Two Treatises Covering Infant Baptism, Text

Two Treatises Covering Infant Baptism · Text

p. 1AN EXERCITATION CONCERNING Infant-Baptiſme.

THe preſent Tenent,§. 1. The firſt Argument for Infant-baptiſme, examined from the intereſt in the promiſe, Gen. 17. 7.Gen 17:7 according to which Infant-Baptiſme is practiſed, is, that the Infants born of a Believer, are univerſally to be baptized.

This Doctrine and Practice conformable, is made doubtfull to me, by theſe Arguments.

Arg. 1. That which hath no teſtimony of Scripture for it, is doubtfull.

But this Doctrine of Infant-Baptiſme, hath no teſtimony of Scripture for it; Ergo, it is doubtfull.

The Minor is proved by examining the places that are brought for it, which are theſe: Gen. 17. 7, &c. Acts 2. 38, 39. 1 Cor. 7. 14. Mark. 10. 14. 16. Acts 16. 15. 32. 1 Cor. 1. 16. The Argument from Gen. 17. 7, &c. is almoſt the firſt and laſt in this buſineſſe; and therefore is the more accurately to be examined; but it hath ſo many ſhapes, that I may here take up that Speech, With what knot ſhall I hold ſhape-changing Proteus? But in the iſſue, it falls into one or other of theſe forms:

The firſt thus; To whom the Goſpel-covenant agrees, to them the ſign of the Goſpel-covenant agrees alſo. But to the Infants of Believers p. 2the Goſpel-covenant agrees; therefore to them the ſign of the Goſpel-covenant agrees, and conſequently Baptiſme. The Minor is proved from Gen. 17. 7. where God promiſeth to Abraham, I will be a God to thee, and to thy ſeed after thee.

I anſwer, That we may meet with this Argument, divers things are to be examined, which are taken for granted:

Firſt, Whether the Goſpel-covenant, and the Covenant made with Abraham be the ſame: Secondly, what ſeed of Abraham it is, of which it is ſaid, I will be a God to thee and to thy ſeed: Thirdly, whether there be the ſame reaſon of circumciſion and of baptiſme in ſigning the Goſpel-covenant: Fourthly, whether theſe terms be convertible [Federate, and to be ſigned].

Of theſe, I ſay; 1. The Covenant made with Abraham, is not a pure Goſpel-covenant, but mixt, which I prove;

The Covenant takes its denomination from the promiſes; but the promiſes are mixt, ſome Euangelicall, belonging to thoſe to whom the Goſpel belongeth, ſome are Domeſtique, or Civill promiſes, ſpecially reſpecting the Houſe of Abraham, and policy of Iſrael; Ergo.

That was Euangelicall which we reade, Gen. 17. 5. I have made thee a father of many nations; and that which we find, Gen. 15. 5. ſo ſhall thy ſeed be; in which it is promiſed, that there ſhall be of the Nations innumerable that ſhall be Abrahams children by believing, Rom. 4. 17, 18. It was Euangelicall, which we find, Gen. 12. 3. & Gen. 18. 18. and in thy ſeed ſhall all the kindreds of the earth be bleſſed; for in theſe is promiſed bleſſing to Believers, of whom Abraham is father, Gal. 3. 8, 9. and by Chriſt, who is the ſeed of Abraham, Gal. 3. 16. Acts 3. 25.

Domeſtique and Civill promiſes were many; of the multiplying the ſeed of Abraham, the birth of Iſaac; of the continuation of the Covenant with Iſaac; of the coming of Chriſt out of Iſaac; the bondage of the Iſraelites in Egypt, and deliverance thence; of poſſeſſing the Land of Canaan, Gen. 15. 13. 18. Gen. 17. 7, 8. 15. 16. Act. 7. 4, 5, 6, 7, 8. and many other places.

Yea, it is to be noted, that thoſe promiſes which were Euangelicall, according to the more inward ſenſe of the Holy Ghoſt, do point at the priviledges of Abrahams Houſe, in the outward face of the words; whence it may be well doubted, whether this Covenant made with Abraham, may be called ſimply Euangelicall, and ſo pertain to Believers, as ſuch, although there be Euangelicall promiſes in that Covenant, pertaining to all Believers, as Believers. There were annexed to p. 3the Covenant on Mount Sinai, ſacrifices pointing at the ſacrifice of Chriſt, and yet we call not that Covenant ſimply Euangelicall, but in ſome reſpect.

Secondly, The ſeed of Abraham is many wayes ſo called: Firſt, Chriſt is called the ſeed of Abraham, by excellency, Gal. 3. 16. Secondly, all the Elect, Rom. 9. 7. all Believers, Rom. 4. 11, 12. 16. 17, 18. are called the ſeed of Abraham, that is, the ſpirituall ſeed. Thirdly, there was a naturall ſeed of Abraham, to whom the inheritance did accrue; this was Iſaac, Gen. 21. 12. Fourthly, a naturall ſeed, whether lawfull, as the ſons of Keturah, or baſe, as Iſhmael, to whom the inheritance belonged not, Gen. 15. 5. But no where do I find, that the Infants of Believers of the Gentiles are called Abrahams ſeed, of the three former kinds of Abrahams ſeed, the promiſe recited, is meant, but in a different manner thus: that God promiſeth, he will be a God to Chriſt, imparting in him bleſſing to all nations of the earth, to the ſpirituall ſeed of Abraham in Euangelicall benefits, to the naturall ſeed inheriting, in domeſtick and politicall benefits.

