are to be excused from it we have answered in the â—oregoing paragraph if you mean from administration of infant baptism we deny your assertion and expect proof The second device you say was of Calvin and his You said before that some said infants have imputative faith and by the number you now attribute it to Calvin indeed Mr. Calvin saith as I have noted That infants are baptized into future repentance and faith which although they be not yet formed in them yet by the secret operation of the spirit the seed of either lieth hid in them and in the same chapter he saith as Paul there reasoneth That the Iews are sanctified of their parents so in another place he teacheth That the children of Christians receive the same sanctification of their fathers Also in the same chapter he saith not that I mean rashly to affirm that they be indued with the same faith which we feel in our selves or that they have at all knowledg of faith which I had rather leave in suspence c. but concerning imputative faith I find neither device nor approbation of Calvins Why did you not rather say that this device was P. Lombards who mentioneth the Imputative faith you speak of or some of the following Schoolmen Or Polydor Virgil who in his fourth book concerning the Inventors of these things cleareth Calvin from this invention saying Seeing infants by reason of their age cannot testifie their own faith as Cyprian saith it was providedâ— from the beginning that they should profess their faith by oâ—hers that aâ— anothers fault to wit Adam â—ur first parents sin was evil to them in so much that from their birth they were subject to originall sin so others endeavour might be good to them who therefore as Ambrose saith in his second book concerning the calling of the Gentiles believe and are baptized by anothers confession Or why do you not rather lay the invention hereof to Iustin Martyr who living long before any of these saith They are made worthy of the good things of Baptism by their faith who present them to be baptized The Reader may hence gather how little Calvin said for imputative faith and if he had affirmed any such thing yet how untrue it is that Calvin or any of his invented it But the pleader saith further Can an infant sent into a Mahumetan Province be more confident for Christianity when he comes to be a man then if he had not been baptized Pag. 241. Yes caeteris paribus for though the Sacraments work not the same effect in all receivers yet Gods holy Spirit deserteth not his ordinance in the elect though for causes ever just though most unknown to us it doth not always alike shew its power in the recipient It is true that the seal and ministration of man can nothing profit where God giveth not the inward Baptism by his holy Spirit though the inward may save without the outward as hath been noted but your supposition being rightly laid concerning an elect infant baptized and so carried away you must grant that God whose election can by no means be defeated or made voyd will give and make effectuall the means to the end that is salvation whether by acquainting the party baptized with his will declared in his word preached to him or by his secret work within him if he will take him away in infancy in the adult coming to the knowledg of Gods covenant in Christ and of his own sealing in infancy it must make him more confident of his implantation into Christ then if he knew that he never had been baptized What then Must this be by vertue of baptism by water onely or the externall ministration thereof No but by the power of Gods Spirit working on his ordinance and accomplishing his own decrees do we follow your supposition dividing preaching of the word to such when they come to years from the precedent seal Truly such a strange invention were absolutely without Art without Scripture reason or authority I would say as is your argument here alledged against infant-baptism but that you call it Demonstrative and Vnanswerable but consider how to overcome before you cry victory To answer your supposition suppose that an infant were not by any habituall faith so much as disposed to any actuall belief without a new master what could this conclude more then that it is necessary to the actuall faith of an infant come to fit years that he be taught the doctrine of faith repentance c. which we constantly affirm what makes this against infant-baptism We unanimously confess and solemnly profess that the infant so soon as it shall be able to learn ought to be and shall be taught the mysteries of eternall life and salvation by Christ so your demonstration proves but a poor fallacie you utterly mistaking or willingly dissembling the question We affirm not that the Word ought to be divided from the Sacrament whereof new-born infants are capable but that the word is to be preached to them they are to be instructed in all the Rudiments of Christian Religion so soon as they shal be able to learn I only add hereto what have you said in this your so much applauded argument against infant-baptism which might not as reasonably and religiously have been urged against infant-circumcision Could they if sent into Painim-Countreys with all the terms of your supposition have been more disposed to an actual belief without a new Master yet they had and we have right to the seal of the righteousnesse of Faith not for any excellency or ability to produce any good and saving effect in our selves bâ—â— through the merits of our Saviour the free mercy of God and the right of our Fathers with whom God made his Covenant for their persons and posterity Next you say To which also this consideration may be added That if baptism be necessary to the salvation of infants upon whom is the imposition laid Concerning Baptism in generall 't is considerable which Tertullian saith The Lord himself who owed no repentance was baptized and was it not necessary to sinners his reason will reach possibly beyond his opinion to infants also except we should say with Pelagius that they are not sinners Further we say that Baptism the â—aver of regeneration is necessary to the salvation of infants yet in case of privation or impossibility they are saved by the peculiar and extraordinary goodness and providence of God So that the necessity of Baptism as hath been avowed is not absolute as if none could be saved without it but necessary on our part who are to obey the ordinance of God God is not tied to his ordinance but we are he can otherwise save but we cannot be saved in the contempt thereof God saith Tertullian hath bound faith to the necessity of Baptism therefore Cornelius and those that were with him after they were sanctified by the holy Ghost were yet baptized neither
although it be a Doctrine justly condemned by the most sort of Christians upon great grounds of Reason WE say That denying Baptism to Infants is justly condemned by all true Christians we cannot understand them to be such who renounce their Saviour Christ by a pretended Baptisme in their rebaptizing never warranted by preâ—â—pâ— or example in holy Scripture or those who by their Doctâ—â—◠〈◊〉 and make void their Baptisme by a kind of self-excommunication Again we say That to condemne the Doctrine of Anabaptâ—sts 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 of 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 Iesus Christ himself being the chief Corner-stone Ephes. 2. â—0 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 â—ear 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 Ioash would here have replied to such a short Scheme of plea Will ye plead for Baal That their error is not impudent or vâ—â—cible 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 Iohn 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 thaâ— 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 hâ—th overcome the world Iohn 16. 33. For by World Christ here meaneth and comâ—reâ—enâ—eth leth 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 Aâ—abaptists 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 Iob 14. 4. Psalm 51. 5. Iohn 3. 5. 1 Cor. 15 50. Rom. 5. 12. 1 or 15. 22. Eph. 2. 3. So do all the Reformed Churches and Papists too vid. Bellar. l. 4. de amissione gratiae 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 Christâ— to Infants who became an infant that he might also save them is a secret uâ—known 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
