Confutation of the Anabaptists and Defense of Civil Government — Thomas Bakewell

Confutation of the Anabaptists and Defense of Civil Government · Thomas Bakewell

Arguments againſt the Anabaptiſts, proving that Infants borne of Chriſtian Parents ought to be baptized; with a full anſwer to all their Cavills that are, or can be made againſt it.

FIrſt, they are part of the Church of Chriſt: I hope if the parents be admitted, the children are not rejected before that they diſcover their deſert to be juſtly caſt out; well, then I take it for granted, that they are reputed members of the body of Chriſt; and therefore they ought to be baptized. For we are all baptized into one body, whether Iewes or Gentiles, bond or free, and have been made all to drinke into one ſpirit, 1 Cor. 12, 13. Then why ſhould Infants be debatred of this benefit which is their due, and Chriſt at his firſt inſtitution of Baptiſme ſent out his Apoſtles to baptize all Nations, Math. 28.19. They were commanded to baptize all Nations: hence I gather, that in the inſtitution of baptiſme, Chriſt made no exception of nation, age, nor ſexes; but the commandement is ſpoken in a generall manner, baptize all, then let us take heed leſt we limit or ſtraighten the command of Chriſt. And all the countrey of Judea, and all the region round about Jordan were baptized of John in Iordan, Math. 3.5, 6. But were there no children in all Judea, nor in all the region round about Jordan? or were they not baptized, when it is ſaid all were baptized? I ſuppoſe they will grant that there were children, but they will ſay, they did not come to be baptized: for they that came, confeſſed their ſins, verſ. 6. I anſwer, if they came not then all did not come; but the Text ſaith, all came. Againe, when multitudes came to Chriſt, they brought their children, Mat. 14.21.15.38.…9.13. And why not here as well as at other times? Againe, for this word confeſſing their ſins, ſome few might doe it in the name of the reſt, as our Miniſters do every Sabbath day, having children in the congregation: then why may not our children be baptized as well as they?

Secondly, the Apoſtles practiſe ſheweth, that they underſtood that infants were included in that command of Chriſt; for when they came to any family, if but the parents beleeved, and were baptized, they baptized all the houſhold. When Lydia was converted, ſhe was baptized and all her houſhold. And the Apoſtle told the Iaylor, that if he beleeved on the Lord Ieſus, he ſhould be ſaved and all his houſe; and the ſame houre of the night he took them and waſhed their ſtripes, and wa… baptized, he and all his, Acts 16.15.32, 33. And ſaith Paul, I baptized alſo the houſhold of Stephanus, 1 Cor. 1.16. Then if the Apoſtles underſtood Chriſt to ſpeak in generall to all Nations, ſexes, and ages without exception, why ſhould we make queſtion of it? ſaith the Apoſtle, marke them which walke ſo, as yee have us for an example, Phil. 3.15.

Thirdly, Infants were circumciſed, and baptiſme is come in the place of it, why then ſhould not Infants of Chriſtians be baptized? did Chriſt come to rob Infants of that benefit which they had before his comming, or did he not rather come to inlarge his mercies to them? hee came to breake downe the partition wall, that all might partake of his free mercy, which is not leſſe then it was before, but greater; Firſt, in giving baptiſme in ſtead of circumciſion, which is far eaſier; Secondly, by admitting all Nations to partake of it, which before was to the Jewes onelyonly; 3. In that baptiſme more clearely ſignifies our Regeneration then Circumciſion did; hence I gather, that if Chriſt hath given us a clearer ſignification then before, our children ſhall not have leſſe, if God did not only give Parents the ſeales of the Covenant, but their Infants alſo; will not God do ſo to Infants of Chriſtians? ſhall we thinke that when Chriſt put his own name upon them, calling them Chriſtians, that he took away part of their benefit? If God made a Covenant with the Jewes for them and their Children, and many gracious promiſes in it, which promiſes & ſeals alſo were made over to their Infants: is this, ſo great a benefit, taken from our Infants? did God ſay to Abraham, I will be thy God, and the God of thy ſeed alſo, Gen. 17.19. And the Apoſtle ſaith to their poſterity, ye are the children of the Covenant which God made with our Fathers. Acts 3.25. But doth not the ſame Peter ſay alſo, that the promiſe is to you and to your children, therefore be ye baptized every one of you? meaning all you that the promiſes belong to; be ye every one baptized, both ye and your children: Then why ſhould not Infants be baptized? If but one of the Parents beleeve, the children are holy, 1 Cor. 1.14. If the rootes be holy, ſo are the branches, Rom. 11.16.

Fourthly, Infants may receive the ſeedes of grace by the Almighty power and wiſedome of God, although the manner of working it in them be not known to us: for ſaith Chriſt; except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye ſhall not enter into the Kingdome of heaven; And whoſoever ſhall humble himſelfe as this little child, ſhal be greateſt in the Kingdome of heaven; And whoſoever ſhall offend one of theſe little ones that beleeve in me, &c. Math. 16.2.3.4.6. Here you ſee by the teſtimony of Chriſt himſelfe, that a little childe is converted and humbled, and beleeving in him; then who dares deny theſe Infants the Sacrament of baptiſme? and ſaith Chriſt further; Take heed how you deſpiſe theſe little ones, for I ſay unto you, that in heaven they have their Angels alwayes beholding the face of my Father which is in heaven, verſ. 10. Then doth Chriſt give ſuch a teſtimony o… them that they are heirs of heaven by all thoſe ſignes and tokens, and ſhall wee as much as in us lyes, bar them out of the Viſible Church? by keeping them from the ſeale of the Covenant that ſhould give them admittance into it, and further Chriſt doth ſtraightly charge them to ſuffer little children to come unto him, and forbid them not, Math. 19.24. But doth Chriſt call them and charge them not to keep them backe from him, and dare any be ſo bold to withſtand this charge of Chriſt, and as much as in them lyes, deprvive their ſoules of all ſpirituall good, what deſperate ſoule-murderers be theſe? they are like unto the daughters of Jeruſalem, who in that great famine and terrible ſiege, were more cruell to their ſucking Infants then the ſea monſters, or like the Eſtridges in the wilderneſſe, Lam 4.3. The pretious ſons of Sion comparable to fine gold. were eſteemed as earthen pitchers, verſ. 2. So theſe men, when Chriſt highly commends, and greatly delights in young Infants, theſe cruell parents think them not worthy of their ſociety in divine ordinances; how doe they know but they were ſanctified in the wombe as well as Ieremiah, Jer. 1.5. And how do they know, but they were filled with the holy Ghoſt even from their mothers wombe, aſwel as John the Baptiſt? Luke 1.15. But was Iohn ſanctified from the wombe, who was the firſt Miniſter of the Sacrament of baptiſme? what is this, but to informe Iohn that Infants from the womb are fitted for baptiſme? And again, Chriſt was conceived by the holy Ghoſt to ſanctifie Infancy aſwel as any other age, that none may be excepted againſt; then how dare theſe men make exceptions where Chriſt makes none? then may Infants be ſanctified in the wombe, and receive the holy Ghoſt from the wombe; Then ſaith Peter, can any man forbid that theſe ſhould be baptized that have received the holy Ghoſt aſwell as we? And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord, Acts 10.47, 48.

Fifthly, the Apoſtles did baptize them that did but in a generall way confeſſe that Chriſt was the Son of God, Acts 8.37, 38. And they baptized Simon Magus, & many in Samaria, when as yet the holy Ghoſt was fallen upon none of them, onelyonly they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jeſus: Then they laid their hands on them, and they received the holy Ghoſt, ſee Acts 8.15, 16.17. And the Apoſtles finding certaine Deſciples, ſaid unto them, have ye received the holy Ghoſt ſince ye beleeved? that is, have ye received the ſpeciall gifts and graces of the holy Ghoſt ſince ye beleeved with a generall faith; but ſay they, we have not ſo much as heard whether there be any holy Ghoſt: and he ſaid unto them, unto what were ye baptized? and they ſaid, unto Johns baptiſme, Acts 19.1, 2, 3. Here you ſee them baptized that can make but a weake account of their faith; why may not Infants born of Chriſtians be baptized much rather then theſe?

6. Iohn baptized them with water unto repentance: but ſaith he, he that commeth after me, ſhall baptize you with the holy Ghoſt, Mat. 3.11. That is, when Chriſt by his ſpirit ſhall make that baptiſme by water effectuall by the inward working of the holy Ghoſt, and yet all this but one baptiſme, Epheſ. 4.5. And Paul ſpeaking to thoſe that were baptized with water, and yet were ignorant of the holy Ghoſt, ſaith, Iohn baptizeth unto repentance, and ſaith to the people, that they ſhould beleeve on him that ſhould come after him, that is, on Jeſus Chriſt; And when they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Ieſus, and Paul laid his hands on them, and the holy Ghoſt came on them, Acts 19.5.6. Now this was not another Baptiſme, but onelyonly the inward baptiſme of the holy Ghoſt, as Iohn had told them before, how that he which came after him ſhould baptize thoſe with the holy Ghoſt, which then only received the outward forme, Mat. 3.11. Then if this be ſo, why may not Infants of Chriſtians now be baptized unto repentance aſwell as theſe? But our Anabaptiſts will have Chriſt to be the forerunner of Iohn, to baptize them firſt with the holy Ghoſt, and then Iohn ſhall baptize them with water, and ſo Chriſt ſhall prepare the way for Iohn, and not Iohn for Chriſt; But the ſpirit is like the wind, and we cannot tell whence it commeth …r whither it goeth, John 3.8. That new name written, no man knoweth, but he that hath it, Revel. 2.17. Then twere a vaine thing to wai…e for that we ſhall never know in mother; ſo then to children borne of Chriſtian parents we are to doe our duty in baptizing them, and let the Lord alone to take his own time to make it effectual to them; we muſt not tye the Lord to convert them, to any limited time of their age; ſome the Lord converts in the firſt houre, and ſome not till the laſt houre of their life. Again, it is ſaid when Chriſt was baptized and went out of the water, then the ſpirit of God deſcended upon him, and a voice from heaven came ſaying, this is my beloved ſon in whom I am well pleaſed, Mat. 3.16.17. Then if we would ſee the work of God appear upon our children, let us firſt baptize them, and then we may looke for it and not before.

