Church of England hath excluded Popery and what she could banished that mysticall Whore out of her communion But this is their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to conclude their Scene where they have no evicting reason against that which they dislike to pronounce it Antichristian And who is so ready to cast this odious Livery upon others as the most Antichristian I might hereto add many more the like instances of Railers at Infant-baptism calling it Idolatrous of the Dragon and Beast none other then a ceremony of Antichrist a Satanicall Institution c. but that we have too much of our own at home It is the quality of the Beast to open his mouth unto blasphemy against God to blaspheme his Name and his Tabernacle and them that dwell in Heaven But we like not our cause the worse because such rail at it but wish them to consider where the Railers place shall be 1 Cor. 6. 1. You say The Argument from Circumcision is invalid upon infinite Considerations It will I doubt not at last prove so strong that neither you nor any other Advocates shall ever be able to over-throw it for that which circumcision was in the Old Testament Baptism is in the New which succeeded it and hath the same end and use that is to be a seal of the Righteousnesse of Faith Rom 4. 11. the same Faith in the same Christ and therefore the Apostle tells the Colossians that they were Circumcised in Christ in that they were buried with him in Baptism so that Baptism is our Circumcision or Sacrament whereby the same things are conferred and confirmed an in-let for us into the visible Church of Christ a Seal of the Covenant of Grace and free remission of sins by Faith in him into whom it implanteth us But you say Figures and Types prove nothing unless a Commandement go along with them or some express to signifie such to be their purpose We answer 1. They signifie something which is their end and the argument à type ad veritatem holds good from the signes in the Law to the things signified in the Gospel as Children were typically baptized under the law under the Cloud and in the red Sea 1 Cor. 10. 1 c. and their washing with rain from the cloud prefigured our washing in Baptism and by the Spirit And the red Sea in which the AEgyptians were drowned and Israel saved was an Emblem of Christs blood in which all our ghostly enemies are drowned and we saved 2. Here is a meer ignoratie elenchi and mistake of the question in hand which is not whether Circumcision were a type and figure of Baptisme but whether Baptisme so succeed Circumcision as a Seal of the Righteousnesse of Faith That such sorts of persons to wit young and old within the covenants as had right to the one have the like right to the other which we affirm 3. Where you say Unless a Commandment go along with them c. First we say that where the question is mistaken we are not in reason bound to answer untill it be rightly stated and so may wave all that you infer concerning the Deluge Paschal Lamb c. as meerly impertinent to our present controversie Secondly concerning a command for baptizing you doubt not nor we for baptizing of Infants seeing that where the Reason and Equity of the Law remains there the Law for substance is still in force though not for every circumstance Now nothing can reasonably be alledged why children have lesse use of Reason now then they who then lived had under the Law or why they should for present want of the use of reason be now lesse capable of the Seal of the Righteousness of Faith then they were who lived under the Law But you say further Supposing a correspondence of Analogie between Circumcision and Baptism yet there is no correspondence of Identitie This Bull deserves some baiting were we not treating of sacred things therefore I onely say If correspondence import answering unto in some similitude and likeness there can be no correspondence of identity for no like is identically the same with that to which it is like For although it were granted that both of them Circumcision and Baptism did consign the Covernant of Faith Speak you this as a matter doubtfull Is not the Scripture evident Do you also call the truth thereof in question See Rom. 4. 11. There is nothing in the circumstance of childrens being circumcised that so concerns that mystery but that is might very well be given to children and yet baptism to men of reason This Argument is a childish caption We say that Baptism succeeded Circumcision in substance not in circumstance in the end and use as hath been said and whereof we shall say more anon To what purpose do you argue from the circumstance But you say Circumcision left a Character in the flesh which being imprinted upon
called truely we allow not any disgracefull name or reviling but know that the name injureth not where the thing it self is not disgraceful some name we must distinguish them by if you can invent a more true and proper one we shall be beholding to you for an invention and they for a new name Next you say That the discourse of S. Peter which is pretended for the intitling infants to the promise of the holy Ghost and by consequence to baptisme which is supposed to be its instrument and conveyance is wholly a fancy and hath in it nothing of certainty ordemonstration and not much probability We answer your words carry a dangerous shew of blasphemy but we desire to allow them the fairest interpretation which can be made of them and suppose you meant not to say as the connexion of your words imports that S. Peters discourse is wholly a fancy c. but either that the pretence from these words intitling infants to the promise of the holy Ghost and so by consequence to baptisme or as you after affirme that baptisme is not the meanes of conveying the holy Ghost some of these you take to be wholly a fancy To which we reply that we neither affirme nor conceive that these words of S. Peter had a promise for infants as such to receive the extraordinary and visible gifts of the holy Ghost which then flourished in the primitive Church and which men of yeares commonly after baptisme then received but that promise was for present addressed to S. Peters hearers which were prickt in their hearts and said unto Peter and the rest of the Apostles men and brethren what shall we doe and to whom Peter said repent and be baptised every one of you c. to which he encourageth them by three arguments or motives first from Gods abundant mercy in the remission of their sins however grievous Secondly from his gracious benificence as well in giving as forgiving and ye shall receive the gifts c. for your confirmation Thirdly from the extent of Gods federall promise for the promise is to you and your children that promise is recorded Gen. 17. 7. I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee to be a God unto thee and thy seed after thee c. these words S. Peter relateth to when he perswaded them to receive baptisme the seal of Gods new covenant with them in Christ a seal of the same righteousnesse of faith in Christ and he bringeth down infants right to the seal of the covenant with Abrahams carnall seed that is circumcision to their right to the seal of the covenant with his spirituall seed under the gospel that is baptisme for the remission of sins so that if S. Peters argument may passe with you for demonstration and not be mistaken for a fancy this shew's the right and title which infants have to baptisme grounded on the sure promise of God which the Apostle well knew was first sealed with infant-circumcision as well as circumcision of proselyted men of yeares and therefore applyeth it to the seal of the promise under the gospel to wit baptisme Be baptized every one of you◠who all those to whom the promise of God is that is you and your children for the promise is to you and them But you say This is a promise that concerneth them as they are reasonable creatures c. This is a reasonlesse assertion for it baptisme concern them as they are reasonable creatures then all such are concerned herein and so the promise which S. Peter there mentioneth is to all reasonable creatures Jewes Turkes Painims for these are all reasonable creatures and may in their conversion have a title to it in proportion to their nature The argument is fallacious à non causâ pro causâ except the causa stolida or causa sine quâ non though none but reasonable creatures have interest herein yet all reasonable creatures have it not neither alwayes as in unbelief impenitency or out of the covenant as infants of unbelieving parents it is not their reason but Gods covenant which gives them interest in the promise of salvation and all things thereto subordinate and belonging Note here to what unreasonable conclusions willfull errour will lead men at last what more perverse then in the prosecution of their dislike to infant-baptisme to allow more to children of professed enemies of Christ as Turkes and Jewes then to infants of Christian parents with whom God made his covenant of grace and mercy They affirme that even infants of Turkes and Jewes are sanctified in the moment of their birth but will not allow children of believing parents baptisme which is but the externall seal of the covenant which the very reprobate may and doth sometime receive at their hands who cannot judge of any persons finall estate and who knowes not that sanctification is incomparably greater and more excellent then the external seal this man can give that God onely can give and giveth it to the elect only and without that the externall seal shall availe nothing But you go on Besides this I say the words mentioned in S. Peters Sermon which are the only record of the promise are interpreted upon a weake mistake the promise belongs to you and to your children therefore infants are actually receptive of it in that capacity Certainly Gods promise is of that invincible strength that whosoever pleads against it none no not the gates of hell shall ever overthrow it and as certainly the inference was strong once upon the same ground when God had made the promise to Abraham and his seed and therefore and then his infants in that capacity were receptive actually receptive of the seal of the same righteousnesse of faith and certainly infants do no lesse belong to the covenant and Church of God then those that are of yeares of discretion which is evident by Gods promise made unto Abraham I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee this is my covenant every male child among you shall be circumcised he that is eight dayes old shall be circumcised the very same promise doth S. Peter rehearse and expound Act. 2. 39. for to you is the promise and to your children and to all that are a farre off even as many as the Lord our God shall call for indeed by one spirit we are all baptised into one body whether we be Jewes or Gentiles c. And let the reader marke that after the Apostle had exhorted every one of them to be baptised for the remission of sins he deriveth not the ground and reason thereof from their age nor from their repentance nor from their years of discretion but from the promise of God which was no lesse to their children in that very capacity then to themselves for the signe of the covenant Baptisme appertaineth to them also as being partakers of the
this I steadfastly believe wherein though possibly there may be untruth because the Sponsor doth not as he professeth steadfastly believe yet so may there also be when persons of years answer for themselves that they believe seeing the lawfulness of baptizing infants is affirmed on condition of their parents believing and Church-priviledge which is often testified personally by the very parents Grand-fathers Grand-mothers and sometimes in defect or necessary absence of such by some fellow-believers testifying for them and the childs priviledg and baptism but your sensible account is that they speak false and ridiculously if you can bear the eccho of your own words we therein answer you yet for the sober readers sake we further answer after Augustin treating of the same argument Let no man whisper to you other doctrines this the Church ever had ever held c. doubtless the custom is very ancient Histories tell us of it in the time of Higinus who was coetaneous with Polycarp a disciple of S Johns they lived under the reigne of Antoninus Pius about the year 140. some think it came into the Church from the custom of those who were Catechumenists who being examined before they were admitted to baptism concerning their faith and repentance were not only to answer in their own persons but to have sponsors as witnesses of their faith conversion and baptism It is not improbable which some here propose that As children were baptized when their Christian parents had formerly made confession so sureties confessed in relation to themselves that they might be fit to stand as a kind of parents c. Seeing therefore this custom is nothing repugnant to holy scripture neither hath in it any appearance of evil but rather of profit and edification though it be not of the essence of baptism but a ceremonial circumstance 't is foolish and impious to quarrel it and for it to break unity and disturb the peace of the Church But you say The infant is not capable of believing and if he were he were also capable of dissenting and how then do they know his mind If it be necessary to baptism that the baptizer know the mind of the person to be baptized how can you baptize men of years You will say they express their minds and so we baptize them I grant you may know their words their minds you cannot because they may dissemble If you say you are in charity to believe the best once more we say Be but as charitable towards infants of whom you can know no actual evil nor shew any just cause why you should suspect it for the future And I pray how could the Priest under the Law know the minds of children to be circumâ—â—sed To conclude 't is nothing material whether we know the infants mind 't is behoofull that we know his priviledg as being born within the Church and Covenant of God which giveth him a sufficient right to the seals thereof But you say Tertullian gives advice that baptism of infants should be deferred till they could give account