THE CASE OF Infant-Baptism In Five QUESTIONS I. Whether Infants are uncapable of Baptism II. Whether Infants are excluded from Baptism by Christ III. Whether it is lawful to separate from a Church which appointeth Infants to be Baptised IV. Whether it be the Duty of Christian Parents to bring their Children unto Baptism V. Whether it is lawful to Communicate with Believers who were Baptized in their Infancy LONDON Printed by T. Hodgkin for Tho. Basset at the George in Fleet-Street Benj. Tooke at the Ship in St. Paul's Church-Yard 1685. THE CASE OF Infant-Baptism The Previous Discourse THE better to prepare the mind of my Reader for what I shall say in this Discourse about Infant-Baptism I think it requisite to premise a short Introduction First Concerning the Original And Secondly Concerning the Nature of the Jewish Church Thirdly Concerning the initiatory Sacrament into it and the Persons that were capable of Initiation And Lastly Concerning the alteration of it from the Mosaic into the Christian Oeconomy or to express my self more plainly in the * Heb. 2.5 6 Scripture-phrase concerning the alteration of the House of Moses into the House of Christ As for the Original of the Jewish Church it is to be referred unto Abraham the †Rom. 4.11 Father of the Faithful purely considered as a Church But if it be considered as a Common-wealth or as a Church under such a Political Regulation then it is to be referred unto Moses who was called even by Heathen Writers the * Dionys Longin 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sect. 7. Legislator of the Jews These two Considerations of the Jewish Church purely as a Church and as a Common-wealth or as a Church under such a mixture with a Common-wealth ought heedfully to be distinguished 1. Because there is ground for such a distinction in the nature of the thing 2. Because this distinction is made by the Apostle who was of the Seed of Abraham an Hebrew of the Hebrews and by consequence very well qualified to understand the difference betwixt the Jewish Oeconomy as a Church and as a Common-wealth First I say there is a Ground for such a distinction in the Nature of the thing as is evident to any Man who is capable of considering the difference betwixt the Church-Christian before and after its Union with the Empire Before its Union with the Empire it subsisted by it self purely as a Church above three hundred years in a State of Persecution from Christ unto Constantine the Great and just so the Jewish Church for above four hundred years subsisted by it self in a State of Peregrination and Captivity from Abraham unto Moses who brought them out of Egypt and gave them the Law But Secondly As there is ground for this distinction in the nature of the thing so is it in effect made by the Apostle Gal. 3.17 This I say that the Covenant that was before confirmed of God with Abraham in Christ the Law which was four hundred and thirty years after cannot disannul that it should make the Promise to Abraham of none Effect Here is a plain difference made between the Covenant or Promise which God made with Abraham and his Seed when he separated him from the World unto himself and that Political one which he afterwards made with the Jews when he gave them the Law And this difference is also observed Rom. 4.13 The Promise that he should be the Heir of the World was not given to Abraham or to his Seed through the Law but through the Righteousness of Faith For if they which are of the Law be Heirs Faith is made void and the Promise is of no effect From these words which distinguish so plainly between the Covenant which God made with Abraham or the Promise which he made unto him and the Law it is evident that the beginning of the Jewish Church purely considered as a Church is to be dated from the Covenant which God made with Abraham and therefore in the second place the way to find out the nature of the Abrahamical or pure Jewish Church is to consider the nature of the Covenant or Promise upon which it was founded and if we examine the Scriptures we shall find that it was an Evangelical Covenant For substance the same with that which is since made betwixt God and us through Christ This will appear upon a Review of those Scriptures which teach us That Faith was the Condition of this Abrahamical Covenant that it was made with * Fide autem stare justitiā illic esse vitam praedictā est apud Habbaccuc Justus autem ex fide vivet Inde Abraham pater Gentium credidit In Genes credidit Abraham Deo deputatum est ei ad justitiam Item Paulus ad Galatas Abraham credidit Deo deputatum est ei ad justitiam Cognoscitis ergo qui ex fide sunt hi sunt filii Abrahae providens autem Scriptura quia ex fide c. Cyprian advers Judaeos Judaeos à Deo recessisse successisse vero in eorum locum Christianos fide Dominum promerentes de omnibus Gentibus ac toto orbe venientes Cyprian ad Quirin Testim L. 3. Abraham as the Father of the Faithful and in him with all Believers with his Spiritual as well as Carnal Seed proceeding from him by Spiritual as well as Natural