consisting of Females as well as Males were called the Circumcision in opposition of the Gentiles which were called Vncircumcision Gal. 2.7 8 9. Again It was not administred to reprobates as such not to every Male but to the Males of the Church externally in Covenant some whereof possibly were Reprobates So Simon Magus Judas Ananias and Sapphirah were baptized and yet it is at least likely that they were Reprobates Circumcision did belong to the Believer as well as Baptism doth those that were strangers to the Jewish Church could not be admitted but they must be Proselytes not of the gate only but of righteousness they must disclaim Paganism and profess the Jewish Religion A stranger continuing in his unbelief was not circumcised not did partake in the Passover Exod. 12.48 And by proportion that Text prohibiteth all such Jews as should forsake the faith See before Chap. 7. As for the change of the Church and Ordinances notwithstanding it the Lords-Day may succeed the Jewish Sabbath and those same persons which were bound to keep the Jewish Sabbath are tied to observe the Lords Day viz. servants and children as well as Parents and Masters though the persons be not so distinctly set down in the New Testament as in the Old Paul did use arguments from Analogy from the purging out of the old leaven at the Passover to the casting out of the incestuous from the Supper 1 Cor. 5. from the maintenance of the Priests to the maintenance of Ministers 1 Cor. 9.13 To argue à genere ad speciem affirmativè is not good reasoning The Church was changed therefore it was changed in this particular The Church might be changed and yet not in this the Sacrament may be changed and not the subject what belonged to the Jewish Church as a Church belongs to the Christian Church also that which belonged to it as Jewish was altered as High-Priest Temple Sacrifices Ceremonies c. Infants Church-membership did not belong to the Church as Iewish not was it a Ceremony or Type if you think it was shew what it was a type of and what was the antitype that hath succeeded it and prove it so you can There was a Church before there was an High-Priest Temple c. in the Families of Adam Noah and Sem which was alive in the time of Isaac Melchizedek surely had subjects and people which were the Church as well as he was a King and a Priest of the most high God This Church might continue long not be united to the Church in Abrahams family for ought we know whatsoever the extent of the Church was Domestical Congregational or National Infants are reckoned of the same Church with their Parents the Church before Christ and after Christ is the same Church as an Heir While in nonage and when adult is the same person The Jews that believed were never unchurched the Tree was not broken down but some branches broken off some additionals to the Church ceased the Church it self ceased not the partition Wall Was broken down and Iews and Gentiles made one Church Eph. 2.14 3.6 And when the wall was down were their Infants turned out of the Church at one door as the Gentiles came in at another was the Church so changed that it lost so many materials and was the Covenant of Grace changed too did it lose so many out of it Visible Professors and their Infants are alike in every age and there is nothing in them inconsistent with propriety in God or interest in the Covenant or the Seal thereof in one age more then in another Baptism is the seal of the Covenant now and may be administred to visible Professors and their children now as Circumcision was then if there should be any difference Reason would tell us considering the painfulness and peril of Circumcision Gen. 34.25 and the easiness of Baptism That only grown men should have been circumcised and Infants baptized rather then contrary ANABAPY CAT. Q. Whether may not Infants of Believers be baptized by virtue of Covenant-holiness A. No for Baptism is not a sign or seal of any such outward holiness which may befall Reprobates as Well as Elect but it is a sign of Death Burial and Resurrection Which the Believerthath with Christ 2. There is no command for baptizing such if the Gentiles Were so holy BAptism is a sign and seal of Christs Death Examinat Cap. 10. § 1. Burial and Resurrection and of the truth and faithfulness of those exceeding great and precious Promises bundled up in the Covenant of Grace which are in Christ Yea and Amen a Cor. 1.20 but it is not an absolute sign or seal of the baptized's Death Burial Resurrection With Christ of his putting on of Christ of grace already Wrought in him as you assert in your Answer to the second and third question but only conditional Acts 16.30 31. if he believe as the Romans did Rom. 6.3.4 with 5.1.2 A Christian gathers the assurance of his Justification and Salvation by this or such a like Syllogism He that believeth is justified and shall be saved I believe therefore I am justified and shall be saved The Major or former Proposition Baptism doth absolutely and universally seal but not so the Minor or second Proposition viz. I believe If Baptism should seal to all baptized ones as suppose Simon Magus Judas c. the truth of their Faith and their saving interest in Jesus Christ then should God set his Seal for Baptism is Gods Seal not the Churches to a lye and falshood or at least command Ministers so to do when they are bound by the Rules of Christ to baptize such as are not inwardly holy as Simon Magus c. Children of Believers sect 2. 1 Cor. 7.14 are said to be Saints or holy whereby is not meant that they were legitimate only for so had they been if both the Parents had been Infidels and children are not holy because they are not bastards nor only sanctified to the use of the Parents as the unblieving yoke-fellow though not holy in se nor sanctifying is sanctified to the believing yoke-fellow the Holy Ghost neither here nor elsewhere speaking of any thing to be sanctified to unbelievers but they are holy a distinct phrase from being sanctified to another as birds and beasts may be and this holiness proceeds from the believing yoke-fellow which is the reason why he saith your children viz the children of you Christian yoke-fellows the Infidel yoke fellows writ not to Paul are holy which seeing it cannot be meant of internal and saving holiness for all children of the Church are not such though we are bound to judg the best till the contrary appear it must needs therefore be meant of outward federal holiness which is the privlledg of the children of believing Parents above the children of Pagans the Jews having had the like priviledg before See Gal. 2. 15. which I conceive runs parallel with this Or if but one of the
