similitude must fully hold some might possibly reason thus as Christ was first dead and buried and rose again the third day so we must first be dead and buried and then be baptized and rise with Christ a third time Marcion that old pernicious heretick held that one might be three times baptized or they might infer that we must not rise up out of the water into which we are dipt until the third day but how absurd such inferences are none can be ignorant 3. The alledged scripture concludes not the manner of our baptism but the effects thereof not how the water should be applied or in what maner we should be baptized whether by sprinkling washing or dipping but how we ought to live who are baptized that sin should henceforth have no more power over us then if we were dead that we should so live to righteousness and bringing forth fruits thereof as being implanted into Christ and so no more living our own life but the holy life of Christ. 4. He saith not We are buried with Christ in water or just as Christ was buried in his baptism but into the â—ikeness of his death that like as Christ was raised up from the dead so we should not be raised out of the water but walk in newness of life Here is the main substance of the similitude 't is not in any circumstance Now I would sain know whether a man may not walk in newness of life being baptized with sprinkling as well as if he had been doused 5. The argument here drawn to prove necessity of immersion is a fallicia accidente is a reasoning from the the substance to the accident Suppose thus We must be baptized into the similitude of Christs death But he was covered and rose again ergo We must be covered with water that we may be raised again c. Non sequitur his being covered in the rocky vault was but a circumstance as was his lying covered to the third day therefore it can be no more here concluded that we must be like Christ in being covered with water in baptism then that we must lie under water three days and nights in our baptism because he lay so long in his grave for why should one circumstance or accident be concluded rather then another 6. If the similitude must be so strictly urged it will be rather for us Christ was not thrown down prone with his face downward as they use to dive their disciples but honorably embalmed and decently laid in a new Sepulchre and we use solemnly to bury our dead with their faces upward sprinkle dust and earth upon them and in such decent posture we baptize Infants by putting our sprinkling water on them or by dipping them 7. Christs natural body was truly dead buried we must therefore understand that which must be done in us by analogy and proportion and not wrest the Apostles words to a litteral sense The body of sin is then buried when the power thereof is enervated and weakned and as it were a dead carcase is so over whelmed and buried that it can no more move and force a man whither it would and was wont and this is said to be done in Baptism in a twofold respect 1. In respect of Christ into whom when we are implanted by baptism all the benefits of his death are freely given and sealed to us so that our sins are buried in his grave who bare our sins in his own body 1 Pet. â—â— 24 so in his burial our sins were covered no more to appear in judgment against us or to be imputed to us 2. In respect of our mortification sacramentally accomplished in our baptism and by the Spirit of God by certain degrees in al our life long though bodily death being a privation of life hath no degrees he that is dead dyeth no more yet in our spiritual death to sin there are degrees we dye daily as the power of sin is more and more broken in us That baptism which is not agreeable to Christs or Johns baptism is not instituted by Christ therefore mans invention and will-worship But washing or sprinkling with water agreeth not with the baptism of Christ or John for they baptized and were baptized in Jordan and the Eunuch was baptized in the brook Acts 8. 38. therefore baptizing with sprinkling or only washing is not instituted by Christ. We answer 1. This is a fallacious arguing the term agreeable being boâ—oâ—ymical 't is doubtful in the assumption whether he mean agreeable in substance or in circumstance that which is not agreeable in substance with the baptism of Christ and John Baptist is not instituted by Christ but this holds not in point of circumstance for then there could be no lawful baptism but in Jordan or some other water of Palestine 2. It follows not that John B. dived Christ or any other into water or Philip the Eunuch because John baptized in Jordan where were some sandy places because we read they went down into the water for so they may do who only wet their feet or go up to their knees or anckles we must consider that in the infancy of the Gospel they had not publike Oratories and Fonts to accommodate them baptizing as in a setled state of the Church we have seen and therefore they baptized where they could have convenience of water which in that dry region was not every where to be had as appeareth in that reason ofâ— Johns baptizing in AEnon near Salim given by the Evangelist becauso there was much water there 3. It is not probable that Christ was dipt cloathes and all in Jordan and so went immediately wringing-wet into the wilderness see Mark 1. 1 2 10. nor that he was stripped naked with such a confused multitude of men and women as cam to Johns baptism see Luke 3. 21. Matth. 21. 31 32. Matth 3. 5 6. 4. It is but a weak Fallacy to dispute à particulari ad generale thus some went into the river to be baptized therefore all that are to be baptized ought so to do for in things circumstantial and without some binding Precept to impose them as duties a particular example can beget no general rule for our due and necessary imitation 5. If it could be proved which all our Antagonists can never do that Christ and those whom John baptized were duckt into the water when they were baptized yet it doth no more follow thence that all must everywhere and at all seasons be so baptized then that the Lords Supper may be administred with none but unleavened bread in an upper room after Supper to twelve men only no women because Christ so administred it or that we must anoint the sick with oyl or salute with an holy kiss because these things were in use in those Regions nay but matters circumstantial are ever liable to the test of accommodation and customs of times and places and persons dipping might be convenient
in those hot Regions and at Easter and Pentecost to which their baptizing was limited of old which in these Northern climats and in the dead of winter were near deathful to tender bodies 6. Christs baptism is washing Ephes. 5 25 26. and washing is as well by sprinkling or pouring on of water as by dipping into water hence the Apostle speaking of the washing of Regeneration presently saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which he hath poured out on us and the Scripture calleth the divers sprinklings mentioned Heb. 9. 13 19 21. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 baptismes v. 10. As washings or sprinklings are also called Mark 7. 4. but hereof we shall see more anon for the present only note that the Holy Ghost the surest Interpreter of Scripture interpreteth Baptizing by sprinkling or washing so that there is no necessity as our Antagonists would sain have it of dipping or dousing the whole body under water Dipping say they is baptizing and baptizing dipping Christ therefore who instituted Baptism therein appointed that the whole man should be dipped in Baptism We answer 1. If this bubble had any weight or solidity it were easily retorted washing or sprinkling is baptizing in Gospel-sense Christ therefore who instituted Baptism therein appointed men to be washed or sprinkled with water 2. Prove that Christ appointed the whole man should be dipped all over in water by some other medium if you can by this you cannot true it is that all dipping all over in water is baptizing but not convertibly for all baptizing is not dipping for it is proved by the fore-alledged Scriptures that washing by pouring on or sprinkling water is also a kinde of baptizing If you should say every man is a living creature that is true but not convertible therefore every living creature is a man it follows not because there are more species of living creatures then one all dipping is baptizing therefore all baptizing is dipping follows not because there are more sorts of baptizings then one by dipping 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sometimes signifieth to dip but not always The Apostles according to Christs promise were baptized with fire they were not after the foolish Jacobites opinion dipt into fire the cloven tongues sate upon each of them The Pharisees among many other traditions used the baptism of beds Mark 7. 4. You will not understand that to have been dipping their beds into water that would quickly have rotted and made them useless and unwholsom but of some light sprinkling with water So when they came from the market they eat not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 except they be baptized You will not understand except they be dipt over head and ears in the Water but except they washed as our translation gives it after the Syriac neither had they in that dry Climate convenience and store of waters every where to dive into They had commonly their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 water-pots after the manner of the purifying of the Jews John 2. 6. out of which they drew a little for lustrations or sprinklings Moreover the Israelites 1 Cor. 10. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 were baptized in the cloud not dipt into it but be sprinkled with the distilling drops thereof for the prepositoin in there used in such expressions signifieth not in but with as He shall baptize you in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with not in the holy Ghost and fire Matth 3. 11. So Rev. 19. 11. The rest were slain 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with not in the sword it is an usual Hebraism 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the sword that is with the sword Exod. 6. 6. I will redeem you 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in braehio extenso So Deut. â— 15. The Lord thy God brought thee out thence 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in that is by a mighty hand and a stretched out arm Again the sons of Zebedeâ— were to be baptized with the baptism of blood Mark 10. 39. that is in Tertullians phrase Russari suo sanguine beseneared or wet with drops of their own blood not dipt into blood The same use of â—â— derived from the Hebrewâ— we often finde in the new Testament Rom. 10. 9. 1 Cor. 4. 21. 1 Per. 1. â—1 Rev. 2. 16. 12. 5. 19. 15. 3. It is granted that Christ and many others were baptized in Jordan and that Philip did go down into the water to baptize the Eunuch and that such baptisms in hot Climates have and may lawfully be used yet no scripture-proof at all appears that Christ in his own person was dived under water or the Eunuch or any of those whom John or any of the Apostles baptized neither do we at all deny immersion to be lawful but we deny it to be so necessary as to the exclusion of washing or sprinkling as if they were not as effectually used We deny that dipping in rivers is so necessary to baptism as that none ought to be accounted baptized but those who are dipt after such a manner And we say that where we have other conveniencies in the settled Churches that practise appeareth meerly Schismatical affected and unnecessary Baptism being a sign must answer to the thing signified as The washing of the whole soul in the blood of Christ. 