3. That the promiſe of the Goſpel, or Goſpel-covenant, was the ſame in all ages, in reſpect of the thing promiſed, and condition of the covenant, which we may call the ſubſtantiall and eſſentiall part of that covenant, to wit, Chriſt, Faith, Sanctification, Remiſſion of ſins, Eternall life; yet this Euangelicall covenant had divers forms in which theſe things were ſignified, and various ſanctions, by which it was confirmed: To Adam, the promiſe was made under the name of the ſeed of the woman, bruiſing the head of the Serpent; to Enoch, Noah, in other forms; otherwiſe to Abraham, under the name of his ſeed, in whom all nations ſhould be bleſſed; otherwiſe to Moſes, under the obſcure ſhadows of the Law; otherwiſe to David, under the name of a ſucceſſor in the kingdome; otherwiſe in the New Teſtament, in plain words, 2 Cor. 3. 6. Heb. 8. 10. It had likewiſe divers ſanctions. The promiſe of the Goſpel was confirmed to Abraham by the ſign of circumciſion, and by the birth of Iſaac; to Moſes by the Paſchall Lamb, and the ſprinkling of blood on the book, the rain of Mannah, and other ſigns; to David by an oath; in the New Teſtament, by Chriſts blood, 1 Cor. 11. 25. Therefore circumciſion ſignified and confirmed the promiſe of the Goſpel, according to the form and ſanction of the covenant with Abraham, Baptiſme ſignifies and confirms the ſame promiſe according to the form, ſanction and accompliſhment of the new Teſtament: Now theſe forms and ſanctions differ p. 4many wayes, as much as concerns our preſent purpoſe in theſe: Firſt, circumciſion confirmed not only Euangelicall promiſes, but alſo Politicall; and if we may believe M^r. Cameron, in his Theſes of the threefold Covenant of God, Theſi. 78. Circumciſion did primarily ſeparate the ſeed of Abraham from other nations, ſealed unto them the earthly promiſe; Secondarily, it did ſignifie ſanctification: But Baptiſme ſignifies only Euangelicall benefits. Secondly, circumciſion did confirm the promiſe concerning Chriſt to come out of Iſaac; Baptiſme aſſures Chriſt to be already come, to have been dead, and to have riſen again, Thirdly, circumciſion belonged to the Church, conſtituted in the Houſe of Abraham, Baptiſme to the Church gathered out of all nations; whence I gather, that there is not the ſame reaſon of circumciſion and baptiſme, in ſigning the Euangelicall covenant; nor may there be an argument drawn from the adminiſtration of the one to the like manner of adminiſtring the other.

4. That ſome there were circumciſed, to whom no promiſe in the covenant made with Abraham did belong; of Iſhmael, God had ſaid, that his covenant was not to be eſtabliſhed with him, but with Iſaac; and yet he was circumciſed, Gen. 17. 20, 21. 25. Rom. 9. 7, 8, 9. Gal. 4. 29, 30. the ſame may be ſaid of Eſau: All that were in Abrahams houſe, whether ſtrangers, or born in his houſe, were circumciſed, Gen. 17. 12, 13. of whom nevertheleſſe, it may be doubted, whether any promiſes of the covenant made with Abraham, did belong to them; there were other perſons, to whom all, or moſt of the promiſes in the covenant pertained, that were not circumciſed; this may be affirmed of the Females, coming from Abraham, the Infants dying before the eighth day, of juſt men, living out of Abrahams houſe, as Melchiſedech, Lot, Job. If any ſay, that the females were circumciſed in the circumciſion of the Males, he ſaith it without proof; and by like, perhaps greater, reaſon it may be ſaid, that the children of Believers are baptized in the perſons of their parents, and therefore are not to be baptized in their own perſons. But it is manifeſt that the Jewes comprehended in the covenant made with Abraham, and circumciſed, were nevertheleſſe not admitted to Baptiſme by John Baptiſt, and Chriſts Diſciples, till they profeſſed repentance, and faith in Chriſt. Hence I gather, firſt, that the right to Euangelicall promiſes, was not the adequate reaſon of crrcumciſing theſe or thoſe, but Gods precept, as is expreſſed, Gen. 17. 23. Gen. 21. 4. Secondly, that thoſe terms are not convertible, [federate and to be ſigned].

p. 5Whereupon I anſwer to the Argument: Firſt, either by denying the Major, if it be univerſally taken, otherwiſe it concludes nothing: or by granting it with this limitation; it is true of that ſign of the covenant which agrees univerſally in reſpect of form and ſanction, to them that receive the Goſpel, but it is not true of that ſign of the covenant, which is of a particular form or ſanctior of which ſort is circumciſion.

Secondly, I anſwer by denying the Minor, univerſally taken, the reaſon is, becauſe thoſe children only of believing Gentiles, are Abrahams children, who are his ſpirituall ſeed, according to the election of grace by faith, which are not known to us, but by profeſſion, or ſpeciall Revelation.

THe ſecond Argument is thus formed:§. 2. The ſecond Argument for Infant baptiſme from the ſucceſſion of Baptiſme to circumciſion, examined.

