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
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
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
shadowed out in the Law and clearer manifestation of Gods grace and truth in Christ. Now they who deny Infants of believers the initiatory seal of Gods Covenant as much as in them lieth diminish the grace of God and make the Covenant seem worse by Christs coming in that they diminish the comfortable assurance of our childrens implantation into Christ and of his care of and favour to them if they may not so much as be marked with the external sign and seal thereof which yet elect and reprobates if of years may by your leave and do receive 18. That which is evil to be done is forbidden in some express and known Law and Word of God But Infant-baptism is forbidden in no express and known Law and word of God therefore it is not evil as our Antagonists would make the world believe 19. That whereof God will severely punish the contempt or neglect we must not omit But God will severely punish the contempt or neglect of his Covenant of grace and mercy whereof Baptism is a part or condition as well with Infants as persons of years therefore we may not omit it See Gen. 17. 14. Exod. 4. Mark 16. 16 Hebr. 10. 28 29. and that being supposed which hath hitherto been proved that Infants of Church-priviledged Parents ought to be baptized the Minister who upon such fancies and unsufficient grounds as are alledged by our Antagonists refuseth to baptize them or the Parent who will not have them baptized must needs be under a woful condition the Apostles argument being good from the dispensation of the Gospel committed to him to the necessary administration of the same as in preaching the word so in the seals thereto belonging whereof he expresly saith 1 Cor. 9. 16. Wo is unto me if I preach not the Gospel For though his principal and first office was to preach as being appointed the Doctor of the Gentiles first to be taught and then respectively to be baptized yet it is manifest that the Dispensation of Baptism the seal of the Gospel and Covenant of God in Christ went along in charge with preaching of the same and was committed to the Apostles and all Ministers their Successors and so woe will be to them if they baptize not where Christ intended the seal of his Grace as surely as if they preach not the Gospel 20. They are to be held as Heathens and Publicans who refuse to hear and obey the Church of Christ But such are Anabaptists nor is it any excuse but an aggravation of their sin to bespatter the Church with impious calumnies It had been and ever was as easie for all sorts of hereticks in and since Christ and the Apostles time and in the purest ages of the primitive Church to have said for a pretended defence of their errour and contumacy you are not the true Church but in spight of Satan and the powers of hel we are through the mercy of God a member of the true Church of Christ therefore their schism contempt is the more condemnable 21. Those to whom the things signified belong unto them belong also the signs and seals thereof except in case of some apparent condition making an evident exception as want of ability to examine themselves barreth Infants from the holy Eucharist But the thing signified by Baptism belongs to Infants and there is no apparent condition making any evident exception to bar them from it therefore Baptism belongeth to them The things signified by Baptism are that we are thereby received into Gods favour for the blood of Christ shed for us to binde us to a sincere obedience to faith and endeavour to newness of life Gods promise of grace and mercy in Christ marking us for sheep of his pasture our puting on Christ regeneration washing from our sins justification salvation by Christ these things belong to all the elect whereof Infants of Believers are a very considerable part And these things are held forth in Baptism as things signified in the sign by God appointed to all receivers sacramentally and to an external communion of which lambs aswel assheep Infants aswel as the aged are capable Therefore Baptism belongeth to Infants of Christian Parents 22. To whom the Covenant in force runneth in the same tenour in the new Testament as in the old to such persons the application of the Initiatory seal of the new Testament ought to be administred as well as was the Initiatory seal of the old But the Covenant in force runs in the same tenour c. therefore the Initiatory seal of the Covenant ought now to be administred to such persons as the Initiatory seal of the Covenant was administred to in the old The tenor of the Covenant was to Parents and their children upon condition that they should be sealed according to the promise that God would be their God who would observe the Laws and conditions thereof the same is still for substance in force though the seals are changed So that as Infants were circumcised so ought they now to be baptized and except this be allowed to our Infants as well as to our selves believing in Christ we are not as the Apostle affirms Col. 2. 10. Compleat in him In whom we are circumcised with the Circumcision made without hands Buried with him in Baptism c. Nor are we and our children so sealed into our implantation into the death of Christ that we may in the ordinary way thereby be assured that as he put off the infirm affections of the natural body so we put off the body of sin spiritually See Rom. 6. 3 c. 23. Such persons as were typically baptized unto Moses are capable of the real and true baptism under the Gospel of Christ For in the main the argument holds from the type to the truth though possibly not in every circumstance But children as well as persons of years were baptized in the cloud and in the red-sea unto Moses 1 Cor. 10. 2. and their washing with rain from the cloud prefigur'd our washing in Baptism and by the Spirit therefore children of covenanted persons are capable of the true and real Baptism under the Gospel of Christ. 24. Where there is a command for a thing never remanded or countermanded there that thing is still in force But there is a command for the signing of Infants of Believers with the sign of Gods Covenant with their Parents and them never yet remanded or countermanded Therefore the signing of Believers children with the sign of Gods Covenant which is Baptism is still in force 24. That which dependeth not on any age or act of man but on the meer institution and gracious promise of God as its ground may not be denyed by man to any comprehended under the general term of All Nations in respect of any age or defects thereof as want of understanding and the acts thereof in faith repentance c. in Infants But Baptism depended not on any age or act
of man as its ground but on the meer institution and gracious promise of God therefore â—t ought not by anyman be denied infants in respect of their present defect or want of understanding or the acts â—hereof in faith repentance c. they being comprehended in All Nations The minor appears in S. Peters answer to his hearers prickt in heart Repent and be baptized every one of you for the remission of sâ—â—â— For the Promise is unto you and unto your children c He saith not Be baptized for ye have repented ye are of age and a good understanding but Be baptized c. for the Promise is to you and to your children though they cannot yet actually believe repent understand c. yet they have Gods promise for the ground of their sealing on whose grace and ordinance the whole power and vertue of the sacrament dependeth But his grace and Ordinance depend not on any excellency ability or act of man therefore the Apostle fetched not the reason of his Exhortation from their age or repentance but from the promise and mercy of God calling them who were far of 26. For conclusion I take up this congeriem of arguments out of the learned Ursâ—â—â—s That opinion is pernicious which robs poor Infants of their right which obscureth the grace and mercy of God who would that Infants of Believers should from the womb be reckoned members of his Church which derogates from the grace offered in the new Covenant making it less then that in the old which weakneth the comfort of the Church and faithful Parents which denyeth Infants that seal which should differ them from the children of Jews and Pâ—gans which contradicteth the Apostles reason Can may man forbid water that these should not be baptiptized which have received the holy Ghost as well as we which keepeth Infants as much as man can from Christ he expresly saying Saffer little children to come unto me which without a Covenant they cannot do spiritually nor without the external seal sacramentally Now such is the opinion of Anabaptists denying Christians Infants Baptism CHAP. IV. Anabaptists Arguments concerning the necessity of Dipping over head and ears in Baptism examined and answered THe envious Philistims will still be casting earth into Isaacs wells of livings waters to stop them up Satan envying man these waters of life in the Laver of Regeneration eâ—tsoon casteth in scruples to obstruct and make void the holy ordinances of God to deluded souls by causing them to renounce their Baptism and Christ whom they sacramentally had put on therein by taking on them another Baptism under a vain pretence that they were not susceptive of Baptism in their infancy nor lawfully baptized neither at all truly if happily they were not dipped under water for they say the institution of Christ requireth that the whole man be dipped all over in water so that the Anabaptists now hold that dipping the whole body into water is essential to baptism so necessary that except they are so dipt they are not duly and truly baptized according to the institution of Christ. Since the infancy of the Gospel Satan hath not ceased to trouble the Church concerning baptism Some of the Jews would have circumcision joyned with baptism the Archontici condemned baptism with a curse the Novatians deferred if to the last because they understood not the power of