regenerate but to promote the degrees of regeneration producing that faith and the fruits thereof sowed in baptism to a clearer and more evident maturity So was it in Isaac who was first regenerate by the seal of the righteousness of faith which was after he came to years nourished and confirmed by the word preached unto him So that though the word in the ordinary dispensation thereof be often repeated and doth by many degrees promote our regeneration and cause us to grow to a better stature and strength according to our measure in Christ of which we have continual need yet it follows not thence that baptism may also be iterated no more then that a man may be often born into the world because he is often fed and groweth up by degrees and divers accessions to his stature Though corporal generation or birth be naturally but one yet may it be supernaturally iterated Yea so shall it be in the resurrection which our Saviour calleth Regenerationâ— Matth 19. 28. We answer 1. The present question is concerning regeneration in this life not of that which shall be in the new age as the Syriac hath it that is in the world to come 2. Christ there calleth the resurrection regeneration to teach us who have received the first fruits of the Spirit in our regeneration that admirable thing which shall come to pass in our resurrection for so shall our flesh be as it were born again by incorruption as our soul is now regenerate by faith in Christ. 3. That regeneration in the end of the world shall be but once therefore by proportion regeneration in this world by baptism must be can be but once The spiritual death to sin is by many acts of regeneration as examination of our selves daily renewing our repentance beating down our bodies by fasting prayer humiliation and rising again to newness of life in our encreases of faith and growth in holiness is by sundry acts of the Spirit regenerating and making our endeavours effectuall in the use of the means as hearing praying receiving the Sacrament In and by these is regeneration therefore not one nor only once Add hereto that we are baptized into remission of sins which being daily we have need of daily remission and therefore of Baptism We answer 1. That dying to sin and rising to newness of life are the certain effects of regeneration and therefore it may conclude that where these are and their several acts appear there undoubtedly is Regeneration But it can no more conclude divers Regenerations then the divers acts of a living man can prove that he had several Generations or Births because these prove that he liveth 2. Our need of daily pardon for our daily sins may conclude our daily need of repentance as our Saviour taught us but it concludes not any necessity to iterate our Baptism but rather the contrary because the Covenant of God once sealed to us in Baptism for the free remission of all our sins through the inestimable and never dying-merit of Christs death into which we are implanted by Saptism is unchangably perpetual and the condition of our comfortable assurance of pardon cannot be iteration of our Baptism but renewing of our repentance and amendment of our lives which demonstrate our faith to be lively See Jer. 3. 12 13. Ezek. 16. 60. Nor doth that hinder which some object Some hypocrites receive the seal therefore they have need to receive it again that they may obtain the fruits thereof which believing they shall have It follows not that they ought to be baptized again but that they ought to be sincere and to repent of their hypocrisie and then the seal formerly received shall be effectual for them to Remission of sins and Salvation Spiritual death in sin is by many acts and Regeneration is a rising again from the same which in the regenerate who also often fall must and is often to be iterated therefore Regeneration may and must be iterated and consequently so must Baptism the Laver of Regeneration We answer 1 The acts of Regeneration are many but that proves not pluralities of Regenerations more then many acts of life prove many lives of one and the same person as we said 2. As many wounds or other concurrent causes of death conclude not many deaths of one and the same person so 't is here many sins wound and spiritually destroy the soul yet are there not more deaths then lives of one man for death is a privation of life So that our often falling into sin concludes only a need of frequent renewing our repentance and hath been shewed That which the Apostles of Christ did that we may do in the work of the Ministry But they rebaptized as may appear Acts 19. 4 5. therefore we may rebaptize We answer 1. This main argument which the Anabaptists have is built as the rest upon a meer mistake of that Scripture S. Luke thus relateth Then said Paul John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance saying unto the people that they should believe on him which should come after him that is on Christ Jesus When they heard this to wit that which John spake they that is the people mentioned verse 4. which heard those words of John B. were baptized that is by John B. or his Disciples not by Paul for he is only said verse 6. to have laid his hands upon them that they might be confirmed in their receiving the extraordinary gifts of the Holy Ghost of which those Disciples to whom Paul there spake had not before that time so much at heard verse â— 2. There was no difference in substance or signification between the Baptism of John B. and that which was administred by the Disciples of Christ as hath been shewed 3. It is not said in the cited place that Paul baptized them but onely that he laid his hands on them as we noted Add hereto that his self saith That he baptized only Crispus and Gaius and the houshold of Stephanus but besides he knew not whether he baptized any other Now Crispus was a Corinthian Gaius a Macedonian and Stephanus of Achaia I Cor. 16. 15. but 't is apparent that these Disciples mentioned Acts 19. were Ephesians verse I. and Ephesus a City of Asia Rev. I'II therefore he baptized them not and so here was no rebaptizing 4. These words When they heard this do not at all relate to the speech of Paul there historified but unto the preaching of John B. for if otherwise it would follow which the Papists affirm that Johns baptism was not the same with the Baptism of Christ and consequently that Christ whom John baptized and we baptized by the successors of Christs Disciples are not baptized with one and the same baptism whereas Christ bare the same circumcision which the Jews and for substance the same baptism with us Gentiles that he might declare himself the Saviour both of Jews
