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.
they know not what Such is Infants-Baptism Therefore they are absurdly and to no purpose baptized 1. We answer Circumcision was to Isaas and Evangelical Ordinance and Seal of Gods Covenant of the same Grace common to him and us yet that being administred to him at eight days old he knew not what he was circumcised to yet was it neither in vain nor absurdly administred to him 2. Some mysterious things have been done to them who though of age knew not for the present what was done unto them yet not absurdly nor to no purpose as when Peters feet were washed Iohn 13. 7 c. Christ told him What I do thou knowest not now yet was it not absurdly or to no purpose done 3. No circumcised Infants knew what was done to them for present yet was it to purpose done to all either to salvation or further condemnation That Tenet and Practise which being put or supposed Baptism cannot be administred as John Baptist and the Apostles administred it agreeth not with the Practice of John Baptist and the Apostles But the Tenent and Practice of Infant-Baptism being put Baptism cannot be administred as John Baptist and the Apostles administred it Ergo. We answer Here is an Ignoratio elenchi the argument driving at that which is not in question The question is not whether Iohn B. and the Apostles did baptize Infants for in case they had not opportunity so to do it follows not that when opportunity was baptizing such agreed not with their practice no more then to have circumcised men of years had not agreed with Moses Institution of Circumcision because we never read that he ever did circumcise any Jews of years 2. The Minor can never be proved How know you that Iohn B. or the Apostles never baptized any Infants You have been often told à non Scripto ad non factum followeth not No man can certainly say that Iohn B. and the Apostles never baptized Infants The contrary appeareth in that which hath been said CHAP. II. Mr. Fishers Objections at Folkstone in Kent March 10. 1650. answered IF Baptism of Infants be no Ordinance of Christ then it is unlawful But the Baptism of Infants is no Ordidinance of Christ Ergo. We deny the Minor If the Baptism of Infants is not ordained in the New Testament of Christ then it is no Ordinance of Christ But it is not ordained in the New Testament of Christ Ergo c. We deny the Minor If it be ordained in the Testament of Christ then it is to be found where Ergo c. We answer 1. The minor is again denyed for the matter in question is to be found in several places from firm and good consequence 2. If otherwise you argue negatively from Scriptures in respect of express terms We further say 1. That the like reason might be urged against baptizing of women and administring the Lords Supper to them there being no express or particular precept in terminis for either nor express example of the latter nor promise to it in all the Scripture And if you say women are comprehended in the general precepts we answer so are Infants of believing Parents as parts of Families and Nations If you say women are admitted to the Communion because Christ dyed for them as well as men We say so to and that he as certainly dyed for Infants 2. The command for baptizing Infants is Matth. 28. 19. The examples Acts 16 33. 1 Cor. 1. 16. And the promise Acts 2. 39. If Infant-Baptism be an Ordinance of Christ then it is expresly set down But it is not expresly set down Ergo c. We answer 1. If the question be concerning the example of Christ or his Disciples baptizing Infants and you would reason thus They did never baptize Infants because it is not expresly written We have often said à non scripto ad non factum non valet argumentum Christ and his Apostles did many things which are not expresly written 2. We may understand this word Expresly to signifie either a writing in terminis that is so many words and syllables Go and Baptize Infants if you would have it so strictly understood that it is not the Ordinance of Christ that any should be baptized but such as are so mentioned in Scriptures then you must also conclude that the Baptism of women is no Ordinance of Christ and indeed there might appear more colour of doubting concerning their baptizing who were not sealed under the Law then of male Infants which were and then giving the Eucharist to women must be no Ordinance of Christ nay baptizing of men and women of ripe years must then be no Ordinance of Christ for where can you shew us where Christ expresly said Go and baptize men and women of ripe years Where can you shew us in terminis Thou Thomas John Andrew c. shalt be baptized and saved This you will put upon necessary consequence where you have no express word And why shall we not have the like liberty for Infant-Baptism Or we may understand this word Expresly in a greater latitude to import a general and implicite command in such terms and grounds quibus positis alia