of their faith I answer 1. Tertullian speaking of deferring baptism lest they should rashly give it as to persons out of the Covenant or unbelievers instanceth specially children that is extraneorum non foederatorum as the learned Fra. lunius interpreteth the same so that this concerneth not our present question which is of children of Christians 2. This shews then that the practice of infant-baptism was none of Augustins device as you charge him seeing it was in use in the time of Tertullian 3. But let us hear the rest of Tertullians advice was it only concerning the deferring infants baptism Let them come when they can learn when they are taught whither they come let them be made Christians when they shall be able to know Christ nay but presently he saith For no less cause the unmarried also are to be delayed in whom the tentation is prepared both in virgins by their maturity and widows by their going up and down untill they are either married or confirmed in constancy Will you follow Tertullians advice herein But what if they never marry must they never be baptized If not give us leave to decline it in the other or to take it in the sense he meaneth it as may appear in that he specifieth widows who being at that age are necessarily to be supposed either baptized after their first marriage or out of the Covenant And the same you say is also the Councel of Gregory Bishop of Nazianzum c. Gregory Nazianzâ—n in his fortieth Oration which you cite in your margent saith Sow when the time of sowing is plant prune thy vine when the season is c. But at all times intend thy salvation and think that any time is seasonable or appointed for baptism among other ages of man be instanceth in Infancy Hast thou an Infant saith he let not wickedness take away the occasion let it be sanctified from its infancy let it be dedicated to the Spirit from it â—ender years fearest thou the seal in respect of the infirmity of Nature How poor a spirited mother art thou and of how little faith But Anna promised Samuel unto the Lord before he was born c. You say concerning Gr. Nazianzen that his reason taught him that which was fit true for he allowed Infant-baptsm yet he was over-born with the opinion of his Age c. So far also I consent as this relates to that they thought that Infants dying without Baptisme should neither he glorified nor punished That which you further say although he allowed them to hasten in case of necessity falleth under a double consideration First in respect of those times appointed for Baptism in the primitive Church to wit Easter and Whitsontide or Pentecost which he mentioneth But when he cometh to the question whether Infants should be baptized he answereth positively By all means if any danger urge and sheweth it from the Analogy between Circumcision and Baptism He taketh away the objection from the years at which Christ was baptized which was indeed to be deferred untill the fulness of time for the worlds redemption was come and that we are not to imitate all the actions of Christ. To that which you say Yet in another place he makes mention of some to whom Baptism was not administred 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by reason of Infancy we say you utterly mistake for Nazianzen in the same Oration speaking of delay in performance of that duty reckons up severall sorts of those whose Baptism was deferred some for sloth or insatiable desire of sinning others are not in ability to receive it either for their infancy or some sudden and violent accident disabling them so that they cannot receive this grace if they would True infants have neither ability nor will to come to Baptism nor can those though of years who are accidentally disabled they have not power though they have a will
by illumination faith remorse of conscience purpose of leading a new life and desire to be implanted into Christ and the communion of Saints by baptism and so it is internal or professing of that endeavour of knowing the mysteries of the Gospel faith and repentance testified before men and so these dispositions are external or expressed to men whom it may concern these are necessary in persons of years coming to baptism 2. there is a previous disposition of the subject without any present change of the mind which springeth from his relation to some other or some others act So some titles of honour come on children in their fathers Charters without any present change of the childs mind so Lands and Inheritances by right of adoption may be setled on them in their infancy without their present change or knowledg so also the believing parents priviledg and being within Gods Covenant made with them and their children previously disposeth infants to the seal thereof to wit by giving them a certain right thereto and so was it in circumcision But if a Proselyte were to receive the seal of the Covenant he must necessarily be prepared and first disposed thereto by the knowledg of Gods Law and Covenant faith repentance or at least the profession thereof and those other rites which the Law required on that behalf The infants previous disposition to circumcision was no other then his fathers and his own priviledg and being within Gods Covenant Of the child was neither faith nor repentance required for the present but future so must we understand concerning baptism the seal of faith under the Gospel And not say you to instance in those innumerable places that require faith before this Sacrament there needs no more but this one He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved I answer 1. Deal fairly dispute ad idem and shew me one place of Scripture which universally requireth faith before this Sacrament and you shall be excused for the innumerable places which you speak of We can shew that the rule holds not universally that faith must precede the Sacraments for though Abrahams faith preceded the seal thereof yet Isaaks seal preceded his faith Mr. Calvin expresseth the reason hereof Why saith he doth in Abraham the Sacrament follow faith and in Isaak his son it goeth before all understanding because it is meet that he which being in full-grown age is received into fellowship of the Covenant from which he had hitherto been a stranger should first learn the conditions thereof but an infant begotten of him needed not so which by right of inheritance according to the form of the promise is even from his mothers womb contained in the Covenant And certainly in this respect God calleth the infants of covenanted parents sons and daughters born unto him Ezek. 16. 20. 23. 37. be esteeming them his children who are born of those parents to whom God made the promise to be a God unto them and their seed after them which promise as truly concerns us and our children as it concerned Abraham and his 2. If the argument be good from that place Mark 16. 16. He that believeth and is baptized faith is first named and then baptism ergo faith must precede baptism Why shall not the Argument from other places be good to the contrary as John 3. 5. Except a man be born of water and of the spirit he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God Baptism is first named and then regeneration therefore baptism must precede regeneration So again Ephes. 5. 26. Washing with water that is baptism is mentioned before the word ergo we must first be baptized and afterward receive the word 3. If this argument were good how many men and women of age must by the same reason be denyed baptism For all have not saith but the truth is that to be born in the Church is unto or in infants instead of profession of faith and repentance as to the outward seal for which we contend and profession of faith and repentance is to and for the adult instead of the same for their right to the desired seal so was it to Ismael and Esau whom God hated because they were born of covenanted parents 4. Sure it is that Christ in the forementioned place speaketh of men and women of years For you confess that infants as such cannot believe and what then must follow if your cruel principles were true Christ saith But he that believeth not shall be damned If this were as you would have it spoken concerning infants also what should become of all those that die in their infancy what are they damn'd Here appears an inexcusable perversness of these men who when children are proposed to their interest in general terms granted them there they would exclude them except they shew a particular warrant and baptize all Nations without a baptize infants shall not advantage them for the seal of their admission into Christs visible Church But where a general rule is mentioned from whence they are in reason and all charitable construction to be exempted there it must include them for their disadvantage even to damnation without any particular warrant for such inteterpretation Mr. Cobbet observeth well That the Covenant-priviledges of grace are ever to be expounded in favour of the principal or less principal counterparties unless any exception be made of persons or priviledges by him which was the Covenant-maker To avoid this you must either acknowledg that the place you cite is either to be understood of those of years who contumaciously reject the Ordinances of God being hardned in wilfull blindness and unbelief and so that iâ— doth not concern children as such or else you must allow infants some secret seeds of faith and regeneration and so you shall justly acknowledg their capacity of baptism Plainly you say thus faith and baptism in conjunction will bring a man to heaven but if he have not faith baptises shall do him no good True in those who though baptized as Simon Magus are yet but in the gall of bitterness but this is a meer ignoratio elenchi hence to conclude against infants baptism our question not being whether all that are baptized shall be saved but whether children of believing parents ought to be baptized which if you would thus disprove whosoever have not a saving faith that the Sacrament may do them good may not be baptized but children have not such faith that baptism received may doe them good ergo children are not to be baptized your reasoning would appear unreasonable both Propositions being false or fallacious The Major because baptism is but the external seal of admission into the visible Church into which elect and reprobates may enter as it were into the outward Court of the Temple And if saving faith finally doing the baptized good or which is the same if the inward baptism by the holy Ghost were the rule by which the baptizing Minister must
order to baptize and be baptized for the remission of sins freely for Christs sake into whom we are implanted by Baptism How false then must it be which you upon the matter affirm that we shall be never the neerer if we cannot contribute somthing to the efficacie of Baptism in the use of our own reason Certainly Gods Spirit accompanieth his ordinance in the elect sooner or later If the reprobate be never the nearer salvation for his baptism that is accidentall maketh nothing against the effectuall sealing of the elect to eternall life in their baptism There are many sorts of hearers of the Word some like the stony ground some like the thorny some like the high-way shall the Apostasie unbelief and barrenness of the greater part make the ordinance of God of none effect to believers To conclude it is but the outward ministration which is committed to us the capacity or incapacity fruit-bearing or sterility of receivers belongs to God to judge of not to us we must do our duty and leave the issues to to him But you say From the pains of hell they shall be saved by the mercies of God and their own innocency though they die in puris naturalibus and baptism will carry them no further What Popery and Pelagianism twisted together If you speak of childrens salvation by the mercies of God to his elect so far we accord if you say by their own innocency that Pelagians and Donatists taught who affirmed that infants were born without originall sin and therefore would not have them baptized Against this heresie the second Milvetian Councel determined Canon 2. as hath been noted For that you say they shall be saved though they die in puris naturalibus that is such as they are by nature without regeneration it is against the express word of God as may clearly appear in that all are conceived and born in sin the children of wrath by nature That which is born of the flesh is flesh and flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God that is such as it is by and in the state of corrupted nature therefore except the infant be regenerate he cannot enter into the kingdome of God That which you say that Baptism will carry infants no further then from the pains of hell smels strongly of Popery They say that children dying without Baptism shall have poeâ—am damni non sensus that is they shall be free from hell fire but that they shall not enter into heavenly joys But Augustine so far said well there is not to any and middle place that he can be any where but with the Divel who is not with Christ. Certainly the Scripture mentioneth onely heaven for the elect and blessed and hell for the reprobate and damned For that Baptism that saveth us is not onely the washing with water of which onely children are capable but the answer of a good conscience towards God of which they are not capable till the use of reason till they know to chuse the good and refuse the evill If you mean by washing with water baptism according to Christs institution administred we say also it is not that onely which is the Ministers part to give which saveth us but the power and grace of Gods Spirit inwardly baptizing sanctifying regenerating and cleansing us from our sins by the pretious blood of Jesus that saveth us Now that infants are not hereof capable till the use of reason is evidently false if you but hold these three Principles 1. That no unregenerate unclean person can be saved 2. That all mankind is born in sin Rom. 5. 12. 