act and ministery none of ours ever so reasoned And why cannot God as well do his mercies to infants now immediatly as he did before the institution either of circumcision or baptism Once again we say We question not Gods power truly nor his will in many Infants dying before they could be baptized the question is whether we may or ought according to Gods revealed will baptize them In which it seemeth to us a very weak querie And why cannot God as well do his mercies to Infants now immediately c. However you say there is no danger that Infants should perish for want of this externall ministery c. Not to dispute Gods secret counsels we say the danger will be to the despâ—er and neglecter of Gods Ordinance wherein Tertullians Assertion may serve for a reason Because saith he he shall be guilty of a mans destruction who shall omit to do that which he freely might have performed For say you Water and the Spirit in this place John 3. 5. sigâ—ifie the same thing and by water is meant the effect of the Spirit cleansing and purifying the soul c. It is true that Calvin Oecolampadius and some others do not think that Christ doth there precisely speak of Baptism but that he either opposed it to Pharisaicall washings and purifications to which possibly Nicodemus with whom he then discoursed might be too much addicted Or that those words are simply to be interpreted concerning Regeneration but Iustin Martyr Chrysostome Theophilact Cyril Euthymius Augustine Rupertus Bâ—naventure Musculus B Aretius R. Rollâ—c Pelargus and others expound these words concerning Baptism the Sacrament of Regeneration the present speech of Christ being concerning Regeneration and it is most probable that Christ therein respected the common order of the Church mentioning the Spirit and Water to shew that we must be baptized if we will be saved yet 't is not the water but Gods holy Spirit which washeth away our sins Neither doth he so simply and necessarily tie the grace and efficacy of Gods Spirit to the Sacrament of Baptism as if none could be saved without Baptism and that God could not extraordinarily and immediately save Whatsoever Papists say to the contrary to assert their bloody decree and cruell doctrine concerning Infants dying without Baptism yet their Schoolmen and they in their more sober fits confesse that God hath not absolutely tied his grace to the Sacraments Christ â—aith He that shall believe and be baptized shall be saved but in the Antithesis he saith not Whosoever shall not be baptized shall not be saved to shew us that faith alone may sometime be sufficient to salvation as in the penitent Thief but nothing can suffice without faith because without it it is impossible to please God And because faith onely apprehendeth Christ in whom alone there is salvation Acts 4. 12. To conclude it doth not appear that Water and the Spirit in the fore-cited place Iohn 3. 5. signifie one and the same thing Although Christs Baptisme with the Spirit which gives the effect of Baptism were more excellent then Iohn Baptists or any Ministers of the Gospel for so is it still and yet no sober man will deny that the water in baptism and the Spirit do differ as the externall sign and inward grace thereby signified You say further You may as well conclude that infants must also passe through the fire as through the water c. This assertion might better have suited with the dream of some â—anaticall Iacobite What will not such an advocate say for his Clients I appeal to your own conscience may we as well conclude against Gods word as for it God expressly saith Deut. 18. 10. There shall not be found among you any one that maketh his son or his daughter to passe through the fire and it is above all rationall controversie that he instituted baptizing with water who said Baptize all Nations without any exception at all to infants this is a poor trick of yours to elude Scripture And where doth Peter say the same thing that we may as well conclude that infants must also pass through the fire as through the water No no Peter by the Spirit of truth speaketh another thing indeed intimating by those words 1 Pet. 3. 2. Not the washing of the flesh but the confidence as we translate but the answer of a good conscience toward God the effects of the inward baptism which the Syriac in his Paraphrasticall interpretation of that place maketh more clear but confessing God in a pure conscience as when in the peace thereof we call upon him with an holy security of his hearing us which can be onely in the inward Baptism which the Spirit of Iesus giveth by faith and sanctification wherein we have peace toward God in the assurance of our justification Rom. 5. 1. Rom. 8. 15 16. So that the sum is that the outward sign the water and washing of the body in baptism is not sufficient to salvation if the Spirit of Iesus give not the inward effect thereof and therefore it is dangerous to live securely in sin and unbelief as too many do in vain confidence that they must needs be saved because they have been baptized into the visible Church of Christ No but the externall sign availeth not where the inward grace thereby signified is wanting So in the preaching of the Gospel administration of the holy Eucharist mans ministery can nothing prevail to the receivers salvation without Gods Spirit giving the inward effect so that Peter briefly toucheth the power use of baptism recalling us to the testimony of a good conscience that confidence therein which can endure the sight of God and his Tribunal and flye unto him in all wants through Câ—rist But this Scripture is fanatically perverted by Schuincfeld others who would hence coÌ„clude against the effect of the Sacrament in the elect whereas the Apostle affirmeth not that the institution of Christ for baptizing the body with water is vain or effectless but secretly admonisheth carnall Gospellers that they rest not in their security but consâ—lt their own consciences whether they find there the effect of their baptism so that he neâ—ther saith that infants may as well pass through the fire as through the water as you trifle nor is this place any thing to the purpose in this question of Infant-baptism so that your following confused Hypotheses are of no value or use except to puzzle the Reader to find out what you mean which he hardly shall Therefore when you express your self more orderly and clearly we owe you an Answer This you sayâ— no more inferres a necessity of Infants Baptism then the other words of Christ inferre a necessity to give them the holy Communion Nisi comederitis carnem filii hominis c. This is another argument of Anabaptists à pari if infants say they are to be baptized they are also to be
are to be excused from it we have answered in the â—oregoing paragraph if you mean from administration of infant baptism we deny your assertion and expect proof The second device you say was of Calvin and his You said before that some said infants have imputative faith and by the number you now attribute it to Calvin indeed Mr. Calvin saith as I have noted That infants are baptized into future repentance and faith which although they be not yet formed in them yet by the secret operation of the spirit the seed of either lieth hid in them and in the same chapter he saith as Paul there reasoneth That the Iews are sanctified of their parents so in another place he teacheth That the children of Christians receive the same sanctification of their fathers Also in the same chapter he saith not that I mean rashly to affirm that they be indued with the same faith which we feel in our selves or that they have at all knowledg of faith which I had rather leave in suspence c. but concerning imputative faith I find neither device nor approbation of Calvins Why did you not rather say that this device was P. Lombards who mentioneth the Imputative faith you speak of or some of the following Schoolmen Or Polydor Virgil who in his fourth book concerning the Inventors of these things cleareth Calvin from this invention saying Seeing infants by reason of their age cannot testifie their own faith as Cyprian saith it was providedâ— from the beginning that they should profess their faith by oâ—hers that aâ— anothers fault to wit Adam â—ur first parents sin was evil to them in so much that from their birth they were subject to originall sin so others endeavour might be good to them who therefore as Ambrose saith in his second book concerning the calling of the Gentiles believe and are baptized by anothers confession Or why do you not rather lay the invention hereof to Iustin Martyr who living long before any of these saith They are made worthy of the good things of Baptism by their faith who present them to be baptized The Reader may hence gather how little Calvin said for imputative faith and if he had affirmed any such thing yet how untrue it is that Calvin or any of his invented it But the pleader saith further Can 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 Pag. 241. Yes caeteris paribus for though the Sacraments work not the same effect in all receivers yet Gods holy Spirit deserteth not his ordinance in the elect though for causes ever just though most unknown to us it doth not always alike shew its power in the recipient It is true that the seal and ministration of man can nothing profit where God giveth not the inward Baptism by his holy Spirit though the inward may save without the outward as hath been noted but your supposition being rightly laid concerning an elect infant baptized and so carried away you must grant that God whose election can by no means be defeated or made voyd will give and make effectuall the means to the end that is salvation whether by acquainting the party baptized with his will declared in his word preached to him or by his secret work within him if he will take him away in infancy in the adult coming to the knowledg of Gods covenant in Christ and of his own sealing in infancy it must make him more confident of his implantation into Christ then if he knew that he never had been baptized What then Must this be by vertue of baptism by water onely or the externall ministration thereof No but by the power of Gods Spirit working on his ordinance and accomplishing his own decrees do we follow your supposition dividing preaching of the word to such when they come to years from the precedent seal Truly such a strange invention were absolutely without Art without Scripture reason or authority I would say as is your argument here alledged against infant-baptism but that you call it Demonstrative and Vnanswerable but consider how to overcome before you cry victory To answer your supposition suppose that an infant were not by any habituall faith so much as disposed to any actuall belief without a new master what could this conclude more then that it is necessary to the actuall faith of an infant come to fit years that he be taught the doctrine of faith repentance c. which we constantly affirm what makes this against infant-baptism We unanimously confess and solemnly profess that the infant so soon as it shall be able to learn ought to be and shall be taught the mysteries of eternall life and salvation by Christ so your demonstration proves but a poor fallacie you utterly mistaking or willingly dissembling the question We affirm not that the Word ought to be divided from the Sacrament whereof new-born infants are capable but that the word is to be preached to them they are to be instructed in all the Rudiments of Christian Religion so soon as they shal be able to learn I only add hereto what have you said in this your so much applauded argument against infant-baptism which might not as reasonably and religiously have been urged against infant-circumcision Could they if sent into Painim-Countreys with all the terms of your supposition have been more disposed to an actual belief without a new Master yet they had and we have right to the seal of the righteousnesse of Faith not for any excellency or ability to produce any good and saving effect in our selves bâ—â— through the merits of our Saviour the free mercy of God and the right of our Fathers with whom God made his Covenant for their persons and posterity Next you say To which also this consideration may be added That if baptism be necessary to the salvation of infants upon whom is the imposition laid Concerning Baptism in generall 't is considerable which Tertullian saith The Lord himself who owed no repentance was baptized and was it not necessary to sinners his reason will reach possibly beyond his opinion to infants also except we should say with Pelagius that they are not sinners Further we say that Baptism the â—aver of regeneration is necessary to the salvation of infants yet in case of privation or impossibility they are saved by the peculiar and extraordinary goodness and providence of God So that the necessity of Baptism as hath been avowed is not absolute as if none could be saved without it but necessary on our part who are to obey the ordinance of God God is not tied to his ordinance but we are he can otherwise save but we cannot be saved in the contempt thereof God saith Tertullian hath bound faith to the necessity of Baptism therefore Cornelius and those that were with him after they were sanctified by the holy Ghost were yet baptized neither
is the visible sanctification superfluous because the invisible preceded seeing God alone giveth the one and appointeth man to do the other for a seal and confirmation of his covenant You say more To whom is the commandement given To the Parents or to the children Not to the children for they are not capable of a law not to the parents for then God hath put the salvation of innocent babes into the power of others and infants may be damned for their fathers carelesness or malice c. You trifle here you know that we hold no such necessity of the means as hath been said your foundation therefore failing nothing of your superstructure can stand If men neglect or contemn the ordinance of God toward their infants salvation they do as much as in them lieth to shut them from heaven but yet the foundation of the Lord remaineth sure having this seal the Lord knoweth them that are his though men neglect to mark them who cannot help themselves thereto yet the Lord knoweth all his and is not unjust to punish the childs involuntary defect for the parents voluntary neglect which God will severely punish though the child shall be held guiltless thereof as may appear in the fore-recited example of Moses which might perswade consideâ—ing men to beware of denying children baptism for if the neglect be such a sin what is the contempt therof to which their parents faith giveth them right not as an efficient principall or meritorious cause of infants salvation but as a sign and seal of Gods good will towards their children whose providence causing them to be born of such parents sheweth that he vouchsafeth them the priviledge of his covenant and how horrible a presumption is it for man to take away that which God pleaseth to give It follows say you that it is not necessary at all to be done to them to whom it cannot be prescribed as a law and in whose behalfe it cannot be reasonably intrusted to others with the appendant necessity We have said enough concerning the necessity you stil harp on and fear to weary the Reader by telling you we hold no such absolute necessity as we have expressed but that it follows not that it is necessary at all to be done c. is evidently false as may appear in circumcision which was enjoyned the parents not the children as untrue is your second branch in whose behalf it cannot be reasonably entrusted to others for the infants circumcision was reasonably entrusted to the parent under this necessity The uncircumcised man-child that person shall be cut off from his people Gen. 17. 14. And you say if it be not necessary it is certain it is not reasonable Stay and prove that it is not necessary before you build up many conclusions upon that which never was nor will be granted you We have shewed how 't is necessary It is nowhere in terms prescribed Neither is the Sabbath which we observe nor many other things which of duty we do perform See what hath been answered hereto pag. 240. Num. 28. and so we baptize infants for it is both reasonable and they have a capacity thereof though you deny both Either baptism producâ—th spiritual effects or it produceth them not c. A rare Dilemma but that 't is fallacious Reduce it to a Syllogism and it will appear a Paralogism ex accidente Suppose thus That which produceth no spiritual effects is not to be contended for but baptism produceth no spiritual effect ergo it is not to be contended for Who knows not that 't is accidental to baptism to produce no spiritual effect in the baptized This is for mans unbelief and forsaking the Covenant by wilfull sinning which doth ponere obicem and make the Ordinance of none effect to salvation If we should thus dispute That which causeth wrath is evil but the Law causeth wrath ergo the Law is evil the Fallacy were the same For it is accidental and through mans disobedience that the Law causeth wrath of it self it is good and holy right and pure so here though baptism produce no good spiritual effect in the reprobate or not ex opere operato yet by the institution of God whose spirit worketh on his Ordinance it doth What are we nearer heaven if we are baptized If I were of your Councel I would entreat you to beware of these political temporizings which come so near Atheism Believe you the Scriptures who thus slight Gods holy Ordinances But if baptism does do a work upon the soul producing spiritual benefits and advantages these advantages are produced by the external work of the Sacrament alone or by that as it is helped by the co-operation and predispositions of the suscipient Here you bring another fallacy à non causâ pro causâ◠We say that neither are the effects or spiritual advantages of baptism produced by the external work of the Sacrament alone nor by that as it is helped by the co-operation and pre-disposition of the suscipient as hath been proved but by the spirit of God working on his own Ordinance If you say by the external work alone how doth this differ from the opus operatum of Papists save that it is worse If the Skie fall we shall have Larks Who affirms that which you suppose For they say the Sacrament does not produce it's effect but in a suscipient disposed by all requisites and due preparations of piety faith and repentance Do they say so when they speak of infant-baptism slander them not herein they are better then you who deny infants baptism which they grant though children cannot actually believe confess profess or repent But this opinion saies it does of it self without the help or so mucâ— as the coexistence of any condition but the meer reception Make much of the Minerva of your own brain if it be your opâ—nion we own it not But if the Sacrament does not do its work alone but per modum recipâ—entâ—s according to the predispositions of the suscipient then because infants can neither hinder it nor do any thing to further it it does them no benefit at all You might have pleaded the same against circumcision with as good success They could neither hinder it nor do any thing to further it did it therefore do them no benefit at all But who faith it is per modum recipientis c. which is not properly expressed according to the predisposition Per modum speaks a cause ad or secundum a condition We say that the Sacrament doth work according to the dispositions of the receivers because God gives that to infants which makes them fit to be baptized giving them by his own Covenant with his believieving parents federal holyness and so a right to the external initiatory seal of his Covenant with them Whether it do them good or no whether it produce a spiritual good effect or no that is to regeneration and salvation a right
