Infants did it work upon them when they came to age We answer 1. That the word Character may be taken for any sign or note distinguishing one thing from another so Baptism may be also said to be a character distinguishing Christians from unbelievers not as an absolute quality but as a relative thing as a tessera militaris by which God wil own his who fight under the Banner of Christ and by which the baptized have a comfortable assurance that they are marked for the children of God when they believe in Christ according as it is written In whom also after that ye beleeved ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise which is the earnest of our Inheritance a. Your instance importeth onely a circumstantiall not a substantiall difference Now the variety of signes vary not the thing signified It is the same Christ the same Faith under the Gospel and under the Law though the Sacraments by God appointed for the one and for the other were much different And the ends of Circumcision and Baptism are the same to implant us into Christs visible Church to be an in-let and door to the same to seal up the admitted to faith repentance mortification and newness of life which work is as truly done to the baptized Christian when he cometh to age as it was to the Israelite circumcised to wit to and in them that believed and repented to others the work was so farre from being done that that very seal of Gods Covenant which they bare in their flesh served for a witnesse against the soul of the Covenant-breaker to his greater condemnation and so it is proportionably with the baptized Apostate which may be a warning to your Clients to repent before it be too late You say again It is requisite that the persons baptized should be capable of Reason that they may be capable both of the word of the Sacrament and the impress made upon the Spirit We answer 1. This weakly follows from unsound premises was there no word added to Circumcision How doth that appear Was there not a word of Institution Genes 17. 10 11 12. Was not the reason of the Covenant declared to Abraham Did not he and others preach the same to all of age to be circumcised as Proselytes and to the circumcised infants when they came to age capable of Doctrine so doe we to the baptized but to persons of years we preach the Gospel first and then baptize them infants we baptize first and instruct them when they come to be capable 2. That it is requisite that the persons baptized should be capable of Reason that they may be capable both of the word c. We say so also they must be capable of Reason either in act that they may presently understand those things or in habit that they may afterward understand the same to what end else should we baptize infants or why were they circumcised into future faith repentance and newness of life We utterly dislike Popish baptizing of Bels Churches Altars c. 3. We say further That Covenants between man and man require that both parties expressly understand know the tenour substance and particulars of the same but in Covenants between God and his Creatures that Rule doth not universally hold for here God stipulateth and principally transacteth with the creature according to that which he will have done or do in or by them So he established his Covenant with Noah and his seed after him and with every living creature the Fowle Cattell Beasts c. Gen. 9. 10. How much more rationally may he make covenant with infants though yet without the actuall use of reason Again sometimes such covenants are made between men as that the parent or parents covenant for or in stead of their children because they are not yet of age to understand the words and purport of the covenant and it standeth good How much rather may God covenant with an infant whose mouth and Advocate Christ Jesus said expressly Suffer little children to come unto me and forbid them not for of such is the Kingdom of Heaven Mark 10. 14. Luke 18. 16. I demand quojure by what right is the Kingdom of Heaven theirs What by descent from naturall parents Nay but that which is born of the flesh is flesh John 3. 6. And flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of God 1 Cor. 15. 50. It must therefore be by the free covenant of God with them out of which it can belong to none by right of any infant-innocency seeing all are conceived and born in sin the children of wrath but for the grace and covenant of God with them which they yet understand not yet is it valid and effectuall to their salvation as we may also understand in case of Circumcision in which the circumcised Child understood as little what was said or done as the baptized infant now doth and yet it was Gods covenant with them Gen. 17. 7 10 11 12. and effectual for them To conclude if you mean that it is requisite that none should be admitted to baptism but those that have the actuall use of reason that is men and women of years you beg the question of the Sacrament and the impress made upon the Spirit Concerning a Character or impress set upon the baptized the Schoolmen and Jesuits have moved sundry questions whether it be an absolute or relative quality which yet they say sticks fast upon them also that are in hell Whether it be an ens rationis or a relatio realis Whether a quality action or passion And if a quality of what kind it is Whether the subject thereof be the soul or some active or passive faculty thereof Whether it be a figure or form Whether the Sacraments of the old Testament made the like impress c. In all which and the like vain speculations we may not unprofitably note the just judgment of God giving them over to unfruitfull delusions who forsaking the true and constant light of his holy word give themselves â—ver to follow the ignes fatuos of their own fancies I hope you are not of their sense though you mention this impress Concerning the seal of our implantation into Christ I have spoken a little before and onely add that we receive grace and the obsignation thereof but are not sensible of all untill we receive a greater measure that we might know the things that are freely given unto us of God Since therefore say you the reason of this parity does wholly fail there is nothing left to inferre a necessity of complying in this circumstance of age any more then in the other annexes of the type It wholly holds in substance for ought you have said to the contrary and therefore your following instances are frivolous As concerning baptizing the eighth day we answer 1. That whereas God appointed no set day for baptism we have the greater liberty to
our God shall call what is it of force only to men and women of yeares where 's the infants part where is his priviledge of federall holynesse as being borne of believing parents What must they be interessed onely when they come to that act of which by nature they have the faculty That is the act of understanding faith and repentance In those acts the persons and children of Turks and Jews have a right in the same promises you cannot exclude any person from baptism who believes in Christ repenteth and desireth baptism at your hands Thus you make the promise of God concerning the children of the faithfull of no effect by your tradition and vain opinion But to amend this you say Baptism is not the means of conveying the holy Ghost I suppose you mean the ordinary gifts and graces of the holy Ghost as faith love hope sanctity c. if not there may be a double fallacy in your assertion First in the term conveying and next in the term holy Ghost both which may be homonymically intended and then your discourse is meerly captions and â—o discover it is a sufficient answer and indeed by your following words God by that miracle did give testimony c. it seems you mean that baptism is not now the ordinary means of conveying the holy Ghost that is the gift of miracles unto the baptized if so here is both an homonymia and an ignoratio elenchi Your reason being reduced to a Syllogisme you might take these words the holy Ghost for the ordinary gifts and graces of God necessary to salvation in the one proposition and for the extraordinary in the other and so the question were mistaken which is not whether baptism be an ordinary means of conveying the extraordinary gifs of the holy Ghost into the baptized as speaking divers unstudied languages curing the sick raising the dead casting out devils c. which we affirm not but whether baptism as the word preached be not the external ordinary means by God appointed to seal us up to a lively hope in Christ to beget faith and to engage us to repentance and newness of life to which all that you here trifle concerning imposition of hands and insinuation of rite to confirmation is nothing to purpose neither is the case of Cornelius and Peters argument thereon any waies advantagious to you for you confess it a miracle and how then is it pertinent to our present question You say that God by that miracle did give testimony that the persons of the men were in great disposition to heaven and therefore were to be admitted to those rites which are the ordinary inlets into the kingdom of heaven I then demand if that argument be good Are not children of believing parents to be admitted to those rites which are the ordinary inlets into the kingdom of heaven seeing they are also in great disposition to heaven whom Christ blessed and proposed for paterns to all that shall enter therein But we answer 1. That the great disposition which you talk of was not so much the gift of miracles as the persons inward baptism by the spirit of regeneration and sanctification for the gift of miracles is not of it self any certain argument of salvation see Matth 7. 22 23. but this was a sufficient warrant to Peter to baptize them as being marked out thereby for the visible Church at least into which elect and reprobate may come 2. To the main we answer That as by delivering a key putting in possession of an house is not only signified but also livery and seisin the conveyance and chirogrophuâ—â— are passed confirmed and actually made sure So in baptism by water the washing which is wrought by the blood of Christ is not only figured but also at last fulfilled in the elect by Christ. 