that iâ— might very well be given to children and yet baptism to men of reason This Argument is a childish caption We say that Baptism succeeded Circumcision in substance not in circumstance in the end and use as hath been said and whereof we shall say more anon To what purpose do you argue from the circumstance But you say Circumcision left a Character in the flesh which being imprinted upon Infants did it work upon them when they came to age We answer 1. That the word Character may be taken for any sign or note distinguishing one thing from another so Baptism may be also said to be a character distinguishing Christians from unbelievers not as an absolute quality but as a relative thing as â— tessera militaris by which God wil own his who fight under the Banner of Christ and by which the baptized have a comfortable assurance that they are marked for the children of God when they believe in Christ according as it is written In whom also after that ye beleeved ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise which is the earnest of our Iâ—heritance 2. Your instance importeth onely â— circumstantiall not a substantiall diffâ—rence Now the variety of signes vary not the thing signified It is the same Christ the same Faith under the Gospel and under the Law though the Sacraments by God appointed for the one and for the other were much different And the ends of Circumcision and Baptism are the same to implant us into Christs visible Church to be an in-let and door to the same to seal up the admitted to faith repentance mortification and newness of life which work is as truly done to the baptized Christian when he cometh to age as it was to the Israelite circumcised to wit to and in them that believed and repented to others the work was so farre from being done that tâ—at very seal of Gods Covenant which they bare in their flesh served for a witnesse against the soul of the â—ovenant-breaker to his greater condemnation and so it is proportionably with the baptized Apostate which may be a warning to your Clients to repent before it be too late You say again It is requisite that the persons baptized should be capable of Reason that they may be capable both of the word of the Sacrament and the impress made upon the Spirit We answer 1. This weakly follows from unsound premises was there no word added to Circumcision How doth that appear Was there not a word of Institution Genes 17. 10 11 12. Was not the reason of the Covenant declared to Abraham Did not he and others preach the same to all of age to be circumcised as Proselytes and to the circumcised infants when they came to age capable of Doctrine so doe we to the baptized but to persons of years we preach the Gospel first and then baptize them infants we baptize first and instruct them when they come to be capable 2. That it is requisite that the persons baptized should be capable of Reason that they may be capable both of the word c. We say 〈◊〉 also they mâ—st be capable of Reason either in act that they may presently understand tâ—ose things or in habit that they may afterward understand the same to what end else should we baptize infants or why were they circumcised into future faith repentance and newness of life We utterly dislike Popish baptizing of Bels Churches Altars c. 3. We say further That Covenants between man and man require that both parties expressly understand know the tenour substance and particulars of the same but in Covenants between God and his Creatures that Rule doth not universally hold for here God stipulateth and principally transacteth with the creature according tâ— that which he will have done or do in or by them So he established his Covenant with Noah and his seed after him and with every living creature the Fowle Cattell Beasts c. Gen. 9. 10. How much more rationally may â—e make covenant with infants though yet without the actuall use of reason Again sometimes such covenants are made between men as that the parent or parents covenant for or in stead of their children because they are not yet of age to understand the words and purport of the covenant and it standeth good How much rather may God covenant with an infant whose mouth and Advocate Christ Jesus said expressly Suffâ—r little children to come unto me and forbid them not for of such is the Kingdom of Heaven Mark 1â— 14 Luke 18. 16. I demand quo jure by what right is the Kingdom of Heaven theirs What by descent from naturall parents Nay but that which is born of the flesh is flesh John 3. 6. And flâ—sh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of God 1 Cor. 15. 50. It must therefore be by the free covenant of God with them out of which it can belong to none by right of any infant-innocency seeing all are conceived and born in sin the children of wrath but for the grace and covenant of God with them which they yet understand not yet is it valid and effâ—ctuall to their salvation as we may also understand in case of Circumcision in which the circumcised Child understood as little what was said or done as the baptized infant now doth and yet it was Gods covenant with them Gen. 17. 7 10 11 12. and effectual for them To conclude if you mean that it is requisite that none should be admitted to bapâ—ism but those that have the actuall use of reason that is men and women of years you beg the question of the Sacrament and the impress made upon the Spirit Concerning a Character or impress set upon the baptized the Schoolmen and Jesuits have moved sundry questions whether it be an absolute or relative quality which yet they say sticks fast upon them also that are in hell Whether it be an â—ns rationis or a relatio realis Whether a quality action or passion And if a quality of what kind it is Whether the subject thereof be the soul or some active or passive faculty thereof Whether it be a figure or form Whether the Sacraments of the old Testament made the like impress c. In all which and the like vain speculations we may not unprofitably note the just judgment of God giving them over to unfruitfull delusions who forsaking the true and constant light of his holy word give themselves over to follow the ignes fatuos of their own fancies I hope you are not of their sense though you mention this impress Concerning the seal of our implantation into Christ I have spoken a little before and onely add that we receive grace and the obsignation thereof but are not sensible of all untill we receive a greater measure that we might know the things that are freely given unto us of God Since therefore say you the reason of this parity does
for in reason you cannot call an unbeliever or wicked person a spirituall infant then I would fain learn by what discerning spirit you can know when and whom to baptize and whom to put by or which infant according to the flesh is not a spiritual infant by the spirit of regeneration If you say that those who are of years profess faith and repentance and therefore are to be baptized it is easily rejoined what ere they professe they may be hypocrites and then no more spirituall Infants then Iudas or Simon Magus were If you say that in charity you take them for spirituall I answer That an opinion that may be so easily false and in which any man without speciall revelation may be deceived is a very unproportionable ground of so sharp a controversie as causeth your Clients to forsake the Church of Christ. Next I say had you but as much charity towards infants whom no actuall sins have yet stained you would as freely judge them spirituall infants and so by your own Principle to be baptized as those of years of whom possibly you may know much evill without all controversie they have many sins to be repented of and why should you not afford harmless Infants who cannot dissemble as much charity as you do to many hypocrites of whose spirituall regeneration or being spirituall Infants you cannot be certain And this seems to have been the sense of the primitive Church for in the age next to the Apostles they gave to all baptized persons milk and honey to represent unto them their duty that though in age of understanding they were men yet they were babes in Christ and children in malice c. Indeed we read of such a custome in Tertullians time but that was two hundred years after Christ but I find not the sense of the Church therein by him expressed to your purpose And Hierom mentioneth the same custom but giveth no such sense as you pretend to it being well known that he was for Infant-baptism And it appears not by any thing you here cite or say that such a custom proveth any thing against Baptism of Infants for whom milk and hony is fitter nourishment then for the strong 1 â—orinth 3. 2. Hebr. 5. 12 13. Your other conjecture is but feebly grounded yet you say But to infer the sense of the Pedo-baptists is so weak a manner of arguing that Augustine whose device it was and men use to to be in love with their own fancies at the most pretended it but as probable and a meer conjecture To which we answer 1. That things which Christ commanded to his Apostles could not be Augustines or any humane invention but a divine Institution such was baptizing of Infants as will appeare in due place And this is the ground of this whole controversie 2. That it was none of Augustines device or fancy with which he was therefore in love as being his own Augustine his self clearly testifieth S. Cyprian saith hâ— not composing any new decree but holding the most firm faith of the Church to correct their error who thought that an infant might not be baptized before he were eight days old he with certain his fellow-Bishops was of this sense that a new-born infant might rightly be baptized As for the words of Cyprian we have cited them a little before Cyprian with a Conncell of 66. Bishops resolved so not out of any then new-born opinion or decree but maintained that which was of old the firm faith and doctrine of the Church which was long before him And Cyprian flourished about the year of our Lord 222 and was crowned with martyrdom under the persecuting Emperour Valerian about the year 260. And St. Augustine flourished about the year 410. and died about the year 430. So that had Augustine as you say devised it it must have 150 years years before Augustine was born been devised by Augustine which had been a singular device indeed