Seventhly, we may take notice of the two Sacraments of the Jewes compared with ours, and their agreement together: firſt, concerning their Paſſeover, it was required that they ſhould know the thing ſignified by it, and that they ſhould ſanctifie and cleanſe themſelves before they did receive it; and when King Hezekiah ſuppoſed that ſome of ſeverall Tribes had not ſufficiently prepared themſelves, and yet had been at that Sacrament, he prayed for them, ſaying; The good Lord pardon them, and the Lord hearkened to Hezekiah, and healed the people, 2 Chron. 30.18.19.20. And (ſaith Moſes) concerning ſome that were defiled and had not cleanſed themſelves, therfore they could not keep the Paſſover on that day, Num. 9.6. Now to this Paſſover our Lords Supper doth well agree, which requires examination and knowledge of the thing ſignified, and a remembrance of the death of Chriſt till his comming againe, 1 Cor. 11. But for the other Sacrament of the Jewes, was nothing required of them if ſo be they were but children of circumciſed Jewes, and baptiſme is come in the place of it? why then ſhould more be required of our children then was of the children of the Jewes? let them anſwer if they can.

But ſuppoſe they ſhould require ſome qualification in our children, why may we not anſwer that children are the heritage of the Lord? Pſa. 127.3. then why ſhould they be kept from this ordinance of baptiſme? Again, children were in the Temple and ſang Hoſanna to the ſonne of David to the aſtoniſhment of the Prieſts and Scribes, yet to the great approbation of Jeſus Chriſt, who ſaid to the Prieſts, have yee not read that cut of the monthes of babes and ſucklings thou haſt perfected praiſe, Mat. 21.15, 16. Pſa. 8.2. But doth Chriſt here acknowledge an Evangelicall perfection to be in the praiſe of babes and ſucklings? then who dares to keep them from the ordinance of baptiſme? Again, Chriſt ſaith, of ſuch is the Kingdome of Heaven, then who dares to make queſtion of that which Chriſt affirmes? and he kindly embraced them, which he would not have done if they had not beene part of his Kingdom, neither could he be deceived, becauſe he knew their hearts, and he prayed for them, Mat. 19.13. and his prayers were alwaies heard, Luke 11.42. neither would he pray for the world, but only for thoſe that were given him, 17.9. and he bleſſed them; but who are bleſſed of Chriſt but they whoſe ſinnes are forgiven? Pſa. 32.1. And Chriſt was diſpleaſed with thoſe that kept them from him, which plainly ſhewes his tender affection to them; and he gave his Apoſtles a double charge, that they ſhould neither forbid thoſe that brought them, nor drive way, but freely give them admittance into his preſence; and (ſaith Chriſt) Hee that receives not the Kingdom of Heaven as a litle child, he ſhal not enter therein; and (ſaith he) their Angels are in heaven beholding the face of my Father which is in heaven, that is, they ſtand ready, and hearken for a command from God to bee ſent for their good, Pſa. 103.20. But the angels are miniſtring ſpirits onelyonly for the … of ſalvation, Heb. 1.14. they incampe about thoſe that feare the Lord, Pſa. …4.7. Then why ſhould Infants be debarred from the Sacrament of baptiſme who have ſo f…re a Title to the Kingdome of heaven. But they will ſay, thoſe in the Goſpell are to be underſtood babes in Chriſt or young converts: To this I anſwer, when they brought them to Chriſt, he tooke them up in his armes when he bleſſed them, Mat. 10.16. which ſhe wes plainely that they were litle children. Secondly, the Diſciples call them young children and litle children ver. 13. and Luke ſaith, they brought unto him Infants, Luke 18.15. And when Chriſt called a litle child unto him, Mat. 18.2. he ſet him in the midſt of them, which argues plainely that he had him in his armes; but ſee Mar. 9.36. there you ſhall ſee in plaine words that he took that very child in his armes and ſpake unto them. Thirdly, Chriſt ſaith unto his Diſciples, who were ſtrong Chriſtians; except ye be converted and become as litle Children, ye ſhall not enter into the Kingdom of Heaven; but now will thoſe men who ſay this place is meant of babes in Chriſt or young converts, will they I ſay make their inference thus, that ſtrong chriſtians muſt become weak in faith? yea the Apoſtles muſt become as babes in Chriſt, their ſtrong faith muſt become weake againe, or elſe they cannot enter into heaven; theſe men declare their folly as Sodom delareth her ſin, Iſa. 3.9. For doth not Chriſt often blame a weak faith, ſee Mat. 8.26.14.31. and doth he not highly commend a ſtrong faith? Mat. 8.10.15.28. Rom. 4.20. Then the true meaning is this, the Diſciples had beene reaſoning who ſhould be the greateſt, Mat. 18.1. Mar. 9.34. then Chriſt tooke a young child in nature up in his armes to convince their pride and envy, as the Apoſtle ſaith, in malice be ye children, but in underſtanding be ye men, 1 Cor. 14.20. So here in pride and envy Chriſt would have them to be as children, ſaying, except yee bee converted from your pride and envy yee cannot be ſaved; that is, your pride and envy muſt be mortified & crucified w^ch makes you affect high places; he that would be firſt, the ſame ſhalbe laſt & ſervant of all, Mar. 9.35.36. So, then the Diſciples were already converted from the ſtate of nature to the ſtate of grace, but yet they were not ſufficiently converted from their pride & envy; ſo then you ſee all theſe teſtimonies of Chriſt to be concerning young children in nature, and not of young converts being growne in age; therefore infants having ſuch approbation and teſtimony from the mouth of Chriſt, I ſay againe, who dares hinder them from the ordinance of baptiſme?

Eightly, from the ends of baptiſme, which are theſe. Firſt, it is a pledge unto us in regard of our weakneſſe, to aſſure us of all the graces and mercies of God, & eſpecially of our union with Chriſt, and of remiſſion of ſins, and both mortification of them, and vivification to ariſe from them to newneſſe of life, Rom. 6.3.4. For he that is baptized into Chriſt, hath put on Chriſt, Gal. 3.27. The ſecond end of our baptiſme is to diſtinguiſh Chriſtians from Tuckes and Pagans; for it is a ſigne of our Chriſtian profeſſion againſt all the enemies of Jeſus Chriſt, as Circumciſion was a token of the Covenant, ſaith the Lord, between me and thee, Gen. 17.11. Chriſtians may ſay as David did; Thy vowes are upon me O God, I will render praiſe unto thee, Pſal. 56.11. The third end of our baptiſme, it is a meanes of our entrance or admiſſion into the viſible Church of Chriſt, for ſaith Chriſt; Except a man be borne of water and the ſpirit, he cannot enter into the Kingdome of God, John 3.5. The Kingdome of God here hath a double ſignification anſwerable to the double qualification: ſometimes it is meant the viſible Church; ſo then except a man be baptized with water, he cannot enter into it, & it is alſo meant heaven it ſelfe, and ſo a man muſt be borne of the holy Ghoſt, or elſe he cannot enter into it. The fourth end of our baptiſme, it is a meanes of our unity with the Church and people of God; For we are all baptized into one body, 1 Cor. 12.13. There is one body and one ſpirit, and one hope of our calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptiſme, one God and Father of all, who is above and through all, and in you all, Epheſ. 4.4, 5, 6. Then would you have a pledge of Gods love to you in regard of your children that they are united to Chriſt, and their ſins forgiven and mortified, and that they are riſen with Chriſt to the life of grace? then let them be baptized.

And would you have them diſtinguiſhed from the enemies of Chriſt, and to have a ſigne and a badge of their Chriſtian profeſſion before the world? then let them bee baptized.

And would you have them to be admitted into the Viſible Church of Chriſt? then let them be baptized.

And would you have them to enjoy the priviledges of the Church, and to be at peace and unity with the people of God? then let them be baptized.

