beginning or Original of the Jewish Church Secondly Concerning the Nature of it Thirdly Concerning the initiatory Sacrament into it and the Persons that were capable of Initiation And Lastly Concerning the alteration of it from the Legal into the Evangelical Dispensation wherein I have briefly shewed the true grounds of that blessed Reformation and how tender Christ and his Apostles were of Altering or rejecting more than was necessary or of receding more than was needful from the Jewish Church All these things I thought necessary to be discoursed as Praecognita to fit and prepare the Reader 's mind to understand the State of the Controversie about Infant-Baptism as it is proposed in these five Comprehensive Questions 1. Whether Infants are uncapable of Baptism 2. Whether they are excluded from Baptism by Christ 3. Whether it is lawful to separate from a Church which appointeth Infants to be Baptized 4. Whether it be the duty of Christian Parents to bring their Children unto Baptism 5. Whether it is lawful to Communicate with believers who were Baptized in their Infancy The whole merit of the Controversie about Infant-Baptism lies in these five Comprehensive Questions and I shall presently proceed to the stating of them after I have shew'd that Circumcision was a Sacrament of equal Significancy Force and Perfection with Baptism and that Baptism succeeded in the room of it not as the Antitype succeeded in the place of the Type but as one positive Institution succeeds in the place of another and this also is necessary to be foreknown by the Reader because the Anabaptists endeavour to shift off the force of many good Arguments which otherwise are not to be evaded by saying that Circumcision under the Old Testament was a Type of Baptism under the New Now to shew that Circumcision was not a Type but only the Fore-runner of Baptism we must note that strictly and properly speaking there was the same difference betwixt the Type and the Antitype as betwixt the Shadow and the Substance or betwixt a Man and his Picture in a Glass * Deinde quod maximè advertendum id inter Antitypum Typum interest quod quae revera in Antitypo vis in est ea non nisi specie tenus aut gradu longè exiliori in Typo extiterit Enimvero quamâ—is Typus nonnunquam rem aliquam cum Antitypo suo communem habuerit ea tamen res multò minùs in Typo quà m in Antitypo semper valet ita ut vis rei adumbrantis virtutis in adumbratâ repertae nil nisi Symbolica quaedam Species aut tam exilis gradus fuerit ut pro umbrâ quâdam haberi possit Outramus de Sacrif l. 2. c. 18. insomuch that what was really literally and properly in the Antitype and of perfect Efficacy and Power was generally but Symbolically and representatively in the Type and figurative of something which did in a more noble perfect eminent and efficacious manner belong to the Antitype than it did to it Thus the blood of the Legal Sacrifices were but Shadows and Representations of the Blood of Christ and the purging and cleansing Virtue in their Blood serving to the purifying of the Flesh was also but a faint and umbratical resemblance of the more noble and efficacious cleansing Virtue of his Blood which purges the Conscience from dead works So the Brazen Serpent was but a Shadow or Symbol of Christ upon the Cross and the healing Virtue which belonged to it was but a figure or shadow of that more eminent and powerfully healing Virtue which was in Jesus Christ But the case is not so betwixt Circumcision and Baptism because Circumcision hath no Symbolical likeness with Baptism nor any thing belonging to it common with Baptism which doth not as literally properly fully and eminently belong unto it as unto Baptism it self For First Is Baptism a Sacrament of initiation into the Covenant of Grace under the Gospel So was Circumcision before and under the Law Is Baptism now a Seal of the Righteousness of Faith So was Circumcision then Doth it properly and effectually confirm and establish the Covenant betwixt God and us now So did Circumcision then as it is written you shall Circumcise the Flesh of your Fore-skin and it shall be a Token of the Covenant betwixt me and you Baptism doth nothing under the Gospel which Circumcision did not as properly and effectually under the Law This was then as absolute and real a Sacrament as that now is This did then as really initiate true Believers as that now doth It never was an Umbraticall Sacrament or shadow of another Sacrament it never did Umbratically initiate Believers or Umbratically and in shew and Similitude only confirm the Covenant betwixt God and the Seed of Abraham and therefore could not be a Type of Baptism no more than the Broad Seal of England 300 Years ago was a Type of this Accordingly it is never mentioned in the New Testament as a Type of Baptism nor Baptism as the Antitype of it but on the contrary the only Typical Adumbrations which are found of it in the Gospel are such things which have some Symbolical likeness with it and were fitted upon that account to be Types thereof The First Is the Baptizing