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 Jews 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 be 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 saith as Cyprian saith it was provided from the beginning that they should profess their faith by others that as anothers fault to wit Adam cur 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 Justin 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 caeter is paribss 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 insant-baptism but that you call it Demonstrative and Unanswerable 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 insant 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 shal 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 shall 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 but 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 laver 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 Cernelius 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
Baptisme by a kind of self-excommunication Again we say Thâ—t to condemne the Doctrine of Anabaptists upon great grounds of Reason seems to lay too narrow a ground and possibly too unsound a foundation for our profession specially if we consider what is here said Sect. 10. Num. 2. concerning the pretended authority of Reason and following his guide so far as his Reason goes along with him Or which is all one he that follows his own Reason c. which guidance by Divine Revelation and I know not what other good means he meaneth he saith hath great advantages But to leave ambiguities of words and confusion of senses we affirm That the word of God is our ground and guide in matters of Faith and Religion which even the greatest pretenders to humane authority and undervaluers of holy Scriptures do acknowledge in their soberer fits and that the Spirit of God illuminateth the elect whom he calleth guideth and enableth to obedience against the dictates of carnall reason and the corrupt affections ofâ—flesh and blood If he mean any other Divine Revelation then that which is consonant to the known and invariable Rule of Gods word I know not what greater advantage Satan could desire for leading beguiled souls to hell blindfold then to find them following their own reason and putting their salvations upon pretended revelations our faith is on Gods truth not humane Reason which in this life is not so absolutely purged from the contagion of sin ignorance and error since the Apostles being furnished with infallibility of Spirit but that it is subject to some errors and therefore though we disclaim all blind obedience to man in acts of Religion yet we submit to God in believing every thing which he saith adoring his Truth which we cannot by any strength of humane Reason examine Moreover we say seeing that only may and can be the ground of our Faith which cannot erre or be false and seeing that we are built upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets Jesus Christ himself being the chief Corner-stone Ephes. 2. 20. we cannot consent to be taken off from that infallible certainty and to be set upon the moveable and loose sand of onely Great grounds of Reason or any thing lesse known certain and infallible then the holy word of God which we know cannot deceive us It will neither be unpleasant nor unprofitable to draw a short Scheme of plea for each party the result of which possibly may be that though they be deceived yet they have so great excuse on their side c. Surely unpleasing to God it is to make sport with matters of so high concernment and to play with holy things for so this plea must be except you are in earnest for the Anabaptists or for fear or favour of men so to temporize as thereby to endanger as much as you can the Cause and Truth of Christ. And how it can be either pleasing to any good Christian which displeaseth God or profitable which causeth any to erre from the truth in pleading for that which you acknowledge to be a Doctrine justly condemned I confesse I understand not Possibly Joash would here have replied to such a short Scheme of plea will ye plead for Baal That their error is not impudent or vincible To say an impudent error is but an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and impropriety of speech which in more exact expression I suppose you would render they are not impudent in defence of their error If so I onely appeale to experience As for that which you say They have so great excuse on their side that their error is not vincible seems a contradiction in the adject who believes any error to be invincible who believeth that Christ the Truth John 14. 6. hath sufficiently delivered that heavenly light in the Gospel which though God permit it sometimes to be clowded shall shine clear and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it but it shall put to flight and overcome every darkness of error specially in things pernitious and about the foundation I say not to the sense of those whom God justly giveth over to strong delusions that they may perish who receive not the love of the truth that they might be saved but to the Goshen and Israel of God appointed to salvation How else should it be that our faith should be the Victory that overcometh the world except it be in the invincible truth and faith in him who hath overcome the world John 16. 33. For by World Christ here meaneth and comprehendeth all that which is contrary to the salvation of the Elect specially those falsehoods and errors which Satan by any means broacheth to corrupt and overthrow the true Faith See Heb. 11. 1 c. Mat. 16. 8. The Baptisme of Infants rests wholly on this Discourse If that were true your plea for Anabaptists were lesse condemnable but the contrary will appeare in due place But whether they have originall sin or no Indeed the Pelagians an old Sect of Hereticks denied that Infants were born in originall sin And Celestius affirmed That Adams sin hurt onely himself but not mankind And others that Infants are born in the same state in which Adam was before his transgression But the holy Scripture plainly condemnes this Heresie See Job 14. 