But ſome will here demand, whether baptiſme be of abſolute neceſſity to ſalvation, or not; I anſwer, to make covenant with God, and to be in the ſaid covenant, is of abſolute neceſſity to ſalvation, for unleſſe God be our God in Covenant, and we his ſervants, we cannot be ſaved; now baptiſme is the ſeale of this Covenant, and therefore neceſſary but in part; 1. In reſpect of Gods command, who hath enjoyned us to uſe it, 2. In reſpect of our weakneſſe that have need of all helper that may confirme our faith: yet baptiſme is not abſolutely neceſſary to ſalvation. For the want of baptiſme doth not condemne the children of beleeving Parents, if they dye before baptiſme, when it cannot be had; for they being holy, theirs is the kingdome of God, although they dye before baptiſme; the thiefe upon the croſſe, and many other holy Martyrs dyed before baptiſme, that are now in the Kingdome of heaven; and thoſe parents that ſlighted this ordinance, ſo that their children dyed without it, if they repent of that ſin, it may be forgiven, and their ſoules may be ſaved for all that, yet it is of very dangerous conſequence to ſlight or contemn any ordinance of God, it is damnable of it ſelfe without repentance. There was a law in Iſrael, that the uncircumciſed man-child, whoſe fleſh of his foreskin is not circumciſed, that ſoule ſhalbe cut off from his people; the reaſon is rendred, becauſe ſaith the Lord, he hath broken my Covenant, Gen. 17.14. Now it was not the Infant that deſpiſed or ſlighted the Covenant: but it was the parents that ſinned, by ſlighting or deſpiſing the ordinance of God, and did procure this judgment upon their child; alſo the childe when he came to age refuſed to be circumciſed; and ſo hee broke the Covenant of God, and therefore he was cut off from the people; and why may not this be a juſt judgement of God upon the Parents neglect of the ordinance of baptiſme which is come in the place of circumciſion? And if the Lord were ſo ſevere with thoſe that were not circumciſed, which was a heavy burden for Infants to beare, ſee Ezod. 4.26. How much more now baptiſme is come in the place of it, which is far eaſier; But waſh and be cleane, 2 Kings 5.13. Then let them take heed how they neglect this ordinance of God: for when they expect to have them anſwer for themſelves, they may juſtly anſwer with contempt, and deſpiſe the ordinance of God, and ſo for ever be cut off from his people, and from the viſible Church, and ſo by that meanes debard from the ordinary means of ſalvation. For the Lord addeth to his Church daily ſuch as ſhalbe ſaved, Acts 3.47. Yet I grant that place is chiefly to be underſtood of the Inviſible Church, into which who ſoever ſhall enter, being the Kingdome of grace, ſhall without faile come to the Kingdome of glory for ever. But except a man be borne of water, that is, baptized with water he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God here, which is the viſible Church, and he that is entred into it is either in the inviſible or in Gods way to it, which is nothing elſe but heaven begun, and heaven is nothing elſe but grace perfected. We al with open face beholding as in a glaſſe the glory of the Lord, & are changed into the ſame Image from glory to glory, even by the ſpirit of the Lord, 2 Cor. 3.18. But they will object and ſay, that Infants cannot be knowne to us that they are indeed the children of God, and if they be not, ſay they, we may not to baptize them. I anſwer, the ſame may be ſaid of men of yeares, for we know not certainly whether they be the children of God or no: therefore by this argument we may not only exclude Infants from baptiſme, but men of years, yea all ſexes and ages from both Sacraments, and ſo admit of none at all into the Church of God. But to come a little nearer to them, do they beleeve that the patents are the children of God, and in Covenant with him? then they ought to beleeve the ſame of their children till they manifeſt by their wicked life to the contrary. For is God the God of the Parents and not the God of their ſeed? this is flat againſt the tenor of the Covenant; Therefore if the child have a right to the Covenant, he muſt needs have a right to the ſeale of it.

Secondly, they object that Infants have no faith, and therefore baptiſme is of no uſe to them. I anſwer, they may have the ſeeds of faith and regeneration, although we know it not; For without faith it is unpoſſible to pleaſe God, Heb. 11.6. And he that beleeveth not ſhalbe damned, Mar. 16.16. But howſoever they have an infolded faith, becauſe that their parents by their faith receive the promiſe of God both for themſelves and their children, ſo that the faith of the Parents is alſo the faith of their children. And th… to be born of Chriſtian parents, and in the Church of Chriſt, is in ſtead of the profeſſion of faith, and ſo it wil be uſefull and profitable for Infants to be baptized.

Thirdly, they will object that Infants know not what is done when they are baptized. I anſwer, no more did thoſe Infants that were circumciſed, yet it was uſefull to them and their parents both to have the Covenant ſealed unto them, and is it not the ſame alſo to Chriſtian Infants? many benefits come with it, it is a meanes to admit them into the fellowſhip of the viſible Church, and by that meanes made right members of it. For as the Father makes a purchaſe for himſelfe and his children, and they being Infants at the time of the ſealing of it, and ſo not able to know what was done, yet the purchaſe is not in vaine for them; but as thoſe Infants grow to underſtanding they can rejoyce that they have an intereſt in their Fathers purchaſe; ſo will Infants baptized, when they come to underſtanding they will rejoyce in the great love of God that ſhould vouchſafe to take them into Covenant, and ſeale ſo many gracious promiſes unto them in the Sacrament of baptiſine, which will be an engagement to them all their days, to endeavour to keepe the conditions of it.

Fourthly, they will object that the weakneſſe of the Infant is ſuch, that the coldneſſe of the water to be dived into it, may be the death of the Infant; therefore ſay they, it were better to let them grow to more ſtrength, and to take the warmneſſe of the Summer ſeaſon, rather then to endanger the life of the Infant. I anſwer, it is true that dipping the child doth more reſemble our ſpirituall waſhing, for ſaith the Apoſtle, we are buried with him by baptiſme into his death, that like as Chriſt was raiſed up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even ſo we alſo ſhould walke in newneſſe of life. If we be planted in the likeneſſe of his death, we ſhalbe in the likeneſſe of his reſurrection, Rom. 6.4.5. But there is no neceſſity of dipping the Infant to endanger the health and life of it in theſe cold countries, when as the word baptizing ſignifies not only ſuch a waſhing that is by diving of the body into the water, but that alſo which is by ſprinkling water upon it, and the Lord ſaith by the Prophet, ſpeaking of theſe times under the Goſpell. Then will I ſprinkle cleane water upon you, and ye ſhalbe cleane from all your ſilthineſſe, Ezek. 36.25. Therefore without all queſtion in theſe cold Countries ſprinkling is accepted.

Again, Gods word teacheth modeſty, ſee Deu. 23.13.25 ….12.1 Co. 11.6.14. But what modeſty were it for a man or woman grown of age to go naked into the water to be baptized, whether it be before one man or before the whole congregation? ſaith Paul, let all things be done decently, 1 Cor. 14.10. Again, we are taught to pray the Lord to keep us out of temptation, and we have the example of David's fearfull fall into adultery and murder by ſeeing a naked woman waſhing her ſelfe, 2 Sam. 11.2. Abſtaine from all appearance of ev…l, 1 Theſ. 5.22. Now if they ſhould object that men growne in yeares that were ſtrangers were circumciſed when they were converted to the Jewes Religion, therefore it was no ſhame to ſee their nakedneſſe: I anſwer, none but males were to be circumciſed, Gen. 10.17. ſee 35.15. and it was done by men; but females were not circumciſed, neither ought they to circumciſe any; but both ſe…es are to be baptized, therefore we ſhould have regard to modeſty, and to keep out of temptation.

Fifly, it may be they will object and ſay, if the Infant be ſprinkled but on one part and not on another, then it is baptized but in one part and not in another, and therefore no true baptiſme: I anſwer in the words of Chriſt, if I waſh thee not, thou haſt no part with me; yet ſaith he to Peter he that is waſhed needeth not ſave to waſh his feet and is cleane every whit, John 13.10. Here Peter thought it had beene better to be waſhed all over: but the anſwer of Chriſt is, that one part is ſufficient, and circumciſion was not in all parts but in one part, and yet the Infant was by the vertue of that one place circumciſed all over; So Baptiſme doth infuſe it ſelfe into all parts of the man, and into all parts of his life, and into all places whitherſoever hee comes; therefore that baptiſine that is by ſprinkling the Infant is a true baptiſme, and I have already ſhewed the danger of neglecting this ordinance: and here I may tell you againe, that the Lord met Moſes and ſought to kill him becauſe that his child was not circumciſed, thereupon his wife in her rage and fury went her ſelfe and circumciſed him which was her great ſin; yet the Lord in his great mercy paſſed by all becauſe the thing was done, and ſo the Lord let him goe, Exod. 4.24, 25, 26. then take heed of carnall reaſoning againſt Gods ordinance. Then I conclude, that in hot Countries and for men of yeares, diving may rather be uſed; but in cold Countries and to Infants, ſprinkling may ſuffice, which alſo is the cuſtome of our Churches and ought not altogether to be deſpiſed, ſee 1 Cor. 11.16. where Paul ſaith, if any man ſeeme to be contentious, we have no ſuch cuſtome, neither the Churches of God; and when Iſrael had no ſetled Church, but travelled from one Kingdome to another, in ſuch a caſe circumciſion might be laid aſide, and yet did not offend the Lord; But he remembers their kindneſſe when they followed him in the wilderneſſe, then Iſrael was holineſſe to the Lord, and the firſt fruits of his increaſe. Jer. 2.2, 3. Although they laid circumciſion aſide for a ſpace of time; and there is much difference betweene a ſetled Church and the firſt planting of the Goſpel; when the Apoſtles preached, it was to men of yeares, and ſuch they baptized that were preſent, and they were out of the Covenant; but we are children of Chriſtians, and ſome of our fathers were in covenant with God and had the ſeale of it, which is baptiſme: And we are the children of the Covenant which God made with our fathers, Acts 3 23. Theſe things well conſidered, let the Reader judge whether God will accept the ſprinkling of Infants at their receiving of Baptiſme in this cold Climate.

Sixtly, they object that the baptiſme of Infants is grounded upon no inſtitution of Chriſt: I anſwer, that Chriſt ſent his Apoſtles to baptize all Nations, and the Apoſtles practiſe where they came baptized whole houſholds, as I ſhewed before; and the Apoſtle ſpeaking of the whole Church, ſaith, we are all baptized into one body. 1 Cor. 12.13. And the Apoſtle ſpeaking of Iſraels going through the red Sea, ſaith, they were all baptized in the ſea, 1 Cor. 10.3.4. Now if all Nations, all Houſholds, and all the Church was baptized, where will they find that Infants were excepted againſt to be debarred of this ordinance of God? Let them but with an upright conſcience tell me what they think, whether Infants be no part of Nations, Houſholds, or of the Church of God, and then tell mee whether baptizing of them bee not grovnded upon the inſtitution of Chriſt.