3. That some infants dying before their use of reason are saved That which you say that infants are capable of washing with water that is of baptism or else you trifle we asserâ—t to and desire you to say no more infants of believing parents that is of professed Christians are capable of baptism for the rest we contend not we refer the effect thereof in particulars to God who alone knoweth his elect and how and when to give them the inward fruit of his own ordinances we neither affirm that all the baptized shall be saved neither can we or you determine which shall and which shall not but indifferently as charity requireth hope well of every one whom we baptize concerninig whom we can say nothing to the contrary But you say All vows made by persons under other names stipulations made by minors are not valid till they be by a supervening act after they are of a sufficient age to racifie them To which we answer 1. though all be not valid in such case it is enough that some are 2. Your assertion if granted that is that all vows or which is more then you affirm if no vows made by persons under others names or stipulations made by minors or persons in their minority are not valid untill by a supervening act after they are of sufficient age to ratifie them they are confirmed what could this make against our duty of Infant-baptism the case being much different between stipulations of men and the covenant between God man as hath been shewed as appeared in circumcision which was with Infants eight days old Mr. Cobbet well observeth that the covenant of grace is as well a testament 1 Cor. 11. 25. Heb. 9. 15 c. Now a testament may be and useth to be made in reference to little ones without knowledge nor do any use to deny a childs right in the Testators will because it understood not the same and that many Infants with whom God made the covenant Gen. 17. dying such were yet saved and that they restipulate in their Parents knowing acceptance of the covenant and professed owning of it upon the Covenant terms as wel on their childrens parts as their own they restipulate in a passive reception of the Covenant condition bond to afâ—er imitation of their father Abrahams faith obedience Again our question is not concerning the ratification or effect of Infant-baptism by their act or acts to make it good to themselves and effectuall when they come of age but concerning a Church-priviledge on Infants part which is to be admitted unto the externall seal of Gods Covenant with his Church it being to Parents and their children and this dependth on Gods institution to appoint it and his inward working to make it good Secondly in the confirmation of children come to age they then professing faith obedience repentance newness of life c. into which in their infancy they were baptized that is then ratified which others promised and stipulated for them as concerning outward profession which is in your language a supervening act to make the former appear valid Thirdly the question is not concerning the final effect of baptism in particulaâ—â— baptized which cannot fall under the Ministers cognizance it being kept in heaven in the archives and secret counsel of God but concerning their right
or professing faith repentance c. desire to be admitted into the Church and Covenant of God and that Infants of Christian Parents being within the same ought to be baptized forasmuch as the Covenant and Promise of God is to Parents and their children The Pelagians and Douatists long since condemned of Heresie by the Church and now again of late the Anabaptists deny the baptism of children to be lawful until they come to years that they may be taught and profess their faith and repentance and desire of baptism upon these and the like grounds Christ saith Go therefore and teach all Nations baptizing them in the Name of the Father the Son and the Holy Ghost therefore Teaching must go before Baptism and consequently Infants may not be baptized before they be taught Unto which we answer 1 That in the cited place there was not intended an exact and compleat model of Christs commission to the Apostles for there is no mention of the Lords Supper Christ only nameth the two more usual things for making or initiating disciples for the gathering of a Church that is teaching for them who were capable therof and baptizing for them and their children not yet capable of doctrine that having their names given unto Christ and being admitted into his school they might as they grew up to capacitie be instructed concerning the mysteries of salvation in Christ neither was this the first institution of baptism for when Christ spake these words he was about to ascend up into heaven he had some years before that time appointed baptism among the Iews converted to the faith and confirmed it by his own reception of baptism not that he needed it or had any sin to be washed away therein but to sanctifie the element of water by his sacred body to the use and end of baptism that is to appoint for us a laver of regeneration and in the cited place being to leave the world he enlarged the commission of baptism on the receivers part as if he had said Hitherto ye were not to go into the way of the Gentiles but to the lost sheep of the house of Israel but now go and call the Gentiles also go baptize and teach all Nations the mysteries of the Gospel as I have taught you now therefore the order and laws of Baptism are not hence to be derived 2 Christ then sent his Disciples to convert and baptize those Gentiles who possibly had not so much as heard of Christ much less of faith in him and baptism into his Church it was necessary therefore that the Apostles should first instruct them what they were to do in baptism and why but when the parents were baptized and instructed so that there were Churches setled among the Gentiles then their children were also to be baptized into the same Covenant of God which runneth to covenanted parents and their children which before their parents sealing and admission into Christs Church might not be so that as hath been often noted we must distinguish between a Church to be constituted and setled and a constituted or setled Church as also between persons of years and Infants presented to baptism In a Church to be constituted and converted from Judaism or Paganism those that are of years must necessarily first be taught and afterward baptized but in a constituted or setled Church Infants are first to be baptized and then to be taught when they are able to learn no otherwise was it in circumcision which was the former Seal of the same Covenant and righteousness of Faith into which we are now under the Gospel baptized When Abraham according to Gods commandment came to circumcise the men of his family doubtless he first instructed them and preached to them the reason use and end of that sacrament according as the Lord said Gen. 18. 19. I know him that he will command his children and his houshold after him and they shall keep the way of the Lord but when Isaac was born he did not expect till he was come to years of discreetion to learn but circumcised him on the eighth day Gen. 21. 4. 3 In the cited place the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth also make Disciples which was to gather a Church both by preaching the Gospel and administration of Baptism the Sacrament of initiation and first entrance of Infants thereto So these two means are expressed in the very next words of Christ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. that is Baptizing them in the Name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost teaching them to observe all that I have commanded Some do well observe that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is to teach them that are strangers to doctrine that they may become Disciples and so in any humane school also scholers are entered or admitted before they are therein taught but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies to teach them that are Disciples So Mat. 27. 57. it is said of Joseph of Arimathea 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 who also was Jesus Disciple And so the same word is expounded Job 4. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to make Disciples the Pharisees heard that Jesus made and baptized more Disciples then John And so the Hebrews from their word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 didicit assuevit derive their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Talmid a Disciple or Scholar So that here appeareth no such necessitie of the order by our adversaries pretended to as can conclude that none may be baptized but such as are first taught 4 If the order of those words must determine the order of the actions then by the same reason repentance must be before faith for Mark 1. 15. it is said Repent ye and beleeve the Gospel So Rom. 10. 9. If thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Iesus and shalt believe in thine heart c. thou shalt be saved Doth it follow therefore a man may make confession of Christ with his mouth to salvation before he believeth in him in his heart and indeed if the order of words may determine in what order we must act in this business then from other places of Scripture it may be concluded that Baptism must precede teaching as Mark. 1. 4. John did baptize in the Wilderness and preach the baptism of repentance and Mat. 28. 19 20. when Christ had said baptizing them c. he presently inferreth teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded So Joh. 3. 5. the water is named before the Spirit and Eph. 5. 26. the washing of water that is of baptism is named before the Word 5 Christ doth not in the cited place in one syllable prescribe or limit the Apostles whom they should baptize and whom not but only enjoineth that they baptize all Nations in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the H. Ghost teaching them to observe all those things which he had formerly taught them his principal end
being there to command them to preach and to set to the Seal of the gospel-Gospel-covenant mentioning no particulars but intimating that all those that were of capacitie should be taught and that those that were not of present understanding yet if born of such persons as had given their names to Christ should be admitted to the seal of the righteousness of faith in Christ that they might be instructed when and as they were able to learn There are two conditions of Baptism Beleeve and Repent which seeing Infants as such cannot do their baptism ought to be deferred until they can We answer 1 These are the conditions If the question were concerning persons of years to be baptised but it is concerning Infants on whom no such condition is or can reasonably for the present be laid 2 The argument is impious and ridiculous as if one should say the condition of eating is labouring which seeing Infants cannot do let their eating or feeding be defered till they can The Apostle saith If there be any that will not labour let him not eat 2 Thess. 3. 10. who of any sense doth not understand that of those that can and will not and why not so in believing and repenting seeing that God requireth impossibilities neither in things temporal nor spiritual 3 As in the baptism of those who are of years a previous faith is required so is a subsequent faith of those who are baptized Infants which if they afterward have not they forfeit the benefit of the Seal which they received 4 Though Infants as such cannot have actual faith yet have they the seeds thereof in baptism covered or shut up in the habitual beginning of grace which Christ both can and doth work in them Nor is it simply necessary that the Sacraments should in the same moment in which they are administred effect all things which they figure or represent yea a dilatory paction hath place when in the making thereof there is some invincible let to present performance as want of the present use of reason is to infants faith repentance and obedience to the Gospel unto which they are by Covenant bound in their baptism and indeed to be within the Covenant gives the Infant a just capacitie to the seal of the same Now Infants of believing and baptized parents are within the Covenant Gen. 17. 7. Act. 2. 39. Christ was not baptized in his Infancie although the Deitie hypostatically united dwelt in him fully but deferred the same untill he was about 30 years of age therefore what ever habitual faith or seeds of grace can be pretended to for infants they ought not to be baptized until they come of years to know what they do We answer 1 Christ requireth not that we should imitate him in all that he did which is proposed to us for doctrine but not for imitation for example he was both circumcised as being of the feed of Abraham under the Law the righteousness whereof he was to perform Mat. 3. 15. and also baptized if we should be so Christ should profit us nothing Gal. 5. 2. 2 The time was not come at the birth of Christ for the repealing of the seals of the ceremonial Law nor was the seal of the new Covenant to be instituted untill the time drew near wherein he was to publish it by preaching the Gospel and accomplishing the great work of our redemption in his bloud therefore he that was Saviour both of Jews and Gentiles was circumcised in his Infancie and baptized as soon as that Sacrament was instituted 3 They that herein require imitation of Christ intimate a necessitie of deferring baptism untill the age of 30 years which our Antagonists that I know of do not practise 4 A bare example without a precept doth not bind to imitation Christ administred the communion with unleavened bread after supper in an upper room to twelve men only and no women but seeing we find no precept in the Gospel which commandeth us to do the same we believe we are not bound by that example 5. There was neither neglect contempt nor danger in so long delaying Christs Baptism there must needs be some of all these in the delay of our childrens Baptism Christ had no sin but we have both Original and Actual he not only foreknew but foreordained as God the manner and time as of his nativity so also of his death We neither know nor can appoint the time of our departures hence therefore we may not defer our childrens Baptism they may suddenly dye 6. Christ would not before that age be baptized and enter into his publike Ministry among other causes for this also that the truth hereof might answer the type preceding in the Levitical Priests who although they were received into the Colledge of Priests at five and twenty yet were they not admitted to exercise their Ministry until they were thirty years old Numb 4. 