4 Psalm 51. 5. John 3. 5. 1 Cor. 15 50. Rom. â— 12. 1 Cor. 15. 22. Eph. 2. 3. So do all the Reformed Churches and Papists too vid. Bellar. l. 4. de amissione gratie stat peccati Besides woful experience teaching us that children die demonstrateth that they brought that guilt into the world with them which subjected them to the sentence of death and participation of the punishment of Adams sin which could not be except they were partakers of his guilt because God is just That they have contracted the guilt of Adams sin you confesse pag 230 Num 16. Infants cannot by any act of their own promote the hope of their own salvation which men of reason and choyce may by acts of vertue and election Faith and hope of salvation are not of our selves but the gift of God Eph. â— 8. And what hope infants have or acts of reason how God applieth the merit of Christ to Infants who became an infant that he might also save them is a secret unknown to me and therefore I do neither anxiously enquire nor rashly determine That men of reason and choyce may promote their hope of salvation by acts 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 Scripture is expresse You hath he quickned who were dead in trespasses and sins and were by nature the children of wrath even as others
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 a 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 Inheritance a. Your instance importeth onely a circumstantiall not a substantiall difference 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 that very seal of Gods Covenant which they bare in their flesh served for a witnesse against the soul of the Covenant-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 so also they must be capable of Reason either in act that they may presently understand those 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 to 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 he 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 Suffer little children to come unto me and forbid them not for of such is the Kingdom of Heaven Mark 10. 14. Luke 18. 16. I demand quojure 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 flesh 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 effectuall 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 baptism 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 ens 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 â—ver 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 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 succeeded circumcision 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 commanded 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 they 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 new-born infant might not be baptized within or before the eighth day Cyprian answereth There is one equality of the Divine gift to all whether they are infants or old men for as God is no accepter of persons so neither is he of ages but he shews himself in an even-ballanced equality alike to all 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 you 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 mercy and grace of God is to be denied to no man born Let the Reader judge how clear the case is in the Bishops question to Cyprian To the rest of your Arguments we say you dispute ex non concessis We do not say that the correspondence of Rites inferre the circumstances but the substance but errors are fruitfull and one absurdity granted many easily follow For that you say from your own fancy which you run away witha◠And then also females must not be baptized because they were not circumcised We answer 1. As we have said before baptism succeeded circumcision not in every circumstance which your selves justifie 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 restrained circumcision to males Gen. 17. 10 12 14. yet the females were comprehended in the males and to be born of circumcised parents was to them in stead 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 peculiar place for the same the land of Cauaan 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 Law 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 fallacions and captions 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 shuffling 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 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
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 despiser 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. signifie 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 Justin Martyr Chrysostome Theophilact Cyril Euthymius Augustine Rupertus Bonaventure Musculus B. Aretius R Rolloc 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 saith 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 4â—â—â—â— To conclude it doth not appear that Water and the Spirit in the fore-cited place John 3. 5. signifie one and the same thing Although Christs Baptisme with the Spirit which gives the effect of Baptism were more excellent then John 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 fanaticall Jacobite 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. 21. 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 Jesus 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 Jesus 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 Christ 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 consult their own consciences whether they find there the effect of their baptism so that he neither 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 say 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 admitted to the Lords Supper But in this agument there is a Sophisma â—lenchi for first it wants the condition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 if we follow your sense concerning spirituall infants taking infants for spirituall or regenerate persons in the major and for those who are literally infants in the minor and it wanteth also 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 There is no question but that baptized
