Baptiâ—m deal preprosterously oversliping the commandment of repenting and bâ—leiving this is the cause of of so much profaneness in the world we see what is done in Baptism the Covenant of grace is solemniz'd between God and the Party baptized and in this Covenant something belongs to God some to the Party baptized the actions of the Party baptized is a certain stipulation or obligation whereby he bindeth himself to give homage to the Father Son and holy Ghost This homage standeth IN FAITH whereby all the promises of God are beleieved and in OBEDIENCE to all his commandements The sign of this obligation is that the Party baptized WILLINGLY yeilds himself to be washed with water 3. Diodate on the same Text teaches that Baptism is a Sacrament of grace in remission and expiation of sins and regeneration to a new life And likewise for a token that they are bound on there side meaning such as are baptized to consecrate themseâ—ves to God and to give themselves over to the conduct of 〈◊〉 Spirit and to CONFESSE his name PERPETUALLY Thus these three witnesses do concurre with the truth and therein do hold a concord with the baptized Churches And one would think there should now be no place for such a conceit as that Infants are fit subjects for the sacred ordinance of baptism because wholly uncapable of these qualifications Now whereas divâ—râ— things are pretended as grounds for Infant Baptism we shall briefly recount the particulars which are chiefly insisted on and then show how the same are refelled or made void by some of the most learned Asserters of Paedo-baptism The grounds pretended are these 1. The Covenant which God made with Abraham and his seed Gen. 17. who were to be circumcised to wit the makes only in their Infancy this is thought to be a Type of baptism and hence 't is conceived that Infants ought â—o be baptized 2. Christs permiâ—â—ing Infants to be brought to him as persons to whom the Kingdome belongs 3. They being tainted with original sin must be cleansed from it which is supposed to be done by baptism 4. Because it is said except a man be born of water c. he cannot enter into the kingdome of God John 3. 5. Because Infants do not ponere obicem and so are more fit for baptism then adult Persons as 't is thought 6. Because without baptism Parents can not hope the salvation of dying Infants as some think 7. The promise of the holy Ghost Acts 2. 39 is thought to belong to Infants and so they ought to be baptized because they are said to be holy 8. Unless Infants be baptized 't is thought God is worse to Infants in the Gospel then in the Law 9. Infants are a parâ— of all Nations and the command for baptizing is of extent to all Nations 10. 'T is thought the Apostles baptized Infants because they baptized whole housholds and 't is said it hath descended to this very age as a Tradition Apostolical To all which Doct. Jer. Taylor and others in behalf of the baptized Churches do give answer as followeth That this is a goodly Harangue which upon strict examination will come to nothing that it pretends fairly and signifies little that some of those allegations are false some impertinent and all the rest insufficient For the argument from circumcision is invalid or of no wright upon infinite considerations figures and types prove nothing unless a commandment go along with them or some express â—o signifie such to be their purpose for the deluge of waters and the ark of Noah were a figure of Baptism sâ—id Peâ—â—r and if therefore the Circumstances of one should be drawn to the other we should make Baptism a Prodigie rather then a rite The Pascal Lamb was a Type of the Eucharist which succeeds the other as Baptism doth Circumcision but because there was in the manducation of the Pascal Lamb no prescription of Sacramental drink shall we thence conclude that the Eucharist is to be ministred but in one kind and even in the very instance of this argument suppâ—sing a correspondence of analogie betwen Circumcision and Baptism yet there is no correspondence of Identity for although it were granted that both of them did consign the Covenant of Faith yet there is nothing in Circumstance of Childrens being Circumcised that so concerns that Mâ—stery but that it might very well be given to Children and yet Baptism to men of reason because Circumcision left a Character in the flesh whiâ—h being imprinted upon Infants did its work to them when they came to age and such a Character was necessary because there was no word added to the sign but baptism imptints nothing that remains on the body and if it leaves a Character at all it is upon the soul to which also the word is added which is as much a part of the Sacrament as the sign it self is for both wch reasons it is very requisite that the Persons baptized should be capable of reason that they may be capable of both the word of the Sacrament and thâ— impress made upon the Spirit Since therefore the reason of this paâ—ity does wholly fail there is nothing left to infer a necessity of complying in this circumstance of age any more then in the other anexes of the Type and the case is clear in the Bishops question to Câ—pâ—iuâ— for why should not Infants be baptized just upon the eight day as well as Circumcised if the correspondence of the rites be an argument to infer one circumstance which is impertninent