that iâ— might very well be given to children and yet baptism to men of reason This Argument is a childish caption We say that Baptism succeeded Circumcision in substance not in circumstance in the end and use as hath been said and whereof we shall say more anon To what purpose do you argue from the circumstance But you say Circumcision left a Character in the flesh which being imprinted upon Infants did it work upon them when they came to age We answer 1. That the word Character may be taken for any sign or note distinguishing one thing from another so Baptism may be also said to be a character distinguishing Christians from unbelievers not as an absolute quality but as a relative thing as â— tessera militaris by which God wil own his who fight under the Banner of Christ and by which the baptized have a comfortable assurance that they are marked for the children of God when they believe in Christ according as it is written In whom also after that ye beleeved ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise which is the earnest of our Iâ—heritance 2. Your instance importeth onely â— circumstantiall not a substantiall diffâ—rence Now the variety of signes vary not the thing signified It is the same Christ the same Faith under the Gospel and under the Law though the Sacraments by God appointed for the one and for the other were much different And the ends of Circumcision and Baptism are the same to implant us into Christs visible Church to be an in-let and door to the same to seal up the admitted to faith repentance mortification and newness of life which work is as truly done to the baptized Christian when he cometh to age as it was to the Israelite circumcised to wit to and in them that believed and repented to others the work was so farre from being done that tâ—at very seal of Gods Covenant which they bare in their flesh served for a witnesse against the soul of the â—ovenant-breaker to his greater condemnation and so it is proportionably with the baptized Apostate which may be a warning to your Clients to repent before it be too late You say again It is requisite that the persons baptized should be capable of Reason that they may be capable both of the word of the Sacrament and the impress made upon the Spirit We answer 1. This weakly follows from unsound premises was there no word added to Circumcision How doth that appear Was there not a word of Institution Genes 17. 10 11 12. Was not the reason of the Covenant declared to Abraham Did not he and others preach the same to all of age to be circumcised as Proselytes and to the circumcised infants when they came to age capable of Doctrine so doe we to the baptized but to persons of years we preach the Gospel first and then baptize them infants we baptize first and instruct them when they come to be capable 2. That it is requisite that the persons baptized should be capable of Reason that they may be capable both of the word c. We say 〈◊〉 also they mâ—st be capable of Reason either in act that they may presently understand tâ—ose things or in habit that they may afterward understand the same to what end else should we baptize infants or why were they circumcised into future faith repentance and newness of life We utterly dislike Popish baptizing of Bels Churches Altars c. 3. We say further That Covenants between man and man require that both parties expressly understand know the tenour substance and particulars of the same but in Covenants between God and his Creatures that Rule doth not universally hold for here God stipulateth and principally transacteth with the creature according tâ— that which he will have done or do in or by them So he established his Covenant with Noah and his seed after him and with every living creature the Fowle Cattell Beasts c. Gen. 9. 10. How much more rationally may â—e make covenant with infants though yet without the actuall use of reason Again sometimes such covenants are made between men as that the parent or parents covenant for or in stead of their children because they are not yet of age to understand the words and purport of the covenant and it standeth good How much rather may God covenant with an infant whose mouth and Advocate Christ Jesus said expressly Suffâ—r little children to come unto me and forbid them not for of such is the Kingdom of Heaven Mark 1â— 14 Luke 18. 16. I demand quo jure by what right is the Kingdom of Heaven theirs What by descent from naturall parents Nay but that which is born of the flesh is flesh John 3. 6. And flâ—sh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of God 1 Cor. 15. 50. It must therefore be by the free covenant of God with them out of which it can belong to none by right of any infant-innocency seeing all are conceived and born in sin the children of wrath but for the grace and covenant of God with them which they yet understand not yet is it valid and effâ—ctuall to their salvation as we may also understand in case of Circumcision in which the circumcised Child understood as little what was said or done as the baptized infant now doth and yet it was Gods covenant with them Gen. 17. 7 10 11 12. and effectual for them To conclude if you mean that it is requisite that none should be admitted to bapâ—ism but those that have the actuall use of reason that is men and women of years you beg the question of the Sacrament and the impress made upon the Spirit Concerning a Character or impress set upon the baptized the Schoolmen and Jesuits have moved sundry questions whether it be an absolute or relative quality which yet they say sticks fast upon them also that are in hell Whether it be an â—ns rationis or a relatio realis Whether a quality action or passion And if a quality of what kind it is Whether the subject thereof be the soul or some active or passive faculty thereof Whether it be a figure or form Whether the Sacraments of the old Testament made the like impress c. In all which and the like vain speculations we may not unprofitably note the just judgment of God giving them over to unfruitfull delusions who forsaking the true and constant light of his holy word give themselves over to follow the ignes fatuos of their own fancies I hope you are not of their sense though you mention this impress Concerning the seal of our implantation into Christ I have spoken a little before and onely add that we receive grace and the obsignation thereof but are not sensible of all untill we receive a greater measure that we might know the things that are freely given unto us of God Since therefore say you the reason of this parity does
although it be a Doctrine justly condemned by the most sort of Christians upon great grounds of Reason WE say That denying Baptism to Infants is justly condemned by all true Christians we cannot understand them to be such who renounce their Saviour Christ by a pretended Baptisme in their rebaptizing never warranted by preâ—â—pâ— or example in holy Scripture or those who by their Doctâ—â—◠〈◊〉 and make void their Baptisme by a kind of self-excommunication Again we say That to condemne the Doctrine of Anabaptâ—sts upon great grounds of Reason seems to lay too narrow a ground and possibly too unsound a foundation for our profession specially if we consider what is here said Sect. 10. Num. 2. concerning the pretended authority of Reason and following his guide so far as his Reason goes along with him Or which is all one he that follows his own Reason c. which guidance by Divine Revelation and I know not what other good means he meaneth he saith hath great advantages But to leave ambiguities of words and confusion of senses we affirm That the word of God is our ground and guide in matters of Faith and Religion which even the greatest pretenders to humane authority and undervaluers of holy Scriptures do acknowledge in their soberer fits and that the Spirit of God illuminateth the elect whom he calleth guideth and enableth to obedience against the dictates of carnall reason and the corrupt affections of flesh and blood If he mean any other Divine Revelation then that which is consonant to the known and invariable Rule of Gods word I know not what greater advantage Satan could desire for leading beguiled souls to hell blindfold then to find them following their own reason and putting their salvations upon pretended revelations our faith is on Gods truth not humane Reason which in this life is not so absolutely purged from the contagion of sin ignorance and error since the Apostles being furnished with infallibility of Spirit but that it is subject to some errors and therefore though we disclaim all blind obedience to man in acts of Religion yet we submit to God in believing every thing which he saith adoring his Truth which we cannot by any strength of humane Reason examine Moreover we say seeing that only may and can be the ground of our Faith which cannot erre or be false and seeing that we are built upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets Iesus Christ himself being the chief Corner-stone Ephes. 2. â—0 we cannot consent to be taken off from that infallible certainty and to be set upon the moveable and loose sand of onely Great grounds of Reason or any thing lesse known certain and infallible then the holy word of God which we know cannot deceive us It will neither be unpleasant nor unprofitable to draw a short Scheme of plea for each party the result of which possibly may be that though they be deceived yet they have so great excuse on their side c. Surely unpleasing to God it is to make sport with matters of so high concernment and to play with holy things for so this plea must be except you are in earnest for the Anabaptists or for â—ear or favour of men so to temporize as thereby to endanger as much as you can the Cause and Truth of Christ. And how it can be either pleasing to any good Christian which displeaseth God or profitable which causeth any to erre from the truth in pleading for that which you acknowledge to be a Doctrine justly condemned I confesse I understand not Possibly Ioash would here have replied to such a short Scheme of plea Will ye plead for Baal That their error is not impudent or vâ—â—cible To say an impudent error is but an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and impropriety of speech which in more exact expression I suppose you would render they are not impudent in defence of their error If so I onely appeale to experience As for that which you say They have so great excuse on their side that their error is not vincible seems a contradiction in the adject who believes any error to be invincible who believeth that Christ the Truth Iohn 14. 6. hath sufficiently delivered that heavenly light in the Gospel which though God permit it sometimes to be clowded shall shine clear and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it but it shall put to flight and overcome every darkness of error specially in things pernitious and about the foundation I say not to the sense of those whom God justly giveth over to strong delusions thaâ— they may perish who receive not the love of the truth that they might be saved but to the Goshen and Israel of God appointed to salvation How else should it be that our faith should be the Victory that overcometh the world except it be in the invincible truth and faith in him who hâ—th overcome the world Iohn 16. 33. For by World Christ here meaneth and comâ—reâ—enâ—eth leth all that which is contrary to the salvation of the Elect specially those falsehoods and errors which Satan by any means broacheth to corrupt and overthrow the true Faith See Heb. 11. 1 c. Mat. 16. 8. The Baptisme of Infants rests wholly on this Discourse If that were true your plea for Aâ—abaptists were lesse condemnable but the contrary will appeare in due place But whether they have originall sin or no Indeed the Pelagians an old Sect of Hereticks denied that Infants were born in originall sin And Celestius affirmed That Adams sin hurt onely himself but not mankind And others that Infants are born in the same state in which Adam was before his transgression But the holy Scripture plainly condemnes this Heresie See Iob 14. 4. Psalm 51. 5. Iohn 3. 5. 1 Cor. 15 50. Rom. 5. 12. 1 or 15. 22. Eph. 2. 3. So do all the Reformed Churches and Papists too vid. Bellar. l. 4. de amissione gratiae stat peccati Besides woful experience teaching us that children die demonstrateth that they brought that guilt into the world with them which subjected them to the sentence of death and participation of the punishment of Adams sin which could not be except they were partakers of his guilt because God is just That they have contracted the guilt of Adams sin you confesse pag 230. Num 16. Infants cannot by any act of their own promote the hope of their own salvation which men of reason and choyce may by acts of vertue and election Faith and hope of salvation are not of our selves but the gift of God Eph. â— 8. And what hope infants have or acts of reason how God applieth the merit of Christâ— to Infants who became an infant that he might also save them is a secret uâ—known to me and therefore I do neither anxiously enquire nor rashly determine That men of reason and choyce may promote their hope of salvation by acts
