which you have heard preached even as it is written of * Quoniam autem in Abraham praefigurabatur fides nostra quoniam Patriarcha nostrae fidei velut propheta fuit plenissimè Apostolus docuit in eâ Epistolâ quae est ad Galatas dicens Qui ergo tribuit vobis Spiritum operatur virtutes in vobis Irenaeus Lib. 4. cap. 38. Abraham he believed God and it was imputed unto him for Righteousness know ye therefore that they which are the Children of Faith the same are the Children of Abraham and God in the Scripture foreseeing that he would justifie the Heathen through Faith preached before the Gospel unto Abraham saying In thee shall all Nations be blessed So then they which be the Children of Faith are blessed with faithful Abraham who is the Father of them that believe Afterwards in Verse 26. Now to Abraham or his Seed or Race were the Promises of God made He i. e. God or Moses his Pen-man saith Not to Seeds or Races as if there were divers of them but to thy Seed i. e. to one of thy Seed which is Christ And this I say that the Abrahamical Covenant that was before confirmed by God in Christ the Law which was four hundred and thirty years after cannot disannul that it should make the Promise made unto Abraham of none effect From all these Texts put together it is plain that the Abrahamical Covenant upon which the Jewish Church as such was founded was of a Spiritual Evangelical Nature and perfectly verified and fulfilled in Jesus Christ who was made of the Seed of Abraham and in whom all the Families of the Earth are blessed and whose Day Abraham himself saw and rejoyced It is farther evident from them that this Covenant was made with Abraham as the Father of Believers and with his Posterity not as proceeding from him by natural but by spiritual Generation as Heirs of his Faith as is plain from Rom. 4.16 Therefore the Promise is of Faith that so also it might be by Grace to the end the Promise might be sure to all the Seed of Abraham not to that only which is of the Law but to that also which is of the Faith of Abraham who is the Father of us all both Jew and Gentile that believe So Chap. 9.6 c. not as tho' the Word or Promise of God to them had taken none effect For they are not all the Israel which are descended of Israel neither because they are the Seed of Abraham are they all Children of God's Covenant but 't is said in Isaac shall thy Seed be called tho' Abraham had more Sons that is all they which are the Children of the Flesh these are not the Children of God but the Children of the Promise only as Isaac was are counted for the Seed Hence saith the Apostle in the name of the Christians Phil. 3.3 we are the Circumcision which worship God in the Spirit and have no Confidence in the Flesh and it is one God which shall justifie the Circumcision by Faith and the Uncircumcision through Faith and if ye be Christ's then are ye Abraham's Seed and Heirs according to the Promise which God made unto Abraham Furthermore that this Covenant was Evangelical and made with the Posterity of Abraham not as his Natural but as his Spiritual Off-spring will appear in the third place from the initiatory Sacrament into it which was Circumcision or cutting off the Fore-skin of the Flesh as it is written You shall Circumcise the Fore-skin of your Flesh and it shall be a Sign of the Covenant betwixt me and you Hence the Covenant of which it was the Sign is called by * Acts 7.8 St. Stephen the Covenant of Circumcision and Circumcision on the other hand is called by St. Paul the Seal of the Righteousness of Faith Faith or Faithful Obedience being the Condition of that Covenant which God required of the Children of Abraham and which they promised to perform It also signified the Circumcision of the †〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Justin Mart. Dial. cum Tryph. p. 260. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ibid. p. 261. Heart as Moses said unto the People of Israel Circumcise the Fore-skin of your Hearts Deut. 10.16 and in Deut. 30.6 The Lord thy God will Circumcise thine heart and the hearts of thy Seed that thou mayest love the Lord thy God with all thine Heart and with all thy Soul that thou mayest live And agreeable unto this Spiritual Signification of Circumcision St. Paul saith Rom. 2.28 He is not a Jew which is one outwardly neither is that Circumcision which is outwardly in the Flesh but he is a Jew which is one inwardly and Circumcision is that of the Heart in the Spirit and not in the Letter whose Praise is not of Men but of God As to the Persons who were capable of initiation into the Jewish Church by this Sacrament we have a very plain account at the institution of it in Gen. Chap. 27. I will saith God unto Abraham establish my Covenant between Me and thee and thy Seed after thee for an Everlasting Covenant to be a God unto thee and thy Seed after thee Thou shalt keep my Covenant therefore thou and thy Seed after thee in their Generations this is The Token of my Covenant which ye shall keep between Me and you and thy Seed after thee every Male among you shall be Circumcised And ye shall Circumcise the flesh of your Fore-skin and it shall be a Token of the Covenant betwixt Me and you and he that is eight days old shall be Circumcised among you every Male in your Generations he that is born in the House or bought with Money of any Stranger which is not of thy Seed he that is born in thy House and he that is bought with thy Money must needs be Circumcised and my Covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting Covenant From this account of Persons to be Circumcised it is plain First That Gentiles who were born of * Exod 12.48 49. Gentile Parents in Abraham's House or bought with his Money as Servants then were and Blacks are now among us were to be initiated into the Covenant by Circumcision from whence it appears that the Spiritual Race of Abraham were the Children of the Covenant and that when God promised to be a God to him and his Seed after him he meant the Children of his Faith Hence in all Ages of the Jewish Church if any Gentiles embraced the Jewish Faith and Religion they were admitted into it by Circumcision and thereupon reckoned among the Posterity of Abraham and the peculiar People of God although they were not the Children of Abraham according to the Flesh There were great numbers of Gentiles thus converted to the Jewish Faith and Religion and grafted like wild Branches into the Olive-Tree in all the Ages of the Jewish Church Not to mention particular Persons we read that many of the Medes and