of the Israelites in the * Mare autem illud Sacramentum Baptismi fuisse declarat beatus Apostolus Dicens nolo enim vos ignorare Et addidit dicens haec autem omnia figurae nostrae sunt Cyprian Ep. 69. Ed. Ox. Red-Sea 1 Cor. 10.2 Where the Red-Sea is a Type of the Water of Baptism their passing through it when they were delivered from Pharaoh and his Host a Type of our passing through that and of our deliverance thereby from the Devil and his Angels and their Captain and Deliverer Moses a Type of our Saviour Christ The Second Is the saving of Noah and his Family in the Ark the like figure whereunto saith the Apostle even Baptism doth also save us †Item Petrus ipse quoque demonstrans c. Cyprian Ep. 74. ad Pompeium contra Epist Stephani in Firmilian Ep. contra eandem Epist ad Cyprian in Ep. 69. Quod Petrus ostendens unam Ecclesiam esse c. 1 Pet. 3.21 Here it is plain that the Waters of the Flood were a shadow of the Waters of Baptism the Ark a Type of the Church and that the passing of the Ark through the Waters did prefigure our passing through the Waters of Baptism in the Ark of the Church But as for Circumcision it hath nothing in it Symbolical of Baptism nor was it an Umbratical but a real Consignation of the Covenant of Grace every way as real and substantial an Ordinance as Baptism now is and therefore succeeded in the room of it not as the Antitype did in the place of the Type but as one absolute Ordinance or positive Institution doth in the place of another according to the Apostle who saith unto the Colossians In whom also ye are
Circumcised with the Circumcision made without hands in putting off the Body of the Sins of the Flesh by the Circumcision of Christ having been buried with him in Baptism Col. 2.11 12. But in the second place if we consider the Original of Baptism as a Jewish Institution we shall find it very improbable that Circumcision should be a Type of it because a Type properly speaking is a * Typus quatenus vox ista sensum habet Theologicum ita definiri posse videtur ut sit futuri alicujus Symbolum quoddam aut exemplum ita à Deo comparatum ut ipsius plane instituto futurum illud prafiguret Quod autem ita praefiguratur illud Antitypus dici solet Outramus de Sacrificiis l. 1. cap. 18. Symbol of something future or an Exemplar appointed under the Old Testament to prefigure something under the New But Baptism was it self of Jewish Institution under the Old Testament and by consequence could not be Typified and prefigured by Circumcision with which it was coexistent and used with it for many years together in the Jewish Church The Jewish Church made it a Ceremony of initiating Proselytes unto the Law and our Saviour liking the Institution continued the use of it and made it the only Ceremony of Initiating Proselytes unto the Gospel superadding unto it the compleat Nature of an Initiatory Sacrament or the full force of Circumcision as it was a Sign of the Covenant and a Seal of the Righteousness of Faith These things being premised let us proceed to the stating of the former Questions And first of all Quest I. Whether Infants are uncapable of Baptism Which considering what hath already been said concerning the Spiritual and Evangelical Nature of the Covenant which God made with Abraham and the initiation of young Children into it by God's especial appointment cannot without rashness be affirmed Nothing can reflect more dishonour upon the Wisdom of God and the practice of the Jewish Church than to assert Infants to be uncapable of the same privilege which God and the Jewish Church granted unto them For God commanded them to be Circumcised and the Jewish Church commanded them to be Baptized as well adult Proselytes and if they were then capable both of Circumcision and Baptism surely they are capable of Baptism now If they be not from whence comes the difference Not from the Nature of the Covenants for the Covenant which God made with Abraham and his Seed was as I have shew'd the same Covenant for substance which he hath since renew'd with us in Christ Nor from the Signs and Seals of the Covenant for Circumcision was a Sign and Seal of the same Grace or of the same Righteousness of Faith under the Old Testament that Baptism is now under the New Wherefore since the Covenants were for substance the same both Spiritual and Evangelical Covenants and the Grace of those Covenants the very same and only the Rites and Ceremonies which were Signs of those Covenants and Seals of that Grace being different what hinders in the nature of the thing but that Infants who were capable of the one should not also be capable of the other Is Baptism a more Spiritual Ordinance than Circumcision That cannot be because Circumcision is a Gospel-Ordinance I mean an Ordinance of the Gospel which God preached before unto Abraham and if the Spirituality of outward Ordinances are to be measured from the ends of their institution then Circumcision was every way as Spiritual as Baptism because it really signed the same Covenant and sealed the same Grace and was a Ceremony of Initiation