7^thly, they object & ſay, that place in Mar. 18. is not meant of infants, but of good big ones w^ch were able to goe & anſwer for themſelvs: this I have anſwered already, but ſaith Mr. Calvin in his Inſtitutions 416.7. they are called by the Evangeliſt Brephe and Paidia, by which words the Greekes doe ſignifie babes yet hanging. on the breaſts, therefore this word (to come) is plainely meant, to have acceſſe; loe (ſaith he) what ſnares they are compelled to make which are hardned againſt the truth: & where they ſay that the Kingdom of heaven is not given to Infants, but to ſuch as be like them, but this is no ſounder thē the reſt; for the very intent & meaning of Chriſt is to ſhew that Infants in age are not ſtrangers to him, when he commandeth that Infants be ſuffered to have acceſſe unto him; nothing is plainer then that very infancy indeed is there ſpokē of, & where he addeth, of ſuch is the Kingdom Heaven, in this word ſuch, are meant very Infants themſelves and ſuch as be like them. Now to compare thoſe actions and carriage of Chriſt to thoſe infants with the ſignification of baptiſme together, and it will appeare to have the ſame ſignification: Then if Infants be brought to Chriſt, why is it not meet that they ſhould be received to baptiſme which is the ſigne of our communion & fellowſhip with Chriſt? and if the Kingdome of Heaven be theirs, why ſhould the ſigne thereof bee denied them? whereby there is as it were an entry made into the Church of God, that ſo they may be numbred among the heirs of the heavenly Kingdome; and by our baptiſme we teſtifie that Infants are contained in the Covenant of God; and doth not that which Chriſt did to them the ſame? his receiving and imbracing, laying his hands on them & praying for them, doth not all this declare that they are his, & that they are ſanctified of him? for (ſaith he) I pray not for the world, but for thoſe that thou haſt given me out of the world, John 17.9. Then how unjuſt are they which drive a way thoſe whom Chriſt calleth unto him, and ſpoile them that Chriſt hath garniſhed with his gifts? and if they ſhut out them that he willingly receiveth, what miſerable cruelty is this to their litle Infants, let the Reader judge. Shal not the Infants under the old Teſtament be denyed the ſeale which the Lord calleth a token of the Covenant betwixt him and us? Gen. 17.11. And ſhall Infants now be deprived of it? ſhall the Jewes be aſſured of the ſalvation of their ſeed, and ſhall it be taken away from Chriſtians? did Chriſt by his comming take away the teſtimony of their Infants, and leave us none in ſtead of it? what an extreame ſlander is this to Chriſt who came to put an end to all darke Types and ſhadowes, and to manifeſt to the ſons of men the infinite goodnes of the Father more clearely then ever it was before: Chriſt is the light of the Gentiles, Luke 2.32. Then let us not think that Chriſt came to deprive our children of that which the children of the Jewes had before his comming.

Eightly, they will object and ſay, that it is no where found that any one Infant was ever baptized by the hand of any of the Apoſtles. I anſwer, although it be not expreſly by name ſet downe by the Evangeliſts, yet it is plainly implyed, when it is ſaid that they baptized Lydia and her houſhold, and the Jaylor and all his, Acts 16.15.23. But if all this will not ſuffice to anſwer them, I reply, that by the ſame argument women may be debard from the other Sacrament the Lords Supper, becauſe that we read of none that received it in the Apoſtles times: but if we obſerve and conſider well what the inſtrution requireth, by that we may know to whom the uſe of the Lords Supper ought to be communicated; now the ſame rule is to be obſerved in baptiſme, for when we conſider to what end it was ordained, we may eaſily ſee that it belongs aſwel to Infants as to elder folks; ſo that if they be deprived of it, the will of Chriſt is manifeſtly defrauded, then lot us not beleeve their lyes, when they ſay that baptiſme of Infants was not in the Apoſtles times. But try the ſpirits whether they be of God, 1 John 4.1. And ſearch the Scripture daily, and ſee whether thoſe things be ſo, Acts 17.11.

Ninthly, they will object that although Infants were Circumciſed, yet it will not follow that they ſhould be baptized, becauſe that the ſigns & the Covenant are different, and alſo the names of the children. For firſt ſay they, Circumciſion was a figure of mortification & not of baptiſme; ſo I ſay too, that mortification is the thing ſignified by both: hence I conclude that baptiſme doth rightly come in the place of Circumciſion, becauſe that they both do ſignifie the ſame thing. 2. Whereas they affirm the difference of the Covenant, they are forced to wreſt the Scriptures with audacious boldneſſe, and all becauſe they would make them ſpeake a damnable lye which is this. They ſay that the Covenant which God made with Abraham did not exceed this temporal life, & al the promiſes therein contained are but for temporall things; but if this be ſo, hence it wil follow that the Jewes were only filled with benefits like ſwine fatted with huskes, and ſo at length did periſh with eternal damnation: for ſay they, Circumciſion was but a litterall ſigne, and the promiſes thereof were but carnall. To this I reply, that Hereticks may draw the ſame inference from baptiſme, for ſaith the Apoſtle, we are circumciſed in Chriſt in putting off the body of the ſins of the fleſh by the Circumciſion of Chriſt, (and preſently he addeth) buried with him in baptiſme, Col. 2.11, 12. Thus you ſee that baptiſme is directly in the place of Circumciſion, and the fulfilling of baptiſme is alſo the fulfilling of Circumciſion, for they figure unto us both the ſame thing, yet I deny not but the land of Canaan with many temporall bleſſings, was infolded in this promiſe, yet not as the chiefe, which was Chriſt, and in him all ſpirituall and eternall bleſſings, that the bleſſing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Ieſus Chriſt, that we might receive the promiſe of the ſpirit through faith, Gal. 3.14. Thus thoſe ſoule… murderers do not only ſeek to murder our little Infants, but alſo the ſoules of all the Iſrael of God under the old Teſtament, in ſaying that Covenant which God made with Abraham, was but litterall, and all the promiſes contained in it were but for carnall things. 3. They ſay that in the old Teſtament they were called the children of Abraham becauſe they carne of him, and now none but the faithfull are called Abrahams children, therefore ſay they that carnall Infancy which was by Circumciſion grafted into the fellowſhip of the Covenant figured the Infants of the new Teſtament which are regenerated by the word of God to immortall life. This is a truth, but yet it is not the whole truth; for as the Serpent beguiled Eve, ſo doth this ſubtile Sophiſter ſeek to ſeduce thoſe little ones that beleeve in Chriſt. 1. Here you ſee that he excludes all our Infants from having any right in Chriſt, becauſe ſaith he, the circumciſing of Infants, and receiving them, or ingrafting them into the fellowſhip of the Covenant, ſignified thoſe under the new Teſtament, w^ch are regenerated by the Word, which no Infant can be; yet I have proved before that they may have the ſeeds of faith & regeneration wrought in them by the ſpirit of God, although the manner how it is wrought in them be hidden from us: then why ſhould he exclude theſe Infants? Again, he calls them all carnall Infants that were circumciſed before that they manifeſt themſelves ſo to be; not conſidering that God is able to ſanctifie them, and to give them the gifts of the holy Ghoſt from their mothers wombe, as I have ſhewed in Ieremiah & Iohn the Baptiſt. Again, Abraham was called the Father of the faithfull, aſwell to Jewes as Chriſtians; for when a company of wicked wretches called themſelves the children of Abraham; ſaith Chriſt, if ye were the children of Abraham, you would do the workes of Abraham; Ye are of your father the Divell, and the luſts of your father ye will doe, John 8.39.44. And Abraham rejoyced to ſee my day, and ye goe about to kill me, this did not Abraham, verſ. 56.40. Againe, all the faithfull, whether Iewes or Gentiles, are all joynt heirs with Abraham of the ſame promiſes, and ſhall come from the Eaſt and Weſt, and ſit downe with him in the Kingdome of heaven, Mat. 8.11. ſo then by Circumciſion the Jewes were taught that God was the author of their ſalvation, & by this knowledge their minds were raiſed to the hope of eternal life, they were called Gods peculiar treaſure, and his purchaſed people, and what can be wanting to them when God hath taken charge of them. And Abraham had faith before he received the ſeale of the righteouſneſſe of faith, that he ſhould be the father of all the faithfull, both of circumciſion and uncircumciſion, Rom. 4.10.11. Yet God was pleaſed particularly to imbrace the ſeed of Abraham with his merciemercy, and that the ſame mercy might be the more witneſſed to them, he gave them the ſeal of circumciſion ſo like unto this is the Chriſtian Church when the parēts receive the ſeal of the covenant, ſo muſt the children alſo; For if the root be holy, ſo are the branches, Ro. 11.16. Yea, if but one of the parents beleeve, the children are holy, 1 Cor. 7.14. And are ſo accounted of God although they be Infants, and not yet capable to be converted by the word of God preached unto them, yet they may have a work upon them by the holy Ghoſt, which makes them to be in the Covenant, and to have right to the ſeale of it which is baptiſme.