Testament and in the â—postles sense Heb. 4 5 6. They crucifie to themselves the Son of God afresh and put him to open shame who being once baptized and thereby planted together in the likeness of his death Rom. 6. 4 5. Who having once died dyeth no more death hath no more dominion over him will yet be baptized again The Apostles saying It is impossible for those who were once enlightned that is baptized as the Syriac Interpreter rendreth it and as we shall make it appear more anon If they fall away to renew them again unto repentance seeing they crucifie to themselves the Son of God afresh and put him to an open shame How do they crucifie him afresh to themselves that is as much as in them is Why 1. They are said so to do who iterate or again do or resume that which is a resemblance or similitude of Christs suffering who died but once for in a reiterating it we declare or intimate the first to be void and so if we will have a new baptism we must have a new Christ and he must in our Symbole suffer as if one Christ or his once suffering were not sufficient for our redemption And is not this to pollute the bloud of the everlasting Covenant and Testament and to crucifie again the Son of God Secondly this may be said in respect of reciduation or falling away from Christ as they do who renounce their baptism by which they were implanted into him by receiving another baptism because the merit of Christs Cross being abolished and made void by which they were once renewed it must needs be that Christ should be crucified again and put to shame that they might be renewed by a fresh or new merit of the Cross which seeing it cannot be the Apostle possibly would infer that it was impossible that they which are once sealed and regenerate should ever fall away and that therefore all Christians should do their uttermost endeavour that they may be like good ground near the blessing and that they may not want an iterated renovation which no man can possibly attain As for the rest of your reviâ—ings though we have no cause to be troubled at your dogged eloquence yet for their sakes who are weak I shall endeavour to shew the injurious falshood thereof You say that we in baptizing infants dishonour and make a Pageantry of the Sacrament c. We answer to this puted calumny 1. You may as well in this your Theomachy and fighting against Gods Ordinance object the same against Circumcision of Infants if incapacity of present giving account of their faith as you pretend can make the Sealers of infants lyable to your unjust censure for infants could then no more give an account of their faith then now they can 2. Infants have a capacity of the holy Ghost as hath been proved in the examples of Ieremy and Iohn Baptist c. yea such a measure of sanctification and so certain a regeneration working in them all such things as God knoweth to be necessary to their salvation or himself supplying all those things as that Christ both pronounceth their propriety in the Kingdom of heaven and proposed them as patterns to all those who should enter thereinto Therefore the Apostles Argument being good from the extraordinary and visible gifts of the holy Ghost gifts of miracles flourishing in the primitive Church and marking many receivers to a capacity of baptism which yet might then be had without any interest in the Kingdom of heaven who can forbid water that these should not be baptized which have received the holy Ghost as well as we It must as certainly hold from the gift of regeneration and the spirit of sanctification which is in many infants because many infants dying such are saved And now in your judgment doth the baptism of such as are saved dishonour the Sacrament the outward seal which man can give and wicked men receive who have received the thing signified the inward seal of Gods holy spirit which none but himself can give and none but the elect receive Or do you dishonour your self who were so admitted into the Church the Church our holy Mother who maâ—gre the Devils malice and the powers of hell by infant-Infant-baptism bringeth an holy seed to Christ Christ himself commanding us to baptize all without exception to any estate sex age or condition that either are within the Church as born of Christian parents or in their conversion profession of faith and repentance desire to be admitted into the same Adde hereto that Christ particularly cautioned for children left any should despise them openly declaring that of such is the kingdome of heaven And yet the doing of this duty is dishonour to the Sacrament and Pageantry with you But If of every idle word which men shall speak they shall give an account in the day of judgment it concerneth them speedily to repent of these blasphemous calumnies lest it prove a black and dismal day to them in respect of these things for which they can give no better account then their own fancies and others And whereas you say they that baptize infants ineffectually represent a Sepulture into the death of Christ and please themselves with a signe without an effect making baptism like the fig-tree in the Gospel full of leaves but no fruit To say this is an untruth is as much answer as we owe to so reasonless a calumny yet I shall be contented to lay it further open I say 1. Can you be assured that none of these who are baptized in infancy and no otherwise are regenerate and saved Whence have you either such knowledg or commission so to judg You say the Anabaptists say so so said the Pharisees concerning those that believed in Christ This people who knows not the Law are cursed But what warrant is this for you to blaspheme for company 2. God be blessed that we who believe one God one Mediator one Faith one Baptism which we received in our infancy have such a testimony of Gods holy spirit effectually working faith repentance mortification and a comfortable measure of sanctification in us as that we know you speak untruth in that you say that Poedobaptists ineffectually represent a Sepulturâ— into the death of Christ and please themselves in a signe without an effect c. God be blessed which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again to a lively hope wherein as we need not be beholding to you for testimony so neither are we to regard what you say against it With me it is a very small thing that I should be judged of you or of mans judgment but he that judgeth me is the Lord therefore judg nothing before the time He that saith that baptism is a bare signe only fallaciously concludeth dividing things which God hath joyned together 3. Although baptism of infants be effectless to the reprobate whether infant or person
of Vertue and Election must cautiously be understood seeing they neither can do any thing hereto as they have reason or election both which are naturall and so corrupted that they are utterly inactive to any moral good without the help of Gods preventing and quickning grace supervenient The Scrâ—pture is expresse You hath he quickned who were dead in trespasses and sins and were by nature the children of wrath even as others c. It is neither of him that willeth nor of him that runneth but of God that sheweth mercy And where he said Work out or finish your salvation we may not think it dependeth on our works or of our own ability for saith he it is God which worketh in you both to wil and to do of his good pleasure Lest we should think our selves excused from our uttermost endevour whom he hath made voluntary agents and in some part repaired in our regeneration he requireth that we work that we receive not that grace in vain that we so run that we may attain yet that we may not think that this is or can be by any choice or ability of our own he telleth us presently it is God which worketh in us all which he requireth of us and so good works which follow the â—ustified person being fruits of our calling and election give us a comfortable hope thereof Yet is it most true that God alone according to his abundant mercy not our merit hath begotten us agâ—in to a lively hope 1 Pet. 1. 3. and that if we do these things we shall never fall You say again That God requires nothing on mans part but that its efficacy be not hindred This Proposition though plausible yet is unsound as may appear by that which hath been said to which I add It is indeed required that we do not ponere obicem by unbeliefe impenitency contempt of Gods ordinance c. but he that saith Cease to do evill saith also Learn to do well So the Apostle exhorteth To give all diligence to make your calling and election sure for if ye do these things ye shall never fall And indeed this is the end of our implantation into Christ by Baptism that we should walk in newness of life and no doubtâ— but God requireth of his Israel that they should not quench the Spirit or ponere obicem in that he said Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart and harden your necks no more Deut. 10. 16. Yet he requireth them to fear the Lord their God to walk in all his ways to keep all the commandements of the Lord v. 12. 13. And into the same covenant are children admitted by baptism which bindeth them on their first abilities to perform the same though for the present they are no more active then circumcised Infants were who were received and sealed into the present covenant of future faith and obedience Then you say there is a necessity that they should be brought to baptism there being an absolute exclusion of all persons unbaptized There is a necessity of Baptism in respect of Gods ordinance which bindeth us to administer it but we affirm not such a necessitatem medii that all they should be absolutely excluded from the Kingdom of Heaven who die without baptism as many infants do That uncharitable opinion we leave to the maintainers therof we have no warrant so to judge and therefore we say that not the bare privation but the contempt of the Sacrament condâ—mneth of which Infants cannot be guilty So that if you clearly mean a necessitatem medii in respect of the externall ministry of man your Proposition is not true nor owned by us but if you mean a necessity in respect of our duty in baptizing infants or their spirituall baptisme by regeneration we so farre consent but then we cannot excuse your medium for an homonomia which concludeth not an absolute exclusion of all persons unbaptized is apparently fals in the example of the â—enitent Thiefe saved but not baptized and in charity to be concluded so in elect children dying before they are baptized so that if our Arguments for baptizing children were no better you might confidently say as you do in the Epilogâ—e of your Plea They have been encouraged in their error more by our weak arguingsâ— then by any truth of their cause or excellency of their wit You say Internall means of bringing them to an eternall happiness they have none for grace being an improvement and heightning the faculties of Nature in order to an heightned and supernaturall end grace hath no influence or efficacy upon their faculties who can do no naturall acts of understanding What acts of understanding elect Infants dying have I cannot determine but I am confident all considering Readers will abominate and loath this bold and uncharitable censure Who admitted you into the secret of Godâ— councel concerning the state of Infants whom either he preserveth to age or taketh away before they could be baptized It is better resolved toa worse end by your self p. 231. Num. 16. Many thousand ways there are by which God can bring any reasonable soul unto himself And here in the very next place you affirm That God hath made a promise of the holy Ghost to Infants as well as to men Reconcile these two and your self to your self if you can First you say Grace hath no influence or efficacy upon their faculties who can do no naturall acts of understanding And next you affirm that God hath made a promise of the holy Ghost to Infants as well as to men I demand Doth God perform every one of his promises Do you mean by the Holy Ghost the giâ—ts and graces of Gods holy Spirit regenerating the elect to the Kingdome of Heaven Can any be saved without such grace can the holy Ghost be inactive and without effectuall influence in any soul Doth God give in his good time and measure his grace of Regeneration to all the elect that is a powerful influence on them to regenerate sanctifie and finally save them Doth God save any Infants These things being concluded on I would fain learn how it can be true that children have no internall means of salvation or that Gods Spirit hath no influence upon their faculties Doth the reasonable soul of an Infant express an admirable influence on the bodily faculties by a naturall instinct for its preservation and shall not the Creator the Spirit of Almighty God have much more active influence on the soul of the elect to save it though there appear none or very slender acts of understanding to the judgement and sense of man This your Proposition will appear false if we consider infants circumcision those could do as few acts of understanding as infants now can neither can any man without high impiety affirm that Gods grace had no influence or efficacy on them whom he did not in vain command to be sealed into his covenant It
is well observed by our party that the Sacraments are not bare resemblances or memorials of things past neither naked signes or testimonies of grace received but also Canales gratiâ—â— whereby God ordinarily deriveth to us those Rivers of living Waterâ— Ioh 7. 3. and both delivereth and sealeth unto us the grace which they represent so that these holy signes are not empty void of or without the things signified although the things are received after one manner and the signes after another one is given by God alone without the observation and knowledge of man and the other onely by the ministry of man and before men As at first Iohn Baptist baptized with water and Christ baptized with the holy Ghost though he baptized not with water but his Disciples and substiâ—utes neither did Iohn baptize with the holy Ghost but Christ So is it now â—hrist baptizeth elect infants by the secret iâ—fluence of his holy Spirit the fruits whereof appear in their season and his Ministers according to his appointment baptize with water To all this you say the Anabaptists give a soft and gentle answer Sure you do but herein laâ—dando praecipereâ— and by saying they do so rather shew them what they should do then us what they do M. Fisher in his Position at the Disputation at Ashford in Kent stiled the maintainers of Pedobaptism an evill and adulterous generation this is one of their soft and gentle answers Mr. Francis Cornwell in his Sermon at Crambrook in Keâ—t called Pedobaptism an Antichristiâ—n Iâ—novation a humane Trâ—â—ition c. Mr. Cha. Blâ—ckwood Title-page calleth his Pamphlet agaiâ—st us The storming of Antichrist Iohn Spislbury calleth Pedobaptism Baptism administred and received in a false Antichristian estate and by the power of Antichrist Edward Barber calleth it Antichristian and abominable And before he saith concerning Mark 10. 14. This place is put in to be read at the sprinkling of children for the Whore hath sweet words c. Is this as you say for your Clients to give a soft and gentle answer or a Boyish manner of contest to call Whore and all ill names where they have not other power to prevail Let all judge who have any sense of humanity wheâ—her this be a soft and gentle answer to call his mother Whore and the worst of such Antichristian whereas in spight of calumnies with other reformed Churches the Church of England hath excluded Popery and what she could banished that mysticall Whore out of her communion But this is their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to conclude their Scene where they have no evicting reason against that which they dislike to pronounce it Antichristian And who is so ready to cast this odious Livery upon others as the most Antichristian I might hereto add many more the like instances of Railers at Infant-baptism calling it Idolatrous of the Dragon and Beast none other then a ceremony of Antichrist a Satanicall Institution c. but that we have too much of our own at home It is the quality of the Beast to open his mouth unto blasphemy against God to blaspheme his Name and his Tabernacle and them that dwell in Heaven But we like not our cause the worse because such rail at it but wish them to consider where the Railers place shall be 1 Cor. 6. 1â— You say The Argument from Circumcision is invalid upon infinite Considerations Pag. 228. Num. 13. It will I doubt not at last prove so strong that neither you nor any other Advocates shall ever be able to over-throw it for that which circumcision was in the Old Testament Baptism is in the New which succeeded it and hath the same end and use that is to be a seal of the Righteousnesse of Faith Rom 4. 11. the same Faith in the same Christ and thereâ—ore the Apostle tells tâ—e Colossians that they wâ—re Circumcised in Christ in that they were buried with him in Baptism so that Baptism is our Circumcision or Sacrament whereby the same things are conferâ—ed and confirmed an in-let for us into the visible Church of Christ a Seal of the Covenant of Grace and free remission of sins by Faith in him into whom it implanteth us But you say Figures and Types prove nothing unless a Commandement go along with them or some express to signifie such to be their purpose We answer 1. They signifie something which is their end and the argument à typo ad veritatem holds good from the signes in the Law to the things signified in the Gospel as Children were typically baptized under the law under the Cloud and in the red Sea â— Cor. 10. 1 c. and their washing with rain from the cloud prefigured our washing in Baptism and by the Spirit And the red Sea in which the Aegyptians were drowned and Israel saved was an Emblem of Christs blood in which all our ghostly enemies are drowned and we saved 2. Here is a meer ignoratio elenchi and mistake of the question in hand which is not whether Circumcision were a type and figure of Baptisme but whether Baptisme so succeed Circumcision as a Seal of the Righteousnesse of Faith That such sorts of persons to wit young and old within the covenants as had right to the one have the like right to the other which we affirm 3. Where you say Vnless a Commandment go along with them c First we say that where the question is mistaken we are not in reason bound to answer untill it be rightly stated and so may wave all that you infer concerning the Dâ—luge Paschal Lamb c. as meerly impertinent to our present controversie Secondly concerning a command for baptizing you doubt not nor we for baptizing of Infants seeing that where the Reason and Equity of the Law remains there the Law for substance is still in force though not for every circumstance Now nothing can reasonably be alledged why children have lesse use of Reason now then they who then lived had â—nder the Law or why they should for present want of the use of reason be now lesse capable of the Seal of the Righteousness of Faith then they were who lived under the Law But you say further Supposing a correspondence of Analogie between Circumcision and Baptism yet there is no correspondence of Identitie This Bull deserves some baiting were we not treating of sacred things therefore I onely say If correspondence iâ—port answering unto in some similitude and likeness therâ— can be no correspondence of identity for no like is identically the same with that to which it is like For although it were granted that both of them Circumcision and Baptisâ— did consign the Covenant of Faith Speak you this as a matter doubtfull Is not the Scripture evident Do you also call the truth thereof in question See Rom. 4. 11. There is nothing in the circumstance of childrens being circumcised that so concerns that mystery but