necessariò consequuntur So we say Christ expresly commanded Infant-Baptism where he said without any limitation or exception to Infants Go baptize all Nations whereof Infants then and ever were and are a great part because except in case of some evident incapacity eadem est ratio partis totius 3. Taking Expresly in a proper and strict sense as it seems you here do for in terminis so many words and syllables We say from other instances that your assertion may appear false and erroneous For 1. There is no express place of Scripture which nameth three persons in the unity of the Deity which yet we must believe again there is no Express Precept for abrogating the Iewish Sabbath and religious observation of the Christian Sabbath as hath been noted If Matth. 28. 19. Christ gave Commission to teach those whom they were to baptize then not to baptize Infants But Matth 28. 19. he gave commission to teach those they were to baptize Therefore there he gave no commission to baptize infants 1. We answer Your major is Amphibologicae For it is doubtful whether you affirm by those whom they were to baptize all those or only some of those If you mean All your minor is false For Christ gave them no commission to teach Infants as such though he gave them commission to baptize them into future faith and obedience If you mean thus Christ gave commission Matth. 28. 19 20. to teach some of those whom they were to baptize therefore he gave them not Commission to baptize Infants then the Sequel of your major is lame and cannot follow for though Christ there gave them commission to teach and baptize the Parents first it follows not thence that therefore he gave them not commission
be admitted into the same by the initiatory seal thereof which is baptism that they may be externally known to be of the Church but Infants of Church-priviledged persons are members of Christs body the Church ergo they ought to be baptized that they may be admitted into the same by the initiatorie seal thereof which is baptism c. The major is thus confirmed such persons as were circumcised under the Law that they might be known to be of the Church ought to be baptized under the Gospel for the same end for baptism answereth circumcision and is called by the same name Col. 2 11 12. as having the same end effect to seal up the same grace unto faith mortification remission of sins admission into the visible Church If it be excepted that under the Law there was an express command for Infant-circumcision on the eighth day but there is none for Infant-baptism We say 1 Because there was an express command under the Law never repealed in the Gospel and the same end and use still remain therefore there need be none in the Gospel more then that general opening the kingdom of heaven to all believers in taking away the stop of the partition wall by that which is said Baptize all Nations None but Israelites and their proselytes were sealed under the Law none but male children at eight days old but now go baptize all nations without exception to nation age sex or condition 2 There is in all the Scripture no express prohibition neither caâ— any by any sound consequence imply it The assumption is thus confirmed Those whom Christ saveth are members of his body for he is the head of the Church and Savior of the body Eph. 5. 23. But Christ saveth Infants of believing parents therefore Infants are members of Christs body the Church The major is evident for Christ saveth none but those who are members of his body the Church The minor is as evident it being granted that any Infants are saved which is apparent from the covenant of God Gen. 17. 7. and the words of Christ of such is the kingdom of God as also by this argument Those whom Christ loved and for whom he gave himself to death those he will sanctifie and cleanse with the washing of water by the Word Eph. 5. 26. that they may be received into the Church and be made partakers of the benefits of his death but Christ not only loved and gave himself for persons of years but also for Infants therefore he will sanctifie and cleanse Infants with the washing of water by the Word c. 2 All Infants were by 〈◊〉 capable of sin and the expressions of Gods justice punishing the same by death sickness 〈◊〉 but Infants are not leâ—â— capable of the grace and mercy of God in Christ in respect of the expressions thereof then they were of his justice in Adam Therefore Infants are capable of the expressions of Gods grace and mercie in Christ which in the ordinary dispensation thereof is baptism The major is evident Rom. 5. 12. 1 Cor. 15. 22. The minor Rom. 5. 