this ordinance of God to cleanse the whole life but thought that there was no mercy for him who sinned after baptism Liberius the Monk as also Fidus would have childrens Baptism tyed to the eighth day Anabaptists not only deny believers children Baptism as the Pelagians and Donatists did of old but affirm That dipping the whole body under water is so necessary that without it none are truly baptized as hath been said So the subtil enemy still assaileth Baptism in one part or another that we may not unaptly apply that to him his factors which Tertullian once said concerning the most impious Persecutor Nero He that knows him well may understand that nothing but some great or singular Neroâ— And indeed we ought more highly to esteem Gods favor in sealing us into his Covenant of grace and more seriously and carefully endeavour to answer thereto in newness and sanctity of living by how much more the enemy rageth against it The Protestant Church holdeth that the word and the element make the Sacrament and that neither sprinkling is simply necessary nor washing or dipping unlawful but that according to the convenience of times places and persons either sprinkling washing or dipping in the name of the Father the Son and the Holy Ghost is the true form of Baptism and that caeteris paribus either of these three applications of the water have the same effect and may as convenience serves indifferently be used being fit to signifie the application of the benefit of Christs blood for the remission of sin and cleansing therefrom But our Antagonists say We are buried with Christ by baptism into his death that like as Christ was raised up from the dead even so we also should walk in newness of life Rom. 6. 4. But Christ in his burial was covered that he might thence rise out of the eartâ— therefore in Baptism we must be covered and as it were buried under water that we may rise again as Christ did We answer 1. Similitudes run not on four feet types signs and similitudes are not to be extended beyond the scope and meaning of the Speaker as might be shewed in almost innumerable instances lest not only absurdities but horrid blasphemies should be thence inferred The Ark in the Deluge was a type of Baptism 1 Pet. 3 20 21. what must the type and truth agree in all things must all the world be drown'd and only eight persons saved I doubt you would hardly agree among your selves which should be the eight The red-sea and cloud figured baptism 1 Cor. 10. 1 c. what would you have your disciples baptized with the sprie of two neighboring seas and a cloud of fresh water raining on their heads Jonah's being in the Whales belly was a type of Christs burial and resurrection you would not have your disciples in their conformity be three days under water These instances may shew the vanity of stretching types and signs to every fancy of Hectic braines and now deal ingenuously what reason or warrant have you to wrest this similitude to what you please in those similes which are most apt there may be many disconveniences found Or what commission can you dream of that gives you authority to draw this alledged Scripture beyond the Apostles scope and purpose rather to that which seems to favour your fancy and practise of immersion then to another sense 2. Those expressions Rom. 6. 4. are meerly figurative and therefore do not at all bind us to any external or literal sense or observance in the maner of baptizing if the
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
do it at the most convenient season on the first second third fourth c. or on any day so that we neither contemn Gods ordinance nor unnecessarily delay it 2. As hath been noted baptism succeeded circumcision not in every circumstance but in the thing signified in the end and use 3. This your argument is a fallacious and childish caption à fallacia accidentis from the subject to the accident from the substance to the circumstance as the learned Dr. Featly observeth such a fallacy is this What the Jews were commanded in the fourth Commandement that we Christians are bound to perform But the Jews were commanded to keep holy the seventh day from the creation Therefore we Christians are bound to keep that day Such is this Paralogism If Baptisme succeeded Circumcision then children ought to be baptized the eight day it no more followeth then that children ought to be baptized in the same part where they were circumcised it will follow rather That because Circumcision was administred to the infant as soon as it was capable thereof or could receive the Sacrament without danger therefore children ought to be baptized as soon as conveniently they may But you say The case is clear in the Bishops question to Cyprian for why shall not infants be baptized just upon the eighth day as well as circumcised If the correspondence of the Rites be an Argument to inferre one circumstance which is impertinent and accidentall to the mysteriousnesse of the Rite why shall it not inferre all The case is as clear in the Question of Fidus the Presbyter whom you call Bishop as it is in your objecting it Fidus made a querie or rather affirmed that Infants ought not to be baptized on the second or third day but that the law of ancient circumcision ought to be considered so that he thought the new-born infant might not be baptized within or before the eighth day Cyprian answereth There is one equality of the Divine gift to all whether they are infants or old men for as God is no accepter of persons so neither is he of ages but he shews himself in an even-ballanced equality alike to all as to their attaining heavenly grace if to grievous offenders and to those who have before that much sinned against God and no man is prohibited baptism and grace how much less ought the infant to be prohibited who being new-born hath committed no sin onely that in Adam He hath in his first nativity been infected with the contagion of ancient death But concerning the cause of infants who you say are not to be baptized at two or three dayes old and that we are to consider the law of ancient circumcision so that you think that a child born may not be baptized before the eighth day all that were in our Councell are of a far different judgment for no man consenteth to that which you thought was to be done but we all rather judged that the mercy and grace of God is to be denied to no man born Let the Reader judge how clear the case is in the Bishops question to Cyprian To the rest of your Arguments we say you dispute ex non concessis We do not say that the correspondence of Rites inferre the circumstances but the substance but errors are fruitfull and one absurdity granted many easily follow For that you say from your own fancy which you run away witha◠And then also females must not be baptized because they were not circumcised We answer 1. As we have said before baptism succeeded circumcision not in every circumstance which your selves justifie in that you baptize women but in the substance the thing signified the end and use or as others say in the inward mystery in the promises in use in effects 2. God expressly restrained circumcision to males Gen. 17. 10 12 14. yet the females were comprehended in the males and to be born of circumcised parents was to them in stead of circumcision and so were they born to God and in his account Daughters of Abraham Luke 13. 16. and so within his covenant of grace and mercy and the sealing of males was then limited to the eighth day but now in baptism the circumstances of sex age and a fixed day are not expressly mentioned but we have a generall commandement to baptize all without exception to any time sex or age 3. Though women were not capable of circumcision and therefore it was not enjoyned them yet the female is as capable of baptism as the male and therefore without exception to sex they who are all one in Christs account must equally be baptized into him 4. Circumcision and Baptism agreeing in substance did yet differ in many circumstances First in the Rite or Ceremony Secondly in the manner of signifying For Circumcision held out grace in the Messias then to come but baptism presenteth it in Christ exhibited Thirdly in the particular testimony annexed to make good the promise for then God promised not onely a covenant with his Church but a peculiar place for the same the land of Cauaan untill the coming of the promised Seed but baptism hath no particular promise of this or that fixed place Fourthly in the manner of binding Circumcision did oblige the circumcised to the observation of the whole Law Morall Ceremoniall and Judiciall but baptism bindeth us onely to the observation of the Morall Law that is faith repentance and newness of life according to the holy Rule of Gods will revealed in the Moral Law from the curse whereof in respect of non-performance we are delivered in Christ into whom we are baptized Fifthly in their appointed continuance Circumcision was appointed onely for Abrahams posterity and to◠continue onely unto the coming of Christ but baptism was instituted for all Nations and times unto the worlds end Lastly in circumstance of sex and age so far as circumcision was limited to males and the eighth day So that to argue as you do from the substance to the circumstance or that which is accidentall is fallacions and captions as hath been shewed You say Therefore as Infants were circumcised so spirituall Infants shall be baptized c. This you think a right understanding of the business after your shuffling together many strange impertinencies to tell us of baptizing spirituall Infants To which we answer If you mean by Spirituall Infants such as are born again of water and the holy Ghost then you would have them twice regenerate or born If you mean Believers onely for in reason you cannot call an unbeliever or wicked person a spirituall infant then I would fain learn by what discerning spirit you can know when and whom to baptize and whom to put by or which infant according to the flesh is not a spiritual infant by the spirit of regeneration If you say that those who are of years profess faith and repentance and therefore are to be baptized it is easily