2. That interest which the Saints have in the death burial and resurrection of Christ is not partial but total so therefore ought the baptizing of the body to be We answer 1. It must still be remembred that this sacrament may be rightly and effectually administred by any of the three ways dipping washing or sprinkling and we approve of dipping where custom and convenience require it so far as that it excludes not the other For a divers custom of several Churches makes no difference where they all hold one faith in the main 2. It is not in the quaintity of the Element but the institution of Christ the vertue of his death and passion and the powerful working of his holy Spirit which gives the fruit and effect of baptism therefore John 3. 5. the Spirit is mentioned with water because the power of regenerating is not of the water but of Gods Spirit and Ordinance effectually working by the water of baptism And here we may note that Infants are capable of this operation as hath been proved and Christ in his institution of baptism prescribed not so far as can appear in Scripture how much water must be used herein not how deep it must be as there is no quantum of the elements prescribed in the Eucharist neither is there in all the new Testament either one precept for or example of plunging or dousing the party to be baptized over head and ears under water 3. In Circumcision the whole body was not cut but onely the foreskin of the flesh whereby the whole person body and soul was sealed and admitted into Gods Covenant and so is it proportionably in baptism the seal of Gods present Covenant In common use we know the
seal of a writing obligatory is not set all over the deed but to some one part by which the whole is confirmed and as in Livery and Seisin a little turf of grass with a twig or smal bough delivered to the Purchaser investeth him in the whole state of the demeasn So here 't is the seal and subscription of a just Deed which passeth the estate not the quantity of the wax or largeness of the parchment nor greatness of the Character whether Text-hand Chancery Court-hand Secretary all these things are circumstantial and no more and so is it in the matter of much or little water in baptism the essence whereof is applying water to the body of the baptized in the name of the Father of the Son and of the Holy Ghost There is therefore no simple necessity of dipping the whole body under water it is sufficient if the face which is as it were the representative or epitome of man in which are united all the senses be dipped washt or sprinckled 4. In baptism lawfully administred by washing sprinkling or dipping the elect have the same interest in the death burial and resurrection of Christ as if they were baptized in the deepest channel of Jordan or any other water Faith which instrumentally gives them interest in Christ being no effect of deep waters but of those Rivers of living waters whereof Christ spake John 7. 38 39. to wit the Holy Ghost 5 Sprinkling doth also aptly signifie our sprinkling with the blood of Christ in baptism cleansing us from our sins and sealing our election 1 John 1. 7. 1 Pet. 1. 2. and pousing water signifieth the effusion of the Spirit upon us Tit. 3. 5. and those sprinklings of the blood of sacrifices signified the very same Christ being baptized is said to have come up out of the water Matth. 3. 16. therefore he was in it And the Eunuch went down into the Water with Philip in neither appears any sprinkling or washing but rather dipping We answer 1. It appears that Christ and the Eunuch were baptized it appears not that either they or any other whom John B. or any of Christs Disciples baptized were dipped all under water as hath been said any more then that they were washed or sprinkled with water The word Baptizingâ—n â—n the original signifying sprinkling washing or dipping â—herefore we take it to be indifferent which of the three ways baptism be administred respect being had to convenience of times places and persons 2. The Preposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the cited places rendred Out of signifieth properly From as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 From not from under the ships and so Christ might come from the water though he were never dived under it or though he had gone only to the depth of the first or second measure of the Sanctuary waters to the anckles or to the knees 3. Philip and the Eunuch are said to have gone down into the water Act. 8. 38. for it was a descent to them the waters though shallow or possibly not within very low or hollow banks as Jordan and all great waters of Rivers usually run yet always running lower then the Superficies of the earth near the sources and channels thereof 4. The words Acts 8. 38. are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And both of them descended c. so the word also signifieth to descend or to alight as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to alight from not to come from under an horse or to descend or lot down ones self or to come down from some higher place as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith Budaeus after Suidas or to go down to some even place as to invest an enemy to wrestle fight or encountre also to go from one place to another as Acts 17. 15. it is said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Jacob descended or went into Egypt Acts 10. 20. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Get thee down and go with them So Acts 14. 25. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they went down unto Attalia for so they usuually expressed going from one place to another as the Hebrews by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So far is that word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Acts 8. 38. they Went down both to or into the water from inforcing the conclusion aimed at therefore the Eunuch baptized was dived under water that it makes nothing for it more then that Jacob going down into Egypt was therefore duckt in Nilus or Peter in the waters of Cesarea or Paul and Barnabas in some Attalian waters because these were said in the very same word to go down to these places all which being frivolous and vain your assertion must be left unconcluded for any thing to the contrary in these cited Texts appearing Add hereto that here is nothing said of the Eunuch as going down into the water more then of Philip for they both went down c. now I suppose you will not affirm that Philip as and then when he baptized the Eunuch in that administration stood all under water with the Eunuch or that John B. in the like action in Jordan was ever doused over head and ears for company And how then can it hence appear that the baptized were more dived then the baptizers Behold upon what unsound grounds our Antagonists build their pretended necessity of ducking their disciples in Rivers or deep waters CHAP. V. Protestants arguments against the supposed necessity of dipping rather then sprinkling or washing with water in Baptism THat which the word used by Christ enjoyning the duty of Baptism doth indifferently signifie and commonly import there being neither express example nor precept to restrain it precisely to either that is lawfully and warrantably to be done in baptizing But the word used by Christ enjoyning the duty of Baptism or Baptizing doth indifferently and commonly signifie dipping washing or sprinkling and there is no express example or precept in Scripture to restrain it precisely to either Therefore in Baptizing we may lawfully and warrantably pro more loci temporis statu personarum either dip wash or sprinkle in water In the name of the Father and the Son and of the Holy Ghost The major is out of controversie The minor thus confirmed The Word used by Christ Matthew 28. 19 is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth indifferently to was sprinkle or dip and as the learned Mr. Leigh well noteth it is taken largely for any kinds of Washing Rinsing or Cleansing even when there is no dipping at all So AEmilius Portus gives it by mergo immergo tingo intingo madefacio lavo abluo c. Suidas interpreteth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 lavant The same word signifieth washing or sprinkling in many places of Scripture and from necessary consequences 1. From the types of that which was signified in the old Testament which the holy Ghost as hath been noted calleth Baptisms or Washings to wit by Sprinklings for how were
the things are received after one manner and the signes after another one is given by God alone without the observation and knowledge of man and the other onely by the ministry of man and before men As at first John Baptist baptized with water and Christ baptized with the holy Ghost though he baptized not with water but his Disciples and substitutes neither did John baptize with the holy Ghost but Christ So is it now Christ baptizeth elect infants by the secret influence of his holy Spirit the fruits whereof appear in their season and his Ministers according to his appointment baptize with water To all this you say the Anabaptists give a soft and gentle answer Sure you do but herein landando praecipere and by saying they do so rather shew them what they should do then us what they do M. Fisher in his Position at the Disputation at Ashford in Kent stiled the maintainers of Pedobaptism an evill and adulterous generation this is one of their soft and gentle answers Mr. Francis Cornwell in his Sermon at Crambrock in Kent called Pedobaptism an Antichristian Innovation a humane Tradition c. Mr. Cha. Blackwood Title-page calleth his Pamphlet against us The storming of Antichrist John Spislbury calleth Pedobaptism Baptism administred and received in a false Antichristian estate and by the power of Antichrist Edward Barber calleth it Antichristian and abominable And before he saith conterning Mark 10. 14. This place is put in to be read at the sprinkling of children for the Whore hath sweet words c. Is this as you say for your Clients to give a soft and gentle answer or a Boyish manner of contest to call Whore and all ill names where they have not other power to prevail Let all judge who have any sense of humanity whether this be a soft and gentle answer to call his mother Whore and the worst of such Antichristian whereas in spight of calumnies with other reformed Churches the Church of England hath excluded Popery and what she could banished that mysticall Whore out of her communion But this is their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to conclude their Scene where they have no evicting reason against that which they dislike to pronounce it Antichristian And who is so ready to cast this odious Livery upon others as the most Antichristian I might hereto add many more the like instances of Railers at Infant-baptism calling it Idolatrous of the Dragon and Beast none other then a ceremony of Antichrist a Satanicall Institution c. but that we have too much of our own at home It is the quality of the Beast to open his mouth unto blasphemy against God to blaspheme his Name and his Tabernacle and them that dwell in Heaven But we like not our cause the worse because such rail at it but wish them to consider where the Railers place shall be 1 Cor. 6. 