beginning or Original of the Jewish Church Secondly Concerning the Nature of it Thirdly Concerning the initiatory Sacrament into it and the Persons that were capable of Initiation And Lastly Concerning the alteration of it from the Legal into the Evangelical Dispensation wherein I have briefly shewed the true grounds of that blessed Reformation and how tender Christ and his Apostles were of Altering or rejecting more than was necessary or of receding more than was needful from the Jewish Church All these things I thought necessary to be discoursed as Praecognita to fit and prepare the Reader 's mind to understand the State of the Controversie about Infant-Baptism as it is proposed in these five Comprehensive Questions 1. Whether Infants are uncapable of Baptism 2. Whether they are excluded from Baptism by Christ 3. Whether it is lawful to separate from a Church which appointeth Infants to be Baptized 4. Whether it be the duty of Christian Parents to bring their Children unto Baptism 5. Whether it is lawful to Communicate with believers who were Baptized in their Infancy The whole merit of the Controversie about Infant-Baptism lies in these five Comprehensive Questions and I shall presently proceed to the stating of them after I have shew'd that Circumcision was a Sacrament of equal Significancy Force and Perfection with Baptism and that Baptism succeeded in the room of it not as the Antitype succeeded in the place of the Type but as one positive Institution succeeds in the place of another and this also is necessary to be foreknown by the Reader because the Anabaptists endeavour to shift off the force of many good Arguments which otherwise are not to be evaded by saying that Circumcision under the Old Testament was a Type of Baptism under the New Now to shew that Circumcision was not a Type but only the Fore-runner of Baptism we must note that strictly and properly speaking there was the same difference betwixt the Type and the Antitype as betwixt the Shadow and the Substance or betwixt a Man and his Picture in a Glass * Deinde quod maximè advertendum id inter Antitypum Typum interest quod quae revera in Antitypo vis in est ea non nisi specie tenus aut gradu longè exiliori in Typo extiterit Enimvero quamâ—is Typus nonnunquam rem aliquam cum Antitypo suo communem habuerit ea tamen res multò minùs in Typo quà m in Antitypo semper valet ita ut vis rei adumbrantis virtutis in adumbratâ repertae nil nisi Symbolica quaedam Species aut tam exilis gradus fuerit ut pro umbrâ quâdam haberi possit Outramus de Sacrif l. 2. c. 18. insomuch that what was really literally and properly in the Antitype and of perfect Efficacy and Power was generally but Symbolically and representatively in the Type and figurative of something which did in a more noble perfect eminent and efficacious manner belong to the Antitype than it did to it Thus the blood of the Legal Sacrifices were but Shadows and Representations of the Blood of Christ and the purging and cleansing Virtue in their Blood serving to the purifying of the Flesh was also but a faint and umbratical resemblance of the more noble and efficacious cleansing Virtue of his Blood which purges the Conscience from dead works So the Brazen Serpent was but a Shadow or Symbol of Christ upon the Cross and the healing Virtue which belonged to it was but a figure or shadow of that more eminent and powerfully healing Virtue which was in Jesus Christ But the case is not so betwixt Circumcision and Baptism because Circumcision hath no Symbolical likeness with Baptism nor any thing belonging to it common with Baptism which doth not as literally properly fully and eminently belong unto it as unto Baptism it self For First Is Baptism a Sacrament of initiation into the Covenant of Grace under the Gospel So was Circumcision before and under the Law Is Baptism now a Seal of the Righteousness of Faith So was Circumcision then Doth it properly and effectually confirm and establish the Covenant betwixt God and us now So did Circumcision then as it is written you shall Circumcise the Flesh of your Fore-skin and it shall be a Token of the Covenant betwixt me and you Baptism doth nothing under the Gospel which Circumcision did not as properly and effectually under the Law This was then as absolute and real a Sacrament as that now is This did then as really initiate true Believers as that now doth It never was an Umbraticall Sacrament or shadow of another Sacrament it never did Umbratically initiate Believers or Umbratically and in shew and Similitude only confirm the Covenant betwixt God and the Seed of Abraham and therefore could not be a Type of Baptism no more than the Broad Seal of England 300 Years ago was a Type of this Accordingly it is never mentioned in the New Testament as a Type of Baptism nor Baptism as the Antitype of it but on the contrary the only Typical Adumbrations which are found of it in the Gospel are such things which have some Symbolical likeness with it and were fitted upon that account to be Types thereof The First Is the Baptizing of the Israelites in the * Mare autem illud Sacramentum Baptismi fuisse declarat beatus Apostolus Dicens nolo enim vos ignorare Et addidit dicens haec autem