for in reason you cannot call an unbeliever or wicked person a spirituall infant then I would fain learn by what discerning spirit you can know when and whom to baptize and whom to put by or which infant according to the flesh is not a spiritual infant by the spirit of regeneration If you say that those who are of years profess faith and repentance and therefore are to be baptized it is easily rejoined what ere they professe they may be hypocrites and then no more spirituall Infants then Iudas or Simon Magus were If you say that in charity you take them for spirituall I answer That an opinion that may be so easily false and in which any man without speciall revelation may be deceived is a very unproportionable ground of so sharp a controversie as causeth your Clients to forsake the Church of Christ. Next I say had you but as much charity towards infants whom no actuall sins have yet stained you would as freely judge them spirituall infants and so by your own Principle to be baptized as those of years of whom possibly you may know much evill without all controversie they have many sins to be repented of and why should you not afford harmless Infants who cannot dissemble as much charity as you do to many hypocrites of whose spirituall regeneration or being spirituall Infants you cannot be certain And this seems to have been the sense of the primitive Church for in the age next to the Apostles they gave to all baptized persons milk and honey to represent unto them their duty that though in age of understanding they were men yet they were babes in Christ and children in malice c. Indeed we read of such a custome in Tertullians time but that was two hundred years after Christ but I find not the sense of the Church therein by him expressed to your purpose And Hierom mentioneth the same custom but giveth no such sense as you pretend to it being well known that he was for Infant-baptism And it appears not by any thing you here cite or say that such a custom proveth any thing against Baptism of Infants for whom milk and hony is fitter nourishment then for the strong 1 â—orinth 3. 2. Hebr. 5. 12 13. Your other conjecture is but feebly grounded yet you say But to infer the sense of the Pedo-baptists is so weak a manner of arguing that Augustine whose device it was and men use to to be in love with their own fancies at the most pretended it but as probable and a meer conjecture To which we answer 1. That things which Christ commanded to his Apostles could not be Augustines or any humane invention but a divine Institution such was baptizing of Infants as will appeare in due place And this is the ground of this whole controversie 2. That it was none of Augustines device or fancy with which he was therefore in love as being his own Augustine his self clearly testifieth S. Cyprian saith hâ— not composing any new decree but holding the most firm faith of the Church to correct their error who thought that an infant might not be baptized before he were eight days old he with certain his fellow-Bishops was of this sense that a new-born infant might rightly be baptized As for the words of Cyprian we have cited them a little before Cyprian with a Conncell of 66. Bishops resolved so not out of any then new-born opinion or decree but maintained that which was of old the firm faith and doctrine of the Church which was long before him And Cyprian flourished about the year of our Lord 222 and was crowned with martyrdom under the persecuting Emperour Valerian about the year 260. And St. Augustine flourished about the year 410. and died about the year 430. So that had Augustine as you say devised it it must have 150 years years before Augustine was born been devised by Augustine which had been a singular device indeed Origen of whom you say Augustine had this tradition of Baptizing Infants pag. 237. N. 25 saith because we are all conceived and born in sin the Church hath received a Tradition from the Apostles to administer Baptism to little children Now Origen lived about the same time with Cyprian How you can reconcile your self in that you here affirm that Pedobaptism was Augustines device and yet confesse that Augustine had it from Origen who died so many years before Augustine was born I say not to the truth but to your self I do not understand Iustin Martyr whom Tertullian mentioneth as an Ancestor he lived under the Emperour Antoninus Pius and Irenaeus speaketh of Infants baptized in his time Irenaeus speaking of Christs Baptism and entrance into his publique Ministery saith He sanctified every age by that similitude which was to himself for he came to save all by himself I say all who by him are regenerate to God infants and little ones boys young men and old therefore passed he through every age for infants he became an infant sanctifying infants c. This Irenaeus was so ancient that he saw Polycarp who was an hearer of some of the Apostles of Christ. It was therefore none of Augustines device 3. Whether this be true which you affirm that Augustine at the most pretended it but as probable and a