1. You say The Argument from Circumcision is invalid upon infinite Considerations It will I doubt not at last prove so strong that neither you nor any other Advocates shall ever be able to over-throw it for that which circumcision was in the Old Testament Baptism is in the New which succeeded it and hath the same end and use that is to be a seal of the Righteousnesse of Faith Rom 4. 11. the same Faith in the same Christ and therefore the Apostle tells the Colossians that they were Circumcised in Christ in that they were buried with him in Baptism so that Baptism is our Circumcision or Sacrament whereby the same things are conferred and confirmed an in-let for us into the visible Church of Christ a Seal of the Covenant of Grace and free remission of sins by Faith in him into whom it implanteth us But you say Figures and Types prove nothing unless a Commandement go along with them or some express to signifie such to be their purpose We answer 1. They signifie something which is their end and the argument à type ad veritatem holds good from the signes in the Law to the things signified in the Gospel as Children were typically baptized under the law under the Cloud and in the red Sea 1 Cor. 10. 1 c. and their washing with rain from the cloud prefigured our washing in Baptism and by the Spirit And the red Sea in which the AEgyptians were drowned and Israel saved was an Emblem of Christs blood in which all our ghostly enemies are drowned and we saved 2. Here is a meer ignoratie elenchi and mistake of the question in hand which is not whether Circumcision were a type and figure of Baptisme but whether Baptisme so succeed Circumcision as a Seal of the Righteousnesse of Faith That such sorts of persons to wit young and old within the covenants as had right to the one have the like right to the other which we affirm 3. Where you say Unless a Commandment go along with them c. First we say that where the question is mistaken we are not in reason bound to answer untill it be rightly stated and so may wave all that you infer concerning the Deluge Paschal Lamb c. as meerly impertinent to our present controversie Secondly concerning a command for baptizing you doubt not nor we for baptizing of Infants seeing that where the Reason and Equity of the Law remains there the Law for substance is still in force though not for every circumstance Now nothing can reasonably be alledged why children have lesse use of Reason now then they who then lived had under the Law or why they should for present want of the use of reason be now lesse capable of the Seal of the Righteousness of Faith then they were who lived under the Law But you say further Supposing a correspondence of Analogie between Circumcision and Baptism yet there is no correspondence of Identitie This Bull deserves some baiting were we not treating of sacred things therefore I onely say If correspondence import answering unto in some similitude and likeness there can be no correspondence of identity for no like is identically the same with that to which it is like For although it were granted that both of them Circumcision and Baptism did consign the Covernant of Faith Speak you this as a matter doubtfull Is not the Scripture evident Do you also call the truth thereof in question See Rom. 4. 11. There is nothing in the circumstance of childrens being circumcised that so concerns that mystery but that is 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
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
man to abridge abjudge and bar him of admission into the visible Church of Christ by baptism which sinfull and ignorant man can administer and which reprobates as wel as the elect may and do receive But what follows The conclusion would be with more probability derived thus Christ blessed children and so dismissed them but baptized them not therefore infants are not to be baptized 'T is a pretty argument wherein both Antecedent and Consequent are lame 't is true and granted that Christ in his own person baptized them not but how prove you that he baptized them not by some one of his Disciples What because 't is not written The Apostle may give you satisfaction herein who saith There are also many other things which Jesus did the which if they should be written every one I suppose that even the world it self could not contain the books How invalid is the Moderators Agument à non scripto ad nonfactum Can there be a sound conclusion from rotten premises Christ blessed children and so dismissed them but baptized them not therefore Infants are not to be baptized Antonii gladios potuit contemnere si sic omnia dixisset Would it not as well follow à non scripto Jesus granted the Centurions request and cured his servant and so for ought we read dismissed them but baptized them not Mat. 8. 10 3. Christ healed the sick of the palsie and dismissed him but for ought we read baptized him not Matth. 9. 2 6 7. Mark 2. 23. 5. 11 12. He healed the woman of the bloody issue but for ought we read baptized her not Mat. 9. 22. Mark 5. 34. So the Ruler of the Synagogues daughter Matth. 9. 25. Mark 5. 41 42. So he dismissed the man out of whom he had cast many Divels Luke 8. 38 39. we read not that he baptized him So he pronounced pardon accepted the repentance and dismissed the penitent sinner in peace Luke 7. 50. It were too long to repeat all So he cured the lame at Bethesda John 5. 8. Where though so neer the convenience of water we read not that he so much as once spake of Baptism to him neither when finding him in the Temple he said to him thou art healed sin no more lest a worse thing come unto thee can any therefore reasonably conclude those men and women of years whose bodies Christ cureth whose repentance he accepteth whose faith his self testifieth who cannot be deceived were not and therefore are not though of years to be baptized He that had his time of doing those favours to them was free to take his time of enjoyning their baptism And how could you prove that these children were not baptized before or after they were brought to Christ Before you censure our Arguments as invalid and weak do your self the right to consider your own As we are sure that God hath not commanded Infants to be baptized True God hath not given the command to the Infant himself but to others whom it concerneth we are sure he hath if you mean the first you triste if the second you do upon the matter beg the question Quid ego festinat innocens aetas ad remissionem peccatorum was the question of Tertullian lib. de Bapt. he knew no such danger from their originall guilt as to drive them to a laver of which in that age of innâ—cence they had no need as he conceived Whether infants can make haste to baptism I appeale to experience Whether they are innocent and have no need of baptism as Pelagius affirmed I appeal to your own conscience Do you think there is no danger from infants original guilt which maks them stand in need of the laver of regeneration for the remission of their sin If you do not why do you urge against us an authority which your self consenteth not unto To let pass what Tertullian meant when he affirmed such a necessity of baptism as that he said It is prescribed that no man shall be saved without baptism which he inferreth from John 3. 5. pray teach me what he meant when he said Man from his beginning circumvented so as that he would transgress Gods command therfore was condemned to death whereby he also made all mankind being infected from his seed a traduction or derivation from one to another of his own damnation Think you damnation no danger or did not Tertullian know what he wrote How he forgat himself and the truth when he would have children come to Christ onely then when they could learn and know Christ whereas Christ said Suffer little children to come unto me and forbid them not I can give no better account then for other his errors onely let the Reader note that in the same place he affirmeth that the unmarried also are to be deferred and not baptized untill they are married or setled in continency but I spare this We look for truth and shall be glad to own and embrace it in what Author soever we find it but against the truth we are bound to none onely we may note that if Tertullian spake in the fore-cited place concerning Infants that Pedobaptisme was in his time in use in the Church and so it must appear most false which you before said that it was Augustines device What need all this stirre As infants without their own consent without any act of their own and without any exterior solemnity contracted the guilt of Adams sin and so are liable to all the punishment which can with justice descend upon his posterity who are personally innocent so infants shall be restored without any solemnity or act of their own c. What need this stirre you make to trouble the peace of Christs Church Why trouble you your self with our stir to do that which Christ commandeth us Shall we suffer the Wolf quietly to take away sheep from Christs flock as we daily see by the sleepy cowardize and dangerous silence of some temporizing Pastors who possibly have learned from that old Courtier Crispus qui nunquam direxirbrachia contra torrentem nay but we know there is a dangerous silence See Ezek. 3. 18. Ester 4. 14. But to the matter we say that as in Adam all die so in Christ shall all be made alive 1 Cor. 15. 22. which being restrained according to the Apostles intention to the faithfull and elect might reasonably conclude that as all men even the faithfull and elect were by naturall propagation condemnable in Adam God justly imputing to his whole posterity that his act whereby he not onely made his own person guilty but also corrupted his nature so are they by regeneration saved in Christ God mercifully imputing his merits to them for their justification so that as they were condemnable for that they did not in their own persons commit so shall they be saved by that which Christ not they did freely without the works of the Law but of what
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