Tenthly, they object other differences to ſmall purpoſe betweene baptiſme and circumciſion; they ſay that baptiſme hath relation to the firſt day of our ſpirituall battell, but circumciſion to the eighth day when mortification is ended, and by & by they fall ſoule upon themſelves and break the neck of their owne argument, ſaying that circumciſion is a ſigne of the fleſh to be mortified, and baptiſme they call buriall, into which none can be put till they be already dead, ſo that it is enough and ſufficient to confute them in naming their owne contradictions; but let them know that …ortification is a continued action all the dayes of our life, and the more we …eaſe …n knowledge, the more we increaſe in ſorrow, Eccle. 1.18. For wee …ayly find more ſin, to be mortified, and circumciſion was not deferred till the … ^th day becauſe that ſhould be the laſt day of mortification; but God in great mercy to the infant did forbeare the firſt ſeven dayes becauſe they are held to be moſt dangerous, as alſo that it may have a litle more ſtrength to undergoe ſo hard a ſervice and alſo it was to typifie our Saviours reſurrection. Another filly cavill they would make, that if we thus compare baptiſme with circumciſion, then ſay they, none but males ought to be baptized, and yet (ſay they) you baptize females: I anſwer, circumciſion being in the generative part, it is all one as if both were circumciſed, ſo that if but one of the parents were in the Covenant, as I ſaid concerning baptiſme, the children are holy, 1 Cor. 7.14. Thus then we ſee the agreement between circumciſion and baptiſme in the inward myſtery and in the promiſes; in the uſe and in the efficacy of them: Then why may not infants now be baptized aſwell as they were circumciſed, it being far eaſier to them to beare it?

11^thly, they object that infants underſtand not the thing there ſignified, w^ch is their ſpirituall regeneration, this (ſay they) cannot be in their tender infancy, therefore they are to be taken for no other then the children of Adam till they bee growne to age meet for a ſecond birth: I anſwer, if they have the ſeeds of faith and regeneration wrought in truth by the ſpirit of God in their ſoules, although the knowledge of it be hidden both from themſelves and from us; it is too weake an argument to deprive them of the ordinance of baptiſme; for ſometimes the ſtrongeſt Chriſtian may thinke himſelfe a caſt-away, and that he for the preſent hath not one dram of true ſaving grace as yet wrought in him, but muſt we judge him to be ſo, becauſe he himſelfe for the preſent cannot ſee it to be otherwiſe? ſo then muſt wee judge all Infants to be in old Adam, becauſe they themſelves are not capable to underſtand their own condition? If they be in old Adam, they are in the ſtate of death and damnation. And if they ſhould then dye, they muſt needs be damned; for in Adam all dye, 1 Cor. 15.22. But will theſe men leave them in that condition? what is this, but as I ſaid before, to eſteem the precious ſons of Sion comparable to fine gold, to be but earthen pitchers? Theſe are more cruell then ſea monſters to their young ones, like the Eſtridges in the wilderneſſe, Lam. 4.2.3. She is hardned againſt her young ones, as though they were not hers, becauſe God hath deprived her of wiſedome, and hath not imparted unto her underſtanding, Job 39.16.17. Chriſt calleth them unto him, becauſe he is life, and that they might have life in them, and theſe people drive them from him, and adjudge them to death. Neither will they bring them to Chriſt that they may have life; they will not uſe the means to have them ingrafted into Chriſt, that ſo they may be delivered from the bondage of death; they deprive them of all ſalvation, in debarring them from the ordinance of baptiſme. But they will demand how Infants can be regenerate, which have neither knowledge of good nor evil. I anſwer, God is able to work the ſeeds of grace in them, although we ſee it not, and in this thing we muſt beleeve more then we ſee, or elſe we ſhal condemn all thoſe infants that die before they be capable of knowledge, and ſo David ſhall go to hell to his departed Infant; for ſaith he, I ſhall goe to him, 2 Sam. 12.23. And how can it be avoyded? For we are all ſhapen in iniquity, and in ſin we were conceived, Pſa. 51.5. We are all by nature children of wrath, then thoſe Infants that dye, muſt be freed from the wrath of God, and from the guilt of original ſin, or els they cānot be ſaved. But here is our comfort, God can ſanctifie Ieremiah in the womb, & he can give Iohn the Baptiſt the gifts of the holy Ghoſt from the womb, and why not our Infants aſwel as they? Chriſt was conceived by the holy Ghoſt in the wombe, that he might ſanctifie his elect in every age, aſwell at the firſt hour of their life as at the laſt, if he pleaſe: ſo then elect children ſhall be made holy and regenerate before they depart this life. And although the word preached be the immortall ſeed to regenerate men of years, it is not ſo to Infants, neither hath the Lord ſo tyed himſelfe only to that means, but he may uſe ſome other in caſe that cannot be had, as among Turkes and Pagans, nor received by Infants; yet we muſt not limit the holy one of Iſrael, nor ty him to ordinary means in extraordinary caſes.

12. But they object that baptiſme is a Sacrament of repentance and of faith w^ch cannot be in Infants, and we ought to beware leſt they being admitted to the communion of baptiſme, the ſignification of it be made voyd. I anſwer, it is evident by Scripture that Circumciſion was a ſigne of repentance; yet Paul calls it the ſeale of the righteouſneſſe of faith, Rom. 4.11. So then if Infants among the Jewes had faith to ſeale, why may not Infants of Chriſtians have the like; I mean the ſeeds of faith; therefore baptiſme is not void and of no effect to them. Again, if circumciſion was commanded, baptiſme is implyed, that is, come in the place thereof, and ſignifies the ſame thing, and inſtituted by the ſame authority. Then let them take heed how they rage againſt the ordinance of God; and although Infants that were circumciſed had no actuall repentance, yet they were truely Circumciſed into the mortification of their corrup and defiled nature, in which mortification they ſhould afterwards exerciſe themſelves when they were grown to riper age; and ſaith Iohn, I baptize you with water unto repentance, Mat. 3.11. And others that were baptized had not received the holy Ghoſt, for as yet he was faln upon none of them, only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jeſus. Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the holy Ghoſt, Acts 8.16.17. So then they were baptized into repentance and faith to come, for as yet theſe graces be not found actually in them, yet by the ſecret working of the ſpirit of God, the ſeede of both lies hid in them. Paul calls this the w…ſhing of regeneration, and renewing of the holy Ghoſt, Titus 3.5. But ſtill they ſtand upon an expres word of God to command it. I anſwer, Circumciſion had a command, and baptiſme is come in the place of it; then let them ſhew how and when that command was repeated; for although the ſigne be changed, the command remaines ſtill, as it was to Circumciſion, ſo it is now to baptiſme. Again, if they be elected and have this ſigne of regeneration, and ſhall depart before they be capable to underſtand the myſtery of it, they ſhal be renewed by the power of the holy Ghoſt unconceivable to us, before they goe hence & be no more ſeen: but if they grow up to age, whereby they may be taught the truth of baptiſme, they wilbe the more engaged to endeavour reformation of their lives, having the token or ſigne of regeneration given them from their Infancy; ſaith Paul, we are buried together with Chriſt by baptiſme, Rom. 6.4. If this be done by baptiſme, then it was no… done before; and ſaith he again, as many as have been baptized into Chriſt have put on Chriſt Gal. 3.27. That they might henceforth live unto Chriſt; and ſaith Peter, baptiſme is the anſwer of a good conſcience towards God by the reſurrection of Ieſus Chriſt, 1 Pet. 3.21.

But they often erre in this, that they will have the the thing it ſelfe alwaies in order of time before the ſigne; But if this were ſo, then Infants could not have beene circumciſed, for they could not manifeſt to others their regeneration being Infants, but circumciſion was to them the witneſſe of good conſcience, the ſeeds of grace being there but the declaration and manifeſtation, was applyed to the time to come; ſo alſo baptiſme is to confirme and eſtabliſh the Covenant made by the Lord with us, and we then receive the ſeale thereof; and when wee actually believe being of age, then we ſet to our ſeale that God is true, John 3.33.

13. They object that baptiſme is given unto forgivenes of ſins, but this we grant as wel as they, for we are al born ſinners, & ſtand in need of pardon from the womb, and alſo of she ſigne of it to aſſure us, as ſoon as it may be had, ſeeing the Lord doth not cut off Infants from the hope of mercy, why ſhould we deprive them of the ſigne which is far inferiour to the thing it ſelfe? ſo then Infants have remiſſion of ſins given them, therefore they ought not to have the ſigne taken from them. They ſay again, that Chriſt cleanſeth his Church by the waſhing of water by the word, Eph. 5.26. And this alſo we grant aſwell as they, for it quite overthrowes their errour. For if the Lord will have that waſhing whereby hee cleanſeth his Church to be teſtified by baptiſme, why then ſhould we do ſo much wrong to Infants as to debar them from that which is given in generall to all the members of the Church; And they alſo are heirs aſwell as others to the Kingdome of heaven, Mat. 18.34.19.14. And baptiſme is an ingrafting into the body of Chriſt; then Infants who are reckoned among the members, ought alſo to be baptized, leſt we be found guilty of this horrible ſin, to pluck away by violence any member from the body of Chriſt.