3. The Lords Supper may not be given to Infants by reason of their incapacity On the same ground neither ought Baptism the other Sacrament We answer That the reason why we may not administer the Communion to Infants is because God hath given an express command Let a man examine himself and so let him eat of that Bread and drink of that Cup And there followeth a dreadful reason For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily eateth and drinketh damnation to himself not discerning the Lords body Now Infants can neither examine themselves nor discern the Lords body because they cannot understand the institution end use and condition of that Sacrament Therefore we do not administer it unto them until they can be instructed therein No such limitation can be shewed concerning Baptism for though Faith and Repentance be mentioned as conditions of Baptism and Remission of sins and Salvation to persons of years yet the case is far otherwise with Infants who though they cannot as such actually believe and repent yet we doubt not of their Remission of sins and salvation neither could those Infants who were circumcised actually believe and repent yet that barred them not from the Seal of the same Righteousness of Faith Again that which is said Mark 16. 16. is very considerable as hath been noted He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved but he that believeth not shall be damned It sheweth that the condition of believing is proposed to persons of years who may believe or obstinately reject the Gospel which Infants as such cannot do and therefore it cannot for present concern them without involving them all in the sentence of damnation which opinion were damnable and Antichristian Christ having positively pronounced for them Of such is the Kingdom of God To Infants to be born within Gods Covenant and to receive the Seal thereof obliging them to future Faith Repentance and Obedience is instead of all these Lastly Baptism is the Seal of Initiation Entrance and Admittance into the Church that therefore we give
things of a man save the spirit of a man which is within him 1 Cor. 2. 11. 2 If outward appearance be a good argument to the denying of internal acts and habits you might by the same medium as well conclude that Infants are not reasonable creatures Infants inspired by Gods Spirit may be said to be Believers as they are said truly to be rationals that is actu primo non secundo and they confess and avouch the Lord in their Parents avouching of him as appeareth Deut. 26. 16 17 18. Deut. 29. 9 10 11 12 13 14 15. 3 It is not true that baptized Infants have no more promptitude to learn the mysteries of salvation when they come to years to be taught then other unbaptized children have cateris paribus for the H. Ghost doth not desert his own ordinance in the Elect though for causes very just yea when most unknown to us it doth not alwayes alike shew its power as for the reprobate the seal or administration of man can nothing profit him who abuseth it and where God ever denyeth inward baptism by his holy Spirit of sanctification Reprobates who cannot be profited by baptism ought not to be baptized lest we add to their condemnation but of Infants some are such and we cannot say which of them offered to baptism is elect and which not therefore seeing we cannot distinguish them nor can they express themselves we ought not to baptize them untill they can We answer If the major proposition in this argument be universalis negans it is most false for Simon Magus and Judas who were not profited by their baptism were yet rightly baptized if particular though granted it would conclude nothing against Infant-baptism for by the same reason they may deny baptism to persons of years for alas many of them are Reprobates Neither can any meer man distinguish between the one and the other seeing that whatever profession of faith and repentance men make 't is possible they may dissemble or fall away Now we in charitie hope the best where the contrary is not manifest and therefore deny them not baptism who doe but prosess faith repentance and desire of baptism and if we can have as much charitie to innocent Infants we must also allow them baptism who being born of Christian parents are within Gods covenant of Grace And indeed the final estate of Infants or aged people being alike secret and known to God alone we must perform our ministrie respectively and leave the fruit and issue thereof to God so in preaching the Gospel the sincere Milk of the Word 1 Pet. 2. 2. we do often as it were draw out the brest like the mother of the living child 1 King 3. 20 21. to some dead in belief sins and trespasses laid in our bosome who know not who shall profit by it nor to whom it shall prove a favour of death unto death that must be left to God but we must instantly preach the Gospel When the Eunuch said to Philip Act. 8. 36 see here is water what doth let me to be baptized he answered If thou believest with all thy heart thou mayest therefore he that beliâ—veth not may not be baptized such are Infants We answer 1 It is manifest enough that Philip spake to a man who could hear and read and was then something instructed in the Gospel of Christ what doth this concern Infants 2 Infants have now as much capacitie of baptism as under the Law they had of circumcision both had faith as reason in the seed though not in the fruit and the sacrament of baptism now performeth the same to us which circumcision did to them as that was to them a sign of their receiving into the Church and people of God so is baptism to us the first mark which severeth and distinguisheth the people of God from the prophane and wicked aliens Faith ought not to be separated from the seal thereof therefore Infants who cannot actually beleeve ought not to be baptized until they can See what hath been said Obj. 12. to which we here add that this proposition is ture concerning persons of years but concerneth not Infants in whom we cannot know Gods present work but in baptism the seed of faith regeneration mortification and newness of life is sowed in them and all know that precedence concludeth not separation Lastly we say that if faith and baptism must so indivisibly be united as that none may be baptized but they who do actually believe whom might our adversaries baptize or whom put by though of years If they say they profess saith there is much difference between professing and actual believing and I much fear that many will too late find as much distance between justifying faith and temptation of securitie as is between heaven and hell Such are to be baptized as confess their sins Mat. 3. 6. as gladly receive the Word Act. 2. 41. as give heed to the Word preached Act. 8. 6. but this Infants cannot do therefore they are not to be baptized We answer The affirmative may from such places be concluded Such ought to be baptized but the negative cannot therefore none but men so qualified may be baptized it no more followeth then if you should say Cornelius and those that were with him when Peter preached received the holy Ghost in the extraordinary gifts thereof therefore none but such as have received the extraordinary gifts of the holy Ghost may be baptized nay but though it wel concluded affirmatively for them that they were to be baptized it cannot conclude negatively against others that they may not be baptized who have not received such gifts If baptizing Infants be grounded on circumcision the males only must be baptized but that is not true for females also ought to be baptized We answer Here is a fallacia accidentis an arguing from the substance to the circumstance whereas baptism succeeded circumcision in substance not in every circumstance The substance was that was a seal of faith and Church-priviledge so is this that was administred to all that would join in the faith of Abraham and their children as being in Gods covenant so must it be here in that was sealed to the Covenanter the promise of grace and mercie by Christ which is alwayes one and the same so here that signified mortification and a promise on mans part of faith and obedience to God so it is here that was the inlet to Gods Church the Sacrament of initiation admission and engraffing into the Church so is baptism so they agree 1 In the end Rom. 4. 11. Tit. 3. 5. 2 In signification Col. 2. 11 12. Deut. 30. 6. Ier. 4. 4. Rom. 2. 29. Mark 1. 4. Rom. 6. 3. 3 In the effect In circumstance they differ as hath been formerly shewed Though Christ took little children into his arms and blessed them yet he baptized them not therefore though we may pray for our Infants yet
to the chief and best part of Israel to wit the Elect for whose sakes others enjoyed secular blessings with them then your minor is apparently false for they had internal circumcision of the heart as well as the external in the flesh Deut. 10. 16. Deut. 20. 6. Rom. 2. 29. Jer. â—4 4. 2 To say that God made no promise of spiritual things in the covenant of the Old Testament is evidently false as appears Gen. 17. 7. 2 Cor. 6. 18. I will be a father unto you and ye shall be my sons and my daughters saith the Lord Almighty See also Joh. 1. 12 13. 1 Joh. 3. 1 2 8 9. 1 Joh. 2. 25. God covenanted Gen. 17. 7. to be their God and repeateth it Lev. 26. 12. and applyed it to the Gentiles 2 Cor. 6. 16. Jer. 31. 1 2. 2 Cor. 6. 18. Act. 2. 39. whence it may clearly appear that the main substance of the covenant and promise of God with and to Abraham and his seed was for eternal life as also in the New Testament 1 Joh. 2. 25. The land of Canaan and other secular blessings were promised as other temporal goods subordinate and as a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or additament over and above or an accession to the main as Mat. 6. 33. 1 King 3. 10 11 13. and also for a figure of their heavenly inheritance Heb. 4. 8 9 11. and for a confirmation of their interest therein to which they were to come through the red sea which figured our baptism 3 If the Covenant of God with Abraham and his spiritual seed that is Believers had been only for the land of Canaan and temporal blessings there into be enjoyed then that gracious Covenant had entitled him to no more then many wicked enemies of God and mere reprobates had and at this hour have for the impious Canaanites then had all that good land and the temporal profits thereof as the more impious Turks now have as it is written Psal. 73. 12. Behold these are the ungodly who prosper in the world they encrease in riches but this were foolish to affirm and against the whole Analogie of Scriptures which expresly affirm that godliness hath the promise of this life that now is and of that which is to come 1 Tim. 4. 8. The seal of Circumcision was set to Abraham to seat him up only to the honour of the Father of the faithful that is under this notion only as a seal to honour him as the Father of the faithful c. We answer This makes nothing to the proof of the former assertion yet we say it was not only to seal this honour unto him but for a seal of the righteousness of faith Rom 4. 11. and to seal him personally or to his own personal interest in Christ to come as it is written Abraham rejoiced to see my day Joh. 8. 56. That which was set only to honour the greatness of Abrahams faith not to strengthen the weakness of his faith was set to him only as a seal to honour him as the father of the faithful But Circumcision was set only to honour the greatnesse of his faith not to strengthen the weaknesse of his faith ergo c. We answer to this caption and weak argument That Abrahams circumcision was set both to confirm his strong faith and also to carry a remembrance thereof to posterity and to confirm that which was weak for faith hath certain degrees and the greatest measure thereof may be greatned because it is not infinite and so more confirmed Abrahams circumcision Gen 17. 23 24 26. was a seal of the righteousnesse of faith which he had being yet uncircumcised that he might be the father of all them that believe though they be not circumcised that righteousness might be imputed to them also Rom. 4. 11. his faith preceded the seal who believed in hope that he might become the father of many Nations Rom. 4. 18. this was when God spake to him Gen. 15. 6. and he not weak in faith being fully perswaded c. Rom. 4 21. of what See Gen. 15. 4 5 6. so shall thy seed be and he believed in the Lord he was afterward circumised Gen. 17. 24. and his great tryal of faith was some years after his circumcision and then to confirm his faith yet more the Lord said Gen. 22. 16. By my self have I sworn blessing I will blesse thee and multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of heaven and in thy seed shall all the Nations of the earth be blessed Gen. 22. 17 18 and the effect of this faith the Apostle magnifieth Heb. 11. 17. Isaacâ—and â—and mentioning the same Heb. 6. 13 16 17. he saith an oath for confirmation is to them and end of all strife wherein God to shew more abundantly unto the heirs of Promise the immutabilitie of his counsel confirmed it by an oath what in respect of Gods truth nay but nothing can be added to an infinite such is Gods truth which is no accident in him but his essence for whatsoever is in God is God it was therefore that the heirs of promise of which number you will allow Abraham to be one might be confirmed and have strong consolation to lay hold upon the hope set before them whence it appeareth that even Abrahams strong faith might be confirmed and so his circumcision had other ends then to honour him as the father of the faithful nor is that of any better value which was farther objected to the same end That which was not set to any of his posterity to confirm them in their faith was set only to Abraham to honor his faith c That What the seal of circumcision Your minor is so false that it needs no more confutation then denial for circumcision the seal of the righteousness of faith was set to Abrahams seed and posteritie to confirm them in the same faith and to assure them that God was their God as he promised Gen. 17. 7. and indeed Abraham was not stiled the Father of the faithful in regard of Israels carnal propagation for that which is born of the flesh is flesh Joh. 3. 6. and they which are of the faith the same are the children of Abraham Gal. 3. 7. nor as the first believer for many others believed before him as Abel Enoch Noah Shem c. moreover Father is used by the Hebrews to signifie divers relations as Prince or Lord 2 King 5. 13. first teacher 1 Cor. 4. 14. God our heavenly father Deut. 3. 2. Mat. 6. Isa. 9. 6. or Master 2 King 2. 12. hence Disciples were called sons of the Prophets 1 Sam. 10. 12. or a Counsellour Gen. 45. 8. or an Inventer or Author as Jabel was the father of such as dwel in tents Gen. 4. 20. and Jubal the father of all such as handle the harp and organ but Abraham is called the father of the faithful as being first sealed with this seal into