Origen of whom you say Augustine had this tradition of Baptizing Infants pag. 237. N. 25 saith because we are all conceived and born in sin the Church hath received a Tradition from the Apostles to administer Baptism to little children Now Origen lived about the same time with Cyprian How you can reconcile your self in that you here affirm that Pedobaptism was Augustines device and yet confesse that Augustine had it from Origen who died so many years before Augustine was born I say not to the truth but to your self I do not understand Iustin Martyr whom Tertullian mentioneth as an Ancestor he lived under the Emperour Antoninus Pius and Irenaeus speaketh of Infants baptized in his time Irenaeus speaking of Christs Baptism and entrance into his publique Ministery saith He sanctified every age by that similitude which was to himself for he came to save all by himself I say all who by him are regenerate to God infants and little ones boys young men and old therefore passed he through every age for infants he became an infant sanctifying infants c. This Irenaeus was so ancient that he saw Polycarp who was an hearer of some of the Apostles of Christ. It was therefore none of Augustines device 3. Whether this be true which you affirm that Augustine at the most pretended it but as probable and a meer conjecture to baptize infants as infants were circumcised let Augustine speak for himself who saith If any man in this thing look for Divine authority although that which the universal Church holdeth being no Decree of any Councell but hath been always observed that we must rightly believe to have been delivered no otherwise then by Apostolicall authority yet we may truly apprehend of what value the Sacrament of Baptism of Infants may be from the circumcision of the flesh which the former people received Abraham was justified before he received it as also Cornelius was endued with the gift of the holy Ghost before he was baptized c. why therefore was he commanded thenceforth to circumcise every male child on the eighth day seeing they could not yet believe with the heart c. but because the Sacrament it self is of iâ— self of great moment so untrue is it that Augustine either devised Infant-baptism or so slightly pretended to it as you report But you go on And as ill successe will they have with their other Arguments as with this And what is that for which you cry victory in your former encounters I will not be so expensive of time or so much entrench upon the Readers patience as to repeat let him judge of what he hath read But what other battalio's come next up You say From the action of Christs blessing Infants to inferre that they are to be baptized proves nothing so much as that there is great want of better Arguments A gallant flourish indeed but seriously Did Christ take them up in his arms and bless them and are they not blessed Doth not
act and ministery none of ours ever so reasoned And why cannot God as well do his mercies to infants now immediatly as he did before the institution either of circumcision or baptism Once again we say We question not Gods power truly nor his will in many Infants dying before they could be baptized the question is whether we may or ought according to Gods revealed will baptize them In which it seemeth to us a very weak querie And why cannot God as well do his mercies to Infants now immediately c. However you say there is no danger that Infants should perish for want of this externall ministery c. Not to dispute Gods secret counsels we say the danger will be to the despâ—er and neglecter of Gods Ordinance wherein Tertullians Assertion may serve for a reason Because saith he he shall be guilty of a mans destruction who shall omit to do that which he freely might have performed For say you Water and the Spirit in this place John 3. 5. sigâ—ifie the same thing and by water is meant the effect of the Spirit cleansing and purifying the soul c. It is true that Calvin Oecolampadius and some others do not think that Christ doth there precisely speak of Baptism but that he either opposed it to Pharisaicall washings and purifications to which possibly Nicodemus with whom he then discoursed might be too much addicted Or that those words are simply to be interpreted concerning Regeneration but Iustin Martyr Chrysostome Theophilact Cyril Euthymius Augustine Rupertus Bâ—naventure Musculus B Aretius R. Rollâ—c Pelargus and others expound these words concerning Baptism the Sacrament of Regeneration the present speech of Christ being concerning Regeneration and it is most probable that Christ therein respected the common order of the Church mentioning the Spirit and Water to shew that we must be baptized if we will be saved yet 't is not the water but Gods holy Spirit which washeth away our sins Neither doth he so simply and necessarily tie the grace and efficacy of Gods Spirit to the Sacrament of Baptism as if none could be saved without Baptism and that God could not extraordinarily and immediately save Whatsoever Papists say to the contrary to assert their bloody decree and cruell doctrine concerning Infants dying without Baptism yet their Schoolmen and they in their more sober fits confesse that God hath not absolutely tied his grace to the Sacraments Christ â—aith He that shall believe and be baptized shall be saved but in the Antithesis he saith not Whosoever shall not be baptized shall not be saved to shew us that faith alone may sometime be sufficient to salvation as in the penitent Thief but nothing can suffice without faith because without it it is impossible to please God And because faith onely apprehendeth Christ in whom alone there is salvation Acts 4. 12. To conclude it doth not appear that Water and the Spirit in the fore-cited place Iohn 3. 5. signifie one and the same thing Although Christs Baptisme with the Spirit which gives the effect of Baptism were more excellent then Iohn Baptists or any Ministers of the Gospel for so is it still and yet no sober man will deny that the water in baptism and the Spirit do differ as the externall sign and inward grace thereby signified You say further You may as well conclude that infants must also passe through the fire as through the water c. This assertion might better have suited with the dream of some â—anaticall Iacobite What will not such an advocate say for his Clients I appeal to your own conscience may we as well conclude against Gods word as for it God expressly saith Deut. 18. 10. There shall not be found among you any one that maketh his son or his daughter to passe through the fire and it is above all rationall controversie that he instituted baptizing with water who said Baptize all Nations without any exception at all to infants this is a poor trick of yours to elude Scripture And where doth Peter say the same thing that we may as well conclude that infants must also pass through the fire as through the water No no Peter by the Spirit of truth speaketh another thing indeed intimating by those words 1 Pet. 3. 2. Not the washing of the flesh but the confidence as we translate but the answer of a good conscience toward God the effects of the inward baptism which the Syriac in his Paraphrasticall interpretation of that place maketh more clear but confessing God in a pure conscience as when in the peace thereof we call upon him with an holy security of his hearing us which can be onely in the inward Baptism which the Spirit of Iesus giveth by faith and sanctification wherein we have peace toward God in the assurance of our justification Rom. 5. 1. Rom. 8. 15 16. So that the sum is that the outward sign the water and washing of the body in baptism is not sufficient to salvation if the Spirit of Iesus give not the inward effect thereof and therefore it is dangerous to live securely in sin and unbelief as too many do in vain confidence that they must needs be saved because they have been baptized into the visible Church of Christ No but the externall sign availeth not where the inward grace thereby signified is wanting So in the preaching of the Gospel administration of the holy Eucharist mans ministery can nothing prevail to the receivers salvation without Gods Spirit giving the inward effect so that Peter briefly toucheth the power use of baptism recalling us to the testimony of a good conscience that confidence therein which can endure the sight of God and his Tribunal and flye unto him in all wants through Câ—rist But this Scripture is fanatically perverted by Schuincfeld others who would hence coÌ„clude against the effect of the Sacrament in the elect whereas the Apostle affirmeth not that the institution of Christ for baptizing the body with water is vain or effectless but secretly admonisheth carnall Gospellers that they rest not in their security but consâ—lt their own consciences whether they find there the effect of their baptism so that he neâ—ther saith that infants may as well pass through the fire as through the water as you trifle nor is this place any thing to the purpose in this question of Infant-baptism so that your following confused Hypotheses are of no value or use except to puzzle the Reader to find out what you mean which he hardly shall Therefore when you express your self more orderly and clearly we owe you an Answer This you sayâ— no more inferres a necessity of Infants Baptism then the other words of Christ inferre a necessity to give them the holy Communion Nisi comederitis carnem filii hominis c. This is another argument of Anabaptists à pari if infants say they are to be baptized they are also to be