14. They object that the Apoſtles baptized none but thoſe that did before make profeſſion of faith and repentance For they ſaid unto Peter and to the reſt of the Apoſtles, men and brethren what ſhall we doe? Then Peter ſaid unto them, repent and be baptized every one of you, Acts 2.37.38. And wh…n the Ennuch required to be baptized, Philip anſwered, if thou beleeveſt with all thy heart thou mayeſt Acts 3.37. Hence they conclude that baptiſme is to be granted to none but tooſe that have ſaith and repentance given before. I anſw. The firſt of theſe places doth not mention ſaith at all, ſo that it ſeems by that place repentance alone may ſuffice, and the other place doth not mention repentance, ſo that it ſeems from that place, that faith alone may ſuffice, ſo that of neceſſity the two places muſt be joyned together; but if you goe to joyne Scriptures together, we will joyne with you, and lay ſome other Scriptures to them both, which will ſoone ſplit your argument; for theſe to whom Peter and Philip ſpake, were men of yeares, and ſufficient to have the practiſe of repentance, and to conceive faith. Now ſuch as theſe, we grant, ought not to be baptized till we conceive of their converſion and faith ſo far as it may be conceived by the judgment of men, but the caſe of Infants is to be accounted otherwiſe, as for example; When any ſtranger joyned himſelfe in communion with the religion of Iſrael, they taught them firſt the Covenant of the Lord, & inſtructed them in his law before that he was marked with Circumciſion, becauſe that he was by birth a ſtranger to the people of Iſrael, with whom the Covenant was made, and with whom Circumciſion was eſtabliſhed. The Lord when he adopted Abraham to himſelfe, doth not begin at Circumciſion, and hide from him what he meant by that ſigne, but firſt he declareth what Covenant he intendeth to make with him, & then after faith is given to apply the promiſes, then he maketh him partaker of the Sacrament of Circumciſion; but why muſt Abraham firſt have faith, and then receive this Sacrament; and yet his ſon Iſaac ſhalbe partaker of it at eight dayes old? I anſwer, becauſe that he was a man grown in years, and before a ſtranger: therefore it was meet that he ſhould firſt learn the conditions of the Covenant, our Iſaac an Infant begotten of him, is in Covenant by right of Inheritance according to the forme of the promiſe, which was not only to be …is God, but the God of his ſeed after him, Gen. 17.19. So that his ſon had right to it from the wombe, although he underſtood not the conditions thereof being an Infant, neither ought ſuch Infants to be debard from the ſigne, for this that they cannot ſwear to the form of the Covenant. So then if heathens which are grown in age ſhall embrace the faith of Chriſt, they muſt not bee marked with baptiſme till they doe evidently declare their faith in Chriſt, and repentance for their ſins, which only can open to them an entrance into fellowſhip of the Covenant: but Infants of Chriſtians as they are received of God into the inheritance of the Covenant as ſoon as they are borne, ought to be received to baptiſme; but if a Turk or a heathen ſhall offer himſelfe to baptiſme, he muſt not be raſhly baptized of us till after confeſſion, whereby he may ſo ſatisfie the Church.

15^thly, they object from the inſtitution of baptiſme, that Chriſt ſending out his Apoſtles to all Nations, commanded them firſt to teach and then baptize them, Mat. 28.19. And ſo in the laſt of Mark it is ſaid, he that beleeveth and is baptized, ſhalbe ſaved; nence they conclude, ſaying, that teaching muſt goe before baptiſ…ne by the expreſſe command of Chriſt to his Apoſtles, and (ſay they) hee doth aſſigne baptiſine to be a ſtate after faith; and (ſay they) Chriſt ſhewed us an example of himſelfe, which would not be baptized till the thirtieth yeare of his life: I anſwer from the firſt of theſe, that the Apoſtles after they have baptized any, then they are charged to teach them to obſerve all things whatſoever Chriſt commanded them, Mat. 28.19.20. Hence I gather frō their own expoſition, thus, that although they do as Chriſt did who lived 30 years before that he was baptized, & al that time have bin taught to reform their lives, yet by their own expoſitiō they muſt not obſerve & do what Chriſt here commands them till they be baptized, becauſe obſervation & reformation are ſet downe after baptiſme in this place. Then ſeeing they fall thus foule upon their own expoſition, that they muſt not obſerve & practiſe till they be baptized, in my judgmēt it were good to have thē baptized betime, that they may begin reformation betime, that they may not only be taught 20 or 30 years, but they may obſerve and practiſe what they have been taught. But here all may ſee what unprofitable hearers they make of their children, who ſhall heare before baptiſme, becauſe that teaching is ſet downe firſt, but they muſt not obſerve and practiſe till after baptiſme becauſe that is ſet down laſt, neither will they baptize them that they may obſerve and practiſe. Here I may repeat againe what I ſaid before, that the Apoſtles were ſent amongſt heathens that are out of the Covenant, but we are Chriſtians in the Covenant; and they were men of age, but ours are Infants not capable of teaching. But do they ſtand ſo much upon this, that teaching is ſet down firſt, although obſervation be ſet down after baptiſmein the ſame place? then let us to this joyn another, Io. 3.5. ſee Acts 22.16. where Chriſt doth not ſay except ye be born of the ſpirit firſt, and then of water afterwards, ye cannot enter into the Kingdome of heaven; but contrary he ſaith, except ye be borne of water, and then of the ſpirit, ſhewing that baptiſme muſt give them admittance into the viſible Church of God here, and they muſt be borne of the ſpirit, that is, regenerated, before that they can come into God heavenly Kingdom, and we know that many were baptized before that they had the gifts and graces of the holy Ghoſt given them, Acts 8.16.17. Again, they being ſent to teach thoſe that were capable of teaching, & then to baptize them; but will it follow hence that Infants muſt be firſt taught and then baptized? becauſe Abraham was ninety and nine yeares old when he was circumciſed, muſt Iſaac be ſo too? a pretty concluſion. But I have anſwered it already, and proved it too weak an argument to debar Infants born of Chriſtians from the ſeale of baptiſme: but further let me cleare this by a ſimilitude, the Apoſtle ſaith, this we command you, that if any will not worke, neither ſhould they eat, 2 Theſ. 3.10. will they hence conclude that the Apoſtle will ſuffer none to eat but ſuch as worke? then what ſhall our aged people and Infants doe, and our ſick and weak and lame people doe? ſhall we ſtarve them all becauſe they cannot worke? this is our Anabaptiſts divinity, who make that a generall rule for all, which is ſpoken only of ſome; for (ſay they) becauſe men of yeares muſt be inſtructed before they be baptized, therefore Infants muſt be ſo too, and becauſe men growne & in health and ſtrength muſt worke or elſe they muſt not eat, therefore infants muſt doe ſo too, or elſe they muſt not eat. Now for the example of Chriſt, who they ſay was not baptized till he was 30 years of age, I hope they will not ſay that he wanted fitneſſe till he was of that age to be baptized, for when be was but twelve yeares old he disputed with the Doctors in the Teme, pl and all that heard him were aſtoniſhed at his underſtanding and anſwers, Luke 2.42.46.47. Then the reaſon why Chriſt was not baptized till the middle of mans age or till he was 30 years of age, was, becauſe he was minded then with his Doctrine to inſtitute baptiſme; and that he might procure the greater authority to his inſtitution, he ſanctified it with his owne body, who was baptized to ſanctifie that ordinance unto us, and he ſent out his Apoſtles to baptize all Nations in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy Ghoſt, Mat. 28. Though Ieſus himſelfe baptized not, meaning with water, becauſe (ſaith Iohn the Baptiſt) he that commeth after me ſhall baptize you with the holy Ghoſt, Mat 3.11. Thus Chriſt did then to many, as alſo now when he make to that ordinance effectuall to the cleanſing of their foules from ſin; but if they ſtand ſo much upon the thirtieth yeare, why then did they ſuffer Gervetus one of their great Maſters to begin at the age of one and twenty years to boaſt of himſelfe to be a prophet? and they ſuffered him to take the place of a teacher before that he had been a member of their Church.

16, they object, that if Infants be baptized, they may aſwell receive the Lords Supper: I anſwer, no, that will not follow, for the Scriptures ſhew us a large difference betweene thoſe two; baptiſme is a ſigne of admiſſion whereby they are numbred among the people of God; & it is a ſigne of ſpirituall regeneration, whereby wee are born again the children of God, whereas on the other ſide the Lords Supper is given to men growne in years, and therefore able to beare ſtronger meat; and whereas the Scripture never ſaith that any infants born of chriſtian parents are unfit for baptiſme, yet none muſt receive the Lords Supper but ſuch as diſcerne the body and blood of the Lord, and are able to examine their owne conſcience, and able to declare the Lords death; the Apoſtle exhorteth that every man ſhould prove and examine himſelfe and then eat of that bread and drinke of that cup; therefore examination muſt go before, which were a vaine thing to looke for from infants: againe, he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himſelfe, not diſcerning the Lords body. But if none can partake worthily but they that can diſcerne the Lords body, why then ſhould we give to our tender children poyſon in ſtead of lively food? Again, the commandement is, that ye ſhall doe it in remembrance of me, and that other ſentence, as often as ye eat of this bread and drinke of this cup, ye doe ſhew the Lords death till he come: but what remembrance can bee required in our infants of the thing which they never attained with underſtanding? what preaching of the croſſe of Chriſt can they comprehend in their mind? none of theſe things are preſcribed nor required in baptiſme, therefore between theſe two ſignes there is great difference, and it was ſo between circumciſion and the paſſeover in the old Teſtament; for circumciſion (which is well knowne to anſwer our baptiſme) was appointed for infants, but the paſſeover which our Lords Supper ſucceeded did not receive all manner of gueſts without difference, but it was rightly eaten by them only that were of age, & did enquire into the ſignification of it. Theſe things methinks might ſatisfie theſe men if they were not wilfully blinded and obſtinately bent to goe on in their errour.

Now it may be demanded whether the children of Turkes of Jewes may lawfully be baptized. I anſwer, no, becauſe their parents are out of the Covenant, ſo that the caſe is not the ſame as with Infants borne of Chriſtans, with whom God hath made a Covenant, and with their ſeed who are children of the Covenant. Therefore as we our ſelves have right to the ſeale of this covenant, ſo have our Infants as ſoone as they are borne, although the Lord in mercy did forbeare eight dayes to the Jewes, becauſe they were then unable to beare it.