common salvation in Christ Lastly how our infants have forfeited or lost the capacity which 't is most certaine the infants of Jewes had I know not 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 righteousness of faith and he was the father of all them that believe though they be not circumcised that righteousnesse might be impured 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 Jeremy and John 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 Jesus 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 infallibly 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 believer 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 ecclesiasticall 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 Jesus 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 consistence 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 Jew 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 Jewes 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 faith and repentance In those acts the persons and children of Turks and Jews 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 which may be homonymically intended and then your discourse is meerly captions and â—o 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 reduced 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 gifs 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 trifle 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 seisin the conveyance and chirogrophuâ—â— 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 fignes 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 aâ—ointed Saul whereas Samuelâ—nointed â—nointed him so Jesus made and baptized more disciple then John whereas Jesus baptized noâ— 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 threo 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 is to be ministred and from thence to infer poede-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 that are capable of the same grace are not alwaies capable of the signe thereof If so alta pax esto We say so too for infants being capable of the same grace which is exhibited and received in the Lords supper are not alwaies that is while they are children capable of the same signe because they cannot examin themselves nor shew forth the Lords death and
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 other doctrines this the Church ever had ever held c. doubtless the custom is very ancient Histories tell us of it in the time of Higinus who was coetaneous with Polycarp a disciple of S Johns 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 circumâ—â—sed 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. lunius 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 Nazianzâ—n 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 â—ender 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 reckons up severall sorts of those whose Baptism was deferred some for sloth or insatiable desire of sinning others are not in ability to receive it either for their infancy or some sudden and violent accident disabling them so that they cannot receive this grace if they would True infants have neither ability nor will to come to Baptism nor can those though of years who are accidentally disabled they have not power though they have a will
from the womb for many dying young are saved which being conceived in sin and born the children 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 hath 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 snbordinate 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. 2. 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 sweet 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 morâ—â— and why shall man exclude them from the external Seal of Gods Covenaut 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 Jesus 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 naeture 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 unto 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 Jesus on the baptized for the remission of sins 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
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 John 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 wish 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 untrue 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 opimons less then blasphemous against God or destructive to Religion and salvation of souls saving to Supreme Authoritie their lawful right agenda est ut sit voluntas Longe diversa sunt carnificina pietas I also assent to but can by no mean◠be of your opinion that there is less evidence then truth or 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 judicatuye 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 he damned who received not the love of the truth of it self evident enough ◠that they might be saved here of see 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 blind see the Sun what can you gain hereby it may be and certainly is that the Gospels light is hid to some the Apostle will tell you to whom and why 2 Cor. 4. 3 4. It is hid to them that are lost in whom the God of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not lest the light of the glorious Gospel of Christ should shine