the congregation of the Lord c. what not in case of their becoming proselytes nay but Ruth the Moabitess is rehearsed in the genealogie of our Savior Christ and there was but one law to him that is home-born and unto the stranger he may not bear any publick office but he might be received into Gods covenant and so be capable of all holy duties So v. 1. the maimed or Eunuch shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord c. what might he not be sealed or saved the contrary expresly appeareth Is. 56. 4 5 6 7. Mat. 19. 12. To our present purpose the Apostle gathereth that matrimonial conjunction between a believer and an unbeliever is holy because the denomination and estimate being from the better part their children are within the covenant of God by an argument from the effect to the cause 3 The Apostle discoursed not there of civil Policie but of conscience and how could it satisfie any Christians conscience to take an argument from the civil laws of any of the Nations it is notorious that among those many things were established by their laws which a Christians conscience would and must abhor yea even such divorces without the case of adultery as were in civil respects tolerated by Moses for the hardness of the Jews hearts excused not the offenders conscience though that permissive law would bear him out before men 4 When the Apostle saith the unbelieving husband is sanctified in the wife if any ask what wife we cannot say in a wife as she is only civilly legitimate for so far that husband hath as good and evident a ground of sanctification on his part and in himself without any accession of priviledge from his wife for he must needs be as lawfully her husband as she is his wife we can therefore no otherwise rationally answer then a believing wife and so on the other side Now seeing the Apostle puts it on a peculiar priviledge which is sometimes in the man when he is a believer and his wife is not and sometimes in the wife if she be a believer and her husband is not so it appears that the foundation of comfort here intended by the Apostle is laid in faith peculiar but to one of the two and not in matrimonial legitimacie common and equal to both 5 Faith which rendreth us acceptable to God in Christ purifieth us and all estates and possessions to us that sanctifieth marriage not marriage it that uniteth us by one Spirit to Christ and is therefore far more excellent then marriage which uniteth man and woman only in one flesh faith therefore gives our children a denomination and right to the seals of the covenant as they are holy not marriage which though civilly lawful may yet be impious before God as where one puts away his wife for less then adultery and marrieth another or another man marrieth her so put away it is therefore the faith and Church-priviledge of parents which thus denominateth children holy 6 The Apostle could not here mean legitimacie of children for that can neither sanctifie them nor entitle them to the seal of Gods covenant neither is sanctification here or in any other place of Scripture taken otherwise then for separating some way from some thing prophane or impious So persons times places c. are said to be sanctified which legitimation cannot do neither can holy necessarily imply no bastard for some holy men have been such neither can no bastard conclude a man holy The children of infidels and aliens from the covenant of God born in lawful wedlock are legitimate and no bastards and yet as such far from holy and bastardie though the effect and product of foul sin of parents and the childs indelible dishonour before men yet maketh them not such as belong not to the covenant of God as appears in Pharez and Zarah Gen. 38. 18 29 30. Jephtah Judg. 11. 1 2. c. it must needs be therefore that the Apostle in that term of holy signified some thing peculiar to those that are within the Church of God and not communicable to children of Infidels as such so Tertullian speaks of the unregenerate from Joh. 3. 5. he shall not enter into the kingdom of God that is he shall not be holy such every soul is counted in Adam until he be recounted in Christ. 7 We must consider that legitimacie of children which our Antagonists would here have intended is a proceed of legitimacie of marriage which is of one man and one wife joined together in matrimonie according to Gods ordinance as it is written they two shall be one flesh not they many and he that made them at the beginning made them male and female now the institution of marriage is in place of a perpetual law the violation whereof is sin and wickedness Therefore Christ refuted their objection from Moses permission of the bill of divorcement from the original and Gods first institution of marriage because he in the beginning appointed it otherwise and the same sanction is inviolable So when the Prophet would recall the Jews from Polygamie to pure wedlock he said did not he that is God the Creator make one that is did he make any more wives for Adam then one or did he at first make any more then one husband and one wife yet had he the residue or excellency of the Spirit that is he had power enough if he had pleased to have made more that therefore is illegitimate which agreeth not with the first unrepealable law and institution of God who created but one man and one woman for the fountain of all humane propagation as it is written Gen. 1. 27. God created him-male and female created be them both one flesh and so but one and wherefore one saith the Prophet that he might seek a godly seed that is a generation according to Gods holy institution which is between one man and one woman lawfully joined in matrimonie this he opposeth to their Polygamie secretly here intimating that all they are spurious who are born of Poligamie because they cannot and ought not to be esteemed legitimate who are begotten otherwise then in that matrimonie which God appointed which is only between one man and one woman Now this legitimacie all the tribes of Israel though they were otherwise holy had not in the Prophets sense but they had it in the Apostles sense 1 Cor. 7. 14. for not to question more Dan and Nephtali Bilhab the hand-maids sons and God and Ashâ—r Zilpah the other hand-maids sons liad not this legitimacie and yet were they and their posteritie holy to the Lord it must needs be therefore that it was from some other fountain of holiness then civilâ— legitimacie can give and that could be none but federal holiness from the covenant of God made with Abraham and his seed wherein he contracted to be their God and that they should be his people sealed
baptized under the Gospel for the same end for baptism answereth circumcision and is called by the same name Col. 2 11 12. as having the same end effect to seal up the same grace unto faith mortification remission of sins admission into the visible Church If it be excepted that under the Law there was an express command for Infant-circumcision on the eighth day but there is none for Infant-baptism We say 1 Because there was an express command under the Law never repealed in the Gospel and the same end and use still remain therefore there need be none in the Gospel more then that general opening the kingdom of heaven to all believers in taking away the stop of the partition wall by that which is said Baptize all Nations None but Israelites and their proselytes were sealed under the Law none but male children at eight days old but now go baptize all nations without exception to nation age sex or condition 2 There is in all the Scripture no express prohibition neither can any by any sound consequence imply it The assumption is thus confirmed Those whom Christ saveth are members of his body for he is the head of the Church and Savior of the body Eph. 5. 23. But Christ saveth Infants of believing parents therefore Infants are members of Christs body the Church The major is evident for Christ saveth none but those who are members of his body the Church The minor is as evident it being granted that any Infants are saved which is apparent from the covenant of God Gen. 17. 7. and the words of Christ of such is the kingdom of God as also by this argument Those whom Christ loved and for whom he gave himself to deathâ— those he will sanctifie and cleanse with the washing of water by the Word Eph. 5. 26. that they may be received into the Church and be made partakers of the benefits of his death but Christ not only loved and gave himself for persons of years but also for Infants therefore he will sanctifie and cleanse Infants with the washing of water by the Word c. 2 All Infants were by Adam capable of sin and the expressions of Gods justice punishing the same by death sickness c. but Infants are not less capable of the grace and mercy of God in Christ in respect of the expressions thereof then they were of his justice in Adam Therefore Infants are capable of the expressions of Gods grace and mercie in Christ which in the ordinary dispensation thereof is baptism The major is evident Rom. 5. 12. 1 Cor. 15. 22. The minor Rom. 5. 20 where sin abounded grace did much more abound that is Gods grace doth more abundantly appear in holding out the visible remedy then his justice inflicting the denounced punishment which could not be if Infants visibly involved in the condemnatorie sentence and execution thereof should be excluded from the ordinary and visible means of recovery and salvation by Christ which in them can be no other external means but baptism the laver of regeneration it can be no less then a sacrilegious injury to the grace mercy of God in Christ to suppose that the sin of man is more powerful to hurt then the grace of God in Christ is to heal and save 3 If we ought not to baptize Infants then there must be some apparent let and impediment thereto either on Gods part prohibiting or on the Ministers part or in the Sacrament it self or in the incapacitie of the receiver but there is no apparent let or impdiment on the part or in any of these therefore there is none at all 1 There is no impediment on Gods part for God no where expresly or by good consequence saith Baptize not Infants or Baptize none but those who do first testifie their faith and repentance 2 There is no impediment on the Ministers part for he can as easily baptize Infants as persons of years 3 There is no impediment in respect of the Sacrament it self for all the essentials of baptism may be placed on children profession of faith repentance c. are conditions of baptism in persons of years and effects of it which may in due time appear and follow in baptized Infants those therefore are not of the essence of baptism nor so much as universal conditions thereof for the present sprinkling washing or dipping in water in the name of the Father the Son and the H. Ghost are the essence of baptism so are not faith repentance or newness of life for it may be a true baptism where these graces do neither precede nor follow it though without these preceding or following baptism cannot be effectual to salvation which need not seem strange to him that considereth that Judas Simon Magus and many who were and now are truly baptized are not saved 4 Neither can the let be in the Infant who cannot by any actual hardnes of heart impenitency or positive unbelief or contempt of the ordinance of God refuse or despise the grace of God offered in baptism Therefore they are to be admitted to that whereof they are apparently undeniably capable which is the external seal at least which is all that man for present can administer or we will contend for being most willing to leave secret things to God and to hope the best where the contrary cannot appear unto us only add hereto if the issue be put upon the capacitie or incapacitie of the Infant with relation to any condition so much insisted on let any of our Antagonists shew us how or wherin Infants under the Gospel covenant of grace in Christ have less capacity in respect thereof then Infants under the Law of Moses had or that baptism is not the seal of the same righteousness of faith in Christ wherof circumcision for the time was the seal 4 That which without any expressed exception to particulars Christs commission holds forth to all nations belongs to Infants as well as persons of years for Infants are alwayes a great part of all nations but Christs commission holds forth baptism to all nations without any expressed exception to particulars therefore baptism belongs to Infants of believing Parents as well as to persons of years 5 No man may forbid water that is the outward administration where God hath given the inward operation of his H. Spirit which maxim the Apostle built on in that then difficult question whether the Gentiles might be sealed into the covenant of grace But God hath given the inward operation of his H. Spirit to Infants Ier. 1. 5. Luk. 1. 15. 1 Cor. 7. 14 therefore no man may forbid water or the outward administration for the baptism of Infants The reason of the major is that all they who are partakers of the grace both signified exhibited in baptism have right to the sign and sacrament thereof and therefore may not be barred from it for that were to withstand God Act. 11.