of them to be baptised for the remission of sins he deriveth not the ground and reason thereof from their age nor from their repentance nor from their years of discretion but from the promise of God which was no lesse to their children in that very capacity then to themselves for the signe of the covenant Baptisme appertaineth to them also as being partakers of the common salvation in Christ Lastly how our infants have forfeited or lost the capacity which 't is most certaine the infants of Iewes had I know nor nor will the pleader ever make it appeare to us You say further But he that whenever the word children is used in Scripture shall by children understand infants must needs believe that in all Israel there were no men but all were infants and if that had been true it had been the greater wonder they should overcome the Anakims and beat the King of Moab and march so farre and discourse so well for they were all called the children of Israel We know the word children importeth not alwayes infants what then because it doth not in every place of Scripture signify infants therefore doth it not any where no not where infants are spoken of the promise before specified was to all Israel and their infants and unto them the seal of the covenant and promise appertained but because the men of wisdome and valour were included under the name of children were there no infants among them or doe you not take a child of eight dayes old when it was by Gods command and covenant to receive the seal to be an infant and why not now seeing the promise is as well and sure to us who though then farre off have now by the free mercy of God been called to the saving knowledge of the gospel for that promise of God to Abraham did not so belong to his seed according to the flesh as that it appertaines not unto us also for the Apostle clearly testifieth that it was not given to Abraham or his seed through the law but through the righteousnesse of faith and he was the father of all them that believe though they be not circumcised that righteousnesse might be imputed to them also and again he saith they which are of faith the same are the children of Abraham so Christ said that Zache converted to the same faith was that day the son of Abraham and indeed the eternall covenant which God made with Abraham's seed that he would be their God is not chiefly verified in his carnall seed for very few of them for some hundred years last past have been Gods people but rather professed enemies to those that are and therefore that covenant must be understood of Abraham's children according to that promise which is as sure and well to us who believe as ever it was to the Israelites and so we and our children are as justly to be reckoned children of Abraham and heirs of that promise as they ever were and if within the covenant and heires of the same promise what incapacity barreth our children from the same priviledges thereto subordinate and from the seal of admittance unto the same more then barred the carnall or naturall children of Abraham from the seal of the covenant which then was in use And for the allegation of S. Paul that infants are holy if their parents be faithfull it signifies nothing but that they are holy by designation just as Ieremy and Iohn Baptist were sanctified in their mothers womb that is they were appointed and designed for holy ministeries c. We answer whether you mean literally by holy ministries the office of priest or prophet or mystically a royall priesthood to offer up spirituall sacrifice acceptable to God by Iesus Christ that which you affirme will appeare very false for many of the children of believers are neither priests prophets nor so sanctified as to offer up spirituall sacrifice acceptable to God now the Apostle saith not else were some of your children unholy but now are they holy without exception of any so that his words being inâ—allibly true there must be some such holinesse there intended as universally concernes all that are born of believing parents which cannot be true in your sense of disignation to holy ministries nor in the other sense concerning sanctification by the spirit of adoption and regeneration peculiar to the elect of God nor is it to be understood as some think of a meer political cleannesse seeing that out of the Church also there is a difference between the legitimate and spurious children it must be understood therefore of a federall or ecclesiasticall holinesse to which reprobates if born of believing parents or at least of either parent being a belâ—ever and within the covenant may have right as well as the elect so had Ismael Esau and millions more as well as Isaack and Iacob by this federall or ecclesiasticall holinesse they have right unto the seal of initiation and admittance into the Church whereas they who are born of both parents without the Church are counted unclean that is Gods promise and the seal thereof appertaine not unto them neither may they be baptised untill growing up and being instructed they repent and embrace the faith of Christ and it is not improbable which some say that the form of the Apostles speaking seemeth derived from the Leviticall law in which it was ordained that some persons should for a time be barred as unclean from comming within the tents of Israel so the children of infidels are unclean and not presently to be admitted into the Church by baptism which is the doore and inlet thereto ever standing open to the clean and as under the law some beasts were clean and some unclean that is by a Leviticall or ceremonial cleanesse or uncleanesse for it was neither spirituall nor civill so the Apostle 1 Cor. 7. 14. understandeth an ecclesiâ—sticall holinesse that is a Church-priviledge to be admitted to baptisme so that indeed the Pleader weakly mistaketh when he concludeth that just so the children of Christian parents are sanctified that is designed to the service of Iesus Christ and the future participation of the promises but he saith further And as the promise appertaines not for ought appeares to infants in that capacity and consâ—stence but only by the title of their being reasonable creatures and when they come to that act of which by nature they have the faculty c. No colour or proportion can appeare to the blind or those who willfully shut their eyes nor any truth be it never so evident to them on whom is the curse Isai. 6. 9. 10. As for that you say concerning the title of their being reasonable creatures I referre the reader to that which hath been answered Numb 19. Onely adding here if the promise of God appertaine to infants onely as they are reasonable creatures what was the priviledge of the Iew or what
profit was there of circumcision the Apostle saith much every way and what is the advantage of the believing Christians child and Gods covenant with them what no more then of Turkes and Iewes where is then that promise I will be a God unto thee and thy seed interpreted by S. Peter the promise is to you and your children and to as many as the Lord our God shall call what is it of force only to men and women of yeares where 's the infants part where is his priviledge of federall holynesse as being borne of believing parents What must they be interessed onely when they come to that act of which by nature they have the faculty That is the act of understanding â—aith and repentance In those acts the persons and children of Turks and Iews have a right in the same promises you cannot exclude any person from baptism who believes in Christ repenteth and desireth baptism at your hands Thus you make the promise of God concerning the children of the faithfull of no effect by your tradition and vain opinion But to amend this you say Baptism is not the means of conveying the holy Ghost I suppose you mean the ordinary gifts and graces of the holy Ghost as faith love hope sanctity c. if not there may be a double fallacy in your assertion First in the term conveying and next in the term holy Ghost both whiâ—h may be homonymically intended and then your discourse is meerly captious and to discover it is a sufficient answer and indeed by your following words God by that miracle did give testimony c. it seems you mean that baptism is not now the ordinary means of conveying the holy Ghost that is the gift of miracles unto the baptized if so here is both an homonymia and an ignoratio elenchi Your reason being reducd to a Syllogisme you might take these words the holy Ghost for the ordinary gifts and graces of God necessary to salvation in the one proposition and for the extraordinary in the other and so the question were mistaken which is not whether baptism be an ordinary means of conveying the extraordinary gifts of the holy Ghost into the baptized as speaking divers unstudied languages curing the sick raising the dead casting out devils c. which we affirm not but whether baptism as the word preached be not the external ordinary means by God appointed to seal us up to a lively hope in Christ to beget faith and to engage us to repentance and newness of life to which all that you here triâ—le concerning imposition of hands and insinuation of rite to confirmation is nothing to purpose neither is the case of Cornelius and Peters argument thereon any waies advantagious to you for you confess it a miracle and how then is it pertinent to our present question You say that God by that miracle did give testimony that the persons of the men were in great disposition to heaven and therefore were to be admitted to those rites which are the ordinary inlets into the kingdom of heaven I then demand if that argument be good Are not children of believing parents to be admitted to those rites which are the ordinary inlets into the kingdom of heaven seeing they are also in great disposition to heaven whom Christ blessed and proposed for paterns to all that shall enter therein But we answer 1. That the great disposition which you talk of was not so much the gift of miracles as the persons inward baptism by the spirit of regeneration and sanctification for the gift of miracles is not of it self any certain argument of salvation see Matth. 