consequence is solemnity Would you have our fall in Adam and repair in Christ run literally parallell even to circumstances But what manner of arguing this were we have often said How many ridiculous consequences would you thence inferre concerning a man a woman and a Serpent and no more in the Scene a garden a fruit c. But remembring that we are speaking of sacred things we resolve that a Sacrament which is instituted of God to this end that it may be a solemn receiving into the Church and a severing or sign of distinguishing the whole Church all her parts from all other Sects ought to be ministred solemnly that others may take notice of the same and that it may be the stricter bond to the baptized when they come to years to hold them into saith obedience renunciation of the world impious desires and carnall affections into which condition they were solemnly and before many witnesses admitted by baptism And it is you say too narrow a conception of God Almighty because he hath tied us to the observation of the Ceremonies of his own institution that therefore he hath tied himself to it We never had that conceit you mistake the matter we say not that God is tied to his own Ordinances as if he could no otherwise save any but that we are tied to Gods Ordinances because they are the revealed will of God which man is bound to obey And though God be the most free Agent and not tied yet it doth not hence follow that baptism is not the ordinary means of regeneration to which we are tied God hath not in your sense tied himself to the baptism of persons in years as may appear in the penitent thief who unbaptized was saved Luke 23. 43. It is so in his other ordinances It pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe 1 Cor. 1. 21. Therefore ordinarily faith is by hearing the word Rom. 10. 17. yet God hath not so absolutely tied it to preaching but that he could at his pleasure convert Saul breathing threatnings Acts 9. Neither is he tied to the Eâ—charist would you conclude hence that men and women of years are not tied to be baptized hear the word or receive the Lords Supper because God and his free grace are not tied to these externall and ordinary means If not what meaneth that your medium God hath not tied himself and what can it more conclude against Infants baptism then against the baptism hearing receiving the Eâ—charist by persons of years Yet we affirm that when God made the promise to Abraham being willing more abundantly to shew to the heirs of promise the immutability of his councell confirmed it by an oath that by two immutable things in which it was impossible for God to lie we might have a strong consolation c. Heb. 6. 17 18. In which sense God hath bound himselfe to make good to us all that which the Seals of his Covenant by himself appointed hold forth unto us But you add Many thousand ways there are by which God can bring any reasonable soul to himself We answer The admitting of the one is not always the excluding of all other and we question not Gods power herein but his will here is an Ignoratio elenchi What think you of the validity of that Argument which is from Gods power to his will He can open the eys of the blind and convert the hearts of temporizers and professed enemies of his Church and Truth I would I were assured that he would now do so But you say nothing is more unreasonable then because he hath tied all men of years and discretion to this way therefore we of our own heads shal carry infants to him that way without his direction Here is again a fallacious arguing You take the thing in question for your medium The question is Whether baptism of Infants he a divine or humane institution upon which dependeth wholly whether we ought oâ—ught not to baptize Infants Now you would prove that we ought not to carry infants to Christ by baptism because he appointed or directed us not so to do but as you say we do it of our own heads Nay but confining sacramentall administrations to such time age or other circumstance by Christ never limited or enjoyned it will-worship and mans invention This your conceit is so poor and low that a puny Sophister would be ashamed of it Onely this you say that God hath as great a care of Infants as of others c. Here is another argument as feâ—ble as the fore-going What because God hath as great a care of them as of others therefore we must have no care of them in the application of the ordinary means so hath he a care for their bodily preservation and sustenance doth that prove that we ought not to feed or cloath them God respectively careth for all the Creatures he giveth to the beast his food Psal. 147. 9. Were it good Georgicks to say Trouble not your self to fodder your cattle or loose them from their stall that they may drink Who knoweth not that God hath appointed ordinary meane although he can do it without such means and though he say not that he will not otherwise preserve them but leave them to the dictates of common reason to conclude God you say will by his own immediate mercy bring them thither where he hath intended them but to say that therefore he will do it by an externall act and ministery is no good Argument c. Prove that one Assertion That God will by his own immediate mercy save Infants and have no means used thereto and you have the Cause but Christ hath appointed baptism for the ordinary means to bring people into his visible Church that they may be saved that he doth otherwise that is by an immediate act of mercy save some to whom his all-disposing providence hath not given time or means as in Infants dying before they were or could be baptized this varietâ— not the Rule for our question is not concerning them and to say that therfore he will do it by an external act because he will save them or bring them thither whither he hath intended them by his own immediate mercy is no good Argument you may lay your life oâ—'t Immediatly signifieth without means so that Immediately by means is a contradiction in the adject this were to my sense so farre from a good argument that I should doubt whether such a Disputant were awake or not Immediatly by an external act and ministery none of ours ever so reasoned And why cannot God as well do his mercies to infants now immediatly as he did before the institution either of circumcision or baptism Once again we say We question not Gods power truly nor his will in many Infants dying before they could be baptized the question is whether we may or ought according to Gods revealed will baptize them
we say further 1 That believers may be taken two ways first for such as do in heart believe unto righteousness this God alone can judge of and therefore man is not to expect his rule and direction for his ministration from hence Secondly for such as profess faith or shew good and probable signs and symptoms thereof as those hearers of Peter did for they received the word gladly and were baptized and before that there appeared an excellent sign of faith in them in that the word which they heard profited them to compunction of heart and repentance with desiring remedie but where the Word of God is not mixed with faith in the hearers it profiteth not as appeareth Heb. 4. 2. Therefore that assumption is irrational where you say they to whom the Apostle spake were not believers 2 There may be an amphibologie in the major believers being either such only in profession and bearing the external seal of the righteousness of faith or for such in the heart and so the sequel is unsound for the promise of Gods covenant was to all Israelâ— as being the seed of Abraham within that covenant although many of them through unbelief obtained not remission of sins and eternal life held out to them in the same which made not the promise of nose effect to them who believed and many unbelieving parents had and have believing children but a covenanted Parents unbelief barreth not his Infant born within the Church from the external seal of the covenant so that the promise did belong to them though their Parents had secretly been unbelievers and impious persons much more seeing they so expressed and professed their faith repentance and care to be saved If those children Act. 2. 39. were entitled to baptism in their infancie then they were or must have been baptized in their infancie but they were not baptized in their infancie but their fathers only who received the word gladly therefore they to whom the promise is Act. 2. 