and accidental to the misteriousness of the rite why should it not infer all especially such a material thing as the time of baptism for if the eight day be not determined no man is able to assign the day of baptism which being delayed till the tenth or twentieth day may by the same reason be deferred till the Child have passed through its infancy and become capable of eâ—udition and then also females must not be baptized because they were not circumcized but it were more proper if we would understand it aright to prosecute the analogie of the type to the antitipe by way of letter and spirit and signification and as circumcision signifies baptism so also the adjuncts of circumcision shall signifie something spiritual in the adherences of baptism And therefore as Infants were circumcised so spirituâ—l Infants shall be baptized which according to some is spiritual circumcision which yet is better expounded by St. Paul Phil. 3. Where he makes the spiritual circumcision to be the mind and spirit renewed and the putting of the body of the sins of the flesh for therefore babes had the ministery of the type to signifie that we must when we give our names to Christ become 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Children in malice for unless you become like one of these little ones you cannot enter into the Kingdome of Heaven said our blessed Saviour and then the â—ye is made compleat and this
that time Our next testimony is from the Learned Casuist Hugo Grotius who tells us To defer baptism till ripe years was in old time left at liberty now the observation is otherwise Plainly giving the case that Paedo-baptism is not the old way but a new observation But here we will again give place to Doctor Taylor who saith That besides that the tradition cannot be proved to be Apostolical we have very good evidence from antiquity that it was the opinion of the primitive Church that INFANâ—S OUGHâ— NOT TO BE BAPTIZED And this is clear in the sixâ—h Cannon of the Câ—unsel of Neâ—â—aesarea The words have this sence A woman 〈…〉 may be baptized when she please for her baptism concerns not the Child The reason of the connection of the parts of that Cannon is in the following words Because every one in that confession is to give a demonstration of his own choice and election meaning plainly that if the baptism of the mother did pass upon the Child it were not fit for a pregnant woman to receive baptism because in that Sacrament there being a confession of faith which confession supposes understanding and free choyce it is not reasonable the child should be consign'd with such a mistery since it cannot do any act of choice or understanding The Cannon speaks reason and it intimates a practice which was absolutely universal in the Church of interrogating the catechumens concerning the Articles of the Creed which is one argument that either they did not admit Infants to baptism or that they did prevaricate egregiously in asking questions of them who themselves knew were not capable of giving answer and to supply their incapacity by the answer of a Godfather is but the same unreasonableness acted with a worse circumstance and there is no sensible account can be given of it for that which some imperfectly murmure concerning stipulations civil performed by tutors in the name of their pupils is an absolute vanity for what if by positive constitutions of the Romanes such solemnities of Law are required in all stipulations and by indulgence are permitted in the case of a notable benefit acruing to Minors Must God be tyed and Christian Religion transact her misteries by proportion and complyance with the Law of the Romanes I know God might if he would have appointed Godfathers to give answer in behalf of Children and to be Fâ—de-jussors for them but we cannot find any authority oâ— ground that he hath and if he had then it is to be supposed he would have given them comission to have transacted the solemnity with better circumstaâ—ces and given answers with more truth and if the Godfathers answer in the Name of the Child I do believe it is notorious they speak false and ridiculously for the Infant is not capble of beâ—ieving and if he were he were a so capable of dissenting and how then do they know his mind And therefore Tertullian gives advice that the bapâ—ism of Infants 〈◊〉 be deferred till they could 〈◊〉 an account of their faith and the same also is the counsel of Gregory bishop of Naziazum although he allows them to hasten it in case of necessity for though his reason taught him what was fit Namely that none should bâ— baptized till they were of understanding yet he was overborn with the practiâ—â— and opinion of his Age which began to bear too violently upon him and yet in another place he makes mention of some to whom baptism was not administred 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by reason of infancy To which if we add that the Parents of St. Austin St. Jerome and St. Ambrose although they were Christian yet did not baptize their Children before they were thirty years of age it will be very considerable in the example and of great efficacy for destroâ—ing the supposed necessity or derivation from the Apostles and for further evidence we may well alledge in this place that of Theodosius the Emperor born in Spain his Parents being both Christians