is the initiatorie Sacrament of regeneration implantation into Christ faith mortification putting off the old man putting on Christ remission of sins deliverance from the wrath of God and curse of the Law all which is as necessary for Infants that they may be saved as for any others and into these either for present or future they are baptized 14 God ever since his covenant made with Abraham appointed Infants some seal of his covenant as well with them as their parents whereof they were some ways capable and whereby they might be externally known not only to God that they are long before any man can seal them 2 Tim. 2. 19. Tit. 1. 2. Rom. 8. 29. 9. 11. but also of men or otherwise he must have cast out Infants under the Gospel from right to the seal of his covenant which he gave them under the Law to be within Gods covenant therefore God hath appointed baptism to Infants add hereto that whereas poor Infants need mercie for remission of original sin they are not for present capable of the other ordinary means appointed persons of years as hearing the Word receiving the Lords Supper prayer repentance c. they are passively capable of baptism as under the law they were of circumcision therefore seeing remission of sin is simply necessary baptism the ordinary means thereto is necessary if it may be had 15 Whatsoever Infants of believers are capable of as interested in Gods covenant without the help of present understanding that man ought not to bar them of but such Infants as interested in Gods covenant are capable of baptism without the present help of understanding therefore they ought not to be bar'd thereof by man The major appeareth in Infants circumcision on the eighth day that was the seal of the same faith and covenant of God in Christ and a part or condition of the same as baptism now is as hath been proved The minor appears Gen. 17. 7. I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee c. that is with thy Infants also as well as with thee and by vertue hereof Isaac at eight dayes old received the seal of the righteousness of faith without the help of present understanding and there is the same reason of baptism in respect of Gods promise Act. 2. 39. and the alteration of the seal altereth not the covenant in substance subject or end I suppose all know that children of Christians without the help of present understanding are now as capable of Baptism the more easie seal as they were of Circumcision the more painful and bloody And lest any should think that this Priviledge of Infants-sealing belonged only to Abrahams Carnal-seed the Jews the Holy Ghost testifieth that they which are of the Faith the same are the children of Abraham Gal. 3. 7. and again The Promise is to you and to your children and to all that are a far off even as many as the Lord our God shall call Now he hath called us Gentiles to the faith in Christ who were once a far off Therefore Infants of those who by Calling are interessed in Gods Covenant are capable of Baptism Moreover as hath been noted as the worldly wise men by the creatures Rom. 1. 21. knew God but loved him not by grace dwelling in them neither glorified him as God So these Infants may have him before they can know him that is they may be regenerate by the holy Spirit before they have the use of understanding that they may know the things which are given them of God and certainly all Elect Infants though dying yong are regenerate else could they not be saved yet so young they can have no actual knowledge of their regeneration or means thereunto belonging and if they are saved and have the inward Seal of Gods Spirit how injuriously are they barred from the external seal by man To conclude Infants are interressed by Gods promise which dependeth not on any mans understanding sanctity or excellency but on the free grace of God who made this Covenant with us when we were all in the course of corrupted nature enemies without Christ aliens strangers from the Covenants of Promise having no hope and without God in the world Ephes. 2. 12. Lastly as by one mans disobedience many were made sinners and so sin is communicated to all mankinde yea to those who have not yet the use of reason for we see that Infants dye as well as old men So by one Christs Righteousness imputed many are made righteous in Baptism the Laver of Regeneration though they yet understand it not So put they on Christ though it be not yet given them to know the things which are given them of God See Argument 2. 16. The command for baptizing is for all that are to be saved But among those are many Infants therefore the command for baptizing is for Infants also or without exclusion of all Infants 17. That opinion which makes the Covenant or Priviledge of the Gospel worse to Abrahams spiritual seed then it was to his carnal is false and erroneous yea Antichristian But to deny Believers Infants baptism the initiatory Seal of the Covenant and the priviledge thereof makes this worse then that Therefore it is false c. The major is confirmed in that God avoweth the Gospel to be a better Covenant then that of the Law Heb. 8. 6. The minor likewise because under the Law Infants had the priviledge of the initiatory seal The Gospel-Covenant holdeth forth an enlargement of the signs and subject of Gods mercy It was before only to the Jews generally who had the Ordinances of Righteousness as Gideons Fleece the dew while all the floor which then figured the Gentiles was dry But now Christ saith Go Teach all nations baptizing them So far was it from diminishing or contracting the grace of God by the coming of Christ like rain into the Fleece that now he sent it to all Nations who before gave it only to one And the Covenant of God made with Abraham was testified by an external Seal to comfort Parents in assurance that God had care for and a Covenant with their children also Now they that take this away from children under the Gospel make the Gospel-Covenant much worse as being less testified then that under the Law Add hereto that the coming of Christ which set an end to Legal ceremonies and appointed Baptism diminished not the grace of his Father in the Signs and Dispensations thereof making it more dark or less testified by a Seal towards those who are within the Covenant of Grace but rather encreased or communicated it more clearly and therein it is a better Covenant Hebr. 8. 6. not in respect of God the appointer thereof he is one and the same for ever not in respect of Christ the Mediator he is the same under the Law and Gospel but in respect of the exhibition of things promised and
c. It is neither of him that willeth nor of him that runneth but of God that sheweth mercy And where he said Work out or finish your salvation we may not think it dependeth on our works or of our own ability for saith he it is God which worketh in you both to wil and to do of his good pleasure Lest we should think our selves excused from our uttermost endevour whom he hath made voluntary agents and in some part repaired in our regeneration he requireth that we work that we receive not that grace in vain that we so run that we may attain yet that we may not think that this is or can be by any choice or ability of our own he telleth us presently it is God which worketh in us all which he requireth of us and so good works which follow the justified person being fruits of our calling and election give us a comfortable hope thereof Yet is it most true that God alone according to his abundant mercy not our merit bath begotten us again to a lively hope 1 Pet. 1. 3. and that if we do these things we shall never fall You say again That God requires nothing on mans part but that its efficacy be not hindred This Proposition though plausible yet is unsound as may appear by that which hath been said to which I add It is indeed required that we do not ponere obicem by unbeliefe impenitency contempt of Gods ordinance c. but he that saith Cease to do evill saith also Learn to do well So the Apostle exhorteth To give all diligence to make your calling and election sure for if ye do these things ye shall never fall And indeed this is the end of our implantation into Christ by Baptism that we should walk in newness of life and no doubt but God requireth of his Israel that they should not quench the Spirit or ponere obicem in that he said Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart and harden your necks no more Deut. 10. 16. Yet he requireth them to fear the Lord their God to walk in all his ways to keep all the commandements of the Lord v. 12. 13. And into the same covenant are children admitted by baptism which bindeth them on their first abilities to perform the same though for the present they are no more active then circumcised Infants were who were received and sealed into the present covenant of future faith and obedience Then you say there is a necessity that they should be brought to baptism there being an absolute exclusion of all persons unbaptized There is a necessity of Baptism in respect of Gods ordinance which bindeth us to administer it but we affirm not such a necessitatem medii that all they should be absolutely excluded from the Kingdom of Heaven who die without baptism as many infants do That uncharitable opinion we leave to the maintainers therof we have no warrant so to judge and therefore we say that not the bare privation but the contempt of the Sacrament condemneth of which Infants cannot be guilty So that if you clearly mean a necessitatem medii in respect of the externall ministry of man your Proposition is not true nor owned by us but if you mean a necessity in respect of our duty in baptizing infants or their spirituall baptisme by regeneration we so farre consent but then we cannot excuse your medium for an homonomia which concludeth not an absolute exclusion of all persons unbaptized is apparently fals in the example of the penitent Thiefe saved but not baptized and in charity to be concluded so in elect children dying before they are baptized so that if our Arguments for baptizing children were no better you might confidently say as you do in the Epilogue of your Plea They have been encouraged in their error more by our weak arguings then by any truth of their cause or excellency of their wit You say Internall means of bringing them to an eternall happiness they have none for grace being an improvement and heightning the faculties of Nature in order to an heightned and supernaturall end grace hath no influence or efficacy upon their faculties who can do no naturall acts of understanding What acts of understanding elect Infants dying have I cannot determine but I am confident all considering Readers will abominate and loath this bold and uncharitable censure Who admitted you into the secret of Gods councel concerning thestate of Infants whom either he preserveth to age or taketh away before they could be baptized It is better resolved to a worse end by your self p. 231. Num. 16. Many thousand ways there are by which God can bring any reasonable soul unto himself And here in the very next place you affirm That God hath made a promise of the holy Ghost to Infants as well as to men Reconcile these two and your self to your self if you can First you say Grace hath no influence or efficacy upon their faculties who can do no naturall acts of understanding And next you affirm that God hath made a promise of the holy Ghost to Infants as well as to men I demand Doth God perform every one of his promises Do you mean by the Holy Ghost the gifts and graces of Gods holy Spirit regenerating the elect to the Kingdome of Heaven Can any be saved without such grace can the holy Ghost be inactive and without effectuall influence in any soul Doth God give in his good time and measure his grace of Regeneration to all the elect that is a powerful influence on them to regenerate sanctifie and finally save them Doth God save any Infants These things being concluded on I would fain learn how it can be true that children have no internall means of salvation or that Gods Spirit hath no influence upon their faculties Doth the reasonable soul of an Infant express an admirable influence on the bodily faculties by a naturall instinct for its preservation and shall not the Creator the Spirit of Almighty God have much more active influence on the soul of the elect to save it though there appear none or very slender acts of understanding to the judgement and sense of man This your Proposition will appear false if we consider infants circumcision those could do as few acts of understanding as infants now can neither can any man without high impiety affirm that Gods grace had no influence or efficacy on them whom he did not in vain command to be sealed into his covenant It is well observed by our party that the Sacraments are not bare resemblances or memorials of things past neither naked signes or testimonies of grace received but also Canales gratiae whereby God ordinarily deriveth to us those Rivers of living Water Joh. 7. 38. and both delivereth and sealeth unto us the grace which they represent so that these holy signes are not empty void of or without the things signified although