omnia figurae nostrae sunt Cyprian Ep. 69. Ed. Ox. Red-Sea 1 Cor. 10.2 Where the Red-Sea is a Type of the Water of Baptism their passing through it when they were delivered from Pharaoh and his Host a Type of our passing through that and of our deliverance thereby from the Devil and his Angels and their Captain and Deliverer Moses a Type of our Saviour Christ The Second Is the saving of Noah and his Family in the Ark the like figure whereunto saith the Apostle even Baptism doth also save us †Item Petrus ipse quoque demonstrans c. Cyprian Ep. 74. ad Pompeium contra Epist Stephani in Firmilian Ep. contra eandem Epist ad Cyprian in Ep. 69. Quod Petrus ostendens unam Ecclesiam esse c. 1 Pet. 3.21 Here it is plain that the Waters of the Flood were a shadow of the Waters of Baptism the Ark a Type of the Church and that the passing of the Ark through the Waters did prefigure our passing through the Waters of Baptism in the Ark of the Church But as for Circumcision it hath nothing in it Symbolical of Baptism nor was it an Umbratical but a real Consignation of the Covenant of Grace every way as real and substantial an Ordinance as Baptism now is and therefore succeeded in the room of it not as the Antitype did in the place of the Type but as one absolute Ordinance or positive Institution doth in the place of another according to the Apostle who saith unto the Colossians In whom also ye are
Circumcised with the Circumcision made without hands in putting off the Body of the Sins of the Flesh by the Circumcision of Christ having been buried with him in Baptism Col. 2.11 12. But in the second place if we consider the Original of Baptism as a Jewish Institution we shall find it very improbable that Circumcision should be a Type of it because a Type properly speaking is a * Typus quatenus vox ista sensum habet Theologicum ita definiri posse videtur ut sit futuri alicujus Symbolum quoddam aut exemplum ita à Deo comparatum ut ipsius plane instituto futurum illud prafiguret Quod autem ita praefiguratur illud Antitypus dici solet Outramus de Sacrificiis l. 1. cap. 18. Symbol of something future or an Exemplar appointed under the Old Testament to prefigure something under the New But Baptism was it self of Jewish Institution under the Old Testament and by consequence could not be Typified and prefigured by Circumcision with which it was coexistent and used with it for many years together in the Jewish Church The Jewish Church made it a Ceremony of initiating Proselytes unto the Law and our Saviour liking the Institution continued the use of it and made it the only Ceremony of Initiating Proselytes unto the Gospel superadding unto it the compleat Nature of an Initiatory Sacrament or the full force of Circumcision as it was a Sign of the Covenant and a Seal of the Righteousness of Faith These things being premised let us proceed to the stating of the former Questions And first of all Quest I. Whether Infants are uncapable of Baptism Which considering what hath already been said concerning the Spiritual and Evangelical Nature of the Covenant which God made with Abraham and the initiation of young Children into it by God's especial appointment cannot without rashness be affirmed Nothing can reflect more dishonour upon the Wisdom of God and the practice of the Jewish Church than to assert Infants to be uncapable of the same privilege which God and the Jewish Church granted unto them For God commanded them to be Circumcised and the Jewish Church commanded them to be Baptized as well adult Proselytes and if they were then capable both of Circumcision and Baptism surely they are capable of Baptism now If they be not from whence comes the difference Not from the Nature of the Covenants for the Covenant which God made with Abraham and his Seed was as I have shew'd the same Covenant for substance which he hath since renew'd with us in Christ Nor from the Signs and Seals of the Covenant for Circumcision was a Sign and Seal of the same Grace or of the same Righteousness of Faith under the Old Testament that Baptism is now under the New Wherefore since the Covenants were for substance the same both Spiritual and Evangelical Covenants and the Grace of those Covenants the very same and only the Rites and Ceremonies which were Signs of those Covenants and Seals of that Grace being different what hinders in the nature of the thing but that Infants who were capable of the one should not also be capable of the other Is Baptism a more Spiritual Ordinance than Circumcision That cannot be because Circumcision is a Gospel-Ordinance I mean an Ordinance of the Gospel which God preached before unto Abraham and if the Spirituality of outward Ordinances are to be measured from the ends of their institution then Circumcision was every way as Spiritual as Baptism because it really signed the same Covenant and sealed the same Grace and was a Ceremony of Initiation to the same Spiritual Seed of Abraham that Baptism now is Wherefore if the relative nature of Circumcision considered as a Sacrament was the same under the Law that Baptism is under the Gospel it must needs follow that Children under the Gospel are as capable of this supposing no new Command to exclude them as under the Law they were of that if Infant Church-Membership or the Initiation of Infants was then no absurdity surely it can be none now If God under the Old Testament vouchsafed it as a gracious Priviledge unto Children to be incorporated with actual Believers and with them to be made members of his Church without a Prohibition to the contrary they must needs be capable of the same Priviledge still Nay if Infants were admitted into the Church when the entrance into it was more grievous and not without blood how unreasonable is it to assert that they are now uncapable of admission into it when the entrance into it is made more easie and more agreeable to the