Generation and that the Blessings or Promises of this Covenant belonged unto them upon the same Account of their Faith To this purpose speaketh the Apostle in the Fourth Chapter of his Epistle to the Romans from the 9th to the 15th Verse Cometh then this Blessedness of Justification by Faith upon the Circumcision only or upon the Uncircumcision also For we say that Faith was reckoned to Abraham for Righteousness how was it then reckon'd When he was in Circumcision or in Uncircumcision Not in Circumcision but in Uncircumcision and he received the Sign of Circumcision a Seal of the Promises made to the Righteousness of Faith which he had being yet uncircumcised that so believing before Circumcision he might be the Father both of all them that believe tho' they be not circumcised that righteousness might be imputed unto them also as his Children and the Father of Circumcision to them who are not of the Circumcision only but who also walk in the Steps of that Faith of our Father Abraham which he had being yet uncircumcised for the Promise that he should be the Heir of the World in his Posterity was not to Abraham or his Seed through the Righteousness of the Law but through the Righteousness which cometh of Faith For if they only which are of the Law be Heirs his Faith so much celebrated is made void and the Promise made to it of no effect So Gal. 3. from the 5th to the 10th Verse He therefore that ministreth unto you the extraordinary Gifts of the Spirit and worketh Miracles among you doth he it by the works of the Law or by the Faith
or imputation may hereafter lay upon him I here before you all wash him with pure water to signifie that he is cleansed from his Original Attaindure and Corruption of Blood and that he is as fully restored to his Birth-right as if he had never been Attaint Now suppose this were done for a poor attainted Infant could any Man say that the action was insignificant and invalid because the Child knew nothing of it or that he was incapable of the Sign when he was capable of being washed from the Attaindure and of being thereby restored to his blood and Birth-right which was the chief thing signified thereby These things should be well considered by the Despisers of Infant-Baptism against whom I may urge for Precedents the Circumcision and Baptism of the Jewish Church both these as I must often observe were applied unto Infants as well as adult and actual Believers under the Old Testament and accordingly tho' Abraham believed and solemnly professed his Faith before he was Circumcised yet I hope they will not say that God acted foolishly in commanding Isaac c. to be Circumcised before he understood the ends of Circumcision or could believe much less make profession of his Belief He was entered Sacramentally into Covenant with God before he was able to recontract or understand what the condition of the Covenant was but yet I presume they will not say he was Circumcised in vain although he was under the very same incapacity as to the ends of Circumcision that Infants are of Baptism now The best way that I know they have of evading the force of this Argument is by saying that Circumcision was more proper for Infants than Baptism because it left a significant Mark and Character in their Flesh whereas Baptism is a transient Sign and leaves no significant Impression behind it whereby to instruct Men and Women what was done unto them in their Infancy But this is a meer shift First Because the Mark and Character which Circumcision left in the Flesh of the Child was as insignificant to him during the time of his Non-age as Baptism is to Christian Infants neither afterwards could he tell but by the instruction of others what the meaning of that Character was and for what ends it was imprinted in his Flesh And therefore according to their way of reasoning against Infant-Baptism it ought to have been deferred till the full years of discretion when the Circumcised Person might have understood the Spiritual Signification thereof Furthermore in answer to this Objection I must remind them that the Mark and Character which Circumcision left behind it was of no force or signification unless it did appear from the * Ezrah 2.62 Nehem. 7.5.64 Registers of the Tribes that the Person circumcised was a Jew I say the Character which Circumcision left behind it was merely of it self of no force nor signification without the Registers or written Genealogies because without them neither the circumcised Person himself nor the Church could know in many Circumstances whether he were a true Son of Abraham or an Egyptian Ismaelite or Samaritan who were all Circumcised as well as the Jews If Baptism then be a Transient Circumcision was an Equivocal Sign and therefore these pretended circumstantial Differences signifie nothing nor make any substantial difference betwixt Circumcision and Baptism as to the capacity of Infants unto both They are capable of contracting a Spiritual Relation unto God by this as formerly they were by that they are capable of having their Spiritual