7. 22 23. but this was a sufficient warrant to Peter to baptize them as being marked out thereby for the visible Church at least into which elect and reprobate may come 2. To the main we answer That as by delivering a key putting in possession of an house is not only signified but also livery and seisâ— the conveyance and chirogrophum are passed confirmed and actually made sure So in baptism by water the washing which is wrought by the blood of Christ is not only figured but also at last fulfilled in the elect by Christ. 3. In a right use of the Sacraments the things therby signified are ever held out and convey'd together with the signes which are neither fallacious empty nor void of a due effect or without the thing represented because they are of God who cannot deceive and is able to give the effect if the receiver do not ponere obicem therefore the Sacraments are rightly called the Channels or Conduits of grace that is the ordinary means to convey the graces of God into the receivers 4. God confirms his mercies to us by the Sacraments wherein the Minister by Gods own deputation beareth his person or place in the Church as well as in preaching the word so that what they doe who are his Ministers by his appointment he doth both in respect of the institution and effect So the Lord is said to have anointed Saul whereas Samuel anointed him so Jesus made and baptized more disciple then Iohn whereas Iesus baptized not but his disciples by his assignement Therefore although these signes neither convey grace nor confirm any thing to them for good who keep not the Covenant for God made no promise to them yet are they means to convey the graces of God to those that do To conclude we affirm not that baptism conveyeth Gods grace to all that are baptized but to the elect only as that whereof he hath made a peculiar promise to them and that so certain as are those things which God himself sealeth covenanteth for and testifieth in heaven and earth as 't is written There are three that bear record in heaven the father the word and the holy Ghost and there are three that bear witness in earth the spirit and the water and the blood Now if we receive the witness of men the witness of God is greater Under the mouth of two or three witnesses every word must be confirmed and taken for sure how much more when we have by Gods blessing the same witnesses of our faith who are also the promisers workers and sureties of our salvation But from thence you say to argue that wherever there is a capacity of receivinig the same grace there also the same signe 〈◊〉 to be ministred and from thence to infer poedo-baptism is an argument very fallacious c. Quis tulerit Gracchos your dispute is fallacious upon your grounds on which we go not and so all your impertinent superstruction here falleth together They that are capable of the same grace are not alwaies capable of the same signe for women under the law of Moses although they were capable of the righteousness of faith yet they were not capable of the signe of circumcision I would gladly be resolved quanta est illa propositio is your meaning Some of them
consisteth in the will of believers yet the very Sacrament of that faith makes a baptized infant faithfull or a believer For as 't is answered that he believeth so is he called a believer not signifying that thing in the very mind but in respect of his receiving the Sacrament of that very thing to wit of believing and giving his name to Christ. But what unreasonableness acted with a worse circumstance is there for God-fathers thus answering All this I steadfastly believe wherein though possibly there may be untruth because the Sponsor doth not as he professeth steadfastly believe yet so may there also be when persons of years answer for themselves that they believe seeing the lawfulness of baptizing infants is affirmed on condition of their parents believing and Church-priviledge which is often testified personally by the very parents Grand-fathers Grand-mothers and sometimes in defect or necessary absence of such by some fellow-believers testifying for them and the childs priviledg and baptism but your sensible account is that they speak false and ridiculously if you can bear the eccho of your own words we therein answer you yet for the sober readers sake we further answer after Augustin treating of the same argument Let no man whisper to you â—ther doctrines this the Church ever had ever held c. doubtless the custom is very ancient Histories tell us of it in the time of Higinâ—s who was coetaneous with Polycarp a disciple of S Iohns they lived under the reigne of Antoninus Pius about the year 140. some think it came into the Church from the custom of those who were Catechumenists who being examined before they were admitted to baptism concerning their faith and repentance were not only to answer in their own persons but to have sponsors as witnesses of their faith conversion and baptism It is not improbable which some here propose that As children were baptized when their Christian parents had formerly made confession so sureties confessed in relation to themselves that they might be fit to stand as a kind of parents c. Seeing therefore this custom is nothing repugnant to holy scripture neither hath in it any appearance of evil but rather of profit and edification though it be not of the essence of baptism but a ceremonial circumstance 't is foolish and impious to quarrel it and for it to break unity and disturb the peace of the Church But you say The infant is not capable of believing and if he were he were also capable of dissenting and how then do they know his mind If it be necessary to baptism that the baptizer know the mind of the person to be baptized how can you baptize men of years You will say they express their minds and so we baptize them I grant you may know their words their minds you cannot because they may dissemble If you say you are in charity to believe the best once more we say Be but as charitable towards infants of whom you can know no actual evil nor shew any just cause why you should suspect it for the future And I pray how could the Priest under the Law know the minds of children to be circumciâ—ed To conclude 't is nothing material whether we know the infants mind 't is behoofull that we know his priviledg as being born within the Church and Covenant of God which giveth him a sufficient right to the seals thereof But you say Tertullian gives advice that baptism of infants should be deferred till they could give account of their faith I answer 1. Tertullian speaking of deferring baptism lest they should rashly give it as to persons out of the Covenant or unbelievers instanceth specially children that is extraneorum non foederatorum as the learned Fra. Iunius interpreteth the same so that this concerneth not our present question which is of children of Christians 2. This shews then that the practice of infant-baptism was none of Augustins device as you charge him seeing it was in use in the time of Tertullian 3. But let us hear the rest of Tertullians advice was it only concerning the deferring infants baptism Let them come when they can learn when they are taught whither they come let them be made Christians when they shall be able to know Christ nay but presently he saith For no less cause the unmarried also are to be delayed in whom the tentation is prepared both in virgins by their maturity and widows by their going up and down untill they are either married or confirmed in constancy Will you follow Tertullians advice herein But what if they never marry must they never be baptized If not give us leave to decline it in the other or to take it in the sense he meaneth it as may appear in that he specifieth widows who being at that age are necessarily to be supposed either baptized after their first marriage or out of the Covenant And the same you say is also the Councel of Gregory Bishop of Nazianzum c. Gregory Nazianzen in his fortieth Oration which you cite in your margent saith Sow when the time of sowing is plant prune thy vine when the season is c. But at all times intend thy salvation and think that any time is seasonable or appointed for baptism among other ages of man be instanceth in Infancy Hast thou an Infant saith he let not wickedness take away the occasion let it be sanctified from its infancy let it be dedicated to the Spirit from it