To whom circumciſion did agree, to them Baptiſme doth agree, but to Infants Circumciſion did agree, therefore alſo Baptiſme.

The Major is thus proved: If the baptiſme of Chriſt ſucceed into the place of circumciſion, then Baptiſme belongs to them that circumciſion belonged to; but the Antecedent is true, therefore alſo the Conſequent. The Minor is proved to be true, becauſe, Coloſ. 2. 11, 12. it is ſaid the Coloſſians were circumciſed, becauſe they were buried with Chriſt in Baptiſme.

For Anſwer: This Argument ſuppoſeth Baptiſme to ſucceed in the place of Circumciſion, which may be underſtood many wayes.

1. So as that the ſenſe be, that thoſe perſons be to be baptized, which heretofore by Gods command were to be circumciſed, and in this ſenſe the Argument muſt proceed, if it conclude to the purpoſe; but in this ſenſe it is falſe, for no females were to be circumciſed, which yet are to be baptized, Acts 16. 14, 15. and Believers out of Abrahams houſe, as Lot, Melchiſedech, Job, were not to be circumciſed, but believing Gentiles are univerſally to be baptized.

2. It may be ſo underſtood, as if the rite of Baptiſme then began, when the rite of circumciſion did, or was of right to end; but this is not to be ſaid: For John Baptiſt and the Diſciples of Chriſt baptized, Joh. 4. 1, 2. before circumciſion of right ceaſed, and they who firſt were circumciſed, were after baptized, being converted to the faith, as is manifeſt concerning Paul, Phil. 3. 5. Acts 9. 18.

3. It may be underſtood, as if Baptiſme did ſucceed into the place of circumciſion, in reſpect of its ſignification, which is true in ſome things: Firſt, it is true that both ſignified the righteouſneſſe of faith, p. 6Rom. 4. 11. Rom. 6. 3. Gal. 3. 27. 1 Pet. 3. 21. Secondly, it is true, both ſignified ſanctification of the heart, and this is all that may be concluded out of the place alledged, Col. 2. 11, 12. to which I think meet to adde; that if the Text be looked into, that place ſpeaks not of any circumciſion, but of Chriſts circumciſion in whom we are compleat, and by whoſe circumciſion we are ſaid to put off the body of the ſins of the fleſh; nor doth the Text ſay, we are circumciſed, becauſe we are baptized; but we are compleat in Chriſt, becauſe we are circumciſed in him, and buried with him in Baptiſme, in which, or in whom, ye are alſo riſen together, through the faith of the operation of God that raiſed him from the dead.

In ſome things Baptiſme doth not ſucceed into the place of Circumciſion, in reſpect of ſignification: For, firſt Circumciſion did ſignifie Chriſt to come of Iſaac, according to the fleſh, Gen. 17. 10. 21. but Baptiſme doth not ſignifie this, but points at the incarnation, death, and reſurrection of Chriſt. Secondly, Circumciſion was a ſign that the Iſraelites were a people ſeparated from all nations, Rom. 3. 1. but Baptiſme ſignifieth, that all are one in Chriſt, Gal. 3. 28. Thirdly, Circumciſion ſignified that Moſes Law was to be obſerved, Gal. 5. 3. but Baptiſme doth ſignifie that Moſes his Law is made voyd, and the Doctrine of Chriſt to be retained, Acts 10. 37. Fourthly, Circumciſion did ſign the promiſe of the Land of Canaan, Baptiſme eternall life by Chriſt.

From hence I anſwer to the Argument: Firſt, by denying the Major of the fore Syllogiſme. Secondly, to the conditionall Syllogiſme, by denying the Conſequence of the Major, if the Antecedent be underſtood of ſucceſſion, in the third ſenſe, in reſpect of ſome ſignification granted; but if the ſucceſſion be underſtood in the firſt, ſecond, or third ſenſe, in reſpect of other ſignifications, the Minor is denied; the proof from Col. 2. 11, 12. is already anſwered.

And indeed, if this Argument be not warily, and reſtrainedly underſtood, an Egge is laid, out of which manifeſt Judaiſme may be hatched, but if it be taken reſtrainedly, no more follows thence, but that Baptiſme and Circumciſion in ſome things, ſignifie the ſame, which is more plainly ſaid of Noahs flood, 1 Pet. 3. 21. of the red Sea, and the cloud that guided, 1 Cor. 10. 2. and yet we ſay not that Baptiſme ſucceeded into their place, much leſſe do we inferre any rite to be inſtituted in their ſtead, reſpecting the ſame perſons; yea verily it is to be ſeriouſly thought on.

p. 71. That by ſuch Arguments drawn from Analogies, not conceived by the holy Spirit, but drawn out of our wit, a new kinde of inſtituting Rites, to wit, from Analogies, is brought in, beſides our Lords Precepts and the Apoſtles examples.

2. This being once laid, by like manner of argumentation, it will be lawfull to bring into the Chriſtian Church, under other names and forms, the whole burthen of Jewiſh Rites; yea, almoſt, out of what you will, to conclude what you will; for who ſhall put a bound to mens wits faining Analogie, when they go beyond the Lords Precepts, and the Apoſtles examples? It is well known, that the divine appointment of tythes to be paid, and many other things, in the writings of Divines, are aſſerted by this kinde of Argument, beſides the rule of the Lords Precept and the Apoſtles example.