39. were not entitled to baptism in their infancie We deny your minor and you can never prove it their fathers were first baptized but it appeareth not that they only were baptized 1. It hath been often said and you need still to hear it it followeth not that it was not done because it is not written Christ spake and did many things which are not written 2 If you could from Scripture prove that de facto they were not baptized in their infancie yet that would not prove that de jure they might not be baptized The parents neglect of their duty or any other intercident obstructions could not make void the childrens interest Moses son was not circumcised on the eighth day nor many thousand Israelists Infants in the wilderness for 40 years yet we cannot hence conclude that they ought not to have been circumcised had there been no let or that they had no interest in the seal because there were lets Only Abrahams spiritual â—seed are to be baptized but Infants are not the spiritual seed of Abraham therefore Infants are not to be baptized We answer 1 This is the same argument under another synonimical dress to which we have answered there you said only believers are to be baptized here you say only Abrahams spiritual seed are to be baptized whereas believers and Abrahams spiritual seed are one and the same in the Apostles account Gal 3. 7. 2 Many thousands which were Abrahams carnal seed were baptized which were indeed not his spiritual seed that is true believers See Mat. 3. 5 6. Act. 2 41. which being done by John Baptist and Christs disciples and so precedentially to us shews the falshood of your major 3 If Abrahams spiritual seed by your own confession be to be baptized then Infants of believers within the Church must be baptized they being Abrahams spiritual seed except you will say that Gods promise was to some who were not within the covenant made with Abraham and indeed the whole mystical body of Christ is the spiritual seed of Abraham of which none can rationally deny Infants of covenanted Parents to be a part who acknowledge Christ to be their Saviour See Eph. 5. 28. and that out of him and his body the Church is no salvation So that by the way we may note that to exclude Christian Infants from being a part of Christs visible Church in general is to exclude them from the ordinary state and way to salvation and so to deny them to be Abrahams spiritual seed is to exclude them from the same and to leave them to an extraordinary means thereto in which some Pagans Turks and obstinate Jews c. by the mercie of God illuminating converting them to the faith of Christ by extraordinary means may be saved and this is to suppose Infants of Christian Parents as bad as Heathens without Christ aliens from the Common-wealth of Israel strangers from the covenants of promise-without God in the World Add hereto that if parents may not sorrow as men without hope for their deceased Infants they cannot have sound hope without faith nor faith without a promise or word of faith that is Scripture-promise to confirm ground it on and that not in general but such as properly concerns their children as that Gen. 17. 7. Act. 2. 39. Luk. 18. 16 17 c. Now to deny childrens interest herein or that they are the spiritual seed of Abraham is to leave afflicted Parents hopeless of their childrens salvation in that by such an an uncharitable impious tenet Parents must not believ those comfortable promises belong to their children and that God will not so much as by an external seal assure them that he is by covenant a God unto their Infants Nor can we think that ever any were saved ordinarily if at all touching whom God never made any promise neither in respect of internal and saving faith nor so much as in respect of external right to sealing thereto so that to avoid this we must say that Christian Infants are Abrahams undoubted spiritual seed therefore they have at least an ecclesiastical right as to the covenant made with Abraham so to the Church-priviledges respectively that is to baptism which is now the seal of Gods covenant in Christ exhibited CHAP. III. Infant baptism asserted and justified by sundry arguments by the Church of Christ alledged 1 ALl they who are members of Christs body the Church are to be baptized that they may be admitted into the same by the initiatory seal thereof which is baptism that they may be externally known to be of the Church but Infants of Church-priviledged persons are members of Christs body the Church ergo they ought to be baptized that they may be admitted into the same by the initiatorie seal thereof which is baptism c. The major is thus confirmed such persons as were circumcised under the Law that they might be known to be of the Church ought to be
rejoined what ere they professe they may be hypocrites and then no more spirituall Infants then Judas or Simon Magus were If you say that in charity you take them for spirituall I answer That an opinion that may be so easily false and in which any man without speciall revelation may be deceived is a very unproportionable ground of so sharp a controversie as causeth your Clients to forsake the Church of Christ. Next I say had you but as much charity towards infants whom no actuall sins have yet stained you would as freely judge them spirituall infants and so by your own Principle to be baptized as those of years of whom possibly you may know much evill without all controversie they have many sins to be repented of and why should you not afford harmless Infants who cannot dissemble as much charity as you do to many hypocrites of whose spirituall regeneration or being spirituall Infants you cannot be certain And this seems to have been the sense of the primitive Church for in the age next to the Apostles they gave to all baptized persons milk and honey to represent unto them their duty that though in age of understanding they were men yet they were babes in Christ and children in malice c. Indeed we read of such a custome in Tertullians time but that was two hundred years after Christ but I find not the sense of the Church therein by him expressed to your purpose And Hierom mentioneth the same custom but giveth no such sense as you pretend to it being well known that he was for Infant-baptism And it appears not by any thing you here cite or say that such a custom proveth any thing against Baptism of Infants for whom milk and hony is fitter nourishment thâ—n for the strong 1 â—orinth 3. 2. Hebr. 5. 