them There appears neither act nor habit of regeneration in Infant-baptism until they be taught the Word neither any more promptitude to learn it then is in unbaptized children coming to years therefore their baptism is effectless and consequently unlawful We answer 1 The Kingdom of God cometh not with observation Luk. 17. 20. and the internal acts of the Spirit are secret for what man knoweth the things of a man save the spirit of a man which is within him 1 Cor. 2. 11. 2 If outward appearance be a good argument to the denying of internal acts and habits you might by the same medium as well conclude that Infants are not reasonable creatures Infants inspired by Gods Spirit may be said to be Believers as they are said truly to be rationals that is actuprimo non secundo and they confess and avouch the Lord in their Parents avouching of him as appeareth Deut. 26. 16 17 18. Deut. 29. 9 10 1â— 12 13 14 15. 3 It is not true that baptized Infants have no more promptitude to learn the mysteries of salvation when they come to years to be taught then other unbaptized children have caeteris paribus for the H. Ghost doth not desert his own ordinance in the Elect though for causes very just yea when most unknown to us it doth not alwayes alike shew its power as for the reprobate the seal or administration of man can nothing profit him who abuseth it and where God ever denyeth inward baptism by his holy Spirit of sanctification Reprobates who cannot be profited by baptism ought not to be baptized lest we add to their condemnation but of Infants some are such and we cannot say which of them offered to baptism is elect and which not therefore seeing we cannot distinguish them nor can they express themselves we ought not to baptize them untill they can We answer If the major proposition in this argument be universalis negans it is most false for Simon Magus and Iudas who were not profited by their baptism were yet rightly baptized If particular though granted it would conclude nothing against infant-Infant-baptism for by the same reason they may deny baptism to persons of years for alas many of them are Reprobates Neither can any meer man distinguish between the one and the other seeing that whatever profession of faith and repentance men make 't is possible they may dissemble or fall away Now we in charitie hope the best where the contrary is not manifest and therefore deny them not baptism who doe but profess faith repentance and desire of baptism and if we can have as much charitie to innocent Infants we must also allow them baptism who being born of Christian parents are within Gods covenant of Grace And indeed the final estate of Infants or aged people being alike secret and known to God alone we must perform our ministrie respectively and leave the fruit and issue thereof to God so in preaching the Gospel the sincere Milk of the Word 1 Pet. 2. 2. we do often as it were draw out the brest like the mother of the living child 1 King 3. 20 21. to some dead in belief sins and trespasses laid in our bosome who know not who shall profit by it nor to whom it shall prove a favour of death unto death that must be left to God but we must instantly preach the Gospel When the Eunuch said to Philip Act. 8. 36 see here is water what doth let me to be baptized be answered If thou believest with all thy heart thou mayest therefore he that believeth not may not be baptized such are Infants We answer 1 It is manifest enough that Philip spake to a man who could hear and read and was then something instructed in the Gospel of Christ what doth this concern Infants 2 Infants have now as much capacitie of baptism as under the Law they had of circumcision both had faith as reason in the feed though not in the fruit and the sacrament of baptism now performeth the same to us which circumcision did to them as that was to them a sign of their receiving into the Church and people of God so is baptism to us the first mark which severeth and distinguisheth the people of God from the prophane and wicked aliens Faith ought not to be separated from the seal thereof therefore Infants who cannot actually beleeve ought not to be baptized until they can See what hath been said Obj. 12. to which we here add that this proposition is true concerning persons of years but concerneth not Infants in whom we cannot know Gods present work but in baptism the seed of faith regeneration mortification and newness of life is sowed in them and all know that precedence concludeth not separation Lastly we say that if faith and baptism must so indivisibly be united as that none may be baptized but they who do actually believe whom might our adversaries baptize or whom put by though of years If they say they profess faith there is much difference between professing and actual believing and I much fear that many will too late find as much distance between justifying faith and temptation of securitie as is between heaven and hell Such are to be baptized as confess their sins Mat. 3. 6. as gladly receive the Word Act. 2. 41. as give heed to the Word preached Act. 8. 6. but this Infants cannot do therefore they are not to be baptized We answer The affirmative may from such places be concluded Such ought to be baptized but the negative cannot therefore none but men so qualified may be baptized it no more followeth then if you should say Cornelius and those that were with him when Peter preached received the holy Ghost in the extraordinary gifts thereof therefore none but such as have received the extraordinary gifts of the holy Ghost may be baptized nay but though it wel concluded affirmatively for them that they were to be baptized it cannot conclude negatively against others that they may not be baptized who have not received such gifts If baptizing Infants be grounded on circumcision the males only must be baptized but that is not true for females also ought to be baptized We answer Here is a fallacia accidentis an arguing from the substance to the circumstance whereas baptism succeeded circumcision in substance not in every circumstance The substance was that was a seal of faith and Church-priviledge so is this that was administred to all that would join in the faith of Abraham and their children as being in Gods covenant so must it be here in that was sealed to the Covenanter the promise of grace and mercie by Christ which is alwayes one and the same so here that signified mortification and a promise on mans part of faith and obedience to God so it is here that was the inlet to Gods Church the Sacrament of initiation admission and engraffing into the Church so is baptism
profit was there of circumcision the Apostle saith much every way and what is the advantage of the believing Christians child and Gods covenant with them what no more then of Turkes and Iewes where is then that promise I will be a God unto thee and thy seed interpreted by S. Peter the promise is to you and your children and to as many as the Lord our God shall call what is it of force only to men and women of yeares where 's the infants part where is his priviledge of federall holynesse as being borne of believing parents What must they be interessed onely when they come to that act of which by nature they have the faculty That is the act of understanding â—aith and repentance In those acts the persons and children of Turks and Iews have a right in the same promises you cannot exclude any person from baptism who believes in Christ repenteth and desireth baptism at your hands Thus you make the promise of God concerning the children of the faithfull of no effect by your tradition and vain opinion But to amend this you say Baptism is not the means of conveying the holy Ghost I suppose you mean the ordinary gifts and graces of the holy Ghost as faith love hope sanctity c. if not there may be a double fallacy in your assertion First in the term conveying and next in the term holy Ghost both whiâ—h may be homonymically intended and then your discourse is meerly captious and to discover it is a sufficient answer and indeed by your following words God by that miracle did give testimony c. it seems you mean that baptism is not now the ordinary means of conveying the holy Ghost that is the gift of miracles unto the baptized if so here is both an homonymia and an ignoratio elenchi Your reason being reducd to a Syllogisme you might take these words the holy Ghost for the ordinary gifts and graces of God necessary to salvation in the one proposition and for the extraordinary in the other and so the question were mistaken which is not whether baptism be an ordinary means of conveying the extraordinary gifts of the holy Ghost into the baptized as speaking divers unstudied languages curing the sick raising the dead casting out devils c. which we affirm not but whether baptism as the word preached be not the external ordinary means by God appointed to seal us up to a lively hope in Christ to beget faith and to engage us to repentance and newness of life to which all that you here triâ—le concerning imposition of hands and insinuation of rite to confirmation is nothing to purpose neither is the case of Cornelius and Peters argument thereon any waies advantagious to you for you confess it a miracle and how then is it pertinent to our present question You say that God by that miracle did give testimony that the persons of the men were in great disposition to heaven and therefore were to be admitted to those rites which are the ordinary inlets into the kingdom of heaven I then demand if that argument be good Are not children of believing parents to be admitted to those rites which are the ordinary inlets into the kingdom of heaven seeing they are also in great disposition to heaven whom Christ blessed and proposed for paterns to all that shall enter therein But we answer 1. That the great disposition which you talk of was not so much the gift of miracles as the persons inward baptism by the spirit of regeneration and sanctification for the gift of miracles is not of it self any certain argument of salvation see Matth. 7. 22 23. but this was a sufficient warrant to Peter to baptize them as being marked out thereby for the visible Church at least into which elect and reprobate may come 2. To the main we answer That as by delivering a key putting in possession of an house is not only signified but also livery and seisâ— the conveyance and chirogrophum are passed confirmed and actually made sure So in baptism by water the washing which is wrought by the blood of Christ is not only figured but also at last fulfilled in the elect by Christ. 3. In a right use of the Sacraments the things therby signified are ever held out and convey'd together with the signes which are neither fallacious empty nor void of a due effect or without the thing represented because they are of God who cannot deceive and is able to give the effect if the receiver do not ponere obicem therefore the Sacraments are rightly called the Channels or Conduits of grace that is the ordinary means to convey the graces of God into the receivers 4. God confirms his mercies to us by the Sacraments wherein the Minister by Gods own deputation beareth his person or place in the Church as well as in preaching the word so that what they doe who are his Ministers by his appointment he doth both in respect of the institution and effect So the Lord is said to have anointed Saul whereas Samuel anointed him so Jesus made and baptized more disciple then Iohn whereas Iesus baptized not but his disciples by his assignement Therefore although these signes neither convey grace nor confirm any thing to them for good who keep not the Covenant for God made no promise to them yet are they means to convey the graces of God to those that do To conclude we affirm not that baptism conveyeth Gods grace to all that are baptized but to the elect only as that whereof he hath made a peculiar promise to them and that so certain as are those things which God himself sealeth covenanteth for and testifieth in heaven and earth as 't is written There are three that bear record in heaven the father the word and the holy Ghost and there are three that bear witness in earth the spirit and the water and the blood Now if we receive the witness of men the witness of God is greater Under the mouth of two or three witnesses every word must be confirmed and taken for sure how much more when we have by Gods blessing the same witnesses of our faith who are also the promisers workers and sureties of our salvation But from thence you say to argue that wherever there is a capacity of receivinig the same grace there also the same signe 〈◊〉 to be ministred and from thence to infer poedo-baptism is an argument very fallacious c. Quis tulerit Gracchos your dispute is fallacious upon your grounds on which we go not and so all your impertinent superstruction here falleth together They that are capable of the same grace are not alwaies capable of the same signe for women under the law of Moses although they were capable of the righteousness of faith yet they were not capable of the signe of circumcision I would gladly be resolved quanta est illa propositio is your meaning Some of them