is considerable either as it is in or of the subject 1. A previous disposition in the subject we may understand eitheâ— as a self-disposing by some intrinsecal and inward faculty or as a being extrinsecally disposed and fitted by some other power to a capacity or receptibility of something which yet it hath not neither was capable thereof before such a disposition Now this in our present instance presupposeth or speaks some change of the mind by illumination faith remorse of conscience purpose of leading a new life and desire to be implanted into Christ and the communion of Saints by baptism and so it is internal or professing of that endeavour of knowing the mysteries of the Gospel saith and repentance testified before men and so these dispositions are external or expressed to men whom it may concern these are necessary in persons of years coming to baptism 2. there is a previous disposition of the subject without any present change of the mind which springeth from his relation to some other or some others act So some titles of honour come on children in their fathers Charters without any present change of the childs mind so Lands and Inheritances by right of adoption may be setled on them in their infancy without their present change or knowledg so also the believing parents priviledg and being within Gods Covenant made with them and their children previously disposeth infants to the seal thereof to wit by giving them a certain right thereto and so was it in circumcision But if a Proselyte were to receive the seal of the Covenant he must necessarily be prepared and first disposed thereto by the knowledg of Gods Law and Covenant faith repentance or at least the profession thereof and those other rites which the Law required on that behalf The infants previous disposition to circumcision was no other then his fathers and his own priviledg and being within Gods Covenant Of the child was neither faith nor repenâ—ance required for the present but future so must we understand concerning baptism the seal of faith under the Gospel And not say you to instance in those innumerable places that require faith before this Sacrament there needs no more but this one He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved I answer 1. Deal fairly dispute ad idem and shew me one place of Scripture which universally requireth faith before this Sacrament and you shall be excused for the innumerable places which you speak of We can shew that the rule holds not universally that faith must precede the Sacraments for though Abrahams faith preceded the seal thereof yet Isaaks seal preceded his faith Mr. Calvin expresseth the reason hereof Why saith he doth in Abraham the Sacrament follow faith and in Isaak his son it goeth before all understanding because it is meet that he which being in full-grown age is received into fellowship of the Covenant from which he had hitherto been a stranger should first learn the conditions thereof but an infant begotten of him needed not so which by right of inheritance according to the form of the promise is even from his mothers womb contained in the Covenant And certainly in this respect God calleth the infants of covenanted parents sons and daughters born unto him Ezek 16. 20. 23. 37. be esteeming them his children who are born of those parents to whom God made the promise to be a God unto them and their seed after them which promise as truly concerns us and our children as it concerned Abraham and his 2. If the argument be good from that place Mark 16. 16. He that believeth and is baptized faith is first named and then baptism ergo faith must precede baptism Why shall not the Argument from other places be good to the contrary as Iohn 3 5. Except a man be born of water and of the spirit he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God Baptism is first named and then regeneration therefore baptism must precede regeneration So again Ephes. 5. 26. Washing with water that is baptism is mentioned before the word ergo we must first be baptized and afterward receive the word 3. If this argument were good how many men and women of age must by the same reason be denyed baptism For all have not faith but the truth is that to be born in the Church is unto or in infants instead of profession of faith and repentance as to the outward seal for which we contend and profession of faith and repentance is to and for the adult instead of the same for their right to the desired seal so was it to Ismael and Esau whom God hated because they were born of covenanted parents 4. Sure it is that Christ in the forementioned place speaketh of men and women of years For you confess that infants as such cannot believe and what then must follow if your cruel principles were true Christ saith But he that believeth not shall be damned If this were as you would have it spoken concerning infants also what should become of all those that die in their infancy what are they damn'd Here appears an inexcusable perversness of these men who when children are proposed to their interest in general terms granted them there they would exclude them except they shew a particular warrant and baptize all Nations without a baptize infants shall not advantage them for the seal of their admission into Christs visible Church But where a general rule is mentioned from whence they are in reason and all charitable construction to be exempted there it must include them for their disadvantage even to damnation without any particular warrant for such inteterpretation Mr. Cobbet observeth well That the Covenant-priviledges of grace are ever to be expounded in favour of the principal or less principal counterparties unless any exception be made of persons or priviledges by him which was the Covenant-maker To avoid this you must either acknowledg that the place you cite is either to be understood of those of years who contumaciously reject the Ordinances of God being hardned in wilfull blindness and unbelief and so that it doth not concern children as such or else you must allow infants some secret seeds of faith and regeneration and so you shall justly acknowledg their capacity of baptism Plainly you say thus faith and baptism in conjunction will bring a man to heaven but if he have not faith baptism shall do him no good True in those who though baptized as Simon Magus are yet but in the gall of bitterness but this is a meer ignoratio elenchi hence to conclude against infants baptism our question not being whether all that are baptized shall be saved but whether children of believing parents ought to be baptized which if you would thus disprove whosoever have not a saâ—ing faith that the Sacrament may do them good may not be baptized but children have not such faith that baptism received may doe them good ergo children are not
adultis ad infantes which wanting the condition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 becomes an ignoratio elenchi and mistaking or mispursuing the Question or begging it in those terms remaining in the present incapacities which cannot be granted I answer two things 1. God can give capacity of regeneration and newness of life to any age That he doth not give it to infants cannot appear to us The contrary doth for he giveth the spirit of sanctification to some infants in and from the womb for many dying young are saved which being conceived in sin and born the childâ—en of wrathâ— they could not be without regeneration and sanctification And truly when I consider what marvelous instinct God giveth to the new-cast young of beasts to take the brest as well as to new-born infants for their bodily preservation I cannot but conceive that the good God gives infants on whom he haâ—h set his own image which consisteth in understanding sanctity immortality c. some admirable though to us secret light of mind and capacity of that which is subordinate to the preservation of their immortal souls 2. Children under the Gospel have no less capacity then children under the Law had who yet received the seal of the same righteousness of faith in their infancy and were circumcised to newness of life Rom. â— 29. But you say And then have they but one member of the distinction used by S Peter they have that baptism which is a putting away the filth of the flesh but they have not that baptism which is the answer of a good conscience towards God which is the only baptism that saveth us I answer 1. You vainly dispute è non concessis 't is not granted nor can it ever be proved that elect children in baptism are not formed new in righteousness and holyness and so your superstruction concerning their having only that baptism which is a putting away the filth of the flesh but not the rest necessary to salvation is frivolous 2. The answer of a good conscience toward God is an effect of the inward baptism by the spirit of Jesus peculiar to the elect Now if your reason hence taken for the exclusion of infants from baptism the external seal were good by the same reason none but the elect or those who have the answer of a good conscience towards God must be admitted to baptism and whom then might you with good conscience baptize certainly but few and for ought you can certainly know none For in these last and worst dayes what know you but that they who fairly profess faith and repentance c. may yet notwithstanding be meer hypocrites And where is then their answer of a good conscience toward God 3. I say what secret light and swâ—et confidence elect infants have in God I know not sure I am they have that which is and shall be sufficient to their salvation in Christ though they die before man can teach them more and why shall man exclude them from the external Seal of Gods Covenant with them as being born within the Church of which they have as evident and a more easie capacity then children had of circumcision God gives Infants the incomparably greater and more excellent part sanctity and sealing to salvation and shall man presume to deny the less and subordinate part the external Seal of Christs visible Church whereof Reprobates born within the Church have a capacity 4. Faith good conscience repentance c. are in the elect those fruits whose seeds were sowen in baptism and as hath been said were it reasonable to say we may not sow untill the fruits thereof appear Nay but we therefore sow in hope that we may in due season see and reap the fruits thereof 5. Whereas you say that the answer of a good conscience towards God is the only baptism that saveth us I answer 1. It is not the answer of a good conscience that saveth any man though a good conscience be an excellent signe of our salvation by Christ for Being justified by faith we have peace with God through our Lord Iesus Christ by whom also we have access by faith c. 2. Your reasoning is fallacious your medium being homonymical For allowing you the signe for the cause yet if that which saveth us though it may be true if understood concerning persons of years and as good conscience an undoubted effect of regeneration is opposed to the bare seal thereof without any inward effect of the spirit I say if it be understood of Infants as in your sense excluded from a capacity of good conscience or the acts thereof it is very false except you will also exclude all Infants from salvation which were against the express doctrine of Christ. As infants you say by the force of nature cannot put themselves into a supernatural condition and therefore say the Poedobaptists they need baptism to put them into it so if they be baptized before the use of reason before the works of the spirit before the operation of grace before they can throw off the works of darkness and live in righteousness newness of life they are never the near I answer 1. Neither can men of years by the force of nature put themselves into a supernatural condition supposing you mean subordinate to salvation and what then can the use of reason without the works of the Spirit advantage them hereto Shall not they therefore that have the use of reason be baptized 2. What do you herein say which might not as well have been objected against the circumcision of infants Would you have concluded them never the neer because at eight dayes old they had not the use of reason to know what or why it was so done uâ—to them before they could throw off the works of darkness and live in righteousness and newness of life 3. If you will have none baptized before the works of the Spirit before the operations of grace c. when and whom may you baptize For the wind bloweth where it listeth and thou hearest the sound thereof but canst not tell whence it cometh and whither it goeth so is every one that is born of the Spirit God can and doth sanctifie infants as in the elect infants dying such must be granted if you have so much reason or charity as to think that at least some of them are elected and saved and he can and doth sanctifie in age sometimes in the very last act thereof as appeared in the penitent thief how then will it follow that infants are never the neerer if they be baptized before the use of reason c. 4. We must understand that baptism comprehendeth first the sign water and the whole ceremony sprinkling washing or dipping into water in the Name of the Father the Son and the holy Ghost Secondly the things themselves signified by the visible and externall things which are sprinkling of the blood of Iesus on the baptized for the remission of sins
the grace of his Father in the Signs and Dispensations thereof making it more dark or less testified by a Seal towards those who are within the Covenant of Grace but rather encreased or communicated it more clearly and therein it is a better Covenant Hebr. 8. 6. not in respect of God the appointer thereof he is one and the same for ever not in respect of Christ the Mediator he is the same under the Law and Gospel but in respect of the exhibition of things promised and shadowed out in the Law and clearer manifestation of Gods grace and truth in Christ. Now they who deny Infants of believers the initiatory seal of Gods Covenant as much as in them lieth diminish the grace of God and make the Covenant seem worse by Christs coming in that they diminish the comfortable assurance of our childrens implantation into Christ and of his care of and favour to them if they may not so much as be marked with the external sign and seal thereof which yet elect and reprobates if of years may by your leave and do receive 18. That which is evil to be done is forbidden in some express and known Law and Word of God But Infant-baptism is forbidden in no express and known Law and word of God therefore it is not evil as our Antagonists would make the world believe 19. That whereof God will severely punish the contempt or neglect we must not omit But God will severely punish the contempt or neglect of his Covenant of grace and mercy whereof Baptism is a part or condition as well with Infants as persons of years therefore we may not omit it See Gen. 17. 14. Exod. 4. Mark 16. 16 Hebr. 10. 28 29. and that being supposed which hath hitherto been proved that Infants of Church-priviledged Parents ought to be baptized the Minister who upon such fancies and unsufficient grounds as are alledged by our Antagonists refuseth to baptize them or the Parent who will not have them baptized must needs be under â— woful condition the Apostles argument being good from the dispensation of the Gospel committed to him to the necessary administration of the same as in preaching the word so in the seals thereto belonging whereof he expresly saith 1 Cor. 9. 16. Wo is unto me if I preach not the Gospel For though his principal and first office was to preach as being appointed the Doctor of the Gentiles first to be taught and then respectively to be baptized yet it is manifest that the Dispensation of Baptism the seal of the Gospel and Covenant of God in Christ went along in charge with preaching of the same and was committed to the Apostles and all Ministers their Successors and so woe will be to them if they baptize not where Christ intended the seal of his Grace as surely as if they preach not the Gospel 20. They are to be held as Heathens and Publicans who refuse to hear and obey the Church of Christ But such are Anabaptists nor is it any excuse but an aggravation of their sin to bespatter the Church with impious calumnies It had been and ever was as easie for all sorts of hereticks in and since Christ and the Apostles time and in the purest ages of the primitive Church to have said for a pretended defence of their errour and contumacy you are not the true Church but in spight of Satan and the powers of hel we are through the mercy of God a member of the true Church of Christ therefore their schism contempt is the more condemnable 21. Those to whom the things signified belong unto them belong also the signs and seals thereof except in case of some apparent condition making an evident exception as want of ability to examine themselves barreth Infants from the holy Eucharist But the thing signified by Baptism belongs to Infants and there is no apparent condition making any evident exception to bar them from it therefore Baptism belongeth to them The things signified by Baptism are that we are thereby received into Gods favour for the blood of Christ shed for us to binde us to a sincere obedience to faith and endeavour to newness of life Gods promise of grace and mercy in Christ marking us for sheep of his pasture our puting on Christ regeneration washing from our sins justification salvation by Christ these things belong to all the elect whereof Infants of Believers are a very considerable part And these things are held forth in Baptism as things signified in the sign by God appointed to all receivers sacramentally and to an external communion of which lambs aswel assheep Infants aswel as the aged are capable Therefore Baptism belongeth to Infants of Christian Pâ—rents 22. To whom the Covenant in force runneth in the same tenour in the new Testament as in the old to such persons the application of the Initiatory seal of the new Testament ought to be administred as well as was the Initiatory seal of the old But the Covenant in force runs in the same tenour c. therefore the Initiatory seal of the Covenant ought now to be administred to such persons as the Initiatory seal of the Covenant was administred to in the old The tenor of the Covenant was to Parents and their children upon condition that they should be sealed according to the promise that God would be their God who would observe the Laws and conditions thereof the same is still for substance in force though the seals are changed So that as Infants were circumcised so ought they now to be baptized and except this be allowed to our Infants as well as to our selves believing in Christ we are not as the Apostle affirms Col. 2. 10. Compleat in him In whom we are circumcised with the Circumcision made without hands Buried with him in Baptism c. Nor are we and our children so sealed into our implantation into the death of Christ that we may in the ordinary way thereby be assured that as he put off the infirm affections of the natural body so we put off the body of sin spiritually See Rom. 6. 3 c. 23. Such persons as were typically baptized unto Moses are capable of the real and true baptism under the Gospel of Christ For in the main the argument holds from the type to the truth though possibly not in every circumstance But children as well as persons of years were baptized in the cloud and in the red-sea unto Moses 1 Cor. 10. 2. and their washing with rain from the cloud prefigur'd our washing in Baptism and by the Spirit therefore children of covenanted persons are capable of the true and real Baptism under the Gospel of Christ. 24. Where there is a command for a thing never remanded or countermanded there that thing is still in force But there is a command for the signing of Infants of Believers with the sign of Gods Covenant with their Parents and them never yet remanded or countermanded