12 13. Your other conjecture is but feebly grounded yet you say But to infer the sense of the Pedo-baptists is so weak a manner of arguing that Augustine whose device it was and men use to to be in love with their own fancies at the most pretended it but as probable and a meer câ—njecture To which we answer 1. That things which Christ commanded to his Apostles could not be Augustines or any humane invention but a divine Institution such was baptizing of Infants as will appeare in due place And this is the ground of this whole controversie 2. That it was none of Augustines device or fancy with which he was therefore in love as being his own Augustine his self clearly testifieth S. Cyprian saith he not composing any new decree but holding the most firm faith of the Church to correct their error who thought that an infant might not be baptized before he were eight days old he with certain his fellow Bishops was of this sense that a new-born infant might rightly be baptized As for the words of Cyprian we have cited them a little before Cyprian with a Conncell of 66. Bishops resolved so not out of any then new-born opinion or decree but maintained that which was of old the firm faith and doctrine of the Church which was long before him And Cyprian flourished about the year of our Lord 22 and was crowned with martyrdom under the persecuting Emperour Valerian about the year 260. And St. Augustine flourished about the year 410. and died about the year 430. So that had Augustine as you say devised it iâ— must have 150 years years before Augustine was born been devised by Augustine which had been a singular device indeed Origen of whom you say Augustine had this tradition of Baptizing Infants pag. 237. N. 25 saith because we are all conceived and born in sin the Church hath received a Tradition from the Apostles to administer Baptism to little childâ—â— Now Origen lived about the same time with Cyprian How you can reconcile your self in that you here affirm that Pedobaptism was Augustines device and yet confesse that Augustine had it from Origen who died so many years before Augustine was born I say not to the truth but to your self I do not understand Justin Martyr whom Tertullian mentioneth as an Ancestor he lived under the Emperour Antoninus Pius and. Irenaeus speaketh of Infants baptized in his time Irenaeus speaking of Christs Baptism and entrance into his publique Ministery saith He sanctified every age by that similitude which was to himself for he came to save all by himself I say all who by him are regenerate to God infants and little ones boys young men and old therefore passed he through every age for infants he became an infant sanctifying infants c. This Irenaeus was so ancient that he saw Polycarp who was an hearer of some of the Apostles of Christ. It was therefore none of Augustines device 3. Whether this be true which you affirm that Augustine at the most pretended it but as probable and a meâ—â—conjecture to baptize infants as infants were circumcised let Augustine speak for himself who saith If any man in this thing look for Divine authority although that which the universal Church holdeth being no Decree of any Councell but hath been always observed that we must rightly believe to have been delivered no otherwise then by Apostolicall authority yet we may truly apprehend of what value the Sacrament of Baptism of Infants may be from the circumcision of the flesh which the former people received Abraham was justified before he received it as also Cornelius was endued with the gift of the holy Ghost before he was baptized c. why therefore was â—e commanded thenceforth to circumcise every male child on the eighth day seeing they could not yet believe with the heart c. but because the Sacrament it self is of it self of great moment so untrue is it that Augustine either devised Infant-baptism or so slightly pretended to it as you report But you go on And as ill successe will they have with their other Arguments as with this And what is that for which you cry victory in your former encounters I will not be so expensive of time or so much entrench upon the Readers patience as to repeat let him judge of what he hath read But what other battalio's come next up You say From the action of Christs blessing Infants to inferre that they are to be baptized proves nothing so much as that there is great want of better Arguments A gallant flourish indeed but seriously Did Christ take them up in his arms and bless them and are they not blessed Doth not Gods blessing give both end and means that we may be so Or spake Christ onely concerning the carnall seed of Abraham and not of the spirituall when he said Of such is the Kingdom of Heaven Surely if Christ adjudge and give the Kingdom of heaven which himself onely can give and in which none but the elect shall be to an infant it must be no less then impious in
of Ireneus who was of France and Justin Martyr Jerom Ambrose c. That which you cite out of Ludovicus Vives neminem nisi adultum antiquitùs solere baptizari I suppose you may read in some index or marginal â—â—â—e or in Bellarmin with a little change the words of Vâ—â—â— in the cited place are ne quis fallatur hoc loco nemo olim sacro admovebatur baptisterio nisi adultâ jam aetate c. lest any should be deceived in this place none anciently was moved to the sacred font but such as were come to full age c. Certainly Augustin spake there concerning those who being of years could understand what the sacred mystery signisied and could desire the same What is the cause saith he why we should spend times in exhorting them wherein by speaking we endeavour to enflame the baptized either unto virgin integrity or vidual continency or unto a conjugal fidelity c. he meant not such words to infants What did vidual continency or conjugal fidelity concern infants as such and L. Vives words immediately following intimate the same The image of which thing saith he we yet see in our baptizing of infants If this were not his meaning as it was Augustins it was frivolous enough and such as I cannot easily believe so learned an Author and so well acquainted with Augustins sense and judgement in this matter could be guilty of possibly his olim related to the baptism which was administred in ecclesiâ constituendâ when the partition wall being broken down and the natural branches broken off that others might be grassed into Christ which was and could no otherwise be then by instructing people in the faith of Christ and then baptizing them that their children might afterward be baptized as being within the covenant by their fathers priviledg and their own as being children of believing parents so that in the constituting a Christian Church the Ministers first and most general work of administring baptism was with persons of years by their preaching to them converting to the faith but in ecclesiâ constitutâ it is much otherwise our general work of administration of baptism is with infants of enchurched parents we seldom meeting with any Turk or Pagan or Jew converted and desiring baptism to conclude if L. Vives by you cited had been of your opinion to spare the mentioning the authority of Ireneus Cyprian Augustin Jerom c. or the African or other Councels who much better knew the custom of the ancient Churches then Lud. Vives could we can ballance Vives with Polydor Virgil another learned Author who saith As infants among the Jews were circumcised the eight day from their nativity so are they for the most part with us baptized which yet the English do in the very day wherein they are born that which S. Cyprian by many reasons proveth may be done But you say besides that the tradition cannot be proved to be Apostolical we have very good evidence from antiquity that it was the opinion of the Primitive Church that infants ought not to be baptized and this is clear in the sixt Canon of the Councel of Neocaesâ—rea c. It is proved to be Apostolical and therefore above controversy it can be proved You talk of very good evidence from antiquity that it was the opinion of the Primitive Church that infants ought not to be baptized and this you say is clear in the sixt Canon of the Councel of Neocaesarea so then it is likely that one testimony is very good and clear evidence for you and shall not many and of them some more ancient witnesses be good for us Origen Ireneus Cyprian with the whole Councel of Carthage held about anno 258. were more ancient then the Councel of Neocaesarea