20 where sin abounded grace did much more abound that is Gods grace doth more abundantly appear in holding out the visible remedy then his justice inflicting the denounced puâ—ishment which could not be if Infants visibly involved in the condemnatorie sentence and execution thereof should be excluded from the ordinary and visible means of recovery and salvation by Christ which in them can be no other external means but baptism the laâ—er of regeneration it can be no less then a sacrilegious injury to the grace mercy of God in Christ to suppose that the sin of man is more powerfâ—l to hurt then the grace of God in Christ is to heal and save 3 If we ought not to baptize Infants then there must be some apparent let and impediment thereto either on Gods part prohibiting or on the Ministers part or in the Sacrament it self or in the incapacitie of the receiver but there is no apparent let or impdiment on the part or in any of these therefore there is none at all 1 There is no impediment on Gods part for God no where expresly or by good consequence saith Baptize not Infants or Baptize none but those who do first testifie their faith and repentance 2 There is no impediment on the Ministers part for he can as easily baptize Infants as persons of years 3 There is no impediment in respect of the Sacrament it self for all the essentials of baptism may be placed on children profession of faith repentance c. are conditions of baptism in persons of years and effects of it which may in due time appear and follow in baptized Infants those therefore are not of the essence of baptism nor so much as universal conditions thereof â—or the presâ—â—â— sprinkling washing or dipping in water in the name of the Father the Son and the H. Ghost are the essence of baptism so are not faith repentance or newness of life for it may be a true baptism where these graces do neither precede nor fâ—â—low it though without these preceding or following baâ—tism cannot be effectual to salvation which need not seem strange to him that considereth that Iudas 〈…〉 and many who were and now are truly 〈◊〉 are 〈◊〉 â—â—ved 4 Neither can the lâ—t be in the 〈◊〉 who cannot by any actual hardnes of heart impenitency or positive unbelief or contempt of the ordinance of God refuse or despise the grace of God offered in baptism Therefore they are to be admitted to that whereof they are apparently undeniably capable which is the external seal at least which is all that man for present can administer or we will contend for being most willing to leave secret things to God and to hope the best where the contrary cannot appear unto us only add hereto if the issue be put upon the capacitie or incapacitie of the Infant with relation to any condition so mucâ— insisted on let any of our Antagonists shew us how or wherin Infants under the Gospel covenant of grace in Christ have less capacity in respect thereof then Infants under the Law of Moses had or that baptism is not the seal of the same righteousness of faith in Christ wherof circumcision for the time was the seal 4 That which without any expressed exception to particulars Christs commission holds forth to all nations belongs to Infants as well as persons of years for Infants are alwayes a great part of all nations but Christs commission holds forth baptism to all nations without any expressed exception to particulars therefore baptism belongs to Infants of believing Parents as well as to persons of years 5 No man may forbid water that is the outward administration where God hath given the inward operation of his H. Spirit which maxim the Apostle built on in that then difficult question whether the Gentiles might be sealed into
warrant have you to wrest this similitude to what you please in those similes which are most apt there may be many disconveniences found Or what commission can you dream of that gives you authority to draw this alledged Scripture beyond the Apostles scope and purpose rather to that which seems to favour your fancy and practise of immersion then to another sense 2. Those expressions Rom. 6. 4. are meerly figurative and therefore do not at all bind us to any external or literal sense or observance in the maner of baptizing if the similitude must fully hold some might possibly reason thus as Christ was first dead and buried and rose again the third day so we must first be dead and buried and then be baptized and rise with Christ a third time Marcion that old pernicious heretick held that one might be three times baptized or they might infer that we must not rise up out of the water into which we are dipt until the third day but how absurd such inferences are none can be ignorant 3. The alledged scripture concludes not the manner of our baptism but the effects thereof not how the water should be applied or in what maner we should be baptized whether by sprinkling washing or dipping but how we ought to live who are baptized that sin should henceforth have no more power over us then if we were dead that we should so live to righteousness and bringing forth fruits thereof as being implanted into Christ and so no more living our own life but the holy life of Christ. 