attaindure removed they are capable of receiving the Blessings of the Covenant tho' they cannot perform the duties of it and God may solemnly bind himself unto them tho' they cannot as yet personally bind themselves unto him But Secondly Allowing that Circumcision was more proper for Infants than Baptism yet this difference is wholly avoided by referring the Practice of Infant-Baptism not only unto Infant Circumcision but unto the Original Practice of Infant-Baptism in the Jewish Church which understood very well that it was but a transient rite and left no Character upon the person who was initiated thereby Those therefore who take upon them to argue against Infant-Baptism from this or any other pretended reason take upon them to censure and condemn the Jewish Church which for many Ages Baptised Infants and Minor Proselytes into the Covenant as well as actual Believers and yet were never censured or reproved for it by any Prophet which we may presume they would have been had Baptismal Initiation of Infants into the Covenant been so absurd Insignificant and abusive a practice as the Professors against Infant-Baptism vainly pretend it is Having now I hope sufficiently proved that Infants are not uncapable Subjects of Baptism Let us proceed to state the next Question which is this Quest II. Whether Infants are excluded from Baptism by Christ Where in the first place I must observe that the Question ought to be proposed in these Terms and not Whether Christ hath commanded Infants to be Baptized For as a good * Herodot lib. 2. Author observes of the River Nile that we ought not to ask the reason Why Nile overflows so many days about the Summer-solstice But rather Why it doth not overflow all the Year long So in the Controversie about Infant Baptism the enquiry ought not to be whether Christ hath commanded Infants to be Baptized But whether he hath excluded them from Baptism Because considering the practice of the Jewish Church as to Infant-Circumcision and Infant-Baptism too it must needs be granted that a Command from Christ to initiate Proselytes out of all Nations into the Christian Religion must without an exception to the contrary be understood to comprehend Infants as well as Men. As for Example suppose our Saviour had not changed the Seal of the Covenant Dr. Stilling-fleets Vindication of the A. C. p. 100. but instead of Baptizing had said unto the Apostles Go and make all Nations my Disciples Circumcising them in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost I appeal to any Impartial Man's judgment whether the Apostles receiving such a Commission to Circumcise Proselytes of all Nations would not have presumed without directions to the contrary that it was Christ's Intention that the Infants of adult Profelytes should be Circumcised as well as Proselytes themselves according to the Commandment of God under the Old Testament and the Practice of the Jewish Church And if a command to Proselyte and Circumcise all Nations would without an exception have comprehended Infants as well as Men why should it be imagined that the command to Proselyte and Baptize all Nations should not likewise comprehend them seeing that Infant-Baptism as well as Infant-Circumcision had been the immemorial Practice of the Jewish Church This is so true that supposing our Saviour had intended the gathering of Churches among the Gentiles according to the Old Testament and the Custom of the Jewish Church he need
and Childish condition then the Jews were under the Law which as it is evident from the Feast of Purim and from the Institution of Baptism among the Jews allowed private Persons to practice and the Church to appoint things of a Religious nature which God had not commanded to be done Lastly I entreat them to consider how utterly impracticable this pretended Principle is as might be proved from the contrary Practice of all those who advance it against Ecclesiastical Authority and particularly from their own Practice in Baptizing grown Persons who were bred up from Infants in the Christian Religion and in admitting Women to the Lords-Supper who were not admitted to the Passover nor Paschal-cup of Blessing without any Precept or President for so doing in the Word of God This little well considered is enough to obviate all Objections against my first Assertion viz. That it is not lawful to separate from a Church which appointeth Infants to be Baptized upon supposition that Infant-Baptism is barely lawful and allowable but if any man desire further satisfaction as to this point he may have it abundantly in the case of indifferent things to which I refer him it being more my business to shew here that Infant-Baptism is at least a lawful and allowable thing To prove this I need but desire the Reader to reflect upon the State of the two first Questions For if Infants be as capable of Baptism under the Gospel as they were of Circumcision under the Law and if Christ have not excluded them from it neither directly nor consequentially Otherwise if Baptism be an Institution of