by illumination faith remorse of conscience purpose of leading a new life and desire to be implanted into Christ and the communion of Saints by baptism and so it is internal or professing of that endeavour of knowing the mysteries of the Gospel faith and repentance testified before men and so these dispositions are external or expressed to men whom it may concern these are necessary in persons of years coming to baptism 2. there is a previous disposition of the subject without any present change of the mind which springeth from his relation to some other or some others act So some titles of honour come on children in their fathers Charters without any present change of the childs mind so Lands and Inheritances by right of adoption may be setled on them in their infancy without their present change or knowledg so also the believing parents priviledg and being within Gods Covenant made with them and their children previously disposeth infants to the seal thereof to wit by giving them a certain right thereto and so was it in circumcision But if a Proselyte were to receive the seal of the Covenant he must necessarily be prepared and first disposed thereto by the knowledg of Gods Law and Covenant faith repentance or at least the profession thereof and those other rites which the Law required on that behalf The infants previous disposition to circumcision was no other then his fathers and his own priviledg and being within Gods Covenant Of the child was neither faith nor repentance required for the present but future so must we understand concerning baptism the seal of faith under the Gospel And not say you to instance in those innumerable places that require faith before this Sacrament there needs no more but this one He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved I answer 1. Deal fairly dispute ad idem and shew me one place of Scripture which universally requireth faith before this Sacrament and you shall be excused for the innumerable places which you speak of We can shew that the rule holds not universally that faith must precede the Sacraments for though Abrahams faith preceded the seal thereof yet Isaaks seal preceded his faith Mr. Calvin expresseth the reason hereof Why saith he doth in Abraham the Sacrament follow faith and in Isaak his son it goeth before all understanding because it is meet that he which being in full-grown age is received into fellowship of the Covenant from which he had hitherto been a stranger should first learn the conditions thereof but an infant begotten of him needed not so which by right of inheritance according to the form of the promise is even from his mothers womb contained in the Covenant And certainly in this respect God calleth the infants of covenanted parents sons and daughters born unto him Ezek. 16. 20. 23. 37. be esteeming them his children who are born of those parents to whom God made the promise to be a God unto them and their seed after them which promise as truly concerns us and our children as it concerned Abraham and his 2. If the argument be good from that place Mark 16. 16. He that believeth and is baptized faith is first named and then baptism ergo faith must precede baptism Why shall not the Argument from other places be good to the contrary as John 3. 5. Except a man be born of water and of the spirit he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God Baptism is first named and then regeneration therefore baptism must precede regeneration So again Ephes. 5. 26. Washing with water that is baptism is mentioned before the word ergo we must first be baptized and afterward receive the word 3. If this argument were good how many men and women of age must by the same reason be denyed baptism For all have not saith but the truth is that to be born in the Church is unto or in infants instead of profession of faith and repentance as to the outward seal for which we contend and profession of faith and repentance is to and for the adult instead of the same for their right to the desired seal so was it to Ismael and Esau whom God hated because they were born of covenanted parents 4. Sure it is that Christ in the forementioned place speaketh of men and women of years For you confess that infants as such cannot believe and what then must follow if your cruel principles were true Christ saith But he that believeth not shall be damned If this were as you would have it spoken concerning infants also what should become of all those that die in their infancy what are they damn'd Here appears an inexcusable perversness of these men who when children are proposed to their interest in general terms granted them there they would exclude them except they shew a particular warrant and baptize all Nations without a baptize infants shall not advantage them for the seal of their admission into Christs visible Church But where a general rule is mentioned from whence they are in reason and all charitable construction to be exempted there it must include them for their disadvantage even to damnation without any particular warrant for such inteterpretation Mr. Cobbet observeth well That the Covenant-priviledges of grace are ever to be expounded in favour of the principal or less principal counterparties unless any exception be made of persons or priviledges by him which was the Covenant-maker To avoid this you must either acknowledg that the place you cite is either to be understood of those of years who contumaciously reject the Ordinances of God being hardned in wilfull blindness and unbelief and so that iâ— doth not concern children as such or else you must allow infants some secret seeds of faith and regeneration and so you shall justly acknowledg their capacity of baptism Plainly you say thus faith and baptism in conjunction will bring a man to heaven but if he have not faith baptises shall do him no good True in those who though baptized as Simon Magus are yet but in the gall of bitterness but this is a meer ignoratio elenchi hence to conclude against infants baptism our question not being whether all that are baptized shall be saved but whether children of believing parents ought to be baptized which if you would thus disprove whosoever have not a saving faith that the Sacrament may do them good may not be baptized but children have not such faith that baptism received may doe them good ergo children are not to be baptized your reasoning would appear unreasonable both Propositions being false or fallacious The Major because baptism is but the external seal of admission into the visible Church into which elect and reprobates may enter as it were into the outward Court of the Temple And if saving faith finally doing the baptized good or which is the same if the inward baptism by the holy Ghost were the rule by which the baptizing Minister must
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
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
or professing faith repentance c. desire to be admitted into the Church and Covenant of God and that Infants of Christian Parents being within the same ought to be baptized forasmuch as the Covenant and Promise of God is to Parents and their children The Pelagians and Douatists long since condemned of Heresie by the Church and now again of late the Anabaptists deny the baptism of children to be lawful until they come to years that they may be taught and profess their faith and repentance and desire of baptism upon these and the like grounds Christ saith Go therefore and teach all Nations baptizing them in the Name of the Father the Son and the Holy Ghost therefore Teaching must go before Baptism and consequently Infants may not be baptized before they be taught Unto which we answer 1 That in the cited place there was not intended an exact and compleat model of Christs commission to the Apostles for there is no mention of the Lords Supper Christ only nameth the two more usual things for making or initiating disciples for the gathering of a Church that is teaching for them who were capable therof and baptizing for them and their children not yet capable of doctrine that having their names given unto Christ and being admitted into his school they might as they grew up to capacitie be instructed concerning the mysteries of salvation in Christ neither was this the first institution of baptism for when Christ spake these words he was about to ascend up into heaven he had some years before that time appointed baptism among the Iews converted to the faith and confirmed it by his own reception of baptism not that he needed it or had any sin to be washed away therein but to sanctifie the element of water by his sacred body to the use and end of baptism that is to appoint for us a laver of regeneration and in the cited place being to leave the world he enlarged the commission of baptism on the receivers part as if he had said Hitherto ye were not to go into the way of the Gentiles but to the lost sheep of the house of Israel but now go and call the Gentiles also go baptize and teach all Nations the mysteries of the Gospel as I have taught you now therefore the order and laws of Baptism are not hence to be derived 2 Christ then sent his Disciples to convert and baptize those Gentiles who possibly had not so much as heard of Christ much less of faith in him and baptism into his Church it was necessary therefore that the Apostles should first instruct them what they were to do in baptism and why but when the parents were baptized and instructed so that there were Churches setled among the Gentiles then their children were also to be baptized into the same Covenant of God which runneth to covenanted parents and their children which before their parents sealing and admission into Christs Church might not be so that as hath been often noted we must distinguish between a Church to be constituted and setled and a constituted or setled Church as also between persons of years and Infants presented to baptism In a Church to be constituted and converted from Judaism or Paganism those that are of years must necessarily first be taught and afterward baptized but in a constituted or setled Church Infants are first to be baptized and then to be taught when they are able to learn no otherwise was it in circumcision which was the former Seal of the same Covenant and righteousness of Faith into which we are now under the Gospel baptized When Abraham according to Gods commandment came to circumcise the men of his family doubtless he first instructed them and preached to them the reason use and end of that sacrament according as the Lord said Gen. 18. 19. I know him that he will command his children and his houshold after him and they shall keep the way of the Lord but when Isaac was born he did not expect till he was come to years of discreetion to learn but circumcised him on the eighth day Gen. 21. 4. 3 In the cited place the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth also make Disciples which was to gather a Church both by preaching the Gospel and administration of Baptism the Sacrament of initiation and first entrance of Infants thereto So these two means are expressed in the very next words of Christ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. that is Baptizing them in the Name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost teaching them to observe all that I have commanded Some do well observe that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is to teach them that are strangers to doctrine that they may become Disciples and so in any humane school also scholers are entered or admitted before they are therein taught but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies to teach them that are Disciples So Mat. 27. 57. it is said of Joseph of Arimathea 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 who also was Jesus Disciple And so the same word is expounded Job 4. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to make Disciples the Pharisees heard that Jesus made and baptized more Disciples then John And so the Hebrews from their word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 didicit assuevit derive their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Talmid a Disciple or Scholar So that here appeareth no such necessitie of the order by our adversaries pretended to as can conclude that none may be baptized but such as are first taught 4 If the order of those words must determine the order of the actions then by the same reason repentance must be before faith for Mark 1. 15. it is said Repent ye and beleeve the Gospel So Rom. 10. 9. If thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Iesus and shalt believe in thine heart c. thou shalt be saved Doth it follow therefore a man may make confession of Christ with his mouth to salvation before he believeth in him in his heart and indeed if the order of words may determine in what order we must act in this business then from other places of Scripture it may be concluded that Baptism must precede teaching as Mark. 1. 4. John did baptize in the Wilderness and preach the baptism of repentance and Mat. 28. 19 20. when Christ had said baptizing them c. he presently inferreth teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded So Joh. 3. 5. the water is named before the Spirit and Eph. 5. 26. the washing of water that is of baptism is named before the Word 5 Christ doth not in the cited place in one syllable prescribe or limit the Apostles whom they should baptize and whom not but only enjoineth that they baptize all Nations in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the H. Ghost teaching them to observe all those things which he had formerly taught them his principal end