Parents be Christian partus sequitur meliorem partem the children are not Infidels but Christian But §. 3. say you there is no command for baptizing such and you call it Will-worship forbidden Lev. 10.1 A tradition and ground-work for more traditions others call it the mark of the beast one of the strongest holds of Antichrist and what not To all which I answer 1. If Nadah and Abihu's offering strange fire fire unsanctified or not taken off the Altar Was Will-worship though the Scripture doth not call it so yet Paedobaptism suppose it be not warranted by the Word cannot be will-worship because it is not an introduction of a new Worship or Ordinance but the misapplication of an old and unquestionable Ordinance of God or if you put on it the worst name you can with any shew of reason the Profanation of an Ordinance as your self call it some of your party which have in derision and contempt of infant-Infant-Baptism baptized Horses Cats or Dogs have been unquestionably guilty of horrible Profanation but not of will-worship 2. infant-Infant-Baptism is grounded on and warranted by the Word of God and therefore is far enough from being a Profanation or so much as the misapplication of an Ordinance That it is so grounded and warranted needs no other proof then what hath already been produced in this Examination upon occasion of the Scriptures and Reasons brought against it 1. They that are Disciples in Scripture-sence are expressed in Christs Commission about Baptism and are to be baptized But Infants of the Church are Disciples in Scripture-sence Therefore they are to be baptized See Chap. 2. Sect. 3. 2. They that are Abrahams seed are to be baptized as you confess But such Infants are the seed of Abraham Therefore they are to the baptized See Chap. 7. 3. They that are visibly Within the Covenant of Grace are to be baptized as you acknowledg But such Infants are visibly Within the Covenant of Grace Therefore they are to be baptized See Chap. 8. 4. They that are to be judged Church-members are to be baptized But such Infants of the Church or born of members of the Church are to be judged Church members Therefore c. 5. They of Whom the Kingdom of God is are to partake of the privileges of the Kingdom of God But of Infants is the Kingdom of God Therefore c. 6. They that are Saints and holy are to be baptized But such Infants are Saints and holy Therefore 7. Christ knew that Baptism was an ancient Ceremony of initiation into the Church and applyed to the Infants of the Church as well as to adult Proselytes yet he took up that Ceremony and advanced it as he did the Postcoenium of the Passover to be a Sacrament of the New Testament without prohibition of Infants from it and therefore he did at least approve it should be administred to Infants See Cap. 2. § 1. In these alone to omit others conscientious enquirers into the mind of the Lord Jesus may find satisfactory grounds of Infant-Baptism especially when they are compared with the grounds of the contrary Opinion and Practice You cannot shew any precept at all §. 4. or president or good warrant in the Word of God that children of believing Parents should be kept from Baptism as you require them to be till they do in their own persons actually believe or make profession of Faith or that any such were baptized in riper years as you would have them now to be Yea I further say that if you can shew me in Scripture any son or daughter of believing Parents baptized I shall shew you that he or she was baptized in Infancy Surely from the time that John Baptist begin his Ministry to the writing of the Apocalyps great multitudes of Infants of Christians grew up to maturity yet amongst them all we read not of one whose Baptism was so delayed nor have we any solid ground to conceive that God at the coming of Christ took away Infants Covenant interest Church membership and Sacramental initiation and made their condition as to this as bad as the Heathen and worse then the Jewish children seeing it cannot be said that God did take these priviledges away in judgment upon occasion of Christs coming from all Infants even Elect children of Elect Parents seeing Infants in the time of the Gospel are not any way more guilty or uncapable then in former times nor can it any way appear that God did it in mercy and sure if it was done it was done either in judgment or mercy for it was a mercy to the Jewish children to have these priviledges and nothing more was conferred upon Infants which lost them then upon adult Christians which did not lose them You cannot shew a precept ' or president for your gathering Churches out of other true Christian Churches for requiring persons before they can be admitted members to give account of the truth of their graces for the Congregations judging whether they have grace or no and consequently whether they were to be admitted or no for a solemn explicite Church-Covenant for the erection of a Church without Officers for the power of such a Church consisting only of unofficed Christians to elect ordain impose hands