as great Latitude in its self as Circumcision its Fore-runner was and Christ hath not determined the administration of it to one Age more than one Sex Once more if Children may be taken into the Covenant of Grace under the Gospel as well as under the Law and Christ never said nor did any thing which can in reason be interpreted to forbid them to be taken in In a word If they are capable of all the Ends of Baptism now that they were of Circumcision then and of having the Priviledges of Church-Membership and the Blessings of the Covenant consigned unto them and Christ neither by himself nor by his Apostles did forbid the Church to satisfie and fulfil this their capacity Or last of all If Christ hath only appointed Baptism instead of Circumcision but said nothing to determine the Subject of it then it must needs follow that Infant-Baptism must at least be lawful and allowable because it is an indifferent and not a forbidden or sinful thing But upon this supposition that it were left undetermined and indifferent by Christ it might like other indifferent things be lawfully appointed by any Church from which it would be a Sin to separate upon that account For in this case Churches might safely differ in their practice about Infant-Baptism as they do now in the Ceremonies of Baptism and those who lived in a Church which did practice it ought no more to separate from her for appointing of it then those who lived in another Church which did not practise it ought to separate from her for not appointing thereof Thus much I have said I hope with sufficient moderation upon supposition that all I have written upon former Questions doth but satisfactorily prove that Infant-Baptism is only lawful and not highly requisite and necessary but then if it be not only lawful but highly requisite and necessary so that it ought to be appointed then it must needs be much more sinful to separate from a Church which appointeth Infants to be Baptized Now as to the requisite necessity of Infant-Baptism supposing that my Reader bears in memory that I have said upon the last Question to make it appear with the highest degree of credibility that Christ instituted Baptism for Infants as well as grown Persons and that the Apostles and their Companions Practised Infant-Baptism I must here entreat him further to observe that there is a two-fold necessity in matters of Christian Faith and practice one which proceeds from plain dictates of natural reason or from plain and express words of the Gospel where the sense is so obvious and clear that no sober man can mistake it or doubt of it and another which proceeds from the general Scope and Tenour of the Gospel or from doubtful places in it so or so understood and interpreted by the unanimous voice and practice of the ancient Catholick Church The first degree of necessity is founded on ostensive certainty and demonstration wherein there is no room left for Objection And the Second is founded upon violent presumption where the Objections on one hand are insufficient to move or at least to turn the Ballance if put in the Scale against the other which is weighed down Mole universatis Ecclesiae with the authority of the Universal Church And because this Rule like others is not so intelligible without an Example I will add some Instances of things which are necessary to be believed and practised by every good Christian under both these Notions of necessity that they may be better understood According to the First Notion of it it is necessary to believe that Jesus Christ is the Messias and the Son of God because it is delivered in express words of Scripture And according to the Second Notion of it it is necessary to believe that he is of the same substance with the Father and equal unto him and that there are three distinct and coequal Persons in the God-head which are all but one God because these Doctrines though they are not to be found in express words in the Gospel yet they are to be collected from several places of it which were always so interpreted by that ancient Catholick Church Again according to the First Notion of necessity it is necessary for all Men to believe the Word of God whether spoken or written because natural reason teacheth us so to do And according to the Second Notion of it it is necessary to believe the Books contained in the New Testament to be the Word of God and no other how Divine and Orthodox and Ancient soever they may be because they and they only have been received for such by the ancient Catholick Church In like manner as to matter of Practice by the First sort of Necessity it is necessary for Christians to assemble together to Worship God because Reason and Scripture plainly teach them so to do And by the Second fort it is necessary that they should assemble themselves periodically to Worship God on every first day of the Week because the Observation of the Lords Day appears to be a Duty from several places of the New Testament as they are interpreted to this sence by the universal Practice of the ancient Catholick Church To proceed according to the First Notion of Necessity Church-Government is necessary because it is enjoyned by the Dictates of Common reason and most express