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
our God shall call what is it of force only to men and women of yeares where 's the infants part where is his priviledge of federall holynesse as being borne of believing parents What must they be interessed onely when they come to that act of which by nature they have the faculty That is the act of understanding faith and repentance In those acts the persons and children of Turks and Jews have a right in the same promises you cannot exclude any person from baptism who believes in Christ repenteth and desireth baptism at your hands Thus you make the promise of God concerning the children of the faithfull of no effect by your tradition and vain opinion But to amend this you say Baptism is not the means of conveying the holy Ghost I suppose you mean the ordinary gifts and graces of the holy Ghost as faith love hope sanctity c. if not there may be a double fallacy in your assertion First in the term conveying and next in the term holy Ghost both which may be homonymically intended and then your discourse is meerly captions and â—o discover it is a sufficient answer and indeed by your following words God by that miracle did give testimony c. it seems you mean that baptism is not now the ordinary means of conveying the holy Ghost that is the gift of miracles unto the baptized if so here is both an homonymia and an ignoratio elenchi Your reason being reduced to a Syllogisme you might take these words the holy Ghost for the ordinary gifts and graces of God necessary to salvation in the one proposition and for the extraordinary in the other and so the question were mistaken which is not whether baptism be an ordinary means of conveying the extraordinary gifs of the holy Ghost into the baptized as speaking divers unstudied languages curing the sick raising the dead casting out devils c. which we affirm not but whether baptism as the word preached be not the external ordinary means by God appointed to seal us up to a lively hope in Christ to beget faith and to engage us to repentance and newness of life to which all that you here trifle concerning imposition of hands and insinuation of rite to confirmation is nothing to purpose neither is the case of Cornelius and Peters argument thereon any waies advantagious to you for you confess it a miracle and how then is it pertinent to our present question You say that God by that miracle did give testimony that the persons of the men were in great disposition to heaven and therefore were to be admitted to those rites which are the ordinary inlets into the kingdom of heaven I then demand if that argument be good Are not children of believing parents to be admitted to those rites which are the ordinary inlets into the kingdom of heaven seeing they are also in great disposition to heaven whom Christ blessed and proposed for paterns to all that shall enter therein But we answer 1. That the great disposition which you talk of was not so much the gift of miracles as the persons inward baptism by the spirit of regeneration and sanctification for the gift of miracles is not of it self any certain argument of salvation see Matth 7. 22 23. but this was a sufficient warrant to Peter to baptize them as being marked out thereby for the visible Church at least into which elect and reprobate may come 2. To the main we answer That as by delivering a key putting in possession of an house is not only signified but also livery and seisin the conveyance and chirogrophuâ—â— are passed confirmed and actually made sure So in baptism by water the washing which is wrought by the blood of Christ is not only figured but also at last fulfilled in the elect by Christ. 3. In a right use of the Sacraments the things therby signified are ever held out and convey'd together with the fignes which are neither fallacious empty nor void of a due effect or without the thing represented because they are of God who cannot deceive and is able to give the effect if the receiver do not ponere obicem therefore the Sacraments are rightly called the Channels or Conduits of grace that is the ordinary means to convey the graces of God into the receivers 4. God confirms his mercies to us by the Sacraments wherein the Minister by Gods own deputation beareth his person or place in the Church as well as in preaching the word so that what they doe who are his Ministers by his appointment he doth both in respect of the institution and effect So the Lord is said to have aâ—ointed Saul whereas Samuelâ—nointed â—nointed him so Jesus made and baptized more disciple then John whereas Jesus baptized noâ— but his disciples by his assignement Therefore although these signes neither convey grace nor confirm any thing to them for good who keep not the Covenant for God made no promise to them yet are they means to convey the graces of God to those that do To conclude we affirm not that baptism conveyeth Gods grace to all that are baptized but to the elect only as that whereof he hath made a peculiar promise to them and that so certain as are those things which God himself sealeth covenanteth for and testifieth in heaven and earth as 't is written There are threo that bear record in heaven the father the word and the holy Ghost and there are three that bear witness in earth the spirit and the water and the blood Now if we receive the witness of men the witness of God is greater Under the mouth of two or three witnesses every word must be confirmed and taken for sure how much more when we have by Gods blessing the same witnesses of our faith who are also the promisers workers and sureties of our salvation But from thence you say to argue that wherever there is a capacity of receivinig the same grace there also the same signe is to be ministred and from thence to infer poede-baptism is an argument very fallacious c. Quis tulerit Gracchos your dispute is fallacious upon your grounds on which we go not and so all your impertinent superstruction here falleth together They that are capable of the same grace are not alwaies capable of the same signe for women under the law of Moses although they were capable of the righteousness of faith yet they were not capable of the signe of circumcision I would gladly be resolved quanta est illa propositio is your meaning Some of them that are capable of the same grace are not alwaies capable of the signe thereof If so alta pax esto We say so too for infants being capable of the same grace which is exhibited and received in the Lords supper are not alwaies that is while they are children capable of the same signe because they cannot examin themselves nor shew forth the Lords death and
being there to command them to preach and to set to the Seal of the 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
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
and set apart to him according to him own appointment which priviledge neither the wisdom power honour will of man consent of Nations nor any civil Laws or Ordinances of man ever could or can give but God alone who freely bestoweth that favour and appointeth the conditions thereof Only believers are the lawful subject of baeptism that is such as appear to believe with all their heart Act. 8. 37. but children appear not to believe so therefore they are not the lawful subject of baptism We answer 1 That such are to be baptized is granted so that you may conclude affirmatively for such persons of years but this cannot conclude negatively to the exclusion of Infants born within the Church of Christ. 2 If believing with all the heart were the rule of lawful administration of baptism who could securely presume to baptize persons of years concerning whose hearty believing they cannot be certain as for outward appearance that many times deceiveth the most discerning men Jerusalem and all Judea c. came and were baptized of John Baptist yet many of them proved blasphemers and persecutors of Christ some of them came so far as to be professed Disciples and yet proved Apostates others were said to believe in Christ yet he discerning their hearts would not commit himself unto them Joh. 2. 23. Ananias and Saphira came up to so real a profession as to sell their possession for the advancement of the Gospel and did these believe with all their heart or were they not baptized I might add hereto Judas Demas and Simon Magus all these shew that outward appearance demonstrateth not faith in the heart and therefore if only believers that is with all their hearts be the lawful subject of baptism either your supposed rule of baptizing leaves it uncertain to you whom you may or may not baptize or else admitteth of hypocrites whom God abhorreth and on whom Christ denounced so many woes and excludeth believers Infants from the seal of Gods covenant in which God himself testifieth children of such are and whom Christ embraced in his sacred arms testifying that of such is the kingdom of heaven 3 Shew us a rule in all the New Testament in terminis as you require of us for Infant-baptism for baptizing only persons of ripe years to make profession of their faith and at once if you can set an end to this unhappy controversie which hath so much troubled the Church put it out of doubt that none may be baptized untill there be an appearance of their faith and repentance or give us some infallible proof that all those whom you baptize are indeed and certainly belonging to the kingdom of heaven nay shew us any necessary consequence for the exclusion of our Infants from baptism what because those of years professed their faith and confessed their sins therefore Infants who cannot so do may not be baptized it follows not nay yet further were there an express precept if any believe not with all the heart baptize them not it would no more exclude Infants from their right to baptism then that which the Apostle saith as hath been noted if any would not work neither should he eat excludeth them from their right to be fed To conclude we shew you an