by one or more of them on their Officers to censure or excommunicate any member yea any or all their Officers when they have them for maintenance of Ministers by Lords Day-Collections formerly urged as an Ordinance of God though of late much waved for a sentence of non-communion with Sister-Churches for Synods only consultative and not decretive for publike ordinary preaching of gifted men not so much as intending the Ministry and their receiving maintenance for their pains and yet these are asserted by men of the Congregational way in which Antipaedobaptists are generally found to be duties priviledges of the Church or Ordinances of God nor can you shew any Church consisting of unbaptized ones such as you account your selves to be your Infant-Baptism being a nullity till you be baptized upon profession und such a Church admitting members commissionating some Disciples to preach and dip nor any precept or president for admission of such which are in your opinion unbaptized to the Lords Supper not for rebaptizing such as were baptized suppose in Infancy in the Name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost or for renouncing such Baptism nor can you shew any one Text of Scripture in which Infant-Baptism either in express words or in the interpretation of any Apostolick or Primitive Church or Father in the purest Times nor can you shew one visible Church from the beginning of the World to the time when your Opinion was lately broached which was of any long continuance and did neither admit into it nor permit in it any Infant-member Finally §. 5. Should you or I be required a Command for admission of women to the Supper as you require a Command for Infant-Baptism though you can neither shew command
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 having confessed but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 confessing their sins and it is not said they were baptized because they had repented but rather on the contrary that John's Baptism was a Baptism unto Repentance v. 11. This you know is consistent enough with Infant-Baptism As for Acts 2.38 it is probable that repentance to which notwithstanding their being pricked in their hearts v. 37. the Apostle exhorts was in them only in fieri before their Baptism for immediately after this Exhortation they were baptized and there could not be time to question three thousand in one day after Sermon which consisting of many main points must needs be long and three of the twelve hours of the day being spent before it begun v. 15. so as to make strict enquiry into and to take distinct notice of the repentance of each of them Of Mat. 28.19 Acts 2.38 and Mat. 3.6 more hereafter Suppose your Texts do shew that the Samaritans §. 3. the Eunuch the Jaylor the Corinthians and others which were then adult and formerly either of the Jewish or Heathenish Religion did believe or profess faith and repentance and were baptized that is nothing to Paedobaptists who never held that a Jew or Heathen should be baptized without profession of faith But grant further That actual Believers or Professors are indeed the primary and immediate subject of Baptism and in their own right and their children are but the secundary subject and may not be baptized but by a capacity derived unto them and at that time Christian Churches were but in gathering not gathered The foundation was not to be layd in Infants not in Infants only And the sacred story relating the manner of founding Churches hath not so much occasion to speak of the Baptism of Infants the secundary subject as of actual believers the primary God created the first man and woman of a perfect age though all their posterity were born Infants At first men of age were circumcised Gen. 17.24 with 14.14 and again after some intermission of that Ordinance Josh 5.4 And if any Nation had been Proselyted their men of age must first have been taught or discipled and have made profession of faith before they should have been circumcised though in the setled condition of the Jewish Church Child-circumcision was most in use If Believers and Penitents ought to be baptized will it thence follow that none but they only are to be baptized The rule is A proprio primo modo ad proprium secundo modo non valet argumentum All Crows are black therefore none but only Crows are black is no good argument If it were granted that Infant-Baptism cannot be proved by those Texts yet it will not follow that it cannot be proved by any other Texts Womens admission to the Supper though it cannot be proved by Mat. 26. Mark 14. Luk. 22. Christ admitting only men may notwithstanding be proved by other Scriptures Your notion That none are to be baptized but such as they were whose Baptism is mentioned Acts 8.12 37. 16.34 c. is by some further improved saying All those were such Believers as had been in person Jews or Heathens and therefore such only are to be baptized and those that have Christian Parents and were educated in Christianity from their childhood are not at least not by virtue of any of those Texts to be baptized at all neither in Infancy nor when they make Profession As they in their case so also you in your case are to blame to insert into your Answer the word only which you find in none of your Texts Our Scripture-grounds for Infant-Baptism you shall hear anon Chap. 10. ANABAPT CAT. Q. hat grounds have you against Infant-Baptism A. Many but chiefly Christs Commission Mat. 28.19 where the subjects of Baptism are those that are made Disciples and this Commission is to last to the Worlds end v. 20. and reacheth to every creature that is to partake of Baptism Mark 16.15 16. MAtth. 28.19 is not the first Commission for baptizing Examinat Cap. 2. §. 