the Trinity and the Deity of the Holy Ghost may be fairly and sufficiently proved from those Texts which the Orthodox bring for them without Ancient Tradition though without it they could not be demonstrated from them because they do not assert it in express words But then as those Texts in Conjunction with Tradition do put those Doctrines out of all reasonable doubt So do the other which I have cited in Conjunction with the Practice of the Ancient Church put the requisite necessity of Infant-Baptism out of Question because the Church in the next Age unto the Apostles practiced Infant-Baptism as an Apostolical Tradition and by consequence as an Institution of Christ In like manner as the Intrinsecal Arguments taken rom the Style Sanctity Dignity and Efficacy of the Holy Scriptures and the perpetual Analogy and Conformity of the several Books contained in them are by themselves but probable and no demonstrative reasons that all the Books contained in the Canon and no other are the Word of God but in conjunction with the Testimony and Authority of the Ancient Catholick Church amount to a Demonstration So though the Texts which I have cited are of themselves but probable Arguments for the requisite necessity of Infant-Baptism yet in concurrence with such a Comment upon them as the Practice of the next Age unto the Apostles and all Ages since from one Generation to another they amount to such a demonstration as is called in Logick Demonstratio ducens ad absurdum and are a violent Presumption that Children ought to be Baptized I might run on the Parallel as to the other Instances of Episcopal Government the admitting of Women to the Communion and the Observation of the Lord's day and therefore let the Adversaries of Infant-Baptism consider well with themselves Whether rejecting of it after a Concurrence of such Texts and such a Tradition to establish it they do not teach others especially Atheists pure Deists and Sabbatizers to which I may add Scepticks Socinians and Quakers a way to deny all the rest Thus much I have said concerning the requisite necessity of Infant-Baptism to shew that it is not lawful to separate from a Church for appointing of Infants to be Baptized when there are such cogent reasons arising from the concurrence of Scripture and Antiquity to presume that Infant-Baptism was an Apostolical Tradition and an Institution of Christ And I have designedly called it a requisite to distinguish it from an absolute necessity lest the Reader should think I were of St. Augustin's Opinion who thought Baptism indispensibly necessary to the Salvation of Infants so that a Child dying unbaptized through the carelesness or Superstition of the Parents or through their mistaken Belief of the unlawfulness of Infant-Baptism were * Potest proinde rectè dici parvulos sine Baptismo de corpore exeuntes in damnatione omnium mitissimâ futuros Multum autem fallit fallitur qui eos in damnatione praedicat non futuros dicente Apostolo Judicium ex uno delicto August de peccat merit remiss contra Pelag. l. 1. c. 16. Vid. contra Julianum Pelag. l. 5. c. 8. infallibly damned No I intended no such severe Conclusion because we ought not to tye God to the same means to which he hath tied us but only to shew that the Baptism of young Children is antecedently necessary and †Articles of Religion Artic. 27. in any wise to be retained in the Church as being most agreeable with the Holy Scripture the Apostolical Practice and the Institution of Christ And to set this way of arguing more home upon the Consciences of those who Dissent from the Church upon the account of Infant-Baptism I appeal unto them Whether Scripture and Antiquity standing against Infant-Baptism in the same posture of evidence that they now stand for it it would not be unjustifiable for any sort of Men to separate from the Church for not Baptizing Infants as they do now for Baptizing of them Let us suppose for Example That the Disciples of Christ instead of rebuking those that brought little Children unto him had brought them to him themselves and he had been much displeased at them for it and said I suffer not little Children to come unto me for the Kingdom of God is not of such Let us put the case That two Evangelists had recorded this supposed Story and accordingly we had been assured by the Writers of the two next Ages to the Apostles that then there was no Baptizing of Infants and that the Apostles Baptized them not and that there never was any Church in after Ages which did practise Infant-Baptism Upon this Supposition I appeal unto them Whether it would not be highly unreasonable to separate from all the Churches in the World for not allowing of Infant-Baptism against the Concurrence of such a Text to the contrary and the sence and practise of the Catholick Church The case which I suppose one way is the real case the other only with this difference