natural weakness of a young and tender Child Certainly if the Jewish Infants were Circumcised with the most painful and bloody Circumcision made with hands Christian Infants without a Special Countermand from God must be deemed capable of the Circumcision made without hands I mean of Baptism which is the Circumcision of Christ What God hath Sanctified and Adopted and made a Member of his Church let no Man presume to think it uncapable of Sanctification Adoption and Church-Membership but yet so rash and extravagant have the profess'd Adversaries of Infant-Baptism been as to pronounce little Infants as uncapable of Baptism as the young ones of unreasonable Creatures and that it is as vain to call upon God to send his Holy Spirit upon them as to pray him to illuminate a Stone or a Tree Nay upon this very Presumption that Infants are uncapable of Baptism they assert Infant-Baptism to be a Scandalous abuse of the Ordinance of Baptism a meer Nullity and insignificant performance and scornfully call it Baby-Baptism forgetting all this while that Circumcision of Infants was no scandalous abuse of the Ordinance of Circumcision but a valid and significant Performance and that in their Phrase there was Baby-Circumcision and Baby-Baptism in the Jewish Church The reason why they conclude Infants uncapable of Baptism is taken from the consideration of their incapacity as to some ends and uses of Baptism which cannot be answered say they but by the Baptism of grown Persons who are capable of understanding the Gospel and of professing their Faith and Repentance and of submitting unto Baptism and of having their Faith and Hope further strengthned in the use of it but Infants being utterly incapable of understanding the Gospel or of professing their Faith and Repentance and of submitting unto Baptism in which they are meerly passive or of having their Faith strengthned in the use of it they ought to be deemed uncapable of Baptism whose ends are so much frustrated when it is applied unto them But this way of arguing how plausible soever it may seem at first hearing is weak and fallacious and highly reflecting upon the Council and Wisdom of God First It is weak and fallacious because it makes no distinction betwixt a strict institution which is instituted by God for one or a few ends and precisely for Persons of one sort and an Institution of
kinds of not sowing their Fields with mingled Seed nor their Vineyards with divers Seeds of not Plowing with an Ox and an Ass together and of not wearing a Garment of Linnen and Woolen God injoined them these and other things in opposition to the neighbouring Idolatrous Nations that there might be a mutual strangeness and hatred betwixt them and that by these and other Ceremonial Singularities they might be distinguished from the rest of the World But then Christ coming to break down the middle wall of Partition betwixt the Jews and Gentiles and to abolish the Enmity of Ordinances that was betwixt them that he might make Peace betwixt them and reconcile them both into one Body in the Cross it was requisite to this end that he should abolish these and all other distinguishing Characters betwixt them which would have hindred the Progress of the Gospel had it been clogg'd with Jewish Rites and Ceremonies which were become so odious and ridiculous to all the Gentile World In particular For this reason he was obliged to change the Initiatory Sacrament and the Seal of the Covenant of Grace I mean Circumcision by which the Jews excepting a few * The ancient Egyptians Ethiopians Ismaelites Cholchians Nations were distinguished from all the World They were become †Jura Verpe per Anchialum Mart. Credat Judaeus Apelles Horat. Ferro succiderit inguinis oram Petron. Mox praeputia ponunt Juven 1 Cor. 7.18 Is any Man called being circumcised let him not be uncircumcised i. e. Let him not use means to attract the Praeputium which the Jews did often to avoid Shame and Persecution in Gentile Countries odious and ridiculous to all other People upon the account of it and for this reason it would have been a mighty bar to the Progress of the Gospel had the Gentiles been to be initiated thereby Furthermore it alone was reckoned as a grievous burden by reason of the painful and bloody nature of it and for that Reason also was laid aside as being inconsistent with the free and easie nature of the Christian Religion for if Zipporah was so much offended at Moses and called him a bloody Husband upon the account of it we may well presume how much the Gentiles would have been offended at the Apostles and at their Doctrine upon the account thereof No Religious Rite could be more ungrateful to Flesh and Blood and therefore the Wisdom of our Lord is to be admired in changing of it into the easie and practicable Ceremony of Baptism which was of more universal significancy and which * Diabolus ipsas quoque res Sacramentorum divinorum idolorum mysteriis aemulatur tingit ipse quosdam utique credentes ac fideles suos caeterum si Numae superstitiones revolvamus nonne manifeste diabolus morositatem illam Judaicae legis imitatus est Tertull. de praescrip haeret c. 40. O nimium faciles Qui tristia crimina caedis tolli flumineâ posse putatis aquâ Pagans as Paganism was nothing but Judaism corrupted by the Devil practised as well as Jews Hitherto I have given the Reasons of altering the Jewish Oeconomy and of reforming of it into the Christian Church but then my undertaking obliges me to prove what before I observed that * Verissimum enim est quod vir doctissimus Hugo Broughtonus ad Danielem notavit Nullos à Christo institutos ritus novos c. Grotii opusc Tom. 3. p. 520. See Dr. Hammond in his discourse of the Baptizing of Infants Christ and his Apostles who were the Reformers of it did build with many of the old Materials and conformed their new house as much as they could after the Platform of the old This will appear from Baptism it self which was a Ceremony by which †Seld. de jure l. 2. c. 2. de Synedi l. 1. c. 3. Lightfoot Horae Hebraicae p. 42. Hammond on Matth. 