1. no more then for preaching John Baptist Mat. 3. and Christs Disciples Joh. 4.1 2. did baptize before this and had commission for it Joh. 1.33 Mat. 21.25 26. which Christ confirmed by his being baptized by John Mat. 3.13 Yea we have express Examples in Jewish Records of a Baptism See Mr Selden Dr Hammond Dr Lightfoot Mr Ainsworth Mr Tombes which was a Rite of initiation into the Jewish Church a concomitant of Circumcision if not ancienter So Jacob admitting the preserved Sechemites into communion all of age being women bad them be washed or baptized or cleansed by washing Gen. 35.2 which is the reason why a Jewish Proselyte is in Arrianus called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a baptized person Hence the Jews did not question John's Baptism as a new and unusual Rite they were already well acquainted with it but his Authority to administer it Grotius on Mat. 3.6 conceives it was begun upon occasion and to preserve the memory of the purging of the World by the Deluge and that Peter 1 Pet. 3.21 signifies so much calling Baptism the Antitype and figure of it And the Infants of the Jews were thus admitted as well as the Proselyte for one Ordinance was for both Numb 15.15 And thus the Hebrew Doctors assert notwithstanding Mr T. to the contrary pretends that the Proselytes only were baptized because they were unclean That Israel as well as others entred into Covenant Males by three things viz. Circumcision Baptism and Offering Females only by the two last Now as Christ abolishing the Passover took the postcoenium or common custom used at the Passover of the Master of the Family his breaking a piece of bread and distributing it and a cup of wine amongst the company to be materials of the Lords Supper so he abolishing Circumcision and Offering advanced this ancient usual unquestionable concomitant of Circumcision and of initiation of Males Females Infants or others into the Church to be a Sacrament of the New Testament the use whereof and the persons to whom it should be administred being then ordinarily and commonly known the Scripture did not need to record the commission or warrant given to John or that the Jews had long before for their baptizing It was enough that there is not the least hint in the Word that Baptism when advanced to be a divine Sacrament of the New Testament should not be applyed to Infants as it was before Indeed when the Apostles Commission was to be enlarged to all Nations this being a new thing and rarely known or believed it was needful that it should be set down in terminis as it here is And yet this Gospel was not written till about eight years after the Ascension of Christ and other Gospels were writ some years after this the Jewish Church all this while being guided by the Old Testament and observing the Jewish lawful Rites and Customs and this of baptizing
Free-man a Church-member yet according to their respective Charters the Honor of the one the Freedom of the other and Church-priviledges of the third may descend on their children ANABAPT CAT. Q. What other Arguments have you to prove That Infants have not Faith and are not to be baptized A. If they had Faith they were presently to be admitted to the Supper and not excluded from communion therein as many are which are admitted to communion in Baptism whereas the communion in both is one and the same the same thing signified in both viz. our fellowship with Christ in his Death and Resurrection So that all that are baptized into one body are all made to drink into one Spirit 1 Cor. 12.13 and the same preparations of Faith and Repentance are required for both and he that is cast out of the one is cast one of the other seeing by excommunication he is like an Heathen or Publican IT is the Judgment both of Mr Rutherford Exam. Chap. 4. §. 1. and Mr Hooker and others of New-England That Infants of visible Churches born of wicked Parents members of the same Churches ought to be baptized The reason may be We when a Child is presented to Baptism are to take notice of the Parents Church-membership not of his scandalousness If the Church do not cast out the Parents why should the Minister cast out the Child Parents where suspended lose only their present fruition not their fundamental right to membership It is right to membership not the present fruition of it nor their worthiness of that right doth as they conceive transfer that priviledg to Infants Mr Cotton in his Way p. 115. conceives it is considerable if the Grandfather or Grandmother making profession be still living and willing to undertake for the Child yea that in some cases a Heathens child may be baptized in right of its houshold-governor Gen. 17. Yet it is very far from their Opinions That these children or the immediate Parents of them should be admitted to the Supper Amongst the Jews Infants were circumcised §. 2. yet were they not presently admitted to the Passover they could not come up nor do we read they were carryed from the remote parts of Judea to Jerusalem where only the Lamb was eaten nor could they eat it standing with staves in their hands and with sowr herbs as was required Exod. 12. nor keep it to the Lord vers 46. with spiritual respects to Gods glory to Gods ends and rules and to have their hearts prepared as well as to be ceremonially clean 2 Chron. 18.19 and the same males were as well to be at the feast of tabernacles as at the Passover and to carry boughs which was no Infants work to make booths or tabernacles to dwell in Deut. 16.16 17. with Levit. 23.34 35 38 39 40. The children yea those that could speak and ask questions did not partake of the Passover as is implyed in that they did not say what mean we but what mean you by this service It was not allowable to count them for the eating of the Passover that could not eat of it viz. Infants sick persons uncircumcised and unclean see Ainsw in Exod. 12.4 The uncleanness of a Proselyte was no bar to Circumcision but to the Passover it was Numb 9.6 10. An adult Proselyte might in some case be circumcised and baptized and not presently admitted to the Passover Ainsw in Exod. 12.44 The Rite of Baptism is after the common custom of washing new born Infants from the pollutions of the womb §. 