that the supposed case would have but the benefit of one Text whereas the real hath the benefit of many in Conjunction with Tradition and therefore seeing there are so many Texts and such a cloud of Witnesses for Infant-Baptism Why should it not be looked upon as one of the common Notions of Christianity like the Parallel Doctrines above-mentioned though it be not commanded especially when as I have shewed there was no need of commanding of it in express Words I know the Dissenters of all sorts and especially those for whose sake I am now writing are bred up in great prejudice and sinister Suspicions against Tradition declaiming against it as very uncertain and against the use of it as very derogatory to the sufficiency of the Word of God But as to the first part of their Objection against the certainty of Tradition I desire them to take notice that there is a certain as well as an uncertain an undoubted as well as a pretended Tradition as there are true certain and undoubted as well as pretended and uncertain Scriptures and that there are sure ways whereby ingenious and inquisitive Men may satisfie themselves which is one and which is the other The way then to find out true and undoubted Tradition as * Advers Haeres c. 3. Vincentius Lirinensis teacheth is to try it by these three Tests Universality Antiquity and Consent First By Universality If all the Churches wheresoever dispersed or how different soever in their Languages and Customs do believe or practice such a Doctrine Secondly Antiquity If what all the Churches all the World over doth so believe or practice was no innovation but Believed and Practiced in the Ages next to the Apostles when such Fathers governed the Churches or such Famous Men lived in them as knew the Apostles and conversed with them or lived near unto those or with those Apostolical Men who so knew them or conversed with them or lived near unto them Thirdly
more Antiquity and hath his beginning from God's Word and from the use of the Primitive Church it must not in respect of the abuse in the Popish Church be neglected or thought not expedient to be used in Christ's Church Amentius one of the Aâ—â—â—ims Sect with his Adherente was one of the first that denied the Baptism of Children and next after him Pelâ—gius the Heretick and some other there were in St. Bernard's time as it doth appear by his Writings and in our days the Anabaptists and Inordinate kind of Men stirred up by the Devil to the destruction of the Gospel But the Catholick truth delivered unto us by the Scriptures plainly determineth that all such are to be Baptized as whom God acknowledgeth for his People and vouchsafeth them worthy of Sanctification or Remission of their Sin Therefore since that Infants be in the number or scroll of God's People and be Partakers of the Promise by their Purification in Christ it must needs follow thereby that they ought to be Baptized as well as those that can Profess their Faith For we judge the People of God as well by the free and liberal Promise of God as by the Confession of Faith For to whomsoever God promiseth himself to be their God and whom he acknowledgeth for his those no Man without great Impeity may exclude from the number of the Faithful But God promiseth that he will not only be the God of such as do profess him but also of Infants promising them his Grace and Remission of Sins as it appeareth by the words of the Covenant made unto Abraham Gen. 17. I will set my Covenant between thee and me saith the Lord and between thy Seed after thee in their Generations with an everlasting Covenant to be thy God and the God of thy Seed after thee To the which Covenant Circumcision was added to be a sign of Sanctification as well in Children as in Men and no Man may think that this Promise is abrogated with Circumcision and other Ceremonial Laws For Christ came to fulfil the Promises Matth. 5. and not to dissolve them Therefore in the Gospel he saith of Infants that is of such as yet believed not Matth. 10. Let the little Ones come unto me and forbid them not for of such is the Kingdom of Heaven Again Matth. 19. It is not the Will of your Father which is in Heaven that any of these little Ones do perish Also Matth. 18. He that receiveth one such little Child in my Name receiveth me Take heed therefore that ye despise not one of these Babes for I tell you their Angels do continually see in Heaven my Father's Face And what may be said more plainer than this It is not the Will of the Heavenly Father that the Infants should perish Whereby we may gather that he receiveth them freely unto his Grace although as yet they confess not their Faith Since then that the Word of the Promise which is contained in Baptism pertaineth as well to Children as Men why should the sign of the Promise which is Baptism in Water be withdrawn from Children when Christ himself commandeth them to be received of us and promiseth the Reward of a Prophet to those that receive such a little Infant as he for an Example did put before his Disciples Now will I prove with manifest Arguments Matth. 