Reader
A Defense of Infant Baptism · Stephen Marshall

A Defense of Infant Baptism, Treatise · Part 4

PART. IV.

I Proceed now briefly to examine what you have ſaid againſt that which you are pleaſed to make the fourth Sect. 1. Anſwers …o Objections againſt Infant-Baptiſme.Part of my Sermon, though I know no reaſon of this your Analyſis: Had I indeed made this an anſwer of all the objections which I undertooke to anſwer, you might have called it ſo; but you know well enough, that I intended here onelyonly to ſatisfie theſe Objections which lye moſt properly againſt this ſecond argument, as before I anſwered what was moſt properly objected againſt the firſt argument; however, I ſhall take it as I finde it, and examine what ſtrength you have added to theſe Objections.

The firſt Objection I undertooke to anſwer, was to this purpoſe, Though Infants are capable of theſe things, and that Object. 1. From Mat. 28.they are wrought by Chriſt in many Infants, yet wee may not baptize them, becauſe according to Scripture pattern, both of Christs command, Matth. 28. in his inſtitution of baptiſme, and John the Baptiſt, Chriſts Diſciples and Apoſtles, they alwayes taught, and made them diſciples by teaching, before they baptized any. And to make this argument the more plauſible, you adde, It is a ſin of prophaning that Sacrament, when the inſtitution is altered by ſubtraction or addition, and that it was pleaded by the Non-conformiſts, that it is Will-worſhip to adminiſter the Sacraments by addition of any thing to them, but circumſtances which are alike requiſite to civill actions; now the perſons to be baptized cannot be conceived a meere circumſtance, but belongs neceſſarily to the adminiſtration of worſhip, as well as the perſon baptizing, or the perſons receiving the Lords Supper.