and he from his youth educated in thâ— Christian Faith who falling sick at Thessâ—onica was baptized and recovered of his sickness but however Paedo baptism it is against the perpetual analogâ— of Christs Doctrine to baptize Infants for besides that Christ never gave any precept to bapâ—ize them nor never himself nor his Apostles that appears did baptize any of them all that either he or his Apostles said concerning baptism requires such pretious dispositions to it of which Infants are not capable and these are faith and repentance and not to instance in those innumerable places that require faith before baptism there needs no more but this one saying he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved but he that believeth not shall be damned Plainly thus faiâ—h and baptism in conjunction will bring a Man to Heaven but if he have not faith baptism shall do him no good So that if baptism be necessary then so is faith and much more for want of Faith damns absolutely it is not said so of the want of baptism Now if this decretory sence be to be understood of persons of age and if Children by such an answer which indeed is reasonable enough be excused from the necessity of Faith the want of which regularly does damn then it is sottish to say the same incapacity of reason and Faith shall not â—xcuse them from the actual susception of baptism which as less necessary and to which faith and many other acts are necessary predispositions when it is reasonably and humanely â—eceived The conclusion is that bapâ—sm is also to be defer'd till the time of â—aith and whether Infants have faith or no is a question to be disputed by â—ersons that care not how much they 〈◊〉 nor how little they prove 1. Personal and actual faith they have none for they have no acts of â—nderstanding and besides how can â—ny man understand that they have since he never saw any sign of iâ— neither was he told so by any oâ—â— that could tell 2. Some sâ—y they have imputativâ— Faith but then so let the Sâ—cramenâ— be too that is if they have the Parent faith or the Churches then so leâ— baptism be imputed by derivatioâ— from them also For since faith 〈◊〉 necessary to the susception of baptisâ— and they themselves confess it bâ— striving to find out new kinds of faitâ— to daub the matter up such as thâ— faith is such must be the Sacramenâ— for there is no proportion betweeâ— an actual Sacramen and an imputative faith this being in immediaâ—â— and necessary order to that anâ— whatsoever can be said to take oâ— from the necessiâ—y of actual Faith aâ— that and much more may be said tâ— excuse from the actual â—usception 〈◊〉 baptism 3. The first of these devices waâ— that of Luther and his Schol arâ— the 2 of Calvin and his And yet there is a third device which the Church of Rome teaches and that is
Ephes 4. 24. The conclusion then is obvious That they who are not formed a new in Righteousness holyness and truth they who remaining in the present in incapacities cannot walk in newness of life they have not been baptized into Christ and then they have but one member of the distinction used by St. Peter they have that baptism which is a putting away the fiâ—th of the flesh if yet an human institute may be so called but they have not that baptism which is the answer of a good Conscience towards God which is the only baptism which saveth us and this is the case of Children and then the case is thus As Infants by the force of nature cannot put themselves into a supernaturall condition and therefore say the Paedo baptists they need baptism to put them into it as if the â—â—re â—eâ—eâ—ony of which only they are capaâ—'le could put them into a supernaturall conâ—ition so if they be baptized before the use of reason before the works of the Spirit before the opperations of grace before they can throw of the works of darknes and live in riâ—hteousness ond newness of life they are never the nearer from the pains of Hell they shall be saved by the mercy of God and their oâ—â— innocence though they dye in puris naturalibus and baptism will carry them no further for that baptism that saves us is not the only washing with water of which only Infant are capable but the answer of a good Conscience towards God of which they are not capable till the use oâ— reason till they know to chuse the good and refuse the evill And from thence I consider a new that all vows made by persons undeâ— others names stipulations made bâ— minors are not valid till they by â— supervening act after they are of sufficient age do ratifie the same whâ— then may not Infants as well makâ— the vow de novo as de novo ratifie thâ—â— which was made for them ab antiquâ— when they come to years of choyce If the Infant vow be invalid till thâ— manly confirmation why were it 〈◊〉 as good they staid to make it till thâ— time before which if they do maâ—â— it it is to no purpose this would 〈◊〉 considered And in conclusion our way is the surer way for not to baptise 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 for to say that Infants may be damn'd for want of baptism a thing which is not in their power to acquire they being yet persons not capable of a Law is to afirm that of God which we dare not say of any wise and good man Certainly it is very much derogatory to Gods justiâ—e and a plain defiance to the infinite reputation of