3. Ezek. 16. 5 9. but the elements of bread and wine are the food of riper years Baptism is a Sacrament of Initiation as Bernard calls it the Supper is the highest Ordinance Christians as such are capable of It is one thing to be admitted a Scholar in a School or to be matriculated into the University another thing to be of such a form standing or degree It is one thing to be a subject a tenant or free of a Corporation which children may be another to do homage suit and service Our Regeneration or birth in Christ whereof Baptism is the laver Infants are capable of but not of that growth and augmentation signified in the Supper To be baptized is to be passive as in the first act of Regneration we are meerly passive the action is wholly the Baptizers I baptize thee c. but to eat and drink in remembrance of Christs death and to discern the Lords body is to be active and requires exercises of reason and grace And as Christ himself did not administer Baptism but his Disciples Joh. 4.1 2. Paul faith God sent him not to baptize the Apostles did not so usually baptize as ordinary Ministers 1 Cor. 1.14 15 17. but Christ did administer the Lords Supper as also the chief Minister present did usually afterward So multitudes were baptized by John Baptist and the Disciples of Christ which were not presently admitted to the Supper when Christ instituted it The Apostles were to teach all Nations baptizing them but the communicating of all Nations is not expressed of the Samaritans and several housholds baptized we read of their present admission to the Supper we read not So that though the communion in both the Sacraments be one and the preparations for them both in adult persons be the same for substance yet because of their different dispensations and degrees Infants may be admitted to the one and not to the other Yet I freely and confidently assert that to admit children to the Supper is far more excusable then to deny them Baptism for they have jus ad rem a right to it as a young heir hath to his lands as Saints decayed in mind and body have a right to hear the Word and the communicating of Infants is of more antiquity and credit in the Church then denying of their Baptism though I hold it not fit that Infants should communicate because they have not jus in re they have not aptitude and fitness for it a child is not fit to manage his own estate nor is it rational to preach the Gospel to an holy man what right soever he may have to it when he is destitute of capacity to hear or understand it and hence it is that the Church having some while admitted Infants to the Lords Supper did upon second considerations discern her mistake and lay it aside but yet still continued that other of baptizing Infants seeing no cause to leave it off but rather more strictly to observe it ANABAPT CAT. Q. But what if an Infant or any other in their childhood should dye unbaptized are they not damned A. We know nothing out of the Scripture of their Salvation or Damnation and therefore we must not be too inquisitive yet may such Infants so dying be saved through the presentment of the satisfaction of Christ to the Justice of God for original sin which Satisfaction though it be applyed through beleeving in those
intended under the name of every creature and that of them God doth require actual believing as of as great or greater necessity to Salvation then to Baptism The words are not He that believeth not shall not be baptized but shall be damned And are you as confident that all Infants are damned as you are that none of them should be baptized I wonder you dare urge this Text against Infant-Baptism which your own heart tells you is as much or more against their Salvation then against their Baptism For my part I conceive Infants are not to be scrued up to that proportion which God requireth of adult persons The Lord will take vengeance on them that know not God that obey not his Gospel 2 Thess 1.8 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down c. Mat. 3.10 Must therefore Infants either know God obey the Gospel and bring forth fruit or he damned May we not feed and clothe Infants because the Word saith He that will not labor must not eat 2 Thess 3.10 Might not the Jews admit Infants into the visible Church because the Psalmist describes the Citizen of Sion you say a Church-member Walking uprightly working righteousness speaking the truth in love contemning vile persons c. Psal 15.1 2 c. The application is easie ANABAPT CAT. Q. What atker grounds have you against infant-Infant-Baptism A. Infants are not fit subjects for Baptism because they do not believe they have not reason to discern between good and evil Deut. 1.39 Faith is an act of the understanding which cometh by hearing as well as an act of the Will and it is unlawful to baptize persons without they believe Acts 8.37 if thou believest it is lawful Act. 10.47 8.12 18.8 ALL the Textt you now produce have been answered before in the first Chapter Examinat Cap. 3. §. 1. save Acts 10.47 from which you may collect That those that had the gift of the Holy Ghost as it is called v. 45. and could speak with tongues v. 46. were to be baptized but sure you will not infer thence That those that have not the said gifts are not to be baptized If you do you will deny all Baptism that is now adays and turn Seeker But as by your Principles you hold Confession of Faith and Repentance sufficient to Baptism without those gifts so you should shew that the foresaid gift and speaking with tongues was in stead of their believing and repenting or else confess that you impertinently alledg this Text. I must now ask you once for all §. 