held about the year 316. and those as hath been shewed were for infant-baptism as many others also express Augustin as we have before noted on Num. 13 calleth it ecclesiae fidem firmissimam and fundatissimum morem the most firm faith of the Church and the most grounded custom And again that which was delivered by Apostolical authority But let us now behold how clear it is in the sixt Canon of the Councel of Neocaesarea which you alleadged The Canon saith A woman with child may be baptized when she please for the baptism of her that is to be delivered in this matter concerneth not the infant to be born because every ones own choice or purpose is manifested or declared by his own confession the mothers baptism doth not so concern the infant that is to be born as if that needed not to be baptized when 't is born The woman must for the present make her confession of faith whereby she may declare he choice and so must the child for his own part when he comes to age and can shew that he embraceth the Christian faith Mark how clear this Canon makes it that Infants ought not to be baptized Here 's not one word forbidding infant-baptism the whole scope being rather to shew that the infant must be baptized for himself because the mothers baptism in whose womb he then was cannot excuse him from being baptized Add hereto that which some observe That regeneration by baptism presupposeth a precedent natural birth which the unborn child hath not therefore the unborn infant cannot be regenerate in his mothers baptism Indeed it gives him a right hereto if he have none by the fathers side 1 Cor. 7. 14. So that if any man lift to think that the Councel spake Gospel yet it will no more thence follow that infants ought not to be baptized because they cannot yet make confession of their faith then that all that which is said of the adult is precisely to be applyed to inâ—ants for present as that 2. Thes. 3. 10. This we command you that if any would not work neither should he eat which concerneth infants no otherwise then when they should be able but in the mean time would you not have them eat you know that though the rule bear a shew of universalityâ— yet it concerneth persons of age and ability not infants so here the Ministers interrogating persons of years to be baptized was simply necessary for how else should it have been known whether they were fit to be admitted into the Church priviledges by baptism that therefore they did not admit infants to baptism because they did not examin them follows not except you could shew that they admitted none to baptism but persons of years which is the question in hand and therefore may not be a medium to prove your assertion by as for asking them questions to be answered by Sponsors Godfathers and Godmothers we shall speak anon And to supply their incapacity by the answer of a Godfather is but the same unreasonableness acted with a worse circumstance and there is no sensible account to be given of it We say that by your present confession such sponsion by
to come What is this to our deferring Infants Baptism in the Rule which in some cases may reasonably and lawfully be done As for example Suppose an infant neer some Mahumetan border were found and the parents not known we may and ought to demur But what makes this against baptizing infants of parents known to be within the Church But you say To which if we add that the parents of S. Augustine S. Hierom and St. Ambrose although they were Christian yet did they not baptize their children before they were 30 years of age it will be very considerable in the Example and of great efficacy for the destroying the supposed necessity or derivation from the Apostles This may make a formidable noyse in some vulgar ear 't is true which Mr. Homes notes pag. 188. that the opinions or practices of some few conclude no more against the generall tenet and practice of the Church then the Hills and Vallies do against the roundness of the world But to what purpose do you propose any of these examples to your clients imitation If not why inferre you them Possibly the parents of some great and excellent men might erre in such omission of duty or there might be some in vincible lets or obstructions to their desires however you would not have your childrens Baptism deferred â—0 years To the particulars I say Possidonius in the life of Augustine saith that he was born of honest and Christian parents and that he received of St. Ambrose Bishop of Milan both the wholesome doctrine of the Catholick Church and the Divine Sacraments But Augustine saith he believed and desired baptism from his childhood the cause of the delay thereof he putteâ—h on a sudden great sickness and his fathers unbelief but if the parents were then Christian when he was born and either understood not or neglected his Baptism what is this to our cause I know nothing hence following but that if so they neglected they were culpable We read of his dangerous estate while he was a Maniche and his mothers constant and importunate tears and intercession for his conversion as her sorrow for the delay thereof which at last happily obtained according to that which the Prelate answered her It cannot be that the son of those tears should perish After his conversion he seriously learned and happily taught others not to defer infant-baptism as may appear by that which hath been alledged out of him As for St. Hierom they also say that both his parents were Christian and that he was diligently taught and brought up of them at home and that with Bonosus presently even in his Parents embraces and Nurses gentle language he received in Christ and presently he was instructed in the rudiments of Christian piety which very probably importeth his infant-baptisme rather then that he had any Nurses at his being â—0 years old That which Erasmus who gathered his story out of other Authors after saith on Hieroms Epistle to Damasus that he would follow the saith of that Citie in which he had received the garment of Christ as the same Erasmus gives the sense in the life of Hierom proves not that he was not baptized before he was 30 years old for Hieroms words are to this sense because the Eastern Churches have rent the seamless Coat of Christ by their schismes so that it is hard there to know where the Church is therefore I thought it meet that I should consult with Peters Chaire and the faith commended by the Apostles mouth Rom. 1. thence now requiring food for my soul where long since I tooke on me the garment of Christ. What was it which he called Peters Chair What the Citie of Rome Was that faith which the Apostle commended onely there or then when Hierom wrote in all the Western Church his words concerning the Eastern Churches divisions by reason of the Arian faction and the following concerning the great distance at which Hierom being then in Syria near Antioch was make it plain that he spake of the Western Church in which he was baptized probably in oppido Stridonis where he was born not in Rome As for Erasmus's opion of his being baptized in Rome 't is grounded but upon an opinor I think saith he he meaneth it not of his Priesthoâ—d or orders And what solidity is there on these conjectures to conclude that Hieroms parents though Christian defer'd his baptism until he was 30 years old or what wil it advantage you if it were true there may be such lets to sealing as to Israel in the Wilderness and God bare with them 40 years together yet they should have circumcised the male children at eight dayes old upon a severe penalty Gen 17. 