2. It may be demanded whether children of profeſſed Papiſts may be baptized. I anſwer, their parents are baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and holy Ghoſt; and though the Papacy be not the Church of God, yet the true Church of God is hidden amongſt them, and for this cauſe baptiſme remaines ſtill in the Church of Rome, and their children may be baptized, yet with theſe cautions. Firſt, that their parents deſire this baptiſme. 2. That there be Churches which promiſe the educacation of the child in the true ſaith.

Thirdly, it may be demanded whether the children of prophane and wicked parents who hold the true religion in their judgement, but deny it in their lives, may the children of ſuch be baptized? I anſw. They may for all that: for without exception they that were of circumciſed lewes were circumciſed, Gen. 12.23. Although many were wicked, yet al were circumciſed. Again, although our immediate parents were wicked, yet it may be ſome of our predeceſſors were holy, and if the roote bee holy ſo are the branches, Rom. 11.16. This alſo may anſwer a queſtion whether the children of fornication may be baptized. I anſw. They may, if ſome beſides their parents will anſwer for their good education: neither is there any reaſon that the ſins of the parents ſhould hinder the child of baptiſme being a thing pertaining to life eternall.

Fourthly, It may be demanded whether children of excommunicate parents may be baptized. I anſw. as before, that if ſome will anſwer for their good education, they may; for the parents although excommunicated, yet ſtill they remain for members of the Church, having ſtill a right and title to the Kingdome of heaven, & are not abſolutely caſt out of it, but with this condition, if they do not repent; although in part they are in reſpect of their communion or uſe of their liberty, yet not in reſpect of their right and title; but as a free man of a corporation being impriſoned, remains a free man ſtill, although for the time he hath no uſe of his liberty.

5. It may be demanded whether the intention of him that baptizeth be neceſſary; I anſwer, if the word of inſtitution come to the element, it is a Sacrament, whatſoever the Miniſters intention be. Paul rejoyced that Chriſt was preached, although many preached of envy & contention, with no deſire of any good to their hearers, Phil. 1.16. Then the intention of the mind is not neceſſary, if ſo be the inſtitution be obſerved. And the efficacy of the Sacrament depends not on the will of man, but on the will of God.

6. It may be demanded what is the duty of the Miniſter in baptizing. I anſw. he ſtands in the room of God, & what he doth according to the inſtitution, is as much as if God himſelf had done it with his own hand, and therefore when the Miniſter doth apply water to the body which is the ſigne and pledge of grace, he doth withall apply the promiſe of remiſſion and life everlaſting to the party baptized, & that is as much as if God ſhould ſay to the party baptized, calling him by his name, I freely give unto thee the pardon of all thy ſins, and life everlaſting, upon condition that thou keepe the order ſet downe in baptiſme, which is to turne unto me, and to beleeve in Chriſt; then here is ground for a ſpeciall ſaith. Firſt, God for his part by hand of the Miniſter applyes the promiſe of mercy to every particular beleever; then againe, every particular beleever is by a ſpeciall faith to receive the promiſe. For when God ſhall ſpeake unto us particularly, and as it were aſſure us of his mercies with his owne hand and ſeale; we muſt needs be moved in our obedience to his will, and our hearts muſt be affected with it.

7. It may be demanded whether baptiſme adminiſtred by wicked men or Hereticks or ſuch as cannot preach, be lawfull and true baptiſme. I anſwer, if ſuch a one be choſen and put in the place of a true Paſtor, and keepe the true forme of baptizing according to the Inſtitution in the name of the Father, Son, and holy Ghoſt, it is true baptiſme: but if they baptize in the name of any other, it is unlawfull; for were ye baptized in the name of Paul? I thanke God I baptized none of you, leſt any ſhould ſay that I baptized in my owne name, 1 Cor. 1.13.14, 15. Theſe things conſidered, although they were ignorant and could not preach, or wicked Hereticks that did adminiſter it, yet their baptiſme was lawfull. For the Phariſees and Doctors of the Jewes were many of them not of the Tribe of Levi, but of ſome other Tribes, and many of them were Hereticks and Apoſtates, yet they were in the place of good Paſtors, and ſate in Moſes Chaire, and taught ſome of Moſes doctrine; therefore ſaith Chriſt, heare them.

8. It may be demanded by the Anabaptiſts who are not pleaſed with our baptiſme, whether thoſe that we have baptized, may not be baptized againe by them. Such Katabaptiſts were in Calvin's time, that did furiouſly cal upon them to be baptized againe. To this I anſwer, that they may not be baptized againe, being once baptized; the efficacy of baptiſme extends it ſelfe to the whole life of man, and we are but once new borne, and once ingrafted into Chriſt, and the gift of regeneration is never extinguiſhed; if a man could be borne againe, he ſhould need to be baptiſed againe, becauſe that baptiſme is the Sacrament of Inciſion or ingrafting. Now if any ſhould ſay that a beleever that is ingrafted into Chriſt, ſhould by his own ſins and wickedneſſe make himſelfe a dead member, I ſhould tell that man, it is unpoſſible. For the ſpirituall Temple is made of living ſtones, 1 Pet. 2.5. And they are paſſed from death to life. John 5.24. And beleevers are of the houe and fleſh of Chriſt that can never dye more, Epheſians 5.30.

9. It may be demanded what ſeale or marke is ſet on Gods people by this …acrament of baptiſme? I anſwer, there is a two-fold ſeale, one outward, and …e other inward. The outward and viſible marke or ſeale is to diſtinguiſh Chriſtians from Turkes, Jewes, and Infidels; as the blood of the Paſcall Lamb did betweene the Iſraelites and the Egyptians. Now the inward or inviſible marke or ſeale that is ſet upon us in baptiſme, being effectuall, is the knowledge of our election; this baptiſme being effectuall, ſhewes unto us that the foundation of God remaineth ſure, having this ſeale, the Lord knoweth who are his, 2 Tim. 2.19. By vertue of this, ſaith Chriſt, I know my ſheepe, John 10. And by this the elect of all nations are marked, Rev. 7.9. The ſecond inward ſeale is the gift of regeneration, which is nothing elſe but the imprinting of the image of God in the ſoules of men, and by this beleevers are ſealed, Epeſ. 1.13. 2 Cor. 1.22. Now baptiſme is a meanes to ſee this marke in us, becauſe it is the laver of regeneration: for as the water waſheth away the filth of the body, ſo the thing ſignified which is the blood of Chriſt, doth waſh away the ſin of our ſoules.

Here I thought to have ended this diſcourſe concerning baptiſme, being already, I ſuppoſe, ſufficient to ſatisfie the Reader; but I looking about me, ſaw one Servetus a mighty Anabaptiſt, the glory of their company, he came matching with his twenty arguments, and he ſet upon me and forced me to give him Battell. Firſt (ſaith he) the ſignes of Chriſt are perfect, therefore (ſaith he) they that receive them muſt bee perfect, or at leaſt able to conceive perfection: But here this man is a litle too haſty to require perfection the firſt day; ſaith Paul, not as though I were already perfect, but I follow after and preſſe toward the marke, Phil. 3.12, 13, 14. Baptiſme extendeth it ſelfe throughout all our life till death, therefore we muſt grow unto perfection in degrees. Secondly, he ſaith, the ſignes of Chriſt were ordained for remembrance, that every man ſhould remember that he was buried together with Chriſt, but here the man hath left his baptiſme and is fled to the Lords Supper, ſee 1 Cor. 11.24.25. Thirdly, he ſaith, all they abide in death which believe not the Sonne of God, and the wrath of God abideth on them, and therefore infants which cannot believe, lie in their damnation: I anſwer, Chriſt only threatneth the deſpiſers of the Goſpell, which proudly and ſtubbornly refuſe the grace that is offered them; but what is this concerning infants? ſaith Chriſt, it is not the will of your heavenly Father that one of theſe litle ones ſhould periſh, Mat. 18.14. But how can this be if they he ſtill in damnation under the wrath of God? no, the ſpirit of God can worke the ſeeds of grace in them although wee cannot conceive the maner how it is done. 4. he objecteth that we are firſt in our natural condition. therefore we muſt tarry for baptiſme which is ſpiritual: It i… true, we are ſhapen in iniquity, & conceived in ſin, Pſ. 51. And by nature children of wrath, Epheſ. 2.3. But by his good leave, God is able to remedy this even in Infancy, as I ſhewed in Ieremiah & Iohn the Baptiſt. Fiftly, then he bringeth an allegory, ſaying, David tooke neither blind nor lame, but ſtrong ſouldiers with him into the Tower of Sion, 2 Sam. 5.8. But here I ſhall ſplit his allegory with a parable of Chriſt, wherein God calleth to his heavenly banquet both the blind and the lame, Luke 14.21. Sixtly, then he bringeth another allegory, ſaying, that the Apoſtles were fiſhers of men, Mat. 4.19. And leſus ſaid unto Simon, henceforth thou ſhalt catch men, and not litle children, Luke 5.10. To this I reply, and demand what that ſaying of Chriſt meaneth, that into the net of the Goſpell are gathered all kind of fiſhes, Mat. 13.47. Neither were the Apoſtles when they were ſent to preach forbidden to baptize Infants, and when the Evangeliſts name them Anthropous, men, which word comprehends all mankind without exception; why then ſhould they except againſt Infants, when as God makes no exceptions againſt any Age, Sex, or Nation? Seventhly, he ſaith, ſith ſpirituall things agree with ſpirituall, therefore Infants, which are not ſpirituall, are not meet for baptiſme: I anſwer, here Paul ſpeakes of Doctrine, where the Corinthians were very quick to apprehend carnall things, and blames them to be very dull to conceive ſpirituall things, 1 Cor. 2.13.14. But what is this to infants, which are not required to heare points of Doctrine, is any thing here to hinder them from baptiſme? He replies, that if they be new men, they muſt be fed with ſpirituall food: I anſwer, the ſigne of Adoption may ſuffice till they be growne of age and able to beare ſtronger meat. But he objecteth, that Chriſt calleth all his to the holy ſupper: I anſwer, he admitteth none but them that are already prepared to celeb…te the remembrance of his death; this infants cannot doe, yet Chriſt doth vouchſafe to imbrace them, which argues they are not ſtrangers, although Chriſt hath ſtronger meat for them, yea many things hee hath to ſay to them which they cannot beare now, John 16.12. Eighthly, hee ſaith, it is monſtrous that a man after he is borne ſhould not eat: I anſwer, the ſoule may be fed although they doe not eat outwardly of the ſupper; Chriſt is meat to infants though they abſtaine from the ſigne, which is the ſupper; but of baptiſme the caſe is otherwiſe, for by it alone the gate into the Church is opened to them. Ninthly, he ſaith, a good ſteward diſtributeth meat to his houſhold in due time: I grant it, but then withal let him prove that baptiſme is given to infants out of due time. Tenthly, he bringeth the commandement of Chriſt, to make haſte into the harveſt, for the fields are already white, John 4.35. I anſwer, from this place Chriſt would have his Apoſtles to take notice of the preſent fruit and good ſucceſſe of their labours, that they may the more cheerefully prepare themſelves to teach becauſe they were fitted to heare; but I ſay againe, what doth this concerne Infants to keep them from baptiſme?