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 women nâ—t only under the Law but now also have and ever will have for ought you can say thâ— 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 aâ—bodexter 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 Goâ—â—id more for the children of the Iews 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 malitious is this calumny of yours But you say He made a covenant of spiritual promises on his part and â—piritual 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 〈…〉 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 covenan and spiritual promises on his part presently belong to them who shall be saved for many of them presently die or mean you by 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 sameâ— 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 Iews 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 Iesus in their regeneration the woâ—â— is done in them and no otherwise was it in the Iews children for he is not a Iew 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. 2â— 29. Col 2. 11. 12. and the Iewish children were no otherwise sealed then into the same faith of Iesus 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 tempt 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
consisteth in the will of believers yet the very Sacrament of that faith makes a baptized infant faithfull or a believer For as 't is answered that he believeth so is he called a believer not signifying that thing in the very mind but in respect of his receiving the Sacrament of that very thing to wit of believing and giving his name to Christ. But what unreasonableness acted with a worse circumstance is there for God-fathers thus answering All this I steadfastly believe wherein though possibly there may be untruth because the Sponsor doth not as he professeth steadfastly believe yet so may there also be when persons of years answer for themselves that they believe seeing the lawfulness of baptizing infants is affirmed on condition of their parents believing and Church-priviledge which is often testified personally by the very parents Grand-fathers Grand-mothers and sometimes in defect or necessary absence of such by some fellow-believers testifying for them and the childs priviledg and baptism but your sensible account is that they speak false and ridiculously if you can bear the eccho of your own words we therein answer you yet for the sober readers sake we further answer after Augustin treating of the same argument Let no man whisper to you â—ther doctrines this the Church ever had ever held c. doubtless the custom is very ancient Histories tell us of it in the time of Higinâ—s who was coetaneous with Polycarp a disciple of S Iohns they lived under the reigne of Antoninus Pius about the year 140. some think it came into the Church from the custom of those who were Catechumenists who being examined before they were admitted to baptism concerning their faith and repentance were not only to answer in their own persons but to have sponsors as witnesses of their faith conversion and baptism It is not improbable which some here propose that As children were baptized when their Christian parents had formerly made confession so sureties confessed in relation to themselves that they might be fit to stand as a kind of parents c. Seeing therefore this custom is nothing repugnant to holy scripture neither hath in it any appearance of evil but rather of profit and edification though it be not of the essence of baptism but a ceremonial circumstance 't is foolish and impious to quarrel it and for it to break unity and disturb the peace of the Church But you say The infant is not capable of believing and if he were he were also capable of dissenting and how then do they know his mind If it be necessary to baptism that the baptizer know the mind of the person to be baptized how can you baptize men of years You will say they express their minds and so we baptize them I grant you may know their words their minds you cannot because they may dissemble If you say you are in charity to believe the best once more we say Be but as charitable towards infants of whom you can know no actual evil nor shew any just cause why you should suspect it for the future And I pray how could the Priest under the Law know the minds of children to be circumciâ—ed To conclude 't is nothing material whether we know the infants mind 't is behoofull that we know his priviledg as being born within the Church and Covenant of God which giveth him a sufficient right to the seals thereof But you say Tertullian gives advice that baptism of infants should be deferred till they could give account of their faith I answer 1. Tertullian speaking of deferring baptism lest they should rashly give it as to persons out of the Covenant or unbelievers instanceth specially children that is extraneorum non foederatorum as the learned Fra. Iunius interpreteth the same so that this concerneth not our present question which is of children of Christians 2. This shews then that the practice of infant-baptism was none of Augustins device as you charge him seeing it was in use in the time of Tertullian 3. But let us hear the rest of Tertullians advice was it only concerning the deferring infants baptism Let them come when they can learn when they are taught whither they come let them be made Christians when they shall be able to know Christ nay but presently he saith For no less cause the unmarried also are to be delayed in whom the tentation is prepared both in virgins by their maturity and widows by their going up and down untill they are either married or confirmed in constancy Will you follow Tertullians advice herein But what if they never marry must they never be baptized If not give us leave to decline it in the other or to take it in the sense he meaneth it as may appear in that he specifieth widows who being at that age are necessarily to be supposed either baptized after their first marriage or out of the Covenant And the same you say is also the Councel of Gregory Bishop of Nazianzum c. Gregory Nazianzen in his fortieth Oration which you cite in your margent saith Sow when the time of sowing is plant prune thy vine when the season is c. But at all times intend thy salvation and think that any time is seasonable or appointed for baptism among other ages of man be instanceth in Infancy Hast thou an Infant saith he let not wickedness take away the occasion let it be sanctified from its infancy let it be dedicated to the Spirit from it tender years fearest thou the seal in respect of the infirmity of Nature How poor a spirited mother art thou and of how little faith But Anna promised Samuel unto the Lord before he was born c. You say concerning Gr. Nazianzen that his reason taught him that which was fit true for he allowed Infant-baptsm yet he was over-born with the opinion of his Age c. So far also I consent as this relates to that they thought that Infants dying without Baptisme should neither he glorified nor punished That which you further say although he allowed them to hasten in case of necessity falleth under a double consideration First in respect of those times appointed for Baptism in the primitive Church to wit Easter and Whitsontide or Pentecost which he mentioneth But when he cometh to the question whether Infants should be baptized he answereth positively By all means if any danger urge and sheweth it from the Analogy between Circumcision and Baptism He taketh away the objection from the years at which Christ was baptized which was indeed to be deferred untill the fulness of time for the worlds redemption was come and that we are not to imitate all the actions of Christ. To that which you say Yet in another place he makes mention of some to whom Baptism was not administred 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by reason of Infancy we say you utterly mistake for Nazianzen in the same Oration speaking of delay in performance of that duty
of himself or his Apostles appears for there are many things circumstantial and indifferent neither commanded nor forbidden which yet on second thoughts you will not say are against the perpetual Analogie of Christs Doctrine I might instance the postures or numbers or sexes or places where in the receiving the Lords Supper Where do you read of any command of Christ or practice of himself or Apostles that the Communicants should stand or sit or kneel or lie down one of these or if you can think of any other must needs be shew us either precept or practice obliging to either where is any precept of Christ obliging to a set or determined number of Communicants where are we commanded to administer to women where is any precept obliging to a place who knows not that these and the like things are left under the general rule Let all things be done decently and in order which observed they are not against the Analogie of Christs Doctrine Again what think you of the Sabath is that which we now doe therein against the Analogie of Christs Doctrine because we find no express precept or practice of Christ or his Disciples for the translation of it That it is and ought to be the Christian Sabbath is grounded on necessary consequence but no express precept 2. It is also notoriously false that Christ never gave any express precept to baptize all Nations without any exception to infants within the Covenant and who knoweth not that infants ever were and are a great part of every Nation what then though he never said in so many syllables or by naming infants go and baptize them also is it not sufficient to name all Nations without enumeration of particulars Indeed he needed not give such an express â—ommand concerning children seeing that he sent them to administer this seal of the new Covenant and Sacrament of initiation who were in the old their selves sealed in their infancy by circumcision and so used to that Doctrine of childrens being within the Covenant with believing parents and the daily practice of their initiation and reception into the communion of a visible Church that it might have seemed very superfluous to say any more then Go baptize all Nations There is also much difference Inter ecclesiam constituendam constitutam the Apostles business was generally to baptize Heathens and converted unbelievers but we have to deal with a Church constituted therefore faith and repentance were so often mentioned in the story of the Apostles practice but we living in a setled Church have to deal with baptizing infants who cannot yet actually believe or repent But in that no particulars are mentioned in Christs universal command to baptize it sheweth that all within the Church-priviledg and Covenant of God are included Again whereas you require a command in terminis for baptizing infants I demand Where doth he in terminis say Baptize men of years or Kings peasants rich poor high low men women Citizens Countrey-men Fishers Husbandmen Threshers Shooemakers Taylors Shop-keepers or Mechanicks He commandeth that all be baptized of what sex age condition or estate whatsoever they be which appertain to any Nation So in general Prescripts Laws Grants and Franchises the rehersal of particulars is not requisite because such things pass on the whole kind therein contained and will that the censure or priviledg concern all particulars within that general except in case of any exemption of some specified particular or exception made by him who made the Covenant or granted the Priviledges We cannot find 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in these very words in any place of Scripture Baptize Women or administer the Lords Supper to women yet from these general precâ—pts Baptize all Natiâ—ns take â—at this is my body and drink ye all of it now it is evident that the twelve Apostles only were then present when he instituted this Sacrament and that he spake and administred it unto them only yet I say we all without quarrel about it baptize women and respectively administer the Lords Supper to them as included in the general precepts and why are we not contented with a general precept including childrens baptism seeing no exception of the Covenant-maker can appear to the contrary Lastly we say again that the reason why Christ gave his Disciples no express or peculiar command concerning baptizing infants but included them in the general was because the Apostles were so well acquainted with childrens reception into the Church-priviledges and sealing into the same that they could not reasonably make any question of baptizing infants having a general command to baptize all Nations infants being under the Law circumcised and knowing moreover that the grace of God was not more strict or restrained in the new Testament then in the old but contrarywise more diffused or large and therefore a greater and more difficult question might have been concerning the baptism of women there being neither analogie from circumcision nor particular precept to induce them to baptize them but that they knew that the general precept was authority sufficient without specifying particulars in terminis You say more All that either be or his Apostles said concerning it requires such previous dispositions to baptism of which infants are not capable and these are faith and repentance Your whole scope is fallacious form your Argument Christ and his Apostles in all that he or they said concerning baptism râ—quired saith and repentance as previous dâ—â—positions to baptism but no infant can believe or repâ—â—t ergo infants are not previously disposed to or capabâ—e of baptism according to that Christ or his Apostles ever said 1. We say here is a Paralogism or fallacy à dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter Your Major is true if you speak of persons of years to be instructed but false concerning children because he never requireth any impossibility 2. He that appointed Infants baptism requires no other previous disposition to infant-baptism but such as they are capable of that is of being admitted into the visible Church and sealed with the external Seal thereof into the future profession of faith and repentance Adde hereto that children under the Gospel are thus Capable of the seal of faith as children were under the Law although they cannot actually repent or believe which were and are no less previous dispositions if we speak of persons of mature years to be baptized But if your dispute be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 your ignoratio â—lenchi may not pass for current reason if by previous dispositions to baptism of men of years you would obtrude the same on infants concerning whom we say that actual faith or repentance are no more previous dispositions to baptism then they were to circumcision And so you see that I might reasonably answer all that you say herein by rejecting your consequence but for the prudent Readers further satisfaction I say 3. A previous disposition necessary to the capacity of a thing