that iâ— might very well be given to children and yet baptism to men of reason This Argument is a childish caption We say that Baptism succeeded Circumcision in substance not in circumstance in the end and use as hath been said and whereof we shall say more anon To what purpose do you argue from the circumstance But you say Circumcision left a Character in the flesh which being imprinted upon Infants did it work upon them when they came to age We answer 1. That the word Character may be taken for any sign or note distinguishing one thing from another so Baptism may be also said to be a character distinguishing Christians from unbelievers not as an absolute quality but as a relative thing as â— tessera militaris by which God wil own his who fight under the Banner of Christ and by which the baptized have a comfortable assurance that they are marked for the children of God when they believe in Christ according as it is written In whom also after that ye beleeved ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise which is the earnest of our Iâ—heritance 2. Your instance importeth onely â— circumstantiall not a substantiall diffâ—rence Now the variety of signes vary not the thing signified It is the same Christ the same Faith under the Gospel and under the Law though the Sacraments by God appointed for the one and for the other were much different And the ends of Circumcision and Baptism are the same to implant us into Christs visible Church to be an in-let and door to the same to seal up the admitted to faith repentance mortification and newness of life which work is as truly done to the baptized Christian when he cometh to age as it was to the Israelite circumcised to wit to and in them that believed and repented to others the work was so farre from being done that tâ—at very seal of Gods Covenant which they bare in their flesh served for a witnesse against the soul of the â—ovenant-breaker to his greater condemnation and so it is proportionably with the baptized Apostate which may be a warning to your Clients to repent before it be too late You say again It is requisite that the persons baptized should be capable of Reason that they may be capable both of the word of the Sacrament and the impress made upon the Spirit We answer 1. This weakly follows from unsound premises was there no word added to Circumcision How doth that appear Was there not a word of Institution Genes 17. 10 11 12. Was not the reason of the Covenant declared to Abraham Did not he and others preach the same to all of age to be circumcised as Proselytes and to the circumcised infants when they came to age capable of Doctrine so doe we to the baptized but to persons of years we preach the Gospel first and then baptize them infants we baptize first and instruct them when they come to be capable 2. That it is requisite that the persons baptized should be capable of Reason that they may be capable both of the word c. We say 〈◊〉 also they mâ—st be capable of Reason either in act that they may presently understand tâ—ose things or in habit that they may afterward understand the same to what end else should we baptize infants or why were they circumcised into future faith repentance and newness of life We utterly dislike Popish baptizing of Bels Churches Altars c. 3. We say further That Covenants between man and man require that both parties expressly understand know the tenour substance and particulars of the same but in Covenants between God and his Creatures that Rule doth not universally hold for here God stipulateth and principally transacteth with the creature according tâ— that which he will have done or do in or by them So he established his Covenant with Noah and his seed after him and with every living creature the Fowle Cattell Beasts c. Gen. 9. 10. How much more rationally may â—e make covenant with infants though yet without the actuall use of reason Again sometimes such covenants are made between men as that the parent or parents covenant for or in stead of their children because they are not yet of age to understand the words and purport of the covenant and it standeth good How much rather may God covenant with an infant whose mouth and Advocate Christ Jesus said expressly Suffâ—r little children to come unto me and forbid them not for of such is the Kingdom of Heaven Mark 1â— 14 Luke 18. 16. I demand quo jure by what right is the Kingdom of Heaven theirs What by descent from naturall parents Nay but that which is born of the flesh is flesh John 3. 6. And flâ—sh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of God 1 Cor. 15. 50. It must therefore be by the free covenant of God with them out of which it can belong to none by right of any infant-innocency seeing all are conceived and born in sin the children of wrath but for the grace and covenant of God with them which they yet understand not yet is it valid and effâ—ctuall to their salvation as we may also understand in case of Circumcision in which the circumcised Child understood as little what was said or done as the baptized infant now doth and yet it was Gods covenant with them Gen. 17. 7 10 11 12. and effectual for them To conclude if you mean that it is requisite that none should be admitted to bapâ—ism but those that have the actuall use of reason that is men and women of years you beg the question of the Sacrament and the impress made upon the Spirit Concerning a Character or impress set upon the baptized the Schoolmen and Jesuits have moved sundry questions whether it be an absolute or relative quality which yet they say sticks fast upon them also that are in hell Whether it be an â—ns rationis or a relatio realis Whether a quality action or passion And if a quality of what kind it is Whether the subject thereof be the soul or some active or passive faculty thereof Whether it be a figure or form Whether the Sacraments of the old Testament made the like impress c. In all which and the like vain speculations we may not unprofitably note the just judgment of God giving them over to unfruitfull delusions who forsaking the true and constant light of his holy word give themselves over to follow the ignes fatuos of their own fancies I hope you are not of their sense though you mention this impress Concerning the seal of our implantation into Christ I have spoken a little before and onely add that we receive grace and the obsignation thereof but are not sensible of all untill we receive a greater measure that we might know the things that are freely given unto us of God Since therefore say you the reason of this parity does
profit was there of circumcision the Apostle saith much every way and what is the advantage of the believing Christians child and Gods covenant with them what no more then of Turkes and Iewes where is then that promise I will be a God unto thee and thy seed interpreted by S. Peter the promise is to you and your children and to as many as the Lord our God shall call what is it of force only to men and women of yeares where 's the infants part where is his priviledge of federall holynesse as being borne of believing parents What must they be interessed onely when they come to that act of which by nature they have the faculty That is the act of understanding â—aith and repentance In those acts the persons and children of Turks and Iews have a right in the same promises you cannot exclude any person from baptism who believes in Christ repenteth and desireth baptism at your hands Thus you make the promise of God concerning the children of the faithfull of no effect by your tradition and vain opinion But to amend this you say Baptism is not the means of conveying the holy Ghost I suppose you mean the ordinary gifts and graces of the holy Ghost as faith love hope sanctity c. if not there may be a double fallacy in your assertion First in the term conveying and next in the term holy Ghost both whiâ—h may be homonymically intended and then your discourse is meerly captious and to discover it is a sufficient answer and indeed by your following words God by that miracle did give testimony c. it seems you mean that baptism is not now the ordinary means of conveying the holy Ghost that is the gift of miracles unto the baptized if so here is both an homonymia and an ignoratio elenchi Your reason being reducd to a Syllogisme you might take these words the holy Ghost for the ordinary gifts and graces of God necessary to salvation in the one proposition and for the extraordinary in the other and so the question were mistaken which is not whether baptism be an ordinary means of conveying the extraordinary gifts of the holy Ghost into the baptized as speaking divers unstudied languages curing the sick raising the dead casting out devils c. which we affirm not but whether baptism as the word preached be not the external ordinary means by God appointed to seal us up to a lively hope in Christ to beget faith and to engage us to repentance and newness of life to which all that you here triâ—le concerning imposition of hands and insinuation of rite to confirmation is nothing to purpose neither is the case of Cornelius and Peters argument thereon any waies advantagious to you for you confess it a miracle and how then is it pertinent to our present question You say that God by that miracle did give testimony that the persons of the men were in great disposition to heaven and therefore were to be admitted to those rites which are the ordinary inlets into the kingdom of heaven I then demand if that argument be good Are not children of believing parents to be admitted to those rites which are the ordinary inlets into the kingdom of heaven seeing they are also in great disposition to heaven whom Christ blessed and proposed for paterns to all that shall enter therein But we answer 1. That the great disposition which you talk of was not so much the gift of miracles as the persons inward baptism by the spirit of regeneration and sanctification for the gift of miracles is not of it self any certain argument of salvation see Matth. 7. 22 23. but this was a sufficient warrant to Peter to baptize them as being marked out thereby for the visible Church at least into which elect and reprobate may come 2. To the main we answer That as by delivering a key putting in possession of an house is not only signified but also livery and seisâ— the conveyance and chirogrophum are passed confirmed and actually made sure So in baptism by water the washing which is wrought by the blood of Christ is not only figured but also at last fulfilled in the elect by Christ. 3. In a right use of the Sacraments the things therby signified are ever held out and convey'd together with the signes which are neither fallacious empty nor void of a due effect or without the thing represented because they are of God who cannot deceive and is able to give the effect if the receiver do not ponere obicem therefore the Sacraments are rightly called the Channels or Conduits of grace that is the ordinary means to convey the graces of God into the receivers 4. God confirms his mercies to us by the Sacraments wherein the Minister by Gods own deputation beareth his person or place in the Church as well as in preaching the word so that what they doe who are his Ministers by his appointment he doth both in respect of the institution and effect So the Lord is said to have anointed Saul whereas Samuel anointed him so Jesus made and baptized more disciple then Iohn whereas Iesus baptized not but his disciples by his assignement Therefore although these signes neither convey grace nor confirm any thing to them for good who keep not the Covenant for God made no promise to them yet are they means to convey the graces of God to those that do To conclude we affirm not that baptism conveyeth Gods grace to all that are baptized but to the elect only as that whereof he hath made a peculiar promise to them and that so certain as are those things which God himself sealeth covenanteth for and testifieth in heaven and earth as 't is written There are three that bear record in heaven the father the word and the holy Ghost and there are three that bear witness in earth the spirit and the water and the blood Now if we receive the witness of men the witness of God is greater Under the mouth of two or three witnesses every word must be confirmed and taken for sure how much more when we have by Gods blessing the same witnesses of our faith who are also the promisers workers and sureties of our salvation But from thence you say to argue that wherever there is a capacity of receivinig the same grace there also the same signe 〈◊〉 to be ministred and from thence to infer poedo-baptism is an argument very fallacious c. Quis tulerit Gracchos your dispute is fallacious upon your grounds on which we go not and so all your impertinent superstruction here falleth together They that are capable of the same grace are not alwaies capable of the same signe for women under the law of Moses although they were capable of the righteousness of faith yet they were not capable of the signe of circumcision I would gladly be resolved quanta est illa propositio is your meaning Some of them
consisteth in the will of believers yet the very Sacrament of that faith makes a baptized infant faithfull or a believer For as 't is answered that he believeth so is he called a believer not signifying that thing in the very mind but in respect of his receiving the Sacrament of that very thing to wit of believing and giving his name to Christ. But what unreasonableness acted with a worse circumstance is there for God-fathers thus answering All this I steadfastly believe wherein though possibly there may be untruth because the Sponsor doth not as he professeth steadfastly believe yet so may there also be when persons of years answer for themselves that they believe seeing the lawfulness of baptizing infants is affirmed on condition of their parents believing and Church-priviledge which is often testified personally by the very parents Grand-fathers Grand-mothers and sometimes in defect or necessary absence of such by some fellow-believers testifying for them and the childs priviledg and baptism but your sensible account is that they speak false and ridiculously if you can bear the eccho of your own words we therein answer you yet for the sober readers sake we further answer after Augustin treating of the same argument Let no man whisper to you â—ther doctrines this the Church ever had ever held c. doubtless the custom is very ancient Histories tell us of it in the time of Higinâ—s who was coetaneous with Polycarp a disciple of S Iohns they lived under the reigne of Antoninus Pius about the year 140. some think it came into the Church from the custom of those who were Catechumenists who being examined before they were admitted to baptism concerning their faith and repentance were not only to answer in their own persons but to have sponsors as witnesses of their faith conversion and baptism It is not improbable which some here propose that As children were baptized when their Christian parents had formerly made confession so sureties confessed in relation to themselves that they might be fit to stand as a kind of parents c. Seeing therefore this custom is nothing repugnant to holy scripture neither hath in it any appearance of evil but rather of profit and edification though it be not of the essence of baptism but a ceremonial circumstance 't is foolish and impious to quarrel it and for it to break unity and disturb the peace of the Church But you say The infant is not capable of believing and if he were he were also capable of dissenting and how then do they know his mind If it be necessary to baptism that the baptizer know the mind of the person to be baptized how can you baptize men of years You will say they express their minds and so we baptize them I grant you may know their words their minds you cannot because they may dissemble If you say you are in charity to believe the best once more we say Be but as charitable towards infants of whom you can know no actual evil nor shew any just cause why you should suspect it for the future And I pray how could the Priest under the Law know the minds of children to be circumciâ—ed To conclude 't is nothing material whether we know the infants mind 't is behoofull that we know his priviledg as being born within the Church and Covenant of God which giveth him a sufficient right to the seals thereof But you say Tertullian gives advice that baptism of infants should be deferred till they could give account of their faith I answer 1. Tertullian speaking of deferring baptism lest they should rashly give it as to persons out of the Covenant or unbelievers instanceth specially children that is extraneorum non foederatorum as the learned Fra. Iunius interpreteth the same so that this concerneth not our present question which is of children of Christians 2. This shews then that the practice of infant-baptism was none of Augustins device as you charge him seeing it was in use in the time of Tertullian 3. But let us hear the rest of Tertullians advice was it only concerning the deferring infants baptism Let them come when they can learn when they are taught whither they come let them be made Christians when they shall be able to know Christ nay but presently he saith For no less cause the unmarried also are to be delayed in whom the tentation is prepared both in virgins by their maturity and widows by their going up and down untill they are either married or confirmed in constancy Will you follow Tertullians advice herein But what if they never marry must they never be baptized If not give us leave to decline it in the other or to take it in the sense he meaneth it as may appear in that he specifieth widows who being at that age are necessarily to be supposed either baptized after their first marriage or out of the Covenant And the same you say is also the Councel of Gregory Bishop of Nazianzum c. Gregory Nazianzen in his fortieth Oration which you cite in your margent saith Sow when the time of sowing is plant prune thy vine when the season is c. But at all times intend thy salvation and think that any time is seasonable or appointed for baptism among other ages of man be instanceth in Infancy Hast thou an Infant saith he let not wickedness take away the occasion let it be sanctified from its infancy let it be dedicated to the Spirit from it tender years fearest thou the seal in respect of the infirmity of Nature How poor a spirited mother art thou and of how little faith But Anna promised Samuel unto the Lord before he was born c. You say concerning Gr. Nazianzen that his reason taught him that which was fit true for he allowed Infant-baptsm yet he was over-born with the opinion of his Age c. So far also I consent as this relates to that they thought that Infants dying without Baptisme should neither he glorified nor punished That which you further say although he allowed them to hasten in case of necessity falleth under a double consideration First in respect of those times appointed for Baptism in the primitive Church to wit Easter and Whitsontide or Pentecost which he mentioneth But when he cometh to the question whether Infants should be baptized he answereth positively By all means if any danger urge and sheweth it from the Analogy between Circumcision and Baptism He taketh away the objection from the years at which Christ was baptized which was indeed to be deferred untill the fulness of time for the worlds redemption was come and that we are not to imitate all the actions of Christ. To that which you say Yet in another place he makes mention of some to whom Baptism was not administred 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by reason of Infancy we say you utterly mistake for Nazianzen in the same Oration speaking of delay in performance of that duty