3. In a right use of the Sacraments the things therby signified are ever held out and convey'd together with the fignes which are neither fallacious empty nor void of a due effect or without the thing represented because they are of God who cannot deceive and is able to give the effect if the receiver do not ponere obicem therefore the Sacraments are rightly called the Channels or Conduits of grace that is the ordinary means to convey the graces of God into the receivers 4. God confirms his mercies to us by the Sacraments wherein the Minister by Gods own deputation beareth his person or place in the Church as well as in preaching the word so that what they doe who are his Ministers by his appointment he doth both in respect of the institution and effect So the Lord is said to have aâ—ointed Saul whereas Samuelâ—nointed â—nointed him so Jesus made and baptized more disciple then John whereas Jesus baptized noâ— but his disciples by his assignement Therefore although these signes neither convey grace nor confirm any thing to them for good who keep not the Covenant for God made no promise to them yet are they means to convey the graces of God to those that do To conclude we affirm not that baptism conveyeth Gods grace to all that are baptized but to the elect only as that whereof he hath made a peculiar promise to them and that so certain as are those things which God himself sealeth covenanteth for and testifieth in heaven and earth as 't is written There are threo that bear record in heaven the father the word and the holy Ghost and there are three that bear witness in earth the spirit and the water and the blood Now if we receive the witness of men the witness of God is greater Under the mouth of two or three witnesses every word must be confirmed and taken for sure how much more when we have by Gods blessing the same witnesses of our faith who are also the promisers workers and sureties of our salvation But from thence you say to argue that wherever there is a capacity of receivinig the same grace there also the same signe is to be ministred and from thence to infer poede-baptism is an argument very fallacious c. Quis tulerit Gracchos your dispute is fallacious upon your grounds on which we go not and so all your impertinent superstruction here falleth together They that are capable of the same grace are not alwaies capable of the same signe for women under the law of Moses although they were capable of the righteousness of faith yet they were not capable of the signe of circumcision I would gladly be resolved quanta est illa propositio is your meaning Some of them that are capable of the same grace are not alwaies capable of the signe thereof If so alta pax esto We say so too for infants being capable of the same grace which is exhibited and received in the Lords supper are not alwaies that is while they are children capable of the same signe because they cannot examin themselves nor shew forth the Lords death and
But you say A wicked adulterous generation seeketh after a signe c. Possibly Mr. Fisher at his Ashford-conference was beholding to you for this opprobrie and abuse of holy Scripture but we entreat you seriously and timely to consider the severity of the Judge who hath said concerning any that take his name in vain I will not hold him guiltlesse and whether pernicious playing with holy Scripture and willfull perverting the sense thereof fall not under the sentence of self-destruction consider the terrors which Christ useth Matth 12. 38. 39. and Matth. 16. 4. the thing which the Scribes Pharises required was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which word though it signify divers things as may appeare by comparing Mat. 14. 3. 26. 48. Luk. 2. 12. Rom. 4. 11. 2. Thess. 3. 17. yet is it more then manifest that they required a miracle and that extraordinary and above all those divine works of Christ which hitherto they had ever seen as casting out devils raising the dead c. they required a signe from or out of heaven Matth. 16. 1. Mark 8. 11. and then Christ answered a wicked and adulterous generation seeketh after a signe that is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a wonder which words are often joyned to expresse the same thing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 commonly signifies a prodigie or monster Suidas gives it by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 praeter ordinariamrationem formatum praeter naturam genitum such a signe as begetteth admiration and amazement in the beholders and so the Syriack Joh. 4 48 expresseth it by a word comming of that verbe which signifieth to be amazed or very much to admire now I appeale to your conscience do we seek any such signe or miracle from heaven when we bring children to be baptized is not this froathy Rethorick you confesse baptisme to be the ordinary inlet into the kingdome of heaven and is an ordinary thing a signe or miracle consider also the persons of whom Christ spake they were a wicked and an adulterous generation for though they pretended to be Abrahams children yet neither heiring him in faith or works but degenerating from him they deservedly heard ye are of your father the devil if this present generation be such consider who makes it so and whether you have any commission to judge them wicked who professe true faith and obedience to Jesus Christ and his holy gospel in all things that any shall or can make appeare to us to be the truth But you say The truthâ—out is this argument is nothing but a direct quarrelling with almighty God The untruth of this assertion is so evident that it were but lost labour to bestow more words to refute it Now since there is no strength in the doctrinall part c. I appeale to the judicious reader let him judge what strength hath appeared in your oppositions concerning the words which you here multiply to little if any purpose I shall say no more but onely marke the strength of the pleaders present argument the sum whereof is Some Apostolicall traditions were pro loco tempore accommodate to place and time as the forementioned love feasts saluting with an holy kisse anointing the sick absteining from blood c. therefore no Apostolicall traditions passed an engagement upon following ages We answer we contend not for any such traditions as were pro loco tempore yet doth it not follow that because all Apostolicall traditions engage not posterities therefore none do as in that instance concerning the sabbath I suppose you will accord with us But you say Because other parallel expressions of Scripture do determin and expound themselves to a sense that includes not all persons absolutely but of a capable condition as Adorate eum omnes gentes psallite Deo c. Suppose all that granted what then you would inferre that infants have not a condition capable of baptisme because some other places of Scripture are relating to capahcity what makes this against the baptisme of infants who beeing within Gods covenant are therefore capable of the feal thereof as they were under the law although even then the Scripture saying psallite Deo omnes c. said that to those only who could sing to God and praise him and not unto infants of eight-dayes old to be circumcised who know's not that God commanded severall things with respect to severall capacities doth the incapacity in respect of one command conclude an incapacity of all women were not capable of circumcision nor of the office of teaching in the congregation nor of execution of priestly offices yet they also could and ought to sing to the Lord and were of that part of nations commanded to praise the Lord. Psal. 148. 12. Psal. 149. 3 5. Exod. 15. 20 21. â—udg 5. 1. Infants had not a capacity of singing praises to God they had of circumcision and therefore they were then circumcised though they could not sing infants cannot sing now therefore that precept sing unto the Lord c. concerneth them not for present but they can be baptized as such therefore that precept baptise all nations reacheth unto them you say more As for the conjecture concerning the family of Stephanas at the best it is but a conjecture and besides that it is not proved that there were children in the family yet if that were granted it followes not that they were baptized because by whole families in scripture is meant all persons of reason and age within the family Admit that to be conjectural and we take it for no more yet it is no light conjecture the Syriac gives it filij domus â—jus omnes speaking of the keeper of the prison Act. 16. 33. that children were baptized with the rest of the family for though â—â— there also may signify any domestick yet certainly it signifieth a child also and children were usually domesticks but it can be no more then a light conjecture of Anabaptists that there were no infants in this family or that of Stephanas which Paul baptized howsoever it can be no conjecture but certaine truth that in all nations there ever were and still are a great part infants and it is more then conjecturall that the Apostles did as Christ commanded them saying baptize all nations as for that which you say in Scripture is meant all persons of reasons and age within the family because it is said that the ruler at Capernaum believed and all his house is that proposition universall doe you affirme that by whole families is ever meant all persons of age within the family and such only if so your assertion is apparently false but if your proposition be particular it falleth short of our cause for what can it hurt it if by all or whole families in Scripture sometimes is meant all persons of reason and age deale ingenuously then do you affime that by whole or all the Scripture doth alwayes meane persons
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