2. what you mean by Believers whether such only as have a true justifying Faith or all that make profession of Faith whether indeed and in truth they have a true justifying Faith or no The first is requisite in foro Dei conscientiae ex parte baptizati that our Baptism may be acceptable to God and comfortable to us 1 Pet. 3.21 So the Eunuch desiring Baptism with the saving benefit thereof and asking not What doth hinder thee from baptizing me but What doth hinder me was answered If thou believest with all thy heart thou mayst But in soro Ecclesiae ex parte baptizantis the latter sufficeth for admission your self being judg No Scripture-rule was transgressed when Judas Simon Magus Ananias and Sapphira were baptized The Eunuch's profession That he believed Jesus Christ to be the Son of God sufficed to present admission of him to Baptism And surely not the inward and spiritual qualifications but the outward and visible estate of persons to be baptized is to be looked at and we should descend to the lowest personal profession of Faith and Repentance being the highest degree of visibility Suppose a Minister had a spirit to discern the inward estate of men as certainly as Christ did of Judas and possibly the Apostles did of some which they baptized yet were he not to withhold from any for want of inward grace the priviledges which they have right and title to by virtue of their visible estate Saint Augustin and others think Judas was admitted to the Lords Supper though he but received panem Domini not panem Dominum and Mr Cartwright also so judgeth from that connection Luk. 22.19 20 21. Certainly he was admitted to the Passover by virtue of his visible estate Ishmael and Esau were regularly circumcised though Abraham knew that the one and Rebecca that the other was not the Elect seed of the Covenant Gen. 17.19 20. with 23. 25.23 Rom. 9 12. We can but charitably judg not infallible know who are Believers and though Infants do not actually believe yet by the judgment of charity if that he our rule we ought to judg that Infants born of Christian Parents are regenerate and have faith habitual or the principle or seed of it so much as is absolutely necessary to their participation of Christ and Salvation by him and that they dying in Infancy are saved see Chap. 5. For though they cannot actually believe or at least not make a profession of their Faith yet they are not to be doomed Infidels no more then they are to be judged irrational or dumb because they cannot actually reason or speak and therefore they unless you can reduce them to a third party which will much strengthen the Popish conceit of a third place for them when they dye Limbus Infantum are to be counted Believers and so methinks Christ accounteth of them Mat. 18.6 with 4. Ever since God gathered a distinct number our of the World to be his Church visible Kingdom City and Houshold §. 3. in opposition to the rest of the World which is the visible Kingdom City or Houshold of Satan God would have the Infants of all who are taken into Covenant to be accounted his and to belong to his Church and Family and not to the Devils If Adam had kept the Covenant of Works his Infant seed had been righteous Adam breaking that Covenant his Infant seed was guilty of that breach and became sinners against the Law though they knew not what the Law or sin against it was Adam being within the Covenant of Grace his Infant seed was so judged likewise For by seed of the woman Genes 3.15 is meant Christ in his minority as well as in his grown years who dyed for Infants as well as others neither are infants to be excluded from the benefit of that Promise The Infants of Noah Abraham and the Jews were members of the same Church with their Parents As Infants of Jews Turks and Pagans though uncapable of those Opinions or Practises are esteemed Jews Turks Pagans so the Infants of Christians though as the children of men they are born in sin Psal 51.5 dead in it Ephes 2.1 3. yet as children of the Church they are visibly Christians not Insidels Jews Turks or Pagans Though a Noble-man a Free-man of a Corporation a visible Church-member do beget children as men not as a person of Honor a
was but an Obligation to the Law as a rule of Righteousness Examinat Cap. 9. §. 1. subservient to the Covenant of Grace as Baptism also is Rom. 6.3 not to the Law in the rigor of it as it was a Covenant of Works for Abraham Isaac and Jacob were not so obliged they were in the Covenant of Grace as well as we and Circumcision was to Abraham by your own confession a seal of the righteousness of Faith Christ did profit may hundreds and thousands that were circumcised in the time of the Law he was the Lamb slain from the begining of the World and they were saved by Faith in him 1 Cor. 10.1 2 3. Heb. 11. but when Christians were circumcised in the time of the Gospel out of a perswasion of its necessity and their justification by it then it did bind them to keep the whole Law and Christ in that case did profit them nothing and this is all can be inferred from your Texts as to this matter As Circumcision did shew it was their duty to circumcise their hearts so Baptism shews it is our duty to wash our hearts Jerem. 4.14 Jam. 4.8 between heart circumcision and heart-washing is no great difference if any And as there was a precept for the circumcision of the heart so God promised his people that he will circumcise their hearts and the hearts of their seed of which before Chapt. 7. Though Circumcision did shew forth you say a Duty on our part as well as a Promise on Gods part yet you know Infants were then circumcised though they had no actual knowledg of either What you can gather hence if any thing against Infant-Baptism I expect to know ANABAPT CAT. Q. Was not Circumcision also a seal of the righteousness of Faith Rom. 4.11 A. Yes to Abraham only and if Abrahams believing children amongst the Gentiles should be baptized as he was circumcised then is must not be till they have the righteousness of Faith as Abraham here had at least they must have it in profession The Text saith It was the seal of the righteousness of Faith §. 