I anſwer, I intend not needleſly to multiply words, and therefore doe grant that to apply Sacraments to perſons to whom they belong not by the Lords appointment is a prophanation of them. Now that it is ſo in this caſe, you goe about to prove out of this 28. Mat. Becauſe the inſtitution appoints onelyonly diſciples of all Nations to be baptized, and Infants are not ſuch. This you have made good (as you ſay) Sect. 13. Part 3. You adde, Christs order thus appoints it, which must be kept in this point, as well as in examination before the Lords Supper, 1 Cor. 11. 28. &c. and that by the inſtitution they are to bee baptized into the name of the Father, Son, and holy Ghoſt, that is, with invocation of the name of the Lord, which Infants cannot doe; with devoting themſelves to the ſervice and adverence of God, which Infants cannot doe; that preſently after baptiſme, the baptized are to be taught to obſerve whatſoever Chriſt command…d them, which Infants are not capable of; that John Baptiſt and the Apoſtles alwayes made profeſſion of repentance and faith, an antecedent to Baptiſm, which Infants cannot make. To all this I anſwer, Firſt, this of Matth. 28. is not the inſtitution of Baptiſme, it was inſtituted long before to be the ſeale of the Covenant, it is onelyonly an enlargement of their Commiſſion, whereas before they were onelyonly to goe to the loſt ſheepe of the houſe of Iſrael, now they were to goe into all the World. You reply, If it be not the firſt inſtitution of Baptiſm, yet it is an inſtitution of Baptiſme to us Gentiles; and therefore the rule by which Miniſters are to baptize, or if not, wee muſt ſhew another inſtitution, elſe we cannot acquit it from Will-worſhip. I anſwer, all this is abundantly anſwered before, Sect. 13. Part 3. And I add this inlargement of their Commiſſion is very unfitly called by you an inſtitution of baptiſm unto us; their Commiſſion at the ſame time was inlarged to preach to the Gentiles, will you call that an inſtitution of Preaching? and that the method of preaching to us Gentiles muſt bee fetch'd out of this place? I know you will not. For the reſt of your petty reaſons above alledged, they reſolve ſeverall Anſwers to othe petty Arguments of Mr. Tombes out of Mat. 28.of them into one and the ſame: Chriſts order is (ſay you) teaching ſhould goe before baptizing; is not that the ſame with this; That men muſt be made diſciples by preaching, before they be baptized? the anſwer to the one doth fully ſatisfie the other. But your third reaſon is a ſtrange one, They must bee baptized into the name of the Father, the Son, and the holy Ghost, that is, (ſay you) with invocation of the Name of the Lord: then it ſeems if the party baptized call upon the name of the Lord by prayer, that's all that is intended b… baptizing into the name of the Father, Son, and holy Ghoſt; that the name of God ſhould be invocated at the adminiſtration of Baptiſme, and of Circumciſion, and of every Sacrament, is moſt true; but that baptizing into the name of the Father, Son, and holy Ghoſt, ſhould be interpreted to be invocation of Gods name, and ſo to make Baptiſme and Prayer all one, is ſtrange Divinity; it is true, Paul was exhorted to pray or call upon Gods name when he was to bee baptized, Acts 22. 16. but doth it prove that his Baptiſme and Prayer was all one? it may be you meane onelyonly this, that every perſon who is baptized, muſt be able himſelf at the time of his baptiſme to pray; if that bee your meaning, prove it by your next, ſhew why more at Baptiſme then at Circumciſion. As for your fourth, were not the Infants of the Jews devoted to God by Circumciſion, though they could not actually devote themſelves? To your fifth, That they were to teach them as ſoon as they bad baptized them; and that therefore none wete to be baptized, unleſſe they were fit preſently after their Baptiſme, to learne the reſt of their duty. I anſwer, this alſo is ſufficiently anſwered in Sect. 13. Part 3. and I further adde, that baptized perſons ought indeed to be taught all that Chriſt commands them, and ſo likewiſe were circumciſed perſons, but not preſently, onelyonly as they were capable of it, and able to receive it. And as for the perſons baptized by John, and Chriſts diſciples; I have before anſwered that it cannot appeare that they baptized no oother but ſuch as made profeſſion of faith and repentance; and if it were granted, it follows not, that therefore no other may be baptized, their practice is a good rule, though not a full rule, as I ſhewed, Sect. 13. Part 3. And whereas you ſay, Iohn baptized none but upon profeſſion of repentance▪ you would have a hard task to prove it, if any man ſhould put you to it; to prove (I ſay) that Iohn did impoſe or require confeſſion of ſin before baptiſme, it is ſaid hee baptized them foreign, to repentance; not foreign, as ſtated in actuall repentance; and his calling for repentance, and preaching the Baptiſme of repentance, ſhew that this was the leſſon they were all to learne; not that they muſt all manifeſt that they had it before he baptized them; and though ſome did make confeſſion of their finnes, yet you can never prove that all did it, or were tyed to it. Sure I am, I meet with very learned Men who judge thus, That their confeſſion of ſinnes was not becauſe confeſſion was a neceſſary medium to all who ſhould receive Baptiſme, but becauſe heretofore Baptiſme had initiated into Judaiſme, and ſo to Legall performances; and the men who came to be baptized of John, were ſuch who had been educated in an opinion of Juſtification by works of the Law: and therefore John in calling for repentance, did but clear his Baptiſme from miſconſtruction, leſt they ſhould think it to be a Baptiſme obliging to legall performances, as that was of old, he would teach them that his Baptiſm was a Baptiſme of repentance and faith in Chriſt, and ſo doth but rectifie thoſe relyers upon their owne righteouſneſſe, in the right doctrine of Juſtification, which the Goſpel now began to teach, contrary to their legall conceited righteouſneſſe; and that therefore his calling for repentance and beliefe in him that ſhould come after, did more ſhew the nature of the Goſpel, to which his Baptiſme was the introduction, then the nature of the Sacrament of Baptiſme it ſelfe, or the method in which it was to be adminiſtred; and with theſe accords the interpretation Paul made of Johns baptiſme, Acts 19. 4. and conſequently that the confeſſion required had ſpeciall relation to the condition of the perſons who came to be baptized, and was not neceſſary for all, more would be required of a heretick for his admiſſion into the boſome of the Church, then is requiſite to be required of a child. But however, I thinke it will be hard for you to confute this, I ſhall leave it to the Judicious Readers conſideration, and not inſiſt upon it, but ſhall readily grant that all Jews and Pagans ſo bo…ne and bred, were not baptized till they profeſſed their faith and repentance, becauſe the Jews were all to come under a new adminiſtration, and the Gentiles till then were wholly aliens from the Covenant of grace, and then their Infants came in in their Parents right. But ſay you, This grant that the Iewes who already were in Covenant, were to make confeſſion before they were baptized, is a ſufficient proofe that the adminiſtration of Circumciſion, is not the adminiſtration under which we now are: and that overthrows all virtuall conſequences from Circumciſion to Baptiſme. I reply, who ever ſaid that this adminiſtration is the ſame with theirs? it is the ſame Covenant, but a new adminiſtration. And as to that you ſay, This overthrows all virtuall conſequences from Circumciſion to Baptiſme; I have ſo abundantly juſtified this before, that I ſhall not trouble the Reader with it againe, though you repeate this ſo often, that I am ready to thinke you hope your reader will beleeve you in one place, if he doe not in the other. You adde my ſaying, That their Infants were to come in onelyonly in their parents right, doth overthrow my ſecond Argument, becauſe that is grounded upon a right which Infants had of their own, viz. participation of the grace of the Sacrament. I anſwer, belike then if any had pleaded thus for the Jewes Infants, That to Infants, as well as growne men, God communicated the ſpirituall part of Circumciſion, therefore they might bee circumciſed; you would anſwer, that that Argument would overthrow their right from their birth-priviledge. I rather ſhould judge it to be a ſecond good Argument for their Circumciſion; the truth is, they are both grounds of Gods owne appointing: and the ſecond is a farther manifeſtation of their right to the Sacrament, God not onelyonly giving them a viſible ſtanding in his Church, becauſe they are the ſeed of the faithfull, but among them, who are Infants as well as among growne men doth worke inward grace by his holy Spirit according to his good pleaſure. Whereas you adde, that you cannot yet diſcerne but that our grounds for Paed baptiſme are worſe then the Papiſts and ancients, who build it upon the neceſſitie of baptiſme to ſalvation; I muſt needs tell you, your reſpect to the reformed Churches in this is very ſmall, whil…t you thinke the Papiſts ground of damnation of Infants not baptized is not ſo ill as the Proteſtants, who baptize them becauſe they looke upon them as within the Covenant of grace; I will not aggravate this, I hope in time you will ſee it and be ſorry for it.