and set apart to him according to him own appointment which priviledge neither the wisdom power honour will of man consent of Nations nor any civil Laws or Ordinances of man ever could or can give but God alone who freely bestoweth that favour and appointeth the conditions thereof Only believers are the lawful subject of baeptism that is such as appear to believe with all their heart Act. 8. 37. but children appear not to believe so therefore they are not the lawful subject of baptism We answer 1 That such are to be baptized is granted so that you may conclude affirmatively for such persons of years but this cannot conclude negatively to the exclusion of Infants born within the Church of Christ. 2 If believing with all the heart were the rule of lawful administration of baptism who could securely presume to baptize persons of years concerning whose hearty believing they cannot be certain as for outward appearance that many times deceiveth the most discerning men Jerusalem and all Judea c. came and were baptized of John Baptist yet many of them proved blasphemers and persecutors of Christ some of them came so far as to be professed Disciples and yet proved Apostates others were said to believe in Christ yet he discerning their hearts would not commit himself unto them Joh. 2. 23. Ananias and Saphira came up to so real a profession as to sell their possession for the advancement of the Gospel and did these believe with all their heart or were they not baptized I might add hereto Judas Demas and Simon Magus all these shew that outward appearance demonstrateth not faith in the heart and therefore if only believers that is with all their hearts be the lawful subject of baptism either your supposed rule of baptizing leaves it uncertain to you whom you may or may not baptize or else admitteth of hypocrites whom God abhorreth and on whom Christ denounced so many woes and excludeth believers Infants from the seal of Gods covenant in which God himself testifieth children of such are and whom Christ embraced in his sacred arms testifying that of such is the kingdom of heaven 3 Shew us a rule in all the New Testament in terminis as you require of us for Infant-baptism for baptizing only persons of ripe years to make profession of their faith and at once if you can set an end to this unhappy controversie which hath so much troubled the Church put it out of doubt that none may be baptized untill there be an appearance of their faith and repentance or give us some infallible proof that all those whom you baptize are indeed and certainly belonging to the kingdom of heaven nay shew us any necessary consequence for the exclusion of our Infants from baptism what because those of years professed their faith and confessed their sins therefore Infants who cannot so do may not be baptized it follows not nay yet further were there an express precept if any believe not with all the heart baptize them not it would no more exclude Infants from their right to baptism then that which the Apostle saith as hath been noted if any would not work neither should he eat excludeth them from their right to be fed To conclude we shew you an infallible word of Christ that Infants belong to the kingdom of heaven and therefore the appearance from these words of Christ and the covenant of God with believing parents and their children is as good and certain that the kingdom of heaven belongs to the Infants of constant professors whom we baptize as any profession of new Converts can shew for men and women may and often do deceive men who know not the heart or future condition of professors whatsoever they now seem or say but Christ who knows all things yea the secrets of every heart and ends of all that are or shall be could not be deceived in so judging of Infants The foundation of the Lord remains sure and hath this seal the Lord knoweth who are his and his covenant being that he will be to the covenanted his seed a God whose promises are therefore sure to them and the parent as such being as well known to be converted as any new proselyte is or can be known to be converted Gods promise to me concerning my children is more sure to me then mans judgment concerning the sincerritie of any new Convert can be whatsoever appeareth in his words or professions 4 The interest of sealing into the covenant of grace dependeth not on the sealed persons worthiness or unworthiness sexe age or condition but upon God the author and free appointer thereof so circumcision was one and the same in the external seal to the elect and reprobate Infant or Proselyte of years The commandment of God did not put any difference but equally enjoined it to all sorts of males within the pale of Israel he said not circumcise only believers the penitent c. though in persons of years that was to be understood but circumcise every maleâ— child the eighth day when `t is sure they could neither actually believe repent nor make any appearance thereof as then the external seal was one and the same though the effect in the sealed was variable so is it in baptism the secret unworthiness or Apostacie of the receiver foreseen only by God did not make them uncapable of the seal therefore man administring was to do his part according to the general command of God and to leave the particular success and effect to God and so is it in baptism 5 Though unbelievers who reject the word of God may not as such be baptized yet Infants who at most may be called but negatively unbelievers cannot be included in that rule which excludeth contemners seeing they have faith as they have reason in the seed not in the fruit in the root though not in the leaf in some inward operation though not in any outward expression as Tidenus cited by the learned Dr. Fearly well observes 6 None are required to manifest their faith and repentance before baptism but such as having the use of reason have been taught and instructed in the same for God requireth no impossibilities in respect of the abilities which himself ever gave so that in common reason all texts of Scripture which require confession of faith repentance c. are to be understood of such as have the use of reason and tongue whereby they are enabled so to do If the parents to whom the Apostle spake Act. 2. 39. were not believers then the promise was not to them and their children but they were not believers ergo c. We answer The Apostle saying expresly the promise is to you and to your children your dispute labouring to prove that the promise was not to them and their children is point blanck against the express Word of God and you denying that principle are not worthy of further answer yet for the pious Readers sake
17. In reason where God hath bestowed the grace signified man may not deny the signifying element and in common right the apparent heirs are unjustly denied the deeds and evidences whereby that right is assured upon them for these are a part of their inheritance and ought by right to follow the same moreover 't is impious to divide that which God hath join'd the sign from the thing signified as they do who allow children grace remission of sins and salvation by Christ and yet deny them baptism into Christ they will yeild them the Jewels but not the Cabinet the Treasure but not the Purse 6 All that are capable of the initiatorie seal of future faith ought to be baptized but Infants are capable thereof therfore they ought to be baptized So under the law Infants were capable of circumcision the seal of their future faith our Infants have no less capacitie thereof then they had 7 All they to whom Gods covenant of Grace extends are to receive the initiatory seal thereof for sealing of the covenant respectively is a part thereof Gen. 17. 10 11. Mark 16. 16. but Gods covenant of Grace in Christ extends to Infants of covenanted persons therefore Infants ought to receive the initiatory seal of the covenant which is baptism The assumption is proved from Act. 2. 38 39. Be baptized every one of you for the remission of sins-for the promise is unto you and to your children What promise that upon which the Covenant was sealed to Abraham and his seed the faithful and when where or how have Infants of Christians forfeited their right to the seal who as such cannot forfeit 8 If circumcision and baptism were for substance both respective seals of the same covenant of God in Christ then those sorts of men who were capable of the one are capable of the other but circumcision and baptism were for substance both respective seals of the same covenant of God in Christ therefore those sorts of men to wit Infants as well as persons of years who were capable of circumcision are capable of baptism The major may appear in that God never made any covenant of grace but only in Christ and the same Gospel was preached to Abraham and he believed in the same Christ Gal. 3. 8. add hereto there is the same efficient primary cause to wit God making a covenant with his and appointing the respective seals thereof the same necessity on the receivers part original sin in Infants who have therefore as much need of regeneration and admission into the covenant of God for remedy as they had under the law and there is the same power and efficacie of the holy Ghost still remaining otherwise Gods grace in the New Testament and covenant in Christ exhibited should be more restrained and of less latitude then it was in the Old under that severe Schoolmaster the Law and which were impious to affirm then Christs coming into the world should be so much disvantageous to believers as that the Gospel should take away the seal of Gods covenant of grace from our children which the Law allowed them under the severity therof No part or condition of the covenant by God appointed for remission of sins and salvation may be withheld by man from those who have right to the covenant and promise of God under severe punishment but the initiatory Sacrament Baptism now is a part or condition of the covenant by God appointed for remission of sins and salvation whereto Infants have right therefore it may not be withheld from such Infants as are within the covenant and have right thereto and to the promise of God See Exod. 4. Luk. 3. 