2. which Abraham had being yet uncircumcised but it saith not that it was so to him only The Apostle brings it as an argument to prove the way of our Justification to be by Faith alone which were a meer inconsequence if proper to him and not belonging to others There was adult persons Believers in Abrahams Family when Circumcision was first instituted and many be-lieving Proselytes afterward which had Faith while yet they were uncircumcised as Abraham had of whom their Circumcision also was a seal of the righteousness of the Faith they had before yea Moses makes it to all a sign of the Covenant Gen. 17. which doubtless was the Covenant of Grace or to use Pauls dialect the righteousness that is by Faith Rom. 3.22 30. 10.3 6 c. cum Deut. 30.6 10 11 12. Phil. 3.9 this being the Tenor of that Covenant Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved Acts 16.31 Your passage implying that there are some believing children of Abraham which have not the righteousness of Faith as Abraham here had I do not understand except you make actual believing and having the righteousness of faith two things not only distinct but separable But whatsoever your meaning be I cannot see here any shew of proof that children must necessarily believe or make profession of faith before they may be baptized as Abraham did before he was circumcised Abraham could not be circumcised in Infancy nor before Circumcision was instituted no wonder therefore if he believed before had Circumcision been instituted in the days of his fathers Abraham might have been circumcised before he actually believed as well as Isaac his son was Christ could not be baptized till John did baptize which was about the thirtieth year of Christs age nor did he receive the Eucharist till the night before he suffered yet some that pretend to imitate him can be baptized and possibly preach too at 15 16 20 21 c. years of age though Christ was neither baptized nor did preach till he was thirty ANABAPT CAT. Q. Whether doth Baptism succeed Circumcision in the same Office A. No Circumcision was to every Male though reprobate but Baptism only to the Believer Matt. 28.19 There being a change of the visible Church and of the Ordinances this cannot succeed in the room thereof nor hath any dependance thereon Your Argument against the succession of Baptism to Circumcision is weak §. 3. viz. Baptism is not like Circumcision in some things therefore it is not like in any thing therefore it succeeds not in the same office By this you may prove as well That the Supper doth not succeed the Passover nor the Lords-Day the Jewish Sabbath The office of Circumcision was to shew original sin to teach necessity of Regeneration of Mortification of Salvation by Christ the seed of Abraham to sign and seal the Covenant or the Righteousness that is by Faith to distinguish Jews from others to initiate solemnly and formally into the Church And doth not Baptism also initiate into the Church 1 Cor. 12.13 Yea doth it not Circumcision being now abrogated perform the foresaid Offices Indeed it is not every way the same for then it were not a successor Add hereunto that the Covenant was the ground of Circumcision Genes 17.7 9 10 11. the equity whereof obligeth to Baptism as the equity of the fourth Commandment extends to our Lords-Day As for the positive command vers 12. it only determines the time and day which circumstance of day and time was not built upon the Covenant of Grace as Circumcision it self was and therefore is not perpetual and without such a positive determination of the time Circumcision should and might have been administred to Infants the Jews did circumcise children bought with their mony the same day they bought them though they bought them the same day they were born See Ainsw in Genes 17.12 Oft-times Circumcision was not administred the eighth day but deferred in which cases the command of circumcising the eighth day was not observed yet Circumcision was and according to right reason ought to be administred to Infants by virtue of the naked institution thereof as we contend that Baptism ought now to be both of them being as was said seals of the Covenant But you in saying Circumcision was to every Male though reprobate do imply that it Was not to Females true but both Males and Females were then baptized and so they were in the New Testament Acts 8.11 Gal. 3.28 29. which is a sufficient justification of our deserting Circumcision in that point And the Infant-females as well as the adult were counted members of the Jewish Church and though by reason of their incapacity or Gods respect to the modesty of that Sex they were not personally circumcised yet they were circumcised in the Males Hence the whole Church of the Jews
