it and also I grant that they belong to the Kingdom of Heaven and so are of the Universal Church But this proves not that they are Disciples at all for the Infants of Heathens are Members of Kingdoms and may go to Heaven and yet you think they are no Disciples for all that And if Infants may in some Sence be said to be God's Servants Psal 119. 91. yet this proves not that they are Disciples for all Creatures as well sensitive vegetative as rational are said to be his Servants yet all Creatures are not Christ's Disciples Mr. Taylor 's Argument 8. To whom Christ grants Imposition of Hands to them belongs Baptism But to Children Christ grants Imposition of Hands Therefore to them belongs Baptism ANSWER 1. If the major Proposition be taken universally that to whomsoever Christ granted imposition of Hands or touching in any case that to them belongs Baptism then the Major is not true for he touched or put his hand upon the dead yet Baptism belongs not to the dead Luke 7. 14. If it be said Christ touched the Bier not the Dead I answer He touched the Childrens Cloaths when he took them in his Arms but he took the dead Damsel by the hand and said Talitha cumi Damsel I say unto thee Arise Mark 5. 41. Thus much to the Major now to the Minor 2. If by laying on of hands you understand that which by Christ's Doctrine Heb. 6. 2. is made a standing Ordinance in his Church and in order next to Baptism as is evident you do then I deny your Minor For that Ordinance was not yet instituted nor useful because the End of it was not yet to be received for the Spirit of Promise was not yet given nor as yet to be given because Jesus was not yet glorified John 7. Wherefore your Misinterpretation of Mat. 19. 13 14 15. is injurious to Truth and would prefer these Infants to the Apostles in the reception of the First-fruits of the Spirit unless you think Christ laid hands on the Children without obtaining the End or Essect of the Service So then it 's clear that this laying on of hands or touching Infants for so it is expressed both by St. Mark and St. Luke cannot with any fairness be understood of that laying on of hands which follows Baptism and therefore is no Proof at all for your Minor 3. The Church of England does not believe that Infants are fit Subjects for laying on of hands and therefore does not understand this Text Mat. 19. of that laying on of hands which follows Baptism neither does Mr. Taylor himself believe that Confirmation belongs to Infants If otherwise they are very unfaithful in that they were never known to lay hands upon any one Infant for confirmation as I can hear of But how comes it to pass that Mr. Taylor will baptize Infants when yet he confesses their Baptism is not mentioned in the New Testament and yet not plead for their Confirmation till they be capable to own their Covenant made in Baptism when yet he pretends tho I dare say he believes it not that Text Mat. 19. 13 c. is express for that laying on of hands which follows Baptism to be granted to Christ to Infants pag. 56. 4. Mr. Taylor says That Christ confirmed or laid hands on the Baptized I shall entreat him to make this plain for I would gladly see it well proved however I am sure his Doctrine orders it to be done and that 's sufficient What you say further here is either what we oppose not or what is answered elsewhere save only your last Particular which now we shall consider 5. Their coming to Christ say you is their becoming his Disciples or Proselites Suffer them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be Proselites to me If to this I should answer with Tertullian Veniant ergo dum adolescunt c. Let them come therefore when they are grown up it will be thought too little tho God knows how hasty soever Men are to get them sprinkled they are slow enough to bring them to Christ when they are capable to be taught I will therefore answer further Do you think that when Infants are brought to a Priest to be sprinkled and crossed that then they are brought to Christ Or can Christians no other way bring their Infants to Christ Or do no Infants belong to Christ but those who are so brought These Things will not be asserted I think yet let us go as far as we can by the Light of the Text. By this Example of Christ I think the Ministers of Christ may lawfully pray for a Blessing in behalf of all the Infants of those that shall desire it and that it is well done in those Parents that do desire the Prayers of the Church or her Ministers for their Infants And this is as much as can be fairly urged from this Text as imitable for us For the touching by our Saviour's hands may be a Point too high for us unless we will also touch the Dead c. which I hope is not written for our Example But now if the Minister will needs baptize my Child because I bring it into the Congregation and desire Prayer to be made to God for his Blessing upon it he herein goes beyond the Example of Christ and beyond the Text and therefore there I must leave him his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 notwithstanding For 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ex verbo 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quod est advenio quoniam veniebant est Ethnicis ad Judaismum saith the Learned and