his goodness And therefore who ever will pertinatiously persist in this opinion of the paedo-baptists and practise it accordingly they polute the blood of the everlasting Testament They dishonor and make a pageantry of the Sacrament They Ineffectually represent a sepulture into the death of Christ and please themselves in a sign without effect making baptism like the Figtree full-of Leaves but no fruit c. Thus far the Anabaptists may argue and men have disputed against them with so much weakness and confâ—dence that they have been eucouraged in their error alias in thâ— truth more by accidentiall aliaâ— real advantages we have given them by our weak arguings then by any truth of their cause or excellency oâ— of their wit so the Dr. is pleased tâ— say but the evidences of our side spâ—ak otherwise but the use I make of it as to our ppesent question saith the Dr. is this that since there is noâ— direct impiety in the opinion noâ— any that is apparently consequent to it and they which so much pâ—obabillity do or may pretend to true perswasion they are with all means Christian fair and human to bâ— redargued or instructed but if they cannot be perswaded they must be left to God who knows every degree of every mans understanding all his weaknesses and strength's what impress each argument makes upon his spirit and how unresistable every reason is and he alone judges his inâ—oceâ—cy and sincerity And for the question I think there is so much to be petended he might say really urged against that which I believe to be truth that there is much more truth then evidence on our side a strange saying of so wiâ—e a man as if the truth in this case doth not whâ—lly depend upon evidence sith its a positive and no morall precept and therefore we may be confident as for our own particulars but not too forward premtorily to prescribe to others muchless damn or kill or to persecute them that only in this particular disagree Thus far Doctor Taylor for our appollogie To whom to add any more witnesses though more might be brought would be superfluous I therefore proceed to the next question viz. What is the due act or outward form to be used in this sollemn rite of holy baptism It may well be the admiration of every wise and good man how it should come into the mind of such as pretend to be followers of Christ that holy baptism should be performed by aspertion or casting a few drops of Water upon the subject by the fingers of the administrator The scriptures every where teaching us that the originall form was by imversion in Rivers or places of much Water Maâ—â— 1. John 3. Christ himseâ—f who surely would do nothing superfluous or in vain was baptized in the River by John the first baptist who had his direction from Heaven and his approbation from on high in that very action Mall 3. and chuss who were under the immediate direction of the holy spirit the leader into all truth found it necessary for the administrator and subject to go both into the Water for the due performance of this holy Ordinance Add thereunto that the proper signification of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when used to express the action done in this service is to dip or immâ—rge the party in the Element as is confessed by the learned Paedo-baptists themseâ—ves as we shall see in the sequel And here we will still prefer the Church of England who teacheth us that the outward Sign or Form in baptism is Water wherein the party baptized is dipped c. And though she add or sprinkled with it yet that her Conscience tells her that is not the right way appeareth in that she only assigns that by indulgence to such Infants as are in danger of death c The Church of Rome also confesseth by a learned Pen that she changed dipping the party baptized over the head and Ears to a little sprinkling upon the Face Erasmus paraphrasing on the words baptizing them Mat. 28. saith thus if they believe that which you teach them and begin to be repentant
that Infants have habitual faith but who told them so how can they prove it what Revelaâ—ion or reason teaches such a thing Are they by this habit so much as disposed to an actual belief without a new Master â—an an Infant sent into a Mahumetan Province be more confident for Christianity when he comes to be a Man then if he had not been baptized are there any acts precedent Concomitant or consequent to this pretended habit this strange invention is absolutely without Art without Scripture Reason or Authority But if there were such a thing as this abitual Faith then either all Infants have â— or some only if all why do they deny bapâ—â—sm to the Infants which are horn of unbeâ—evers must the child bear the unbelief of 〈◊〉 Parents if sâ—me only have it how know they these from 〈◊〉 rest sith when they come to years there found a like barrenness of this grace 〈◊〉 means be used to beget it but third where doth the Scripture make an habitâ—â— Faith that which intitles any person to baâ—tism Surely according to these concâ—â—â— no man can ever tell to whom or when 〈◊〉 dispence baptism But the men are â—â— be excused unless there were bettâ—â— grounds but for all these stratageâ— the Argument now alleadged agaiâ— Infant baptism is demonstrable aâ— unanswerable To which also this consideratiâ—â— may be added that if baptism be â—â—cessary to the Salvation of Infant