What Illumination Infants have by the secret working and influence of Gods holy Spirit belongeth to Gods secret councel and therefore not to our inquest 3. Sanctification more then Ecclesiastical in order of time doth not always precede the Seal and Sacrament thereof as may be proved from Infant Circumcision but by the Sacrament which implanteth us into Christ and which is therefore the washing of Regeneration and Renovation the seeds of Faith Sanctity and good conscience are sowed in us which by a powerful and secret working of the Holy Ghost sheweth it self in due season without which work of the Spirit the Gospel most powerfully preached and Sacraments duly administred to the most knowing men and women could bring forth no better effects then a savour of death unto death and condemnation Seeing then the effect to Sanctification and Salvation is neither in the Minister nature of the Water and Washing therewith but in the Ordinance of God nor in the capacity or ability of the most prudent sons of men but in the sole working of Gods gracious Spirit why should any rest in opeâ—e operato the work it self done or deny it to any within the Church needing Regeneration that they may be saved Christ joyneth these two together Teach and Baptize and Believe Repent and be Baptized But Infants are not capable of Faith and Repentance Therefore they ought not as such to be Baptized We answer Here is an Ignoratio Elenchi in the mistake of the Question which is not Whether that teaching ought to be divided from Baptism which we affirm not but the contrary persons of years ought first to be taught to believe and repent and then to be baptized But our question is not concerning the Baptism of Adults or persons capable of these things for the presenâ— but of Infants here again the question is mistaken and therefore such disputes are fallacious It is true the water without the Word can make no Sacrament nor give any sacramental effect therefore neither young nor old may be baptized where the Gospel is not first preached and received For Baptism is a seal of the Gospel but believing Parents have been taught received the Gospel and been sealed into Gods Covenant therefore they ought to present their children to Baptism who are joynt Covenanters with them Again Baptism is administred with the words of institution by Christ appointed take away the Word and what is the Water but ordinary water The Word is added to the element and makes the Sacrament of the Water that it but toucheth the body and cleanseth the heart but by the Word not because it is spoken but because it is believed Moreover though God taught Abraham concerning the Sacrament of Circumcision and so he was circumcised and all his Males yet he circumcised Isaac at eight days old so long before that word of faith could be preached to Isaac he received the sameâ— Sacrament and Seal of the same Righteousness of faith in Christ in whom believing we also are saved Men of ripe years were first instructed concerning the institution end and use of Circumcision and then received the Seal but Infants as such not capable of instruction first received the Seal of Faith and if they lived to years then they were taught yet the Word and the Seal were not parted in either So is it in Infant-Baptism now Those Infants whom Christ blessed and of whom he pronounced Theirs or Of such is the Kingdom of heaven were such as were fit to be taughâ— for so the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 also signifieth And Christ in the persons of children blesseth those that were such in humility and innocency not in age We answer 'T is true that in their persons Christ commended humility and innocency and also shewed their interest in the Kingdom of heaven saying Of such is the Kingdom of Heaven that is of such persons and of persons of such quality for he proposeth Infants for a patern Now as they are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which sometimes signifieth a Son or Servant of years yet not always as common use of that word shews Matth. â—2 13 14 20. Luke 2. 21 c. so are the same called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Luke 18. 15. which without controversie properly signifieth Infants lately born as Luke 2. 12 16. Acts 7. 19. 1 Pet. 2. 2. new born babes and sometimes children in the womb as Luke 1. 41 44. that which is said 2 Tim. 3. 15. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 From a childe thou hast known the holy Scriptures is as much as the Greeks proverbially said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the Latines à teneris unguiculis from thy tender years that is so soon as it was possible for thee to learn so Psal. 58. 3. The wicked are estranged 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from the womb they go astray 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ab utero as soon as they are born speaking lyes So Psal. 22. 9. Thou didst make me hope 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when I was upon my mothers breasts that is very soon very yong The Syriac 2 Tim. 3. 15. translateth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from a childe from thy tender years so soon as it was possible for thee to learn by a word indifferently signifying Infancy Childhood or Youth but that Luke 18. 15. the same render by the word which signifieth Infants 1 Tim. 2. 15. Acts 7. 19. 1 Pet. 2. 2. and Mark 10. 16. it is said that Christ took them up in his arms put his hands upon them and blessed them which sheweth that they were little portable children had they been of mans growth though never so humble or innocent they would have been too heavy to have been carried in the arms Lastly there can be no rational doubt but that he blessed Infants properly so called who took on him Infancy to save them Nor may we think that they are less then blessed of Christ who are saved by his blood as Infants are That which God Commandeth not in some express precept concerning his worship is not any better then mans invention Will-worship and may not be done But Infant-Baptism is no where in Scripture commanded in any express Precept Therefore it is no better then mans invention Will-worship and may not be done We answer 1. By demanding quanta est major Propositio if it be universal the sense running thus All that is Will-worship which is not commanded in some express Precept it is evidently false For there is no express Precept for many things left arbitrary and falling under the Rule of Decency and Order which yet are not Will-worship Next we say That the substance and Institution of Gods worship must have an express precept for it or it will fall under the notion of Will-worship but in the circumstances and accidents it is not alwayes so for example had not Christ somewhere commanded to baptize it had been Wil-worship for any
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 actu primo 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 11 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 cateris 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 Judas 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 prosess 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 he answered If thou believest with all thy heart thou mayest therefore he that beliâ—veth 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 seed 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 ture 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 saith 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 so they agree 1 In the end Rom. 4. 11. Tit. 3. 5. 2 In signification Col. 2. 11 12. Deut. 30. 6. Ier. 4. 4. Rom. 2. 29. Mark 1. 4. Rom. 6. 3. 3 In the effect In circumstance they differ as hath been formerly shewed Though Christ took little children into his arms and blessed them yet he baptized them not therefore though we may pray for our Infants yet
the covenant of the righteousness of faith and as a pattern and example to which we must frame our lives in faith and obedience faith is the condition of our covenant with God in Christ made with Abraham and his seed that is believers and thereupon the first seal of the righteousness of faith was given to his natural seed and now a believing Parent being by faith of the seed of Abraham the first seal of the present covenant is by the same proportion to be given to his natural-born Infants In that commission in which those only are meant which are capable of being taught and to learn Infants are neither named intended nor meant but such is that commission Mat. 28. 19 20. therefore there is no commission to baptize Infants For proof of the minor which was denyed was offered this reason He that gives commission to teach persons before they are baptized requires no more to be baptized then are capable to be taught c. ergo Though enough hath been said to satisfie herein yet to satisfie your instance we say further 1 The minor is fallacious the condition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is here considerable without which it is a Paralogism or fallaeious disputing we affirm not a present capacitie or actual docibility of Infants but an habitual that is that Infants have reason whereby they will in time to come be capable of being taught though for the present they have so slender an use thereof that they cannot apprehend spiritual things otherwise we might not baptize them could they not bear the image of God to baptize bells altars c. or beasts were a most detestable and blasphemous prophanation of the holy Sacrament 2 If capable of being taught and to learn be taken for a present capacitie and the sense of your proposition runs thus in that commission in which only persons of years are meant Infants are not intended or meant ◠'t is easily granted but then your minor being this in that commission Mat. 28. 