to be baptized your reasoning would appear unreasonable both Propositions being false or fallacious The Major because baptism is but the external seal of admission into the visible Church into which elect and reprobates may enter as it were into the outward Court of the Temple And if saâ—ing faith finally doing the baptized good or which is the same if the inward baptism by the holy Ghost were the rule by which the baptizing Minister must proceed what man were sufficient for that Office The examples of Simon Magus Iudas Demas c. shew enough that the most discerning men may be deceived in others fair profession and who can foresee the final estates of men and women baptized I cannot reasonably think that you take all those for elect whom your selves baptize or that your baptism shall doe them all good And if you dispute 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 concerning one and the same faith in several degrees that is if you mean the seeds or habit of faith that Minor is false for elect infants have the seeds of faith in baptism though they be not formed in them yet by the secret working of the spirit the seeds thereof for a time lying hidden in them shall flourish and shew their growth in them in newness of life If you mean it of actual faith that want of that condition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 discovereth the Paralogism And we say infants want of actual faith in present infancy thereof incapable concludeth nothing against their having of it in mature age and so as little against their baptism I cannot conclude so well as in Augustins words But some may say the things do some men no good what must the Medicine therefore be neglected because some mens pestilence is incurable So that if baptism be necessary then so is faith and much more for want of faith damneth absolutely I demand then Do infants believe Why do ye deny them baptism or because they have not faith do you conclude them all damned who die in their infancy That were a damnable assertion and to pay you with your own coyn Against the perpetual analogie of Christs Doctrine who commanded infants to be brought unto him bless them and positively affirmed that Of such is the Kingdom of heaven Further I say If your Proposition be universal it is notoriously false for all want of faith doth not absolutely damn For 1. They who pray for faith or the increases thereof as the Disciples did want faith yet were they not damned he that hungereth and thirsteth for the righteousness of faith wanteth the same for hunger and thirst are of emptiness yet Christ pronounceth such blessed 2. He that now believeth not may hereafter believe It was Pauls case had you seen him persecute the faith and faithfull in ignorance and unbelief would you presently have devoted him to absolute damnation Judg not that you be not judged I know no man living that wanteth not faith and I pray the good Lord to help my unbelief and exhort you otherwise to express your fancies that they prove not snares to weak and afflicted consciences Then you say it is sottish to say the same incapacity of reason and faith shall not excuse from the actual susception of baptism c. A very acute and witty assertion indeed but we answer 1. By this principle you might have been as blasphemous against Gods Ordinance in circumcision had you lived under the Law 2. We say not but that infants by their incapacity are excused from actual susception of baptism for they cannot act thereto But parents are not excusable if they contemn or neglect their parts in sealing those that are joynt heirs of the Promises and Covenant of God with them and their children because they have a capacity to promote and effect it and this appeareth in the History of Moses Exod. 4. 24 25. We very well know that infants cannot come and desire the Seals their present incapacity excuseth them from that they cannot possibly do but their parents or friends can intreat it for them and present them to it so that infants have a passive capacity they cannot profess faith and repentance but their parents professing of the same interesseth them in all those external Church-priviledges whereof they are capable and so to be born in the Church is to them and for them instead and in place of their profession What your terms of reasonably and humanely received do mean if to any purpose want interpretation The conclusion you say is that baptism is also to be deferred till the time of faith Why might you not say the same also concerning circumcision It is certain that by the same you may conclude that many thousand persons of age must never be baptized because they never come to believe as for their profession no man can say whether it be hypocritical or not Since faith is necessary to the susception of baptism c. True in adultis what is this to our present question concerning infants We have often said that this your arguing a dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter is fallacious and not passable among young Sophisters and we owe no other answer then denying the consequence Our contest is about Infant-baptism wherein we say a present actual faith is not required It is necessary or at least the profession thereof in those who present to or adâ—inister baptism we cannot say so of infants to whom God doth not yet give the use of reason therefore they cannot first believe and after receive the Seal as Abraham did But therefore they are to be baptized that they may attain faith and salvation So the word preached profiteth not if it be not mixed with faith in them that hear yet is the preaching thereof an effectual means whereby God will work faith in the hearers To conclude Baptism profiteth not without faith yet is it an effectual means whereby God worketh regeneration and salvation therefore none within his Covenant are to be barred from it It is not improbably conjectured by some that therefore the Disciples forbad them to bring children to Christ because they thought children have not faith nor can any teach them who are 〈…〉 capable of doctrine Possibly they did not yâ—t understand the abolition of the old Seal for the introduction of the new nor how baptism was to succeed circumcision that was sometime after disputed and determined Acts 1â— â— 2. but Christ was much displeased with it rebuked them and seriously protested that of such is the kingdom of heaven Whatever can be said to take off from the necessity of actual faith all that and much more you say may be said to excuse from the actual susception of baptism True in adultis but most â—alse in inâ—ants I â—m weary of telling you of your fallacious arguing à dicto secundum quid ad dictum simplicitèr Again if here by actual susception of baptism you mean that infants
they have to the external seal as being born within the Church and that as soon as they are born we understand not any other predisposing cause in the infant to be baptized as if he were able to contribute any thing to his receptibility more then the unborn Iacob was in relation to the love of God which indeed never found any cause but it self yet ere the children were born God loved Iacob and hated Esau. Further we say as we shall be saved secundum opera but not propter opera Good works are in the regenerate excellent signes of justification and salvation future they cannot be the causes of either they follow they cannot precede justification So we may say that baptism works according to the dispositions of the suscipient which are not in infants faith profession repentance c. which God gives not to infants but to persons of years but as to their right to baptism by his Couenant what other predispositions are in them are secret and known to God above And so your exploded fancy and dream of a notable advantage vanisheth Either baptism you say is a meer Ceremony or it implies a duty on our part If it be a ceremony only how doth it sanctifie us or make the comers thereunto perfect If it implys a duty on our part how then can children receive it who cannot do duty aâ— all How many impertinences are heâ—e twisted up together We answer plainly Ceremony and duty on mans part are not membra dividentia nor always contradistinct for they may coïncidere as in those ceremonies of the Law which being commanded of God were duties of men subject to the Law and to be performed though they could not make the comers thereunto perfect and so is baptism now a duty on our part to be administred though of it self it cannot make all the comers thereunto perfect But you demand if it implies a duty on our part how then can children receive it who cannot do duty at all Where is now the revelation reason common sense and all experience in the world in which you so lately triumphed as if you had driven us to take sanctuary If it be a duty on our part to administer it how can children receive it who cannot do any duty at all Nay but tell me if you can by all your reason how could infants receive baptism except we did administer it say you how can he be passive who cannot be active at all how could infants receive circumcision who could do as little duty as infants now can That homonymical on our part must be otherwise limited by some expression or else your Argument will appear fallacious It is a duty on our part to baptize infants on the childrens part no duty is required they can do none as such for God enjoyneth no impossibilities But you say This way of ministration makes baptism to be wholly an outward duty a work of the Law a carnal Ordinance it makes us adhere to the letter without any regard of the spirit c. This Rhetorick would somthing better becom him that careth not what but how much he saith All these vain and injurious expressions are meer aspersions and call you this an Argument considerable wherein appears either matter or form thereto pertinent For the rest which in some other man I should take for some aegri insomnium we say if you mean by Mystery the spiritual baptism mysteriously signified by the outward ministration to which you seem to drive 't is evident that it doth not alwaies accompany it except you will say that the Sacrament justifieth ex opere operato which a little before you would have pinned on our backs which appears in Iudas Simon Magus and all others who fall away And as certainly false is it that it never follows in order of time common experience shewing that the spiritual seed sowed in baptism many times and in many of the baptized lieth long before it actually appeareth either in any outward effects inward signes of calling or fruits of regeneration as in Abraham faith preceded and circumcision the seal of the righteousness of faith followed so in Cornelius a spiritual sanctification preceded and baptism followed but in Isaak circumcised the eight day the seal preceded and faith and sanctity followed So in Infant-baptism the seal and laver of regeneration goeth before and actual faith followeth it in season if they hold fast the faith of Christ. You say again Baptism is never propounded mentioned or enjoyned as a means of remission of sins or of eternal life but something of duty choice and sanctity is joyned with it in order to production of the end so mentioned Know you not that as many as are baptized into Christ Iesus are baptized into his death c. Good reason that such things should be propounded mentioned and enjoyned to those who converting to the faith in years capable of Doctrine require the seal of Gods Covenant and certainly so was it to Proselytes to be circumcised but you cannot reasonably think that they proposed or enjoyned Infants to be circumcised any such things and it were as vain to propose any of these to Infants now to be baptized Therefore we seal them now and propound these like things to them when they be capable Now the Scripture speaking to men or women of understanding propounds to them their present duty who are to be baptized or who are baptized as faith repentance walking in newness of life mortification and as hath been said the Apostles in the ecclesiâ constituendâ had mostly to do being to endeavour the calling and conversion of the Gentiles who before were aliens from the Covenant of God But in ecclesiâ constitutâ we rarely meet with any first to be taught and then to be sealed the children of Christian parents having Church-priviledg are now baptized first as in the setled Covenant under the Law they were first circumcised and when they come to â—it years instructed And what then do all your impertinences disadvantage our cause seeing elect infants in their baptism are implanted into Christ and in due time walk-in newness of life This is indeed truly to be baptized both in the Symbole and the Mâ—stery Whatsoever is less then this is but the Symbole only a meer ceremony â— The effects of elect childrens baptism being nothing less this Rhetoâ—ick might have been spared Plainer yet Whosoever are baptized into Christ have put on Christ have put on the new man But to put on this new man is to be formed in righteousness and holyness and truth c. All this plainly makes for infants baptism who being naturally flesh and blood such as cannot enter into the Kingdom of heaven conceived and born in sin children of wrath must indeed put on Christ Jesus that they may be saved These premâ—ses we willingly adhere to but your conclusion is liâ—ble to a non sequitur because it is either fallacious disputing ab
mortification of the old man quickning the new man into certain hope of resurrection to eternall life to come Thirdly the commandement promise of Christ whence the sign hath authority and power of sealing and confirming these things unto the baptized They then that say baptism is an externall sign and washing of the body and therefore a bare and effectless sign do fallaciously dispute dividing that which God who cannot deceive us hath joyned together by giving us order to baptize and be baptized for the reâ—â—ssion of sins freely for Christs sake into whom we are implanted by Baptism How false then must â—t be which you upon the matter affirm that we shall be never the neerer if we cannot contribute somthing to the efficacie of Baptism in the use of our own reason Certainly Gods Spâ—â—â—t accompanieth his ordinance in the elect sooner or later If the reprobate be never the nearer salvation for his baptism that is accidentall maketh nothing against the effectuall â—ealing of the elect to eternall life in their baptism There are many sorts of hearers of the Word some like the stony ground some like the thorny some like the high-way shall the Apostasie unbelief and barrenness of the greater part make the ordinance of God of none effect to believers To conclude it is but the outward ministration which is committed to us the capacity or incapacity fruit-bearing or sterility of receivers belongs to God to judge of not to us we must do our duty and leave the issues to to him But you say From the pains of hell they shall be saved by the mercies of God and their own innocency though thâ—y die in puris naturalibus and baptism will carry them no further What Popery and Pelagianism twisted together If you speak of childrens salvation by the mercies of God to his elect so far we accord if you say by their own innocency that Pelagians and Donatists taught who affirmed that infants were born without originall sin and therefore would not have them baptized Against this heresie the second Milvetian Councel determined Canon 2. as hath been noted For that you say they shall be saved though they die in puris naturalibus that is such as they are by nature without regeneration it is against the express word of God as may clearly appear in that all are conceived and born in sin the children of wrath by nature That which is born of the flesh is flesh and flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God that is such as it is by and in the state of corrupted nature therefore except the infant be regenerate he cannot enter into the kingdome of God That which you say that Baptism will carry infants no further then from the pains of hell smels strongly of Popeâ—y They say that children dying without Baptism shall have poenam damni non sensus that is they shall be free from hell fire but that they shall not enter into heavenly joys But Augustine so far said well there is not to any any middle place that he can be any where but with the Divel who is not with Christ. Certainly the Scripture mentioneth onely heaven for the elect and blessed and hell for the reprobate and damned For that Baptism that saveth us is not onely the washing with water of which onely children are capable but the answer of a good conscience towards God of which they are not capable till the use of reason till they know to chuse the good and refuse the evill If you mean by washing with water baptism according to Christs institution administred we say also it is not that onely which is the Ministers part to give which saveth us but the power and grace of Gods Spirit inwardly baptizing sanctifying regenerating and cleansing us from our sins by the pretious blood of Iesus that saveth us Now that infants are not hereof capable till the use of reason is evidently false if you but hold these three Principles 1. That no unregenerate unclean person can be saved 2. That all mankind is born in sin Rom. 5. 12. 3. That some infants dying before their use of reason are saved That which you say that infants are capable of washing with water that is of baptism or else you trifle we assâ—â—t to and desire you to say no more infants of believing parents that is of professed Christians are capable of baptism for the rest we contend not we refer the effect thereof in particulars to God who alone knoweth his elect and â—ow and when to give them the inward fâ—uit of his own ordinances we neither affirm that all the baptized shall be saved neither can we or you determine which shall and which shall not but indifferently as charity requireth hope well of every one whom we baptize concerning whom we can say nothing to the contrary But you say All vows made by persons under other names stipulations made by minors are not valid till they be by a supervening act after they are of a sufficient age to raâ—ifie them To which we answer 1. though all be not valid in such case it is enough that some are 2. Your assertion if granted that is that all vows or which is more then you affirm if no vows made by persons under others names or stipulations made by minors or persons in their minority are not valid untill by a supervening act after they are of sufficient age to ratifie them they are confirmed what could this make against our duty of Infant-baptism the case being much different between stipulations of men and the covenant between God man as hath been shewed as appeared in circumcision which was with Infants eight days old Mr. Cobbet well observeth that the covenant of grace is as well a testament 1 Cor. 11. 25. Heb. 9. 15 c. Now a testament may be and useth to be made in reference to little ones without knowledge nor do any use to deny a childs right in the Testators will because it understood not the same and that many Infants with whom God made the covenant Gen. 17. dying such were yet saved and that they restipulate in their Parents knowing acceptance of the covenant and professed owning of it upon the Covenant terms as wel on their childrens parts as their own they restipulate in a passive reception of the Covenant condition bond to after imitation of their father Abrahams faith obedience Again our question is not concerning the ratification or effect of Infant-baptism by their act or acts to make it good to themselves and effectuall when they come of age but concerning a Church-priviledge on Infants part which is to be admitted unto the externall seal of Gods Covenant with his Church it being to Parents and their children and this dependth on Gods institution to appoint it and his inward working to make it good Secondly in the confirmation of children come to age they then professing faith obedience repentance