meer conjecture to baptize infants as infants were circumcised let Augustine speak for himself who saith If any man in this thing look for Divine authority although that which the universal Church holdeth being no Decree of any Councell but hath been always observed that we must rightly believe to have been delivered no otherwise then by Apostolicall authority yet we may truly apprehend of what value the Sacrament of Baptism of Infants may be from the circumcision of the flesh which the former people received Abraham was justified before he received it as also Cornelius was endued with the gift of the holy Ghost before he was baptized c. why therefore was he commanded thenceforth to circumcise every male child on the eighth day seeing they could not yet believe with the heart c. but because the Sacrament it self is of iâ— self of great moment so untrue is it that Augustine either devised Infant-baptism or so slightly pretended to it as you report But you go on And as ill successe will they have with their other Arguments as with this And what is that for which you cry victory in your former encounters I will not be so expensive of time or so much entrench upon the Readers patience as to repeat let him judge of what he hath read But what other battalio's come next up You say From the action of Christs blessing Infants to inferre that they are to be baptized proves nothing so much as that there is great want of better Arguments A gallant flourish indeed but seriously Did Christ take them up in his arms and bless them and are they not blessed Doth not
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
of them to be baptised for the remission of sins he deriveth not the ground and reason thereof from their age nor from their repentance nor from their years of discretion but from the promise of God which was no lesse to their children in that very capacity then to themselves for the signe of the covenant Baptisme appertaineth to them also as being partakers of the common salvation in Christ Lastly how our infants have forfeited or lost the capacity which 't is most certaine the infants of Iewes had I know nor nor will the pleader ever make it appeare to us You say further But he that whenever the word children is used in Scripture shall by children understand infants must needs believe that in all Israel there were no men but all were infants and if that had been true it had been the greater wonder they should overcome the Anakims and beat the King of Moab and march so farre and discourse so well for they were all called the children of Israel We know the word children importeth not alwayes infants what then because it doth not in every place of Scripture signify infants therefore doth it not any where no not where infants are spoken of the promise before specified was to all Israel and their infants and unto them the seal of the covenant and promise appertained but because the men of wisdome and valour were included under the name of children were there no infants among them or doe you not take a child of eight dayes old when it was by Gods command and covenant to receive the seal to be an infant and why not now seeing the promise is as well and sure to us who though then farre off have now by the free mercy of God been called to the saving knowledge of the gospel for that promise of God to Abraham did not so belong to his seed according to the flesh as that it appertaines not unto us also for the Apostle clearly testifieth that it was not given to Abraham or his seed through the law but through the righteousnesse of faith and he was the father of all them that believe though they be not circumcised that righteousnesse might be imputed to them also and again he saith they which are of faith the same are the children of Abraham so Christ said that Zache converted to the same faith was that day the son of Abraham and indeed the eternall covenant which God made with Abraham's seed that he would be their God is not chiefly verified in his carnall seed for very few of them for some hundred years last past have been Gods people but rather professed enemies to those that are and therefore that covenant must be understood of Abraham's children according to that promise which is as sure and well to us who believe as ever it was to the Israelites and so we and our children are as justly to be reckoned children of Abraham and heirs of that promise as they ever were and if within the covenant and heires of the same promise what incapacity barreth our children from the same priviledges thereto subordinate and from the seal of admittance unto the same more then barred the carnall or naturall children of Abraham from the seal of the covenant which then was in use And for the allegation of S. Paul that infants are holy if their parents be faithfull it signifies nothing but that they are holy by designation just as Ieremy and Iohn Baptist were sanctified in their mothers womb that is they were appointed and designed for holy ministeries c. We answer whether you mean literally by holy ministries