3. Hereby will the opinion of Papiſts be confirmed, who affirm from 1 Cor. 10. 11. the Sacraments of the Jewes, to be types of the Sacraments of Chriſtians, which is rejected by Divines that diſpute againſt Bellarmine.

4. This manner of arguing will countenance the Arguments of the Papiſts for an univerſall Biſhop, becauſe there was an High Prieſt amongſt the Jews; for ſacrificing Prieſts, becauſe the Jews had ſuch; for a linen garment at Maſſe, becauſe there was ſuch among the Jews; for holy water, purification of women, Eaſter, Pentecoſt, and many more ſuch ceremonies, for which the Papiſt do in like manner argue, as appears out of Durandus Rationals, and other Interpreters of Rituals among the Papiſts; yea, what hindreth, but we may give children the Lords Supper, if we argue this way, ſith Samuel, Jeſus Chriſt under age, were partakers of the Paſſeover, and of right, all the males were to appeare thrice in the yeer, before the Lord; and therefore it is certain they did eat the Paſſeover; and it ſhall be after ſhewed, that the place, 1 Cor. 11. 28. will not avoyd this inconvenience, if the Text, Matth. 28. 19. may be ſhifted off, as Paedo-baptiſts uſe to do. Leſt any man take this for a light ſuggeſtion, I will adde, that grave, godly and learned men, have often warned, that we are to take heed, that we do not raſhly frame arguments from Analogie: among others in their late writings, in the Engliſh tongue, John Paget, in his Defence of Church-government, part. 1. chap. 3. pag. 8. and elſewhere, John Ball in his Reply to the Anſwer of the New-England Elders, unto the 9. Poſitions, Poſit. 2. pag. 14.

Laſtly, it is to be conſidered again and again, how by theſe Argumentations, p. 8conſciences may be freed from the danger of wil-worſhip and polluting ſo remarkable an Ordinance of Chriſt as Baptiſme is, ſpecially this care lies on them, who by Prayers, Sermons, Writings, Covenants and Oaths, do deterre Chriſtians from humane inventions, in Gods worſhip diligently, and as is to be hoped ſincerely.

THe third Argument is thus framed.§. 3. The third Argument from the parity of grace in the new Teſtament to that in the old examined.

If Baptiſme be not granted to the Infants of Believers, then the grace of God will be more reſtrained in the new Teſtament then in the old: but this is not to be affirmed; therefore Baptiſme is to be granted to Infants of Believers.

Anſw. 1. If this Argument be of any weight, it will prove that the grace of God is ſtraitened, becauſe we give not the Lords Supper to children, to whom the Paſſeover was given, as appears by that which was above ſaid.

2. The grace of God is not tied to Sacraments, neither do Sacraments give grace by the work done, and therefore grace is not reſtrained, though Sacraments be never granted, grace is not denyed to an excommunicated perſon, who is inhibited the Lords Supper, the Grace of God is free, whether we underſtand it of the divine affection, or the effects of it; nor can be made larger or narrower by our act.

3. Yet it is not abſurd to ſay, that in reſpect of ſome priviledges, the Grace of God is more contracted in the new Teſtament then in the old: For inſtance, no family hath now the priviledge that was granted to Abrahams family, that out of it Chriſt ſhould be born; no man beſides Abraham is called The father of the faithfull; no woman beſides one, The mother of Chriſt; nevertheleſſe, ſimply the grace of God is ſaid to be larger in the new Teſtament, by reaſon of the revelation of the Goſpel imparted to all nations, the more abundant communication of the holy Spirit, and more plain manifeſtation of the myſterie of the Goſpel: I would have it weighed, whether thoſe phraſes of the Apoſtle, Rom. 11. 21. as the naturall branches, ver. 24. The wilde Olive by nature, were't graffed contrary to nature. Theſe which be naturall branches, do not ſufficiently imply, that the Jewes children by their birth had a priviledge beyond the Gentiles children.

Thereupon I anſwer to the Argument: Firſt, by denying the conſequence of the Major, for the reaſon given: Secondly, by denying the Minor, if it be underſtood of ſtraitning the grace of God, in reſpect of ſome priviledge, although the Aſſumption may be granted, if p. 9underſtood of the ſtraitning Gods grace ſimply.

The ſumme of the Anſwer to the Arguments, drawn from Gen. 17. 17. is this: The Sacraments are not to be adminiſtred according to rules taken from our reaſonings, but Gods appointment. Rightly doth M^r. Ball forenamed, in the Book forenamed, Poſit. 3. & 4. pag. 38. ſay, But in whatſoever Circumciſion and Baptiſme, do agree or differ, we muſt look to the inſtitution, and neither ſtretch it wider, nor draw it narrower then the Lord hath made it, for he is the inſtitutor of the Sacraments according to his own good pleaſure; and it is our part to learn of him, both to whom, how, and for what end the Sacraments are to be adminiſtred, how they agree, and wherein they differ, in all which we muſt affirm nothing, but what God hath taught us, and as he hath taught us.

THe Argument from Acts 2.§. 4. The Argument from Act. 2. 38, 39. for Infant-baptiſme examined.Acts 2:38Acts 2:39 38, 39. may be thus formed: To whom the promiſe is made, they may be baptized; but to the Infants of Believers the promiſe is made, therefore they may be baptized.

The Minor is proved from the words of verſ. 39. for the promiſe is made to you and to your children.