3. Act. 2. 38 39. Tit. 3. 5. now the initiatorie seal of the covenant was and is a part or condition of the same Gen. 17. 10 11. Mark 16. 16. Joh 3. 5. 10 All they whom God accounteth holy have a capacity of baptism the feal thereof but God accounteth children of believing parents holy 1 Cor. 7. 14. Therefore children of believing parents have a capacitie of baptism nor doth that ridiculous interpretation which Anabaptists have borrowed of the Jesuites concerning legitimacie overthrow this argument 11 All those who being redeemed by Christ have right to the kingdom of heaven have right to the ordinary Port and Inlet into the same that is baptism but children of believers have right to the kingdom of heaven Mark 10. 14 Mat. 19. 13. therefore children of believers have right to baptism Christ expresseth the entrance or means to regeneration and the kingdom of heaven Joh. 3. 5. to wit water of baptism by which the H. Ghost doth ordinarily work thereto and presently gives the reason that which is born of the flesh is flesh that as such cannot enter into the kingdom of God 1 Cor. 15. 50. now Infants are from their natural birth but flesh and blood Ps. 51. 7. Eph. 2. 3. therefore if they must enter into the kingdom of God they must be born again of water and the H. Ghost it is true that God can and doth regenerate many Infants without baptism by his H. Spirit so that they dying without the Sacrament are yet saved in an extraordinary way but for us to deny them baptism and to put their salvation upon extraordinary means where God hath appointed and declared the ordinary is as much as man can do to shut them from the kingdom of heaven and so though their want of baptism shall not be their eternal loss whom God hath elected yet is it their great sin who neglect or despise the ordinance of God and thereby except in case of repentance they shall exclude themselves 12 Whatsoever Christ commanded Ministers to do and which the Apostles in the ordinary office of Ministers did do that is right and just to be done and we ought to do but Christ commanded Ministers to baptize all nations without exception of children and that the Apostles did do for above all contradiction they obeyed Christ therein therefore it is right and just to baptize Infants as being a great part of all nations and we ought to do it 13 That which agreeth with the nature of the seal of the righteousness of faith and the institution of Christ ought to be done but Infant-baptism agreeth with these therefore it ought to be done it agreeth with the institution of Christ who commanding to baptize all nations well knew that there were many Infants therein yet makes no exception of them but gives them so high an eulogium that we may know that the initiatory seal belongeth principally to them as it did under the Law what though God name not Infants to be baptized in so many words and syllables yet seeing he neither nameth men of years nor women it must needs be that under these words all nations he comprehended all those of which nations as their integrant parts consist which are men women and children it agreeth also with the nature of the seal which
women not only under the Law but now also have and ever will have for ought you can say the same incapacity of circumcision what makes this to conclude childrens incapacity of baptism this is to argue à genere ad genus though women had not a capacity of that signe they have a capacity of baptism infants had then a right to that whereof they had a capacity let them have so still and the controversie is ended You further say The gift of the holy Ghost was ordinarily given by imposition of hands and that after baptism By this it appears that your foregoing argument was fallacious you intending the extraordinary gifts of the holy Ghost which we pretend not to and what is this dispute to us now or to the present question seeing they are long since ceased But beware your lying too near a wind and mentioning crisme or confirmation and sanctifying the holy Apostles displease not your clyents and you be taken for an ambodexter But you say After all this lest these arguments should not ascertain their cause they fall on complaing against God c. Tell true and shame the devil where to whom when which of all the reformed Churches ever did so We clearly affirm that God is ever and alike to be believed whether by signes or by words which signifie his will we say not that God did more for the children of the Jews but that your peevishness denying children baptism would have it seem so Do we then complain against God when we complain of the Anabaptists abridging children of that which God hath allowed them How vain and maâ—tious is this calumny of yours But you say He made a covenant of spiritual promises on his part and spiritual and reall services on ours What are these real services and whose if of children what can they as such perform but you say this pertains to children when they are capable but made with them assoon as they are alive that is in the mothers womb what this this covenant so the words seem to import nay but undeniably Gods covenant and spiritual promises on his part presently belong to them who shall be saved for many of them presently die or mean you byâ— this spiritual and real services on our part belong to children when they are capable Surely then they cannot have this covenant made with them as soon as they are born otherwise then by baptism because for the present they can perform nothing real If you mean spiritual and real services of parents in relation to their covenanted infants as such they cannot yet teach them they can only present them to the Church that the publick seal of Gods covenant being set to them they may according to their true interest in her external communion be thereby marked and known for parts and members of the same and this indeed pertaineth to children when they are capable that is as soon as they are born That which you infer to shew a disparity between Christian infants and the Jews babes is frivolous for thoug there appear some shew of difference in circumstance as the particular promise of the inheritance of Canaan c. yet for substance there is none there being as real a promise of blessings to Christians and their children in every kind for godliness hath the promise of this life and that which is to come and the present seal of faith marketh them for Gods peculiar people the effect whereof being wrought and perfected by the spirit of Jesus in their regeneration the work is done in them and no otherwise was it in the Jews children for he is not a Jew which is one outwardly neither is that circumcision which is outward in the flesh but circumcision is that of the heart in the spirit Rom. 2. 28 29. Col 2. 11 â—2 and the Jewish children were no otherwise sealed then into the same faith of Jesus nor otherwise saved then by faith in him neither less saved then we and our childâ—en This say you is the greatest vanity in the world What vanity you say to affirm that unless this mercy be consigned by baptism as good not at all in respect of us because we want the comfort of it This is the vanity well let it be so and let them own it that will I known not whom you mean I am sure there appears vanity enough in your following assertion and reason offered for proof Shall not say you this promise this word of God be of sufficient truth certainty and efficacy to cause comfort unless we tempts God and require a signe of him Yes Gods promise is of sufficient truth and certaine efficacy thereto therefore we baptize our children and it had been sufficient on Gods part and it must have been on ours had he not seen good further to confirm us by a seal set to his promise or had he not required more of us as our duty and a condition and seal of his covenant with us our children for as Augustine saith how much available even without the visible Sacrament of baptisme is that which the Apostle saith Rom. 10. 10. with the heart man believeth unto righteousnesse and with the mouth Confession is made unto salvation was declared in the penitent thiefe but then it is invisibly fulfilled when not any contempt of religion but a point or moment of necessity excludeth or preventeth baptisme for it might have seem'd much more superfluous in Cornelius and his friends to be baptized who had already received the gift of the holy Ghost then in the thiefe yet they were baptized and in that act the Apostolicall authority is extant as also the necessity of obeying God in his ordinance now how childish and perverse is that cavill unlesse we tempt God and require a signe of him Do you account obedience to God and his holy ordinances to be a tempting of God is bringing children to Christ which he commandeth and that by baptisme which you confesse is the ordinary inlet into the kingdome of heaven to require a signe of him or is it to receive a signe of him by his own appointment and what certainity of comfort could we concieve if on the contrary we should wilfully disobey neglect and contemn Gods ordinance as your clients do were it not rather to tempt God if as much as in us lies we should shut up the doore and inlet into his kingdome against infants man can do no more to shut them out then by denying them baptisme 't is true that God can and often doth save them without our ministry as when death preventeth our baptising them but to neglect the ordinary means of our own or others salvation and to put it on the extraordinary power of God is to tempt God if I should ask you why you eat or feed your infants seeing God can preserve you and them without food you would easily say to neglect the ordinary means were to tempt God so 't is here