3. v. 1. and of the Baptizing of Infants Jacob Altingius dissert Philologica Septima de Proselytis Proselytes both Men Women and Children were initiated into the Jewish Church Though it were but a mere humane Institution or as the dissenting Parties usually phrase it a mere humane Invention yet so much respect had our blessed Lord for the Ancient Orders and Customs of the Jewish Church that being obliged to lay by Circumcision for the reasons above mentioned he consecrated this instead of it to be the Sacrament of initiation into his Church and a Seal of the Righteousness of Faith So likewise the other Sacrament of the Lord's Supper was certainly of ‖ Mede 1 Book disc 51. b. 11. Christian Sacrifice Grot. Opusc Tom. 3. p. 510. Dr. Cudworth on the Lord's Supper Thorndike of Religious Assembly chap. 10. Dr. Taylor 's great Exemplar p. 1. disc of Baptism Numb 11. Jewish Original as hath been shewed by many Learned Men and the Correspondence of the Bishops Presbyters and Deacons to the High-Priest Priests and Levites doth shew that the Subordination of the Christian Hierarchy is taken from the Jewish Church as St. Jerome observes in his Epistle to Evagrius Et ut sciamus traditiones Apostolicas sumptas de veteri Testamento quod Aaron filii ejus Levitae in Templo fuerunt hoc sibi Episcopi Presbyteri diaconi vendicent in Ecclesia What the High-Priest Priests and Levites were in the Temple that the Bishops Presbyters and Deacons are in the Church according to Apostolical Constitution taken from the Old Testament Hither also is to be referred that wonderful Correspondence betwixt the Priest-hood and Altar of the Jewish and Christian Church as it is most excellently discoursed by the Learned and Pious a In his Discourse concerning the one Altar and the one Priest-hood c. Mr. Dodwell To all which I may add many other Institutions as that of b Dr. Taylor his great Exemplar Disc of Baptism Num◠11. Lightfoot on 1 Cor. c. 5. v. 4. Excommunication and of the ritual performance of Ordination Confirmation and Absolution of Penitents by Imposition of Hands all which are of Jewish Original Likewise the Observation of the antient Love-Feasts before the Holy-Eucharist which for their extream inconvenience were taken away by the c Concil Sext. in Trull c. 24. Churches Authority the use of Festivals and Fasts the Institution of the Lord's day which is nothing but the Sabbath translated In a word the manifold and almost entire Correspondence of the Church in her publick Assemblies and Worship with the Synagogue as it is set forth by Mr. Thorndike in his Book of Religious Assemblies even to the formal use of the Hebrew-word d 1 Cor. 14.16 Rom. 11.36 Eph. 3.21 Phil. 4.20 2 Tim. 1.17 Heb. 23.27 1 Pet. 4.11 Rev. 1.16 Rev. 1.7 Just Mart. Ap. 2. p. 97. Iren. l. 2. c. 10. Athan. Apol. ad const Imper. p. 683. Amen Hitherto I have made a short Previous Discourse concerning many useful Particulars As First Concerning the
Latitude which is instituted by him for several ends and for different sorts of Persons differently qualified for those several ends Of the first sort was the Ordinance of Fringes above-mentioned which could only concern grown Persons because they only were capable of answering the end for which it was instituted viz. To look upon them and remember the Commandments of the Lord and of the latter sort is the Holy Ordinance of Marriage which was appointed by God for several ends and for Persons differently qualified and capacitated for those several ends in so much that Persons who are incapacitated as to some ends of Marriage may yet honestly Marry because they are capable of the rest All the ends and uses for which it was appointed can only be answered by the Marrying of Persons who are capacitated for procreation of Children notwithstanding superannuated Persons who are past that capacity are not incapable Subjects of Marriage nor is the Marriage of such invalid or an abuse of the Holy Ordinance of Marriage because they are capable of answering one end for which Marriage was ordained This shews how fallaciously the Anabaptists argue against Baptizing of Infants because of their incapacity as to some ends and uses for which Baptism was ordained they ought first to have proved what they take for granted that it was a Divine Institution of the first sort which I call a strict Institution and then their Argument had been good but this they will never be able to prove because Baptism succeeded in the room of Circumcision which was a Divine Institution of the latter sort and because our Saviour was Baptised in whom there was a greater incapacity as to the ends of Baptism than possibly can be in Infants even as he was in a greater incapacity as to answering the ends of Circumcision than ordinary Jewish Infants were John verily did Baptize with the Baptism of Repentance and thereby sealed unto the People the Remission of their Sins and therefore understanding very well that our Lord was not capable of this and other ends of his Baptism he forbad him telling him that he was fitter to be the Baptist than to be Baptized of him but yet as soon as our Lord gave him one general reason why he ought to be Baptized viz. Because it became him to fulfil all Righteousness he suffered him which shews that Baptism is a Divine Institution of Latitude and that in such an Institution the incapacity of a Person as to some ends doth not incapacitate him for it when he is capable of the rest But Secondly This way of arguing from the incapacity of Infants as to some ends of Baptism is highly reflecting upon the Wisdom of God who commanded young Babes to be Circumcised although all the ends of Circumcision could not be answered but by the Circumcision