sprinkling Infants Nay the Church of Rome will by this Argument stand on equal Terms with you for many of her Ceremonies which you disallow For admit one Error and a thousand will follow Thus by your Argument Men may run they know not whither and return they know not when I now come to your two main Arguments for this you seem not much to rest upon but you use it ad hominem Mr. Petto's first Argument for Infant-Discipleship Some Infants are so discipled as to have the Name of the Father Son and holy Spirit upon them Therefore by the Will of Christ they are to be baptised Answer This Argument supposes that some Infants have the Name of Father Son and Spirit upon them before they be baptised This I take to be the newest Piece of Doctrine in the World and therefore must needs enquire what Infants these are How Mr. Petto knows them from others And at what time before their Baptism and also by whom this Name is put upon them and in what manner it is done For all these things he ought to know before according to his own Logick he may baptise them Till he do this and he must do it well too I deny his Antecedent Saying also that no Infants are discipled at all much less so as to have the Name of the Father Son and Holy Spirit upon them My Reasons are such as these 1. God hath not made this distinction in Gospel-times between some Infants and other some so as to disciple some of them by putting the Name of Father Son and Holy Spirit upon them He has taken down the Wall of distinction between Jew and Gentile accounting the one as clean as the other Act. 10. 28. And has given the same Order for discipling to all Nations Matth. 28. 19. but not a word in that Order to put his Name of Father Son and Holy Spirit upon any Person before they be baptised 2. No Man has Authority by the Word of God to make Infants Disciples at all much less by putting the Name of Father Son and Holy Spirit upon them before Baptism But the only Way assign'd by God to make Disciples is first by preaching the Gospel to them Mark 16. 15. Preach the Gospel to every Creature which shews the true Intent of our Saviour in the Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to which you refer us And our Criticks do allow that it signifies an actual teaching both in the Hebrew and Greek But the best Interpreter of that Verb is the Practice of our Saviour and his Apostles who made Disciples by actual teaching John 4. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 plainly evincing the Truth of this 3. If it could be proved that the Name of the Trinity were upon the Infants of Christians yet this would not bear your Conclusion that they must be baptised any more than it will bear Augustin's Conclusion that they ought to partake of the Lord's Table Dr. Jer. Taylor and Dr. Barlow confess you may do both as well as either and that the Wit of Man cannot shew a difference in the Sanctions And indeed all your Arguments for Infants Church-Membership and Baptism if they were good might be improved against you concerning the other Ordinance for admit one Error and another will follow But let us examine your Scriptures by which you would prove your Antecedent 1. You bring Matth. 28. 19. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Disciple ye all Nations Now if these Words did oblige the Apostles to put the Name of Father Son and Holy Spirit upon all Persons or Nations before Baptism it quite spoils your Argument which would restrain it to some Infants only Why do you thus abuse the Word Did the Apostles put the Name of the Father Son and Holy Spirit upon any one Infant Is not the Scripture silent as to this Or did they put the Name c. upon any to whom they preached till they received their Doctrine Or did they do this before they baptised them In that solemn Institution they did put the Name of the Father Son and Holy Spirit upon all such as gladly received the Word Act. 2. 40. Act. 10. ult And for this they had full Authority Matth. 28. 19. Mark 16. 15 16. even to preach to and so to disciple all Nations baptising them viz. Mathet as subintelligitur in verbum Mathetusate as the Practice of Christ had directed them John 4. 1. Jesus made and baptised more Disciples than John. And Junius and Tremelius adds the Particle Et Ite ergo docete omnes populos baptisate eos c. 2. You tell us they are Disciples not only who actually learn but who are in the School of Christ his Church in order to their future Learning This is not true 1. Infants are not in the School or Church of Christ as it is a School to learn any thing whilst they are Infants God has neither bound his Ministers to teach them whilst such nor enabled them to learn as such If you say this future teaching respects not the time of their Infancy then were you very fallacious in your Argument for this will prove all the Infants in the World to be Disciples as well as any of them seeing Christ's Church is the Light of the World and all that come to Years of Discretion having opportunity are bound to learn of her 2. But yet it does not follow that all who are under present means of Instruction are therefore to be accounted Disciples For you know many heard Christ preach who yet were none of his Disciples but his Persecutors many heard his Apostles teach who yet were not their Disciples for they put the Word of God from them and judged themselves unworthy of eternal Life I suppose also that all that hear Mr. Petto are not his Disciples how much less poor Infants that never heard him at all And here I require Mr. P. to name one Infant that he ever made a Disciple according to Matth. 