But you glory much in the advantage you thinke you have got, from that which followes in my Sermon, the Heathen nations who were to bee converted to Chriſt were yet without the Covenant of grace, and their children could have no right untill themſelves were brought in, and therefore no marvaile though both Iohn and Chriſts Diſciples and Apoſtles did teach before they baptized, becauſe then no other were capable of baptiſme, in this (ſay you) I grant many things which doe yeeld the cauſe: Sir, I ſhall not recall any one of them, make your beſt of your advantage. 1. Hence you collect it followes that baptizing of Infants is not according to Iohns, and Chriſts Diſciples, and the Apoſtles practiſe: I anſwer, it no wayes followes, if you take but that in which immediatly followes, that their Infants came in in their parents right. 2. Hence I grant (ſay you) that no other were capable of Baptiſme, but wherein I beſeech you have I granted the cauſe in ſaying their Infants were not capable of it till their Parents came in, and when they … in, their children came in alſo by vertue of the Covenant. What need you keepe ſuch a coyle in asking whether beleevers had then no children? or whether the Apoſtles had no commiſſion? or whether wee have a Commiſſion if they had not? you goe on and ſay, I thinke to ſalve it thus, when once themſelves were inſtructed and baptized, then their children were capable of it by vertue of the Covenant; I doe ſo, and what have you to ſay againſt it? why then ſay you they were capable in Iohns time and the Apoſtles time, and this deſtroyes that which I ſaid before, that then none but taught perſons were capable of Baptiſme; but where did I ſay ſo? I ſaid there was no expreſſe mention made of any other, I ſaid alſo Infants were not capable till their Parents came in, becauſe their Parents were to come under this new adminiſtration, but I never ſaid, when their Parents were come in in Johns time and Chriſts time, that their children then were not capable of it. Yea, I have ſhewed good grounds by conſequence that the practiſe was otherwiſe. Further you ſay, it ſeemes I cou…d produce no Inſtitution in the new adminiſtration, but the Inſtitution of Circumciſion, becauſe I ſay the children were capable by vertue of the Covenant, and the validitie of arguing from Circumciſion hath been conſidered before: and you further adde, that the Covenant being the ſame at all times, as my firſt concluſion holds, the children of bel…evers were as capable in Johns time as after; and thus you ſay my words doe plainely interfere; I anſwer, I have abundantly proved, that this ground from the Covenants being the ſame, and our Infants right the ſame with theirs to the Covenant, and our Baptiſme ſucceeding in the roome and place of Circumciſion, is a ſufficient ground for this practiſe, though there be no expreſſe mention of them in this new adminiſtration; nor did I ever ſay that Infants of beleevers were not capable of it by vertue of the Covenant in Johns time, ſo that this triumph of yours is not the fruit of my interfering, but of your owne blindneſſe or ſtumbling. Whereas in the cloſe of this Section I ſaid, if any in the Jewiſh Church had received Commiſſion to goe and make other Cities Proſelytes to them, their Commiſſion muſt have runne thus, goe teach and circumciſe, and yet it would not thence have followed, that none might bee circumciſed but … as were firſt taught; you anſwer the Commiſſion muſt have had reference in the execution of it, either to the old inſtitution of Circumciſion, Gen. 17. or to a new Institution, and then it would have been told plainely what and whom they were to circumciſe. I reply, ſuppoſing it had gone according to the inſtitution, Gen. 17. which (as you ſay) was to circumciſe males at eight dayes old not taught, I hope you will not ſay they might circumciſe the males of any at eight dayes old, although their Parents were not taught, which is the caſe that I put, you cannot (I perceive) deny this caſe to bee parallell, onelyonly this arguing from Circumciſion to Baptiſm you cannot away with; but Sir, this reaſoning is juſtified to be good, rumpuntur ut ilia.

The ſecond objection I thus expreſſed, it is expreſly ſaid Sect. 2. Object. 1. Infants are unbeleevers, ergo, not to be baptized.that he that beleeves and is baptized ſhall bee ſaved, faith in Chriſt is the condition upon which men may bee baptized, and no other unbeleevers may not be baptized; children are unbeleevers, therefore they may not bee baptized; they ſay the negative is included under the affirmative, beleeving is the affirmative, unbeleeving is the negative, therefore where beleevers are commanded to be baptized, unbeleevers are forbidden to be baptized. This Argument I ſaid the Anabaptiſts doe very much glory in; my anſwer to it was to this effect; that if this Argument have any Anſw.ſtrength at all againſt the baptizing, it hath much more ſtrength againſt the ſalvation of Infants, becauſe it is expreſly ſaid both affirmatively and negatively, hee that beleeveth ſhall bee ſaved, but bee that beleeves not ſhall bee damned; whereas though it bee ſaid affirmatively hee that beleeveth and is baptized ſhall bee ſaved, it is not ſaid hee that is not baptized ſhall not bee ſaved, looke by what diſtinction they will maintaine the ſalvation of Infants againſt this Argument, by the ſame will I more clearely juſtifie the baptiſme of Infants againſt this argument. I adde now further, if they take beleevers in a contradiſtinction to Infidells, then I ſay Infants of beleevers are beleevers, as well as the children of Infidells are Infidells; if they take beleevers in a more reſtrained ſenſe for poſitive and actuall faith, then I deny that this is a neceſſary condition required to bee found and manifeſted in every one who is to bee baptized, as I have at large proved before, and your ſelfe cannot deny. To this Argument your anſwer is onelyonly this, that you owne not the Argument, onelyonly thus farre you owne it, viz. that a profeſſion of faith is a pre-requiſite to Baptiſme, and ſo it was accounted in the dayes of Juſtin Martyr, Tertullian, Cyprian, and Auguſtine, &c.

But I reply, though you dare not: owne this Argument, yet it ſtands upon the ſame ground that the reſt of your arguments doe, and upon the ſame grounds that many of your expreſſions doe, ſuch as this, That men are not to bee baptized, becauſe they may have grace, but becauſe they have it. But now you will not ſtick to this, That to have true faith, is a pre-requiſite to Baptiſm; you are contented with an outward confeſſion of it onelyonly, and that a viſible profeſſion gives right to a viſible memberſhip, and conſequently that a viſible memberſhip gives a right to Baptiſme, which is the thing I have been contending for all this while. As for what you adde, That in the dayes of Iuſtin Martyr, Tertullian, Cyprian, and ſo forward, this confeſſion before baptiſme was continued: it is true, it was continued for thoſe that had been Pagans and Infidels, that they ſhould make ſuch a confeſſion before Baptiſme; and it is as true, that in their days Infants of Chriſtians were baptized.