of adult Persons who only were capable of understanding the nature of the Institution and the nature of the Covenant into which they were to enter of professing their Faith and Repentance and of submitting unto the bloody Sacrament in which Children were merely Passive and of having their Faith and Hope further strengthned upon fealing unto them the Remission of their Sins Wherefore the full force of this Objection rises up against Infant-Circumcision as well as Infant-Baptism because Circumcision was instituted for the same ends that Baptism now is and accordingly when Men were initiated by Circumcision they were to profess their Faith and Repentance and shortly after at their Baptism solemnly to renounce Idolatry and all idolatrous Manners and Worship and their idolatrous Kindred and Relations and yet upon the desire of such Proselytes their Children were initiated both by Circumcision and Baptism though they were altogether uncapable of understanding or doing those things which their Fathers did Wherefore those Men who argue against Infant-Baptism because it doth not answer all the ends of Baptism reproach the Divine Wisdom and the Wisdom of the Jewish Church not considering that Circumcision was and Baptism is an Institution of great Latitude and compass designed on purpose by God for Children in whom there is a capacity for some nay for the * Rem Praecipuam in Baptismo non attendunt hoc est testificationem divinae benevolentiae in foedus tutelam suam suscipientis gratiam conferentis c. nam in Baptismo praecipua res est divina gratia quae consistit in remissione peccatorum regeneratione adoptione haereditate Vitae aeternae cujus sane gratiae Infantes indigentes capaces sunt Cassand de Bapt. Infant chief ends of Baptism as well as for Men and Women in whom there is a capa city for all They are capable of all the ends of it as it is instituted for a Sign from God towards us to assure us of his Gracious favour and to consign unto us the benefits of the Covenant of Grace For their Child-hood doth not hinder but that they may be made Members of the Church as of a Family Tribe Colledge or any other Society nor doth it incapacitate them any more from being adopted the Children of God than the Children of any other Person nor of becoming Heirs of Eternal Life by virtue of that Adoption than by vertue of any other civil Adoption the Heirs to such a Temporal Estate For Children are capable of all acts of Favour and Honour from God and Men and of being instated in all the Priviledges of any Society though they cannot as yet perform the Duties of it nor understand any thing thereof Since therefore Children are as capable and stand as much in need of almost all the Benefits of the Covenant of Grace and the Priviledges of Church Membership as Men is it not as fit that the Confirmatory Sign of those Benefits and Priviledges should be applied unto them as well as unto these Should a Prince Adopt a Beggar 's Child and incorporate him into the Royal Family and settle a part of his Dominions upon him and to solemnize and confirm all this should cut off a bit of his Flesh or command him to be washed with Water who would count this an insignificant Solemnity or say that the Child was not capable of the Sign when he was capable of the chief Things signified thereby Or to make a Comparison which hath a nearer semblance with the Case of Infant-Baptism Suppose a Prince should send for an attainted Traytor 's Child and in the Presence of several Persons assembled for that purpose should say You know the Blood of this Child is attainted by his Fathers Treason by Law he hath forfeited all Right to his Ancestors Estate and Titles and is quite undone though he be not sensible of his wretched Condition My Bowels of Compassion yern upon him and here I restore him to his Blood and Inheritance to which henceforward he shall have as much right as if the Family had never been attainted I justifie him freely and declare my self reconciled unto him and that no spot
and Childish condition then the Jews were under the Law which as it is evident from the Feast of Purim and from the Institution of Baptism among the Jews allowed private Persons to practice and the Church to appoint things of a Religious nature which God had not commanded to be done Lastly I entreat them to consider how utterly impracticable this pretended Principle is as might be proved from the contrary Practice of all those who advance it against Ecclesiastical Authority and particularly from their own Practice in Baptizing grown Persons who were bred up from Infants in the Christian Religion and in admitting Women to the Lords-Supper who were not admitted to the Passover nor Paschal-cup of Blessing without any Precept or President for so doing in the Word of God This little well considered is enough to obviate all Objections against my first Assertion viz. That it is not lawful to separate from a Church which appointeth Infants to be Baptized upon supposition that Infant-Baptism is barely lawful and allowable but if any man desire further satisfaction as to this point he may have it abundantly in the case of indifferent things to which I refer him it being more my business to shew here that Infant-Baptism is at least a lawful and allowable thing To prove this I need but desire the Reader to reflect upon the State of the two first Questions For if Infants be as capable of Baptism under the Gospel as they were of Circumcision under the Law and if Christ have not excluded them from it neither directly nor consequentially Otherwise if Baptism be an Institution of as great Latitude in its self as Circumcision its Fore-runner was and Christ hath not determined the administration of it to one Age more than one Sex Once more if Children may be taken into the Covenant of Grace under the Gospel as well as under the Law and Christ never said nor did