14. an inevitable necessity varieth not the rule Concerning the last instance in Ambrose I find that his Father was Deputy or Governor of France but whether Christian or not I find nothing in Paulinus who wrote his life and you avouch no Author for that you say We read that after he was chosen Bishop of Milan after Auxentius the Arian by the joynt suffrages of the discordant parties and being though much against his own will confirmed in that charge by Valentinian the Emperor he was baptized and with the Church held Infant-baptism against Pelagius and the Donatists upon this ground Because every age is subject to sin therefore every age is fit for the Sacrament let the reader mark how this also is very considerable in the example and of what great efficacy it is for the destroying the supposed necessity or derivation from the Apostles as the pleader saith But seeing he can raise no stronger batteries against it he might more easily and certainly conclude that it will stand whether he will or no. But however saith he it is against the perpetual analogie of Christian Doctrine to baptize infants This is gallantly spoken if he could tell how to prove it or any part thereof Besides that Christ never gave any precept to baptize them c. This is his Argument all that for which Christ never gave any precept for the doing it and which neither himself nor his Apostles that appears did is against the perpetual Analogie of Christs Doctrine but Christ never gave any precept to baptize them c. ergo I answer This foundred Argument lame on both feet doth poorly charge 1. 'T is not true that all is against the perpetual Analogie of Christs Doctrine for which no express precept of Christ or practice of himself or his Apostles appears for there are many things circumstantial and indifferent neither commanded nor forbidden which yet on second thoughts you will not say are against the perpetual Analogie of Christs Doctrine I might instance the postures or numbers or sexes or places where in the receiving the Lords Supper Where do you read of any command of Christ or practice of himself or Apostles that the Communicants should stand or sit or
proceed what man were sufficient for that Office The examples of Simon Magus Judas Demas c. shew enough that the most discerning men may be deceived in others fair profession and who can foresee the final estates of men and women baptized I cannot reasonably think that you take all those for elect whom your selves baptize or that your baptism shall doe them all good And if you dispute 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 concerning one and the same faith in several degrees that is if you mean the seeds or habit of faith that Minor is false for elect infants have the seeds of faith in baptism though they be not formed in them yet by the secret working of the spirit the seeds thereof for a time lying hidden in them shall flourish and shew their growth in them in newness of life If you mean it of actual faith that want of that condition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 discovereth the Paralogism And we say infants want of actual faith in present infancy thereof incapable concludeth nothing against their having of it in mature age and so as little against their baptism I cannot conclude so well as in Augustins words But some may say the things do some men no good what must the Medicine therefore be neglected because some mens pestilence is incurable So that if baptism be necessary then so is faith and much more for want of faith damneth absolutely I demand then Do infants believe Why do ye deny them baptism or because they have not faith do you conclude them all damned who die in their infancy That were a damnable assertion and to pay you with your own coyn Against the perpetual analogie of Christs Doctrine who commanded infants to be brought unto him bless them and positively affirmed that Of such is the Kingdom of heaven Further I say If your Proposition be universal it is notoriously false for all want of faith doth not absolutely damn For 1. They who pray for faith or the increases thereof as the Disciples did want faith yet were they not damned he that hungereth and thirsteth for the righteousness of faith wanteth the same for hunger and thirst are of emptiness yet Christ pronounceth such blessed 2. He that now believeth not may hereafter believe It was Pauls case had you seen him persecute the faith and faithfull in ignorance and unbelief would you presently have devoted him to absolute damnation Judg not that you be not judged I know no man living that wanteth not faith and I pray the good Lord to help my unbelief and exhort you otherwise to express your fancies that they prove not snares to weak and afflicted consciences Then you say it is sottish to say the same incapacitâ— of reason and faith shall not excuse from the actual susception of baptism c. A very acute and witty assertion indeed but we answer 1. By this principle you might have been as blasphemous against Gods Ordinance in circumcision had you lived under the Law 2. We say not but that infants by their incapacity are excused from actual susception of baptism for they cannot act thereto But parents are not excusable if they contemn or neglect their parts in sealing those that are joynt heirs of the Promises and Covenant of God with them and their children because they have a capacity to promote and effect it and this appeareth in the History of Moses Exod. 4. 24 25. We very well know that infants cannot come and desire the Seals their present incapacity excuseth them from that they cannot possibly do but their parents or friends can intreat it for them and present them to it so that infants have a passive capacity they cannot profess faith and repentance but their parents professing of the same interesseth them in all those external Church-priviledges whereof they are capable and so to be born in the Church is to them and for them instead and in place of their profession What your terms of reasonably and humanely received do mean if to any purpose want interpretation The conclusion you say is that baptism is also to be deferred till the time of faith Why might you not say the same also concerning circumcision It is certain that by the same you may conclude that many thousand persons of age must never be baptized because they never come to believe as for their profession no man can say whether it be hypocritical or not Since faith is necessary to the susception of baptism c. True in adult is what is this to our present question concerning infants We have often said that this your arguing a dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter is fallacious and not passable among young Sophisters and we owe no other answer then denying the consequence Our contest is about Infant-baptism wherein we say a present actual faith is not required It is necessary or at least the profession thereof in those who present to or administer baptism we cannot say so of infants to whom God doth not yet give the use of reason therefore they cannot first believe and after receive the Seal as Abraham did But therefore they are to be baptized that they may attain faith and salvation So the word preached profiteth not if it be not mixed with faith in them that hear yet is the preaching thereof an effectual means whereby God will work faith in the hearers To conclude Baptism profiteth not without faith yet is it an effectual