4. He saith not We are buried with Christ in water or juâ—â— as Christ was buried in his baptism but into the likeness of his death that like as Christ was raised up from the dead so we should not be raised oâ—t of the water but walk in newness of life Here is the main substance of the similitude 't is not in any circumstance Now I would fain know whether a man may not walk in newness of life being baptized with sprinkling as well as if he had been doused 5. The argument here drawn to prove necessity of immersion is a fallicia accidentis a reasoning from the the substance to the accident Suppose thus We must be baptized into the similitude of Christs death But he was covered and rose again ergo We must be covered with water that we may be raised again c. Non sequitur his being covered in the rocky vault was but a circumstance as was his lying covered to the third day therefore it can be no more here concluded that we must be like Christ in being covered with water in baptism then that we must lie under water three days and nights in our baptism because he lay so long in his grave for why should one circumstance or accident be concluded rather then another 6. If the similitude must be so strictly urged it will be rather for us Christ was not thrown down prone with his face downward as they use to dive their disciples but honorably embalmed and decently laid in a new Sepulchre and we use solemnly to bury our dead with their faces upward sprinkle dust and earth upon them and in such decent posture we baptize Infants by putting our sprinkling water on them or by dipping them 7. Christs natural body was truly dead buried we must therefore understand that which must be done in us by analogy and proportion and not wrest the Apostles words to a litteral sense The body of sin is then buried when the power thereof is enervated and weakned and as it were a dead carcase is so over-whelmed and buried that it can no more move and force a man whither it would and was wont and this is said to be done in Baptism in a twofold respect 1. In respect of Christ into whom when we are implanted by baptism all the benefiâ—â— of his death are freely given and sealed to us so that our sins are buried in his grave who bare our 〈◊〉 in his own body 1 Pet. â— 24. so in his burial our sins were covered no more to appear in judgment against us or to be imputed to us 2. In respect of our mortification sacramentally accomplished in our baptism and by the Spirit of God by certain degrees in al our life long though bodily death being a privation of life hath no degrees he that is dead dyeth no more yet in our spiritual death to sin there are degrees we dye daily as the power of sin is more and more broken in us That baptism which is not agreeable to Christs or Iohns baptism is not instituted by Christ therefore mans invention and will-worship But washing or sprinkling with water agreeth not with the baptism of Christ or John for they baptized and were baptized in Jordan and the Eunuch was baptized in the brook Acts 8. 38. therefore baptizing with sprinkling or only washing is not instituted by Christ. We answer 1. This is a fallacious arguing the termâ— agreeable being homonymical 't is doubtful in the assumption whether he mean agreeable in substance or in circumstance that which is not agreeable in substance with the baptism of Christ and Iohn Baptist is not instituted by Christ but this holds not in point of circumstance for then there could be no lawful baptism but in Iordan or some other water of Palestine 2. It follows not that Iohn B. dived Christ or any other into water or Philip the Eunuch because Iohn baptized in Iordan where were some sandy places because we read they went down into the water for so they may do who only wet their feet or go up to their knees or anckles we must consider that in the infancy of the Gospel they had not publike Oratories and Fonts to accommodate them baptizing as in a setled state of the Church we have seen and therefore they baptized where they could have convenience of water which in that dry region was not every where to be had as appeareth in that reason of Iohns baptizing in Aenon near Salim given by the Evangelist because there was much water there 3. It is not probable that Christ was dipt cloathes and all in Iordan and so went immediately wringing-wet into the wilderness see Mark 1. 1 2 10. nor that he was stripped naked with such a confused multitude of men and women as 〈◊〉 to Iohns baptism see Luke 3. 21. Matth. 21. 31 32. Matth. 3. 5 6. 4. It is but a weak Fallacy to dispute à particulari ad generale thus some went iâ—to the river to be baptized therefore all that are to be baptized ought so to do for in things circumstantial and without some binding Precept to impose them as duties a particular example can beget no general rule for our due and necessary imitation 5. If it could be proved which all our Antagonists can never do that Christ and those whom Iohn baptized were duckt into the water when they were baptized yet