28. and that will do more a great deal than his empty Dictates 3. You bring Act. 8. 3. and 9. 1. which shews how Saul made havock of the Churches entring into every House haling Men and Women to Prison and that he breathed out Slaughter against the Disciples Sure you may blush to bring such Texts to prove Infants Disciples nor will Act. 15. 10. bear your Inference The false Apostles would indeed have had the Disciples among the Gentiles to have been circumcis'd but it does not follow at all that every one were Disciples whom they would have circumcised This is just such a Consequence as this You would have Infants to be sprinkled Ergo all are Infants whom ye would have sprinkled This Consequence you will deny because you would have others also sprinkled who are no Infants And for the same reason I deny your Consequence for the false Apostles would have circumcis'd some who were no Disciples to wit Infants You bring here Gen. 17. but this we will consider
anon and Acts 21. 4 5. This Place informs us That the Disciples told Paul by the Spirit that he should not go up to Jerusalem Is it possible that * Infants who are not mentioned here should be of the number of these Disciples It is true 't is said that the Wives and Children went with Paul to the Sea-shore and kneeled down and prayed But are all Children Infants Or if there were any Infants did they kneel down upon the Sea-shore and pray with Paul And if not to what purpose has he brought these Scriptures 4. He brings a Cloud of other Scriptures in Figures for had he read them his Folly would have been seen with more ease Let us hear what these Scriptures say 1 Pet. 1. 15. As he which hath called you is holy so be ye holy in all manner of Conversation Heb. 7. 26. For such an high Priest became us who is holy What must these Places prove I will set down your own Words As to the Name of the Trinity that of being holy is attributed often to Father Son and Holy Spirit And this very Name of the Lord holy he hath imposed upon the Children of Believers But what a wretched Consequence is here as if it would follow that all for whom Christ offered up himself or for whom he was God's High-Priest has thereupon the Name of Father Son and Holy Spirit on them Why according to this Logick Saul had the Name of Father Son and Holy Spirit upon him when he persecuted all that called on that Name And the Scripture is very plain that whilst we were Enemies Christ died for us but we had not then the Name of Father Son and Holy Spirit imposed on us And how follows it that because Christians are exhorted to be holy in all manner of Conversation that therefore Infants are discipled so as to have the Name of Father Son and Holy Spirit upon them Might not a Man by this kind of reasoning prove that all the Infants in the World have the Name of the Father Son and Holy Spirit upon them I am sure that God is the God of the Spirits of all Flesh and that all Nations are in respect of his gracious Providence his People and Sheep of his Pasture and exhorted to enter into his Ways with Praise and Thanksgiving Psal 100. The Places you bring from the Epistle to the Ephesians cap. 1. 13. and 4. 30. informs us that after Men believed they were sealed with the Holy Spirit this shews these Persons were no Infants Rom. 11. 16. shews that an holy Root has holy Branches 1 Pet. 2. 9. tells us Christians are a chosen Generation a royal Priest-hood a holy Nation a peculiar People that you should shew forth the Praises of him that hath called you out of Darkness into his marvellous Light. As for Rom. 11. 16. it evidently refers to the great things which God will do when he calls the Jews which were cast off and so it little concerns our Question otherwise it were easy to shew that at that time how holy soever Abraham had been yet his Children were prophane enough But Mr. Petto's Drift is to make Men believe that each of them whom he calls Believers are as holy a Root in respect of conferring Church-Priviledges as Abraham was and so their Children must needs be holy for Baptism But this is a very unlawful consequence seeing Abraham never did nor ever can confer that Holiness upon so much as one of his Offspring which shall entitle them to Baptism because every particular Person 's Repentance and Faith is required as the true Antecedents to Baptism as is granted by the Church of England in her Catechism But how well she keeps to her Doctrine therein admits of consideration Upon 1 Cor. 7. 