19 20. only persons of years are meant is a gross begging of the Question which is whether in that commission Christ intended only the baptism of persons of years and for the present apt to be taught and learn or also with such Infants of Christian Parents which we affirm 3 It appeareth by that which hath been formerly answered to Obj. 5. that Christ saith in the cited place 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 make Disciples baptizing them c. and though children as such cannot be taught yet they may be made Disciples of Christ by being admitted into his school their Parents giving their names to Christ both for themselves and their families and in Christs commission in that place teaching doth follow baptizing them in the Name of the Father of the Son and of the Holy Ghost which we do teaching our baptized Infants so soon as they become fit to be taught what Christ hath commanded 4 Though Infants as such are not capable of teaching yet are they capable of baptism that is of being washed with water in the name of the Father the Son and the holy Ghost of being prayed for and of being received into Christs congregation and so were Infants capable of circumcision the eighth day Those that are not in the cited place commanded to be baptized are not to be baptized But Infants are not there commanded to be baptized therefore they are not to be baptized We answer 1 The minor is false It is there commanded to baptize Infants 2. If you mean that the command is not addressed to Infants you trifle the Amphibologie being in those that are not commanded and so that being understood personally of Infants there is an Ignoratio Elenchi in the Minor we not affirming that which you assume to wit That Infants in their own persons are commanded 3. The Major is fallacious in another respect in this word Commanded which may import either Implicitely Comprehended so are Infants commanded to be baptized or explicitely and in terminis which if you mean which say again neither are women nor persons of years there or elsewhere in terminis commanded to be baptized though by the series of holy Scipture and necessary consequence it is certainly implyed See more Obj. 14 The Apostle 1 Cor. 7. 14. intended by holy legitimacie not sanctity for if it were not the faith of the parents but their matrimonie which the Apostle there spake of then it was not sanctity or holiness but legitimation which he there intended But it was not faith but their matrimony that the Apostle there spake to ergo c. the argument for Infant-baptism thereon grounded is invalid We answer 1 The scruple of the Corinthians was concerning spiritual pollution by a believers cohabiting with an husband or wife not converted the Apostle answereth in effect that they need not fear that for the unbelieveng husband is sanctified 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the wife that is in respect of the wife not as if an unbelieving husband were made holy by the faith of the wife but because the believing wife may with good conscience live as a wife with such an husband for why should anothers conscience make her guiltie of sin for unto the pure by faith all things are pure Tit. 1. 15. marriage meats all being sanctified by the Word allowing them and promising a blessing to believers as also by prayer of faith obtaining the same This he proveth by their childrens holiness as from the absurditie and falshood of the contrary else were your children unclean but now are they holy that is within the covenant of the Lord who saith I will be a God unto thee and thy seed after thee and this he leaveth on a known and common practice of the Churches everywhere that if but one of the Parents were a believer the children of him or her were brought to baptism as the seal of the Covenant 2 This cannot reach to children born of both unbelieving parents though so born in lawful matrimonie they were civilly legitimate for that would make the Apostles supposition void for what was it to his purpose to speak of legitimacie or illegitimacie of Panims children neither could civil legitimacie give them any priviledge in Gods covenant out of which can be no holiness nor illegitimacie exclude those from the seal thereof who converted professed their faith and desired the same That which is said Deut. 23. 2. A bastard shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord even unto his tenth generation is not to be understood as if it bar'd them from salvation or any means thereto subordinate the covenant of God seals thereof sacraments or publick service of God but that it excluded them from a right to bear any publick office Ecclesiastical or Civil neither may Jophta's extraordinary calling to publick office make void the general rule in the forecited place it is said the Ammonite or Moabite shall not enter into
baptized under the Gospel for the same end for baptism answereth circumcision and is called by the same name Col. 2 11 12. as having the same end effect to seal up the same grace unto faith mortification remission of sins admission into the visible Church If it be excepted that under the Law there was an express command for Infant-circumcision on the eighth day but there is none for Infant-baptism We say 1 Because there was an express command under the Law never repealed in the Gospel and the same end and use still remain therefore there need be none in the Gospel more then that general opening the kingdom of heaven to all believers in taking away the stop of the partition wall by that which is said Baptize all Nations None but Israelites and their proselytes were sealed under the Law none but male children at eight days old but now go baptize all nations without exception to nation age sex or condition 2 There is in all the Scripture no express prohibition neither can any by any sound consequence imply it The assumption is thus confirmed Those whom Christ saveth are members of his body for he is the head of the Church and Savior of the body Eph. 5. 23. But Christ saveth Infants of believing parents therefore Infants are members of Christs body the Church The major is evident for Christ saveth none but those who are members of his body the Church The minor is as evident it being granted that any Infants are saved which is apparent from the covenant of God Gen. 17. 7. and the words of Christ of such is the kingdom of God as also by this argument Those whom Christ loved and for whom he gave himself to deathâ— those he will sanctifie and cleanse with the washing of water by the Word Eph. 5. 26. that they may be received into the Church and be made partakers of the benefits of his death but Christ not only loved and gave himself for persons of years but also for Infants therefore he will sanctifie and cleanse Infants with the washing of water by the Word c. 2 All Infants were by Adam capable of sin and the expressions of Gods justice punishing the same by death sickness c. but Infants are not less capable of the grace and mercy of God in Christ in respect of the expressions thereof then they were of his justice in Adam Therefore Infants are capable of the expressions of Gods grace and mercie in Christ which in the ordinary dispensation thereof is baptism The major is evident Rom. 5. 12. 1 Cor. 15. 22. The minor Rom. 5. 20 where sin abounded grace did much more abound that is Gods grace doth more abundantly appear in holding out the visible remedy then his justice inflicting the denounced punishment which could not be if Infants visibly involved in the condemnatorie sentence and execution thereof should be excluded from the ordinary and visible means of recovery and salvation by Christ which in them can be no other external means but baptism the laver of regeneration it can be no less then a sacrilegious injury to the grace mercy of God in Christ to suppose that the sin of man is more powerful to hurt then the grace of God in Christ is to heal and save 3 If we ought not to baptize Infants then there must be some apparent let and impediment thereto either on Gods part prohibiting or on the Ministers part or in the Sacrament it self or in the incapacitie of the receiver but there is no apparent let or impdiment on the part or in any of these therefore there is none at all 1 There is no impediment on Gods part for God no where expresly or by good consequence saith Baptize not Infants or Baptize none but those who do first testifie their faith and repentance 2 There is no impediment on the Ministers part for he can as easily baptize Infants as persons of years 3 There is no impediment in respect of the Sacrament it self for all the essentials of baptism may be placed on children profession of faith repentance c. are conditions of baptism in persons of years and effects of it which may in due time appear and follow in baptized Infants those therefore are not of the essence of baptism nor so much as universal conditions thereof for the present sprinkling washing or dipping in water in the name of the Father the Son and the H. Ghost are the essence of baptism so are not faith repentance or newness of life for it may be a true baptism where these graces do neither precede nor follow it though without these preceding or following baptism cannot be effectual to salvation which need not seem strange to him that considereth that Judas Simon Magus and many who were and now are truly baptized are not saved 4 Neither can the let be in the Infant who cannot by any actual hardnes of heart impenitency or positive unbelief or contempt of the ordinance of God refuse or despise the grace of God offered in baptism Therefore they are to be admitted to that whereof they are apparently undeniably capable which is the external seal at least which is all that man for present can administer or we will contend for being most willing to leave secret things to God and to hope the best where the contrary cannot appear unto us only add hereto if the issue be put upon the capacitie or incapacitie of the Infant with relation to any condition so much insisted on let any of our Antagonists shew us how or wherin Infants under the Gospel covenant of grace in Christ have less capacity in respect thereof then Infants under the Law of Moses had or that baptism is not the seal of the same righteousness of faith in Christ wherof circumcision for the time was the seal 4 That which without any expressed exception to particulars Christs commission holds forth to all nations belongs to Infants as well as persons of years for Infants are alwayes a great part of all nations but Christs commission holds forth baptism to all nations without any expressed exception to particulars therefore baptism belongs to Infants of believing Parents as well as to persons of years 5 No man may forbid water that is the outward administration where God hath given the inward operation of his H. Spirit which maxim the Apostle built on in that then difficult question whether the Gentiles might be sealed into the covenant of grace But God hath given the inward operation of his H. Spirit to Infants Ier. 1. 5. Luk. 1. 15. 1 Cor. 7. 14 therefore no man may forbid water or the outward administration for the baptism of Infants The reason of the major is that all they who are partakers of the grace both signified exhibited in baptism have right to the sign and sacrament thereof and therefore may not be barred from it for that were to withstand God Act. 11.