28. that Children ought to be Baptized and that the Apostles of Christ did Baptize Children The Lord commanded his Apostles to Baptize all Nations therefore also Children ought to be Baptized for they are comprehended under this Word All Nations Further whom God doth account among the faithful they are faithful for it was said to Peter Acts 10. That thing which God hath purified thou shalt not say to be common or unclean But GOD doth repute Children among the Faithful Ergo they be faithful except we had rather to resist God and seem stronger and wiser than he 1 Cor. 1. And without all doubt the Apostles Baptized those which Christ commanded But he commanded the Faithful to be Baptized among the which Infants be reckoned The Apostles then Baptized Infants 1 Cor. 1. The Gospel is more than Baptism for Paul said The Lord sent me to Preach the Gospel and not to Baptize Not that he denied absolutely that he was sent to Baptize but that he preferred Doctrine before Baptism for the Lord commanded both to the Apostles but Children be received by the Doctrine of the Gospel of God and not refused Therefore what Person being of reason may deny them Baptism which is a thing lesser than the Gospel For in the Sacraments be two things to be considered the thing signified and the Sign and thing signified is greater than the Sign and from the thing signified in Baptism Children are not excluded who therefore may deny them the Sign which is Baptism in Water St. Peter could not deny them to be Baptized in Water to whom he saw the Holy Ghost given which is the certain Sign of God's People Acts 10. For he saith in the Acts May any body forbid them to be Baptized in Water who have received the Holy Ghost as well as we Therefore St. Peter denied not Baptism to Infants for he knew certainly both by the Doctrine of Christ and by the Covenant which is everlasting that the Kingdom of Heaven pertained to Infants Rom. 8. None be received into the Kingdom of Heaven but such as God loveth and which are endued with his Spirit For whoso hath not the Spirit of God he is none of his But Infants be beloved of God and therefore want not the Spirit of God Wherefore if they have the Spirit of God as well as Men if they be numbred among the People of God as well as we that be of Age who I pray you may well withstand Children to be Baptized with Water in the Name of the Lord. The Apostles in times past being yet not sufficiently instructed did murmur against those which brought their Children unto the Lord but the Lord rebuked them and said Matth. 10. Let the Babes come unto me Why then do not these Rebellious Anabaptists obey the Commandments of the Lord For what do they now a-days else that bring their Children to Baptism than that they did in times past which brought their Children to the Lord and our Lord received them and putting his hands on them Blessed them and both by Words and by Gentle Behaviour towards them declared manifestly that Children be the People of God and entirely beloved of GOD But some will say Why then did not Christ Baptize them Because it is Written Jesus himself Baptized not but his Disciples Moreover John 4. Circumcision in the Old Law was ministred to Infants therefore Baptism ought to be ministred in the New Law unto Children For Baptism is come in the stead of Circumcision as St. Paul witnesseth saying to the Colossians Colos 2. By
Christ ye are Circumcised with a Circumcision which is without hands when ye put off the body of sin of the Flesh by the Circumcision of Christ being buried together with him through Baptism Behold Paul calleth Baptism the Circumcision of a Christian Man which is done without hands not that Water may be ministred without hands but that with hands no Man any longer ought to be Circumcised albeit the Mystery of Circumcision do still remain in Faithful People To this I may add That the Servants of God were always ready to minister the Sacraments to them for whom they were instituted As for an Example we may behold Joshua Jos 2. who most diligently procured the People of Israel to be Circumcised before they entred into the Land of Promise but since the Apostles were the Preachers of the Word and the very Faithful Servants of Jesus Christ who may hereafter doubt that they Baptized Infants since Baptism is in place of Circumcision Item The Apostles did attemperate all their doings to the Shadows and Figures of the Old Testament Therefore it is certain that they did attemperate Baptism accordingly to Circumcision and Baptized Children because they were under the Figure of Baptism for the People of Israel passed through the Red Sea and the bottom of the Water of Jordan with their Children And although the Children be not always expressed neither the Women in the Holy Scriptures yet they are comprehended and understood in the same Also the Scripture evidently telleth us That the Apostles baptized whole Families or Housholds But the Children be comprehended in a Family or Houshold as the chiefest and dearest part thereof