is considerable either as it is in or of the subject 1. A previous disposition in the subject we may understand eitheâ— as a self-disposing by some intrinsecal and inward faculty or as a being extrinsecally disposed and fitted by some other power to a capacity or receptibility of something which yet it hath not neither was capable thereof before such a disposition Now this in our present instance presupposeth or speaks some change of the mind by illumination faith remorse of conscience purpose of leading a new life and desire to be implanted into Christ and the communion of Saints by baptism and so it is internal or professing of that endeavour of knowing the mysteries of the Gospel saith and repentance testified before men and so these dispositions are external or expressed to men whom it may concern these are necessary in persons of years coming to baptism 2. there is a previous disposition of the subject without any present change of the mind which springeth from his relation to some other or some others act So some titles of honour come on children in their fathers Charters without any present change of the childs mind so Lands and Inheritances by right of adoption may be setled on them in their infancy without their present change or knowledg so also the believing parents priviledg and being within Gods Covenant made with them and their children previously disposeth infants to the seal thereof to wit by giving them a certain right thereto and so was it in circumcision But if a Proselyte were to receive the seal of the Covenant he must necessarily be prepared and first disposed thereto by the knowledg of Gods Law and Covenant faith repentance or at least the profession thereof and those other rites which the Law required on that behalf The infants previous disposition to circumcision was no other then his fathers and his own priviledg and being within Gods Covenant Of the child was neither faith nor repenâ—ance required for the present but future so must we understand concerning baptism the seal of faith under the Gospel And not say you to instance in those innumerable places that require faith before this Sacrament there needs no more but this one He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved I answer 1. Deal fairly dispute ad idem and shew me one place of Scripture which universally requireth faith before this Sacrament and you shall be excused for the innumerable places which you speak of We can shew that the rule holds not universally that faith must precede the Sacraments for though Abrahams faith preceded the seal thereof yet Isaaks seal preceded his faith Mr. Calvin expresseth the reason hereof Why saith he doth in Abraham the Sacrament follow faith and in Isaak his son it goeth before all understanding because it is meet that he which being in full-grown age is received into fellowship of the Covenant from which he had hitherto been a stranger should first learn the conditions thereof but an infant begotten of him needed not so which by right of inheritance according to the form of the promise is even from his mothers womb contained in the Covenant And certainly in this respect God calleth the infants of covenanted parents sons and daughters born unto him Ezek 16. 20. 23. 37. be esteeming them his children who are born of those parents to whom God made the promise to be a God unto them and their seed after them which promise as truly concerns us and our children as it concerned Abraham and his 2. If the argument be good from that place Mark 16. 16. He that believeth and is baptized faith is first named and then baptism ergo faith must precede baptism Why shall not the Argument from other places be good to the contrary as Iohn 3 5. Except a man be born of water and of the spirit he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God Baptism is first named and then regeneration therefore baptism must precede regeneration So again Ephes. 5. 26. Washing with water that is baptism is mentioned before the word ergo we must first be baptized and afterward receive the word 3. If this argument were good how many men and women of age must by the same reason be denyed baptism For all have not faith but the truth is that to be born in the Church is unto or in infants instead of profession of faith and repentance as to the outward seal for which we contend and profession of faith and repentance is to and for the adult instead of the same for their right to the desired seal so was it to Ismael and Esau whom God hated because they were born of covenanted parents 4. Sure it is that Christ in the forementioned place speaketh of men and women of years For you confess that infants as such cannot believe and what then must follow if your cruel principles were true Christ saith But he that believeth not shall be damned If this were as you would have it spoken concerning infants also what should become of all those that die in their infancy what are they damn'd Here appears an inexcusable perversness of these men who when children are proposed to their interest in general terms granted them there they would exclude them except they shew a particular warrant and baptize all Nations without a baptize infants shall not advantage them for the seal of their admission into Christs visible Church But where a general rule is mentioned from whence they are in reason and all charitable construction to be exempted there it must include them for their disadvantage even to damnation without any particular warrant for such inteterpretation Mr. Cobbet observeth well That the Covenant-priviledges of grace are ever to be expounded in favour of the principal or less principal counterparties unless any exception be made of persons or priviledges by him which was the Covenant-maker To avoid this you must either acknowledg that the place you cite is either to be understood of those of years who contumaciously reject the Ordinances of God being hardned in wilfull blindness and unbelief and so that it doth not concern children as such or else you must allow infants some secret seeds of faith and regeneration and so you shall justly acknowledg their capacity of baptism Plainly you say thus faith and baptism in conjunction will bring a man to heaven but if he have not faith baptism shall do him no good True in those who though baptized as Simon Magus are yet but in the gall of bitterness but this is a meer ignoratio elenchi hence to conclude against infants baptism our question not being whether all that are baptized shall be saved but whether children of believing parents ought to be baptized which if you would thus disprove whosoever have not a saâ—ing faith that the Sacrament may do them good may not be baptized but children have not such faith that baptism received may doe them good ergo children are not
to be baptized your reasoning would appear unreasonable both Propositions being false or fallacious The Major because baptism is but the external seal of admission into the visible Church into which elect and reprobates may enter as it were into the outward Court of the Temple And if saâ—ing faith finally doing the baptized good or which is the same if the inward baptism by the holy Ghost were the rule by which the baptizing Minister must proceed what man were sufficient for that Office The examples of Simon Magus Iudas Demas c. shew enough that the most discerning men may be deceived in others fair profession and who can foresee the final estates of men and women baptized I cannot reasonably think that you take all those for elect whom your selves baptize or that your baptism shall doe them all good And if you dispute 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 concerning one and the same faith in several degrees that is if you mean the seeds or habit of faith that Minor is false for elect infants have the seeds of faith in baptism though they be not formed in them yet by the secret working of the spirit the seeds thereof for a time lying hidden in them shall flourish and shew their growth in them in newness of life If you mean it of actual faith that want of that condition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 discovereth the Paralogism And we say infants want of actual faith in present infancy thereof incapable concludeth nothing against their having of it in mature age and so as little against their baptism I cannot conclude so well as in Augustins words But some may say the things do some men no good what must the Medicine therefore be neglected because some mens pestilence is incurable So that if baptism be necessary then so is faith and much more for want of faith damneth absolutely I demand then Do infants believe Why do ye deny them baptism or because they have not faith do you conclude them all damned who die in their infancy That were a damnable assertion and to pay you with your own coyn Against the perpetual analogie of Christs Doctrine who commanded infants to be brought unto him bless them and positively affirmed that Of such is the Kingdom of heaven Further I say If your Proposition be universal it is notoriously false for all want of faith doth not absolutely damn For 1. They who pray for faith or the increases thereof as the Disciples did want faith yet were they not damned he that hungereth and thirsteth for the righteousness of faith wanteth the same for hunger and thirst are of emptiness yet Christ pronounceth such blessed 2. He that now believeth not may hereafter believe It was Pauls case had you seen him persecute the faith and faithfull in ignorance and unbelief would you presently have devoted him to absolute damnation Judg not that you be not judged I know no man living that wanteth not faith and I pray the good Lord to help my unbelief and exhort you otherwise to express your fancies that they prove not snares to weak and afflicted consciences Then you say it is sottish to say the same incapacity of reason and faith shall not excuse from the actual susception of baptism c. A very acute and witty assertion indeed but we answer 1. By this principle you might have been as blasphemous against Gods Ordinance in circumcision had you lived under the Law 2. We say not but that infants by their incapacity are excused from actual susception of baptism for they cannot act thereto But parents are not excusable if they contemn or neglect their parts in sealing those that are joynt heirs of the Promises and Covenant of God with them and their children because they have a capacity to promote and effect it and this appeareth in the History of Moses Exod. 4. 