the office of priest or prophet or mystically a royall priesthood to offer up spirituall sacrifice acceptable to God by Iesus Christ that which you affirme will appeare very false for many of the children of believers are neither priests prophets nor so sanctified as to offer up spirituall sacrifice acceptable to God now the Apostle saith not else were some of your children unholy but now are they holy without exception of any so that his words being inâ—allibly true there must be some such holinesse there intended as universally concernes all that are born of believing parents which cannot be true in your sense of disignation to holy ministries nor in the other sense concerning sanctification by the spirit of adoption and regeneration peculiar to the elect of God nor is it to be understood as some think of a meer political cleannesse seeing that out of the Church also there is a difference between the legitimate and spurious children it must be understood therefore of a federall or ecclesiasticall holinesse to which reprobates if born of believing parents or at least of either parent being a belâ—ever and within the covenant may have right as well as the elect so had Ismael Esau and millions more as well as Isaack and Iacob by this federall or ecclesiasticall holinesse they have right unto the seal of initiation and admittance into the Church whereas they who are born of both parents without the Church are counted unclean that is Gods promise and the seal thereof appertaine not unto them neither may they be baptised untill growing up and being instructed they repent and embrace the faith of Christ and it is not improbable which some say that the form of the Apostles speaking seemeth derived from the Leviticall law in which it was ordained that some persons should for a time be barred as unclean from comming within the tents of Israel so the children of infidels are unclean and not presently to be admitted into the Church by baptism which is the doore and inlet thereto ever standing open to the clean and as under the law some beasts were clean and some unclean that is by a Leviticall or ceremonial cleanesse or uncleanesse for it was neither spirituall nor civill so the Apostle 1 Cor. 7. 14. understandeth an ecclesiâ—sticall holinesse that is a Church-priviledge to be admitted to baptisme so that indeed the Pleader weakly mistaketh when he concludeth that just so the children of Christian parents are sanctified that is designed to the service of Iesus Christ and the future participation of the promises but he saith further And as the promise appertaines not for ought appeares to infants in that capacity and consâ—stence but only by the title of their being reasonable creatures and when they come to that act of which by nature they have the faculty c. No colour or proportion can appeare to the blind or those who willfully shut their eyes nor any truth be it never so evident to them on whom is the curse Isai. 6. 9. 10. As for that you say concerning the title of their being reasonable creatures I referre the reader to that which hath been answered Numb 19. Onely adding here if the promise of God appertaine to infants onely as they are reasonable creatures what was the priviledge of the Iew or what
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
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 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
wholly fail there is nothing left to inferre a necessity of complying in this circumstance of age any more then in the other annexes of the type It wholly holds in substance for ought you have said to the contrary and therefore your following instances are frivolous As concerning baptizing the eighth day we answer 1. That whereas God appointed no set day for baptism we have the greater liberty to do it at the most convenient season on the first second third fourth c. or on any day so that we neither contemn Gods ordinance nor unnecessarily delay it 2. As hath been noted baptism sucâ—â—eded circumâ—ision not in every circumstance but in the thing signified in the end and use 3. This your argument is a fallacious and childish caption à fallacia accidentis from the subject to the accident from the substance to the circumstance as the learned Dr. Featly observeth such a fallacy is this What the Jews were commâ—nded in the fourth Commandement that we Christians are bound to perform But the Jews were commanded to keep holy the seventh day from the creation Therefore we Christians are bound to keep that day Such is this Paralogism If Baptisme succeeded Circumcision then children ought to be baptized the eight day it no more followeth then that children ought to be baptized in the same part where thâ—y were circumcised it will follow rather That because Circumcision was administred to the infant as soon as it was capable thereof or could receive the Sacrament without danger therefore children ought to be baptized as soon as conveniently they may But you say The case is clear in the Bishops question to Cyprian for why shall not