3. I ſaid it was objected, That though Infants are capable o… Sect. 3. Object. 3. We know not what Infants have grace, ergo we may not baptize any.the inward grace, and that God doth effectually worke in ſome of them, yet that is no ſufficient warrant for us to baptize all of them; if we knew in what Infants the Lord did ſo worke, wee might baptize thoſe Infants, but that we cannot know by any ordinary way of knowledge, therefore we may not baptize any of them, but wait to ſee, when and in whom God will worke the thing ſignified, and then apply the ſigne to them. You anſwer, this is granted, that Anſw.if by revelation it could bee knowne, ſuch as have this inward grace might be baptized; and that thoſe who are thus intituled are not through want of an inſtitution to be excluded. To my underſtanding this over throws all which you have hitherto contended for; for then if wee can prove that Infants are ſuch, as to whom this Sacrament belongs, by your owne grant they are not to be excluded for want of an inſtitution; now I have proved that Infants of beleevers are ſuch as to whom the Sacrament doth belong: yea, and your ſelfe grant, that true faith is not a needfull pre-requiſite to the adminiſtration of Baptiſme. Beſides, I deſire before I leav… this paſſage to know of you, how you will reconcile this with that which you ſpake, pag. 162. That there is a plaine Text requiring confeſſion before Baptiſme, though not before Circumciſion. I hope you doe not think a regenerate bab… can make a confeſſion of its faith; ſurely theſe two things doe much differ, Gods inward revealing that he hath ſanctified a child, and the childs own profeſſion or confeſſion; God revealed that Saul was hid behind the ſtuffe, but this was not Sauls owne confeſſion; God revealed to the Prophet Ahijah, that the diſguiſed woman was Jeroboams wife, but that was not her owne confeſſion. My anſwer to this objection was, That our knowledge that God hath effectually wrought the thing ſignified, is not the condition upon which we are to apply the ſeale, he never required that we ſhould know that they are certainly converted whom we admit to Baptiſme, we are indeed to know that they have in them the condition which muſt warrant us to adminiſter the ſigne, not that which makes them poſſeſſed of the thing ſignified, fallible conjectures are not to be our rule in admiſtring Sacraments either to Infants or growne men, but a knowne rule of the Word, out of which we must be able to make up ſuch a judgement, that our administration may be of faith, as well as out of charity. To all this you aſſent, and conſ…quently that there is nothing needfull according to the Word, but a viſible right; and then what is become of all your pleading, That becauſe we cannot know that all infants of beleevers have the inward grace, we may not therefore baptize them? this hold you have now quitted; and when once you have proved that they have not a viſible right to bee reckoned and accounted to belong to the viſible Church, I promiſe you to quit all mine.

Whereas I added, That I doubted whether in caſe Peter, or Paul could by the Spirit of revelation have known that Ananias, or Alexander, would have proved no better then hypocrites, wh… ther they either would or ought to have refuſed them from baptiſme, whiles they made that publick profeſſion, upon which others were admitted, who in the event proved no better then thoſe were. You think they would and ought, becauſe the end of ſuch an extraordinary revelation, would be to warn them not to admit ſuch perſons. I anſwer, the cauſe depends not upon it, whether your conjecture or mine be righteſt in this particular; and I confeſſe, ſhould ſuch an extraordinary revelation be made purpoſely to warne them not to admit ſuch perſons, that would be equivalent to a prohibition; but might not ſuch a thing be revealed for other ends? Chriſt knew that Judas would prove a devill, yet he admitted him not onelyonly to baptiſme, but Apoſtleſhip; and ſince your ſelfe doe grant that we have a warrant de fide, out of faith, and not out of charity onelyonly, to admit men into viſible communion by baptiſme, upon an externall confeſſion onelyonly; I cannot underſtand why my private knowledge upon a particular revelation of a mans inward condition, ſhould be a ſufficient barre againſt proceeding according to the ordinary rule; if I were infallibly aſſured that ſome glorious profeſſor were no better then an hypocrite, were that ſufficient warrant to deny the Sacrament of the Lords Supper to him, ſo long as his life was unblamable before the Church?

Laſtly, I added, That in this the rule to direct our knowledge, is as plaine for Infants as for growne men, the rule having beene alwayes this, that grown men who were strangers from the Covenant of God, Pagans, or Heathens ſhould upon their being inſtructed, and upon profeſſion of their faith, and promiſe to walke according to the rule of the Goſpel, bee received and added to the Church, and made partakers of the Sacrament of admiſſion, and their Infants to come in with them, both ſorts upon their admiſſion to be charitably hoped of, untill they give ſignes to the contrary, charity being bound from thinking evill of them, not bound to conclud… certainly of any of them. Your onelyonly exception againſt this is, wondering that I dare ſay, the rule to direct our knowledge, is as plaine for Infants as for growne men. I anſwer, truly Sir, by as plaine, I intended onelyonly the truth of the rule, that it may be as truly known as the other, though poſſibly not ſo cl…arely. I deny not but I had ſpoken more fitly in ſaying the rule is plaine for Infants as well as for growne men; and that I have proved abundantly.

My fourth Objection was, That all who enter into Covenant Sect. 4. Object. 4. Infants cannot Covenant, or promiſe for themſelves.muſt ſtipulate for their parts as well as God doth for his; they muſt indent with God to performe the beleevers part of the Covevenant, as well as God doth to performe his part: My anſwer was, The Infants of Jews were as much tyed, as the Infants of beleevers under the Goſpel, every one who was circumciſ…d was bound to keep the Law, yet they knew not what it meant, nor could have Anſw.the ſame uſe of it with their Parents and others of diſcretion. You own not this Objection, nor ſay any thing againſt my anſwer; onelyonly you except, That through my whole booke, I ſuppoſe there is the ſame reaſon of the mixt Covenant made with Abraham, and that it is the ſame with the pure Covenant of the Goſpel, and of every beleever as of Abraham, and of Baptiſms as of Circumciſion. I doe ſo, and have juſtified theſe thing to bee true againſt your exceptions. You adde alſo, God commanded the one, but no where commanded the other; which whether he have or no by good conſequence, I leave the Reader to judge, by what is already ſpoken.

