within the family and such only if so your assertion is apparently false but if your proposition be particular it falleth short of our cause for what can it hurt it if by all or whole families in Scripture sometimes is meant all persons of reason and age deale ingenuously then do you affime that by whole or all the Scripture doth alwayes meane persons of reason and age what doth God when he said to Abraham and in thee all the families of the earth shall be blessed doth he meane only all persons of age are children in their nonage excluded from the blessing in Christ Nay but the Apostle saith expresly the promise is unto you and to your children and such Christ blessed and of such is the kingdome of heaven Doth the Scripture Genes 7. 21â— saying all flesh dyed every man meane onely all of reason and age were the infants excepted many places of Scripture may shew the vanity of this your assertion but if your proposition be particular that is that sometimes the Scripture by whole families means persons of reason that is who have the use of reason and age we can grant it you I adde somtimes all signifieth only a great part as Mat. 10. 22 ye shall be hated of all men for my name sake that is of many times in the Hebrew manner of speaking it signifies none or not any one as Psal. 147. 20. he hath not done so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to all or every nation that is not to any so Exod. 12. 43. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. every son of a stranger shall not eate thereof that is none now would you have the sense of Christs words goe and baptize all nations to be go and baptize some nations or a major part of the nations the evidence of the truth is against that as well as against the other go and baptise none but you would faine have it go and baptize those that are persons of reason and age within the nations shew us any such precept of Christ and we will obey it in the meane time we must do that which we know he commanded us that is baptize all nations all against whom we finde no exception and why should we look for exception in families seeing we find none mentioned by our Saviour in nations but you would have here a limitation to capacity which you think infants have not first we say shew us any Scripture-proofe for such limitation secondly we say that although the incapacity of an infant limit a command where there appeareth a present impossibility of doing that which God in generall commandeth as where he saith believe repent confesse your sins sing unto God praise him c for God commandeth no impossibilities yet where it is possible that the command may be fulfilled there lieth no such limitation now you will not say that 't is impossible for infants to be baptized if you say they ought not to be baptized untill they can actually believe repent c. we must answer you with your own this is unmanlike to build upon such slight and aery conjectures as are humane fancies to forbid infants baptisme and when you can bring us no solid ground for that you would have to beg the question But you say Tradition by all meanes must supply the place of Scripture and there is pretended a tradition Apostolicall that infants were baptized c. You seem here to speake three things first that when we cite traditions we use them in place of Scripture or for defect of Scripture-proofe which to deny is confutation enough untill you can shew which of us so pretend to tradition Secondly in your following words you pretend that we sometimes reject Apostolicall tradition for of that you speake to which we say that when the quaestion is concerning a tradition of the gospel or Apostles as Epiphanius speakes we receive it and with an ancient Council wish that those things may be done in the Church which were delivered by divine Scripture or Apostolical tradition which we adde hereto though we have no reason to admit of all that is alledged for such as for those things which the Apostles delivered in complyance with particular times places or persons as anointing with oyl saluting with an holy kisse love-feasts c. they were necessary then and to that people who had been long accustomed thereto of whom a gospel-Church was now to be gathered but they were neither universally prescribed neither do they concern us now Next we say with S. Augustine the whole Church holdeth by tradition the baptism of infants and that beeing continually observed we justly believe to have been delivered and confirmed by Apostolicall tradition But you say So farre as it can appeare it relies wholly upon the testimony of Origen for from him Augustine had it c. Yet before you affirmed that infant-baptisme was Augustin's device how had Augustine it from Origen if it were Augustin's device That it was neither his device neither that it relyeth wholly upon the testimony of Origen many other testimonis by us alleaged make manifest as Dionysius Irenaeus Cyprian Ambros Ierom Cyril Gre. Nazianzen Basil c. as also ancient Councils as that of â—arthage Anâ— 407. the Milevitan Anâ— 420 c. to conclude we rely no upon the testimony of man though we reverence holy antiquity but on the command of Christ and the Apostles practises baptising whole nations without any appearing exception to infants of believing parents and therefore you following inferences either nothing concern or nothing hurt us You say further There was no command of Scripture to oblige children to the susception of it No command to children to oblige them a dainty caption neither was there any command to infants to oblige them to the susception of circumcision for they could neither act nor understand that or any other command The command was to the parents for present and to children for the future therefore if you meane that there was no command of Scripture to oblige us to the baptizing of infants the contrary appeares Matth. 28 19. But you require expresse termes we rejoyne what expresse termes in Scripture have you to prove that there is an holy Trinity in the unity of the deity or for the abrogating the Iewish Sabbath and observation of our lord-Lord-day Sabbath or for womens receiving the Lords supper or for your rebaptizing or dipping over head and ears But you say The necessity of pedobaptism was not determined in the Church till in the eighth age after Christ but in the year 418. in the Milevitan Councel never till then What necessity speak you of de necessitate medii in respect of infants salvation as if they could not be saved without it we maintain it not if you mean such a necessity on our part as bindeth us to obedience that is to baptize infants of believing parents we say with S.
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 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 childrenâ— 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 convenant 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 â—aptisme for the remission of sins so that if S. Peters argumeâ—t may passe with you for demonstration and not be mistaken for a fancy this shew's the right and title which inâ—ants have to baptisme grounded on the sure promise of God which the Apostle well knew was first sealed with inâ—ant-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 if 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 Iewes 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 Iewes then to infants of Christian parents with whom God made his covenant of grace and mercy They affirme that even infants of Turkes and Iewes 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 aâ—e interpreted upon a weake mistake the promise belongs to â—ou and to your children therefore infants are actually receptive of it in that capacity Certainly Gods promise is of that invincible streâ—gth 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 discreâ—ion which is evident by Gods promise made unto Abraham I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy sâ—ed 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 Iewes or Gentiles c. And let the reader marke that after the Apostle had exhorted every one
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 particulars 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 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 thou 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 childreâ— 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 binding 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 sâ—ved 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 nor 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 bloâ—d of the everâ— lasting
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 we may not baptize them We answer 1 If you speak of Christs baptizing personally he baptized none Ioh. 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. â—ine 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 expressly 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 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