That an Anſwer may be fitted to this Argument:

1. It is to be obſerved, that the promiſe made, is the ſending of Jeſus Chriſt, and bleſſing by him, as it is expounded, Acts 3. 25, 26. Acts 13. 32, 33. Rom. 15. 8, 9.

2. That the Text ſaith, the promiſe was made to them he ſpake to, and their children, then to them that are afarre off, who, whether they be Gentiles, who are ſaid to be afarre of, Epheſ. 2. 12. or Jewes, in future ages and generations, as Beza thinks, are limited by the words cloſing the verſe, as many as the Lord our God ſhall call, which limitation plainly enough ſhewes the promiſe to appertain to them not ſimply as Jewes, but as called of God, which is more expreſly affirmed, Acts 3. 26. To you, God having raiſed up his Son Jeſus, ſent him to bleſſe you, in turning away every one of you from his iniquity: or as Beza, Every one of you turning your ſelves from your iniquities; therefore the promiſe here is not ſaid to be made but with condition of calling, and faith, which may be confirmed aboundantly from Rom. 4. 13, 14. 16. Gal. 3. 9. 14. 22.

3. That Peter, verſ. 38. doth exhort to repentance and Baptiſme together, and in the firſt place perſwades to Repentance, then Baptiſme, which ſhewes Repentance to be in order before Baptiſme.

p. 104. That mention is made of the promiſe, not as of it ſelf, yeelding right to Baptiſme without Repentance, but as a motive, inciting together, to Repentance and Baptiſme. Whereupon it is anſwered:

1. That the Major is to be limited, to whom the promiſe is made, they may be baptized, to wit, when they are called, and have ſhewed ſignes of repentance; If it be taken without limitation, it is to be denied.

2. By denying the Minor, if it be univerſally taken of all Infants of Believers, of whoſe Baptiſme the queſtion is; as for the Text, it ſpeaks not expreſly of Infants, but of children indefinitely; nor of the children of the Gentiles at all, (of whom we are) but of the children of the Jews, and therefore, if that promiſe be extended to Infants, which doth not appear, the promiſe is to be expounded ſo, as to note ſomething peculiar to the Jews Infants.

THe Argument from the place,§. 5. The Argument from 1 Cor. 7. 14. for Infant-Baptiſme, examined.1 Cor 7:14 1 Cor. 7. 14. may be thus formed: They who are holy with Covenant-holineſſe, may be baptized: But the Infants of a Believer are holy, with a Covenant-holineſſe; for it is ſaid in the Text, but now they are holy; therefore they may be baptized. I anſwer:

1. The Minor is not true, univerſally underſtood, as is manifeſt from Rom. 11. 16. where it is ſaid, If the firſt fruits be holy, ſo is the lump: if the root be holy, ſo are the branches. The ſenſe is, that Abraham is the firſt fruits, and holy root; the elect Iſraelites are the branches and lump; ſo that it followes, that the elect of the Iſraelites not yet called, are holy in reſpect of the Covenant, and are not yet therefore to be baptized; for although they may be ſaid to be holy in regard of the Covenant, of old entred into with Abraham, and the gracious reſpect of God to them, to be manifeſted in opportune time, yet in their preſent ſtate, before calling, they denying Chriſt, neither Infants nor grown men are to be baptized, unleſſe we would have the branches broken off to be graffed into the Church; and therefore, although the ſenſe were in the place of 1 Cor. 7. 14. your children are holy with Covenant-holineſſe, by reaſon of Gods gracious favour to be manifeſted in due time, yet it will not follow, that they are to be baptized, who have not yet yeelded any ſhewes of divine grace.