infallible word of Christ that Infants belong to the kingdom of heaven and therefore the appearance from these words of Christ and the covenant of God with believing parents and their children is as good and certain that the kingdom of heaven belongs to the Infants of constant professors whom we baptize as any profession of new Converts can shew for men and women may and often do deceive men who know not the heart or future condition of professors whatsoever they now seem or say but Christ who knows all things yea the secrets of every heart and ends of all that are or shall be could not be deceived in so judging of Infants The foundation of the Lord remains sure and hath this seal the Lord knoweth who are his and his covenant being that he will be to the covenanted his seed a God whose promises are therefore sure to them and the parent as such being as well known to be converted as any new proselyte is or can be known to be converted Gods promise to me concerning my children is more sure to me then mans judgment concerning the sincerritie of any new Convert can be whatsoever appeareth in his words or professions 4 The interest of sealing into the covenant of grace dependeth not on the sealed persons worthiness or unworthiness sexe age or condition but upon God the author and free appointer thereof so circumcision was one and the same in the external seal to the elect and reprobate Infant or Proselyte of years The commandment of God did not put any difference but equally enjoined it to all sorts of males within the pale of Israel he said not circumcise only believers the penitent c. though in persons of years that was to be understood but circumcise every maleâ— child the eighth day when `t is sure they could neither actually believe repent nor make any appearance thereof as then the external seal was one and the same though the effect in the sealed was variable so is it in baptism the secret unworthiness or Apostacie of the receiver foreseen only by God did not make them uncapable of the seal therefore man administring was to do his part according to the general command of God and to leave the particular success and effect to God and so is it in baptism 5 Though unbelievers who reject the word of God may not as such be baptized yet Infants who at most may be called but negatively unbelievers cannot be included in that rule which excludeth contemners seeing they have faith as they have reason in the seed not in the fruit in the root though not in the leaf in some inward operation though not in any outward expression as Tidenus cited by the learned Dr. Fearly well observes 6 None are required to manifest their faith and repentance before baptism but such as having the use of reason have been taught and instructed in the same for God requireth no impossibilities in respect of the abilities which himself ever gave so that in common reason all texts of Scripture which require confession of faith repentance c. are to be understood of such as have the use of reason and tongue whereby they are enabled so to do If the parents to whom the Apostle spake Act. 2. 39. were not believers then the promise was not to them and their children but they were not believers ergo c. We answer The Apostle saying expresly the promise is to you and to your children your dispute labouring to prove that the promise was not to them and their children is point blanck against the express Word of God and you denying that principle are not worthy of further answer yet for the pious Readers sake
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-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
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
consequence is solemnity Would you have our fall in Adam and repair in Christ run literally parallell even to circumstances But what manner of arguing this were we have often said How many ridiculous consequences would you thence inferre concerning a man a woman and a Serpent and no more in the Scene a garden a fruit c. But remembring that we are speaking of sacred things we resolve that a Sacrament which is instituted of God to this end that it may be a solemn receiving into the Church and a severing or sign of distinguishing the whole Church all her parts from all other Sects ought to be ministred solemnly that others may take notice of the same and that it may be the stricter bond to the baptized when they come to years to hold them into saith obedience renunciation of the world impious desires and carnall affections into which condition they were solemnly and before many witnesses admitted by baptism And it is you say too narrow a conception of God Almighty because he hath tied us to the observation of the Ceremonies of his own institution that therefore he hath tied himself to it We never had that conceit you mistake the matter we say not that God is tied to his own Ordinances as if he could no otherwise save any but that we are tied to Gods Ordinances because they are the revealed will of God which man is bound to obey And though God be the most free Agent and not tied yet it doth not hence follow that baptism is not the ordinary means of regeneration to which we are tied God hath not in your sense tied himself to the baptism of persons in years as may appear in the penitent thief who unbaptized was saved Luke 23. 43. It is so in his other ordinances It pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe 1 Cor. 1. 21. Therefore ordinarily faith is by hearing the word Rom. 10. 17. yet God hath not so absolutely tied it to preaching but that he could at his pleasure convert Saul breathing threatnings Acts 9. Neither is he tied to the Eâ—charist would you conclude hence that men and women of years are not tied to be baptized hear the word or receive the Lords Supper because God and his free grace are not tied to these externall and ordinary means If not what meaneth that your medium God hath not tied himself and what can it more conclude against Infants baptism then against the baptism hearing receiving the Eâ—charist by persons of years Yet we affirm that when God made the promise to Abraham being willing more abundantly to shew to the heirs of promise the immutability of his councell confirmed it by an oath that by two immutable things in which it was impossible for God to lie we might have a strong consolation c. Heb. 6. 17 18. In which sense God hath bound himselfe to make good to us all that which the Seals of his Covenant by himself appointed hold forth unto us But you add Many thousand ways there are by which God can bring any reasonable soul to himself We answer The admitting of the one is not always the excluding of all other and we question not Gods power herein but his will here is an Ignoratio elenchi What think you of the validity of that Argument which is from Gods power to his will He can open the eys of the blind and convert the hearts of temporizers and professed enemies of his Church and Truth I would I were assured that he would now do so But you say nothing is more unreasonable then because he hath tied all men of years and discretion to this way therefore we of our own heads shal carry infants to him that way without his direction Here is again a fallacious arguing You take the thing in question for your medium The question is Whether baptism of Infants he a divine or humane institution upon which dependeth wholly whether we ought oâ—ught not to baptize Infants Now you would prove that we ought not to carry infants to Christ by baptism because he appointed or directed us not so to do but as you say we do it of our own heads Nay but confining sacramentall administrations to such time age or other circumstance by Christ never limited or enjoyned it will-worship and mans invention This your conceit is so poor and low that a puny Sophister would be ashamed of it Onely this you say that God hath as great a care of Infants as of others c. Here is another argument as feâ—ble as the fore-going What because God hath as great a care of them as of others therefore we must have no care of them in the application of the ordinary means so hath he a care for their bodily preservation and sustenance doth that prove that we ought not to feed or cloath them God respectively careth for all the Creatures he giveth to the beast his food Psal. 147. 9. Were it good Georgicks to say Trouble not your self to fodder your cattle or loose them from their stall that they may drink Who knoweth not that God hath appointed ordinary meane although he can do it without such means and though he say not that he will not otherwise preserve them but leave them to the dictates of common reason to conclude God you say will by his own immediate mercy bring them thither where he hath intended them but to say that therefore he will do it by an externall act and ministery is no good Argument c. Prove that one Assertion That God will by his own immediate mercy save Infants and have no means used thereto and you have the Cause but Christ hath appointed baptism for the ordinary means to bring people into his visible Church that they may be saved that he doth otherwise that is by an immediate act of mercy save some to whom his all-disposing providence hath not given time or means as in Infants dying before they were or could be baptized this varietâ— not the Rule for our question is not concerning them and to say that therfore he will do it by an external act because he will save them or bring them thither whither he hath intended them by his own immediate mercy is no good Argument you may lay your life oâ—'t Immediatly signifieth without means so that Immediately by means is a contradiction in the adject this were to my sense so farre from a good argument that I should doubt whether such a Disputant were awake or not Immediatly by an external act and ministery none of ours ever so reasoned And why cannot God as well do his mercies to infants now immediatly as he did before the institution either of circumcision or baptism Once again we say We question not Gods power truly nor his will in many Infants dying before they could be baptized the question is whether we may or ought according to Gods revealed will baptize them