24 25. We very well know that infants cannot come and desire the Seals their present incapacity excuseth them from that they cannot possibly do but their parents or friends can intreat it for them and present them to it so that infants have a passive capacity they cannot profess faith and repentance but their parents professing of the same interesseth them in all those external Church-priviledges whereof they are capable and so to be born in the Church is to them and for them instead and in place of their profession What your terms of reasonably and humanely received do mean if to any purpose want interpretation The conclusion you say is that baptism is also to be deferred till the time of faith Why might you not say the same also concerning circumcision It is certain that by the same you may conclude that many thousand persons of age must never be baptized because they never come to believe as for their profession no man can say whether it be hypocritical or not Since faith is necessary to the susception of baptism c. True in adultis what is this to our present question concerning infants We have often said that this your arguing a dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter is fallacious and not passable among young Sophisters and we owe no other answer then denying the consequence Our contest is about infant-Infant-baptism wherein we say a present actual faith is not required It is necessary or at least the profession thereof in those who present to or adâ—inister baptism we cannot say so of infants to whom God doth not yet give the use of reason therefore they cannot first believe and after receive the Seal as Abraham did But therefore they are to be baptized that they may attain faith and salvation So the word preached profiteth not if it be not mixed with faith in them that hear yet is the preaching thereof an effectual means whereby God will work faith in the hearers To conclude Baptism profiteth not without faith yet is it an effectual means whereby God worketh regeneration and salvation therefore none within his Covenant are to be barred from it It is not improbably conjectured by some that therefore the Disciples forbad them to bring children to Christ because they thought children have not faith nor can any teach them who are 〈…〉 capable of doctrine Possibly they did not yâ—t understand the abolition of the old Seal for the introduction of the new nor how baptism was to succeed circumcision that was sometime after disputed and determined Acts 1â— â— 2. but Christ was much displeased with it rebuked them and seriously protested that of such is the kingdom of heaven Whatever can be said to take off from the necessity of actual faith all that and much more you say may be said to excuse from the actual susception of baptism True in adultis but most â—alse in inâ—ants I â—m weary of telling you of your fallacious arguing à dicto secundum quid ad dictum simplicitèr Again if here by actual susception of baptism you mean that infants
are to be excused from it we have answered in the â—oregoing paragraph if you mean from administration of infant baptism we deny your assertion and expect proof The second device you say was of Calvin and his You said before that some said infants have imputative faith and by the number you now attribute it to Calvin indeed Mr. Calvin saith as I have noted That infants are baptized into future repentance and faith which although they be not yet formed in them yet by the secret operation of the spirit the seed of either lieth hid in them and in the same chapter he saith as Paul there reasoneth That the Iews are sanctified of their parents so in another place he teacheth That the children of Christians receive the same sanctification of their fathers Also in the same chapter he saith not that I mean rashly to affirm that they be indued with the same faith which we feel in our selves or that they have at all knowledg of faith which I had rather leave in suspence c. but concerning imputative faith I find neither device nor approbation of Calvins Why did you not rather say that this device was P. Lombards who mentioneth the Imputative faith you speak of or some of the following Schoolmen Or Polydor Virgil who in his fourth book concerning the Inventors of these things cleareth Calvin from this invention saying Seeing infants by reason of their age cannot testifie their own faith as Cyprian saith it was providedâ— from the beginning that they should profess their faith by oâ—hers that aâ— anothers fault to wit Adam â—ur first parents sin was evil to them in so much that from their birth they were subject to originall sin so others endeavour might be good to them who therefore as Ambrose saith in his second book concerning the calling of the Gentiles believe and are baptized by anothers confession Or why do you not rather lay the invention hereof to Iustin Martyr who living long before any of these saith They are made worthy of the good things of Baptism by their faith who present them to be baptized The Reader may hence gather how little Calvin said for imputative faith and if he had affirmed any such thing yet how untrue it is that Calvin or any of his invented it But the pleader saith further Can an infant sent into a Mahumetan Province be more confident for Christianity when he comes to be a man then if he had not been baptized Pag. 241. Yes caeteris paribus for though the Sacraments work not the same effect in all receivers yet Gods holy Spirit deserteth not his ordinance in the elect though for causes ever just though most unknown to us it doth not always alike shew its power in the recipient It is true that the seal and ministration of man can nothing profit where God giveth not the inward Baptism by his holy Spirit though the inward may save without the outward as hath been noted but your supposition being rightly laid concerning an elect infant baptized and so carried away you must grant that God whose election can by no means be defeated or made voyd will give and make effectuall the means to the end that is salvation whether by acquainting the party baptized with his will declared in his word preached to him or by his secret work within him if he will take him away in infancy in the adult coming to the knowledg of Gods covenant in Christ and of his own sealing in infancy it must make him more confident of his implantation into Christ then if he knew that he never had been baptized What then Must this be by vertue of baptism by water onely or the externall ministration thereof No but by the power of Gods Spirit working on his ordinance and accomplishing his own decrees do we follow your supposition dividing preaching of the word to such when they come to years from the precedent seal Truly such a strange invention were absolutely without Art without Scripture reason or authority I would say as is your argument here alledged against infant-baptism but that you call it Demonstrative and Vnanswerable but consider how to overcome before you cry victory To answer your supposition suppose that an infant were not by any habituall faith so much as disposed to any actuall belief without a new master what could this conclude more then that it is necessary to the actuall faith of an infant come to fit years that he be taught the doctrine of faith repentance c. which we constantly affirm what makes this against infant-baptism We unanimously confess and solemnly profess that the infant so soon as it shall be able to learn ought to be and shall be taught the mysteries of eternall life and salvation by Christ so your demonstration proves but a poor fallacie you utterly mistaking or willingly dissembling the question We affirm not that the Word ought to be divided from the Sacrament whereof new-born infants are capable but that the word is to be preached to them they are to be instructed in all the Rudiments of Christian Religion so soon as they shal be able to learn I only add hereto what have you said in this your so much applauded argument against infant-baptism which might not as reasonably and religiously have been urged against infant-circumcision Could they if sent into Painim-Countreys with all the terms of your supposition have been more disposed to an actual belief without a new Master yet they had and we have right to the seal of the righteousnesse of Faith not for any excellency or ability to produce any good and saving effect in our selves bâ—â— through the merits of our Saviour the free mercy of God and the right of our Fathers with whom God made his Covenant for their persons and posterity Next you say To which also this consideration may be added That if baptism be necessary to the salvation of infants upon whom is the imposition laid Concerning Baptism in generall 't is considerable which Tertullian saith The Lord himself who owed no repentance was baptized and was it not necessary to sinners his reason will reach possibly beyond his opinion to infants also except we should say with Pelagius that they are not sinners Further we say that Baptism the â—aver of regeneration is necessary to the salvation of infants yet in case of privation or impossibility they are saved by the peculiar and extraordinary goodness and providence of God So that the necessity of Baptism as hath been avowed is not absolute as if none could be saved without it but necessary on our part who are to obey the ordinance of God God is not tied to his ordinance but we are he can otherwise save but we cannot be saved in the contempt thereof God saith Tertullian hath bound faith to the necessity of Baptism therefore Cornelius and those that were with him after they were sanctified by the holy Ghost were yet baptized neither
they have to the external seal as being born within the Church and that as soon as they are born we understand not any other predisposing cause in the infant to be baptized as if he were able to contribute any thing to his receptibility more then the unborn Iacob was in relation to the love of God which indeed never found any cause but it self yet ere the children were born God loved Iacob and hated Esau. Further we say as we shall be saved secundum opera but not propter opera Good works are in the regenerate excellent signes of justification and salvation future they cannot be the causes of either they follow they cannot precede justification So we may say that baptism works according to the dispositions of the suscipient which are not in infants faith profession repentance c. which God gives not to infants but to persons of years but as to their right to baptism by his Couenant what other predispositions are in them are secret and known to God above And so your exploded fancy and dream of a notable advantage vanisheth Either baptism you say is a meer Ceremony or it implies a duty on our part If it be a ceremony only how doth it sanctifie us or make the comers thereunto perfect If it implys a duty on our part how then can children receive it who cannot do duty aâ— all How many impertinences are heâ—e twisted up together We answer plainly Ceremony and duty on mans part are not membra dividentia nor always contradistinct for they may coïncidere as in those ceremonies of the Law which being commanded of God were duties of men subject to the Law and to be performed though they could not make the comers thereunto perfect and so is baptism now a duty on our part to be administred though of it self it cannot make all the comers thereunto perfect But you demand if it implies a duty on our part how then can children receive it who cannot do duty at all Where is now the revelation reason common sense and all experience in the world in which you so lately triumphed as if you had driven us to take sanctuary If it be a duty on our part to administer it how can children receive it who cannot do any duty at all Nay but tell me if you can by all your reason how could infants receive baptism except we did administer it say you how can he be passive who cannot be active at all how could infants receive circumcision who could do as little duty as infants now can That homonymical on our part must be otherwise limited by some expression or else your Argument will appear fallacious It is a duty on our part to baptize infants on the childrens part no duty is required they can do none as such for God enjoyneth no impossibilities But you say This way of ministration makes baptism to be wholly an outward duty a work of the Law a carnal Ordinance it makes us adhere to the letter without any regard of the spirit c. This Rhetorick would somthing better becom him that careth not what but how much he saith All these vain and injurious expressions are meer aspersions and call you this an Argument considerable wherein appears either matter or form thereto pertinent For the rest which in some other man I should take for some aegri insomnium we say if you mean by Mystery the spiritual baptism mysteriously signified by the outward ministration to which you seem to drive 't is evident that it doth not alwaies accompany it except you will say that the Sacrament justifieth ex opere operato which a little before you would have pinned on our backs which appears in Iudas Simon Magus and all others who fall away And as certainly false is it that it never follows in order of time common experience shewing that the spiritual seed sowed in baptism many times and in many of the baptized lieth long before it actually appeareth either in any outward effects inward signes of calling or fruits of regeneration as in Abraham faith preceded and circumcision the seal of the righteousness of faith followed so in Cornelius a spiritual sanctification preceded and baptism followed but in Isaak circumcised the eight day the seal preceded and faith and sanctity followed So in Infant-baptism the seal and laver of regeneration goeth before and actual faith followeth it in season if they hold fast the faith of Christ. You say again Baptism is never propounded