man to have instituted that Sacrament but though Christ say nowhere baptize children at seven dayes six months seven years or though he say nowhere Baptize women yet neither of these are Will-worship because the substance and institution of Baptism is grounded on his express command age and sexe are accidents Lastly If the major proposition be particular the rule is well known Of meer particulars nothing is concluded 2 There was an express command for the sealing of Abrahams sons in their generations in their infancie Gen. 17. 7. c. and Believers are expresly the sons or children of Abraham Gal. 3. 7. that is his spiritual seed who have no less priviledge in things belonging to salvation then his carnal seed And the Apostles who were Jews and brought up amongst them who were sealed in their infancie did not that we read of so much as ask Christ any question what they were to do with Infants and Christ giving them no prohibition concerning them he did thereby sufficiently intimate that he having not repealed the law of sealing Infants into his covenant would have them proceed according to the Analogie of the first seal of his covenant The greater doubt might possibly have been concerning baptizing of females who were not formerly sealed the doubt concerning the Gentiles sealing being removed by an express precept Baptize all Nations Mat. 28. 19. 3 On this very ground on which Anabaptists deny Infant-baptism the old Sadduces denyed the resurrection of the dead because they found it not expresly written in the books of Moses which only they received See what hath been answered to the Pleader near the end 4 Although we read not in terminis and so many words and syllables in holy Scripture Baptize Infants yet we read it in most firm and evident consequence if we but hold these three certain conclusions 1 That Children are conceived and born in sin the children of wrath 2 That God would not have them perish but rather be brought into the holy communion of Christ and his Church that they may be saved 3 That he hath appointed no other external ordinary means to us known for Infants regeneration but baptism 5 If the matter must be put upon express words of Scripture let our Antagonists shew us where they are expresly forbidden to baptize Infants where is there any syllable express or probable for re-baptizing any where have they any express precept for dipping over head and ears where have they any express precept for their long prayers for baptizing women or administring the communion to them shew us any express precept for the change of the Sabbath That which we read not expresly mentioned in Scripture that the Apostles did that we may not do but we read not in express words in Scripture that the Apostles ever baptized Infants therefore we may not baptize them We answer 1 If your principle were true it might thence be concluded that the Lords Supper may not be administred to women for we no where read in express words that the Apostles ever administred it unto them 2 Express words in Scripture are not alwayes necessary to prove a thing which necessary consequence doth conclude we have no express words in Scripture naming an holy Unitie in Trinitie and Trinitie in Unitie most undeniable consequence we have Mat. 28. 19 1 Joh. 5. 7. Again we have no express word that the Apostles were baptized for Christ himself baptized none Joh. 4. 1. c. and we read not where or when John Baptist baptized them yet certainly they were baptized we read not expresly that the Apostles in baptizing mentioned the Father the Son and the holy Ghost but most certain consequence concludeth it because Christ so appointed it and it was of the essence of the Sacrament and why should we more tie the baptism of Infants to express words then any of these fundamental things are tyed and on the like consequential grounds why should we doubt whether the Apostles did indeed usually baptize Infants of Christians because it is not expresly written seeing that many other words matters and actions of the Apostles and Christ himself were not written 3 Christ expresly commanded to baptize all Nations in no one syllable title or word therein excepting Infants who are and ever were a great and numerous part thereof and that which concerneth all alike concerneth every part thereof When Peter was asked what was needful to be done for the Jews prickt at heart Act. 2. 37 38. he said Repent and be baptized but Infants can neither actually repent nor contribute any thing towards their baptism therefore they ought not to be baptized And again Mat. 3. they confessed their sins and were baptized which Infants cannot do We answer 1 Forasmuch as Infants cannot actually as such repent or confess it concludeth that these things for the present concern not Infants for no impossibilitie is reasonably enjoined any but belong to persons of years or those who were not yet sealed into the communion of Christs Church and it is apparent that unto such Peter spake as far as his words concerned Infants is also express be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins for the promise is to you and to your children What promise why that Gen. 17. 7. To what children was that promise made what to those who had been children but were now of years to be taught believe and repent No but to those first who were to be sealed the eighth day after they were born who certainly could then no more actually believe or repent then can our Infants now therefore 't is plain to those who will understand that persons of years to be taught must first repent c. but Infants to whom the promise covenant or seal thereof jointly belongeth must besealed as joint-covenanters with their Parents before they can actually believe or repent for why else after this exhortation to repentance and baptism doth he mention their children were they no wayes liable to this double precept repent and be baptized every one of you who they only who can actually for the present repent nay but Peter knew well that children of whom he spake could not do that by reason of their present want of the use of reason yet he knew they had need of remission of sins by Christ and that the promise of God was made to them without which 't were but vain for men to seal and as firmly concerned them as their enchurched parents and therefore he mentioned 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