I think Infants cannot change their Religion nor was it fit to call an Infant of a Jew a Proselite when it was brought to Circumcision and consequently as improper to call the Child of a Christian a Proselite However all that can lawfully be done to proselite an Infant if you will needs have that Term used is but to devote them to Christ by Prayers for his Blessing but not a Syllable for baptizing them Mr. Taylor 's Argument 5. If the Faith of the Parents entitles the Children to the Covenant then it entitles them to Baptism But the Faith of the Parents entitles the Children to the Covenant Therefore the Faith of the Parents entitles the Children to Baptism ANSWER 1. The Consequence of the Major may well be denied for tho it should be some ways true that the Faith of the Parents entitles the Children to the Covenant yet it follows not that it entitles them to the performance of or submission to the Things which they understand not nor are able to perform And whither would such a Consequence lead us if we should follow it What Duty should not Infants be entitled to as well as to Baptism But let us see whether the Minor be well proved you quote Acts. 2. and think it a clear place to prove that the Faith of the Parents entitles the Children to the Covenant But this Text says not a word to that purpose for
Peter derives the Title both of Parents and Children from the Promise of God and builds the Title of all the Called of the Lord and of them that were afar off also upon the Promise of God and not upon the Faith of Abraham himself Besides the Promise here is of the Gifts of the Holy Ghost and therefore not pertinent to Infants as I have shewed Here is therefore no proof at all of your Minor I think it were better to say that by Faith a Christian knows his Child has an interest in the Covenant of Grace than that his Faith entitles his Child to it I fear this Minor is a very dangerous Assertion and that partly because the Consequence of such an Opinion is to shut out all Infants from the Covenant of Grace who have not faithful Parents to entitle them to it And in truth it seems to swell with too much boldness and carnal presumption but I spare you 2. The Faith of the Jews and Proselites did not entitle their Children to the Covenant of Grace but they themselves being incorporate into that Church-State their Children by express Command from God had a Title to legal Priviledges but the Covenant of Grace for that 's it we dispute tho you leave out the Word Grace in your Argument extended to Infants by God's free Redemption which he purposed for them in Christ from the Foundation of the World or else what shall become of the many thousands of Infants of Unbelievers 3. You can never prove that the Faith of the Jaylor or Lydia either did entitle their Infants to the Covenant for you cannot prove they had any Children And it is so exceeding plain that all that were baptized in these two Families were Believers that I wonder much that you should say that on the believing of the Jaylor and Lydia the whole Families were baptized Pray read Acts 16. 32. to the end and you will find that they that were baptized were actual Believers and capable of being consolated by the Apostles Mr. Taylor 's Argument 10. Those who are capable of the Kingdom of Heaven are capable of Baptism But Children are capable of the Kingdom of Heaven Therefore Children are capable of Baptism ANSWER 1. The Major being taken universally for all that may go to Heaven it may very well be denied for Mr. Taylor dare not deny a Capacity of Salvation to some of the Infants of the Jews and yet Mr. Taylor himself does not think they are capable of Baptism for he makes the Faith of the Parents necessary to the entitling them to Baptism which in this Case is wanting 2. That the greater includes the less is not universally true for Women have a capacity to go to Heaven yet they have no capacity to be Bishops which is less than going to Heaven Infants are not capable of the Lord's Table which is less than to go to Heaven Indeed this Argument being admitted to be good would bring Infants to all Privileges in the Church-Militant as well as to Baptism for thus a Man might argue Those who are capable of all the Privileges of the Church Triumphant are capable of all the Privileges of the Church Militant for the greater includes the less But Infants are capable of all Privileges in the Church Triumphant Ergo c. And if it be unreasonable as you say it is to deny the external Sign to those to whom Christ hath granted the internal Grace pray why are you so unreasonable as to deny your Infants the Sign of the Lord's Table seeing you affirm they are regenerate and born of Water and the Spirit But if you were put to prove that Infants whom you sprinkle have the inward Grace which entitles to Baptism you would never be able to make demonstration to your own or any wise Man's Satisfaction for is not the inward and spiritual Grace Repentance whereby Sin is forsaken and Faith whereby the Promises of God are stedfastly believed And what Infant did you ever know thus qualified for Baptism Mr. Taylor 's Argument 11. All who are Believers ought to be baptized But Children are Believers Therefore Children ought to be baptized ANSWER 1. The Minor Proposition that Infants are Believers is not true And I answer in the Words of Dr. Hammond who saith Letter of Resolut p. 297. I shall profess to be none of those that are concerned in the Question Whether Infants have Faith I freely confess to believe that Faith is so necessarily founded in Vnderstanding that they that have not Vnderstanding cannot have Faith whether actual or habitual And Dr. Jer. Taylor tells us expresly Whether Infants have Faith is a Question to be disputed by Persons that care not how much they say and how little they prove Thus these two Pillars of the Church of England explode your Argument as an egregious Error 2. And for that place Mat. 18. 