Infants did it work upon them when they came to age We answer 1. That the word Character may be taken for any sign or note distinguishing one thing from another so Baptism may be also said to be a character distinguishing Christians from unbelievers not as an absolute quality but as a relative thing as a tessera militaris by which God wil own his who fight under the Banner of Christ and by which the baptized have a comfortable assurance that they are marked for the children of God when they believe in Christ according as it is written In whom also after that ye beleeved ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise which is the earnest of our Inheritance a. Your instance importeth onely a circumstantiall not a substantiall difference Now the variety of signes vary not the thing signified It is the same Christ the same Faith under the Gospel and under the Law though the Sacraments by God appointed for the one and for the other were much different And the ends of Circumcision and Baptism are the same to implant us into Christs visible Church to be an in-let and door to the same to seal up the admitted to faith repentance mortification and newness of life which work is as truly done to the baptized Christian when he cometh to age as it was to the Israelite circumcised to wit to and in them that believed and repented to others the work was so farre from being done that that very seal of Gods Covenant which they bare in their flesh served for a witnesse against the soul of the Covenant-breaker to his greater condemnation and so it is proportionably with the baptized Apostate which may be a warning to your Clients to repent before it be too late You say again It is requisite that the persons baptized should be capable of Reason that they may be capable both of the word of the Sacrament and the impress made upon the Spirit We answer 1. This weakly follows from unsound premises was there no word added to Circumcision How doth that appear Was there not a word of Institution Genes 17. 10 11 12. Was not the reason of the Covenant declared to Abraham Did not he and others preach the same to all of age to be circumcised as Proselytes and to the circumcised infants when they came to age capable of Doctrine so doe we to the baptized but to persons of years we preach the Gospel first and then baptize them infants we baptize first and instruct them when they come to be capable 2. That it is requisite that the persons baptized should be capable of Reason that they may be capable both of the word c. We say so also they must be capable of Reason either in act that they may presently understand those things or in habit that they may afterward understand the same to what end else should we baptize infants or why were they circumcised into future faith repentance and newness of life We utterly dislike Popish baptizing of Bels Churches Altars c. 3. We say further That Covenants between man and man require that both parties expressly understand know the tenour substance and particulars of the same but in Covenants between God and his Creatures that Rule doth not universally hold for here God stipulateth and principally transacteth with the creature according to that which he will have done or do in or by them So he established his Covenant with Noah and his seed after him and with every living creature the Fowle Cattell Beasts c. Gen. 9. 10. How much more rationally may he make covenant with infants though yet without the actuall use of reason Again sometimes such covenants are made between men as that the parent or parents covenant for or in stead of their children because they are not yet of age to understand the words and purport of the covenant and it standeth good How much rather may God covenant with an infant whose mouth and Advocate Christ Jesus said expressly Suffer little children to come unto me and forbid them not for of such is the Kingdom of Heaven Mark 10. 14. Luke 18. 16. I demand quojure by what right is the Kingdom of Heaven theirs What by descent from naturall parents Nay but that which is born of the flesh is flesh John 3. 6. And flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of God 1 Cor. 15. 50. It must therefore be by the free covenant of God with them out of which it can belong to none by right of any infant-innocency seeing all are conceived and born in sin the children of wrath but for the grace and covenant of God with them which they yet understand not yet is it valid and effectuall to their salvation as we may also understand in case of Circumcision in which the circumcised Child understood as little what was said or done as the baptized infant now doth and yet it was Gods covenant with them Gen. 17. 7 10 11 12. and effectual for them To conclude if you mean that it is requisite that none should be admitted to baptism but those that have the actuall use of reason that is men and women of years you beg the question of the Sacrament and the impress made upon the Spirit Concerning a Character or impress set upon the baptized the Schoolmen and Jesuits have moved sundry questions whether it be an absolute or relative quality which yet they say sticks fast upon them also that are in hell Whether it be an ens rationis or a relatio realis Whether a quality action or passion And if a quality of what kind it is Whether the subject thereof be the soul or some active or passive faculty thereof Whether it be a figure or form Whether the Sacraments of the old Testament made the like impress c. In all which and the like vain speculations we may not unprofitably note the just judgment of God giving them over to unfruitfull delusions who forsaking the true and constant light of his holy word give themselves â—ver to follow the ignes fatuos of their own fancies I hope you are not of their sense though you mention this impress Concerning the seal of our implantation into Christ I have spoken a little before and onely add that we receive grace and the obsignation thereof but are not sensible of all untill we receive a greater measure that we might know the things that are freely given unto us of God Since therefore say you the reason of this parity does wholly fail there is nothing left to inferre a necessity of complying in this circumstance of age any more then in the other annexes of the type It wholly holds in substance for ought you have said to the contrary and therefore your following instances are frivolous As concerning baptizing the eighth day we answer 1. That whereas God appointed no set day for baptism we have the greater liberty to
of Ireneus who was of France and Justin Martyr Jerom Ambrose c. That which you cite out of Ludovicus Vives neminem nisi adultum antiquitùs solere baptizari I suppose you may read in some index or marginal â—â—â—e or in Bellarmin with a little change the words of Vâ—â—â— in the cited place are ne quis fallatur hoc loco nemo olim sacro admovebatur baptisterio nisi adultâ jam aetate c. lest any should be deceived in this place none anciently was moved to the sacred font but such as were come to full age c. Certainly Augustin spake there concerning those who being of years could understand what the sacred mystery signisied and could desire the same What is the cause saith he why we should spend times in exhorting them wherein by speaking we endeavour to enflame the baptized either unto virgin integrity or vidual continency or unto a conjugal fidelity c. he meant not such words to infants What did vidual continency or conjugal fidelity concern infants as such and L. Vives words immediately following intimate the same The image of which thing saith he we yet see in our baptizing of infants If this were not his meaning as it was Augustins it was frivolous enough and such as I cannot easily believe so learned an Author and so well acquainted with Augustins sense and judgement in this matter could be guilty of possibly his olim related to the baptism which was administred in ecclesiâ constituendâ when the partition wall being broken down and the natural branches broken off that others might be grassed into Christ which was and could no otherwise be then by instructing people in the faith of Christ and then baptizing them that their children might afterward be baptized as being within the covenant by their fathers priviledg and their own as being children of believing parents so that in the constituting a Christian Church the Ministers first and most general work of administring baptism was with persons of years by their preaching to them converting to the faith but in ecclesiâ constitutâ it is much otherwise our general work of administration of baptism is with infants of enchurched parents we seldom meeting with any Turk or Pagan or Jew converted and desiring baptism to conclude if L. Vives by you cited had been of your opinion to spare the mentioning the authority of Ireneus Cyprian Augustin Jerom c. or the African or other Councels who much better knew the custom of the ancient Churches then Lud. Vives could we can ballance Vives with Polydor Virgil another learned Author who saith As infants among the Jews were circumcised the eight day from their nativity so are they for the most part with us baptized which yet the English do in the very day wherein they are born that which S. Cyprian by many reasons proveth may be done But you say besides that the tradition cannot be proved to be Apostolical we have very good evidence from antiquity that it was the opinion of the Primitive Church that infants ought not to be baptized and this is clear in the sixt Canon of the Councel of Neocaesâ—rea c. It is proved to be Apostolical and therefore above controversy it can be proved You talk of very good evidence from antiquity that it was the opinion of the Primitive Church that infants ought not to be baptized and this you say is clear in the sixt Canon of the Councel of Neocaesarea so then it is likely that one testimony is very good and clear evidence for you and shall not many and of them some more ancient witnesses be good for us Origen Ireneus Cyprian with the whole Councel of Carthage held about anno 258. were more ancient then the Councel of Neocaesarea held about the year 316. and those as hath been shewed were for infant-baptism as many others also express Augustin as we have before noted on Num. 13 calleth it ecclesiae fidem firmissimam and fundatissimum morem the most firm faith of the Church and the most grounded custom And again that which was delivered by Apostolical authority But let us now behold how clear it is in the sixt Canon of the Councel of Neocaesarea which you alleadged The Canon saith A woman with child may be baptized when she please for the baptism of her that is to be delivered in this matter concerneth not the infant to be born because every ones own choice or purpose is manifested or declared by his own confession the mothers baptism doth not so concern the infant that is to be born as if that needed not to be baptized when 't is born The woman must for the present make her confession of faith whereby she may declare he choice and so must the child for his own part when he comes to age and can shew that he embraceth the Christian faith Mark how clear this Canon makes it that Infants ought not to be baptized Here 's not one word forbidding infant-baptism the whole scope being rather to shew that the infant must be baptized for himself because the mothers baptism in whose womb he then was cannot excuse him from being baptized Add hereto that which some observe That regeneration by baptism presupposeth a precedent natural birth which the unborn child hath not therefore the unborn infant cannot be regenerate in his mothers baptism Indeed it gives him a right hereto if he have none by the fathers side 1 Cor. 7. 14. So that if any man lift to think that the Councel spake Gospel yet it will no more thence follow that infants ought not to be baptized because they cannot yet make confession of their faith then that all that which is said of the adult is precisely to be applyed to inâ—ants for present as that 2. Thes. 3. 10. This we command you that if any would not work neither should he eat which concerneth infants no otherwise then when they should be able but in the mean time would you not have them eat you know that though the rule bear a shew of universalityâ— yet it concerneth persons of age and ability not infants so here the Ministers interrogating persons of years to be baptized was simply necessary for how else should it have been known whether they were fit to be admitted into the Church priviledges by baptism that therefore they did not admit infants to baptism because they did not examin them follows not except you could shew that they admitted none to baptism but persons of years which is the question in hand and therefore may not be a medium to prove your assertion by as for asking them questions to be answered by Sponsors Godfathers and Godmothers we shall speak anon And to supply their incapacity by the answer of a Godfather is but the same unreasonableness acted with a worse circumstance and there is no sensible account to be given of it We say that by your present confession such sponsion by
proceed what man were sufficient for that Office The examples of Simon Magus Judas Demas c. shew enough that the most discerning men may be deceived in others fair profession and who can foresee the final estates of men and women baptized I cannot reasonably think that you take all those for elect whom your selves baptize or that your baptism shall doe them all good And if you dispute 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 concerning one and the same faith in several degrees that is if you mean the seeds or habit of faith that Minor is false for elect infants have the seeds of faith in baptism though they be not formed in them yet by the secret working of the spirit the seeds thereof for a time lying hidden in them shall flourish and shew their growth in them in newness of life If you mean it of actual faith that want of that condition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 discovereth the Paralogism And we say infants want of actual faith in present infancy thereof incapable concludeth nothing against their having of it in mature age and so as little against their baptism I cannot conclude so well as in Augustins words But some may say the things do some men no good what must the Medicine therefore be neglected because some mens pestilence is incurable So that if baptism be necessary then so is faith and much more for want of faith damneth absolutely I demand then Do infants believe Why do ye deny them baptism or because they have not faith do you conclude them all damned who die in their infancy That were a damnable assertion and to pay you with your own coyn Against the perpetual analogie of Christs Doctrine who commanded infants to be brought unto him bless them and positively affirmed that Of such is the Kingdom of heaven Further I say If your Proposition be universal it is notoriously false for all want of faith doth not absolutely damn For 1. They who pray for faith or the increases thereof as the Disciples did want faith yet were they not damned he that hungereth and thirsteth for the righteousness of faith wanteth the same for hunger and thirst are of emptiness yet Christ pronounceth such blessed 2. He that now believeth not may hereafter believe It was Pauls case had you seen him persecute the faith and faithfull in ignorance and unbelief would you presently have devoted him to absolute damnation Judg not that you be not judged I know no man living that wanteth not faith and I pray the good Lord to help my unbelief and exhort you otherwise to express your fancies that they prove not snares to weak and afflicted consciences Then you say it is sottish to say the same incapacitâ— of reason and faith shall not excuse from the actual susception of baptism c. A very acute and witty assertion indeed but we answer 1. By this principle you might have been as blasphemous against Gods Ordinance in circumcision had you lived under the Law 2. We say not but that infants by their incapacity are excused from actual susception of baptism for they cannot act thereto But parents are not excusable if they contemn or neglect their parts in sealing those that are joynt heirs of the Promises and Covenant of God with them and their children because they have a capacity to promote and effect it and this appeareth in the History of Moses Exod. 4. 24 25. We very well know that infants cannot come and desire the Seals their present incapacity excuseth them from that they cannot possibly do but their parents or friends can intreat it for them and present them to it so that infants have a passive capacity they cannot profess faith and repentance but their parents professing of the same interesseth them in all those external Church-priviledges whereof they are capable and so to be born in the Church is to them and for them instead and in place of their profession What your terms of reasonably and humanely received do mean if to any purpose want interpretation The conclusion you say is that baptism is also to be deferred till the time of faith Why might you not say the same also concerning circumcision It is certain that by the same you may conclude that many thousand persons of age must never be baptized because they never come to believe as for their profession no man can say whether it be hypocritical or not Since faith is necessary to the susception of baptism c. True in adult is what is this to our present question concerning infants We have often said that this your arguing a dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter is fallacious and not passable among young Sophisters and we owe no other answer then denying the consequence Our contest is about Infant-baptism wherein we say a present actual faith is not required It is necessary or at least the profession thereof in those who present to or administer baptism we cannot say so of infants to whom God doth not yet give the use of reason therefore they cannot first believe and after receive the Seal as Abraham did But therefore they are to be baptized that they may attain faith and salvation So the word preached profiteth not if it be not mixed with faith in them that hear yet is the preaching thereof an effectual means whereby God will work faith in the hearers To conclude Baptism profiteth not without faith yet is it an effectual means whereby God worketh regeneration and salvation therefore none within his Covenant are to be barred from it It is not improbably conjectured by some that therefore the Disciples forbad them to bring children to Christ because they thought children have not faith nor can any teach them who are yet incapable of doctrine Possibly they did not yet understand the abolition of the old Seal for the introduction of the new nor how baptism was to succeed circumcision that was sometime after disputed and determined Actâ— 1 â—â— 2. but Christ was much displeased with it rebuked them and seriously protested that of such is the kingdom of heaven Whatever can be said to take off from the necessity of actual saith all that and much more you say may be said to excuse from the actual susception of baptism True in adultis but most faise in infants I am weary of telling you of your fallacious arguing à dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter Again if here by actual susception of baptism you mean that infants are to be excused from it we have answered in the foregoing paragraph if you mean from administration of infant baptism we deny your assertion and expect proof The second device you say was of Calvin and his You said before that some said infants have imputative saith and by the number you now attribute it to Calvin indeed Mr. Calvin saith as I have noted That infants are baptized into future repentance and faith which although