upon whom is the imposition laiâ— To whom is the command giveâ— To Parents or to the Children not 〈◊〉 the Children for they are not capâ—ble of a Law not to the parents 〈◊〉 then God hath put the salvation 〈◊〉 innocent babeâ— into the power of â—thers and Infants may then be damnâ—â— for their Parents carelessness or mâ—lice It follows that it is not necessary at all to be done to them to whom it cannot be prescribed by a Law and in whose behalf it cannot be reasonably intrusted to others with the appendant necessity and if it be not necessary it is certain it is not reasonable and most certain it is no where in terms prescribed and therefore it is to be presumed that it ought to be understood and administred according as other precepts are with reference to the capacity of the subject and the reasonableness of the thing For I consider that the baptizing of Infants does rush upon such inconveniences which in other questions we avoid like Rocks which will appear if we discourse thus Either baptism produces spiritual effects or it produces them not If it produces not any why is such contention about it But if as without all peradventure all the Paedo-baptists will say Baptism does a work upon the soul producing spiritual benefits and advantages These advantages are produced by the externaâ— work of the Sacrament alone or bâ— that as it is helped by the co-operation and predispositions of the suscipienâ— If by the external work of thâ— Sacrament alone how does this diffeâ— from the opus oâ—eratum of the Papistâ— save that it is worse For they saâ— the Sacrament does not produce in effect but in a suscipient disposed bâ— all requisites and due preparatives 〈◊〉 piety faith and repentance thougâ— in a subject so disposed they say thâ— Sacrament by its own vertue does iâ— but this opinion says it does it of 〈◊〉 self without the help or so much 〈◊〉 the coexistence of any condition buâ— meer reception But if the Sacrament does not dâ— its work alone but per modum recipienâ—es according to the predispofitionâ— of the suscipient then because Infant can neither hinder it nor do anâ— thing to further it it does them no benesit at all And if any man runs for succor to that exploded 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that Infants have faith or any other inspired habit of I know not what how we desire no more advantage in the world then that they are constrainâ—d to an answer without Revâ—lation against reason common sence and all experience in the world The sum of the argument in short is this though under another repâ—esentment Either baptism is a meer Ceremony or it imploys a duty on our part if it be a Ceremony only how does it sanctifie us or make the comers thereunto perâ—ect If it imployâ— a duty on our part how then can Children receive it who cannot do duty at all And indeed this way of Ministration makes baptism to be wholly an outward duty a work of the Law a carnal ordinance it makes us adheare to the Letter without regard of the spirit to be satissied with the shadows to return to bondage To relinquish the misteriousnes the substancâ— and spirituallity of the Gospel which argument is of so much the more consequence because under the spiritual Covenant or the Gospel of grace 〈◊〉 the mistery goes not before the Symbol which it does when the Symbolâ— are seales and consignations of thâ— grace as it is said the Sacraments are yet it always accompanies it buâ— never follows in order of time anâ— this is clear in the perpetual analogy of holy Scripture For Baptisme is never propounded mentioned or enjoyned as a mean of remission of sins or of eternal life but something of duty choice or sanctity is joyned with it in ordeâ— production of the end so mentioneâ— kâ—ow you not that sâ— many as are Baptisâ— inâ—o â—hrâ—st Jesus anâ— Baptised into his death There iâ— the mistery and the Symbol together and declared to be perpetually united 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 All of us who were Baptised into one were Baptised into the other not only in the name of Christ but into his death also but the meaning of this as it is explained in the following words of St. Paul makes much for our purpose for to be baptised into his death signifies to be buried with him in baptisme that as Christ rose from the dead we also should walk in newness of life That 's the full mistery of Baptisme for being baptised into his death or which is all one in the next words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 into the likeness of his death cannot go alone if we be so planted into Christ we shall be pertakers of his resurrection and that is not here instanced in precise reward but in exact duty for all this is nothing but Cruc fiction of the old man a destroying the body of sin that we no longer serve sin This indeed is truly to be baptized both in the Symbol and the Mistery what is less then this is but the Symbol only a meer Ceremony an opus operatum a dead Letter an empty shadow an instrument without an agent to manage or force to actuate it Plainer yet whosoever are baptized into Christ have put on Christ have put on the new Man But to put on the new Man is to be formed in Righteousness holiness and truth This whole argument is the very words of St. Paul The major proposition is dogmatically determined Gal. 3. 27. The minor in