2. The Minor is not proved from the place alledged: For it doth not ſpeak of federall holineſſe, but of holineſſe, that I may ſo call it, Matrimoniall, ſo that the ſenſe is, your children are holy, that is, legitimate. p. 11Whether any in the ages before, the age laſt paſt, expounded it, of federall holineſſe, as they call it, I am not yet certain: as for the expoſition of that place, of that holineſſe, I called Matrimoniall, of it the place is expounded by Aquinas, in his Commentary upon the place, and perhaps by others, whom I have not yet had time to look into, but I think beſt to ſet down the words of Joachimus Camerarius, about this matter, in his Commentary on the new Teſtament, lately printed at Cambridge; [for the unbelieving husband hath been ſanctified] an uſuall change of the Tenſe, that is, is ſanctified, in the lawfull uſe of marriage, for without this ( he ſaith ) it would be, that their children ſhould be unclean, that is, infamous, and not legitimate, who ſo are holy, that is, during the marriage are without all blot of ignominy: Moreover, Melancthon in his Commentary on the place, Therefore Paul anſwers, that the marriages are not to be pulled aſunder, for their unlike opinions of God, if the impious perſon do not caſt away the other; and for comfort he addes as a reaſon, the unbelieving husband is ſanctified by the believing wife, of which Speech divers interpretations are made, but the true and naturall is this, as elſewhere, he ſaith, Meat is ſanctified, for that which is holy in uſe, that is granted to Believers from God, ſo here he ſpeaks the uſe of marriage to be holy, and to be granted of God, [elſe were] the interpretation of the Sept. ſo ſpeaks unclean, it calls unclean that which is prohibited; as wee ſay Swines fleſh was unclean by the Law of Moſes, that is, prohibited, or a woman brought to bed, is unclean, that is, whoſe touching is forbidden. The connexion of the Argument is this: If the uſe of marriage ſhould not pleaſe God, your children would be baſtards, and ſo unclean; but your children are not baſtards, therefore the uſe of marriage pleaſeth God: How baſtards were unclean in a peculiar manner, the Law ſhewes, Deut. 23. Let not a baſtard enter into the Congregation of the Lord, to the tenth generation, that is, Let him be admitted to no function in the Church; therefore this is the moſt plain meaning, children are not baſtards, nor to be kept away, as the Law of Moſes kept them away; therefore alſo the uſe of marriage pleaſeth God. Muſculus Comment. on 1 Cor. 7. 14. hath theſe words; [is ſanctified] this expreſſeth the reaſon of that which he ſaith, Let him not put her away; perhaps, the more unskilfull Chriſtians thought ſuch dwelling together to be unclean and unlawfull; and they did fear, leſt they ſhould be made one body with the yoak-fellow that was an Idolater, as he that is joyned to an Harlot, is made one body with the Harlot, and ſo of the members of Chriſt, ſhould make them members of p. 12an Idolater, which hath more ſin then if they ſhould make them the members of an Harlot; for this cauſe, he ſaith, for the unbeliever is ſanctified, &c. that is, for the unbelieving husband in the wife, that is, in the conjunction of the wife, which is by marriage, even long ago hath been cleanſed by vertue of marriage; ſo that his conjunction and copulation, hath nothing unclean: ſo in like manner alſo, the unbelieving wife, by reaſon of lawfull wedlock, in which ſhee is joyned to the man, even long ago is cleanſed, that the believer is not defiled, if ſhe live together with him; for the word holineſſe here, is taken for the cleanneſſe of the marriage-bed which he hath by the tradition of God, therefore he ſaith, elſe your children ſhould be unclean, but now they are holy; he ſhould have ſaid, but now they are clean, if to be holy, and clean, in this place were not the ſame.

Therefore the moſt plain underſtanding of this place is, firſt, in that we underſtand not the word holineſſe, of that holineſſe which is by the covenant of God, or the Spirit of faith, by which Believers are ſanctified, as a people of God, but of the holineſſe of the conjugall bed, otherwiſe it will bring forth a troubleſome diſpute, how an unbelieving husband may be ſaid to be ſanctified. Then, that we attribute this ſanctification that is cleanneſſe, not to the faith of the believing yoak-fellow, but to the marriage, by reaſon of the appointment of God; with Hierome, who ſaith, becauſe by Gods appointment, marriage is holy; and Ambroſe, who hath it thus, the children are holy, becauſe they are born of lawfull marriage; therefore, that in the wife and in the husband, is not to be read with the addition of Believer, as the old Interpreter hath it, but ſimply, as the Greek hath it; if any thing be to be added, it is better to be added, the lawfull wife or husband, that we may underſtand, that the unbelieving husband is cleanſed in his lawfull wife, that is, by vertue of their lawfull marriage, is not unclean, but clean, as far as appertains to the law of cohabitation of marriage, although he be impure ſo far as appertains to the commerce of Religion, of which the word of Deacons in the Church was, Let the prophane depart, the holy draw neer. [elſe your children] Ambroſe ſo expounds this particle [elſe] that is, if thou the believing husband ſhouldſt put away thy unbelieving wife, and marry another, your children ſhould be unclean, becauſe you ſhould be made Adulterers, but [now] that is, if thou retain thy unbelieving wife, they are holy, becauſe they are born of a lawfull marriage. But it is more plain, that we underſtand the Apoſtle, to have reſpect to the ſanctimony of marriage, even of them who without the faith of Chriſt, are conjoyned in marriage, as if he had ſaid, p. 13unleſſe marriage were holy and clean, even between unbelievers, what other thing would follow, then that all the children of Infidels are baſtards, and unclean? but far be it from us to ſay ſo; they are holy, for they are born of lawfull marriage. Ambroſe looks to that which he ſaid, Let him not put her away; the other Expoſition to that which he ſaid, the unbelieving husband is ſanctified in the wife. I have ſometimes abuſed the preſent place againſt the error of Anabaptiſts, keeping back Infants of Chriſtians from Baptiſme, thinking that ſpeech, but now are they holy, to be the ſame, as, they are the people of God, by reaſon of the believing parents; but although it be ſure in it ſelf, that the children of believers, are both holy, and pertaining to the people of God, by reaſon of the participation of the Covenant, and ſo are partakers of Baptiſme, as the ſign of the Covenant, yet the preſent place makes nothing to this cauſe, in which the ſanctimony of the Covenant and people is not meddled with; but the cleanneſſe of lawfull marriage even of Infidels: for not only to children, to whom perhaps, the holineſſe of a believing parent, may ſo appertain, that for it they may be partakers of the Covenant, but alſo to unbelieving husbands and wives is ſanctimony aſcribed, although they oppoſe the Chriſtian faith; nor is any other holineſſe or cleanneſſe of children meddled with, then that which agrees alſo to unbelieving parents, for to them, no other agrees, then that which is by lawfull marriage. There's other teſtimonies out of Scripture, from whence the Anabaptiſts may be convinced of error; ſo that there is no need to uſe this place againſt them. Thus far Camerarius, Melancthon, Muſculus.