14. you teach that Infants are holy by separation to God and his Service But Sir can you tell us what Service of God Infants are fit for If other Men may judg as well as you then as they are not able to serve God in spiritual things so God requires it not of them whilst Infants But so strangely are you transported here that you tell us from Mr. Cotton That Sin it self is sanctified to Believers This is another Strain of new Doctrine and will it not follow from your Doctrine that Sin hath the Name of Father Son and holy Spirit upon it Let Mr. Cotton look to it You must have a care how you take up such Notions You will by no means admit the Holiness here mentioned to be meant of a Matrimonial or Legitimate Holiness And yet I pray what Sanctification of the Unbeliever can that be but Matrimonial so as the believing Husband and the unbelieving Wife might cohabit together as Husband and Wife without Sin The Childrens Holiness is derived from this Sanctification of the Unbeliever as the Word else being rightly referred does shew it doth This Holiness therefore in true Construction of the place is most fitly interpreted as Erasmus doth expound it of Legitimacy and so did the eminent Man Augustine of Hippo long before Erasmus take the sence for he tells us whatsoever that Holiness is it is certain it is not of Power to make Christians or remit Sins 5. The Figures which you give us out of the Old Testament are Lev. 19. 2. and 20. 7. Exod. 16. 6. Deut. 7. 6. and 14. 2. and 26. 19. and 28. 9. All which do shew That God was the Lord that Israel should know that he is the Lord that he is a holy God and that they should be a holy People But what is all this to your purpose God spake not these things to Infants he tells us so himself Deut. 11. 2. And know you this day for I speak not with your Children which have not known and which have not seen the Chastisement of the Lord your God his Greatness his mighty Hand and stretch'd out Arm c. ver 7. but your Eyes have seen c. Therefore ye shall keep all the Commandments c. Sure you have not proved your Argument by any thing you have yet brought for that purpose For By all that you have said it appears not that some Infants are so discipled as to have the Name of the Father Son and Holy Spirit upon them Nor are you able to name so much as one such Infant now in being and consequently you can with no shew of Reason baptise them I consider again Who must do this previous Work to Infant-Baptism Must the same Minister do both And what Order have you to put the Name of Father Son and Holy Ghost upon Infants twice once before you sprinkle them and then again when you sprinkle them There is one thing remarkable from your self and others in these later times who espouse this Controversy You all seem to be convinced that none are to be baptised but Disciples according to Matth. 28. 19. and indeed the Text is so very clear to that purpose that it cannot be
denied But when I behold the miserable Shifts you are put to to prove Infants Disciples according to Christ's Commission Matth. 28. 19. I do with the greatest Admiration bewail your Unhappiness and cannot tell how to imagine that any wise Men among you does really believe your selves in what you say on that account And sure I am the Papists have as strong a pretence from Hoc est Corpus meum for their Transubstantiation as you have from Matheteusaté for Infant-Discipleship And to speak freely they are both incredible things all Sense and Experience militates equally against both Opinions If they be Truths it must be because they are both Miracles but then they want the Character of true Miracles for they are no ways demonstrable that there is any Miracle at all in either of them we are only told that they are so i. e. that the Bread in the Eucharist is Real Flesh That the Child in your Rantism is born again of Water and Spirit made a Disciple of Christ c. but no mortal Man knows any of these things to be true And what is it that we may not believe if we must believe such things as these Prayer for the Dead Purgatory fire c. will come upon us armed with our own Arguments if we admit the former And to conclude as to your first Argument Give me leave to say if your Hearers can receive your Dictates and ill-prov'd Affirmations I know not but they may believe you in whatsoever you will be pleased to tell them What you say of the Antiquity of Infant-Baptism I shall here consider in few words for since you insist only upon Cyprian's Testimony whose Grounds for Infant-Baptism you confess to be unsound I need say little here that which was built