infants be baptized just upon the eighth day as well as circumcised If the correspondence of the Rites be an Argument to inferre one circumstance which is impertinent and accidentall to the mysteriousnesse of the Rite why shall it not inferre all The case is as clear in the Question of Fidus the Presbyter whom you call Bishop as it is in your objecting it Fidus made a querie or rather affirmed that Infants ought not to be baptized on the second or third day but that the law of ancient circumcision ought to be considered so that he thought the newâ— born infant might not be baptized within â—r before the eigâ—â—h day Cyprian answereth There is one eâ—uality of the Divine gift to all whether they are inâ—ants or old men for as God is no accepter of persons so neither is he of ages buâ— he shews himself in an even-ballanced equality alike to â—ll as to their attaining heavenly grace if to grievous offenders and to those who have before that much sinned against God and no man is prohibited baptism and grace how much less ought the infant to be prohibited who being new-born hath committed no sin onely that in Adam He hath in his first nativity been infected with the contagion of ancient death But concerning the cause of infants who you say are not to be baptized at two or three dayes old and that we are to consider the law of ancient circumcision so that yâ—u think that a child born may not be baptized before the eighth day all that were in our Councell are of a far different judgment for no man consenteth to that which you thought was to be done but we all rather judged that the merâ—y and grace of God is to be deâ—ed â—o no man born Let the Reader judge bow clear the case is in the Bishops question to Cypriâ—n To the rest of your Arguments we say you dispute ex non concessis We do not say that â—â—e correspondence of Rites inferre the circumstances but the substanceâ— but errors are fruitfull and one absurdity granteâ— many easily follow For that you say from your own fancy which you run away withall And then also fâ—mâ—les must not be baptized because they were not ciâ—cumcised We answer 1. As we have said before baptism succeeded circumcision not in every circumstance which your selves justiâ—ie in that you baptize women but in the substance the thing signified the end and use or as others say in the inward mystery in the promises in use in effects 2. God expressly â—estrained circumcision to males Gen. 17. 10 1â— 14. yâ—t the females were comprehended in the males and to be born of circumcised parents was to them in 〈◊〉 of circumcision and so were they born to God and in his account Daughters of Abraham Luke 13. 16. and so within his covenant of grace and mercy and the sealing of males was then limited to the eighth day but now in baptism the circumstances of sex age and a fixed day are not expressly mentioned but we have a generall commandement to baptize all without exception to any time sex or age 3. Though women were not capable of circumcision and therefore it was not enjoyned them yet the female is as capable of baptism as the male and therefore without exception to sex they who are all one in Christs account must equally be baptized into him 4. Circumcision and Baptism agreeing in substance did yet differ in many circumstances First in the Rite or Ceremony Secondly in the manner of signifying For Circumcision held out grace in the Messias then to come but baptism presenteth it in Christ exhibited Thirdly in the particular testimony annexed to make good the promise for then God promised not onely a covenant with his Church but a pâ—culiar place for the same the land of Caâ—aan untill the coming of the promised Seed but baptism hath no particular promise of this or that fixed place Fourthly in the manner of binding Circumcision did oblige the circumcised to the observation of the whole Law Morall Ceremoniall and Judiciall but baptism bindeth us onely to the observation of the Morall â—aw that is faith repentance and newness of life according to the holy Rule of Gods will revealed in the Moral Law from the curse whereof in respect of non-performance we are delivered in Christ into whom we are baptized Fifthly in their appointed continuance Circumcision was appointed onely for Abrahams posterity and to continue onely unto the coming of Christ but baptism was instituted for all Nations and times unto the worlds end Lastly in circumstance of sex and age so far as circumcision was limited to males and the eighth day So that to argue as you do from the substance to the circumstance or that which is accidentall is fallacious and captious as hath been shewed You say Therefore as Infants were circumcised so spirituall Infants shall be baptized c. This you think a right understanding of the business after your shuâ—â—ling together many strange impertinencies to tell us of baptizing spirituall Infants To which we answer If you mean by Spirituall Infants such as are born again of water and the holy Ghost then you would have them twice regenerate or born If you mean Believers onely