to the same Spiritual Seed of Abraham that Baptism now is Wherefore if the relative nature of Circumcision considered as a Sacrament was the same under the Law that Baptism is under the Gospel it must needs follow that Children under the Gospel are as capable of this supposing no new Command to exclude them as under the Law they were of that if Infant Church-Membership or the Initiation of Infants was then no absurdity surely it can be none now If God under the Old Testament vouchsafed it as a gracious Priviledge unto Children to be incorporated with actual Believers and with them to be made members of his Church without a Prohibition to the contrary they must needs be capable of the same Priviledge still Nay if Infants were admitted into the Church when the entrance into it was more grievous and not without blood how unreasonable is it to assert that they are now uncapable of admission into it when the entrance into it is made more easie and more agreeable to the natural weakness of a young and tender Child Certainly if the Jewish Infants were Circumcised with the most painful and bloody Circumcision made with hands Christian Infants without a Special Countermand from God must be deemed capable of the Circumcision made without hands I mean of Baptism which is the Circumcision of Christ What God hath Sanctified and Adopted and made a Member of his Church let no Man presume to think it uncapable of Sanctification Adoption and Church-Membership but yet so rash and extravagant have the profess'd Adversaries of Infant-Baptism been as to pronounce little Infants as uncapable of Baptism as the young ones of unreasonable Creatures and that it is as vain to call upon God to send his Holy Spirit upon them as to pray him to illuminate a Stone or a Tree Nay upon this very Presumption that Infants are uncapable of Baptism they assert Infant-Baptism to be a Scandalous abuse of the Ordinance of Baptism a meer Nullity and insignificant performance and scornfully call it Baby-Baptism forgetting all this while that Circumcision of Infants was no scandalous abuse of the Ordinance of Circumcision but a valid and significant Performance and that in their Phrase there was Baby-Circumcision and Baby-Baptism in the Jewish Church The reason why they conclude Infants uncapable of Baptism is taken from the consideration of their incapacity as to some ends and uses of Baptism which cannot be answered say they but by the Baptism of grown Persons who are capable of understanding the Gospel and of professing their Faith and Repentance and of submitting unto Baptism and of having their Faith and Hope further strengthned in the use of it but Infants being utterly incapable of understanding the Gospel or of professing their Faith and Repentance and of submitting unto Baptism in which they are meerly passive or of having their Faith strengthned in the use of it they ought to be deemed uncapable of Baptism whose ends are so much frustrated when it is applied unto them But this way of arguing how plausible soever it may seem at first hearing is weak and fallacious and highly reflecting upon the Council and Wisdom of God First It is weak and fallacious because it makes no distinction betwixt a strict institution which is instituted by God for one or a few ends and precisely for Persons of one sort and an Institution of
Latitude which is instituted by him for several ends and for different sorts of Persons differently qualified for those several ends Of the first sort was the Ordinance of Fringes above-mentioned which could only concern grown Persons because they only were capable of answering the end for which it was instituted viz. To look upon them and remember the Commandments of the Lord and of the latter sort is the Holy Ordinance of Marriage which was appointed by God for several ends and for Persons differently qualified and capacitated for those several ends in so much that Persons who are incapacitated as to some ends of Marriage may yet honestly Marry because they are capable of the rest All the ends and uses for which it was appointed can only be answered by the Marrying of Persons who are capacitated for procreation of Children notwithstanding superannuated Persons who are past that capacity are not incapable Subjects of Marriage nor is the Marriage of such invalid or an abuse of the Holy Ordinance of Marriage because they are capable of answering one end for which Marriage was ordained This shews how fallaciously the Anabaptists argue against Baptizing of Infants because of their incapacity as to some ends and uses for which Baptism was ordained they ought first to have proved what they take for granted that it was a Divine Institution of the first sort which I call a strict Institution and then their Argument had been good but this they will never be able to prove because Baptism succeeded in the room of Circumcision which was a Divine Institution of the latter sort and because our Saviour was Baptised in whom there was a greater incapacity as to the ends of Baptism than possibly can