mentioned or enjoyned as a means of remission of sins or of eternal life but something of duty choice and sanctity is joyned with it in order to production of the end so mentioned Know you not that as many as are baptized into Christ Iesus are baptized into his death c. Good reason that such things should be propounded mentioned and enjoyned to those who converting to the faith in years capable of Doctrine require the seal of Gods Covenant and certainly so was it to Proselytes to be circumcised but you cannot reasonably think that they proposed or enjoyned Infants to be circumcised any such things and it were as vain to propose any of these to Infants now to be baptized Therefore we seal them now and propound these like things to them when they be capable Now the Scripture speaking to men or women of understanding propounds to them their present duty who are to be baptized or who are baptized as faith repentance walking in newness of life mortification and as hath been said the Apostles in the ecclesiâ constituendâ had mostly to do being to endeavour the calling and conversion of the Gentiles who before were aliens from the Covenant of God But in ecclesiâ constitutâ we rarely meet with any first to be taught and then to be sealed the children of Christian parents having Church-priviledg are now baptized first as in the setled Covenant under the Law they were first circumcised and when they come to â—it years instructed And what then do all your impertinences disadvantage our cause seeing elect infants in their baptism are implanted into Christ and in due time walk-in newness of life This is indeed truly to be baptized both in the Symbole and the Mâ—stery Whatsoever is less then this is but the Symbole only a meer ceremony â— The effects of elect childrens baptism being nothing less this Rhetoâ—ick might have been spared Plainer yet Whosoever are baptized into Christ have put on Christ have put on the new man But to put on this new man is to be formed in righteousness and holyness and truth c. All this plainly makes for infants baptism who being naturally flesh and blood such as cannot enter into the Kingdom of heaven conceived and born in sin children of wrath must indeed put on Christ Jesus that they may be saved These premâ—ses we willingly adhere to but your conclusion is liâ—ble to a non sequitur because it is either fallacious disputing ab
adultis ad infantes which wanting the condition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 becomes an ignoratio elenchi and mistaking or mispursuing the Question or begging it in those terms remaining in the present incapacities which cannot be granted I answer two things 1. God can give capacity of regeneration and newness of life to any age That he doth not give it to infants cannot appear to us The contrary doth for he giveth the spirit of sanctification to some infants in and from the womb for many dying young are saved which being conceived in sin and born the childâ—en of wrathâ— they could not be without regeneration and sanctification And truly when I consider what marvelous instinct God giveth to the new-cast young of beasts to take the brest as well as to new-born infants for their bodily preservation I cannot but conceive that the good God gives infants on whom he haâ—h set his own image which consisteth in understanding sanctity immortality c. some admirable though to us secret light of mind and capacity of that which is subordinate to the preservation of their immortal souls 2. Children under the Gospel have no less capacity then children under the Law had who yet received the seal of the same righteousness of faith in their infancy and were circumcised to newness of life Rom. â— 29. But you say And then have they but one member of the distinction used by S Peter they have that baptism which is a putting away the filth of the flesh but they have not that baptism which is the answer of a good conscience towards God which is the only baptism that saveth us I answer 1. You vainly dispute è non concessis 't is not granted nor can it ever be proved that elect children in baptism are not formed new in righteousness and holyness and so your superstruction concerning their having only that baptism which is a putting away the filth of the flesh but not the rest necessary to salvation is frivolous 2. The answer of a good conscience toward God is an effect of the inward baptism by the spirit of Jesus peculiar to the elect Now if your reason hence taken for the exclusion of infants from baptism the external seal were good by the same reason none but the elect or those who have the answer of a good conscience towards God must be admitted to baptism and whom then might you with good conscience baptize certainly but few and for ought you can certainly know none For in these last and worst dayes what know you but that they who fairly profess faith and repentance c. may yet notwithstanding be meer hypocrites And where is then their answer of a good conscience toward God 3. I say what secret light and swâ—et confidence elect infants have in God I know not sure I am they have that which is and shall be sufficient to their salvation in Christ though they die before man can teach them more and why shall man exclude them from the external Seal of Gods Covenant with them as being born within the Church of which they have as evident and a more easie capacity then children had of circumcision God gives Infants the incomparably greater and more excellent part sanctity and sealing to salvation and shall man presume to deny the less and subordinate part the external Seal of Christs visible Church whereof Reprobates born within the Church have a capacity 4. Faith good conscience repentance c. are in the elect those fruits whose seeds were sowen in baptism and as hath been said were it reasonable to say we may not sow untill the fruits thereof appear Nay but we therefore sow in hope that we may in due season see and reap the fruits thereof 5. Whereas you say that the answer of a good conscience towards God is the only baptism that saveth us I answer 1. It is not the answer of a good conscience that saveth any man though a good conscience be an excellent signe of our salvation by Christ for Being justified by faith we have peace with God through our Lord Iesus Christ by whom also we have access by faith c. 2. Your reasoning is fallacious your medium being homonymical For allowing you the signe for the cause yet if that which saveth us though it may be true if understood concerning persons of years and as good conscience an undoubted effect of regeneration is opposed to the bare seal thereof without any inward effect of the spirit I say if it be understood of Infants as in your sense excluded from a capacity of good conscience or the acts thereof it is very false except you will also exclude all Infants from salvation which were against the express doctrine of Christ. As infants you say by the force of nature cannot put themselves into a supernatural condition and therefore say the Poedobaptists they need baptism to put them into it so if they be baptized before the use of reason before the works of the spirit before the operation of grace before they can throw off the works of darkness and live in righteousness newness of life they are never the near I answer 1. Neither can men of years by the force of nature put themselves into a supernatural condition supposing you mean subordinate to salvation and what then can the use of reason without the works of the Spirit advantage them hereto Shall not they therefore that have the use of reason be baptized 2. What do you herein say which might not as well have been objected against the circumcision of infants Would you have concluded them never the neer because at eight dayes old they had not the use of reason to know what or why it was so done uâ—to them before they could throw off the works of darkness and live in righteousness and newness of life 3. If you will have none baptized before the works of the Spirit before the operations of grace c. when and whom may you baptize For the wind bloweth where it listeth and thou hearest the sound thereof but canst not tell whence it cometh and whither it goeth so is every one that is born of the Spirit God can and doth sanctifie infants as in the elect infants dying such must be granted if you have so much reason or charity as to think that at least some of them are elected and saved and he can and doth sanctifie in age sometimes in the very last act thereof as appeared in the penitent thief how then will it follow that infants are never the neerer if they be baptized before the use of reason c. 4. We must understand that baptism comprehendeth first the sign water and the whole ceremony sprinkling washing or dipping into water in the Name of the Father the Son and the holy Ghost Secondly the things themselves signified by the visible and externall things which are sprinkling of the blood of Iesus on the baptized for the remission of sins
mortification of the old man quickning the new man into certain hope of resurrection to eternall life to come Thirdly the commandement promise of Christ whence the sign hath authority and power of sealing and confirming these things unto the baptized They then that say baptism is an externall sign and washing of the body and therefore a bare and effectless sign do fallaciously dispute dividing that which God who cannot deceive us hath joyned together by giving us order to baptize and be baptized for the reâ—â—ssion of sins freely for Christs sake into whom we are implanted by Baptism How false then must â—t 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 Spâ—â—â—t 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 â—ealing 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 thâ—y 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 Popeâ—y They say that children dying without Baptism shall have poenam 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 any 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 Iesus 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 assâ—â—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 â—ow and when to give them the inward fâ—uit 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 concerning 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 raâ—ifie 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 after 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 particulars 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 to baptism who are born within the verge and precincts of the Church Whether such infants doe afterwards believe repent and amend their lives to salvation by Christ or not we cannot foresee nor have we any exception to supersede or limit our duty of administring the outward seal of baptism For as much as children born of Christian parents and within the Church are thereby partakers of the Covenant of grace even they who are not partakers of the grace of the Covenant Fourthly we answer That children in Gods account do vow confess and avouch the Lord in their parents vowing confession or avouching him as they did of old which the learned Mr. Cobbet observeth from Deut. 26. 17 18. where we read Thou hast avouched the Lord this day to be thy God and to walk in his waies c. and the Lord hath avouched thee this day to be his peculiar people as he hath promised thee and Deut 19. 10 11 c. Ye Stand this day all of you before the Lord your God Your Captains and your Tribes your Elders and your Officers with all the men of Israel your little ones your wives and strangers that thou shouldest enter into a Covenant with the Lord thy God and into his Oath which the Lord thy God maketh with thee this day that he may establish thee to day for a people unto himself and that he may be unto thee a God as he hath said unto thee and as he hath sworn unto thy fathers to Abraham to Isaak and to Jacob c. whereof see Gen. 17. 