Therefore we may conclude that the Apostles did Baptize Infants or Children and not only Men of lawful age And that the House or Houshold is taken for Man Woman and Child it is manifest in the 17. of Genesis and also in that Joseph doth call Jacob with all his House to come out of the Land of Canaan into Egypt Finally I can declare out of ancient Writers that the Baptism of Infants hath continued from the Apostles time unto ours neither that it was instituted by any Councels neither of the Pope nor of other Men but commended from the Scripture by the Apostles themselves Origen upon the Declaration of St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans expounding the 6. Chapter saith That the Church of Christ received the Baptism from the very Apostles St. Hierome maketh mention of the Baptism of Infants in the 3. Book against the Pelagians Heb. 11. and in his Epistle to Leta St. Augustine reciteth for this purpose a place out of John Bishop of Constantinople in his 1. Book aganst Julian Chap. 2. and he again writing to St. Hierome Epist 28. saith That St. Cyprian not making any new Decree but firmly observing the Faith of the Church judged with his fellow Bishops that as soon as one was born he might be lawfully Baptized The place of Cyprian is to be seen in his Epistle to Fidus. Also St. Augustine in writing against the Donatists in the 4. Book Chap. 23. 24. saith That the Baptism of Infants was not derived from the authority of Man neither of Councels but from the Tradition or Doctrine of the Apostles Cyril upon Leviticus Chap. 8. approveth the Baptism of Children and condemneth the iteration of Baptism These Authorities of Men I do alledge not to tie the Baptism of Children unto the Testimonies of Men but to shew how Mens Testimonies do agree with God's Word and that the verity of Antiquity is on our side and that the Anabaptists have nothing but Lies for them and new Imaginations which feign the Baptism of Children to be the Pope's Commandment After this will I answer to the sum of your Arguments for the contrary The first which includeth all the rest is It is Written Go ye into all the World and Preach the glad Tidings to all Creatures He that believeth and is Baptized shall be Saved But he that believeth not shall be Damned c. To this I answer That nothing is added to God's Word by Baptism of Children as you pretend but that is done which the same Word doth require for that Children are accounted of Christ in the Gospel among the number of such as believe as it appeareth by these words Matth. 18. He that offendeth one of these little Babes which believe in me it were better for him to have a Milstone tyed about his Neck and to be cast into the bottom of the Sea Where plainly Christ calleth such as be not able to confess their Faith Believers because of his mere Grace he reputeth them for Believers And this is no Wonder so to be taken since God imputeth Faith for Righteousness unto Men that be of riper Age For both in Men and Children Righteousness Acceptation or Sanctification is of mere Grace and by Imputation that the Glory of God's Grace might be praised And that the Children of Faithful Parents are Sanctified and among such as do believe 1 Cor. 7. is apparent in the 1 Cor. 7. And whereas you do gather by the order of the words in the said Commandment of Christ that Children ought to be taught before they be Baptized and to this end you alledge many places out of the Acts proving that such as Confessed their Faith first were Baptized after I answer That if the order of words might weigh any thing to this Cause we have the Scripture that maketh as well for us St. Mark we read that John did Baptize in the Desart Mark 1. Preaching the Baptism of Repentance In the which place we see Baptizing go before and Preaching to follow after And also I will declare this place of Matthew exactly considered to make for the use of Baptism in Children for St. Matthew hath it written in this wise Matth. 28. All Power is given me saith the Lord in Heaven and in Earth therefore going forth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is Disciple ye as I may express the signification of the Word that is make or gather to me Disciples of all Nations And following he declareth the way how they should gather to him Disciples out of all Nations baptizing them and teaching by baptizing and teaching ye shall procure a Church to me And both these aptly and briefly severally he setteth forth saying Baptizing them in the Name of the Father and of the Son and the Holy Ghost teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you Now then Baptism goeth before Doctrine But hereby I do not gather that the Gentiles which never heard any thing before of God and of the Son of God and of the Holy Ghost ought to be Baptized neither they would permit themselves to be Baptized before they knew to what end But this I have declared to shew you upon how feeble Foundation the Anabaptists be grounded And plainly it is not true which they imagine of this Text that the Lord did