means whereby God worketh regeneration and salvation therefore none within his Covenant are to be barred from it It is not improbably conjectured by some that therefore the Disciples forbad them to bring children to Christ because they thought children have not faith nor can any teach them who are yet incapable of doctrine Possibly they did not yet understand the abolition of the old Seal for the introduction of the new nor how baptism was to succeed circumcision that was sometime after disputed and determined Actâ— 1 â—â— 2. but Christ was much displeased with it rebuked them and seriously protested that of such is the kingdom of heaven Whatever can be said to take off from the necessity of actual saith all that and much more you say may be said to excuse from the actual susception of baptism True in adultis but most faise in infants I am weary of telling you of your fallacious arguing à dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter Again if here by actual susception of baptism you mean that infants are to be excused from it we have answered in the foregoing paragraph if you mean from administration of infant baptism we deny your assertion and expect proof The second device you say was of Calvin and his You said before that some said infants have imputative saith and by the number you now attribute it to Calvin indeed Mr. Calvin saith as I have noted That infants are baptized into future repentance and faith which although
unto them we undertake not to make the truth evident to every gain-sayer and despiser thereof but say of such an one as Elisha for his servant at the beleaguered Dothan 2 King 6. 17. Lord I pray thee open his eyes that he may see The most manifest light of the Gospel had not evidence enough with the Pharisees whom Christ pronounced blind and it concerned them chiefly which he said they have winked with their eyes c. an unbeliever may doubt of any truth and then it is not evident to him The old Academicks were wont to question the testimonie and evidence of their own senses with a quid si falleris being not confident of the truth of that they saw with their eyes and heard with their ears Carneades doubted of all things yet certainly many things were evident of themselves to those who could and would see and know manifest truths though not to him 4. They who deny convincing evidence in Gods Word not only erre not knowing the Scriptures but tacitely accuse the Wisdom and Providence of God for mans salvation of insufficiencie for how shall matters of controversie concerning faith and manners be decided without sufficient evidence and if you think there is not sufficient evidence in Scripture to keep us from errour and to direct us in the way of truth and salvation in what other rule or testimonie will you place such evidence as you would have what in Traditions and unwritten verities where shall we feek these among our adversaries nay but no man can be edified by that which is destructive or in Enthusiasms and Revelations but what evidence can there be in those things whose authority cannot be proved and whose truth cannot be infallible nothing less then that which cannot be false can be the ground of faith and religion whatsoever falleth below that supreme certaintie is but opinion at most Now the Word of God only is infallible because he cannot lye Tâ—â— 1. 2. and therefore his Word is profitable for doctrine for reproof for correction for instruction in righteousness that the man of God may be perfect throughly furnished unto all good works 2 Tâ—â— 3. 16 17. 5 If it be rejoined that in our present question and some other cases the Scripture saith nothing expresly and positively to evidence the truth I answer 1 with Tertullian I am confident to say that the Scriptures themselves were so disposed by the will of God that they might administer matter to Hereticks seeing that I read there must be Herefies which could not be without Scriptures 2 That is Scripture truth which the Scripture proposeth or enjoineth by necessary consequence though not in express words and whosoever disbelieveth or disobeyeth that so far he rejecteth the Scripture in his errour and ignorance of Scripture So the Sadduces denyed the resurrection of the dead among other vain arguments so principally a non scripto because Moses whose writings only they received did not in terminis or express words and syllables say the dead shall rise again now though that is true Moses did not expresly say so yet our Saviour told them that therein they erred not knowing the Scriptures Mat. 22. 29. where he meaneth not express words of Scripture but necessary consequence for certainly they knew the express letter yet thought they had not evidence enough from Scripture because they found nothing there in terminis against their errour which Christ yet justly chargeth on them Ye do erre not knowing the Scriptures as touching the resurrection of the dead have you not read that which was spoken unto you by God saying I am the God of Abraham and the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob Well what express Scripture is here to prove the resurrection of the dead that Christ should charge those that denyed the same with errour and ignorance of Scriptures Truly no more then we find for Infant-baptism in appearance much less yet thus he who could not be deceived chargeth them because denying necessary consequence they required express words now the consequence was thus God is not the God of the dead but of the living therefore the dead shall rise again To the folding up of all I might repeat sundry things which as necessarily conclude our Infant-baptism as Infants circumcision into the same faith Gods Covenant with Abraham and his spiritual seed that is all Beleevers Christs honouring Infants with sacred embraces proposing them as heirs and patterns designed for the Kingdome of heaven the extent of Gods federal promise to us and our children childrens capacitie of the inward baptism signified in the external sign whole Families and Nations baptized of which children are and ever were a great part Christs absolute command to baptize all Nations without any tittle of exception to Infants Infants federal and ecclesiastical holiness by their parents and their own right But that I would not be irksom to the prudent and pious Reader to whom I heartily wish a right understanding in all things constancie in the truth and unitie of the holy Spirit that we may all meet in Gods eternal kingdom of glory AMEN A SURVEY OF The Controverted Points CONCERNING INFANT-BAPTISM c. THE SECOND PART CHAP. I. Infants of Christian Parents ought to be baptized I Need not be long in describing this Sacrament only I say that Baptism is a Sacrament of the New Testament succeeding Circumeision the Seal of the Old appointed by Christ for our Inlet into his Church our implantation into Him and the similitude of his death and resurrection in which the water sanctified by the word representeth the blood of Christ sealeth and exhibiteth to the Elect all the benefits of his inestimable merits death passion and resurrection to our regeneration remission of sins and cleansing our bodies and souls from them all though not presently so that we have no sin yet so as that believing in Christ we have no guilt of original or actual sin imputed to us to condemnation for the water by the Ordinance of God touching the body the Spirit of Jesus baptizeth body and soul. Hence Baptism is said to save us 1 Pet. 3. 21. the end of Baptism is that being baptized we might be illuminated being illuminated we might be adopted sons of God being adopted we might be perfected that we may become immortally blessed In our being baptized in the Name of the Father the Son and the Holy Ghost we do as it were by a solemn Oath or Covenant declare and protest that we are wholly devoted to one God in Trinity of Unitie and God on his part herein testifieth that by this Seal of his Covenant he receiveth us into the participation of his free mercies in Christ and into the holy communion of his Church the body of Christ I Joh. 5. 7 8. The Protestant Church holdeth That the subject of Baptism are all they who either are