In which it seemeth to us a very weak querie And why cannot God as well do his mercies to Infants now immediately c. However you say there is no danger that Infants should perish for want of this externall ministery c. Not to dispute Gods secret counsels we say the danger will be to the despiser and neglecter of Gods Ordinance wherein Tertullians Assertion may serve for a reason Because saith he he shall be guilty of a mans destruction who shall omit to do that which he freely might have performed For say you Water and the Spirit in this place John 3. 5. signifie the same thing and by water is meant the effect of the Spirit cleansing and purifying the soul c. It is true that Calvin Oecolampadius and some others do not think that Christ doth there precisely speak of Baptism but that he either opposed it to Pharisaicall washings and purifications to which possibly Nicodemus with whom he then discoursed might be too much addicted Or that those words are simply to be interpreted concerning Regeneration but Justin Martyr Chrysostome Theophilact Cyril Euthymius Augustine Rupertus Bonaventure Musculus B. Aretius R Rolloc Pelargus and others expound these words concerning Baptism the Sacrament of Regeneration the present speech of Christ being concerning Regeneration and it is most probable that Christ therein respected the common order of the Church mentioning the Spirit and Water to shew that we must be baptized if we will be saved yet 't is not the water but Gods holy Spirit which washeth away our sins Neither doth he so simply and necessarily tie the grace and efficacy of Gods Spirit to the Sacrament of Baptism as if none could be saved without Baptism and that God could not extraordinarily and immediately save Whatsoever Papists say to the contrary to assert their bloody decree and cruell doctrine concerning Infants dying without Baptism yet their Schoolmen and they in their more sober fits confesse that God hath not absolutely tied his grace to the Sacraments Christ saith He that shall believe and be baptized shall be saved but in the Antithesis he saith not Whosoever shall not be baptized shall not be saved to shew us that faith alone may sometime be sufficient to salvation as in the penitent Thief but nothing can suffice without faith because without it it is impossible to please God And because faith onely apprehendeth Christ in whom alone there is salvation Acts 4â—â—â—â— To conclude it doth not appear that Water and the Spirit in the fore-cited place John 3. 5. signifie one and the same thing Although Christs Baptisme with the Spirit which gives the effect of Baptism were more excellent then John Baptists or any Ministers of the Gospel for so is it still and yet no sober man will deny that the water in baptism and the Spirit do differ as the externall sign and inward grace thereby signified You say further You may as well conclude that infants must also passe through the fire as through the water c. This assertion might better have suited with the dream of some fanaticall Jacobite What will not such an advocate say for his Clients I appeal to your own conscience may we as well conclude against Gods word as for it God expressly saith Deut. 18. 10. There shall not be found among you any one that maketh his son or his daughter to passe through the fire and it is above all rationall controversie that he instituted baptizing with water who said Baptize all Nations without any exception at all to infants this is a poor trick of yours to elude Scripture And where doth Peter say the same thing that we may as well conclude that infants must also pass through the fire as through the water No no Peter by the Spirit of truth speaketh another thing indeed intimating by those words 1 Pet. 3. 21. Not the washing of the flesh but the confidence as we translate but the answer of a good conscience toward God the effects of the inward baptism which the Syriac in his Paraphrasticall interpretation of that place maketh more clear but confessing God in a pure conscience as when in the peace thereof we call upon him with an holy security of his hearing us which can be onely in the inward Baptism which the Spirit of Jesus giveth by faith and sanctification wherein we have peace toward God in the assurance of our justification Rom. 5. 1. Rom. 8. 15 16. So that the sum is that the outward sign the water and washing of the body in baptism is not sufficient to salvation if the Spirit of Jesus give not the inward effect thereof and therefore it is dangerous to live securely in sin and unbelief as too many do in vain confidence that they must needs be saved because they have been baptized into the visible Church of Christ No but the externall sign availeth not where the inward grace thereby signified is wanting So in the preaching of the Gospel administration of the holy Eucharist mans ministery can nothing prevail to the receivers salvation without Gods Spirit giving the inward effect so that Peter briefly toucheth the power use of baptism recalling us to the testimony of a good conscience that confidence therein which can endure the sight of God and his Tribunal and flye unto him in all wants through Christ But this Scripture is fanatically Perverted by Schuincfeld others who would hence coÌ„clude against the effect of the Sacrament in the elect whereas the Apostle affirmeth not that the institution of Christ for baptizing the body with water is vain or effectless but secretly admonisheth carnall Gospellers that they rest not in their security but consult their own consciences whether they find there the effect of their baptism so that he neither saith that infants may as well pass through the fire as through the water as you trifle nor is this place any thing to the purpose in this question of Infant-baptism so that your following confused Hypotheses are of no value or use except to puzzle the Reader to find out what you mean which he hardly shall Therefore when you express your self more orderly and clearly we owe you an Answer This you say no more inferres a necessity of Infants Baptism then the other words of Christ inferre a necessity to give them the holy Communion Nisi comederitis carnem filii hominis c. This is another argument of Anabaptists à pari if infants say they are to be baptized they are also to be admitted to the Lords Supper But in this agument there is a Sophisma â—lenchi for first it wants the condition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 if we follow your sense concerning spirituall infants taking infants for spirituall or regenerate persons in the major and for those who are literally infants in the minor and it wanteth also 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 There is no question but that baptized
infants have right to the holy CoÌ„munion as they have to strong meat but not a capacity as such or while they are infants and God hath in express terms restrained the Lords supper to those who can actually apprehend remember declare forth Christs death 1 Cor. 11 26. which because infants cannot do we give them not the Communion Secondly God hath denounced a grievous curse or punishment against any that shall presume without due examination of himself to eat of that bread drink of that cup but not so concerning Baptism it being the seal of our new-birth and reception into the visible Church and Covenant which hath no such condition annexed as may justly exclude Infants in respect of any present non-performance thereof But the Lords Supper is the Seal of our groâ—â—h in grace and spirituall strength instituted for the confirmation of our admittance into and our continuance in the Church of Christ whose death and passion for our redemption we thereby shew forth and commemorate for our spirituall perfection nourishment and strengthening in faith and other graces of his Spirit for our assurance that God having once received us into his favour will continue his mercy to us in Christ By these disparities the invalidity of the Pleaders Argument may appear And if it were true which he further saith that the wit of man is not able to shew a disparity in the sanction c. yet the wisdom of God is able and hath declared this difference in holy Scripture and the same can shew more then the wit of man can discern and hath shewed more then the learned Pleader doth or will understand who I conceive doth not yet know all that the wit of man or all the world can inform him of but is it not better even for those who have been in the Mount with God to cast the veil of modest humility over those excellencies which they have received and with which they shine to others admiration then to ostent them to the contempt of others The Apostle of Christ was rap't up into the third Heaven and yet professed we know in part and we prophesie in part 1 Cor. 13. 