of reason and age what doth God when he said to Abraham and in thee all the families of the earth shall be blessed doth he meane only all persons of age are children in their nonage excluded from the blessing in Christ Nay but the Apostle saith expresly the promise is unto you and to your children and such Christ blessed and of such is the kingdome of heaven Doth the Scripture 21â— saying all flesh dyed every man meane onely all of reason and age were the infants excepted many places of Scripture may shew the vanity of this your assertion but if your proposition be particular that is that sometimes the Scripture by whole families means persons of reason that is who have the use of reason and age we can grant it you I adde somtimes all signifieth only a great part as Mat. 10. 22 ye shall be hated of all men for my name sake that is of many times in the Hebrew manner of speaking it signifies none or not any one as Psal. 147. 20. he hath not done so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to all or every nation that is not to any so Exod. 12. 43. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. every son of a stranger shall not eate thereof that is none now would you have the sense of Christs words goe and baptize all nations to be go and baptize some nations or a major part of the nations the evidence of the truth is against that as well as against the other go and baptise none but you would faine have it go and baptize those that are persons of reason and age within the nations shew us any such precept of Christ and we will obey it in the meane time we must do that which we know he commanded us that is baptize all nations all against whom we finde no exception and why should we look for exception in families seeing we find none mentioned by our Saviour in nations but you would have here a limitation to capacity which you think infants have not first we say shew us any Scripture-proofe for such limitation secondly we say that although the incapacity of an infant limit a command where there appeareth a present impossibility of doing that which God in generall commandeth as where he saith believe repent confesse your sins sing unto God praise him c for God commandeth no impossibilities yet where it is possible that the command may be fulfilled there lieth no such limitation now you will not say that 't is impossible for infants to be baptized if you say they ought not to be baptized untill they can actually believe repent c. we must answer you with your own this is unmanlike to build upon such slight and aery conjectures as are humane fancies to forbid infants baptisme and when you can bring us no solid ground for that you would have to beg the question But you say Tradition by all meanes must supply the place of Scripture and there is pretended a tradition Apostolicall that infants were baptized c. You seem here to speake three things first that when we cite traditions we use them in place of Scripture or for defect of Scripture-proofe which to deny is confutation enough untill you can shew which of us so pretend to tradition Secondly in your following words you pretend that we sometimes reject Apostolicall tradition for of that you speake to which we say that when the quaestion is concerning a tradition of the gospel or Apostles as Epiphanius speakes we receive it and with an ancient Council wish that those things may be done in the Church which were delivered by divine Scripture or Apostolical tradition which we adde hereto though we have no reason to admit of all that is alledged for such as for those things which the Apostles desivered in complyance with particular times places or persons as anointing with oyl saluting with an holy kisse love-feasts c. they were necessary then and to that people who had been long accustomed thereto of whom a gospel-Church was now to be gathered but they were neither universally prescribed neither do they concern us now Next we say with S. Augustine the whole Church holdeth by tradition the baptism of infants and that beeing continually observed we justly believe to have been delivered and confirmed by Apostolicall tradition But you say So farre as it can appeare it relies wholly upon the testimony of Origen for from him Augustine had it c. Yet before you affirmed that infant-baptisme was Augustin's device how had Augustine it from Origen if it were Augustin's device That it was neither his device neither that it relyeth wholly upon the testimony of Origen many other testimonis by us alleaged make manifest as Dionysius Jrenaus Cyprian Ambros Jerom Cyril Gre. Nazianzen Basil c. as also ancient Councils as that of â—arthage Anâ— 407. the Milevitan Anâ— 420 c. to conclude we rely not upon the testimony of man though we reverence holy antiquity but on the command of Christ and the Apostles practises baptising whole nations without any appearing exception to infants of believing parents and therefore you following inferences either nothing concern or nothing hurt us You say further There was no command of Scripture to oblige children to the susception of it No command to children to oblige them a dainty caption neither was there any command to infants to oblige them to the susception of circumcision for they could neither act nor understand that or any other command The command was to the parents for present and to children for the future therefore if you meaâ—e that there was no command of Scripture to oblige â—s to the baptizing of infants the contrary appeares Matth. 28. 19. But you require expresse termes we rejoyns what expresse termes in Scripture have you to prove that there is an holy Trinity in the unity of the deity or for the abrogating the Jewish Sabbath and observation of our Lord-day Sabbath or for womens receiving the Lords supper or for your rebaptizing or dipping over head and ears But you say The necessity of pedobaptism was not determined in the Church till in the eighth age after Christ but in the year 418. in the Milevitan Councel never till then What necessity speak you of de necessitate medii in respect of infants salvation as if they could not be saved without it we maintain it not if you mean such a necessity on our part as bindeth us to obedience that is to baptize infants of believing parents we say with S. Augustin the custom of our mother the Church in baptizing infants is not at all to be despised or by any means to be esteemed superfluous nor to be believed any other then an Apostolical tradition the ground hereof is laid down l. 3. c. 24. Contra Donat. before by us cited to which I refer the reader the sum is That whatsoever is universally observed in all Churches and no man can say by what
order to baptize and be baptized for the remission of sins freely for Christs sake into whom we are implanted by Baptism How false then must it be which you upon the matter affirm that we shall be never the neerer if we cannot contribute somthing to the efficacie of Baptism in the use of our own reason Certainly Gods Spirit accompanieth his ordinance in the elect sooner or later If the reprobate be never the nearer salvation for his baptism that is accidentall maketh nothing against the effectuall sealing of the elect to eternall life in their baptism There are many sorts of hearers of the Word some like the stony ground some like the thorny some like the high-way shall the Apostasie unbelief and barrenness of the greater part make the ordinance of God of none effect to believers To conclude it is but the outward ministration which is committed to us the capacity or incapacity fruit-bearing or sterility of receivers belongs to God to judge of not to us we must do our duty and leave the issues to to him But you say From the pains of hell they shall be saved by the mercies of God and their own innocency though they die in puris naturalibus and baptism will carry them no further What Popery and Pelagianism twisted together If you speak of childrens salvation by the mercies of God to his elect so far we accord if you say by their own innocency that Pelagians and Donatists taught who affirmed that infants were born without originall sin and therefore would not have them baptized Against this heresie the second Milvetian Councel determined Canon 2. as hath been noted For that you say they shall be saved though they die in puris naturalibus that is such as they are by nature without regeneration it is against the express word of God as may clearly appear in that all are conceived and born in sin the children of wrath by nature That which is born of the flesh is flesh and flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God that is such as it is by and in the state of corrupted nature therefore except the infant be regenerate he cannot enter into the kingdome of God That which you say that Baptism will carry infants no further then from the pains of hell smels strongly of Popery They say that children dying without Baptism shall have poeâ—am damni non sensus that is they shall be free from hell fire but that they shall not enter into heavenly joys But Augustine so far said well there is not to any and middle place that he can be any where but with the Divel who is not with Christ. Certainly the Scripture mentioneth onely heaven for the elect and blessed and hell for the reprobate and damned For that Baptism that saveth us is not onely the washing with water of which onely children are capable but the answer of a good conscience towards God of which they are not capable till the use of reason till they know to chuse the good and refuse the evill If you mean by washing with water baptism according to Christs institution administred we say also it is not that onely which is the Ministers part to give which saveth us but the power and grace of Gods Spirit inwardly baptizing sanctifying regenerating and cleansing us from our sins by the pretious blood of Jesus that saveth us Now that infants are not hereof capable till the use of reason is evidently false if you but hold these three Principles 1. That no unregenerate unclean person can be saved 2. That all mankind is born in sin Rom. 5. 