5 6. by which you would prove Infants Believers the Learned of your own Church expound it to a contrary Sence and take the little Child that believeth to be a true Christian that hath laid aside all worldly Pride whereby he is become abject in the sight of the World I shall not contend with you about the proper signification of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 professing my self no Scholar tho Ludovicus Vives useth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for an Houshold-Servant But it is sufficient to my purpose that you dare not say Infants are actual Believers nay you confess they have not actual Faith And for imputative Faith if there be any such thing yet it can be no Rule for the baptizing any Body seeing it is not revealed to whom Faith is imputed and whilst you say God may esteem Infants as Believers another may as well say he may esteem them as baptized also I say your granting Infants have not actual Faith you can take the word believeth Mat. 18. 6. only by the Figure called Prosopopoeia if you will needs have the Child an Infant of Days And if it be good arguing from hence to the Baptism of Infants then you may argue as strongly for baptizing the whole Creation if you can tell how for it is said to groan expect and wait for the manifestation of the Sons of God and to be delivered from the Bondage of Corruption Rom. 8. 19. We conclude then that it is not a figurative Faith but an actual Faith at least by profession that entitles to the reception of Baptism 3. We do not say that God will impute Unbelief to Infants but only to those that refuse to believe and tho we know Infants are not Believers yet we do not say or think they are Unbelievers they being not capable to sin against God in that case or any else And Unbelief presupposes a capacity in the Subject and means sufficient to believe and yet the Creature refuses to believe The Sin of Unbelief therefore being no way chargeable upon any Infant it follows by necessary Consequence that they have no capacity
the Fear of God c. Then I deny your Major and say Those who are only capable thus to be engaged with God in Covenant are not capable of Baptism But if you mean a personal and actual entring into Covenant with God then I deny your Minor and all the Experience of the World confutes you 5. You shall never be able to prove that Infants are capable of Fasting and 〈…〉 Duties tho you seem to affirm it and what 〈…〉 the Beasts and that Fast was pleasing to 〈…〉 arises to prove that either Infants or the 〈…〉 any Duty to God nor that they are therefore to be brought to the participation of Baptism nor any other Religious Ordinance without Order from God to do it Yet if a Man were disposed to Syllogize from hence after your manner he might as strongly plead for one Error as you do for another 6. The Capacity of Jewish Children for Circumcision or other Rites of the Law depended chiefly on the Will of God to order it so Prove that it is his Will to have Infants baptized and we will not mention their Incapacity If it be not his Will wherefore is it done Who has required it Mr. Taylor 's Argument 6. Those who are Members of Christ's Church ought to be baptized But Children are Members of Christ's Church Therefore Children ought to be baptized ANSWER If by the Church of Christ you mean all that since the Death of Christ shall be saved then I deny the Major For the Infants of the poor Indians may be saved yet in your Judgment they ought not to be baptized But if by the Church of Christ you mean only such as are in the actual Profession of the Gospel Then I deny the Minor and retort your Argument thus 1. Those who are Members of the Church ought to continue in the Apostles Doctrine and in Fellowship and in breaking of Bread and in Prayers But c. Ergo c. The Major is proved Acts 2. 41. 