I added in my Sermon, God ſeales to them preſently, i. e. conditionally, as I have before ſhewed, and when they come to years of diſcretion, they ſtand obliged to the performance of it in their owne perſons; in the meane time Jeſus Chriſt who is the ſurety of the Covenant; and the ſurety of all the Covenanters, is pleaſed to be their ſurety: & this I illuſtrated from things done amongſt men, thus, when ſeverall parties ſtand obliged in the ſame bond, they may ſeale at ſeverall times, and yet be in force afterward together, or even a child ſealing in infancy, may agnize, and recognize that ſealing, when they come to yeares of diſcretion, if then they will renounce it, as done when they underſtood not, they may free themſelves, if they pleaſe, if they finde the former act a burden to them, ſo ſaid I is it here, God is pleaſed to ſeale to infants while they are ſuch, and accepts of ſuch as ſeale on their parts, as they are able to give in their infant-age, expecting a further ratification on their part, when they are come to riper yeares; in the mean… time affording them the priviledge of being reckoned unto his kingdome and family rather then the devils, if when they are growne men, they refuſe to ſtand to this Covenant, there is no hurt done on Gods part, let them ſerve another God, and take their lot for the time to come. To this you anſwer, Firſt, this is onelyonly the ſpinning out the ſimile of a ſeale; which whether it bee to the purpoſe or no, I as willingly as your ſelfe, leave it to the Reader to judge. Secondly, you ſay, it is very inconſiderate boldneſſe in me…, to make every baptized perſon a Covenanter, for whom Jeſus Chriſt is a ſurety; when as the Scripture makes Chriſt the ſurety onelyonly for his redeemed ones. I anſwer, it is very true that Jeſus Chriſt is the ſurety onelyonly of the elect, ſo farre as to performe all the conditions of the Covenant in them; but he is alſo the ſurety of all viſible Profeſſors, aliquo modo, upon their condition of performing the Covenant; looke in what reſpect your ſelfe will acknowledge Chriſt undertakes for viſible Profeſſors, as they are viſible Profeſſors, the ſame will ſerve my turne, and I ſhall ask no more.

The fifth Objection was, that no benefit comes by ſuch a ſealing as this is. My anſwer was, The ſame which came to the infants Sect. 5. Object. 5. No benefit comes of Infant-Baptiſme.of the Jews, who received the ſeale in their infancy. You anſwer, Firſt, you allow not that expreſſion, That God ſeales to every one that is baptized, he ſeales onelyonly to beleevers, to whom be undertakes to make good his promiſe of writing his law in their heart, &c. And here againe you charge me with ſymbolizing with the Arminians, who make the Covenant of grace common to elect and reprobates, and left to every …ans liberty to free themſelves if they pleaſe, and ſo nullifie all. I paſſe by your ſcoffes, of my frivolous ſuppoſing of Chimeraes, and other ſuch good language; you have pretty well enured me alſo to receive the reproach of Arminianiſme. As to the thing it ſelfe, I anſwer, was not Circumciſion Gods ſigne and ſeale? which by his owne appointment was applyed to all the Jews and Proſelytes and their children, did it ingage God abſolutely to every one of them to write his law in their heart, &c. And are not the Sacraments ſigna conditionalia, conditionall ſignes and ſeales? and did any Orthodox Divine before your ſelf charge this to be Arminianiſm, to ſay that the Goſpel runs upon conditions? I confeſſe it is Arminianiſme to ſay any thing is conditionall to GOD, this I never aſſerted, but that the Goſpell is both preached and by the Sacraments ſealed to us upon condition of faith, will paſſe for orthodox doctrine, when you and I are dead and rotten.