not to suffer sin to reign in our mortal bodies he saith not Let not flesh and blood the natural man live any longer or any more be active but Let not sin reign c. for Christ came not to destroy our nature but to correct our depraved will and affections 3 There is not in all the New Testament any one precept or example for rebaptizing therfore it ought not to be done the constant judgment and practice of the Church of Christ being to the contrary it is neither commanded in the institution of baptism nor in any Scripture admitted nor is it tolerable by any necessary consequence as is the contrary Johns baptism and Christs were one whatever Jesuites pretend to the contrary Apollos knew only Johns baptism Act. 18. 25. that is the doctrine of John Baptist we read not that Apollos or any other mentioned in Scripture was rebaptized no not any of Johns Disciples coming to Christ and his magistery which had surely been done had Christs baptism and Johns been different in substance and had it been done we should have had in Scripture either some express proof for the same or something so layed down that we might by good consequence have gathered the same which nowhere appeareth but as hath been said the Apostle recalleth penitent sinners once baptized unto the comfort of that which they had once received in baptism 1 Cor. 6. 11. 1 Cor. 12. 13. Gal. 3. 27. Circumcision was only once administred but was perpetual and everlasting and under the Law sinners were to return unto the Lord by true repentance compare Jer. 11. 3 4. Jer. 4. 1 2. c. with Jer. 18. 8 c. Ezek. 18. 31 32. Isa. 55. and the principal cause why circumcision was not iterated was Gods divine ordinance and institution the impressed character was secondary on Gods part it ever remained sure to which after their forsaking his covenant into which they had been once sealed he recalled them not to a susception of a new or the same seal iterated but only to repentance as to humble them so to shew that the fault and failing of the fruits and effects thereof which should have appeared in their newness of life was wholly on their parts not on Gods who is unchangeable and the same for ever So hath he appointed it in our sins after baptism I further add that those Christians which had apostated to the most pernitious heresie of Arrians denying the deitie of Christ by the judgment of the Catholick Church if they returned to her were not to be rebaptized but to be received again into the Church and communion thereof by repentance as hath been proved 5 All they that are baptized into the similitude of Christs death and resurrection are but once to be baptized but all they that are baptized according to Christs Institution In the name of the Father and the Son the H. Ghost are baptized into the similitude of Christs death and resurrection therefore they are but once to be baptized and thus the Church hath ever clearly judged The major is proved because Christ dyed and rose again but once Rom. 6. 3 4 5 9 10. we being therefore baptized into the similitude of his death and resurrection ought to be baptized but once seeing that pluralities of baptisms or baptizings cannot answer in similitude to his death and resurrection who dyed and rose again but only once for our justification Rom. 4. 25. Heb. 8. 25 26 28. Again we are buried with Christ by baptism Rom. 6. 4. but Christ was but once buried therefore neither ought we to be baptized any more then only once How then shal we be renewed after our falling into sin the Apostle saith Gal. 6. 1. Restore such a one but how he saith noâ— baptize him again no but godly sorrow saith he 2 Câ—â— 7. 10. worketh repentance to salvation for we must still remember that baptism is the ordinary gate and entrance into Christs Church which stands like that brazen Sea at the entrance into the Temple 1 King 7. 39. in which our sins are washed away and remitted by Christ so not that they should be no more but that they shal be no more imputed and therfore all this life long we have need of daily repentance because we daily fal into some sin repentance being a condition of Godspronouncing pardon to the sense of our consciences which he sealed to us in our baptism and so we may understand that which Christ said to Peter Joh. 13. 10. He that is was'd needeth not save to wash his feet We are washed from our sins by baptism because though we are in respect of the meritorious cause cleansed from them only by the sacred blood of Christ 1 Joh. 1. 7. 1 Pet. 1. 19. Heb. 9. 14. Rev. 1.5 yet baptism being the ordinary external seal and instrumental cause for the application thereof as also in respect of the analogie between the sign and the thing signified that is often ascribed to the sign which is proper to the thing signified to wit the bloud and merit of Christ sealed to us in baptism therefore we need no more clearing by iteration of baptism but only as it were washing our feet that is our vitious affections and failings by daily repentance that it may please God to pronouce to our consciences the remission of our sins which grieve and displease us There is but one Lord one faith one baptism Eph. 4. 5. That which the holy Ghost testifieth is but one as one Lord one Faith one Baptism no man may multiply iterate or make more But the holy Ghost testifieth that there is but one God one Faith one Baptism Therefore no man may iterate or make them more neither is it any better then a meer illusion of holy Scripture to distinguish between the Sacrament and the administration thereof by saying there is but one baptism but there may be many baptizings of one and the same person the Apostle saying there is but one not only in the unity of substance dispensation and effect but also in respect of lawful use or reception by one and the same person otherwise he must contradict himself who saith we are baptized into the similitude of Christs death which is 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 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. Jud. 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