1 Cor. 10. They continued stedfastly in the Apostle's Doctrine and Fellowship and in breaking of Bread and in Prayers We being many are one Body and one Bread for we are all partakers of that one Bread These things were spoken of the whole Church which was in these Places engaged in the actual profession of the Gospel Now see how you can defend your self against my Minor and therein you will easily see the infirmity of your own 2. But to prove your Minor you say The Children of the Jews were with their Parents Church-Members under the Law and that Law is not yet repealed But if by their Church-membership you mean their Right to and their Parents Act in bringing them to Ceremonies in Religion the contrary is true The Covenant of Circumcision being repealed as it was an Obligation to the Children of Israel and never made with any Nation since nor any other Covenant extant where such things are imposed upon Infants 3. That the Children of converted Jews lost not their Privileges is not true if by Privileges you intend Ceremonies but if by Privileges you mean a being delivered from the Law of Ceremonies then I grant it And it is certainly a greater Privilege that Children are under a declared Right to the Kingdom of God by Christ and his gracious blessing a part of them as a Pledg for the whole than if he had ordained a Law to baptize them in order thereunto And it is also certain that the Jewish Church-state being dissolved upon the Death of Christ and the Gospel-Church confirmed in the Gift of Tongues c. No Person could rightly stand a Member of the Jewish Church which was the only Church that ever had command from God to bring their Infants to Rites of Religion 4. You still urge that the Gentiles had equal Privileges with the Jews And I grant they have greater Privileges but not in Rites and Ceremonies but rather in being accepted without them as touching their Infants and with a very few as touching themselves But you say further That the Children of Parents who did not believe were rejected therefore the Children of believing Parents or Gentiles are Church-Members And here I confess I know not how to reconcile you to your self where you say None are excluded from the Covenant of Grace but actual Vnbelievers pag. 26. Sure the Son shall not dye for the Sin of the Parents so as to go to Hell with them Shall not the Judg of all the Earth do Right 5. You say Children are either Members of the visible Church of Christ or else are visibly of Satan's Kingdom there is no Medium between these two Surely I did not think Mr. Taylor had been of this Opinion No Papist can say worse of poor Infants Here you condemn many thousands of Infants God give you a better Understanding Are Infants of Jews Turks and Indians all of the visible Kingdom of Satan No I will believe my Saviour who saith It is not the will of his Heavenly Father that one of these little ones should perish Mat. 18. 14. And sure I am that none are truly of Satan's Kingdom but such as are his Subjects For he has no right over any by Creation and Purchase as God and Christ have Now it being clear that Infants are none of Satan's Subjects it must needs be very injurious to say they are visibly of his Kingdom But being Created by God and Redeemed by Christ and never offended in their own Persons it is rational to think they are in God's Favour as it appears the Infants of the Ninevites were Jonah 4. In his gracious Arms we shall therefore leave them and proceed Mr. Taylor 's Argument 7. Those who are Disciples of Christ may be baptized But Children are Disciples of Christ Therefore Children may be baptized ANSWER 1. The Minor is denied Infants are not Disciples of Christ neither does God and Christ own them for such as you affirm But you bring Acts 15. 1 2 10. to prove it and say That the Yoak which the Jews would have laid upon the new converted Gentiles was Circumcision which pertained to Children who were Circumcised the eighth day and yet it is laid too upon the Disciples Necks But Sir do you think this to be rational that because the Jews would have laid the Yoak of Circumcision on the Necks of the Disciples that therefore all were Disciples upon whom they would have laid that Yoak sure this is a very unlawful Consequence No better than this You would lay the Yoak of Crossing and Sprinkling upon Infants therefore all are Infants upon whom you would lay the Yoak of Crossing and Sprinkling Again they that were preserved in the Ark of Noah were Men and Women Therefore all that were preserved in the Ark of Noah were Men and Women You may easily see these Consequences are very untrue and verily so is yours For tho the false Apostles would have laid the Yoak of Circumcision upon the Necks of the Disciples yet all
were not Disciples whom they would have Circumcised for 't is said They taught the Brethren except they were Circumcised c. they could not be saved But you cannot imagine that they taught Infants If Acts 15. be diligently read it will expound it self for vers 19. the Disciples are said to be such as from among the Gentiles were turned to God And all that are called Disciples vers 10. are called Brethren and as such they are written unto by the Assembly vers 23. And the Epistle is said to be read to all the Multitude meaning of the Disciples who thereupon are said to rejoice for the Consolation Sure these were no Infants 2. But you say They are Disciples in that tho Man cannot teach them yet God can and may Well I thank you for your Ingenuity It is true as you say Man cannot teach or make Infants Disciples and then to be sure they are not intended by our Saviour to be made Disciples by what he says in your Text Mat. 28. 19. For all that are to be made Disciples by that Commission are to be made such by Men So that you are evidently besides your Text in all that you say to this Argument and you are beside your own Exposition of your Text also which I will here set down as you give it pag. 10. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Going to Disciple all Nations instruct them in the Principles of my Religion and then being Disciples baptize them So that there is a Discipleship pre-existent to Baptism and indeed the premising the Word DISCIPLE implies none to be capable of Baptism who are not Disciples of Christ and Members of his Church These are your Words 'T is true you say Infants will be proved to be Disciples But surely not by saying as you do here that God can make them Disciples or teach them For it is no good arguing from what God can do to say he has done it or will do it For God can of the Stones in the Street raise up Children unto Abraham but I may not therefore say the Stones in the Srreet are the Children of Abraham You say indeed that God hath given several instances of his teaching several from the Womb but you can neither name the Persons nor shew us what he taught them however if you could such miraculous Operations are not given for general Rules God once taught a dumb Ass to speak and to reprove a Prophet but it would be bad arguing from this instance that Asses are Disciples And yet this is a clearer instance of God's teaching the Ass than you can give of his teaching any Infant 3. But seeing you put Infants Discipleship upon the account of God's teaching them you must have some competent ground to believe that he has miraculously taught them before you baptize them or else you destroy your Exposition of the Text which avers That there is a Discipleship pre-existent to Baptism And when you shall shew me the Infant whom God hath taught or made a Disciple I believe I shall not oppose your Baptizing that Infant and this is as much as you can desire 4. But you say further That God hath promised to teach Children What Sir in their Infancy Let us see your Proofs Isa 54. 13. All thy Children shall be taught of the Lord and great shall be the Peace of thy Children John 6. 45. It is written in the Prophets and they shall be all taught of God Every Man therefore that hath heard and learned of the Father cometh unto me Certainly had you read those Texts with their Coherence and considered that our Saviour himself in the latter expounds the former you would never have imagined that God here promises to teach any Infants much less all the Infants in the Christian Nations for it is very apparent they that are taught according to these Scriptures have heard and learned of the Father so as to come to Christ And indeed the meaning is that God speaking to us by his Son who is very God 1 John 5. had now made good that gracious Promise Isa 54. 13. All thy Children shall be taught of the Lord. But you have another Text Acts 10. 47. Can any Man forbid Water that these should not be baptized who have received the Holy-Ghost as well as we Now he that reads this place will easily see that the Persons here spoken of were only such as were assembled to hear Peter in whatsoever they should be commanded of God and that the Holy-Ghost fell on all that heard the Word Which place therefore can with no shew of Reason be brought to prove that Infants are taught of God However when you shall find an Infant that has received the Holy-Ghost as well as the Apostles then for my part I shall not forbid Water that you should baptize him provided you first be baptized your self 5. You will have Infants to be Disciples because Christ you say commands the receiving of them in his Name and you quote Luke 18. 16 17. Mat. 19. 13. Luke 9. 47. I have carefully read all these places but can find no Command to receive Infants in the Name of Christ much less to receive them by Baptism It is true Christ called a little Child unto him and said Whosoever shall receive this Child in my Name receiveth me Now this Child was able to know what Christ said and is no fit Instance to prove an Infant of eight days old to be a Disciple of Christ neither does this Text call this Child a Disciple but the Disciples are distinguished from it And yet it and so any little Child may be a good Precedent even to Disciples to learn Humility and Simplicity by and so may a Lamb or a Dove serve to teach us to be humble and harmless yet they are not therefore Disciples Neither can the receiving this Child or any other in like case be understood of receiving them by Baptism for then you may read the place thus Whosoever baytizeth a Child in my Name baptizeth me but this is both false and absurd And besides he that is baptized may be rather said to receive Christ than he that baptizeth in that Action Or would you make our Saviour to say He that baptizeth an Infant in my Name receiveth me If so I would know by what Authority you take the word receiveth for baptizing in the first place and in the second for something else Surely if to baptize an Infant in the Name of Christ be a receiving of Christ it 's an easy thing to receive Christ especially for the Priest who pretends to baptize Infants daily But sure it is as much the Duty of other Christians to receive Children in the Name of Christ as the Priests for the Word is Whosoever shall receive this Child in my Name and therefore it cannot be meant of baptizing them and then these Scriptures prove not your Argument at all 6. You urge that Infants are Members of Earthly Kingdoms and I grant