be in Infants even as he was in a greater incapacity as to answering the ends of Circumcision than ordinary Jewish Infants were John verily did Baptize with the Baptism of Repentance and thereby sealed unto the People the Remission of their Sins and therefore understanding very well that our Lord was not capable of this and other ends of his Baptism he forbad him telling him that he was fitter to be the Baptist than to be Baptized of him but yet as soon as our Lord gave him one general reason why he ought to be Baptized viz. Because it became him to fulfil all Righteousness he suffered him which shews that Baptism is a Divine Institution of Latitude and that in such an Institution the incapacity of a Person as to some ends doth not incapacitate him for it when he is capable of the rest But Secondly This way of arguing from the incapacity of Infants as to some ends of Baptism is highly reflecting upon the Wisdom of God who commanded young Babes to be Circumcised although all the ends of Circumcision could not be answered but by the Circumcision of adult Persons who only were capable of understanding the nature of the Institution and the nature of the Covenant into which they were to enter of professing their Faith and Repentance and of submitting unto the bloody Sacrament in which Children were merely Passive and of having their Faith and Hope further strengthned upon fealing unto them the Remission of their Sins Wherefore the full force of this Objection rises up against Infant-Circumcision as well as Infant-Baptism because Circumcision was instituted for the same ends that Baptism now is and accordingly when Men were initiated by Circumcision they were to profess their Faith and Repentance and shortly after at their Baptism solemnly to renounce Idolatry and all idolatrous Manners and Worship and their idolatrous Kindred and Relations and yet upon the desire of such Proselytes their Children were initiated both by Circumcision and Baptism though they were altogether uncapable of understanding or doing those things which their Fathers did Wherefore those Men who argue against Infant-Baptism because it doth not answer all the ends of Baptism reproach the Divine Wisdom and the Wisdom of the Jewish Church not considering that Circumcision was and Baptism is an Institution of great Latitude and compass designed on purpose by God for Children in whom there is a capacity for some nay for the * Rem Praecipuam in Baptismo non attendunt hoc est testificationem divinae benevolentiae in foedus tutelam suam suscipientis gratiam conferentis c. nam in Baptismo praecipua res est divina gratia quae consistit in remissione peccatorum regeneratione adoptione haereditate Vitae aeternae cujus sane gratiae Infantes indigentes capaces sunt Cassand de Bapt. Infant chief ends of Baptism as well as for Men and Women in whom there is a capa city for all They are capable of all the ends of it as it is instituted for a Sign from God towards us to assure us of his Gracious favour and to consign unto us the benefits of the Covenant of Grace For their Child-hood doth not hinder but that they may be made Members of the Church as of a Family Tribe Colledge or any other Society nor doth it incapacitate them any more from being adopted the Children of God than the Children of any other Person nor of becoming Heirs of Eternal Life by virtue of that Adoption than by vertue of any other civil Adoption the Heirs to such a Temporal Estate For Children are capable of all acts of Favour and Honour from God and Men and of being instated in all the Priviledges of any Society though they cannot as yet perform the Duties of it nor understand any thing thereof Since therefore Children are as capable and stand as much in need of almost all the Benefits of the Covenant of Grace and the Priviledges of Church Membership as Men is it not as fit that the Confirmatory Sign of those Benefits and Priviledges should be applied unto them as well as unto these Should a Prince Adopt a Beggar 's Child and incorporate him into the Royal Family and settle a part of his Dominions upon him and to solemnize and confirm all this should cut off a bit of his Flesh or command him to be washed with Water who would count this an insignificant Solemnity or say that the Child was not capable of the Sign when he was capable of the chief Things signified thereby Or to make a Comparison which hath a nearer semblance with the Case of Infant-Baptism Suppose a Prince should send for an attainted Traytor 's Child and in the Presence of several Persons assembled for that purpose should say You know the Blood of this Child is attainted by his Fathers Treason by Law he hath forfeited all Right to his Ancestors Estate and Titles and is quite undone though he be not sensible of his wretched Condition My Bowels of Compassion yern upon him and here I restore him to his Blood and Inheritance to which henceforward he shall have as much right as if the Family had never been attainted I justifie him freely and declare my self reconciled unto him and that no spot