nor example nor good warrant for your contrary opinions and practices what clearer command can we shew for that then for Infant-Baptism Women were not admitted to both the Sacraments of the Old Testament Christ did not admit women no not his own Mother to the Supper There is express uncontroverted mention in the New Testament of women being baptized but not so of women communicating If you alledg that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a name common to women as well as mâ—n ought to communicate 1 Cor. 11.28 it is early evaded by saying that the Apostle confines it to the Male by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 v. 28 29. and the same word is used of Circumcision of which the Male only was capable Joh 7.22 General terms of Disciples Church-members persons in Covenant will carry it for Infants Baptism as well as womens communicating If you alledg That such and such Assemblies in which there were women did break bread you know it may be yea it is doubted by some sober spirits whether that breaking of bread was Sacramental or no and it may be said that the company is said to do it because the Males did it as the whole house of Israel is said to be circumcised and called Circumcision though the Females thereof were not circumcised If you should tell us of housholds admited to the Supper though I know not any such instance in Scripture I might as well say there was no women there or they were excluded as you say there was no Infants in such or such an houshold or if there were they were excluded Lastly If men should bend their strength that way they might as plausibly except against your admission of women usually the forwardest part of your Societies to the Supper as you do or I believe can do against Paedobaptism Oh that our good God would in mercy to this distracted Church and to the deluded Souls therein remove prejudice out of our hearts ANABAPT CAT. Q. Whether do you think Baptism administred in Infancy to be a lawful Baptism and sufficient A. To me it is not for I think it to be a Profanation of an Ordinance for these Reasons 1. Because it is taught by the precepts of men Isai 29.13 not by God Jerem. 7.22 23. YOu hold Exam. Chap. 11. it seems that it is neither lawful nor sufficient and in plain English it is null voyd no Baptism at all But consider I pray you could you prove the nullity of Infant-Baptism as you have a great mind to do what sad consequences would ensue 1. That the people of God for the space of 1600 years using Paedobaptism were destitute of one if not by consequence of both the Sacraments 2. That the Churches in England Scotland France Denmark Sweden Germany Geneva Holland New England c. which have usually no other Baptism but Child-Baptism are no Churches the members thereof being not so much as Christians outwardly nor Sacramentally initiated into the Church in doing whereof you dishonor God and do Satan great service Gods work being to disciple and enchirch the Nations of the World Matt. 28.19 Mark 16.16 2 Cor. 5.19 and Satan's to undesciple and Heâ—thenize the Church either in realty or in reputation for the advancement of his own Kingdom 3. That these and all others must for ever as the case stands want the Sacrament of Baptism except a special and particular warrant come from Heaven as to John Baptist for the setting up of this Ordinance for no man who is both unseparated to the work of the Ministry and unbaptized his Paedobaptism being a nullity and ununited to the Church of Christ can warrantably baptize himself or any other any more then Saul might sacrifice Vzzah stay the Ark Vzziah offer Incense a Midwife Turk Jew or Pagan administer the Sacraments of Christs Church for if Paedobaptism be a nullity because of default in the subject this also will be a nullity for want of commission for you can shew neither precept president nor good warrant for the Word for any man that is unbaptized having no special Commission from God to baptize himself or to baptize any other or for any man to accept of Baptism from such an one which is indeed no Baptism at all John as he had commission from God for his baptizing so he affirms that a man can receive nothing viz. no authority to baptize as he did except it be given him from Heaven John 3. 26 27. as if he would professedly caution the Church against such courses 4. That the Societies of the Independents and Separatists notwithstanding their separation from us do yet except they also turn Anabaptists live within one of the strongest holds of Antichrist are guilty of observing traditions and precepts of men of will-worship of profanation of Gods holy Ordinance of filling the Church with rotten members of confounding the Church and the World together yea say some of you they have the mark of the Beast in their soreheads and by consequence are in the high way to eternal damnation And what worse can you say of any Your Texts prove that God hates hypocrisie and over much regard of the commandments of men and that God did command Obedience rather then Sacrisice as 1 Sam. 15.22 for God did command Sacrifices and Offerings Levit. chap. 1. 2.3 c. What is this to Paedobaptism Will you acknowledg that God hath commanded it to us as he did burnt-offerings and sacrifices to the Jews we our selves say no more for it But if your Texts do forbid all humane inventions in the Worship of God Paedobaptism is yet safe enough for it hath been proved in the foregoing Chapter to have as good warrant from the Word as some other by your self acknowledged Ordinances of God have and better then your opposite Opinion and Practicas ANABAPT CAT. A. Paedobaptism is done in a Wrong manner by sprinkling in stead of Dipping THis exception you begin your Catechisun with telling us that Baptism signifies Dipping Examinat Chap. 12. By Dipping is never signified Sprinkling whence you would infer That Baptism should be by Dipping only and that it is done in a Wrong manner When it is done by Sprinkling wherein you much mistake For. 1. Should the original signification of other Scriptures words be so much squeezed then because the holy Communion is callâ—d a Supper 1 Cor. 11.20 the word signifying a whole meal and the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Cor. 14. Ephes 5. signifies not simply to sing but to sing to a musical Instrument and the original words for the gesture at the Supper signifie lying or leaning on a bed you might with as good reason collect That the holy Communion should be a whole meal That there should be instrumental musick in Churches as well as vocal That men ought to lie or lean on beds at the receiving of the Supper or else the Ordinances are dons in a Wrong manner 2 The word Baptism by