protest that we are wholly devoted to one God in Trinity of Unitie and God on his part herein testifieth that by this Seal of his Covenant he receiveth us into the participation of his free mercies in Christ and into the holy communion of his Church the body of Christ 1 Ioh. 5. 7 8. The Protestant Church holdeth That the subject of Baptism are all they who either are or professing faith repentance c. desire to be admitted into the Church and Covenant of God and that Infants of Christian Parents being within the same ought to be baptized forasmuch as the Covenant and Promise of God is to Parents and their children The Pelagians and Donatists long since condemned of Heresie by the Church and now again of late the Anabaptists deny the baptism of children to be lawful until they come to years that they may be taught and profess their faith and repentance and desire of baptism upon these and the like grounds Christ saith Go therefore and teach all Nations baptizing them in the Name of the Father the Son and the Holy Ghost therefore Teaching must go before Baptism and consequently Infants may not be baptizd before they be taught Unto which we answer 1 That in the cited place there was not intended an exact and compleat model of Christs commission to the Apostles for there is no mention of the Lords Supper Christ only nameth the two more usual things for making or initiating disciples for the gathering of a Church that is teaching for them who were capable therof and baptizing for them and their children not yet capable of doctrine that having their names given unto Christ and being admitted into his school they might as they grew up to capacitie be instructed concerning the mysteries of salvation in Christ neither was this the first institution of baptism for when Christ spake these words he was about to ascend up into heaven he had some years before that time appointed baptism among the Iews converted to the faith and confirmed it by his own reception of baptism not that he needed it or had any sin to be washed away therein but to sanctifie the element of water by his sacred body to the use and end of baptism that is to appoint for us a laver of regeneration and in the cited place being to leave the world he enlarged the commission of baptism on the receivers part as if he had said Hitherto ye were not to go into the way of the Gentiles but to the lost sheep of the house of Israel but now go and call the Gentiles also go baptize and teach all Nations the mysteries of the Gospel as I have taught you now therefore the order and laws of Baptism are not hence to be derived 2. Christ then sent his Disciples to convert and baptize those Gentiles who possibly had not so much as heard of Christ much less of faith in him and baptism into his Church it was necessary therefore that the Apostles should first instruct them what they were to do in baptism and why but when the parents were baptized and instructed so that there were Churches setled among the Gentiles then their children were also to be baptized into the same Covenant of God which runneth to covenanted parents and their children which before their parents sealing and admission into Christs Church might not be so that as hath been often noted we must distinguish between a Church to be constituted and setled and a constituted or setled Church as also between persons of years and Infants presented to baptism In a Church to be constituted and converted from Iudaism or Pagâ—â—sm those that are of years must necessarily first be taught and afterward baptized but in a constituted or setled Church Infants are first to be baptized and then to be taught when they are able to learn no otherwise was it in circumcision which was the former Seal of the same Covenant and righteousness of Faith into which we are now under the Gospel baptized When Abraham according to Gods commandment came to circumcise the men of his family doubtless he first instructed them and preached to them the reason use and end of that sacrament according as the Lord said Gen. 18. 19. I know him that he will command his children and his houshold after him and they shall keep the way of the Lord but when Isaac was born he did not expect till he was come to years of discreetion to learn but circumcised him on the eighth day Gen. 21. 4. 3 In the cited place the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth also make Disciples which was to gather a Church both by preaching the Gospel and administration of Baptism the Sacrament of initiation and first entrance of Infants thereto So these two means are expressed in the very next words of Christ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. that is Baptizing them in the Name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost teaching them to observe all that I have commanded Some do well observe that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is to teach them that are strangers to doctrine that they may become Disciples and so in any humane school also scholers are entered or admitted before they are therein taught but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies to teach them that are Disciples So Mat. 27. 57. it is said of Ioseph of Arimathea 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 who also was Iesus Disciple And so the same word is expounded Ioh. 4. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to make Disciples the Phariseesâ— heard that Iesus made and baptized more Disciples then Iohn And so the Hebrews from their word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 didicit assuevit derive their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Talmid a Disciple or Scholar So that here appeareth no such necessitie of the order by our adversaries pretended to as can conclude that none may be baptized but such as are first taught 4 If the order of those words must determine the order of the actions then by the same reason repentance must be before faith for Mark 1. 15. it is said Repent ye and beleeve the Gospel So Rom. 10. 9. If thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Iesus and shalt believe in thine heart c. thou shalt be saved Doth it follow therefore a man may make confession of Christ with his mouth to salvation before he believeth in him in his heart and indeed if the order of words may determine in what order we must act in this business then from other places of Scripture it may be concluded that Baptism must precede teaching as Mark. 1. 4. Iohn did baptize in the Wilderness and preach the baptism of repentance and Mat. 28. 19 20. when Christ had said baptizing them c. he presently inferreth teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded So Ioh. 3. 5. the water is named before the Spirit and Eph. 5. 26. the washing of water that is of baptism is named
opinion were damnable and Antichristian Christ having positively pronounced for them Of such is the Kingdom of God To Infants to be born within Gods Covenant and to receive the Seal thereof obliging them to future Faith Repentance and Obedience is instead of all these Lastly Baptism is the Seal of Initiation Entrance and Admittance into the Church that therefore we give Infants that when they shall be capable of the Sacrament of Confirmation the Lords Supper they may receive that also The Spirit acknowledgeth no other means of Regeneration then the incorruptible Seed the Word of God 1 Pet. 1. 23. which seeing Infants cannot receive they cannot be regenerate therefore their Baptism is effectless to Regeneration We answer The major appeareth false by Tit. 3. 5. St. Peter speaks there only of those Believers who had been taught by the preaching of the Gospel comprehending under it the Seal thereof Baptism the Laver of Regeneration which is taught in that Word as a means of Regeneration Faith must go before the Sign or Seal thereof as Abraham believed first and then received the Seal Circumcision Therefore until Infants can actually believe they must not be baptized We answer That if we speak of persons of years they must first believe or make profession of their faith because by Baptism they are to be admitted into the Covenant of God and Communion of his Church to which they were formerly Aliens and Strangers But it holdeth not in Infants born of Christian Parents they being already within the Covenant and Church and so having present right to the Seal thereof So in Isaac's Circumcision at eight days old the Seal went long before the faith or profession thereof God bringeth not the blinde into his Covenant but enlighteneth them that they may know the will of God for their Salvation But Infants as such are not capable of Illumination therefore they are not to be baptized We answer 1. God calleth the poor maimed halt and lame unto the great supper that is the Communion of Christ Luke 14. 21. 2. The Greek Divines were wont to call Baptism 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Illumination and it can be no less then impious presumption to affirm That God doth not in the Baptism of Elect Infants secretly infuse such a light as he knoweth sufficient to their salvation seeing that it is certain that as God dwelleth not in all that know him Rom. 1. 21. so neither do all those presently know him in whom he dwelleth by the spirit of illumination and regeneration until they have received such a further measure of the Spirit which is of God that they may know the things which are freely given to them of God 1 Cor. 2. 12. which appears in that Elect children are saved which without the Spirit of Regeneration none can be Iohn 3. 3 5. and doubtless the soul of an Infant in Gods divine presence in heaven hath therein more illumination then the most knowing mortal in the world hath 3. Neither did the Apostles their selves presently understand all these things necessary to salvation which Christ taugh them neither did he propose Doctrines to them above their present capacity I have yet many things to say unto you but you cannot bear them now He patiently expected their future abilities with a What I do thou knowest not now but thou shalt know John 13. 7. which both Peter and the rest had experience of when the promised Comforter taught them and brought all things to remembrance which Jesus had said unto◠them and the Spirit of Truth guided them into all truth and shall we not believe that God will graciously bear with an Infants present defect of understanding which himself gives him by degrees and in such measure and time as his self appointeth 4. As Faith and Confession sufficed the penitent Thief without Baptism so Baptism the Seal of the Righteousness of Faith and Repentance sufficeth an Elect Infant dying without confession of Faith and actual Repentance and the living until he come of age and ability to know and make profession With the heart man believeth unto Righteousness and with the mouth confession is made unto Salvation Rom. 10. 10. But Infants can do neither of these therefore they profane the holy Seal who give it to them who cannoe be profited thereby We answer 1. The same might have been objected against circumcision where the Seal sufficed until the sealed came to years and ability to believe and confess 2. The Apostles speaks there concerning persons of years it nothing concerns Infants as such 3. If giving the Seal to those who cannot be profited thereby be profanation of the same how often do you prophane the holy Seal How can any meer man know whom to baptize though of years and whom to put by None can foresee mens final estates but God alone We know that Iudas and Simon Magus were baptized though whatsoever they confessed with their mouth 't is certain they did not believe with their heart unto righteousness Did their Baptizers profane Baptism If not how maliciously is this objected against us baptizing Infants of Believers Christ himself expresly avowing them as subjects of his Kingdom The Seals of the New Testament are perfect and spiritual But Infants are carnal and The natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God 1 Cor. 2. 14. Therefore these Seals agree not to and with Infants present incapacity We answer The Apostle there speaks concerning the understanding of divine mysteries not comprehensible of profane and carnal men Now Infants being carnal as born of flesh want Regeneration that they may become spiritual and enter into the Kingdom of God and because they are by corrupted nature imperfect therefore they ought to be admitted to the ordinary means by God appointed to make them perfect The Apostle biddeth us Draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water Hebr. 10. 22. Which seeing Infants cannot for present do the washing of their bodies with the pure water of Baptism belongeth to others who can have a good conscience not to them We answer The Apostle there sheweth what we who are baptized and of age ought to do and with what confidence not who ought to be baptized and so it nothing concerneth Infants till they come of age Baptism which saveth us is with the testimony of a good conscience This Infants cannot have who have no knowledge Therefore Infants ought not to receive that Baptism which cannot save them We answer 1. The Apostle speaks not there of the subject of Baptism but of the fruits and effects thereof in those who are of ripe years the fruits which indeed Elect Infants if living shall here reap in due time and into which they are for present sealed Now the outward Administration of the sign of the Covenant concerning
them There appears neither act nor habit of regeneration in Infant-baptism until they be taught the Word neither any more promptitude to learn it then is in unbaptized children coming to years therefore their baptism is effectless and consequently unlawful We answer 1 The Kingdom of God cometh not with observation Luk. 17. 20. and the internal acts of the Spirit are secret for what man knoweth the things of a man save the spirit of a man which is within him 1 Cor. 2. 11. 2 If outward appearance be a good argument to the denying of internal acts and habits you might by the same medium as well conclude that Infants are not reasonable creatures Infants inspired by Gods Spirit may be said to be Believers as they are said truly to be rationals that is actuprimo non secundo and they confess and avouch the Lord in their Parents avouching of him as appeareth Deut. 26. 16 17 18. Deut. 29. 9 10 1â— 12 13 14 15. 3 It is not true that baptized Infants have no more promptitude to learn the mysteries of salvation when they come to years to be taught then other unbaptized children have caeteris paribus for the H. Ghost doth not desert his own ordinance in the Elect though for causes very just yea when most unknown to us it doth not alwayes alike shew its power as for the reprobate the seal or administration of man can nothing profit him who abuseth it and where God ever denyeth inward baptism by his holy Spirit of sanctification Reprobates who cannot be profited by baptism ought not to be baptized lest we add to their condemnation but of Infants some are such and we cannot say which of them offered to baptism is elect and which not therefore seeing we cannot distinguish them nor can they express themselves we ought not to baptize them untill they can We answer If the major proposition in this argument be universalis negans it is most false for Simon Magus and Iudas who were not profited by their baptism were yet rightly baptized If particular though granted it would conclude nothing against Infant-baptism for by the same reason they may deny baptism to persons of years for alas many of them are Reprobates Neither can any meer man distinguish between the one and the other seeing that whatever profession of faith and repentance men make 't is possible they may dissemble or fall away Now we in charitie hope the best where the contrary is not manifest and therefore deny them not baptism who doe but profess faith repentance and desire of baptism and if we can have as much charitie to innocent Infants we must also allow them baptism who being born of Christian parents are within Gods covenant of Grace And indeed the final estate of Infants or aged people being alike secret and known to God alone we must perform our ministrie respectively and leave the fruit and issue thereof to God so in preaching the Gospel the sincere Milk of the Word 1 Pet. 2. 2. we do often as it were draw out the brest like the mother of the living child 1 King 3. 20 21. to some dead in belief sins and trespasses laid in our bosome who know not who shall profit by it nor to whom it shall prove a favour of death unto death that must be left to God but we must instantly preach the Gospel When the Eunuch said to Philip Act. 8. 36 see here is water what doth let me to be baptized be answered If thou believest with all thy heart thou mayest therefore he that believeth not may not be baptized such are Infants We answer 1 It is manifest enough that Philip spake to a man who could hear and read and was then something instructed in the Gospel of Christ what doth this concern Infants 2 Infants have now as much capacitie of baptism as under the Law they had of circumcision both had faith as reason in the feed though not in the fruit and the sacrament of baptism now performeth the same to us which circumcision did to them as that was to them a sign of their receiving into the Church and people of God so is baptism to us the first mark which severeth and distinguisheth the people of God from the prophane and wicked aliens Faith ought not to be separated from the seal thereof therefore Infants who cannot actually beleeve ought not to be baptized until they can See what hath been said Obj. 12. to which we here add that this proposition is true concerning persons of years but concerneth not Infants in whom we cannot know Gods present work but in baptism the seed of faith regeneration mortification and newness of life is sowed in them and all know that precedence concludeth not separation Lastly we say that if faith and baptism must so indivisibly be united as that none may be baptized but they who do actually believe whom might our adversaries baptize or whom put by though of years If they say they profess faith there is much difference between professing and actual believing and I much fear that many will too late find as much distance between justifying faith and temptation of securitie as is between heaven and hell Such are to be baptized as confess their sins Mat. 3. 6. as gladly receive the Word Act. 2. 41. as give heed to the Word preached Act. 8. 6. but this Infants cannot do therefore they are not to be baptized We answer The affirmative may from such places be concluded Such ought to be baptized but the negative cannot therefore none but men so qualified may be baptized it no more followeth then if you should say Cornelius and those that were with him when Peter preached received the holy Ghost in the extraordinary gifts thereof therefore none but such as have received the extraordinary gifts of the holy Ghost may be baptized nay but though it wel concluded affirmatively for them that they were to be baptized it cannot conclude negatively against others that they may not be baptized who have not received such gifts If baptizing Infants be grounded on circumcision the males only must be baptized but that is not true for females also ought to be baptized We answer Here is a fallacia accidentis an arguing from the substance to the circumstance whereas baptism succeeded circumcision in substance not in every circumstance The substance was that was a seal of faith and Church-priviledge so is this that was administred to all that would join in the faith of Abraham and their children as being in Gods covenant so must it be here in that was sealed to the Covenanter the promise of grace and mercie by Christ which is alwayes one and the same so here that signified mortification and a promise on mans part of faith and obedience to God so it is here that was the inlet to Gods Church the Sacrament of initiation admission and engraffing into the Church so is baptism