and Childish condition then the Jews were under the Law which as it is evident from the Feast of Purim and from the Institution of Baptism among the Jews allowed private Persons to practice and the Church to appoint things of a Religious nature which God had not commanded to be done Lastly I entreat them to consider how utterly impracticable this pretended Principle is as might be proved from the contrary Practice of all those who advance it against Ecclesiastical Authority and particularly from their own Practice in Baptizing grown Persons who were bred up from Infants in the Christian Religion and in admitting Women to the Lords-Supper who were not admitted to the Passover nor Paschal-cup of Blessing without any Precept or President for so doing in the Word of God This little well considered is enough to obviate all Objections against my first Assertion viz. That it is not lawful to separate from a Church which appointeth Infants to be Baptized upon supposition that Infant-Baptism is barely lawful and allowable but if any man desire further satisfaction as to this point he may have it abundantly in the case of indifferent things to which I refer him it being more my business to shew here that Infant-Baptism is at least a lawful and allowable thing To prove this I need but desire the Reader to reflect upon the State of the two first Questions For if Infants be as capable of Baptism under the Gospel as they were of Circumcision under the Law and if Christ have not excluded them from it neither directly nor consequentially Otherwise if Baptism be an Institution of as great Latitude in its self as Circumcision its Fore-runner was and Christ hath not determined the administration of it to one Age more than one Sex Once more if Children may be taken into the Covenant of Grace under the Gospel as well as under the Law and Christ never said nor did any thing which can in reason be interpreted to forbid them to be taken in In a word If they are capable of all the Ends of Baptism now that they were of Circumcision then and of having the Priviledges of Church-Membership and the Blessings of the Covenant consigned unto them and Christ neither by himself nor by his Apostles did forbid the Church to satisfie and fulfil this their capacity Or last of all If Christ hath only appointed Baptism instead of Circumcision but said nothing to determine the Subject of it then it must needs follow that Infant-Baptism must at least be lawful and allowable because it is an indifferent and not a forbidden or sinful thing But upon this supposition that it were left undetermined and indifferent by Christ it might like other indifferent things be lawfully appointed by any Church from which it would be a Sin to separate upon that account For in this case Churches might safely differ in their practice about Infant-Baptism as they do now in the Ceremonies of Baptism and those who lived in a Church which did practice it ought no more to separate from her for appointing of it then those who lived in another Church which did not practise it ought to separate from her for not appointing thereof Thus much I have said I hope with sufficient moderation upon supposition that all I have written upon former Questions doth but satisfactorily prove that Infant-Baptism is only lawful and not highly requisite and necessary but then if it be not only lawful but highly requisite and necessary so that it ought to be appointed then it must needs be much more sinful to separate from a Church which appointeth Infants to be Baptized Now as to the requisite necessity of Infant-Baptism supposing that my Reader bears in memory that I have said upon the last Question to make it appear with the highest degree of credibility that Christ instituted Baptism for Infants as well as grown Persons and that the Apostles and their Companions Practised Infant-Baptism I must here entreat him further to observe that there is a two-fold necessity in matters of Christian Faith and practice one which proceeds from plain dictates of natural reason or from plain and express words of the Gospel where the sense is so obvious and clear that no sober man can mistake it or doubt of it and another which proceeds from the general Scope and Tenour of the Gospel or from doubtful places in it so or so understood and interpreted by the unanimous voice and practice of the ancient Catholick Church The first degree of necessity is founded on ostensive certainty and demonstration wherein there is no room left for Objection And the Second is founded upon violent presumption where the Objections on one hand are insufficient to move or at least to turn the Ballance if put in the Scale against the other which is weighed down Mole universatis Ecclesiae with the authority of the Universal Church And because this Rule like others is not so intelligible without an Example I will add some Instances of things which are necessary to be believed and practised by every good Christian under both these Notions of necessity that they may be better understood