any thing which can in reason be interpreted to forbid them to be taken in In a word If they are capable of all the Ends of Baptism now that they were of Circumcision then and of having the Priviledges of Church-Membership and the Blessings of the Covenant consigned unto them and Christ neither by himself nor by his Apostles did forbid the Church to satisfie and fulfil this their capacity Or last of all If Christ hath only appointed Baptism instead of Circumcision but said nothing to determine the Subject of it then it must needs follow that Infant-Baptism must at least be lawful and allowable because it is an indifferent and not a forbidden or sinful thing But upon this supposition that it were left undetermined and indifferent by Christ it might like other indifferent things be lawfully appointed by any Church from which it would be a Sin to separate upon that account For in this case Churches might safely differ in their practice about Infant-Baptism as they do now in the Ceremonies of Baptism and those who lived in a Church which did practice it ought no more to separate from her for appointing of it then those who lived in another Church which did not practise it ought to separate from her for not appointing thereof Thus much I have said I hope with sufficient moderation upon supposition that all I have written upon former Questions doth but satisfactorily prove that Infant-Baptism is only lawful and not highly requisite and necessary but then if it be not only lawful but highly requisite and necessary so that it ought to be appointed then it must needs be much more sinful to separate from a Church which appointeth Infants to be Baptized Now as to the requisite necessity of Infant-Baptism supposing that my Reader bears in memory that I have said upon the last Question to make it appear with the highest degree of credibility that Christ instituted Baptism for Infants as well as grown Persons and that the Apostles and their Companions Practised Infant-Baptism I must here entreat him further to observe that there is a two-fold necessity in matters of Christian Faith and practice one which proceeds from plain dictates of natural reason or from plain and express words of the Gospel where the sense is so obvious and clear that no sober man can mistake it or doubt of it and another which proceeds from the general Scope and Tenour of the Gospel or from doubtful places in it so or so understood and interpreted by the unanimous voice and practice of the ancient Catholick Church The first degree of necessity is founded on ostensive certainty and demonstration wherein there is no room left for Objection And the Second is founded upon violent presumption where the Objections on one hand are insufficient to move or at least to turn the Ballance if put in the Scale against the other which is weighed down Mole universatis Ecclesiae with the authority of the Universal Church And because this Rule like others is not so intelligible without an Example I will add some Instances of things which are necessary to be believed and practised by every good Christian under both these Notions of necessity that they may be better understood According to the First Notion of it it is necessary to believe that Jesus Christ is the Messias and the Son of God because it is delivered in express words of Scripture And according to the Second Notion of it it is necessary to believe that he is of the same substance with the Father and equal unto him and that there are three distinct and coequal Persons in the God-head which are all but one God because these Doctrines though they are not to be found in express words in the Gospel yet they are to be collected from several places of it which were always so interpreted by that ancient Catholick Church Again according to the First Notion of necessity it is necessary for all Men to believe the Word of God whether spoken or written because natural reason teacheth us so to do And according to the Second Notion of it it is necessary to believe the Books contained in the New Testament to be the Word of God and no other how Divine and Orthodox and Ancient soever they may be because they and they only have been received for such by the ancient Catholick Church In like manner as to matter of Practice by the First sort of Necessity it is necessary for Christians to assemble together to Worship God because Reason and Scripture plainly teach them so to do And by the Second fort it is necessary that they should assemble themselves periodically to Worship God on every first day of the Week because the Observation of the Lords Day appears to be a Duty from several places of the New Testament as they are interpreted to this sence by the universal Practice of the ancient Catholick Church To proceed according to the First Notion of Necessity Church-Government is necessary because it is enjoyned by the Dictates of Common reason and most express
all who enter into Covenant and receive the Seal of the Covenant must contract and stipulate for their parts as well as God doth for his and therefore St. Peter saith That the Baptism which saveth us 1 Ep. 3.21 must have the answer or restipulation of a good Conscience towards God But how can Infants restipulate or what Conscience can be in them who have not the use of reason nor are capable of knowing what the Covenant means To this Objection I answer as formerly That it is as strong against Infant-Circumcision as Infant-Baptism for the Infants of the Jews were admitted as effectually into the Covenant and had it as really sealed unto them and were as strongly tyed to perform the Conditions of it when they came to years of understanding as if they had been Circumcised then and at their Circumcision had personally and expresly indented with God Wherefore the same answer which will serve to justifie Infant-Circumcision will justifie Infant-Baptism