11^th reaſon, he ſaith, in the firſt Church Chriſtians and diſciples were all one: It is true, thoſe that were converted and baptized were both Diſciples and Chriſtians; but what of this? will he gather hence, that infants borne of Chriſtians are ſtrangers and out of the Covenant? let him prove it.

12. He alledgeth that all Chriſtians are brethren, but infants are out of this number ſo long as we debar them from the ſupper: I anſwer, Infants are heirs of the Kingdome of Heaven; for of ſuch is the Kingdome of Heaven, Mat. 19.14.18.14. And they are members of Chriſt, 1 Cor. 12.13. And the imbracing of Chriſt was a true token of their adoption, Mat. 19.15. Thus infants are joyned in common with full growne men; therefore although they abſtaine from the ſupper for a time, it hinders not, but that they pertaine to the body of the Church.

13. He addeth that none is made our brother, but by the ſpirit of adoption which is given only by the hearing of faith; this objection hath been often anſwered, that it is ſpoken of men of yeares which is not required in Infants: this hearing of faith, but is this ſufficient to prove that God neither will, nor can bring home any of his elect, but by the ordinary meanes of the Word preached? ſhall we ſhut all the world out of heaven, becauſe they have not this ordinary meanes of ſalvation as we have? why then ſhall we limit the holy one of Iſrael, as though he were not able to graft Infants into Chriſt by his ſpirit, becauſe the manner how is hidden from us.

14. Hee objecteth that Gornelius was baptized after hee had received the holy Ghoſt, Acts 10. But what of this, becauſe one was ſo, muſt all be ſo? I have ſhewed the contrary by many examples, read Acts 8.15.16.17. The holy Ghoſt was faln upon none of them; Yet they were baptized in the name of the Lord Ieſus.

15. Here this blaſphemer ſaith, by regeneration we are made Gods, and that they be Gods to whom the word of God is ſpoken; This, ſaith he, accordeth not to children that be Infants. All that I will ſay at this time to this damnable errour, is this, to ſhew their helliſh inference from ſome places where Kings and Magiſtrates by reaſon of their offices are called Gods, being his Vice-gerents or Deputies upon earth. Hence they would gather that all the ſaithfull are deified that they may the better baniſh Infants out of the Church.

16. He ſaith that Infants cannot be accounted new men, becauſe they have not been begotten by the word. This I have often anſwered to belong to men of yeares, yet Gods ſpirit can worke without the ordinary meanes.

17. Here he brings another allegory, ſaying, in the Law a ſheep & a goate were not offered in ſacrifice as ſoone as they came out of the wombe. Here I might anſwer, that the firſt born of man and beaſt was conſecrated to the Lord as ſoon as it came out of the wombe, Exod. 13.2.

18. He affirmeth that none can come to Chriſt but they that have beene before prepared of Iohn. I anſwer, had thoſe Infants beene with Iohn whom Chriſt embraced and bleſſed? away with ſuch falſe principles.

19. Here he calleth for Patrons, ſuch as Triſmegiſtus and the Sibylls, to prove that holy waſhing pertaine to none but them that are grown of age: here this man diſcovers his honourable eſteeme of the baptiſme of Chriſt, who will reduce it to the Ceremonies of the Gentiles, that it may be no otherwiſe adminiſtred then pleaſeth Triſmegiſtus, but we more eſteem the authority of God, whom it hath pleaſed to make Infants holy to himſelfe, and to admit them with that holy ſigne, the force whereof they did not yet underſtand: neither do we count it lawfull to borrow any thing out of the cleanſings of the Gentiles, that may change in our baptiſme the everlaſting & inviolable law of God which he hath eſtabliſhed concerning circumciſion.

20. Laſt of all he maketh this argument, that if it be lawfull to baptize Infants without underſtanding, that baptiſme like an interlude may be in ſport adminiſtred of boyes when they play. But of this matter let him quarrell with God, by whoſe commandement Circumciſion was common to Infants, before that they had attained to underſtanding: was it therefore a thing to bee played with, or ſubject to the follies of Children, that they might overthrow that holy ordinance of God? but it is no marvaile that thoſe reprobate ſpirits although they were vexed with frenzie, do thruſt in all the groſſeſt abſurdities for defence of their errors, becauſe God doth with ſuch giddineſſe juſtly take vengeance of their pride and ſtubbornneſſe. So much for the 20. arguments of Servetus, and his brethren the Anabaptiſts.

One objection I find ſince which is this, that Chriſt and his Apoſtles did enjoyne all that they baptized to make profeſſion that they had juſtifying faith, although they had it not. I an. Chriſt ſaid, ſome of you beleeve not, for Ieſus knew who they were that beleeved not, John 6.64.66. And the Apoſtles ſay thēſelves that the holy Ghoſt was faln upon none of thoſe in Samaria, yet they were baptized in the name of the Lord Ieſus, Acts 8.16. Then ſhall we think that Chriſt and his Apoſtles would enjoyne them to make profeſſion of a lye, to ſay they have juſtifying faith when they had it not? or did Chriſt and his Apoſtles engage themſelves to beleeve that the baptized had juſtifying faith, when they knew the contrary, and ſo beleeve a lye againſt their owne conſcience? But they diſplay their folly and reply, ſaying, the knowledge of Chriſt was above the rule, and therefore he might cauſe them to make profeſſion of a juſtifying faith, though he knew they had it not; but what blaſphemy is this to make Chriſt the author of their diſſembling? and not only ſo, but a deſembler himſelfe, to profeſſe that they had juſtifying faith, which, ſay our Anabaptiſts, was the cauſe of baptiſme, when he knew they had it not? Hence we may gather that knowledge of ſin gives free toleration of ſinne; for Chrſt knew they had no juſtifying faith, yet he might baptize them. But this is no rule, ſay our Anabaptiſts, for other Miniſters, becauſe they do not know that they have no juſtifying ſaith, as Chriſt did; ſo then by the doctrine of Anabaptiſts, if our Miniſters know that Infants have no faith, they may baptize them; but if they doe not know that they have no juſtifying faith, then they muſt not baptize them.

Now all ſober-minded men may ſee how raſhly they trouble the Church of Chriſt with brawls and contentions for baptizing of Infants; but it will be profitable to conſider what Satan goeth about with this ſo great ſubtilty, even to take away from us the ſingular fruit of affiance and ſpiritual joy (which is to be gathered hereof) and to diminiſh alſo the glory of the goodneſſe of God: for ſweet it is to godly minds to be certified not onelyonly by word, but alſo by ſight to our eyes of the great favour that we have obtained of our heavenly father both to us and our poſterity. How ſhould this ſtirre up thankfulneſſe, that God is not only in Covenant with us, but with our ſeed after us? this thankeſgiving and praiſe unto our God for this mercy, is the thing that Satan ſeeks to hinder by depriving our Infants of this ordinance of baptiſme. Now if Satan could hinder this aſſurance of the grace of God to our Poſterity, he would ſoone ſtifle all the promiſes that ever God made to us and our poſterity after us in his word: hence would follow in ſtead thereof, unthankfulneſſe and ſloathfulneſſe to inſtruct our children in godlineſſe; for what encouragement have we more then this, to bring them up in the feare of God. when we conſider that even immediately from their birth the Lord taketh and acknowledgeth them for his Children. Oh then let us labour to ſee the bountifull goodneſſe of God towards us, and let us offer to him our children, who will give them a place among them that be in his family and houſhold of faith, yea he will make them members of his Church and heires of his everlaſting Kingdome. Then what heart can be ſo cruell to debar his litle Infants from the ordinance of baptiſme, which is the doore of entrance to all the mercies of God both here and hereafter, Pſal. 102.28. For (ſaith Luke) all the people that heard him and the publicans juſtified God, being baptized with the baptiſme of John; But the Phariſees and Lawyers rejected the counſell of God againſt themſelves. being not baptized of him, Luke 7.29.30.

FINIS.

End of the text · Thomas Bakewell, Confutation of the Anabaptists and Defense of Civil Government (1644)

Confutation of the Anabaptists and Defense of Civil Government, Arguments

Arguments againſt the Anabaptiſts, proving that Infants borne of Chriſtian Parents ought to be baptized; with a full anſwer to all their Cavills that are, or can be made againſt it.