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
we may not baptize them We answer 1 If you speak of Christs baptizing personally he baptized none Joh. 4. 2. but it followeth not that therefore none ought to be baptized 2 It cannot appear that Christ commanded not some of his Disciples to baptize those Infants neither that ever he commanded them not to baptize Infants 3 If it could appear that these Infants were not now baptized there might be some obstruction and let which we know not as possibly their parents were not yet baptized c. 4 These children were not brought to Christ that he should baptize them but that he should touch them and that he did for he layed his hands upon them and blessed them and his blessing them was as effectual to their salvation as if he had christned them for Christs grace dependeth not upon the vertue of the Sacrament but contrarily the vertue of the Sacrament upon his grace and blessing And that which Christ did to them is more then the ministrie of all the men in the world could or can do in baptizing or blessing them for Christs blessing maketh men truly and really blessed See what hath been said Reply num 14. sine Infants circumcised were inserted into the Covenant and Church priviledges by an express command but we have no such express command for baptizing Infants therefore we may not on that ground baptize them To that which hath been said we further add for answer because they were expresly commanded to put the seal of the same righteousness of faith on Infants therefore neither that faith nor the object thereof being changed in the change of the seal there needed not a particular or express command concerning the subject or persons to be sealed seeing the commission was so much enlarged as the whole World and the Nations thereof were greater then the land of Canaan and Abrahams carnal children therein planted Add hereto that which hath been noted those whom Christ sent to baptise were sealed in their infancie and daily used to Infant-sealing so that they needed no express command or other Information concerning Infants then that which they had sufficiently learned in Christs blessing Infants blessing and embracing them as it were with special affection to them and in that they could not be ignorant that baptism succeeded circumcision in all the substance thereof and that the same cause still remaineth for Infants reception of the seal to wit Baptism for the remission of sins Christ appointed the Sacraments for a remembrance of his death and blood-shedding for our redemption But Infants who have no acts of understanding cannot remember Therefore they ought not to be baptized We answer This Argument would conclude that Infants as such may not receive the Lords Supper because they cannot do it in remembrance of Christ nor shew his death thereby therefore we do not administer it unto them But Baptism is the Laver of Regeneration which they have present need of and whereof they are passively capable because their Parents are within the Covenant which is to them and their children and the Seal thereof is a part and condition of the same to their children as well as to themselves Neither was the Covenant on Abrahams part fulfilled any more then to halves before he had sealed his children and by proportion neither do we fulfil our Covenant with God in Baptism if we refuse to baptize our Infants who have as indefeasible a right to the same as we the same promise for the main being to us and our children Acts 2. 39. In the Old Testament it was not lawful to offer sheep or goats so soon as they were cast but at a certain age and maturity of their perfection This figured Infants not presently to be offered to God or Sealed We answer 1. By the same Argument if it were good neither ought the Jews to have circumcised their Infants on the eighth day 2. Allegorical Arguments when they are well applyed illustrate rather then prove And if you will plead thus tell us why every first-born of man or beast so soon as it came into the world that is every male was sacred to the Lord and the first-born of the unclean beast was to be redeemed or destroyed and why seek ye further omitting the type of Circumcision Christ saith He that believeth and is baptized shall be â— saved Mark 16. 16 without believing there is no salvation nor saving effect of Baptism But Infants cannot believe Therefore their Baptism is effectless and vain We answer 1. That wholly concerns those who are of years who when the Church was to be collected and setled were first and generally such persons as were first to be instructed in the faith of Christ and then to be baptized it concerned not Infants 2. That which immediately follows But he that believeth not shall be damned manifesteth that it concerned not Infants who though they cannot actually believe yet shall not all be damned though dying Infants 3. If those words were to be presidential to all Churches and times as a rule what persons we are to baptize and what not that is that we ought to baptize none but such and so qualified as are there described then it would follow that you must baptize none but those who appear to have a justifying faith for such there Christ speaks of and only such relating to their salvation And how few have this and how can you who baptize discern this Secondly They must be such as can cast out Devils speak unstudied Languages take up Serpents and if they drink any deadly thing it shall not hurt them such as can cure the sick For Christ there thus marked out Believers of those times 4. He saith not He that believeth not shall not be baptized for that indeed might have concerned Infants Baptism But he saith He that believeth not shall be damned which cannot concern Infants except you will say they have faith and so you must grant them a capacity of Baptism or pretend that they all are damned who dye in Infancy which is a damnable fancy Lastly We must distinguish between an interest in and the effects of Baptism Many thousands born within the Covenant have therefore a just interest in the Covenant of Grace and the Seal thereof who neither believing nor obeying have no effects thereof nor grace of the Covenant So some put on Christ only sacramentally and others to sanctification and salvation also It is absurd and to no purpose to baptize any unto they know not what Such is Infants-Baptism Therefore they are absurdly and to no purpose baptized 1. We answer Circumcision was to Isaac and Evangelical Ordinance and Seal of Gods Covenant of the same Grace common to him and us yet that being administred to him at eight days old he knew not what he was circumcised to yet was it neither in vain nor absurdly administred to him 2. Some mysterious
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
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