tender years fearest thou the seal in respect of the infirmity of Nature How poor a spirited mother art thou and of how little faith But Anna promised Samuel unto the Lord before he was born c. You say concerning Gr. Nazianzen that his reason taught him that which was fit true for he allowed Infant-baptsm yet he was over-born with the opinion of his Age c. So far also I consent as this relates to that they thought that Infants dying without Baptisme should neither he glorified nor punished That which you further say although he allowed them to hasten in case of necessity falleth under a double consideration First in respect of those times appointed for Baptism in the primitive Church to wit Easter and Whitsontide or Pentecost which he mentioneth But when he cometh to the question whether Infants should be baptized he answereth positively By all means if any danger urge and sheweth it from the Analogy between Circumcision and Baptism He taketh away the objection from the years at which Christ was baptized which was indeed to be deferred untill the fulness of time for the worlds redemption was come and that we are not to imitate all the actions of Christ. To that which you say Yet in another place he makes mention of some to whom Baptism was not administred 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by reason of Infancy we say you utterly mistake for Nazianzen in the same Oration speaking of delay in performance of that duty
adultis ad infantes which wanting the condition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 becomes an ignoratio elenchi and mistaking or mispursuing the Question or begging it in those terms remaining in the present incapacities which cannot be granted I answer two things 1. God can give capacity of regeneration and newness of life to any age That he doth not give it to infants cannot appear to us The contrary doth for he giveth the spirit of sanctification to some infants in and from the womb for many dying young are saved which being conceived in sin and born the childâ—en of wrathâ— they could not be without regeneration and sanctification And truly when I consider what marvelous instinct God giveth to the new-cast young of beasts to take the brest as well as to new-born infants for their bodily preservation I cannot but conceive that the good God gives infants on whom he haâ—h set his own image which consisteth in understanding sanctity immortality c. some admirable though to us secret light of mind and capacity of that which is subordinate to the preservation of their immortal souls 2. Children under the Gospel have no less capacity then children under the Law had who yet received the seal of the same righteousness of faith in their infancy and were circumcised to newness of life Rom. â— 29. But you say And then have they but one member of the distinction used by S Peter they have that baptism which is a putting away the filth of the flesh but they have not that baptism which is the answer of a good conscience towards God which is the only baptism that saveth us I answer 1. You vainly dispute è non concessis 't is not granted nor can it ever be proved that elect children in baptism are not formed new in righteousness and holyness and so your superstruction concerning their having only that baptism which is a putting away the filth of the flesh but not the rest necessary to salvation is frivolous 2. The answer of a good conscience toward God is an effect of the inward baptism by the spirit of Jesus peculiar to the elect Now if your reason hence taken for the exclusion of infants from baptism the external seal were good by the same reason none but the elect or those who have the answer of a good conscience towards God must be admitted to baptism and whom then might you with good conscience baptize certainly but few and for ought you can certainly know none For in these last and worst dayes what know you but that they who fairly profess faith and repentance c. may yet notwithstanding be meer hypocrites And where is then their answer of a good conscience toward God 3. I say what secret light and swâ—et confidence elect infants have in God I know not sure I am they have that which is and shall be sufficient to their salvation in Christ though they die before man can teach them more and why shall man exclude them from the external Seal of Gods Covenant with them as being born within the Church of which they have as evident and a more easie capacity then children had of circumcision God gives Infants the incomparably greater and more excellent part sanctity and sealing to salvation and shall man presume to deny the less and subordinate part the external Seal of Christs visible Church whereof Reprobates born within the Church have a capacity 4. Faith good conscience repentance c. are in the elect those fruits whose seeds were sowen in baptism and as hath been said were it reasonable to say we may not sow untill the fruits thereof appear Nay but we therefore sow in hope that we may in due season see and reap the fruits thereof 5. Whereas you say that the answer of a good conscience towards God is the only baptism that saveth us I answer 1. It is not the answer of a good conscience that saveth any man though a good conscience be an excellent signe of our salvation by Christ for Being justified by faith we have peace with God through our Lord Iesus Christ by whom also we have access by faith c. 2. Your reasoning is fallacious your medium being homonymical For allowing you the signe for the cause yet if that which saveth us though it may be true if understood concerning persons of years and as good conscience an undoubted effect of regeneration is opposed to the bare seal thereof without any inward effect of the spirit I say if it be understood of Infants as in your sense excluded from a capacity of good conscience or the acts thereof it is very false except you will also exclude all Infants from salvation which were against the express doctrine of Christ. As infants you say by the force of nature cannot put themselves into a supernatural condition and therefore say the Poedobaptists they need baptism to put them into it so if they be baptized before the use of reason before the works of the spirit before the operation of grace before they can throw off the works of darkness and live in righteousness newness of life they are never the near I answer 1. Neither can men of years by the force of nature put themselves into a supernatural condition supposing you mean subordinate to salvation and what then can the use of reason without the works of the Spirit advantage them hereto Shall not they therefore that have the use of reason be baptized 2. What do you herein say which might not as well have been objected against the circumcision of infants Would you have concluded them never the neer because at eight dayes old they had not the use of reason to know what or why it was so done uâ—to them before they could throw off the works of darkness and live in righteousness and newness of life 3. If you will have none baptized before the works of the Spirit before the operations of grace c. when and whom may you baptize For the wind bloweth where it listeth and thou hearest the sound thereof but canst not tell whence it cometh and whither it goeth so is every one that is born of the Spirit God can and doth sanctifie infants as in the elect infants dying such must be granted if you have so much reason or charity as to think that at least some of them are elected and saved and he can and doth sanctifie in age sometimes in the very last act thereof as appeared in the penitent thief how then will it follow that infants are never the neerer if they be baptized before the use of reason c. 4. We must understand that baptism comprehendeth first the sign water and the whole ceremony sprinkling washing or dipping into water in the Name of the Father the Son and the holy Ghost Secondly the things themselves signified by the visible and externall things which are sprinkling of the blood of Iesus on the baptized for the remission of sins