upon bad Principles then by him and stands upon as unsound ones now by you does gain nothing by either of you But will you know that it is plainly granted by some of the most Learned of your way That there is neither Precept nor Practice in Scripture for Infant-Baptism Here it wants the best Antiquity nor any just Evidence for it for about two hundred Years after Christ. Yet it came in upon a gross Mistake of the Scripture that in what Mr. Baxter and Dr. Hammond has said for it there is nothing that looks like an Argument Dr. Barlow This is enough at present PART II. Wherein is considered Mr. Petto's second Argument which he delivers in these Words If some Infants be visibly or externally in the Covenant which God made with Abraham then by the Will of Christ they are to be baptized But some Infants are visibly or externally in the Covenant which God made with Abraham Therefore by the Will of Christ they are to be baptized BEfore I answer this Argument I shall consider a few things And 1. That as Mr. Petto grants God made the Covenant of Grace with Abraham twenty four years before he gave him the Covenant of Circumcision see Gen. 12. 1 2 3 4. with 17. 24. so that the Covenant of Grace had no external Sign as it was made with Abraham Gen. 12. But when God was pleased to add to this Covenant the Promise of the Land of Canaan c. then it was that he gave him the Law of Circumcision and these additional Parts I take to be most properly if not only that which is the Covenant of Circumcision 2. It is to be understood that Abraham was not the only Person in the World which was under the Covenant of Grace at this time when God made Covenant with Abraham Gen. 17. 'T is observed by some that Salah lived after the Covenant of Circumcision was made about 50 years Arphaxad lived thirteen years after and that Heber lived till Jacob was about twenty years old which was long after Abraham died Now these with Melchisedeck if he were not one of these with many others amongst whom was just Lot were not only true Worshippers of God according to the Covenant of Grace but some of them superiour to Abraham himself for Melchisedeck blessed Abraham being the King of Salem and Priest of the most high God. 3. And as neither these nor their Posterity were liable to any loss of the Covenant of Grace by their not being circumcised after the manner of Abraham so neither Job nor other worthy Men that were not of the Seed of Abraham according to the Flesh had any obligation to Circumcision from whence it must needs follow that God intended not the sign of Circumcision to belong to Persons as they were in the Covenant of Grace but that it was appropriate for some great Ends respecting a special preservation to the Family of Abraham as of the Kindred from whom Christ should proceed and with whom he would presence himself in a Land of Promise by a distinct way of Worship from all Nations who at that time were falling very fast into Idolatry 4. And besides this it is certain that this Sign of Circumcision was by God's Appointment to be affixed to some to whom the Covenant of Grace might seem to have the least extent or at least they did forfeit all Interest in it this was the case of Ishmael and Esau who proved very wicked and it is to be questioned whether the Bondmen or Slaves in Israel had that Ceremony as a Badge of the Covenant of Grace Men may talk high of these things and prove little or whether Circumcision was a Seal of the Righteousness of Faith to any Person in the World save to Abraham And in what sence it was so to him who had so many things peculiar to him is not easy to be demonstrated 5. Our Practice in Religious Institutes is not to be gathered from such uncertain Conjectures but to stand upon the clear Direction of the Instituter or the Practice of such as God hath thought fit to make Precedents to us and it is certain we are not at all concerned in the Law of Circumcision and for us to take our Rules thence for the Subjects of Baptism is very childish and reflects Dishonour upon Christ and his Apostles who never sent us to learn Infant-Baptism from Infant-Circumcision nor indeed have they taught it at all These things premised I answer to the Argument by these ensuing Distinctions 1. If by Covenant Mr. P. means the Covenant of Circumcision as he does for he quotes Gen. 7. 9 10 11. to prove his Assumption and by some Infants he means the Infants of Christians as such as that is his meaning then I deny his Minor. 2. Or if by Covenant he mean that Covenant of Grace Gen. 12. distinct from the Covenant of Circumcision and by some Infants being in this Covenant externally he means Infants are concerned in the outward Profession or Practice of Worship still I deny the Minor for God by that Covenant of Grace Gen. 12. never required the Performance of such Duties of Infants 3. If by Covenant he mean the gracious Pardon of