7. Though therefore some stipulations made in minority and nonage bind not the person under age except he confirm it when he cometh to age yet you will not say that the same is not valid if made by Parents Governors or Guardians for childreâ— and so in some publick Covenants and Acts of one City or State with another which concern the present and future ages the infants within that City or State as being in minority free Denisons are bound by the same Covenant and Act though as such they could neither transact speak nor consent to the same but all was agreed on and done by their Parents or Commissioners of years thereto designed in their own and childrens name which may apear in Israels Covenant with the Gibeonites which though the stipulators were beguiled yet Israels children were bound to and when Saul out of a perverse zeal about 380 years after would needs violate how binding that Covenant was God declared in a severe judgment on Sauls Family and all Israel But upon this invalid supposition you build another quere Why were it not as good they stayed to make it till that time before which time if they do make it it is to no purpose this would be considered It would or should be considered that it is very dangerous playing thus with the sacred Ordinances of God You confess that baptism is the only inlet into the Church of Christ and is it to no purpose to be let into his Church and Covenant out of which you say there is no salvation 'T is true that all are not saved that are within the Church and Covenant but no man is sâ—ved out of it God hath appointed baptism to be a seal and token of our receiving and entrance into the Church is it to no purpose to obey him in his Ordinances God would not only have all the Citizens of his Church thus enfranchised but those who are not baptized when they may he will not have reckoned in the number of his Church And say you 't is to no purpose to have children marked for members of Christs Church Baptism is Gods mark whereby he will have his people discerned from all other false Churches and Sects and think you 't is to no purpose to have Gods mark set on children that they may not with a perishing world be toucht by the destroyers Yet you say Our way is the surer way for not to baptize children till they can give an account of their faith is the most proportionable to an Act of Reason and humanity and it can have no danger in it How often hath Satan in tempting to sin misled the incaucious with this suggestion there can be no danger in it 't is the surer way 't is neither reasonable nor humane wilfully to act his part and as much as in us lieth to shut infants from the kingdom of heaven and so to doe that which much angred Christ in the daies of his flesh to wit to barr or forbid children to come to him this would be considered And why is it more proportionable to an act of reason and humanity to defer childrens baptism then in due time to baptize them Infants were circumcised long before they could give any account of their faith and yet that act was proportionable to reason and Moses was near a sad affliction for delaying it You say further For to say that infants may be damned for want of baptism c. I know no Protestant that ever said so but take heed you damn not your selves by teaching contempt of the Sacrament We are well satisfied that the privation thereof shall not condemn infants it not being their fault if they want it it may be and certainly is theirs who teach men to deny it them And then consider in the inviolable justice of God whose the damnation will be We cannot conceive that a meer privation of circumcision condemned those Hebrew babes who died before the eighth day because God is unchangeably just who confined their sealing to that day yet you will grant that it was a great sin except in case of evident and inevitable necessity as during Israels marches in the Wilderness a great sin I say of parents to neglect the administration thereof for God never threatned any punishment such as is mentioned Gen. 17. 14. but in respect of great sin much more was it obstinately to deny it them It is certainly true which hath been noted out of Augustine There may be conversion of the heart without baptism but it cannot be in the contempt of baptism for it can by no means be called the conversion of the heart to God when the Sacrament of God is contemned And so take your dirt back again into your own faces which you cast at ours Whosoever will pertinaciously persist in this opinion of Anabaptists and practice it accordingly they pollute the bloâ—d of the everâ— lasting
before the word 5 Christ doth not in the cited place in one syllable prescribe or limit the Apostles whom they should baptize and whom not but only enjoineth that they baptize all Nations in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the H. Ghost teaching them to observe all those things which he had formerly taught them his principal end being there to command them to preach and to set to the Seal of the Gospel-covenant mentioning no particulars but intimating that all those that were of capacitie should be taught and that those that were not of present understanding yet if born of such persons as had given their names to Christ ◠should be admitted to the seal of the righteousness of faith in Christ that they might be instructed when and as they were able to learn There are two conditions of Baptism Beleeve and Repent which seeing Infants as such cannot do their baptism ought to be deferred until they can We answer 1 These are the conditions If the question were concerning persons of years to be baptised but it is concerning Infants on whom no such condition is or can reasonably for the present be laid 2 The argument is impious and ridiculous as if one should say the condition of eating is labouring which seeing Infants cannot do let their eating or feeding be defered till they can The Apostle saith If there be any that will not labour let him not eat 2 Thess. 3. 10. Who of any sense doth not understand that of those that can and will not and why not so in believing and repenting seeing that God requireth impossibilities neither in things temporal nor spiritual 3 As in the baptism of those who are of years a previous faith is required so is a subsequent faith of those who are baptized Infants which if they afterward have not they forfeit the benefit of the Seal which they received 4 Though Infants as such cannot have actual faith yet have they the seeds thereof in baptism covered or shut up in the habitual beginning of grace which Christ both can and doth work in them Nor is it simply necessary that the Sacraments should in the same moment in which they are administred effect all things which they figure or represent yea a dilatory paction hath place when in the making thereof there is some invincible let to present performance as want of the present use of reason is to infants faith repentance and obedience to the Gospel unto which they are by Covenant bound in their baptism and indeed to be within the Covenant gives the Infant a just capacitie to the seal of the same Now Infants of believing and baptized parents are within the Covenant Gen. 17. 7. Act. 2. 39. Christ was not baptized in his Infancie although the Deitie hypostatically united dwelt in him fully but deferred the same untill he was about 30 years of age therefore what ever habitual faith or seeds of grace can be pretended to for infants they ought not to be baptized until they come of years to know what they do We answer 1 Christ requireth not that we should imitate him in all that he did which is proposed to us for doctrine but not for imitation for example he was both circumcised as being of the seed of Abraham under the Law the righteousness whereof he was to perform Mat. 3. 15. and also baptized if we should be so Christ should profit us nothing Gal. 5. 2. 2 The time was not come at the birth of Christ for the repealing of the seals of the ceremonial Law nor was the seal of the new Covenant to be instituted untill the time drew near wherein he was to publish it by preaching the Gospel and accomplishing the great work of our redemption in his bloud therefore he that was Saviour both of Iews and Gentiles was circumcised in his Infancie and baptized as soon as that Sacrament was instituted 3 They that herein require imitation of Christ intimate a necessitie of deferring baptism untill the age of 30 years which our Antagonists that I know of do not practise 4 A bare example without a precept doth not bind to imitation Christ administred the communion with unleavened bread after supper in an upper room to twelve men only and no women but seeing we find no precept in the Gospel which commandeth us to do the same we believe we are not bound by that example 5. There was neither neglect contempt nor danger in so long delaying Christs Baptism there must needs be some of all these in the delay of our childrens Baptism Christ had no sin but we have both Original and Actual he not only foreknew but foreordained as God the manner and time as of his nativity so also of his death We neither know nor can appoint the time of our departures hence therefore we may not defer our childrens Baptism they may suddenly dye 6. Christ would not before that age be baptized and enter into his publike Ministry among other causes for this also that the truth hereof might answer the type preceding in the Levitical Priests who although they were received into the Colledge of Priests at five and twenty yet were they not admitted to exercise their Ministry until they were thirty years old Numb 4. 3. The Lords Supper may not be given to Infants by reason of their incapacity On the same ground neither ought Baptism the other Sacrament We answer That the reason why we may not administer the Communion to Infants is because God hath given an express command Let a man examine himself 〈…〉 let him eat of that Bread and drink of that Cup And there followeth a dreadful reason For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily eateth and drinketh damnation to himself not discerning the Lords body Now Infants can neither examine themselves nor discern the Lords body because they cannot understand the institution end use and condition of that Sacrament Therefore we do not administer it unto them until they can be instructed therein No such limitation can be shewed concerning Baptism for though Faith and Repentance be mentioned as conditions of Baptism and Remission of sins and Salvation to persons of years yet the case is far otherwise with Infants◠who though they cannot as such actually believe and repent yet we doubt not of their Remission of sins and salvation neither could those Infants who were circumcised actually believe and repent yet that barred them not from the Seal of the same Righteousness of Faith Again that which is said Mark 16. 16. is very considerable as hath been noted He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved but he that believeth not shall be damned It sheweth that the condition of believing is proposed to persons of years who may believe or obstinately reject the Gospel which Infants as such cannot do and therefore it cannot for present concern them without involving them all in the sentence of damnation which
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 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 falvation 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 appoinâ—ed 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 Vnitie in Trinitie and Trinitie in Vnitie most undeniable consequence we have Mat. 28. 19 1 Ioh. 5. 7. Again we have no express word that the Apostles were baptized for Christ himself baptized none Ioh. 4. 1. c. and we read not where or when Iohn 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 Iews 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 Iesus Christ for the remission of sins for the promise is to you and to your children What promise why that Gen. 177. 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 be sealed 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
Nephtali Bilhah the hand-maids sons and Gad and Ashâ—r Zilpah the other hand-maids sons had 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 civil 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 set apart to him according to his 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 baptism 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 Inâ—ants 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 Ierusalem and all Iudea c. came and were baptized of Iohn 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 Ioh. 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 Iudas 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 those 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 sinceritie 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 peâ—sons of years that was to be understood but circumcise every male 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 â—e 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 oâ—tward expression as Tilenus cited by the learned Dr. Featly 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
the covenant of grace But God hath given the inward operation of his H. Spirit to Infants Ier. 1. 5. Luk. 1. 15. 1 Câ—r 7. 14 therefore no man may forbid water or the outward administration for the baptism of Infants The reason of the major is that all they who are partakers of the grace both signified exhibited in baptism have right to the sign and sacrament thereof and therefore may not be barred from it for that were to withstand God Act. 11. 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 evâ—ry 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 circumâ—ision 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 â—od 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. Ioh. 3. 5. 10 All they whom God accounteth holy have a capacity of baptism the seal 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 Ioh. 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 〈◊〉 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