of man as its ground but on the meer institution and gracious promise of God therefore â—t ought not by anyman be denied infants in respect of their present defect or want of understanding or the acts â—hereof in faith repentance c. they being comprehended in All Nations The minor appears in S. Peters answer to his hearers prickt in heart Repent and be baptized every one of you for the remission of sâ—â—â— For the Promise is unto you and unto your children c He saith not Be baptized for ye have repented ye are of age and a good understanding but Be baptized c. for the Promise is to you and to your children though they cannot yet actually believe repent understand c. yet they have Gods promise for the ground of their sealing on whose grace and ordinance the whole power and vertue of the sacrament dependeth But his grace and Ordinance depend not on any excellency ability or act of man therefore the Apostle fetched not the reason of his Exhortation from their age or repentance but from the promise and mercy of God calling them who were far of 26. For conclusion I take up this congeriem of arguments out of the learned Ursâ—â—â—s That opinion is pernicious which robs poor Infants of their right which obscureth the grace and mercy of God who would that Infants of Believers should from the womb be reckoned members of his Church which derogates from the grace offered in the new Covenant making it less then that in the old which weakneth the comfort of the Church and faithful Parents which denyeth Infants that seal which should differ them from the children of Jews and Pâ—gans which contradicteth the Apostles reason Can may man forbid water that these should not be baptiptized which have received the holy Ghost as well as we which keepeth Infants as much as man can from Christ he expresly saying Saffer little children to come unto me which without a Covenant they cannot do spiritually nor without the external seal sacramentally Now such is the opinion of Anabaptists denying Christians Infants Baptism CHAP. IV. Anabaptists Arguments concerning the necessity of Dipping over head and ears in Baptism examined and answered THe envious Philistims will still be casting earth into Isaacs wells of livings waters to stop them up Satan envying man these waters of life in the Laver of Regeneration eâ—tsoon casteth in scruples to obstruct and make void the holy ordinances of God to deluded souls by causing them to renounce their Baptism and Christ whom they sacramentally had put on therein by taking on them another Baptism under a vain pretence that they were not susceptive of Baptism in their infancy nor lawfully baptized neither at all truly if happily they were not dipped under water for they say the institution of Christ requireth that the whole man be dipped all over in water so that the Anabaptists now hold that dipping the whole body into water is essential to baptism so necessary that except they are so dipt they are not duly and truly baptized according to the institution of Christ. Since the infancy of the Gospel Satan hath not ceased to trouble the Church concerning baptism Some of the Jews would have circumcision joyned with baptism the Archontici condemned baptism with a curse the Novatians deferred if to the last because they understood not the power of this ordinance of God to cleanse the whole life but thought that there was no mercy for him who sinned after baptism Liberius the Monk as also Fidus would have childrens Baptism tyed to the eighth day Anabaptists not only deny believers children Baptism as the Pelagians and Donatists did of old but affirm That dipping the whole body under water is so necessary that without it none are truly baptized as hath been said So the subtil enemy still assaileth Baptism in one part or another that we may not unaptly apply that to him his factors which Tertullian once said concerning the most impious Persecutor Nero He that knows him well may understand that nothing but some great or singular Neroâ— And indeed we ought more highly to esteem Gods favor in sealing us into his Covenant of grace and more seriously and carefully endeavour to answer thereto in newness and sanctity of living by how much more the enemy rageth against it The Protestant Church holdeth that the word and the element make the Sacrament and that neither sprinkling is simply necessary nor washing or dipping unlawful but that according to the convenience of times places and persons either sprinkling washing or dipping in the name of the Father the Son and the Holy Ghost is the true form of Baptism and that caeteris paribus either of these three applications of the water have the same effect and may as convenience serves indifferently be used being fit to signifie the application of the benefit of Christs blood for the remission of sin and cleansing therefrom But our Antagonists say We are buried with Christ by baptism into his death that like as Christ was raised up from the dead even so we also should walk in newness of life Rom. 6. 4. But Christ in his burial was covered that he might thence rise out of the eartâ— therefore in Baptism we must be covered and as it were buried under water that we may rise again as Christ did We answer 1. Similitudes run not on four feet types signs and similitudes are not to be extended beyond the scope and meaning of the Speaker as might be shewed in almost innumerable instances lest not only absurdities but horrid blasphemies should be thence inferred The Ark in the Deluge was a type of Baptism 1 Pet. 3 20 21. what must the type and truth agree in all things must all the world be drown'd and only eight persons saved I doubt you would hardly agree among your selves which should be the eight The red-sea and cloud figured baptism 1 Cor. 10. 1 c. what would you have your disciples baptized with the sprie of two neighboring seas and a cloud of fresh water raining on their heads Jonah's being in the Whales belly was a type of Christs burial and resurrection you would not have your disciples in their conformity be three days under water These instances may shew the vanity of stretching types and signs to every fancy of Hectic braines and now deal ingenuously what reason or warrant have you to wrest this similitude to what you please in those similes which are most apt there may be many disconveniences found Or what commission can you dream of that gives you authority to draw this alledged Scripture beyond the Apostles scope and purpose rather to that which seems to favour your fancy and practise of immersion then to another sense 2. Those expressions Rom. 6. 4. are meerly figurative and therefore do not at all bind us to any external or literal sense or observance in the maner of baptizing if the
they performed see Numb 19. 2◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the 70. gives it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the water of Separation hath not been Sprinckled upon him so is it often named there and Leviâ— 4. 17. The Priest shall dip his finger in the blood and Sprinkle it Seven times c. 70. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So Lev. 14. 16. and Lev. 16. 14 15. he shall take the blood of the bullock 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and shall sprinkle it with his finger So Numb 8. 7. Thus shalt thou do unto them to cleanse them Sprinkle water of purifying upon them So Numb 19. 18 19. A clean person shall take hysope and dip it into the water and Sprinkle it upon the Tent and upon the persons so Exod. 24. 8. Moses took the blood and Sprinkled it on the people and said Behold the Blood of the Covenant which the Lord hath made with you which signified the blood of Christ to cleanse them from sin as the water of Baptism now doth And these very Sprinklings the holy Ghost calleth Baptisms Heb. 9. 10. 13 2c where the mystery is clearly unfolded 2. From the truth thereby signified So Ezek. 36. 25. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 70. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I will sprinkle you with clean water or clean water upon you and ye shall be clean how The Apostle telleth us 1 Pet. 1 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 unto obedience that is by the Spirit of Sanctification and Sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ as Heb. 10. 22. Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith having our hearts Sprinkled from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water that is the water mentioned by Ezekiel the purifying water of baptism and Heb. 12. 24. We are come to Jesus the Mediator of the new Covenant and to the blood of Sprinkling that is the application of the blood and merit of Christ in Baptism for the remission of our sins 3. From necessary consequences from the common use of the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Scriptures where they cannot reasonably be interpreted by dipping but by washing or sprinkling as Matth. 26. 23. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. he did not dip his whole fist into the dish but only wet his fingers therein So Matth. 20. 23. Christ mentioneth his baptism which all understand of his blood-shedding not dipping therein but besprinkling therewith So Luke 11. 38. when the Pharisee invited Christ to dinner he wondred 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that he had not first washed before dinner it cannot there reasonably be interpreted that he had not first been dipt over head and ears in water So 1 Cor. 10. 2. They were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea No reasonable man can think that all Israel with their wives and children were dowsed into the sea nay but they passed through dryâ— foot nor were they dived into the cloud but only as those who were rinsed or wetted under a rainy cloud by the drops thereof distilling on them So Mark 7. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the letter Except they baptizeâ— or be baptized he meaneth not by dipping the whole into the water but as it is clearly manifested by the Holy Ghost the best interpreter of himself a little before they ear not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with common hands that is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 unwashen and in the same place as hath hath noted we read also 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the letter Baptisms of beds which was not by dipping into but though understood of tables which they commonly made of Couch-beds set together by sprinkling them with a little wateâ— which manner of purification they too superstitiously and commonly used As for the second clause of our minor proposition we appeal to Scriptures whether there be any express example or precept restraining baptism only to dipping over head and ears 2 In the Lords Supper the efficacie of the Sacrament is not in the quantitie of the element a little bread therein is as good and effectual as a whole loaf so hereâ— it is not as hath been said in the quantitie of the element but in the ordinance of God and operation of his Spirit Now herein Christ never gave any precept concerning the quantum the Word and the Element make the Sacrament and a few drops sprinkled are as truly water as all Jordan 3. If Baptism in the type thereof were administred by God by sprinkling then it is lawfully and effectually so to be administred by man in the truth for in the main Analogy the truth must answer the type But Baptism in the type was administred by sprinkling infants as well as persons of years for all Israel were baptized under the Cloud 1 Cor. 10. 2. Therefore Baptism may lawfully and effectually be administred by sprinkling of water 4. That administration of Baptism whereby Christ cleanseth his Church is lawfull and effectuall But Christ cleanseth his Church with the washing of water through the word Ephes. 5. 26. Therefore that administration of Baptism which is by washing with water according to his precept Matth. 28. 19. is lawfull and effectuall 5. The Goaler Acts 16. 33. was baptized about midnight and it is improbable that he had any such store and convenience of water in his house as to dip himself and family or that they went out to some river at such a season neither was it probable that three thousand added to the Church in one day dursâ—in those times when Christians were so eagerly persecuted go publickly with the Apostles to the poole of Bethesda Siloam or the brook Cedron or any like place to be doused more probably they were baptized by washing or sprinkling with water as they had private accommodation thereto nor could so many in one day have been baptized by a few Apostles if all had been baptized by dipping 6. If immersion were simply necessary and of the Essence of Baptism then it might not be dispensed withall in case some sick Convert should desire it before his death for the comfort and peace of his afflicted conscience which were extream uncharitableness which belongs not to any Ordinance of God Therefore it cannot be simply necessary 7 That which can neither be proved by example of Christ John Baptist or any of the Apostles baptizing nor by any precept of Christ concerning the same is not essential or simply necessary to baptism but dipping or dowsing in baptism can neither be proved by example c. or any precept of Christ concerning the same therefore diping or dowsing is not essential or simply necessary to baptism and indeed were there to be found in Scripture any example hereof without a precept to lay the same universally upon the Ordinance it were not binding as hath been proved from Christs administring the communion with unleavened bread after supper in an upper room
to twelve men only and no women So that if that which you can never prove should be granted you that John Baptist and Christs disciples did then and there baptize by dipping yet it would not follow that we ought to baptize in the like and no other manner In the infancie of the Church they had not Baptisteries or Churches as we have there was a kind of necessitie for them as they met with occasions to make use of waters as they could find them in rivers or sources wherein it cannot be proved that they dipt nor could it conclude our Antagonists pretended necessitie if it were supposed 8 Whatsoever was or is essential to baptism or simply necessary thereto is mentioned in some clear example or express precent of Christ But dipping the whole body in baptism is neither mentioned in any clear example nor any express precept of Christ therefore it is not essential or simply necessary to baptism Christ omitted nothing necessary and the holy Scriptures are able to make men wise to salvation And let our Antagonists now seriously consider what they do when they rebaptize upon that fancie that washing or sprinkling with water in the Name of the Father the Son and the holy Ghost is not true baptism CHAP. VI. Anabaptists Arguments for their dangerous practice of Re-baptizing examined and answered THE malitious Serpent ever attempting to poison or trouble these sanctuary-waters obstructing or hindering their effect lest they should heal sin-wounded souls somtimes moved Pelagius Donatus and others reviving their errors to deny the most innocent children of believers baptism sometimes he teacheth them to except against the manner of baptizing as if the vertue of the Sacrament depended on the quantitie of the element and not solely on the Ordinance and power of God working thereon sometimes he causeth deluded people to annul their baptism and in effect to renounce their faith and Christ whom they had sacramentally put on in baptism by receiving a second third or iterated baptism we read that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 baptized every day supposing that their former baptisms were made void by any sin after committed on which fancie possibly the Novatians thought that baptism ought to be deferred to the end of their lives Auxentius the Arrian taught that baptism ought ro be iterated the Marcionites baptized their disciples three times The Anabaptists rebaptize baptized Infants coming to age and affirm that the assuming of baptism in ripe years by those who were washed in Infancie is not a renouncing baptism but a firmer avouching thereof according to Christs mind errors are fruitful one absurdity granted many will readily follow they think first that Infants having no present actual faith and repentance not present use of reason to understand the Gospel preached are not as such to be baptized but until they â—ome to years to be taught and to make profession of their faith and repentance to be kept from baptism and that so Infant-baptism is void and to be esteemed no baptism Secondly they dream that those who are not dived under water are not baptized and therefore they rebaptize them who were baptized in Infancie though that ground may often fail them because some have been baptized by immersion Now that which hath been said on our part is enough to satisfie those in those things who are not wilfully bent with Simo in the Comedian rather to erre then to be directed by any Therefore to avoid repetitions let the issue be if Infant-baptism in the name of the Father the Son and the holy Ghost either by washing sprinkling with or dipping into water be indeed a compleat and warrantable baptism according to the institution of Christ then Anabaptists rebaptizing do impiously seduce and teach simple people to renounce that baptism by which they had at least sacramentally put on Christ and thereby were re-admitted into that Church out of which can be no salvation And let the prudent Reader judge whom I herein refer to an impartial and serious consideration of that which hath been said which being proved the Anabaptists whole fabrick of dowsing and rebaptizing falleth heavily on their Dippers heads The Church of Christ holds that Infants of enchurched Parents or others of yeaâ—s converting to the faith being once sprinkled washed or dipt in the name of the Father the Son and the holy Ghost according to Christs institution ought not on any pretence to be rebaptized I say thus baptized according to the ordinance of Christ because the Samosatenians Sabellians Marcionites Arrians or the like who any wayes opposed the holy Trinity or denied any persons thereof did not baptize according to the prescript of Christ and therefore in case any of their disciples converted the true Church baptized them because the former pretended baptism was not according to the Ordinance of Christ and so no true baptism it being the peculiar prerogative of Christ to appoint the seals of his own Covenant of free Grace and mercie with man But the Anabaptists after their manner object We are regenerate not only by Baptism but also by the Word Ephes. 5. 26. 1 Pet. 1. 23. but the Word is often repeated and therefore so may baptism We answer 1 The word mentioned Eph. 5. 26. is that which comming to the element makes the Sacrament as Chrysostom wel interpreteth that he might sanctifie and cleanse it with the washing of water by the Word What Word saith he why this In the name of the Father of the Son and of the holy Ghost that Word which coming to the element makes the Sacrament ought not to be more repeated then the Sacrament it self because it is essential thereto 2 The regeneration of man is only one whose principal efficient cause is the holy Ghost the means or instrumental causes on Gods part are the Word and Sacraments on our part faith which the holy Ghost begetteth encreaseth and confirmeth ordinarily by those external means Therefore when they are baptized who were before regenerate by the Word as a spiritual feed they have not need of any other regeneration nor can they be twice regenerate but then baptism is to them an obsignation and confirmation of their regeneration So Abraham first believed as so was regenerate and afterward was sealed So Cornelius spiritual sanctification preceded in the gift of the holy Ghost and then he received the Sacrament of regeneration to confirm the same to him But when the elect who being baptized dye in their infancy it is certain that they are regenerate by the Sacrament without the ministry of the word preached unto them whereof they are not capable who yet without regeneration could not enter into the Kingdom of God John 3. 5. And if the baptized Infant live to be capable of teaching and so receive the word as that it begets in him actual faith repentance and obedience to God then that word is as Sincere milk to nourish and confirm not to