12. 3. That some infants dying before their use of reason are saved That which you say that infants are capable of washing with water that is of baptism or else you trifle we asserâ—t to and desire you to say no more infants of believing parents that is of professed Christians are capable of baptism for the rest we contend not we refer the effect thereof in particulars to God who alone knoweth his elect and how and when to give them the inward fruit of his own ordinances we neither affirm that all the baptized shall be saved neither can we or you determine which shall and which shall not but indifferently as charity requireth hope well of every one whom we baptize concerninig whom we can say nothing to the contrary But you say All vows made by persons under other names stipulations made by minors are not valid till they be by a supervening act after they are of a sufficient age to racifie them To which we answer 1. though all be not valid in such case it is enough that some are 2. Your assertion if granted that is that all vows or which is more then you affirm if no vows made by persons under others names or stipulations made by minors or persons in their minority are not valid untill by a supervening act after they are of sufficient age to ratifie them they are confirmed what could this make against our duty of Infant-baptism the case being much different between stipulations of men and the covenant between God man as hath been shewed as appeared in circumcision which was with Infants eight days old Mr. Cobbet well observeth that the covenant of grace is as well a testament 1 Cor. 11. 25. Heb. 9. 15 c. Now a testament may be and useth to be made in reference to little ones without knowledge nor do any use to deny a childs right in the Testators will because it understood not the same and that many Infants with whom God made the covenant Gen. 17. dying such were yet saved and that they restipulate in their Parents knowing acceptance of the covenant and professed owning of it upon the Covenant terms as wel on their childrens parts as their own they restipulate in a passive reception of the Covenant condition bond to afâ—er imitation of their father Abrahams faith obedience Again our question is not concerning the ratification or effect of Infant-baptism by their act or acts to make it good to themselves and effectuall when they come of age but concerning a Church-priviledge on Infants part which is to be admitted unto the externall seal of Gods Covenant with his Church it being to Parents and their children and this dependth on Gods institution to appoint it and his inward working to make it good Secondly in the confirmation of children come to age they then professing faith obedience repentance newness of life c. into which in their infancy they were baptized that is then ratified which others promised and stipulated for them as concerning outward profession which is in your language a supervening act to make the former appear valid Thirdly the question is not concerning the final effect of baptism in particulaâ—â— baptized which cannot fall under the Ministers cognizance it being kept in heaven in the archives and secret counsel of God but concerning their right
we shall make it appear more anon If they fall away to renew them again unto repentance seeing they crucifie to themselves the Son of God afresh and put him to an open shame How do they crucifie him afresh to themselvs that is as much as in them is Why 1. They are said so to do who iterate or again do or resume that which is a resemblance or similitude of Christs suffering who died but once for in a reiterating it we declare or intimate the first to be void and so if we will have a new baptism we must have a new Christ and he must in our Symbole suffer as if one Christ or his once suffering were not sufficient for our redemption And is not this to pollute the bloud of the everlasting Covenant and Testament and to crucifie again the Son of God Secondly this may be said in respect of reciduation or falling away from Christ as they do who renounce their baptism by which they were implanted into him by receiving another baptism because the merit of Christs Cross being abolished and made void by which they were once renewed it must needs be that Christ should be crucified again and put to shame that they might be renewed by a fresh or new merit of the Cross which seeing it cannot be the Apostle possibly would infer that it was impossible that they which are once sealed and regenerate should ever fall away and that therefore all Christians should do their uttermost endeavour that they may be like good ground near the blessing and that they may not want an iterated renovation which no man can possibly aâ—â—ain As for the rest of your revilings though we have no cause to be troubled at your dogged eloquence yet for their sakes who are weak I shall endeavour to shew the injurious falshood thereof You say that we in baptizing infants dishonour and make a Pageantry of the Sacrament c. We answer to this puted calumny 1. You may as well in this your Theomachy and fighting against Gods Ordinance object the same against Circumcision of Infants if incapacity of present giving account of their faith as you pretend can make the Sealers of infants lyable to your unjust censure for infants could then no more give an account of their faith then now they canâ— 2. Infants have a capacity of the holy Ghost as hath been proved in the examples of Jeremy and John Baptist c yea such a measure of sanctification and so certain a regeneration working in them all such things as God knoweth to be necessary to their salvation or himself supplying all those things as that Christ both pronounceth their propriety in the Kingdom of heaven and proposed them as patterns to all those who should enter thereinto Therefore the Apostles Argument being good from the extraordinary and visible gifts of the holy Ghost gifts of miracles flourishing in the primitive Church and marking many receivers to a capacity of baptism which yet might then be had without any interest in the Kingdom of heaven who can forbid water that these should not be baptized which have received the holy Ghost as well as we It must as certainly hold from the gift to regeneration and the spirit of sanctification which is in many infants because many infants dying such are saved And now in your judgment doth the baptism of such as are saved dishonour the Sacrament the outward seal which man can give and wicked men receive who have received the thing signified the inward seal of Gods holy spirit which none but himself can give and none but the elect receive Or do you dishonour your self who were so admitted into the Church the Church our holy Mother who maâ—gre the Devils malice and the powers of hell by Infant-baptism bringeth an holy seed to Christ Christ himself commanding us to baptize all without exception to any estate sex age or condition that either are within the Church as born of Christian parents or in their conversion profession of faith and repentance desire to be admitted into the same Adde hereto that Christ particularly cautioned for children left any should despise them openly declaring that of such is the kingdome of heaven And yet the doing of this duty is dishonour to the Sacrament and Pageantry with you But If of every idle word which men shall speak they shall give an account in the day of judgment it concerneth them speedily to repent of these blasphemous calumnies left it prove a black and dismal day to them in respect of these things for which they can give no better account then their own fancies and others And whereas you say they that baptize infants ineffectually represent a Sepulture into the death of Christ and please themselves with a signe without an effect making baptism like the fig-tree in the Gospel full of leaves but no fruit To say this is an untruth is as much answer as we owe to so reasonless a calumny yet I shall be contented to lay it further open I say 1. Can you be assured that none of these who are baptized in infancy and no otherwise are regenerate and saved Whence have you either such knowledg or commission so to judg You say the Anabaptists say so so said the Pharisees concerning those that believed in Christ This people who knows not the Law are cursed But what warrant is this for you to blaspheme for company 2. God be blessed that we who believe one God one Mediator one Faith one Baptism which we received in our infancy have such a testimony of Gods holy spirit effectually working faith repentance mortification and a comfortable measure of sanctification in us as that we know you speak untruth in that you say that Poedobaptists ineffectually represent a Sepulture into the death of Christ and please themselves in a signe without an effect c. God be blessed which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again to a lively hope wherein as we need not be beholding to you for testimony so neither are we to regard what you say against it With me it is a very small thing that I should be judged of you or of mans judgment but he that judgeth me is the Lord therefore judg nothing before the time He that saith that baptism is a bare signe only fallaciously concludeth dividing things which God hath joyned together 3. Although baptism of infants be effectless to the reprobate whether infant or person of years as in Judas Simon Magus Demas and others like â—et it is effectual to salvation to all the elect in whom Gods spirit powerfully worketh to faith repentance sanctification c. without which all the waters under heaven cannot be effectual for the cleansing of one soul. 4. We please not our selves with a signe without effect if you doe rest not in that state lest you and your stingie leaves without fruit withering become fuel for the fire which goes not