the Lord even unto his tenth generation is not to be understood as if it bar'd them from salvation or any means thereto subordinate the covenant of God seals thereof sacraments or publick service of God but that it excluded them from a right to bear any publick office Ecclesiastical or Civil neither may Iâ—phta's extraordinary calling to publick office make void the general rule in the forecited place it is said the Ammonite or Moabite shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord c. what not in case of their becoming proselytes nay but Ruth the Mâ—abitess is rehearsed in the genâ—alogiâ— of our Savior Christ and there was but one law to him that 〈◊〉 home-â—orn and unto the stranger he may not bear any publick office but he might be received into Gods coveâ—ant and so be capable of all holy duties So v. 1. the maimed or Eunuch shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord c. what might he not be sealed or saved the contrary expresly appeareth Is. 56. 4 5 6 7. Mat. 19. 12. To our present purpose the Apostle gathereth that matrimonial conjunction between a believer and an unbeliever is holy because the denomination and estimate being from the better part their children are within the covenant of God by an argument from the effect to the cause 3. The Apostle discoursed not there of civil Policie but of conscience and how could it satisfie any Christians conscience to take an argument from the civil laws of any of the Nations it is notorious that among those many things were established by their laws which a Christians conscience would and must abhor yea even such divorces without the ease of adultery as were in civil respects tolerated by Moses for the hardness of the Jews hearts excused not the offenders conscience though that permissive law would bear him out before men 4 When the Apostle saith the unbelieving husband is sanctified in the wife if any ask what wife we cannot say in a wife as she is only civilly legitimate for so far that husband hath as good and evident a ground of sanctification on his part and in himself without any accession of priviledge from his wife for he must needs be as lawfully her husband as she is his wife we can therefore no otherwise rationally answer then a believing wife and so on the other side Now seeing the Apostle puts it on a peculiar priviledge which is sometimes in the man when he is a believer and his wife is not and sometimes in the wife if she be a believer and her husband is not so it appears that the foundation of comfort here intended by the Apostle is laid in faith peculiar but to one of the two and not in matrimonial legitimacie common and equal to both 5 Faith which rendreth us acceptable to God in Christ purifieth us and all estates and possessions to us that sanctifieth marriage not marriage it that uniteth us by one Spirit to Christ and is therefore far more excellent then marriage which uniteth man and woman only in one flesh faith therefore gives our children a denomination and right to the seals of the covenant as they are holy not marriage which though civilly lawful may yet be impious before God as where one puts away his wife for less then adultery and marrieth another or another man marrieth her so put away it is therefore the faith and Church-priviledge of parents which thus denominateth children holy 6 The Apostle could not here mean legitimacie of children for that can neither sanctifie them nor entitle them to the seal of Gods covenant neither is sanctification here or in any other place of Scripture taken otherwise then for separating some way from some thing prophane or impious So persons times places c. are said to be sanctified which legitimation cannot do neither can holy necessarily imply no bastard for some holy men have been such neither can no bastard conclude a man holy The children of infidels and aliens from the covenant of God born in lawful wedlock are legitimate and no bastards and yet as such far from holy and bastardie though the effect and product of foul sin of parents and the childs indelible dishonour before men yet maketh them not such as belong not to the covenant of God as appears in Pharez and Zarah Gen. 38. 18 29 30. Iephtah Iudg. 11. 1 2. c. it must needs be therefore that the Apostle in that term of holy signified some thing peculiar to those that are within the Church of God and not communicable to children of Infidels as such so Tertullian speaks of the unregenerate from Ioh. 3. 5. he shall not enter into the kingdom of God that is he shall not be holy such every soul is counted in Adam until he be recounted in Christ. 7 We must consider that legitimacie of children which our Antagonists would here have intended is a proceed of legitimacie of marriage which is of one man and one wife joined together in matrimonie according to Gods ordinance as it is written they two shall be one flesh not they many and he that made them at the beginning made them male and female now the institution of marriage is in place of a perpetual law the violation whereof is sin and wickedness Therefore Christ refuted their objection from Moses permission of the bill of divorcement from the original and Gods first institution of marriage because he in the beginning appointed it otherwise and the same sanction is inviolable So when the Prophet would recall the Jews from Pâ—lygamie to pure wedlock he said did not he that is God the Creator make one that is did he make any more wives for Adam then one or did he at first make any more then one husband and one wife yet had he the residue or excellency of the Spirit that is he had power enough if he had pleased to have made more that therefore is illegitimate which agreeth not with the first unrepealable law and institution of God who created but one man and one woman for the fountain of all humane propagation as it is written Gen. 1. 27. God created him male and female created he them both one flesh and so but one and wherefore one saith the Prophet that he might seek a godly seed that is a generation according to Gods holy institution which is between one man and one woman lawfully joined in matrimonie thiâ— he opposeth to their Polygamie secretly here intimating that all they are spurious who are born of Poligamie because they cannot and ought not to be esteemeâ— legitimate who are begotten otherwise then in that matrimonie which God appointed which is only between one man and one woman Now this legitimacie all the tribes of Israel though they were otherwise holy had not in the Prophets sense but they had it in the Apostles sense 1 Cor. 7. 14. for not to question more Dan and
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
the covenant of grace But God hath given the inward operation of his H. Spirit to Infants Ier. 1. 5. Luk. 1. 15. 1 Câ—r 7. 14 therefore no man may forbid water or the outward administration for the baptism of Infants The reason of the major is that all they who are partakers of the grace both signified exhibited in baptism have right to the sign and sacrament thereof and therefore may not be barred from it for that were to withstand God Act. 11. 17. In reason where God hath bestowed the grace signified man may not deny the signifying element and in common right the apparent heirs are unjustly denied the deeds and evidences whereby that right is assured upon them for these are a part of their inheritance and ought by right to follow the same moreover 't is impious to divide that which God hath join'd the sign from the thing signified as they do who allow children grace remission of sins and salvation by Christ and yet deny them baptism into Christ they will yeild them the Jewels but not the Cabinet the Treasure but not the Purse 6 All that are capable of the initiatorie seal of future faith ought to be baptized but Infants are capable thereof therfore they ought to be baptized So under the law Infants were capable of circumcision the seal of their future faith our Infants have no less capacitie thereof then they had 7 All they to whom Gods covenant of Grace extends are to receive the initiatory seal thereof for sealing of the covenant respectively is a part thereof Gen. 17. 10 11. Mark 16. 16. but Gods covenant of Grace in Christ extends to Infants of covenanted persons therefore Infants ought to receive the initiatory seal of the covenant which is baptism The assumption is proved from Act. 2. 38 39. Be baptized evâ—ry one of you for the remission of sins for the promise is unto you and to your children What promise that upon which the Covenant was sealed to Abraham and his seed the faithful and when where or how have Infants of Christians forfeited their right to the seal who as such cannot forfeit 8 If circumcision and baptism were for substance both respective seals of the same covenant of God in Christ then those sorts of men who were capable of the one are capable of the other but circumâ—ision and baptism were for substance both respective seals of the same covenant of God in Christ therefore those sorts of men to wit Infants as well as persons of years who were capable of circumcision are capable of baptism The major may appear in that God never made any covenant of grace but only in Christ and the same Gospel was preached to Abraham and he believed in the same Christ Gal. 3. 8. add hereto there is the same efficient primary cause to wit God making a covenant with his and appointing the respective seals thereof the same necessity on the receivers part original sin in Infants who have therefore as much need of regeneration and admission into the covenant of â—od for remedy as they had under the law and there is the same power and efficacie of the holy Ghost still remaining otherwise Gods grace in the New Testament and covenant in Christ exhibited should be more restrained and of less latitude then it was in the Old under that severe Schoolmaster the Law and which were impious to affirm then Christs coming into the world should be so much disvantageous to believers as that the Gospel should take away the seal of Gods covenant of grace from our children which the Law allowed them under the severity therof No part or condition of the covenant by God appointed for remission of sins and salvation may be withheld by man from those who have right to the covenant and promise of God under severe punishment but the initiatory Sacrament Baptism now is a part or condition of the covenant by God appointed for remission of sins and salvation whereto Infants have right therefore it may not be withheld from such Infants as are within the covenant and have right thereto and to the promise of God See Exod. 4. Luk. 3. 3. Act. 2. 38 39. Tit. 3. 5. now the initiatorie seal of the covenant was and is a part or condition of the same Gen. 17. 10 11. Mark 16. 16. Ioh. 3. 5. 10 All they whom God accounteth holy have a capacity of baptism the seal thereof but God accounteth children of believing parents holy 1 Cor. 7. 14. Therefore children of believing parents have a capacitie of baptism nor doth that ridiculous interpretation which Anabaptists have borrowed of the Jesuites concerning legitimacie overthrow this argument 11 All those who being redeemed by Christ have right to the kingdom of heaven have right to the ordinary Port and Inlet into the same that is baptism but children of believers have right to the kingdom of heaven Mark 10. 14. Mat. 19. 13. therefore children of believers have right to baptism Christ expresseth the entrance or means to regeneration and the kingdom of heaven Ioh. 3. 5. to wit water of baptism by which the H. Ghost doth ordinarily work thereto and presently gives the reason that which is born of the flesh is flesh that as such cannot enter into the kingdom of God 1 Cor. 15. 50. now Infants are from their natural birth but flesh and blood Ps. 51. 7. Eph. 2. 3. therefore if they must enter into the kingdom of God they must be born again of water and the H. Ghost it is true that God can and doth regenerate many Infants without baptism by his H. Spirit 〈◊〉 that they dying without the Sacrament are yet saved in an extraordinary way but for us to deny them baptism and to put their salvation upon extraordinary means where God hath appointed and declared the ordinary is as much as man can do to shut them from the kingdom of heaven and so though their want of baptism shall not be their eternal loss whom God hath elected yet is it their great sin who neglect or despise the ordinance of God and thereby except in case of repentance they shall exclude themselves 12 Whatsoever Christ commanded Ministers to do and which the Apostles in the ordinary office of Ministers did do that is right and just to be done and we ought to do but Christ commanded Ministers to baptize all nations without exception of children and that the Apostles did do for above all contradiction they obeyed Christ therein therefore it is right and just to baptize Infants as being a great part of all nations and we ought to do it 13 That which agreeth with the nature of the seal of the righteousness of faith and the institution of Christ ought to be done but Infant-baptism agreeth with these therefore it ought to be done it agreeth with the institution of Christ who commanding to baptize all nations well knew that there were many Infants therein yet makes no exception of them
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
it doth no more follow thence that all must everywhere and at all seasons be so baptized then that the Lords Supper may be administred with none but unleavened bread in an upper room after Supper to twelve men only no women because Christ so administred it or that we must anoint the â—â—ck with oyl or salute with an holy kiss because these things were in use in those Regions nay but matters circumstantial are ever liable to the test of accommodation and customs of times and places and persons dipping might be convenient in those hot Regions and at Easter and Pentecost to which their baptizing was limited of old which in these Northern climats and in the dead of winter were near deathful to tender bodies 6. Christs baptism is washing Ephes. 5. 25 26. and washing is as well by sprinkling or pouring on of water as by dipping into water hence the Apostle speaking of the washing of Regeneration presently saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which he hath poured out on us and the Scripture calleth the divers sprinklings mentioned Heb. 9. 13 19 21. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 baptismes v. 10. As washings or sprinklings are also called Mark 7. 4. but hereof we shall see more anon for the present only note that the Holy Ghost the surest Interpreter of Scripture interpreteth Baptizing by sprinkling or washing so that there is no necessity as our Antagonists would fain have it of dipping or dousing the whole body under water Dipping say they is baptizing and baptizing dipping Christ therefore who instituted Baptism therein appointed that the whole man should be dipped in Bapâ—ism We answer 1. If this bubble had any weight or solidity it were easily retorted washing or spâ—inkling is baptizing in Gospel-sense Christ therefore who instituted Baptiâ—m therein appointed men to be washed or sprinkled with water 2. Prove that Christ appointed the whole man should be dipped all over in water by some other medium if you can by this you cannot true it is that all dipping all over in water is baptizing but not convertibly for all baptizing is not dipping for it is proved by the fore-alledged Scriptures that washing by pouring on or sprinkling water is also a kinde of baptizing If you should say every man is a living creature that is true but not convertible therefore every living creature is a man it follows not because there are more species of living creatures then one all dipping is baptizing therefore all baptizing is dipâ—ing follows not because there are more sorts of baptizings then one by dipping 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sometimes signifieth to dip but not always The Apostles according to Christs promise were baptized with fire they were not after the foolish Iacobites opinion dipt into fire the cloven tongues sate upon each of them The Pharisees among many other traditions used the baâ—tism of beds Mark 7. 4. You will not understand that to have been dipping their beds into water that would quickly have rotted and made them useless and unwholsom but of some light sprinkling with water So when they came from the market they eat not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 except they be baptized You will not understand except they be dipt over head and ears in the water but except they washed as our translation gives it after the Syriac neither had they in that dry Climate convenience and store of waters every where to dive into They had commonly their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 water-pots after the manner of the purifying of the Iews John 2. 6. out of which they drew a little for lustrations oâ— sprinklings Moreover the Israelites 1 Cor. 10 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 were baptized in the cloud not dipt into it but besprinkled with the distilling drops thereof for the prepositoin 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there used in such expressions signifieth not in but with as He shall baptize you 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with not in the holy Ghost and fire Matth 3. 11. So Rev. 19. 21. The rest were slain 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with not in the sword it is an usual Hebraism 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the sword that is with the sword Exod. 6. 6. I will redeem you 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in brachio extenso So Deut. â— 15. The Lord thy God brought thee out thence 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in that is by a mighty hand and a stretched out arm Again the sons of Zebedeâ— were to be baptized with the baptism of blood Mark 10. 39. that is in Tertullians phrase Russaâ—i suo sanguine besmeared or wet with drops of their own blood not dipt into blood The same use of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 derived from the Hebrews we often finde in the new Testament Rom. 10. 9. 1 Cor. 4. 21. 1 Pet. 1. â— 1. Rev. 2. 16. 1â— 5. 19. 15. 3. It is granted that Christ and many others were baptized in Iordan and that Philip did go down into the water to baptize the Eunâ—ch and that such baptisms in hoâ— Climates have and may lawfully be used yet no scripture-proof at all appears that Christ in his own person was dived under water or the Eunuch or any of those whom Iohn or â—ny of the Apostles baptized neither do we at all deny immersion to be lawful but we deny it to be so necessary as to the exclusion of washing or sprinkling as if they were not as effectually used We deny that dipping in rivers is so necessary to baptism as that none ought to be accounted baptized but those who are dipt after such a manner And we say that where we have other conveniencies in the settled Câ—â—rches that practise appeareth meerly Schismatical affected and unnecessary Baptism being a sign must answer to the thing signified as The washing of the whole soul in the blood of Christ. 2. That interest which the Saints have in the deatâ— burial and resurrection of Christ is not partial but total so therefore ought the baptizing of the body to be We answer 1 It must still be remembred thaâ— this sacrament may be rightly and effctually administred by any of the three ways dipping washing or sprinkling and we approve of dipping where custom and convenience require it so far as that it excludes not the other For a divers custom of several Churches makes no difference where they all hold one faith in the main 2. It is not in the quaintity of the Element but the institution of Christ the vertue of his death and passion and the powerful working of his holy Spirit which gives the fruit and effect of baptism therefore Iohn 3. 5. the Spirit is mentioned with water because the power of regenerating is not of the water but of Gods Spirit and Ordinance effectually working by the water of baptism And here we may note that Infants are capable of this operation as hath been proved and Christ in his institution of baptism prescribed not so far