You adde that you doe not well underſtand that God required of the Jewes Infants to ſeale in their Infancy; I reply, but I hope you underſtand, that the Jewes Infants were ſealed in their Infancy, and by this they received not onelyonly a priviledge to bee accounted as belonging to Gods family, but it alſo obliged them to the ſeverall duties of the Covenant, as they grew up to bee capable of performing them. I added, ſecondly, God hath other ends and uſes of applying the Seale of the Covenant to them who are in Covenant with him, then their preſent gaine, it is an homage, worſhip, and honour to himſelfe, and it behooves us in that reſpect to fulfill all righteouſneſſe; when Chriſt was baptized and circumciſed hee was as unfit for the ordinance through his perfection, as children through their imperfection, being as much above them as Children are below them: your anſwer is, Baptiſme is Gods worſhip, Paedobaptiſme a wilworſhip; Chriſts Baptiſme was of a tranſcondens nature, children are unfit for this ordinance, not becauſe of their imperfection, but through defect of Gods appointment; had God appointed it, there were no doubt to bee made of their fitneſſe; all this hath been conſidered and weighed againe and againe, and I deſire not to burden the Reader needleſly. I added thirdly, the benefit and fruite of it at the preſent is great, both to the parents and to the children, to the parents whilſt God doth thereby honour them to have their children counted to his Church, and under his wing, whilſt all the other Infants in the world have their viſible ſtanding under the Prince, and in the kingdome of darkneſſe, and conſequently while others have no hope of their childrens ſpirituall welfare, untill they bee called out of that condition, theſe need not have any doubt of their childrens welfare if they die in their Infancy, nor if they live untill they ſhew ſignes to the contrary, God having both reckoned them unto his people, and given them all the meanes of ſalvation, which an Infants age is capable of. You anſwer. Firſt, all this paſſage is but dictates. Secondly, you ſay if I meane the unbaptized children of beleevers, doe belong to the kingdome of the devill, it is a harſh and uncharitable ſpeech. Sir, I am glad to heare you give that cenſure upon your owne judgement, it is your judgement that all Infants even of Beleevers as well as Pagans though they may potentially belong to the kingdome of Chriſt, yet actually they belong to the Kingdome of the devill; but for my ſelfe, I meant onelyonly the children of Infidells, I doe not thinke that beleeving Anabaptiſts doe through their ignorance or errour put their children out of this priviledge. You demand further, What comfort doe I give more to beleeving parents that have their children baptized, then belongs to them, though their children were not baptized. I anſwer, if it bee not through the parents fault that their children be unbaptized, but onelyonly by the providence of God, they may have the ſame comfort, yet I conceive it a greater inlargement of comfort to enjoy the viſible Seale, an ordinance which they are capable of, and which God uſes to bleſſe according to his good pleaſure; but I ſay when parents doe therefore not baptize upon this principle, that their children doe not belong to the Church of Chriſt, no more then the children of Turkes and Pagans, and conſequently are without that pale, where ordinarily ſalvation is onelyonly to bee had, it is eaſie to ſay that their comfort cannot bee ſo much as others: your ſelfe doe grant that this which I plead for is a comfortable condition if it could be made out, page 82. Whereas I added they need not make any doubt of their childrens welfare, if they die in their Infancy, &c. You anſwer, I ſpeake like one who holds that Baptiſme doth conferre grace ex opere operato: But why ſo? when I ground it upon the Covenant, upon their capacitie both of the Seale and the inward grace, and yet leave all to bee done by God, who hath mercy upon whom hee will have mercy; I ſaid not that they may de fide bee aſſured of their ſalvation, but that they need not have any doubt, the ſame which may bee ſaid of growne viſible profeſſors. I added, here is alſo much priviledge and benefit to children when as (beſide what inward ſecres worke God is pleaſed to worke in them) they being members of the Church of Chriſt have their ſhare in the communion of Saints, are remembred at the throne of grace, every day by thoſe that pray for the welfare of the Church, and particularly in thoſe prayers which are made for his bleſſing upon his ordinances; here firſt you deſire to know what I mean by a ſecret work which God is pleaſed to worke in them; whether any thing, ex opere operato, or baptiſmall regeneration, I anſwer, I meant onelyonly this, that God is at liberty, and may when her pleaſes let his grace accompany his ordinance: as for their being members of the viſible Church, you deny they are ſo, and I have proved them to bee ſo. Laſtly, I added, it is no ſmall priviledge to have that Seale beſtowed on them in their Infancy which they may afterward plead when they are growne, and came to fulfill the condition; you anſwer, when, where and how Baptiſme ſhould bee pleaded, you doe not well conceive, it is not Baptiſme that will yeeld a plea of any force either in the Court of earth or the Court of heaven, but the promiſe of God and the condition of faith in Chriſt, and you never knew any Saint that pleaded his Infant Baptiſme, in ſuch caſes, as the Apoſtles plea lies for Rom. 8. 31, 32. I anſwer, as it is a plea for viſible profeſſors all their dayes, ſo it is a plea for Infants, when they grow up upon the ſame condition, and though the promiſe and faith in Chriſt bee our beſt plea, yet Baptiſme the Seale is no meane one, and you who ſay, that of old the influence of comfort from baptiſme was very great, I hope did not intend to limit it to the preſent time of its receiving, but extended it to all caſes, which may fall within the compaſſe of thoſe things for which Baptiſme was appointed to bee a Seale, and as long as it remaines a Seale, and why you ſhould ſpeake againſt the pleading of Infant Baptiſme, when they come to fulfill the condition and to have the anſwer of a good conſcience toward God, (in which caſe the Apoſtle ſaid Baptiſme ſaves us) I cannot tell, unleſſe you think with the Anabaptiſts that Infant Baptiſme is a nullitie, which if you doe, I pray you let us know it in your next.