which succeeds in the place of it and it is this That God of his goodness towards Infants was pleased to seal the Covenant of Grace unto Infants upon an implicite and imputative sort of Stipulation which at years of understanding they were bound to own by openly professing the Jewish Religion or if they then renounced it thereupon they became Strangers to the Covenant which in such cases was as void as if it had never been made An implicit Stipulation was sufficient for the Children of Believers though an open Profession and Stipulation was required of Grown Proselytes which shews that Circumcision was an institution of Latitude and that personal and express Restipulation was not a general pre-requisite condition to Circumcision but only to some Persons to be Circumcised In like manner Baptism being an institution of Latitude ordained for Persons under as well as at the years of discretion personal and express Stipulation is only required of the former and therefore St. Peter in the Text above cited likely had respect not to all Baptism or Baptism in general but only to the Baptism of Adult Proselytes whom the Minister used to * Hence Tertullian de Baptismo calls Baptism Sponsionem Salutis And in St. Cyprian we often read of the interrogation in Baptism interrogate at the time of Baptism much after the same manner as we interrogate Adult Proselytes now Wherefore this Objection like the rest which the Anabaptists make runs upon this presumption that Baptism is a strict institution and that personal and express answering or Restipulation is a pre-requisite condition to all Baptism whereas it is only a personal qualification required of Majors or Adult Persons when they come to be Baptized But as for Children Baptism may be administred unto them upon an implicite and imputative sort of Restipulation as Circumcision was to the Jewish and Baptism now is to agonizing Christian Infants or else it may be administred unto them as Baptism formerly was among the Jews to the Infants and Minors of Proselytes upon a vicarious Restipulation by their Sponsors which seems to have been translated together with the use of Baptism from the Jewish Church It is certain that * De Baptismo cap. 18. quid enim necesse est Sponsores etiam periculo ingeri Tertullian makes mention of Sponsors or Sureties for Children at Baptism and very probable that the Apostles made Parents and Major domos stipulate in the name of their †Praefecturae igitur juridicae quae Baptismo prae erat profitebatur Proselytus ipse Majorennis Masculus qui annum decimum tertium foemina quae duodecim superaverat legem Mosaicam se servaturum Minorum vero nomine idem ipsum profitebatur praefectura ipsa uti in Christianismo susceptores minorennium seu parvulorum saltem si nec parentes adessent qui idem praestare possent Selden de Synedriis Lib. 1. c. 3. And what is here said of the CONSISTORY among the Jews concerning the Baptism of Infants and Minors St. Augustine saith of the Church among Christians accommodat illis mater Ecclesia aliorum pedes ut veniant aliorum cor ut credant aliorum linguam ut fateantur Minors when they Baptized them as the Jews were wont to do and upon this Supposition St. Peter in the Text above cited might also probably allude to all Baptism because Grown Proselytes to the Christan Religion did answer for their Children as well as for themselves at Baptism according to the Custom of the Jewish Church Nay there is little reason to doubt but that the Jewish being the Pattern of the Christian Baptism the Apostles and their Assistants who were Jews or Hellenists did observe this Custom of Vicarious Stipulation at the Baptism of Infants and Minors as well as all the other Particulars in which they resemble one another as the Picture doth the Face whose Picture it is As for Example the Jewish Baptism was administred to Women as well as Men and so is the Christian Secondly It was never reiterated nor repeated no more is the Christian Thirdly It was called Regeneration and a New Birth and Baptized Persons were said to be born again and Regenerated which also holds in Christian Baptism Fourthly Baptized Proselytes among the Jews were bound to leave their nearest Relations if it were necessary and adhere to the Church and so are Baptized Christian Proselytes bound to do the same Fifthly The Infants of Proselytes were Baptized among the Jews as well as the Proselytes themselves and so have I proved that Infants have been always Baptized among the Christians And therefore in the last place since the Jewish Church Baptized Infants upon Vicarious Stipulation why should not we think it sufficient for their entrance into the Covenant and that the Apostles did so too These things and whatsoever else is written in this little Tract I hope will be fairly and candidly considered by the Dissenters among us upon the account of Infant-Baptism I say the truth in Christ I lye not my Conscience also bearing me Witness in the Holy Ghost who is the Searcher of Hearts that I have great heaviness and almost continual sorrow in my heart for them and that to reconcile them to the Church I could wish in the Apostles Sence that I my self were an Anathema from Christ And because it is a Disease too common among Dissenters and more especially among those with whom I have been a dealing to have minds full of Prejudice Prepossession and sinister Suspitions against what we Speak or Preach or Write I have here subjoined a Letter of that Famous Martyr of Jesus Christ Mr. John Philpot concerning Infant-Baptism which I seriously recommend to their Impartial and diligent perusal hoping that the same Arguments which may perhaps have less effect upon them as they come from me may be better received and make deeper impression upon their Souls as they come from him who like the Primitive Martyrs was Blessed with Heavenly Visions and chearfully suffered