9. But you further say Since the ancient Church did with an equall opinion of necessity give them the Communion c. That which you said a little before They are as honest and as reasonable that doe neither to wit baptize infants or give them the Comunion as those that understood the Obligation to be Parallel we may very well believe and wish that either of them may prove honest hereafter But to that which you say That the ancient Church did with an equall opinion of necessity give them the Communion I answer 1. with Tertullian That is of the Lord and true which was first delivered but that is extraneous and false which is afterward received in And with Cyprian We ought not to heed what some before us have thought was to be done but what Christ did who was before all for we ought not to follow the custom of men but the truth of God 2 Your own rule must binde you though it cannot others who consent not thereto they who reject tradition when 't is against them must not pretend it at all for them pag. 237. Numb 25 3 It is considerable in that custome of the church as some other incoveniences which Augustine saith It is saith he one thing which we teach and another which we endure one thing which we are enjoyned to command and another thing which we are commanded to amend and untill we amend we are compelled to endure it And again who is eaten with the zeal of Gods house why he that endeavoureth and desireth to amend all that he sees amisse he resteth not if he cannot amend it he endureth it he sigh's the grain is not tossed out of the floor it endures the chaff that it may enter into the granary when the chaff is winnowed out 4 We adhere not so to tradition that we universally receive all that which was done or said of old things delivered by some but not generally received by the Church we esteem but superstructions of particular men or superseminations which possibly may spread farre as many pernicious opinions have done yet no sober man ever took them for Apostolicall or so much as Ecclesiasticall traditions we neither reject any tradition which appeareth to be Apostolicall if not peculiar to their times or suited peculiarly to certain times places or persons nor do we rashly receive any tradition for such except we are certain that the Scripture determineth nothing against it or where strong consequence from thence justifieth it 5 We conceive Augustines rule herein to be good In those things saith he concerning which divine Scripture determineth nothing certainly the custome of Gods people or institution of our ancestors are to be held for a law otherwise endlesse contention will arise also we must beware that the calm of charity be not clouded by the storm of contention 6 We will not rashly dissent from reverend antiquity wherein it dissenteth not from the truth we love peace with all who hold that in fundamentalls at least and therefore will follow Augustin's advice in that he piously saith concerning his reader where saith he he knows his errour let him return to me where mine let him recall me our rule being that of the Apostle 1 Cor. 11 1. be yee followers of me even as I also am of Christ more no good man will require nor render lesse to Ancestors 7 Lastly we say that the Scripture which you cite Joh. 6. 53. except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood you have no life in you is not spoken concerning a Sacramentall but a spirituall feeding and although * some of the Jesuites and other Papists contend against us herein yet â—â— some of the most sober of them acknowledge that those words are not to be understood concerning eating or receiving the Lords super which ours generally maintain you might do your self right to joyn with us and not with the most eager Jesuites concerning the spirituall feeding of infants to eternall life by the merit of Christ applyed to them for their Union with him and salvation in and by him we willingly accord the manner of effecting by the secret power of the holy Ghost we enquire not after because it is not revealed but for the reasons alleaged we give them not the communion Next you say If Anabaptist shall be a name of disgrace why shall not some other name be invented for them that deny to communicate infants which shall be equally disgracefull c That would be a rare invention indeed but if to call Anabaptists Anabaptists be just why find you fault with it if evill or unjust why consult you how to imitate it by way of revenge is it not a shame to be such as we are or may well be ashamed to be
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
from the womb for many dying young are saved which being conceived in sin and born the children of wrathâ— they could not be without regeneration and sanctification And truly when I consider what marvelous instinct God giveth to the new-cast young of beasts to take the brest as well as to new-born infants for their bodily preservation I cannot but conceive that the good God gives infants on whom he hath set his own image which consisteth in understanding sanctity immortality c. some admirable though to us secret light of mind and capacity of that which is snbordinate to the preservation of their immortal souls 2. Children under the Gospel have no less capacity then children under the Law had who yet received the seal of the same righteousness of faith in their infancy and were circumcised to newness of life Rom. 2. 29. But you say And then have they but one member of the distinction used by S. Peter they have that baptism which is a putting away the filth of the flesh but they have not that baptism which is the answer of a good conscience towards God which is the only baptism that saveth us I answer 1. You vainly dispute è non concessis 't is not granted nor can it ever be proved that elect children in baptism are not formed new in righteousness and holyness and so your superstruction concerning their having only that baptism which is a putting away the filth of the flesh but not the rest necessary to salvation is frivolous 2. The answer of a good conscience toward God is an effect of the inward baptism by the spirit of Jesus peculiar to the elect Now if your reason hence taken for the exclusion of infants from baptism the external seal were good by the same reason none but the elect or those who have the answer of a good conscience towards God must be admitted to baptism and whom then might you with good conscience baptize certainly but few and for ought you can certainly know none For in these last and worst dayes what know you but that they who fairly profess faith and repentance c. may yet notwithstanding be meer hypocrites And where is then their answer of a good conscience toward God 3. I say what secret light and sweet confidence elect infants have in God I know not sure I am they have that which is and shall be sufficient to their salvation in Christ though they die before man can teach them morâ—â— and why shall man exclude them from the external Seal of Gods Covenaut with them as being born within the Church of which they have as evident and a more easie capacity then children had of circumcision God gives Infants the incomparably greater and more excellent part sanctity and sealing to salvation and shall man presume to deny the less and subordinate part the external Seal of Christs visible Church whereof Reprobates born within the Church have a capacity 4. Faith good conscience repentance c. are in the elect those fruits whose seeds were sowen in baptism and as hath been said were it reasonable to say we may not sow untill the fruits thereof appear Nay but we therefore sow in hope that we may in due season see and reap the fruits thereof 5. Whereas you say that the answer of a good conscience towards God is the only baptism that saveth us I answer 1. It is not the answer of a good conscience that saveth any man though a good conscience be an excellent signe of our salvation by Christ for Being justified by faith we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ by whom also we have access by faith c. 2. Your reasoning is fallacious your medium being homonymical For allowing you the signe for the cause yet if that which saveth us though it may be true if understood concerning persons of years and as good conscience an undoubted effect of regeneration is opposed to the bare seal thereof without any inward effect of the spirit I say if it be understood of Infants as in your sense excluded from a capacity of good conscience or the acts thereof it is very false except you will also exclude all Infants from salvation which were against the express doctrine of Christ. As infants you say by the force of nature cannot put themselves into a supernatural condition and therefore say the Poedobaptists they need baptism to put them into it so if they be baptized before the use of reason before the works of the spirit before the operation of grace before they can throw off the works of darkness and live in righteousness newness of life they are never the near I answer 1. Neither can men of years by the force of naeture put themselves into a supernatural condition supposing you mean subordinate to salvation and what then can the use of reason without the works of the Spirit advantage them hereto Shall not they therefore that have the use of reason be baptized 2. What do you herein say which might not as well have been objected against the circumcision of infants Would you have concluded them never the neer because at eight dayes old they had not the use of reason to know what or why it was so done unto them before they could throw off the works of darkness and live in righteousness and newness of life 3. If you will have none baptized before the works of the Spirit before the operations of grace c. when and whom may you baptize For the wind bloweth where it listeth and thou hearest the sound thereof but canst not tell whence it cometh and whither it goeth so is every one that is born of the Spirit God can and doth sanctifie infants as in the elect infants dying such must be granted if you have so much reason or charity as to think that at least some of them are elected and saved and he can and doth sanctifie in age sometimes in the very last act thereof as appeared in the penitent thief how then will it follow that infants are never the neerer if they be baptized before the use of reason c. 4. We must understand that baptism comprehendeth first the sign water and the whole ceremony sprinkling washing or dipping into water in the Name of the Father the Son and the holy Ghost Secondly the things themselves signified by the visible and externall things which are sprinkling of the blood of Jesus on the baptized for the remission of sins mortification of the old man quickning the new man into certain hope of resurrection to eternall life to come Thirdly the commandement promise of Christ whence the sign hath authority and power of sealing and confirming these things unto the baptized They then that say baptism is an externall sign and washing of the body and therefore a bare and effectless sign do fallaciously dispute dividing that which God who cannot deceive us hath joyned together by giving us