man to have instituted that Sacrament but though Christ say nowhere baptize children at seven dayes six months seven years or though he say nowhere Baptize women yet neither of these are Will-worship because the substance and institution of Baptism is grounded on his express command age and sexe are accidents Lastly If the major proposition be particular the rule is well known Of meer particulars nothing is concluded 2 There was an express command for the sealing of Abrahams sons in their generations in their infancie Gen. 17. 7. c. and Believers are expresly the sons or children of Abraham Gal. 3. 7. that is his spiritual seed who have no less priviledge in things belonging to salvation then his carnal seed And the Apostles who were Jews and brought up amongst them who were sealed in their infancie did not that we read of so much as ask Christ any question what they were to do with Infants and Christ giving them no prohibition concerning them he did thereby sufficiently intimate that he having not repealed the law of sealing Infants into his covenant would have them proceed according to the Analogie of the first seal of his covenant The greater doubt might possibly have been concerning baptizing of females who were not formerly sealed the doubt concerning the Gentiles sealing being removed by an express precept Baptize all Nations Mat. 28. 19. 3 On this very ground on which Anabaptists deny Infant-baptism the old Sadduces denyed the resurrection of the dead because they found it not expresly written in the books of Moses which only they received See what hath been answered to the Pleader near the end 4 Although we read not in terminis and so many words and syllables in holy Scripture Baptize Infants yet we read it in most firm and evident consequence if we but hold these three certain conclusions 1 That Children are conceived and born in sin the children of wrath 2 That God would not have them perish but rather be brought into the holy communion of Christ and his Church that they may be saved 3 That he hath appointed no other external ordinary means to us known for Infants regeneration but baptism 5 If the matter must be put upon express words of Scripture let our Antagonists shew us where they are expresly forbidden to baptize Infants where is there any syllable express or probable for re-baptizing any where have they any express precept for dipping over head and ears where have they any express precept for their long prayers for baptizing women or administring the communion to them shew us any express precept for the change of the Sabbath That which we read not expresly mentioned in Scripture that the Apostles did that we may not do but we read not in express words in Scripture that the Apostles ever baptized Infants therefore we may not baptize them We answer 1 If your principle were true it might thence be concluded that the Lords Supper may not be administred to women for we no where read in express words that the Apostles ever administred it unto them 2 Express words in Scripture are not alwayes necessary to prove a thing which necessary consequence doth conclude we have no express words in Scripture naming an holy Unitie in Trinitie and Trinitie in Unitie most undeniable consequence we have Mat. 28. 19 1 Joh. 5. 7. Again we have no express word that the Apostles were baptized for Christ himself baptized none Joh. 4. 1. c. and we read not where or when John Baptist baptized them yet certainly they were baptized we read not expresly that the Apostles in baptizing mentioned the Father the Son and the holy Ghost but most certain consequence concludeth it because Christ so appointed it and it was of the essence of the Sacrament and why should we more tie the baptism of Infants to express words then any of these fundamental things are tyed and on the like consequential grounds why should we doubt whether the Apostles did indeed usually baptize Infants of Christians because it is not expresly written seeing that many other words matters and actions of the Apostles and Christ himself were not written 3 Christ expresly commanded to baptize all Nations in no one syllable title or word therein excepting Infants who are and ever were a great and numerous part thereof and that which concerneth all alike concerneth every part thereof When Peter was asked what was needful to be done for the Jews prickt at heart Act. 2. 37 38. he said Repent and be baptized but Infants can neither actually repent nor contribute any thing towards their baptism therefore they ought not to be baptized And again Mat. 3. they confessed their sins and were baptized which Infants cannot do We answer 1 Forasmuch as Infants cannot actually as such repent or confess it concludeth that these things for the present concern not Infants for no impossibilitie is reasonably enjoined any but belong to persons of years or those who were not yet sealed into the communion of Christs Church and it is apparent that unto such Peter spake as far as his words concerned Infants is also express be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins for the promise is to you and to your children What promise why that Gen. 17. 7. To what children was that promise made what to those who had been children but were now of years to be taught believe and repent No but to those first who were to be sealed the eighth day after they were born who certainly could then no more actually believe or repent then can our Infants now therefore 't is plain to those who will understand that persons of years to be taught must first repent c. but Infants to whom the promise covenant or seal thereof jointly belongeth must besealed as joint-covenanters with their Parents before they can actually believe or repent for why else after this exhortation to repentance and baptism doth he mention their children were they no wayes liable to this double precept repent and be baptized every one of you who they only who can actually for the present repent nay but Peter knew well that children of whom he spake could not do that by reason of their present want of the use of reason yet he knew they had need of remission of sins by Christ and that the promise of God was made to them without which 't were but vain for men to seal and as firmly concerned them as their enchurched parents and therefore he mentioned them There appears neither act nor habit of regeneration in Infant-baptism until they be taught the Word neither any more promptitude to learn it then is in unbaptized children coming to years therefore their baptism is effectless and consequently unlawful We answer 1 The Kingdom of God cometh not with observation Luk. 17. 20. and the internal acts of the Spirit are secret for what man knoweth the
the congregation of the Lord c. what not in case of their becoming proselytes nay but Ruth the Moabitess is rehearsed in the genealogie of our Savior Christ and there was but one law to him that is home-born and unto the stranger he may not bear any publick office but he might be received into Gods covenant and so be capable of all holy duties So v. 1. the maimed or Eunuch shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord c. what might he not be sealed or saved the contrary expresly appeareth Is. 56. 4 5 6 7. Mat. 19. 12. To our present purpose the Apostle gathereth that matrimonial conjunction between a believer and an unbeliever is holy because the denomination and estimate being from the better part their children are within the covenant of God by an argument from the effect to the cause 3 The Apostle discoursed not there of civil Policie but of conscience and how could it satisfie any Christians conscience to take an argument from the civil laws of any of the Nations it is notorious that among those many things were established by their laws which a Christians conscience would and must abhor yea even such divorces without the case of adultery as were in civil respects tolerated by Moses for the hardness of the Jews hearts excused not the offenders conscience though that permissive law would bear him out before men 4 When the Apostle saith the unbelieving husband is sanctified in the wife if any ask what wife we cannot say in a wife as she is only civilly legitimate for so far that husband hath as good and evident a ground of sanctification on his part and in himself without any accession of priviledge from his wife for he must needs be as lawfully her husband as she is his wife we can therefore no otherwise rationally answer then a believing wife and so on the other side Now seeing the Apostle puts it on a peculiar priviledge which is sometimes in the man when he is a believer and his wife is not and sometimes in the wife if she be a believer and her husband is not so it appears that the foundation of comfort here intended by the Apostle is laid in faith peculiar but to one of the two and not in matrimonial legitimacie common and equal to both 5 Faith which rendreth us acceptable to God in Christ purifieth us and all estates and possessions to us that sanctifieth marriage not marriage it that uniteth us by one Spirit to Christ and is therefore far more excellent then marriage which uniteth man and woman only in one flesh faith therefore gives our children a denomination and right to the seals of the covenant as they are holy not marriage which though civilly lawful may yet be impious before God as where one puts away his wife for less then adultery and marrieth another or another man marrieth her so put away it is therefore the faith and Church-priviledge of parents which thus denominateth children holy 6 The Apostle could not here mean legitimacie of children for that can neither sanctifie them nor entitle them to the seal of Gods covenant neither is sanctification here or in any other place of Scripture taken otherwise then for separating some way from some thing prophane or impious So persons times places c. are said to be sanctified which legitimation cannot do neither can holy necessarily imply no bastard for some holy men have been such neither can no bastard conclude a man holy The children of infidels and aliens from the covenant of God born in lawful wedlock are legitimate and no bastards and yet as such far from holy and bastardie though the effect and product of foul sin of parents and the childs indelible dishonour before men yet maketh them not such as belong not to the covenant of God as appears in Pharez and Zarah Gen. 38. 