of years as in Iudas Simon Magus Demas and others like yet it is effectual to salvation to all the elect in whom Gods spirit powerfully worketh to faith repentance sanctification c. without which all the waters under heaven cannot be effectual for the cleansing of one soul. 4. We please not our selves with a signe without effect if you doe rest not in that state lest you and your stingie leaves without fruit withering become fuel for the fire which goes not out to fill up the measure of impious calumny You say They invocate the holy Ghost in vain doing as if one should call upon him to illuminate a stone or a tree 1. I wonder what they will be ashamed to say who blush not at such assertions 'T is true that the Apostle useth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be illuminated for to be baptized as the Syriac Interpreter gives it Hebr. 4 6. Hebr. 10. 32 and that the Greek Fathers so commonly used the word and it is no improbable conjecture that there was an allusion to the Hebrew manner of speaking who by one and the same word express illumination and a River or Source of water and by a Metaphor Illumination of the mind For they who are baptized by water and the spirit of Jesus are in Gods good time and the measure he knows fit illuminated and find not only a River of elementary water but of that water which floweth to eternal life whereof Christ spake Iohn 7. that is the spirit of illumination and sanctification 2. I would desire you again consider is the case all one or alike when we pray that God would be pleased to illuminate sanctifie and save an elect infant for whom Christ shed his precious bloud for whose salvation he came from heaven became an infant and man of sorrows to the death whom he blessed of whom he said Of such is the kingdom of heaven and except ye become as one of these ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven Is I say the case all one when we pray according to Gods word and promise for these as if we should pray God to illuminate sanctifie and save a stone or a tree hath a stone or tree any habitual faith or reason or any capacity of the holy Ghost illumination or sanctification Do any creatures under the degrees of man bear the image of their Creator in immortality sanctity and light of understanding Would God you could be ashamed of blaspheming and laying such pernicious stumbling-blocks before the blind to make them fall Since you say there is no direct impiety in the opinion of Anabaptists nor any that is apparently consequent to it and they with so much probability do or may pretend to true perswasion they are with all means Christian fair and humane to be redargued or instructed I hoped that the Plea being ended the Pleader would have come to himself again but this and another strain promise no more but a lucid interval I answer As to your charitie towards the persons of the Anabaptists I also with they may by all Christian fair and humane means be reproved convinced or instructed but that there is no direct impietie in their opinion nor any that is apparently consequent to it is apparently unture for that which is displeasing to Christ is directly impious and such is with-holding Infants from him that which is uncharitable is direct impietie and such is that opinion which barreth Infants from the Seal of Gods Covenant with them and the Communion of Saints as also in that it damneth so great a part of the world presupposing that God had no Church in the world for so many hundred years as Infant-Baptism hath been the general inlet to the same except a little while in the schism of Pelagians and Donatists and again when the same Heresie revived in Germany in Charls 5. his reign and now again in these distracted and calamitous times much more hath been and might be said herein but I shall be so far from being their accuser that I heartily pray the Lord to open their eyes that they sleep not in death only I say to the Pleader who would so courteously vail others impietie 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Lastly you say that you think That there is much more truth then evidence on our side and therefore we may be confident as for our own particulars but not too forward peremptorily to prescribe to others much less to damn or to kill or to persecute them that only in this particular disagree That we may be confident of the truth on our side I assent likewise that none be too forward peremptorily to prescribe except where the Word of God and necessary consequence from thence prescribeth that none should persecute kill or much less for opinions less then blasphemous against God or destructive to Religion and salvation of souls saving to Supreme Authoritie their lawful right I also assent to but can by no means be of your opinion that there is less evidence then truth on our side as any ways intimating a defect of evidence therefore I say 1. That evidence sensu forensi in common sense of controversies or matters of judicature importeth sufficient proof so we say that witnesses give in evidence that is not alwayes in terminis and express words as in actions of case is requirable nor as they say ore rotundo as to say Verres is a Thief c. but from considerable circumstances or necessarie consequences sufficient to evince and to inform to sentence This evidence on our side you will not denie in this case nor I suppose affirm that falshood hath more proof or evidence in Scripture then truth 2. Sometimes we speak of evidence in relation to the partie or parties to be informed in which not only his or their capacitie is considerable but also other circumstances as the Informers expression which possibly may be defective the Informeds attention for want whereof that may not appear which were otherwise sufficiently evident Again In case of Gods judgment over the disobedient given over to strong delusions that they should believ lyes and be damned who received not the love of the truth of it self evident enough that they might be saved hereof sec Isa. 6. 9 10. Mat. 13. 13 14 15. To a blind man or one that winketh in the clearest most evident light no colours or proportions are evident because men if blind cannot if obstinate schismatical wil not see understand 3 There is a notius natura and a notius nobis if in the evidence you speak of you mean the first and that errour and falshood is more known in nature that is manifestly false for the truth is first and best known in nature If you mean the second that is that we less know the truth then the evidence what blame you in our cause or advantage your Clients If you say we see no evidence nor can the
them There appears neither act nor habit of regeneration in Infant-baptism until they be taught the Word neither any more promptitude to learn it then is in unbaptized children coming to years therefore their baptism is effectless and consequently unlawful We answer 1 The Kingdom of God cometh not with observation Luk. 17. 20. and the internal acts of the Spirit are secret for what man knoweth the things of a man save the spirit of a man which is within him 1 Cor. 2. 11. 2 If outward appearance be a good argument to the denying of internal acts and habits you might by the same medium as well conclude that Infants are not reasonable creatures Infants inspired by Gods Spirit may be said to be Believers as they are said truly to be rationals that is actuprimo non secundo and they confess and avouch the Lord in their Parents avouching of him as appeareth Deut. 26. 16 17 18. Deut. 29. 9 10 1â— 12 13 14 15. 3 It is not true that baptized Infants have no more promptitude to learn the mysteries of salvation when they come to years to be taught then other unbaptized children have caeteris paribus for the H. Ghost doth not desert his own ordinance in the Elect though for causes very just yea when most unknown to us it doth not alwayes alike shew its power as for the reprobate the seal or administration of man can nothing profit him who abuseth it and where God ever denyeth inward baptism by his holy Spirit of sanctification Reprobates who cannot be profited by baptism ought not to be baptized lest we add to their condemnation but of Infants some are such and we cannot say which of them offered to baptism is elect and which not therefore seeing we cannot distinguish them nor can they express themselves we ought not to baptize them untill they can We answer If the major proposition in this argument be universalis negans it is most false for Simon Magus and Iudas who were not profited by their baptism were yet rightly baptized If particular though granted it would conclude nothing against Infant-baptism for by the same reason they may deny baptism to persons of years for alas many of them are Reprobates Neither can any meer man distinguish between the one and the other seeing that whatever profession of faith and repentance men make 't is possible they may dissemble or fall away Now we in charitie hope the best where the contrary is not manifest and therefore deny them not baptism who doe but profess faith repentance and desire of baptism and if we can have as much charitie to innocent Infants we must also allow them baptism who being born of Christian parents are within Gods covenant of Grace And indeed the final estate of Infants or aged people being alike secret and known to God alone we must perform our ministrie respectively and leave the fruit and issue thereof to God so in preaching the Gospel the sincere Milk of the Word 1 Pet. 2. 2. we do often as it were draw out the brest like the mother of the living child 1 King 3. 20 21. to some dead in belief sins and trespasses laid in our bosome who know not who shall profit by it nor to whom it shall prove a favour of death unto death that must be left to God but we must instantly preach the Gospel When the Eunuch said to Philip Act. 8. 