to baptism who are born within the verge and precincts of the Church Whether such infants doe afterwards believe repent and amend their lives to salvation by Christ or not we cannot foresee nor have we any exception to supersede or limit our duty of administring the outward seal of baptism For as much as children born of Christian parents and within the Church are thereby partakers of the Covenant of grace even they who are not partakers of the grace of the Covenant Fourthly we answer That children in Gods account do vow confess and avouch the Lord in their parents vowing confession or avouching him as they did of old which the learned Mr. Cobbet observeth from Deut. 26. 17 18. where we read Thou hast avouched the Lord this day to be thy God and to walk in his waies c. and the Lord hath avouched thee this day to be his peculiar people as he hath promised thee and Deut 19. 10 11 c. Ye stand this day all of you before the Lord your God Your Captains and your Tribes your Elders and your Officers with all the men of Israel your little ones your wives and strangers that those shouldest enter into a Covenant with the Lord thy God and into his Oath which the Lord thy God maketh with thee this day that he may establish thee to day for a people unto himself and that he may be unto thee a God as he hath said unto thee and as he hath sworn unto thy fathers to Abraham to Isaak and to Jacob c. whereof see Gen. 17. 7. Though therefore some stipulations made in minority and nonage bind not the person under age except he confirm it when he cometh to age yet you will not say that the same is not valid if made by Parents Governors or Guardians for children and so in some publick Covenants and Acts of one City or State with another which concern the present and future ages the infants within that City or State as being in minority free Denisons are bound by the same Covenant and Act though as such they could neither transact speak nor consent to the same but all was agreed on and done by their Parents or Commissioners of years thereto designed in their own and childrens name which may apear in Israels Covenant with the Gibeonites which though the stipulators were beguiled yet Israels children were bound to and when Saul out of a perverse zeal about 380 years after would needs violate how hinding that Covenant was God declared in a severe judgment on Sauls Family and all Israel But upon this invalid supposition you build another quere Why were it not as good they stayed to make it till that time before which time if they do make it it is to no purpose this would be considered It would or should be considered that it is very dangerous playing thus with the sacred Ordinances of God You confess that baptism is the only inlet into the Church of Christ and is it to no purpose to be let into his Church and Covenant out of which you say there is no salvation 'T is true that all are not saved that are within the Church and Covenant but no man is saved out of it God hath appointed baptism to be a seal and token of our receiving and entrance into the Church is it to no purpose to obey him in his Ordinances God would not only have all the Citizens of his Church thus enfranchised but those who are not baptized when they may he will not have reckoned in the number of his Church And say you 't is to no purpose to have children marked for members of Christs Church Baptism is Gods mark whereby he will have his people discerned from all other false Churches and Sects and think you 't is to no purpose to have Gods mark set on children that they may not with a perishing world be toucht by the destroyers Yet you say Our way is the surer way for not to baptize children till they can give an account of their faith is the most proportionable to an Act of Reason and humanity and it can have no danger in it How often hath Satan in tempting to sin misled the incaucious with this suggestion there can be no danger in it 't is the surer way 't is neither reasonable not humane wilfully to act his part and as much as in us lieth to shut infants from the kingdom of heaven and so to doe that which much angred Christ in the daies of his flesh to wit to barr or forbid children to come to him this would be considered And why is it more proportionable to an act of reason and humanity to defer childrens baptism then in due time to baptize them Infants were circumcised long before they could give any account of their faith and yet that act was proportionable to reason and Moses was near a sad affliction for delaying it You say further For to say that infants may be damned for want of baptism c. I know no Protestant that ever said so but take heed you damn not your selves by teaching contempt of the Sacrament We are well satisfied that the privation thereof shall not condemn infants it not being their fault if they want it it may be and certainly is theirs who teach men to deny it them And then consider in the inviolable justice of God whose the damnation will be We cannot conceive that a meer privation of circumcision condemned those Hebrew babes who died before the eighth day because God is unchangeably just who confined their sealing to that day yet you will grant that it was a great sin except in case of evident and inevitable necessity as during Israels marches in the Wilderness a great sin I say of parents to neglect the administration thereof for God never threatned any punishment such as is mentioned Gen. 17. 14. but in respect of great sin much more was it obstinately to deny it them It is certainly true which hath been noted out of Augustine There may be conversion of the heart without baptism but it cannot be in the contempt of baptism for it can by no means be called the conversion of the heart to God when the Sacrament of God is contemned And so take your dirt back again into your own faces which you cast at ours Whosoever will pertinaciously persist in this opinion of Anabaptists and practice it accordingly they pollute the bloud of the everlasting Testament and in the Apostles sense Heb. 4 5 6. They crucifie to themselves the Son of God afresh and put him to open shame who being once baptized and thereby planted together in the likeness of his death Rom. 6. 4 5. Who having once died dyeth no more death hath no more dominion over him will yet be baptized again The Apostles saying It is impossible for those who were once enlightned that is baptized as the Syriac Interpreter rendreth it and as
Baptism only as Infants 2. Christ not repeating there an exact copy of his commission formerly given them at sundry times and on sundry occasions for there he mentioneth not any particular heads of doctrine or discipline nor so much as the Eucharist but to those things relateth in general verse 20. Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you whereof he nameth the two first and and most usual things Teaching and Baptizing for the making of Disciples and gathering a Church of all Nations So that he nameth not here the matter or subject of baptism in particular but saith in general Baptizing them c. Teaching them to observe all c. Now although children cannot be first taught before they are baptized as such as their Parents might and ought to be yet might they be first baptized and in due time taught as Christ commanded And it is here to be noted That children of sealed Parents were called Disciples and so accounted in both Testaments See Acts 15. 10. John 9. 28. We are Moses Disciples said the Jews Now the only thing which entred them into the School of Moses or denominated them Moses Disciples was their Circumcision in their infancy which obliged them coming to years to the observation of the whole Law Gal. 5. 3. delivered by Moses So Baptism of Infants doth not anticipate profession of Christianity but oblige unto it in dâ—e time and therefore is Baptism a sign that the baptised professeth himself a Disciple of Christ who appointed it as a mark and cognizance of his Disciples Baptism makes Infants Disciples in the first form of his School into which they are thereby entred though not actually for the present taught because they are not yet capable of Doctrine Yet so is fulfilled in Infants-Baptism that same 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Christs commission Mat. 28. 19. Make Disciples baptizing them c. and children of Believers are counted Disciples Acts 15. 10. Why tempt ye God to put a yoke upon the neck of the DISCIPLES What yoke Why Circumcision as appears Verse 1. Now those upon whom the false Teachers would have laid this yoke are called by the Apostle DISCIPLES and that yoke of Circumcision was put upon children most commonly in respect of whom the Proselytes were very few And there is no great doubt but that those false Masters who would have grown Disciples circumcised as much at least urged that their children should be circumcised therefore Infants were accounted Disciples And I see not but that Christ spake of Infants Matth. 10. 42. as well as others Whosoever shall give to drink unto one of these little ones in the name of a DISCIPLE that is as is interpreted Mark 9. 41. because ye belong to Christ as do baptized Infants and so Matth. 18. 5. Whoso shall receive one such little child in my name receiveth me that is a childe which is a Christian Nor do the following words v. 6. Whoso shall offend one of these little ones which as our common translation hath it believe in me conclude that he spake there only of such as were little in their own eyes that is humble as 1 Sam 15. 17. though of years or of such children as were of years to believe for the words may as wel be translated One of these little ones of those that believe in me or of believers in me that is any infant of a Believer or Christian. 3. Christ Matth 28. 