According to the First Notion of it it is necessary to believe that Jesus Christ is the Messias and the Son of God because it is delivered in express words of Scripture And according to the Second Notion of it it is necessary to believe that he is of the same substance with the Father and equal unto him and that there are three distinct and coequal Persons in the God-head which are all but one God because these Doctrines though they are not to be found in express words in the Gospel yet they are to be collected from several places of it which were always so interpreted by that ancient Catholick Church Again according to the First Notion of necessity it is necessary for all Men to believe the Word of God whether spoken or written because natural reason teacheth us so to do And according to the Second Notion of it it is necessary to believe the Books contained in the New Testament to be the Word of God and no other how Divine and Orthodox and Ancient soever they may be because they and they only have been received for such by the ancient Catholick Church In like manner as to matter of Practice by the First sort of Necessity it is necessary for Christians to assemble together to Worship God because Reason and Scripture plainly teach them so to do And by the Second fort it is necessary that they should assemble themselves periodically to Worship God on every first day of the Week because the Observation of the Lords Day appears to be a Duty from several places of the New Testament as they are interpreted to this sence by the universal Practice of the ancient Catholick Church To proceed according to the First Notion of Necessity Church-Government is necessary because it is enjoyned by the Dictates of Common reason and most express
grown Persons then the Ordinance of any Church to Baptize them must needs lay an Obligation of Obedience upon the Consciences of Parents and Pro-parents who live within the Pale of it because the matter of that Ordinance is a thing not forbidden but at least allowed by Jesus Christ But because People when the are once satisfied with the lawfulness are wont especially in Church-matters to enquire into the expediency of their Superiors Commands and to obey them with most Chearfulness and Satisfaction when they know they have good reasons for what they ordain therefore least any one whom perhaps I may have convinced of the bare lawfulness of Infant-Baptism should doubt of the expediency of it and upon that account be less ready to comply I will here proceed to justifie the practice of the Church in this Particular by shewing First That Baptismal-Initiation is very beneficial and profitable for Infants And Secondly That the Baptizing of them conduceth very much to the well-being and edification of the Church First then Baptismal-Initiation is very beneficial and profitable for Infants because they are capable of the Benefits and Priviledges of Baptism This I shewed in general before under the first Question and now I will shew it in a more particular manner of Induction by insisting upon the several Ends for which Baptism was ordained First then Baptism was ordained That the Baptized Person might be thereby solemnly consecrated unto God and dedicated to his Service and I hope I need not prove that Children are capable of this benefit since Jewish Infants were Consecrated to God by Circumcision and the Scripture tells us that * Judges 13.15 Sampson was a Nazarite from the Womb and that Samuel from the time of his Weaning was dedicated unto the Lord. Secondly Baptism was ordained That the Baptized Person might be made a Member of Christ's Mystical Body which is the Holy Catholick Church This is a great and honourable Priviledge and no Man can deny but Infants are as capable of it under the New as they were under the Old Testament Nay so far are they from being under any Natural Incapacity as to Church-Membership that they are ordinarily born free of Kingdoms Cities and Companies and therefore why any Man should think it not so proper for the Church-Christian to be as indulgent to them as the Jewish Church was and Civil Societies usually are I profess I cannot tell Thirdly it was ordained That the Baptized Person might by that Solemnity pass from a State of Nature wherein he was a Child of Wrath into a State of Adoption or Grace wherein he becomes a Child of God For by our First Birth we are all Children of Wrath. But by our Second Birth in Baptism we are made Children of God And why it should be so improper for a Child to pass in this solemn manner from one Spiritual as well as from one Temporal State to another or be Solemnly Adopted by God as well as Man or Lastly Why a Child may not be Adopted under the Gospel as well as under the Law I am confident those who are willing to defer the Baptism of Infants would be puzzled to give any rational account In the Fourth place Baptism was instituted for a Sign to Seal unto Baptized Persons the pardon of their Sins and to confer upon them a Right of Inheritance unto Everlasting Life but Baptism hath this Effect upon Infants as well as upon adult Persons for it washes them clean from * De hoc etiā David dixisse credendus est illud qui in peccato concepit me mater mea pro hoc Ecclesia ab Apostolis traditionem suscepit etiam parvulis Baptismum dare Sciebant enim illi quibus mysteriorum secreta commissa sunt divinorum quia essent in omnibus genuinae sordes peccati quae per aquam spiritum ablui deberent Origen in Ep. ad Lous l. 