be damned for their fathers carelesness or malice c. You trifle here you know that we hold no such necessity of the means as hath been said your foundation therefore failing nothing of your superstructure can stand If men neglect or contemn the ordinance of God toward their infants salvation they do as much as in them lieth to shut them from heaven but yet the foundation of the Lord remaineth sure having this seal the Lord knoweth them that are his though men neglect to mark them who cannot help themselves thereto yet the Lord knoweth all his and is not unjust to punish the childs involuntary defect for the parents voluntary neglect which God will severely punish though the child shall be held guiltless thereof as may appear in the fore-recited example of Moses which might perswade considering men to beware of denying children baptism for if the neglect be such a sin what is the contempt thereof to which their parents faith giveth them right not as an efficient principall or meritorious cause of infants salvation but as a sign and seal of Gods good will towards their children whose providence causing them to be born of such parents sheweth that he vouchsafeth them the priviledge of his covenant and how horrible a presumption is it for man to take away that which God pleaseth to give It follows say you that it is not necessary at all to be done to thâ—m to whom it cannot be prescribed as a law and in whose behalfe it cannot be reasonably intrusted to others with the appendant necessity We have said enough concerning the necessity you stil harp on and fear to weary the Reader by telling you we hold no such absolute necessity as we have expressed but that it follows not that it is necessary at all to be done c. is evidently false as may appear in circumcision which was enjoyned the parents not the children as untrue is your second branch in whose behalf it cannot be reasonably entrusted to others for the infants circumcision was reasonably entrusted to the parent under this necessiry The uncircumcised man child that person shall be cut off from his people Gen. 17. 14. And you say if it be not necessary it is certain it is not reasonable Stay and prove that it is not necessary before you build up many conclusions upon that which never was not will be granted you We have shewed how 't is necessary It is nowhere in terms prescribed Neither is the Sabbath which we observe nor many other things which of duty we do perform See what hath been answered hereto pag. 240. Num. 28. and so we baptize infants for it is both reasonable and they have a capacity thereof though you deny both Either baptism producâ—th spiritual effects or it produceth them not c. A rare Dilemma but that 't is fallacious Reduce it to a Syllogism and it will appear a Paralogism ex accidente Suppose thus That which produceth no spiritual effects is not to be contended for but baptism produceth no spiritual effect ergo it is not to be contended for Who knows not that 't is accidental to baptism to produce no spiritual effect in the baptized This is for mans unbelief and forsaking the Covenantâ— by wilfull sinning which doth ponere â—bicem and make the Ordinance of none effect to salvation If we should thus dispute That which causeth wrath is evil but the Law causeth wrath ergo the Law is evil the Fallacy were the same For it is accidental and through mans disobedience that the Law causeth wrath of it self it is good and holy right and pure so here though baptism produce no good spiritual effect in the reprobate or not ex opere operato yet by the institution of God whose spirit worketh on his Ordinance it doth What are we nearer heaven if we are baptized If I were of your Councel I would entreat you to beware of these political temporizings which come so near Atheism Believe you the Scriptures who thus slight Gods holy Ordinances But if baptism does do a work upon the soul producing spiritual benefits and advantages these advantages are produced by the external work of the Sacrament alone or by that as it is helped by the co-operation and predispositions of the suscipient Here you bring another fallacy à non causâ pro causâ We say that neither are the effects or spiritual advantages of baptism produced by the external work of the Sacrament alone nor by that as it is helped by the co-operation and pre-disposition of the suscipient as hath been proved but by the spirit of God working on his own Ordinance If you say by the external work alone how doth this differ from the opus operatum of Papists save that it is worse If the Skie fall we shall have Larks Who affirms that which you suppose For they say the Sacrament does not produce it's effect but in a suscipient disposed by all requisites and due preparations of piety faith and repentance Do they say so when they speak of infant-baptism slander them not herein they are better then you who deny infants baptism which they grant though children cannot actually believe confess profess or repent But this opinion saies it does of it self without the help or so much as the coexistence of any condition but the meer reception Make much of the Minerva of your own brain if it be your opinion we own it not But if the Sacrament does not do its work alone but per modum recipientis according to the predispositions of the suscipient then because infants can neither hinder it nor do any thing to further it it does them no benefit at all You might have pleaded the same against circumcision with as good success They could neither hinder it nor do any thing to further it did it therefore do them no benefit at all But who saith it is per modum recipient is c. which is not properly expressed according to the predisposition Per modum speaks a cause ad or secundum a condition We say that the Sacrament doth work according to the dispositions of the receivers because God gives that to infants which makes them fit to be baptized giving them by his own Covenant with his believieving parents federal holyness and so a right to the external initiatory seal of his Covenant with them Whether it do them good or no whether it produce a spiritual good effect or no that is to regeneration and salvation a right they have to the external seal as being born within the Church and that as soon as they are born we understand not any other predisposing cause in the infant to be baptized as if he were able to contribute any thing to his receptibility more then the unborn Jacob was in relation to the love of God which indeed never found any cause but it self yet ere the children were born God loved Jacob and hated Esau. Further we say
unto them we undertake not to make the truth evident to every gain-sayer and despiser thereof but say of such an one as Elisha for his servant at the beleaguered Dothan 2 King 6. 17. Lord I pray thee open his eyes that he may see The most manifest light of the Gospel had not evidence enough with the Pharisees whom Christ pronounced blind and it concerned them chiefly which he said they have winked with their eyes c. an unbeliever may doubt of any truth and then it is not evident to him The old Academicks were wont to question the testimonie and evidence of their own senses with a quid si falleris being not confident of the truth of that they saw with their eyes and heard with their ears Carneades doubted of all things yet certainly many things were evident of themselves to those who could and would see and know manifest truths though not to him 4. They who deny convincing evidence in Gods Word not only erre not knowing the Scriptures but tacitely accuse the Wisdom and Providence of God for mans salvation of insufficiencie for how shall matters of controversie concerning faith and manners be decided without sufficient evidence and if you think there is not sufficient evidence in Scripture to keep us from errour and to direct us in the way of truth and salvation in what other rule or testimonie will you place such evidence as you would have what in Traditions and unwritten verities where shall we feek these among our adversaries nay but no man can be edified by that which is destructive or in Enthusiasms and Revelations but what evidence can there be in those things whose authority cannot be proved and whose truth cannot be infallible nothing less then that which cannot be false can be the ground of faith and religion whatsoever falleth below that supreme certaintie is but opinion at most Now the Word of God only is infallible because he cannot lye Tâ—â— 1. 2. and therefore his Word is profitable for doctrine for reproof for correction for instruction in righteousness that the man of God may be perfect throughly furnished unto all good works 2 Tâ—â— 3. 16 17. 5 If it be rejoined that in our present question and some other cases the Scripture saith nothing expresly and positively to evidence the truth I answer 1 with Tertullian I am confident to say that the Scriptures themselves were so disposed by the will of God that they might administer matter to Hereticks seeing that I read there must be Herefies which could not be without Scriptures 2 That is Scripture truth which the Scripture proposeth or enjoineth by necessary consequence though not in express words and whosoever disbelieveth or disobeyeth that so far he rejecteth the Scripture in his errour and ignorance of Scripture So the Sadduces denyed the resurrection of the dead among other vain arguments so principally a non scripto because Moses whose writings only they received did not in terminis or express words and syllables say the dead shall rise again now though that is true Moses did not expresly say so yet our Saviour told them that therein they erred not knowing the Scriptures Mat. 22. 29. where he meaneth not express words of Scripture but necessary consequence for certainly they knew the express letter yet thought they had not evidence enough from Scripture because they found nothing there in terminis against their errour which Christ yet justly chargeth on them Ye do erre not knowing the Scriptures as touching the resurrection of the dead have you not read that which was spoken unto you by God saying I am the God of Abraham and the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob Well what express Scripture is here to prove the resurrection of the dead that Christ should charge those that denyed the same with errour and ignorance of Scriptures Truly no more then we find for Infant-baptism in appearance much less yet thus he who could not be deceived chargeth them because denying necessary consequence they required express words now the consequence was thus God is not the God of the dead but of the living therefore the dead shall rise again To the folding up of all I might repeat sundry things which as necessarily conclude our Infant-baptism as Infants circumcision into the same faith Gods Covenant with Abraham and his spiritual seed that is all Beleevers Christs honouring Infants with sacred embraces proposing them as heirs and patterns designed for the Kingdome of heaven the extent of Gods federal promise to us and our children childrens capacitie of the inward baptism signified in the external sign whole Families and Nations baptized of which children are and ever were a great part Christs absolute command to baptize all Nations without any tittle of exception to Infants Infants federal and ecclesiastical holiness by their parents and their own right But that I would not be irksom to the prudent and pious Reader to whom I heartily wish a right understanding in all things constancie in the truth and unitie of the holy Spirit that we may all meet in Gods eternal kingdom of glory AMEN A SURVEY OF The Controverted Points CONCERNING INFANT-BAPTISM c. THE SECOND PART CHAP. I. Infants of Christian Parents ought to be baptized I Need not be long in describing this Sacrament only I say that Baptism is a Sacrament of the New Testament succeeding Circumeision the Seal of the Old appointed by Christ for our Inlet into his Church our implantation into Him and the similitude of his death and resurrection in which the water sanctified by the word representeth the blood of Christ sealeth and exhibiteth to the Elect all the benefits of his inestimable merits death passion and resurrection to our regeneration remission of sins and cleansing our bodies and souls from them all though not presently so that we have no sin yet so as that believing in Christ we have no guilt of original or actual sin imputed to us to condemnation for the water by the Ordinance of God touching the body the Spirit of Jesus baptizeth body and soul. Hence Baptism is said to save us 1 Pet. 3. 21. the end of Baptism is that being baptized we might be illuminated being illuminated we might be adopted sons of God being adopted we might be perfected that we may become immortally blessed In our being baptized in the Name of the Father the Son and the Holy Ghost we do as it were by a solemn Oath or Covenant declare and protest that we are wholly devoted to one God in Trinity of Unitie and God on his part herein testifieth that by this Seal of his Covenant he receiveth us into the participation of his free mercies in Christ and into the holy communion of his Church the body of Christ I Joh. 5. 7 8. The Protestant Church holdeth That the subject of Baptism are all they who either are