be simply necessary 7 That which can neither be proved by example of Christ Iohn Baptist or any of the Apostles baptizing nor by any precept of Christ concerning the same is not essential or simply necessary to baptism but dipping or dowsing iâ— baptism can neither be proved by example c. or any precept of Christ concerning the same therefore diping or dowsing is not essential or simply necessary to baptism and indeed were there to be found in Scripture any example hereof without a precept to lay the same universally upon the Ordinance it were not binding as hath been proved from Christs administring the communion with unleavened bread after supper in an upper room to twelve men only and no women So that if that which you can never prove should be granted you that Iohn Baptist and Christs disciples did then and there baptize by dipping yet it would not follow that we ought to baptize in the like and no other manner In the infancie of the Church they had not Baptisteries or Churches as we have there was a kind of necessitie for them as they met with occasions to make use of waters as they could find them in rivers or sources wherein it cannot be proved that they dipt nor could it conclude our Antagonists pretended necessitie if it were supposed 8 Whatsoever was or is essential to baptism or simply necessary thereto is mentioned in some clear example or express precept of Christ But dipping the whole body in baptism is neither mentioned in any clear example nor any express precept of Christ therefore it is not essential or simply necessary to baptism Christ omitted nothing necessary and the holy Scriptures are able to make men wise to salvation And let our Antagonists now seriously consider what they do when they rebaptize upon that fancie that washing or sprinkling with water in the Name of the Father the Son and the holy Ghost is not true baptism CHAP. VI. Anabaptists Arguments for their dangerous practice of Re-baptizing examined and answered THE malitious Serpent ever attempting to poison or trouble these sanctuary-waters obstructing or hindering their effect lest they should heal sin-wounded souls somtimes moved Pelagius Donatus and others reviving their errors to deny the most innocent children of believers baptism sometimes he teacheth them to except against the manner of baptizing as if the vertue of the Sacrament depended on the quantitie of the element and not solely on the Ordinance and power of God working thereon sometimes he causeth deluded people to annual their baptism and in effect to renounce their faith and Christ whom they had sacramentally put on in baptism by receiving a second third or iterated baptism we read that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 baptized every day supposing that their former baptisms were made void by any sin after committed on which fancie possibly the Novatians thought that baptism ought to be deferred to the end of their lives Auxentius the Arrian taught that baptism ought â—o be iterated the Marcionites baptized their disciples three times The Anabaptists rebaptize baptized Infants coming to age and affirm that the assuming of baptism in ripe years by those who were washed in Infancie is not â—n renâ—uncing baptism but a firmer avouching thereof according to Christs mind errors are fruitful one absurdity granted many will readily follow they think first that Infants having no present actual faith and repentance nor present use of reason to understand the Gospel preached are not as such to be baptized but until they come to years to be taught and to make profession of their faith and repentance to be kept from baptism and that so Infant-baptism is void and to be esteemed no baptism Secondly they dream that those who are not dived under water are not baptized and therefore they rebaptize them who were baptized in Infancie though that ground may often fail them because some have been baptized by immersion Now that which hath been said on our part is enough to satisfie those in those things who are not wilfully bent with Simo in the Comedian rather to erre then to be directed by any Therefore to avoid repetitions let the issue be if Infant-baptism in the name of the Father the Son and the holy Ghost either by washing sprinkling with or dipping into water be indeed a compleat and warrantable baptism according to the institution of Christ then Anabaptists rebaptizing do impiously seduce and teach simple people to renounce that baptism by which they had at least sacramentally put on Christ and thereby were re-admitted into that Church out of which can be no salvation And â—et the prudent Reader judge whom I herein refer to an impartial and serious consideration of that which hath been said which being proved the Anabaptists whole fabrick of dowsing and rebaptizing falleth heavily on their Dippers heads The Church of Christ holds that Infants of enchurched Parents or others of years converting to the faith being once sprinkled washed or dipt in the name of the Father the Son and the holy Ghost according to Christs institution ought not on any pretence to be rebaptized I say thus baptized according to the ordinance of Christ because the Samosatenians Sabellians Marcionites Arrians or the like who any wayes opposed the holy Trinity or denied any persons thereof did not baptize according to the prescript of Christ and therefore in case any of their disciples converted the true Church baptized them because the former pretended baptism was not according to the Ordinance of Christ and so no true baptism it being the peculiar prerogative of Christ to appoint the seals of his own Covenant of free Grace and mercie with man But the Anabaptists after their manner object We are regenerate not only by Baptism but also by the Word Ephes. 5. 26. 1 Pet. 1. 23. but the Word is often repeated and therefore so may baptism We answer 1 The word mentioned Eph. 5. 26. is that which comming to the element makes the Sacrament as Chrysostom wel interpreteth that he might sanctifie and cleanse it with the washing of water by the Word What Word saith he why this In the name of the Father of the Son and of the holy Ghost that Word which coming to the element makes the Sacrament ought not to be more repeated then the Sacrament it self because it is essential thereto 2 The regeneration of man is only one whose principal efficient cause is the holy Ghost the means or instrumental causes on Gods part are the Word and Sacraments on our part faith which the holy Ghost begetteth encreaseth and confirmeth ordinarily by those external means Therefore when they are baptized who were before regenerate by the Word as a spiritual seed they have not need of any other regeneration nor can they be twice regenerate but then baptism is to them an obsignation and confirmation of their regenerationâ— So Abraham first believed as so was regenerate and afterward was sealed
points of Divinity are not onely some stingy expressions but also such a wilful or incautious collection of wilde Vines as may cause the children of the Prophets not unjustly to cry Mors est in ollâ It was truly reported by some â—â—â—icious Divines who 〈…〉 the same that there are many dangâ—rous stumbling-blockâ— tâ— weak Christians and subtil arguments for defence and animation of the Anabaptists being cloathed with so much wit sophistry and learning as indeed make the Piece a very shrewd Bug-bear formidable to many yet in truth 't is not much unlike that Cuman-beast which going up and down in a Lions â—kin frighted many which being pulled off the silly Animal appeared more ridiculous then dangerous Being therefore exhorted by sundry of my reverend brethren to answer the Arguments herein laid down by way of Plâ—â— I hope rather tentatively then dogmatically and being perswaded that in so doing I might in a great part satisfie my engagement the learned Author having said much more or in more plausible terms then ever the Anabaptists for ought that I have ever seen or heard have yet alledged for their own opinion I have adventured so to do And now concerning my learned Antagonist although I hope he let fall these things as Boaz Reâ—perâ— on purpose that some might for good advantage to the truth of Christ glean after him yet seeing he hath so sharply and strenuously pleaded against the same that Religion may say of her hurts on some less armed parts Thus was I wounded in the house of my friends And we may say in these giddy times as Ioshua to him whom he spied with his drawn sword by Iericho Art thou for us or for our adversaries and seeing that they who for private ends and interests carry arms and ammunition to any known and professed enemies are justly made lawful prize at least if taken we must lay by all personal interests with a magis amica veritas and he ought to be patient if he meet with any more rough and unpleasing language then he useth to receive or I love to give Concerning this whole peece I have no more to say then that of Venerable Beda concerning the Book of Bishop Iulian to the Reader let him so gather the grapes that he may beware of the thorn that is let him in his sayings search and choose out the wholsom sense so as with no less care he may avoid the unwholsom He doth but plead and so pretend to a lawfulness of biting us from the priviledge of custom and so in reason must expect the like returns If he that dresseth himself up in a Bearâ— skin to make others or himself sport be seriously baited whom hath he to blame but himself What this Authours councel was thus to write that which himself condemns and of which he saith it is A Doctrine justly condemned by the most â—â—rts of Christians I know not but do heartily wish that if he have not yet repented of digging this pit whereinto divers are fallen not without great and apparent hazard to their souls he timely may if he have come to some second better thoughts he may do commendably to cover it with some seasonable endeavour that no more may fall by the stumbling-block which he hath laid before them I wish he would revise his own writings with some judiciary severity as St. Augustineâ—peaks â—peaks so that those things which his self liketh not in his plea he might mark and censure he need not be informed but may be remembred that true repentance is inseparably united to a sincere desire faithful endeavor to satisfie and make amends neither is he to learn what that great light of the Western Church saith No man saith he that 's wise will therefore presume to reprove me because I reprehend my own errours but if he shall say I ought not to have said such things which should afterward even displease my self he saith true and doth as I do for he reprehends those very things which I also do for neither ought I to reprove them if Lought to have said them What he did in his Retractations many good and learned men have done because they loved Gods truth and honour more then their own reputations and whosoever can truly say with S Peter Thou knowest that I love thee ought no more to be ashamed of the fruits of Repentance then Peter was It is no dishonor to amend and turn to better and therefore it cannot but be safe to give God his due honour and security to those souls who have strayed been misled or scandaled by this Patronage of untruth by acknowledging the truth and disavowing a known errour He denyeth Christ who is silent for fear or favor of men when and where he ought to speak in defence of his truth how much more he that doth omnes nervâ—s intendere in the opposition thereof possibly the Authour had some better intention and aim then appears to the Vulgar but 't is true it skilleth not with what intention one doth that which is evil and ought not to be done because facts are seen but the minde is not Let the good Reader take notice that in the conclusion of this Plea the advocate saith That men have disputed against them the Anabaptists with so much weakness and confidence that they have been encouraged in their errour more by the accidental advantages we have given them by our weak arguings then by any truth of their cause or excellency of their wit And I conceive that he will think with me that it should be a motive to him to whom God hath given more excellency of art and nature to defend the truth which he hath opposed lest otherwise he sacrilegiously eclipse Gods honour by a kinde of Interposition of that body which shineth by no other light then that which God lent If he that hid his Masters talent so that it did neither good nor harm yet heard his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 what except in case of timely repentance may they expect who with those many talents which their Master entrusted to them have assisted and furnished the known enemy with arms against their Master Consider what I say and the Lord give you a right understanding in all things Lastly I have to entreat the well-affected Reader not to misdeem some repetitions of the same things in cases of such conflicts unavoidable wherein the adversaries often striking at the same parts requires the same or the like wards for defence of the truth And now the God of all grace who hath called us into his eternal glory by Christ Iesus make you perfect stablish strengthen settle you To him be glory and dominion for ever and ever AMEN AN Antidote against Anabaptisme OR Animadversions on that part of the liberty of Prophecying which sect 18. pag. 2. 3. beareth this Title A particular Consideration of the opinion of the ANABAPTISTS Their denying Baptisme to Infants