The laſt objection was to this purpoſe, If Infants being capable Object. 6. Then alſo Infants may receive the Lords Supper.of the ſpirituall part will intitle them to the outward ſig…, why then doe wee not alſo admit them to the Sacrament of the Lords Supper, which is the Seale of the Covenant of grace, as well as the Sacrament of Baptiſme; and the rather becauſe the Infants of the Jewes did eate the Paſſeover as well as they were circumciſed? My anſwer was to this effect, Infants in their infantage are capable of the grace of Baptiſme, that we are ſure of, not ſure that they are capable of the grace ſigned and ſealed in the Lords Supper, wee know they may bee initiated into the Church, while they are Babes, not that they receive nouriſhment and augmentation. And I further adde, there was expreſſe order that Infants ſhould bee admitted to the initiall ſigne, not that they ſhould bee admitted to the other. To this you anſwer, This Argument is good ad homines againſt them who argue that to whom the Covenant belongs, to them the Seale belongs, and you ſay, this argument is confirmed by the practiſe and opinion of the ancients, who gave the Lords Supper to Infants for 600. yeers as well as baptiſme. I reply, my Argument runs thus; To whom belongs the Covenant, to them belongs the initiall Seale of the Covenant, not every Seale of the Covenant, and though the Lords ſupper bee a Seale of the Covenant, and ſucceed the Paſſeover as a Seale of that Covenant, yet neither the Paſſeover, nor the Lords Supper were appointed to bee initiall Seales; and though Baptiſme, which is the initiall Seale, ſerves to confirme the reſt of the benefits of the Covenant, as the baptized grow capable of them, or are made partakers of them, yet the prime and maine uſe of it is to bee a Seale of initiation and reception into Covenant. As for what you adde of the ancients giving the Lords Supper to Infants for 600. yeeres, I have before anſwered to it, that it cannot bee proved to bee ſo generall a practiſe as the baptizing of Infants was among them, nor was it pleaded by any ſuch Arguments, as they pleaded for Infant Baptiſme; Indeed in the African Churches about Cyprians and Auguſtines time, the Lords Supper was given to Infants, but I can finde no ſuch generall practiſe of it as you would inſinuate. Howbeit, I am glad that upon this occaſion you acknowledge, that for the firſt 600. yeers Infants were baptized among the ancients, though I know not how this will agree with that which you have ſo fidently aſſerted before, that it was hardly knowne in the Church for the firſt 300. yeers. Whereas I added, that though baptiſme and the Lords Supper are both of them Seales of the new Covenant, yet it is with ſome difference; the firſt is for birth and entrance, the other is for food and growth; you anſwer, this is a paradox to you, becauſe if I make the entrance at the remiſſion of ſinnes, juſtification, &c. the Lords Supper which ſeales Chriſts death, ſeales the entrance into the Covenant, and Baptiſme ſeales as well the pardon of other ſinnes as of originall ſinne; and therefore this difference which I put of the one being a Seale for entrance, the other for growth, is a difference which the Scripture makes not. I reply, if this bee a paradox, your ſelfe have very often owned this paradox, in calling both Circumciſion and Baptiſme the Seales of our admiſſion, and that by Baptiſme wee are exhibited to bee members of Chriſt and his Church: which you yet never ſaid the Sacrament of the Lords Supper was appointed to bee. And as for what you now adde that the Lords Supper ſealing the death of Chriſt doth therefore ſeale our entrance; I anſwer, it followes not, it ſeales indeed the whole Covenant in its due place and order, as our food is a witneſſe that wee are alive, and is a meanes to preſerve our life, but yet it muſt bee ſuppoſed that wee are firſt made alive before wee are capable of the benefit of our food. And whereas you jerke at that phraſe of the Lords Supper ſealing the growth and augmentation of the Covenant, as an unfit expreſſion; truely, I thought every child would have underſtood, that by nouriſhment and augmentation I meant nothing but the nouriſhment and growth of thoſe graces of the Covenant, which the Covenant promiſeth, and all are tied to ſeek after. As to that of the Jewes Infants eating the Paſſeover, I anſwered, there is no ſuch thing mentioned in the books of God: It is ſaid indeed that the ſeverall families were to eate the Lambe, and if the family were too little to eate a Lambe, ſeverall families were to joyne together, and that when their children ſhould aske them the meaning of it, they were to inſtruct them about it, but not a word of inſtitution appointing them to eate it, nor any example witneſſing that they did eate it: You anſwer, All the males were appointed three times a yeere to appeare before the Lord, one of which was the Paſſeover, and at that time there was no other food to bee eaten, but unleavened bread and the Paſcall Supper; and you obſerve out of Ainſworth that every child that could hold his father by the hand, and could goe up from Jeruſalem gates to the mountaine of the Temple, his father was bound to carry him up, to the end hee might catechiſe him in the Commandements, and they who went up were bound to keepe the feaſt. I anſwer, were the Jewes bound to carry all their Babes up with them to Jeruſalem, or any of them, before they had underſtanding in thoſe rites and myſteries? and was there no food among them all that time, but the Sacramentall food? were the uncleane and uncircumciſed in their families to faſt all that time? produce any Scripture that witneſſeth theſe; you indeed quote two or three broken teſtimonies out of the Rabbins, who lived ſome hundred yeers after Chriſt, but not one text of Scripture, and yet even your Rabbins ſay no more then I am willing to grant, that when they could underſtand the ſervice, they might partake of it; nor doth the Goſpell prohibite ſuch young ones to partake of the Lords Supper, who are able to diſcerne the Lords body. I obſerve alſo that when a teſtimony out of a Jewiſh Rabbi ſeemes to make any thing on your ſide, you draw more confident concluſions from it, and fetch conſequences further then you will allow mee to doe out of the holy Scriptures.

The application of my Sermon you paſſe over, as Sect. 7. Of the compariſon between Hazaels crueltie to Infants and the principles of Anabaptiſts.not being argumentative; onelyonly in the firſt uſe you againe fall upon the compariſon which I made betwixt Hazaels ſlaying the Infants of Iſrael, and the principles of the Anabaptiſts, in putting the children of beleevers out of the Covenant of grace, and this you aggravate to the utmoſt, calling it a falſe accuſation, a fruit of paſſion, not of holy zeale: this alſo you fell upon in the very beginning of your treatiſe, where I anſwered, I compared not their intentions with his, but the fruit of their principles, caſting all beleevers children, as much out of the Covenant of grace as they doe the children of Turkes and Pagans; and this I am ſure they doe, and your ſelfe joyne with them, who acknowledge no more promiſe for the children of beleevers, then for the children of Turkes, and leave them to have their actuall ſtanding in the viſible kingdome of the Devill. This I ſaid in a ſpirituall ſenſe was more heavy to the bowells of Chriſtian parents, then to ſee their Infants ſlaine before their face, while in the meane time they might looke upon their Infants ſo dying, to bee within the pale of the Church, where ſalvation is ordinarily to bee found; this I leave the Reader to judge of. Whereas you adde that this followes not upon the doctrine of Antipaedobaptiſme that Infants are thus excluded, and that if to be within the Covenant of grace, bee rightly expounded, you exclude them from the Covenant of grace no more then I doe; of the truth of this, without any needleſſe repetition, I leave the Reader to judge by what hath been diſputed betwixt you and mee; if they find this aſſertion of yours to bee true, I give them leave to charge mee with the ſame raſhneſſe, falſe accuſations, and paſſions, which here you powre upon mee; if not, I am ſure they will lay it all at your dore.