36 see here is water what doth let me to be baptized be answered If thou believest with all thy heart thou mayest therefore he that believeth not may not be baptized such are Infants We answer 1 It is manifest enough that Philip spake to a man who could hear and read and was then something instructed in the Gospel of Christ what doth this concern Infants 2 Infants have now as much capacitie of baptism as under the Law they had of circumcision both had faith as reason in the feed though not in the fruit and the sacrament of baptism now performeth the same to us which circumcision did to them as that was to them a sign of their receiving into the Church and people of God so is baptism to us the first mark which severeth and distinguisheth the people of God from the prophane and wicked aliens Faith ought not to be separated from the seal thereof therefore Infants who cannot actually beleeve ought not to be baptized until they can See what hath been said Obj. 12. to which we here add that this proposition is true concerning persons of years but concerneth not Infants in whom we cannot know Gods present work but in baptism the seed of faith regeneration mortification and newness of life is sowed in them and all know that precedence concludeth not separation Lastly we say that if faith and baptism must so indivisibly be united as that none may be baptized but they who do actually believe whom might our adversaries baptize or whom put by though of years If they say they profess faith there is much difference between professing and actual believing and I much fear that many will too late find as much distance between justifying faith and temptation of securitie as is between heaven and hell Such are to be baptized as confess their sins Mat. 3. 6. as gladly receive the Word Act. 2. 41. as give heed to the Word preached Act. 8. 6. but this Infants cannot do therefore they are not to be baptized We answer The affirmative may from such places be concluded Such ought to be baptized but the negative cannot therefore none but men so qualified may be baptized it no more followeth then if you should say Cornelius and those that were with him when Peter preached received the holy Ghost in the extraordinary gifts thereof therefore none but such as have received the extraordinary gifts of the holy Ghost may be baptized nay but though it wel concluded affirmatively for them that they were to be baptized it cannot conclude negatively against others that they may not be baptized who have not received such gifts If baptizing Infants be grounded on circumcision the males only must be baptized but that is not true for females also ought to be baptized We answer Here is a fallacia accidentis an arguing from the substance to the circumstance whereas baptism succeeded circumcision in substance not in every circumstance The substance was that was a seal of faith and Church-priviledge so is this that was administred to all that would join in the faith of Abraham and their children as being in Gods covenant so must it be here in that was sealed to the Covenanter the promise of grace and mercie by Christ which is alwayes one and the same so here that signified mortification and a promise on mans part of faith and obedience to God so it is here that was the inlet to Gods Church the Sacrament of initiation admission and engraffing into the Church so is baptism
but only one and once suffered Indeed it is said of the other seal as oft as ye do this 1 Cor. 11. 26. but not one word in Scripture can be found for more then once baptizing but the Apostle mentioning baptism joins it with things incapable of multiplication or pluralitie one Spirit one body of Christ the Church one hope of our calling metonymically put for the thing hoped for that is eternal life which is essentially but one one Lord one Faith that is one doctrine of faith Gal. 1. 6 7 8. Iud. 3 or objectively one truth of God one Christ shewing that there ought to be no more baptisms then faiths Christs or Gods if therefore said Optatus you give another baptism give another faith if ye give another faith give another Christ if ye give another Christ give also another God c. You see to what damnable absurdities rebaptizing drives unto That whereby men crucifie to themselves the Son of God afresh and put him to open shame may by no means be done But to rebaptize or to be willingly rebaptized in the Apostles sense is to crucifie to themselves the Son of God afresh and to put him to open shame therefore it may by no means be done This point the Apostle layeth down Heb. 6. 4 5 6. It is impossible for those who were once enlightned saith our Translation 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 who have been once baptized saith the Syriac to renew them again to repentance c. that is baptismal repentance the baptism of repentance as it is called Act 19. 4. and so Heb. 10. 12. Call to remembrance the former dayes in which after ye were illuminated Gre. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which the Syriac the best and nearest Interpreter of the New Testament rendreth in which ye were baptized So the Greeks were wont to call baptism 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 illumination possibly because persons converting from darkness of Idolatry were ordinarily enlightned by being taught the doctrine of the Gospel see Mat. 4. 16. Luk. 2. 32. Act. 26. 18. so the Hebrew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in one signification importing taught is rendred by the LXX illuminated or also in respect of extraordinary gifts of the holy Ghost in the knowledge of the mysteries of the Gospel and unstudied tongues with other admirable enlargments of heart then flourishing in the Church Now those who are described v. 4 5. who have been once baptized and have tasted of the heavenly gift and were made partakers of the holy Ghost and have tasted the good Word of God and the powers of the world to come if they shall fall away saith our Translation Gre. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and falling away which and the Syriac omittetâ—â— rendring the sense as others also non possunt iterum peccare ut denuò renoventur ad resipiscentiam denuò crucifigant c. they cannot so sin that is unto death that they should again be renewed to repentance and crucifie afresh c. that is in a second baptism where note by the way that this place of Scripture so much wrested by the enemies of truth against the comfortable doctrine of the Saints perseverance maketh mainly for it for the Apostle saith not that those who are described v. 4 5. do or may fall away but that it is impossible isto supposito to be renewed because in such a supposition the merit of Christs Cross being abolished and made void by which they were renewed it must needs follow that so Christ should be crucified afresh and be put to open shame that they might be renewed by a second and new merit of his Cross which seeing it is impossible to be the Apostle will inferr that it is impossible that these here described v. 4 5. should finally fall away The foundation of the Lord remaining sure and having this seal The Lord knoweth who are his whose prescience cannot possibly be deceived in electing any who shall fall away But to return to our purpose the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to themselves is very considerable The Son of God they cannot now possibly crucifie afresh nor put him again to open shame who sitteth at the right hand of the glory of the Father had they the malice of the Jews and power of the Romans who once crucified him to help them yet in iterating on themselves baptism the sign of their implantation into the similitude of his death they crucifie to themselves that is as much as in them is the Son of God Chrysostome excellently expresseth it Baptism saith he is the Cross for therein our old man is crucified with him Again we have been planted together in the likeness of his death as therefore Christ may not be crucified again for that were to put him again to open shame so neither may we be baptized again for if death have no more dominion over him if he be risen in his resurrection a conqueror over death c. and should again be crucified then all these things were meer fables and mockeries therefore he that rebaptizeth himself doth again crucifie him But what is crucifying again As Christ died on the Cross so do we in baptism not in the flesh but to sin therefore there may be no second washing for if there be there may be a third and a fourth for the first is made void by the second and that by another even to an infinite Where there are all the essential parts of baptism rightly administred according to the commission given by Christ to his Apostles there baptism cannot be made void or no true baptism by any thing accidental circumstantial or less then essential neither expresly nor by any necessary consequence any where in holy Scripture forbidden But in baptizing of Infants of Church-priviledged Parents by sprinkling or washing with water in the name of the Father and the Son and the holy Ghost there are all the essential parts of baptism according to Christs commission given to the Apostles to wit the Element and the Word which constitute the Sacrament Therefore that their baptism is not neither can be made void or no true baptism by or in respect of Infant-age or of only washing or sprinkling them with water which are things circumstantial accidental less then essential and no where expresly or by necessary consequence forbidden in holy Scripture So that whatever Anabaptists pretend in their eager pursuit of their opinion that they do not rebaptize supposing that there preceded no essential or true baptism in regard of the persons being baptized in their Infancie or because they fancie dipping the whole body to be essential to baptism and so necessary that without it they think there can be no true baptism neither of which have any ground in Scripture and whereas Christ is the Saviour of every age sex and condition therefore male and female aged and Infants have right to the seal as hath been shewed it highly concerneth them seriously to