19 20. spake concerning the plantation of Christian Faith and Conversion of nations in which work preaching must go before Baptism So was it in the beginning and so must we do now if we were sent to convert Turks Pagans or Jews but where the Gospel is planted and believing Parents are received into the Church by baptism their children are first to be baptized and afterwards taught so soon as they are able to learn So that the cited place can conclude no more then that administration of baptism began first on the Parents that received the word and were made disciples by baptism and so it descended to their children So was it in circumcision 4 Children are to be taught when they are capable concludeth nothing against their present baptizing of which they are passively capable one affirmative excludeth not another thereto subordinate nor do affirmative precepts which bind alwayes bind to all and every particular time as negatives do teaching them therefore concludeth not a present teaching the baptized but a duty of teaching them as they became capable of being taught 5 The particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 relateth to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in general and indefinitely though it agree not Grammatically with it for Christ faith not baptize some or only those who are taught in deed such a determination of the subject would have excluded Infants as such from baptism but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 baptizing them that is men women and children of believers and baptized Parents of all Nations it is not now as when Religion was as it were shut up in Judea now the stop of the Partition wall is broken down now Christ will have all Nations come and be sealed into the Covenant of his free grace and mercie and this Enallagie or change of Gender is often found in Scripture as Rev. 2. 26 27. Rev. 19. 15. Act. 15. 17. Act. 26. 17. Act. 21. 25. Eph. 2. 11. So here he saith collectively teach or disciple 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and distributively 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 baptizing them one by one of what Nation soever they are So Mat. 25. 32. before him shall be gathered 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all Nations and he shall separate them one from another some on the right hand and some on the left but all by particulars must be distributed without exception of any person age or condition otherwise it might seem that some Nations should be gathered to judgment and not some others which cannot be because God is impartially just If the children of Israel had only a ceremonial holiness then the pretence from circumcision to baptism of Infants is invalid but the children of Israel had only a ceremonial holiness ergo c. The minor being denyed was thus attempted to be proved If the Covenant Gen. 17. 7. c. was only for the land of Canaan then the Israelites had only a ceremonial holiness but the Covenant Gen. 17. 7. c. was only for the land of Canaan ergo c. We answer 1 If by ceremonial you mean federal holiness as appertaining by Gods Promise and Covenant with Abraham and his carnal seed to some of the Israelites not of the election to salvation it may be granted you without prejudice to our cause that such carnal Israelites had only a ceremonial holiness not because Gods covenant held forth no more then external and temporal things unto them but because through unbelief they apprehended no more But if the proposition be universal as also relating
to twelve men only and no women So that if that which you can never prove should be granted you that John Baptist and Christs disciples did then and there baptize by dipping yet it would not follow that we ought to baptize in the like and no other manner In the infancie of the Church they had not Baptisteries or Churches as we have there was a kind of necessitie for them as they met with occasions to make use of waters as they could find them in rivers or sources wherein it cannot be proved that they dipt nor could it conclude our Antagonists pretended necessitie if it were supposed 8 Whatsoever was or is essential to baptism or simply necessary thereto is mentioned in some clear example or express precent of Christ But dipping the whole body in baptism is neither mentioned in any clear example nor any express precept of Christ therefore it is not essential or simply necessary to baptism Christ omitted nothing necessary and the holy Scriptures are able to make men wise to salvation And let our Antagonists now seriously consider what they do when they rebaptize upon that fancie that washing or sprinkling with water in the Name of the Father the Son and the holy Ghost is not true baptism CHAP. VI. Anabaptists Arguments for their dangerous practice of Re-baptizing examined and answered THE malitious Serpent ever attempting to poison or trouble these sanctuary-waters obstructing or hindering their effect lest they should heal sin-wounded souls somtimes moved Pelagius Donatus and others reviving their errors to deny the most innocent children of believers baptism sometimes he teacheth them to except against the manner of baptizing as if the vertue of the Sacrament depended on the quantitie of the element and not solely on the Ordinance and power of God working thereon sometimes he causeth deluded people to annul their baptism and in effect to renounce their faith and Christ whom they had sacramentally put on in baptism by receiving a second third or iterated baptism we read that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 baptized every day supposing that their former baptisms were made void by any sin after committed on which fancie possibly the Novatians thought that baptism ought to be deferred to the end of their lives Auxentius the Arrian taught that baptism ought ro be iterated the Marcionites baptized their disciples three times The Anabaptists rebaptize baptized Infants coming to age and affirm that the assuming of baptism in ripe years by those who were washed in Infancie is not a renouncing baptism but a firmer avouching thereof according to Christs mind errors are fruitful one absurdity granted many will readily follow they think first that Infants having no present actual faith and repentance not present use of reason to understand the Gospel preached are not as such to be baptized but until they â—ome to years to be taught and to make profession of their faith and repentance to be kept from baptism and that so Infant-baptism is void and to be esteemed no baptism Secondly they dream that those who are not dived under water are not baptized and therefore they rebaptize them who were baptized in Infancie though that ground may often fail them because some have been baptized by immersion Now that which hath been said on our part is enough to satisfie those in those things who are not wilfully bent with Simo in the Comedian rather to erre then to be directed by any Therefore to avoid repetitions let the issue be if Infant-baptism in the name of the Father the Son and the holy Ghost either by washing sprinkling with or dipping into water be indeed a compleat and warrantable baptism according to the institution of Christ then Anabaptists rebaptizing do impiously seduce and teach simple people to renounce that baptism by which they had at least sacramentally put on Christ and thereby were re-admitted into that Church out of which can be no salvation And let the prudent Reader judge whom I herein refer to an impartial and serious consideration of that which hath been said which being proved the Anabaptists whole fabrick of dowsing and rebaptizing falleth heavily on their Dippers heads The Church of Christ holds that Infants of enchurched Parents or others of yeaâ—s converting to the faith being once sprinkled washed or dipt in the name of the Father the Son and the holy Ghost according to Christs institution ought not on any pretence to be rebaptized I say thus baptized according to the ordinance of Christ because the Samosatenians Sabellians Marcionites Arrians or the like who any wayes opposed the holy Trinity or denied any persons thereof did not baptize according to the prescript of Christ and therefore in case any of their disciples converted the true Church baptized them because the former pretended baptism was not according to the Ordinance of Christ and so no true baptism it being the peculiar prerogative of Christ to appoint the seals of his own Covenant of free Grace and mercie with man But the Anabaptists after their manner object We are regenerate not only by Baptism but also by the Word Ephes. 5. 26. 1 Pet. 1. 23. but the Word is often repeated and therefore so may baptism We answer 1 The word mentioned Eph. 5. 26. is that which comming to the element makes the Sacrament as Chrysostom wel interpreteth that he might sanctifie and cleanse it with the washing of water by the Word What Word saith he why this In the name of the Father of the Son and of the holy Ghost that Word which coming to the element makes the Sacrament ought not to be more repeated then the Sacrament it self because it is essential thereto 2 The regeneration of man is only one whose principal efficient cause is the holy Ghost the means or instrumental causes on Gods part are the Word and Sacraments on our part faith which the holy Ghost begetteth encreaseth and confirmeth ordinarily by those external means Therefore when they are baptized who were before regenerate by the Word as a spiritual feed they have not need of any other regeneration nor can they be twice regenerate but then baptism is to them an obsignation and confirmation of their regeneration So Abraham first believed as so was regenerate and afterward was sealed So Cornelius spiritual sanctification preceded in the gift of the holy Ghost and then he received the Sacrament of regeneration to confirm the same to him But when the elect who being baptized dye in their infancy it is certain that they are regenerate by the Sacrament without the ministry of the word preached unto them whereof they are not capable who yet without regeneration could not enter into the Kingdom of God John 3. 5. And if the baptized Infant live to be capable of teaching and so receive the word as that it begets in him actual faith repentance and obedience to God then that word is as Sincere milk to nourish and confirm not to