as can appear in Scripture how much water must be used herein noâ— how deep it must be as there is no quantum of the elements prescribed in the Eucharist neither is there in all the new Testament either one precept for or example of plunging or dousing the party to be baptized over head and ears under water 3. In Circumcision the whole body was not cut but onely the foreskin of the flesh whereby the whole person body and soul was sealed and admitted into Gods Covenant and so is it proportionably in baptism the seal of Gods prâ—sent Covenant In common use we know the seal of a writing obligatory is not set all over the deed but to some one part by which the whole is confirmed and as in Livery and Seisin a little turf of grass with a twig or smal bough delivered to the Purchaser investeth him in the whole state of the demeasn So here 't is the seal and subscription of a just Deed which passeth the estate not the quantity of the wax or largeness of the parchment nor greatness of the Character whether Text-hand Chancery Court-hand Secretary all these things are circumstantial and no more and so is it in the matter of much or little water in baptism the essence whereof is applying water to the body of the baptized in the name of the Father of the Son and of the Holy Ghost There is therefore no simple necessity of dipping the whole body under water it is sufficient if the face which is as it were the representative or epitome of man in which are united all the senses be dipped washt or sprinckleâ— 4 In baptism lawfully administred by washing sprinkling or dipping the elect have the same interest in the death burial and resurrection of Christ as if they were baptized in the deepest channel of Iordan or any other water Faith which instrumentally gives them interest in Christ being no effect of deep waters but of those Rivers of living waters whereof Christ spake Iohn 7. 38 39. to wit the Holy Ghost 5 Sprinkling doth also aptly signifie our sprinkling with the blood of Christ in baptism cleansing us from our sins â—nd sealing our election 1 Iohn 1. 7. 1 Pet. 1. 2. and pouring water signifieth the effusion of the Spirit upon us Tit. â— 5. and those sprinklings of the blood of sacrifices signified the very same Christ being baptized is said to have come up out of the water Matth. 3. 16. therefore he was in it And the Eunuch went down into the water with Philip in neither appears any sprinkling or washing but rather dipâ—ing We answer 1. It appearsâ— that Christ and the Eunuch were baptized it appears not that either they or any other whom Iohn B or any of Christs Disciples baptized were dipped all under water as hath been said any more then that they were washed or sprinkled with water The word Baptizing in the original signifying sprinkling washing or dipping therefore we take it to be indifferent which of the three ways baptism be administred respect being had to convenience of times places and persons 2. The Preposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the cited places rendred Out of signifieth properly From as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 From not from under the ships and so Christ might come from the water though he were never dived under it or though he had gone only to the depth of the first or second measure of the Sanctuary waters to the anckles or to the knees 3. Philip and the Eunuch are said to have gone down into the water Act. â— 38. for it was a descent to them the waters though shallow or possibly not within very low or hollow banks as Iordan and all great waters of Rivers usually run yet always running lower then the Superficies of the earth near the sources and channels thereof 4 The words Acts 8. 38. are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And both of them descended c. so the word also signifieth to descend or to alight as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to alight from not to come from under an horse or to descend or lâ—t down ones self or to come down from some higher place as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith Budaeus after Suidasâ— or to go down to some even place as to invest an enemy to wrestle fight or encountre also to go from one place to another as Acts. 17. 15. it is said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Iacob descended or went into Egypt Acts 10. 20. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Get thee down and go with them So Acts 14. 25. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they went down unto Attalia for so they usuually expressed going from one place to another as the Hebrews by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So far is that word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Acts 8. 38. they went down both to or into the water from inforcing the conclusion aimed at therefore the Eunuch baptized was dived under water that it makes nothing for it more then that Iacob going down into Egypt was therefore duckt in Nilus or Peter in the waters of Cesarea â—r Paul and Barnabas in some Attalian waters because these were said in the very same word to go down to these places all which being frivolous and vain your assertion must be left unconcluded for any thing to the contrary in these cited Texts appearing Add hereto that here is nothing said of the Eunuch as going down into the water more then of Philip for they both went down c. now I suppose you will not affirm that Philip as and then when he baptized the Eunuch in that administration stood all under water with the Eunuch or that Iohn B. in the like action in Iordan was ever doused over head and ears for company And how then can it hence appear that the baptized were more dived then the baptizers Behold upon what unsound grounds our Antagonists build their pretended necessity of ducking their disciples in Rivers or deep waters CHAP. V. Protestants arguments against the supposed necessity of dipping rather then sprinkling or washing with water in Baptism THat which the word used by Christ enjoyning the duty of Baptism doth indifferently signifie and commonly import there being neither express example nor precept to restrain it precisely to either that is lawfully and warrantably to be done in baptizing But the word used by Christ enjoyning the duty of Baptism or Baptizing doth indifferently and commonly signifie dipping washing or sprinkling and there is no express example or precept in Scripture to restrain it precisely to either Therefore in Baptizing we may lawfully and warrantably pro more loci temporis statu personarum eitheir dip wash or sprinkle in water In the name of the â—ather and the Son and of the Holy Ghost The major is out of controversie The minor thus confirmed The Word used by Christ Matthew 28. 19 is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth indifferently to wash
but only one and once suffered Indeed it is said of the other seal as oft as ye do this 1 Cor. 11. 26. but not one word in Scripture can be found for more then once baptizing but the Apostle mentioning baptism joins it with things incapable of multiplication or pluralitie one Spirit one body of Christ the Church one hope of our calling metonymically put for the thing hoped for that is eternal life which is essentially but one one Lord one Faith that is one doctrine of faith Gal. 1. 6 7 8. Iud. 3 or objectively one truth of God one Christ shewing that there ought to be no more baptisms then faiths Christs or Gods if therefore said Optatus you give another baptism give another faith if ye give another faith give another Christ if ye give another Christ give also another God c. You see to what damnable absurdities rebaptizing drives unto That whereby men crucifie to themselves the Son of God afresh and put him to open shame may by no means be done But to rebaptize or to be willingly rebaptized in the Apostles sense is to crucifie to themselves the Son of God afresh and to put him to open shame therefore it may by no means be done This point the Apostle layeth down Heb. 6. 4 5 6. It is impossible for those who were once enlightned saith our Translation 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 who have been once baptized saith the Syriac to renew them again to repentance c. that is baptismal repentance the baptism of repentance as it is called Act 19. 4. and so Heb. 10. 12. Call to remembrance the former dayes in which after ye were illuminated Gre. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which the Syriac the best and nearest Interpreter of the New Testament rendreth in which ye were baptized So the Greeks were wont to call baptism 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 illumination possibly because persons converting from darkness of Idolatry were ordinarily enlightned by being taught the doctrine of the Gospel see Mat. 4. 16. Luk. 2. 32. Act. 26. 18. so the Hebrew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in one signification importing taught is rendred by the LXX illuminated or also in respect of extraordinary gifts of the holy Ghost in the knowledge of the mysteries of the Gospel and unstudied tongues with other admirable enlargments of heart then flourishing in the Church Now those who are described v. 4 5. who have been once baptized and have tasted of the heavenly gift and were made partakers of the holy Ghost and have tasted the good Word of God and the powers of the world to come if they shall fall away saith our Translation Gre. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and falling away which and the Syriac omittetâ—â— rendring the sense as others also non possunt iterum peccare ut denuò renoventur ad resipiscentiam denuò crucifigant c. they cannot so sin that is unto death that they should again be renewed to repentance and crucifie afresh c. that is in a second baptism where note by the way that this place of Scripture so much wrested by the enemies of truth against the comfortable doctrine of the Saints perseverance maketh mainly for it for the Apostle saith not that those who are described v. 4 5. do or may fall away but that it is impossible isto supposito to be renewed because in such a supposition the merit of Christs Cross being abolished and made void by which they were renewed it must needs follow that so Christ should be crucified afresh and be put to open shame that they might be renewed by a second and new merit of his Cross which seeing it is impossible to be the Apostle will inferr that it is impossible that these here described v. 4 5. should finally fall away The foundation of the Lord remaining sure and having this seal The Lord knoweth who are his whose prescience cannot possibly be deceived in electing any who shall fall away But to return to our purpose the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to themselves is very considerable The Son of God they cannot now possibly crucifie afresh nor put him again to open shame who sitteth at the right hand of the glory of the Father had they the malice of the Jews and power of the Romans who once crucified him to help them yet in iterating on themselves baptism the sign of their implantation into the similitude of his death they crucifie to themselves that is as much as in them is the Son of God Chrysostome excellently expresseth it Baptism saith he is the Cross for therein our old man is crucified with him Again we have been planted together in the likeness of his death as therefore Christ may not be crucified again for that were to put him again to open shame so neither may we be baptized again for if death have no more dominion over him if he be risen in his resurrection a conqueror over death c. and should again be crucified then all these things were meer fables and mockeries therefore he that rebaptizeth himself doth again crucifie him But what is crucifying again As Christ died on the Cross so do we in baptism not in the flesh but to sin therefore there may be no second washing for if there be there may be a third and a fourth for the first is made void by the second and that by another even to an infinite Where there are all the essential parts of baptism rightly administred according to the commission given by Christ to his Apostles there baptism cannot be made void or no true baptism by any thing accidental circumstantial or less then essential neither expresly nor by any necessary consequence any where in holy Scripture forbidden But in baptizing of Infants of Church-priviledged Parents by sprinkling or washing with water in the name of the Father and the Son and the holy Ghost there are all the essential parts of baptism according to Christs commission given to the Apostles to wit the Element and the Word which constitute the Sacrament Therefore that their baptism is not neither can be made void or no true baptism by or in respect of Infant-age or of only washing or sprinkling them with water which are things circumstantial accidental less then essential and no where expresly or by necessary consequence forbidden in holy Scripture So that whatever Anabaptists pretend in their eager pursuit of their opinion that they do not rebaptize supposing that there preceded no essential or true baptism in regard of the persons being baptized in their Infancie or because they fancie dipping the whole body to be essential to baptism and so necessary that without it they think there can be no true baptism neither of which have any ground in Scripture and whereas Christ is the Saviour of every age sex and condition therefore male and female aged and Infants have right to the seal as hath been shewed it highly concerneth them seriously to
of years as in Iudas Simon Magus Demas and others like yet it is effectual to salvation to all the elect in whom Gods spirit powerfully worketh to faith repentance sanctification c. without which all the waters under heaven cannot be effectual for the cleansing of one soul. 4. We please not our selves with a signe without effect if you doe rest not in that state lest you and your stingie leaves without fruit withering become fuel for the fire which goes not out to fill up the measure of impious calumny You say They invocate the holy Ghost in vain doing as if one should call upon him to illuminate a stone or a tree 1. I wonder what they will be ashamed to say who blush not at such assertions 'T is true that the Apostle useth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be illuminated for to be baptized as the Syriac Interpreter gives it Hebr. 4 6. Hebr. 10. 32 and that the Greek Fathers so commonly used the word and it is no improbable conjecture that there was an allusion to the Hebrew manner of speaking who by one and the same word express illumination and a River or Source of water and by a Metaphor Illumination of the mind For they who are baptized by water and the spirit of Jesus are in Gods good time and the measure he knows fit illuminated and find not only a River of elementary water but of that water which floweth to eternal life whereof Christ spake Iohn 7. that is the spirit of illumination and sanctification 2. I would desire you again consider is the case all one or alike when we pray that God would be pleased to illuminate sanctifie and save an elect infant for whom Christ shed his precious bloud for whose salvation he came from heaven became an infant and man of sorrows to the death whom he blessed of whom he said Of such is the kingdom of heaven and except ye become as one of these ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven Is I say the case all one when we pray according to Gods word and promise for these as if we should pray God to illuminate sanctifie and save a stone or a tree hath a stone or tree any habitual faith or reason or any capacity of the holy Ghost illumination or sanctification Do any creatures under the degrees of man bear the image of their Creator in immortality sanctity and light of understanding Would God you could be ashamed of blaspheming and laying such pernicious stumbling-blocks before the blind to make them fall Since you say there is no direct impiety in the opinion of Anabaptists nor any that is apparently consequent to it and they with so much probability do or may pretend to true perswasion they are with all means Christian fair and humane to be redargued or instructed I hoped that the Plea being ended the Pleader would have come to himself again but this and another strain promise no more but a lucid interval I answer As to your charitie towards the persons of the Anabaptists I also with they may by all Christian fair and humane means be reproved convinced or instructed but that there is no direct impietie in their opinion nor any that is apparently consequent to it is apparently unture for that which is displeasing to Christ is directly impious and such is with-holding Infants from him that which is uncharitable is direct impietie and such is that opinion which barreth Infants from the Seal of Gods Covenant with them and the Communion of Saints as also in that it damneth so great a part of the world presupposing that God had no Church in the world for so many hundred years as Infant-Baptism hath been the general inlet to the same except a little while in the schism of Pelagians and Donatists and again when the same Heresie revived in Germany in Charls 5. his reign and now again in these distracted and calamitous times much more hath been and might be said herein but I shall be so far from being their accuser that I heartily pray the Lord to open their eyes that they sleep not in death only I say to the Pleader who would so courteously vail others impietie 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Lastly you say that you think That there is much more truth then evidence on our side and therefore we may be confident as for our own particulars but not too forward peremptorily to prescribe to others much less to damn or to kill or to persecute them that only in this particular disagree That we may be confident of the truth on our side I assent likewise that none be too forward peremptorily to prescribe except where the Word of God and necessary consequence from thence prescribeth that none should persecute kill or much less for opinions less then blasphemous against God or destructive to Religion and salvation of souls saving to Supreme Authoritie their lawful right I also assent to but can by no means be of your opinion that there is less evidence then truth on our side as any ways intimating a defect of evidence therefore I say 1. That evidence sensu forensi in common sense of controversies or matters of judicature importeth sufficient proof so we say that witnesses give in evidence that is not alwayes in terminis and express words as in actions of case is requirable nor as they say ore rotundo as to say Verres is a Thief c. but from considerable circumstances or necessarie consequences sufficient to evince and to inform to sentence This evidence on our side you will not denie in this case nor I suppose affirm that falshood hath more proof or evidence in Scripture then truth 2. Sometimes we speak of evidence in relation to the partie or parties to be informed in which not only his or their capacitie is considerable but also other circumstances as the Informers expression which possibly may be defective the Informeds attention for want whereof that may not appear which were otherwise sufficiently evident Again In case of Gods judgment over the disobedient given over to strong delusions that they should believ lyes and be damned who received not the love of the truth of it self evident enough that they might be saved hereof sec Isa. 6. 9 10. Mat. 13. 13 14 15. To a blind man or one that winketh in the clearest most evident light no colours or proportions are evident because men if blind cannot if obstinate schismatical wil not see understand 3 There is a notius natura and a notius nobis if in the evidence you speak of you mean the first and that errour and falshood is more known in nature that is manifestly false for the truth is first and best known in nature If you mean the second that is that we less know the truth then the evidence what blame you in our cause or advantage your Clients If you say we see no evidence nor can the