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Contra Celsum l. 4. Quanto magis prohiberi non debet Infans qui recens natus nihil peccavit nisi quod secundum Adam carnaliter natus contagium mortis antiquae primâ Nativitate contraxit Cyprian in Ep. ad Fidum Those that would see more Testimonies out of the Ancients about Original Sin before the time of the Pelagian Controversie may consult Irenaeus l. 4. cap. 5. l. 5. cap. 16. l. 3. cap. 20. l. 5. cap. 14.17 21. and many more cited out of Just Mart. in Dial cum Tryph. Tatianus his Scholar Athanasius c. by Vossius in his Hist Pelag. l. 2. part 1. Th. 6. Vid. Can. Concil Carthag 112. Original as it doth Men and Women both from Actual and Original Sin I say it washes them clean from Original Sin and seals the Pardon of it and the assurance of God's favour unto them and being cleansed by the washing of Regeneration from the guilt of that natural vitiosity which they derived from Adam and which made them obnoxious to the displeasure of God they become reconciled unto him and acquire as certain a Right to Eternal Life upon their justification as any actual Believer in the Word I cannot deny but they may be saved without Baptism by the extraordinary and uncovenanted Mercies of God and so may actual Believers who die unbaptized if they did not contemn Baptism but then the hopes which we ought to have of Gods Mercy in extraordinary Cases ought not to make us less regardful of his sure ordinary and covenanted Mercies and the appointed means unto which they are annexed But in the Fifth place Baptism was ordained That being admitted into the Covenant and ingrafted into Christ's Body we might acquire a present Right unto all the Promises of the Gospel and particularly unto the promises of the Spirit which is so ready to assist Initiated Persons that it will descend in its influences upon them at the time of their Initiation in such a manner and measure as they are capable thereof This the Primitive Christians found by experience to be so true that they called Baptism by the names of * Heb. 6.4 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Just Mart. Apol. 2.94 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Gregor Nazianz. Orat. 40. Illumination Grace and Unction and we need not doubt but they talked as they felt and for this reason they Baptized Infants because they knew that they acquired a Right unto the same Spirit by Baptism who would be sure to preside and watch over them and act upon their Souls according to the measure of their capacity and prevent them in their very first doings with his gracious helps Wherefore though it should be granted that the Holy Ghost cannot be actually conferred upon Infants in Baptism †Vid. Cypriani Ep. 1. ad Donatum by reason of their natural incapacity as Anabaptists rashly assert yet the Baptizing of them is not frustraneous as to this great End of Baptism because they thereby acquire an actual Antecedent Right to the Assistances and Illuminations of the
Christ ye are Circumcised with a Circumcision which is without hands when ye put off the body of sin of the Flesh by the Circumcision of Christ being buried together with him through Baptism Behold Paul calleth Baptism the Circumcision of a Christian Man which is done without hands not that Water may be ministred without hands but that with hands no Man any longer ought to be Circumcised albeit the Mystery of Circumcision do still remain in Faithful People To this I may add That the Servants of God were always ready to minister the Sacraments to them for whom they were instituted As for an Example we may behold Joshua Jos 2. who most diligently procured the People of Israel to be Circumcised before they entred into the Land of Promise but since the Apostles were the Preachers of the Word and the very Faithful Servants of Jesus Christ who may hereafter doubt that they Baptized Infants since Baptism is in place of Circumcision Item The Apostles did attemperate all their doings to the Shadows and Figures of the Old Testament Therefore it is certain that they did attemperate Baptism accordingly to Circumcision and Baptized Children because they were under the Figure of Baptism for the People of Israel passed through the Red Sea and the bottom of the Water of Jordan with their Children And although the Children be not always expressed neither the Women in the Holy Scriptures yet they are comprehended and understood in the same Also the Scripture evidently telleth us That the Apostles baptized whole Families or Housholds But the Children be comprehended in a Family or Houshold as the chiefest and dearest part