I now come to your Epilogue, wherein you intimate, firſt, that you preſume you have ſaid ſo much againſt my Sermon, Sect. 8. Anſwer to the Epilogue.that you hope I ſee cauſe to conſider more exactly of this buſineſſe then I had done before, that I am not now ſo confident as I was, that this is Gods truth: I anſwer, as in the preſence of the ſame great God to whom you and I both muſt give an account, I have ſeriouſly weighed what you have written, or any other who have come to my hands, with a full reſolution not to ſhut my eyes againſt what light hee would cauſe to ſhine upon mee, and upon my moſt diligent ſtudy, accompanied with my weake, yet ſincere and earneſt prayers, I am more confirmed in it, and the more I have ſtudied, the clearer it appeares unto mee. Secondly, you ſay you have endeavored to examine every thing of weight delivered in my Sermon, and what you could remember of Mr. Thomas Goodwins, and what Mr. Blake, or any other have written about this thing; and I likewiſe have ſeriouſly weighed and not paſt over any thing of weight in this your Examen. Thirdly, you ſay you choſe out my Sermon, becauſe I am in print ſtiled the Antefignanus, the Enſigne-bearer; a title which I neither deſerve nor deſire. Fourthly, you motion that all wee who have appeared in publique in this cauſe would joyne our ſtrength together in a reply to this your Examen, that you might ſee the whole ſtrength imbattel'd, that you might not be put to the reading of every Pamphlet. Truely Sir, this ſmells a little too rankly, thus confidently to challenge all men, not contented with Goliah to ſay, Give mee a man, that I might fight with him, but to defie a whole hoſt, argues a little too much ſelfe-confidence. But for your ſatisfaction, here is my booke, you may try your ſtrength againſt it, and though I find my impaired health and multitude of imployments is like to bee an apology for mee, from drawing this ſaw any longer, nor indeed is it needfull, there being no end of writing, all knowing that there is no controverſie of faith, wherein learned and prejudiced men have not been able to write booke after booke againſt the truth, eſpecially when they chooſe ſuch a way of diſputing as you have choſen; However, I feare not but it will indure your uttermoſt oppoſition, and if my booke alone bee looked upon, as too poore a buſineſſe, you ſee there are already two or three other bookes extant already, againſt you, and I am informed two peeces at leaſt come out of New-England upon the ſame ſubject, your ſelfe being therein concerned (for even thither have ſome ſent your writings, and ſufficiently in them, ſhewed your ſcorne of Mr. Thomas Goodwin, Mr. Vines, and my ſelfe, as our friends doe from thence write unto us) you may take us all together, and then wee may goe for a pretty Army, and when you have done all you can, I doubt not but ſome will be found who will have leaſure as well as ability to cope with you; I onelyonly deſire you in your next not to goe on in this way of making wrangling exceptions, and ſeeking to ſlurre and blind what is written by your Antagoniſt, but by ſolid and cleare arguments, ſee if you can refute that which is aſſerted, and let your Reader alſo know as well what you would have, as what you would not have, and open your judgement to the full in this controverſie, and ſhew whether you take Infant-baptiſm to be valid, or a nullity, and if you think it not a nullity, ſhew your grounds for it, why all this ſhould be true, which you have thus far contended for, That Infants are no more to be accounted belonging to the Church of Chriſt then Pagans, and yet their baptiſme ſhould be valid, whether if any man ſhould baptize a Turk or a Iew when he ſhould be aſleep, or by violence or any wayes againſt his own conſent, this baptiſme were not a nullity, and I know not what difference you make between the one and the other.

If on the other ſide, you doe thinke it a nullity, then manifeſt how any at all can now be baptized, unleſſe you will thinke that they may baptize others who are unbaptized themſelves; for my own part, I ſeriouſly profeſſe, that ſuppoſing Infant-baptiſme a nullity, I cannot underſtand how any in the world ſhould this day be lawfully baptized, unleſſe it can be made good that a perſon unbaptized himſelfe may be a lawfull Miniſter of baptiſme to others: for certainly untill the Anabaptiſts aroſe in Germany, all the baptized world were baptized while they were Infants; and conſequently the firſt Anabaptiſt was baptized by an unbaptized perſon, and ſo in concluſion we muſt all turn Seekers, and be content without baptiſme, till Chriſt give ſome extraordinary Commiſſion from Heaven unto ſome men to be Apoſtles in this buſineſſe.

Fifthly, you expreſſe the ſtraights you are like to be brought into by the loſſe of your ſmall ſtipend, as a conſequent of this your Opinion. Sir, I am perſwaded this is made up abundantly in that Honourable Society where now you exerciſe your Miniſtery; and I beſeech the Lord ſo to informe you in his truth in this particular, and to guide your Spirit, that you may no longer be a ſtumbling-block to others, nor others prove ſtumbling-blocks to you, that thoſe good parts which God hath beſtowed upon you, may for the time to come be employed in the moſt ſerviceable way, that both your worke and wages may bee with and from the Lord.

Sixthly and laſtly, you declare your willingneſſe, either to have conference with me, to conſult about a way of a brotherly debating of this point, or to receive other anſwer within the ſpace of a month. What paſt betwixt your ſelfe and me in Conference, I have given the Reader an account of in the beginning of my Booke; and in truth, I verily thought you would quietly have kept your Opinion as private to your ſelf, which was the true reaſon why I medled with your Book no ſooner; as ſoon as it was publiſhed, I took my ſelf bound in conſcience to take it into Examination, and give this publike account of it; ſince which time God hath been pleaſed to viſit mee with ſickneſſe and infirmity of body, ſo that for a monethmonth or ſix weeks I could very little attend upon this task, and many other employments have compelled me to go through it, horis ſucceſſivis, not being able to attend it many whole days without much interruption. Such as it is you now have it with you, and I make bold to ſay again, I am verily perſwaded it is Gods truth which I maintain againſt you, and I fear not my account of this Work in the great day; ſave onelyonly I muſt ever acknowledge and bewaile thoſe frailties and infirmities which cleave to whatever I put my hand unto.