18 29 30. Jephtah Judg. 11. 1 2. c. it must needs be therefore that the Apostle in that term of holy signified some thing peculiar to those that are within the Church of God and not communicable to children of Infidels as such so Tertullian speaks of the unregenerate from Joh. 3. 5. he shall not enter into the kingdom of God that is he shall not be holy such every soul is counted in Adam until he be recounted in Christ. 7 We must consider that legitimacie of children which our Antagonists would here have intended is a proceed of legitimacie of marriage which is of one man and one wife joined together in matrimonie according to Gods ordinance as it is written they two shall be one flesh not they many and he that made them at the beginning made them male and female now the institution of marriage is in place of a perpetual law the violation whereof is sin and wickedness Therefore Christ refuted their objection from Moses permission of the bill of divorcement from the original and Gods first institution of marriage because he in the beginning appointed it otherwise and the same sanction is inviolable So when the Prophet would recall the Jews from Polygamie to pure wedlock he said did not he that is God the Creator make one that is did he make any more wives for Adam then one or did he at first make any more then one husband and one wife yet had he the residue or excellency of the Spirit that is he had power enough if he had pleased to have made more that therefore is illegitimate which agreeth not with the first unrepealable law and institution of God who created but one man and one woman for the fountain of all humane propagation as it is written Gen. 1. 27. God created him-male and female created be them both one flesh and so but one and wherefore one saith the Prophet that he might seek a godly seed that is a generation according to Gods holy institution which is between one man and one woman lawfully joined in matrimonie this he opposeth to their Polygamie secretly here intimating that all they are spurious who are born of Poligamie because they cannot and ought not to be esteemed legitimate who are begotten otherwise then in that matrimonie which God appointed which is only between one man and one woman Now this legitimacie all the tribes of Israel though they were otherwise holy had not in the Prophets sense but they had it in the Apostles sense 1 Cor. 7. 14. for not to question more Dan and Nephtali Bilhab the hand-maids sons and God and Ashâ—r Zilpah the other hand-maids sons liad not this legitimacie and yet were they and their posteritie holy to the Lord it must needs be therefore that it was from some other fountain of holiness then civilâ— legitimacie can give and that could be none but federal holiness from the covenant of God made with Abraham and his seed wherein he contracted to be their God and that they should be his people sealed
and Gentiles The Lords Supper doth no less signifie the blood of Christ for our Salvation then doth the water of Baptism nor less represent his death then doth baptism in which we are implanted into the similitude of his death and resurrection But the Lords Supper is often to be administred and received and therefore so is Baptism We answer 1â— There is in Scripture express command for often administring and receiving of the Lords Supper I Cor. II. 24. This do in remembrance of me As often as ye eat this bread and drink this cup ye do shew the Lords death till he come shew us any one such warrant for rebaptizing and this controversie is at an end 2. The Lords Supper proposeth not any new Covenant with God but confirmeth that to us which he made with us in our baptism But baptism is the Initiatory Seal of our entring into Covenant with God as it was in circumcision which Covenant is but one 3. The vertue and efficacy of baptism in the elect extendeth it self to the whole life of the regenerate and is as it were a fountain of living waters perpetually running to cleanse away the pollutions of sin so that there need not new or more baptisms but a daily renewing of our repentance to which we were in our covenanting with God at first baptized As Ambrose saith after baptism there remaineth no remedy but true repentance Cyprian and the Councel of Carthage held that those who were baptized by hereticks upon their return to the Church ought to be rebaptized We answer 1. The question being proposed in the first Councel of Carthage Whether those who were once baptized might be rebaptized all the Bishops answered God forbid God forbid we resolve and determine that all re-baptizings are unlawful and far from sincâ—re faith and catholick discipline The business which troubled the Churches in Cyprians time was Whether baptism administred according to the lawful form of the Catholick Church that is with water in the name of the Father the Son and the Holy Ghost though by an Heretical Minister were invalid and therefore to be iterated Cyprian with other Eastern Bishops affirmed that there is but one Baptism which is not to be found out of the Catholick Church The other orthodox Bishops determined that baptism which an heretical Minister administred according to the form prescribed by Christ and practised by the Church was valid and not to be iterated So that indeed neither Cyprian nor the rest of that Councel did maintain rebaptizing but held that there could be no true or valid baptism out of the Catholick Church or that it was not baptism which Hereticks administred Against rebaptizing Cyprian speaks clearly L. I. Ep. 12. on that John 4. 14 applying it to baptism Which saith he is once received and not again iterated And in the Canons of the Apostles there is a severe caution against rebaptizing If any Bishop or Elder shall again baptize him who had truly received baptism let him be deposed 2. We must distinguish between Hereticks as hath been said whereof some are such as that though they err in some fundamental point or points yet they hold the true form of baptism Some so erre concerning the holy Trinity as that in such errour they cannot have with them the true form and essence of baptism Now there may be true baptism administred by the first sort and such as are baptized by them returning to the true Church must repent but not to be rebaptized But those who were pretended to be baptized by the second sort as Arians denying the Deity of Christ or those Pneumatomachi Eunomius and others blasphemous against the holy Ghost in case they came to the true Church they were to be baptized because there can be no true baptism where the essentials thereof are wanting as the element and the word constituting the Sacrament to wit In the Name of the Father the Son and the holy Ghost Baptizing such as have not so been baptized is no rebaptizing seeing the first pretended was truly none Otherwise the ancient Church did not rebaptize a repenting Apostate though he had fallen into the errours of Arrians Eunomians or the like after that he had been baptized by the true Church and the reason thereof was that which Chemnitius well observed as on Gods part the Covenant which he made with the circumcised Israelites remained firm and ratified unto which after their falling into sin they returned by repentance so the Corinthians and Galathians having fallen were recalled by S. Paul and remitted to the promise and consolation of their baptism formerly received Therefore as Circumcision was not so ought not baptism to be iterated CHAP. VII Protestants arguments against the dangerous practice of Rebaptizing 1. BAptism is the Sacrament of Regeneration by our implantation into Christ. But we cannot be twice regenerate for regeneration presupposeth a precedent natural birth which can be but one nor can we be more often regenerate or born a new then born naturally therefore we ought not to be twice baptized The major is evident Tit. 3. 5. The minor is also evident in reason Add hereto that whereas we are by nature children of wrath Ephes. 2. 3. enemies to God Rom 5. 10. and so without a new birth aliens from the Kingdom of God John 3. 5. but being implanted into Christ by baptism we become 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a new creature 2 Cor. 5. 17. Gal. 6. 15. Now as one and the same creature can be but once created except that either the created essence of a man is destroyed by sin which the sin of the Devil cannot do or that a man may have pluralities of essences by several creations of one and the same person which no reason can suppose of neither can we have any more then one regeneration Therefore we ought to be but once baptized 2. Gods faithfulness in his Covenant sealed cannot become void by mans infidelity neither is his Covenant of peace momentany but perpetual which is sealed in baptism so that still we may return unto it by true repentance See Isa. 54. 10. and so they who sinned after baptism though notoriously and scandalouâ—â— were not rebaptized by the ancient Church but upon their repentance received again into holy communion and it is truly observed by some that baptism being once received confirmeth and assureth the penitent of their sins remission and that the efficacy and vertue thereof extendeth it self to all our life and therefore neither ought it to be iterated nor deferred unto the end of our lives as if it so only cleansed men from their sins upon condition that they never fall into any sin after their baptism received which cannot be in this frail state of flesh and blood subject to so many temptations and innate infirmities Therefore after the Apostle had shewed us how being implanted into the similitude of Christs death and resurrection we ought