thereof Therefore we may conclude that the Apostles did Baptize Infants or Children and not only Men of lawful age And that the House or Houshold is taken for Man Woman and Child it is manifest in the 17. of Genesis and also in that Joseph doth call Jacob with all his House to come out of the Land of Canaan into Egypt Finally I can declare out of ancient Writers that the Baptism of Infants hath continued from the Apostles time unto ours neither that it was instituted by any Councels neither of the Pope nor of other Men but commended from the Scripture by the Apostles themselves Origen upon the Declaration of St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans expounding the 6. Chapter saith That the Church of Christ received the Baptism from the very Apostles St. Hierome maketh mention of the Baptism of Infants in the 3. Book against the Pelagians Heb. 11. and in his Epistle to Leta St. Augustine reciteth for this purpose a place out of John Bishop of Constantinople in his 1. Book aganst Julian Chap. 2. and he again writing to St. Hierome Epist 28. saith That St. Cyprian not making any new Decree but firmly observing the Faith of the Church judged with his fellow Bishops that as soon as one was born he might be lawfully Baptized The place of Cyprian is to be seen in his Epistle to Fidus. Also St. Augustine in writing against the Donatists in the 4. Book Chap. 23. 24. saith That the Baptism of Infants was not derived from the authority of Man neither of Councels but from the Tradition or Doctrine of the Apostles Cyril upon Leviticus Chap. 8. approveth the Baptism of Children and condemneth the iteration of Baptism These Authorities of Men I do alledge not to tie the Baptism of Children unto the Testimonies of Men but to shew how Mens Testimonies do agree with God's Word and that the verity of Antiquity is on our side and that the Anabaptists have nothing but Lies for them and new Imaginations which feign the Baptism of Children to be the Pope's Commandment After this will I answer to the sum of your Arguments for the contrary The first which includeth all the rest is It is Written Go ye into all the World and Preach the glad Tidings to all Creatures He that believeth and is Baptized shall be Saved But he that believeth not shall be Damned c. To this I answer That nothing is added to God's Word by Baptism of Children as you pretend but that is done which the same Word doth require for that Children are accounted of Christ in the Gospel among the number of such as believe as it appeareth by these words Matth. 18. He that offendeth one of these little Babes which believe in me it were better for him to have a Milstone tyed about his Neck and to be cast into the bottom of the Sea Where plainly Christ calleth such as be not able to confess their Faith Believers because of his mere Grace he reputeth them for Believers And this is no Wonder so to be taken since God imputeth Faith for Righteousness unto Men that be of riper Age For both in Men and Children Righteousness Acceptation or Sanctification is of mere Grace and by Imputation that the Glory of God's Grace might be praised And that the Children of Faithful Parents are Sanctified and among such as do believe 1 Cor. 7. is apparent in the 1 Cor. 7. And whereas you do gather by the order of the words in the said Commandment of Christ that Children ought to be taught before they be Baptized and to this end you alledge many places out of the Acts proving that such as Confessed their Faith first were Baptized after I answer That if the order of words might weigh any thing to this Cause we have the Scripture that maketh as well for us St. Mark we read that John did Baptize in the Desart Mark 1. Preaching the Baptism of Repentance In the which place we see Baptizing go before and Preaching to follow after And also I will declare this place of Matthew exactly considered to make for the use of Baptism in Children for St. Matthew hath it written in this wise Matth. 28. All Power is given me saith the Lord in Heaven and in Earth therefore going forth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is Disciple ye as I may express the signification of the Word that is make or gather to me Disciples of all Nations And following he declareth the way how they should gather to him Disciples out of all Nations baptizing them and teaching by baptizing and teaching ye shall procure a Church to me And both these aptly and briefly severally he setteth forth saying Baptizing them in the Name of the Father and of the Son and the Holy Ghost teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you Now then Baptism goeth before Doctrine But hereby I do not gather that the Gentiles which never heard any thing before of God and of the Son of God and of the Holy Ghost ought to be Baptized neither they would permit themselves to be Baptized before they knew to what end But this I have declared to shew you upon how feeble Foundation the Anabaptists be grounded And plainly it is not true which they imagine of this Text that the Lord did