Perhaps ſome one will object, that no where is holy, the ſame with legitimate: to which I anſwer, That holineſſe is put for Chaſtity, is manifeſted from 1 Theſ. 4. 3. 4. 7. and the word [ſanctified] in this place, what doth it found elſe, then [is lawfully coupled] and [is ſanctified] 1 Tim. 4. 5. what elſe doth it ſignifie, then [is lawfully uſed]? at which place Beza hath theſe words, Therefore meats are ſaid to be ſanctified, which we uſe lawfully, and with Gods good leave; he alludes to legall purifications, and the difference between clean and unclean meats: And why may not by a like alluſion, unclean, be put for Baſtards, and holy for legitimate? for the Baſtard is among the unclean, Deut. 23. 2. To which I may adde what John Calvin hath on Mal. 2. 15. Wherefore hath God made one? to wit, ſeeking a ſeed of God; a ſeed of God is here taken for legitimate, as the Hebrewes do name that divine whatſoever doth excell, yea, they call that divine which is pure from any fault and ſpot: therefore he ſought a ſeed of God, that is, appointed marriage; from whence p. 14ſhould be born a legitimate and clean off-ſpring. Secretly therefore doth the Prophet here ſhew, that they are all baſtards, that ſhall be born by polygamy, becauſe they neither can, nor ought to be counted legitimate ſons, but they who are begotten according to Gods inſtitution, but where the husband violates the faith given to the wife, and takes to himſelf another, as he perverts the order of marriage, ſo alſo he cannot be a lawfull father. Thus Calvin, and in like manner Cameron praelect. in Mat. 19. 5. interprets that Text.

Laſtly, if the words of the Text be weighed, this will ſeem the only and genuine ſenſe; for the queſtion which the Apoſtle reſolves was, whether the conjunction was to be retained of the believing yoak-fellow, with the unbelieving? The reaſon of doubting was, becauſe that conjunction ſeems impure, by reaſon of the impurity of the unbelieving yoak-fellow; the Apoſtle anſwers, not ſo: For the unbelieving husband hath been ſanctified in the wife. To draw out the ſenſe of this place, it is to be noted, that [the unbelieving husband] ſounds the ſame, as if he had ſaid, [the husband, though he be an unbeliever]; for the ſcope requires that this be the ſenſe, the Husband, though he be an unbeliever, yet is ſanctified in the wife.

2. That it is not ſaid, in the believing wife, nor in the believing huſband (though I deny not Beza obſerved ſome ſuch thing in the Clermont copy, and elſewhere): For the copies do not ſo reade, and it ſeems the Apoſtle of purpoſe ſo ſpake, that the reaſon of Sanctification may be intimated to be taken, not from the faith of the yoak-fellow, but conjugall relation.

3. [foreign] is not rightly rendred, [by] in the vulgar and our Engliſh tranſlation, as if the ſenſe were, that the faith of the wife, were the cauſe of ſanctifying the unbelieving husband, for this ſenſe cannot be faſtened to this place; for no man will ſay, the faith of the unbelieving wife, ſanctifies the unbelieving husband federally; ſo that the unbelieving husband ſhould be capable of Baptiſme by his wifes faith, (which yet, by the good leave of ſuch men be it ſaid, doth as well follow from this place, as that the ſon is federally holy, and capable of Baptiſme, for the faith of the parent) neither can it be ſaid, that the parent is ſanctified with ſpirituall ſanctification by the faith of the wife; for how ever it be determined that faith is the cauſe of inward ſanctification, yet it is certain that the faith of one is not the cauſe of the ſanctification of another, I mean, the next and effectuall cauſe. Nor doth this ſenſe pertain hither, the unbelieving husband is ſanctified by the wife, that is, is renued in the ſpirit of his mind, by the diligence p. 15of his wife, inſtructing him in the faith, as ſhe is ſaid to ſave, verſ. 16. For this ſanctification being put, the children may remain impure, and not holy; the contrary whereof is here aſſerted: and this ſanctification is contingent, it may be, or it may not be, as is manifeſt from verſ. 16. For how knoweſt thou? But in this place the ſanctification is certain and neceſſary, elſe it ſhould not take away the doubt, about the retaining the conjunction; nor doth the ſenſe pertain hither, the unbelieving husband is ſanctified in the wife, that is, the wife, becauſe ſhe hath faith, hath uſed the unbelieving husband without all ſcruple of conſcience; for the contrary was the occaſion of this Diſcourſe; nor doth this belong a whit to the impurity or holineſſe of the children; therefore more rightly [foreign] is rendred in Latine in the Dative,Mat. 17. 12.Matt 17:12 [to the wife] for the particle foreign, is often ſo uſed, as Gal. 1. 16. foreign,Acts 7. 44.Acts 7:44 to me, 2 Pet. 1. 5. foreign, to faith, Acts 4. 12. foreign, to men; and 1 Cor. 7. 15. foreign, is rendred by Beza unto peace: the ſenſe then is, that the unbelieving husband is ſanctified to the wife, that is, is not coupled as an unclean fornicator, but as a lawfull huſband, and that copulation is holy, that is, remains chaſt, the unbeliever remaining a husband; for an unbeliever is a husband, and therefore the uſe of him is chaſt, [elſe] the Apoſtle proves what he had ſaid, of the ſanctification of the unbelieving husband, to the wife, and the order being turned, by an argument from an abſurdity, which may be reduced unto this form:

If the unbelieving husband be not ſanctified to the wife, and the order turned, then your children ſhould be unclean; but your children are not unclean, but holy; Ergo. [foreign, elſe] plainly ſhewes, that abſurdity would follow, if this were not granted, that the unbelieving husband is ſanctified to the wife, foreign, otherwiſe certainly, as Beza renders it, your children are unclean, that is, your children which you have have hitherto begotten, ſhould be unclean, that is, baſtards, but now they are holy: [but now] Beza rightly notes it, is not an Adverb of time, but a Conjunction, that is wont to be uſed in the Aſſumptions of Arguments, and the ſenſe is, [but now] that is, but for as much as the unbelieving husband is ſanctified to the wife, that is, in reſpect of the uſe of the wife, your children are holy, that is, lawfully begotten and born; but if it be granted the ſanctification is underſtood of lawfull and chaſt uſe, (which is neceſſarily to be yeelded) and yet the uncleanneſſe and holineſſe be underſtood of that which they call federall, then this will follow, that the children born of wives ſuperadded to the firſt, inceſtuous, concubines and harlots are not within p. 16the Covenant, neither to be circumciſed nor baptized, whereas not only Iſhmael by Abraham, but alſo many ſons of Jacob, the ſons of Judah, Pharez and Zarah by Thamar, were circumciſed; nor doth cuſtome or canon put ſuch back children from Baptiſm; but in very deed, this cannot be the ſenſe, for only holines, which I call Matrimoniall, of the children, followeth from Matrimoniall lawfull copulation, which is here aſſerted, and only uncleanneſſe oppoſite to legitimation, follows illegitimate, and polluted copulation, and of theſe alone there was doubt amongſt the Corinthian Chriſtians, and therfore the Apoſtles reſolution.

Nor yet, as Beza inferres, if this ſenſe be put, ſhould the Apoſtle draw an argument from civill Laws, to pacifie conſcience, but he uſing his Apoſtolicall authority, reſolves the doubts in this Chapter, and teacheth, that according to Gods Law, and Chriſts Precept, the marriage is not diſſolved by the infidelity of either yoak-fellow, but that they may lawfully dwell together, and couple, according to Gods inſtitution of Marriage. As for that which Beza ſaith, No man hath ever ſaid truly, that marriage is holy between two unbelievers, and that their children are holy, ſith their meats are unclean to them, as being to be ſanctified by the Word, and giving of thanks; it is true, if we ſpeak of the ſanctification of the heart, but it is manifeſt from that which is before ſaid, that the Apoſtle ſpeaks of the ſanctification and ſanctity, that is in chaſtity, and legitimation, and in reſpect of it Beza grants the marriage of Infidels not to be accounted before God for fornication; for marriage is honourable among all, even unbelievers, and the bed undefiled, but Whoremongers and Adulerers God will judge, Heb. 13. 4. but honour and holineſſe ſound the ſame, 1 Theſ. 4. 4.

THe Argument from Mat. §. 6. The Arguments from Mat. 19. 15. for Infant-Baptiſme exmined.Matt 19:1519. 15. Mar. 10. 14. 16. Luke 18. 15, 16, 17. may be formed in divers manners: Firſt thus; they are to be baptized, whom Chriſt commands to be brought to him, being moved with indignation towards his diſciples, that repelled them.

But Chriſt commands Infants to be brought to him. Ergo. That this Argument may be examined, it is to be conſidered:

1. Who they were that brought theſe children.

2. What little children they were that were brought.

3. Upon what motives.

4. To what end.

5. What time.

6. In what place they brought them.

7. For what cauſe the Apoſtles did repell them.

8. For what cauſe Chriſt being angry with the Apoſtles, com- …

p. 17In many of theſe, we have ſcarce any thing beſide conjectures, which we may follow, neither have I leiſure or books to look into all things which Commentators have diſcourſed concerning theſe heads.

As for the firſt, it it is ſuppoſed that the bringers were either parents, or other believers, who at leaſt wiſhed well to the little children; which is probable from the end for which they brought them, to wit, that he might bleſſe them, and pray for them, for this ſhewed faith and love.

As for the ſecond, it is probable they were children of Jews, becauſe this was done in the coaſts of Judea, Mat. 19. 1. Mar. 10. 1. But whether the parents of the children believed in Chriſt or otherwiſe, is not manifeſt.

As for the third, concerning the motive, there is little certain, whether it were upon the ſight, or hearing of that which Chriſt did, Mat. 18. 2. or from a cuſtome among the Jews, of ſeeking the bleſſing of Prophets and holy men, for their little ones, as Rebecca for Jacob, Joſeph for his ſons; or from the fame of things done upon the praiers of Chriſt; or an inſtinct from God, that occaſion might be given of teaching the things that Chriſt taught upon this matter; or ſome other motive.

As for the fourth, the end is expreſſed by Matthew, that he might put on hands and pray; by Mark and Luke, tha the might touch them, which tends to impart a bleſſing.

As for the fifth, Matthew points at the time, by the particle [then] and both Mark and Matthew, put it after the diſſertation, with the Phariſees concerning divorce, and the anſwer to the Diſciples exception, which Mark teſtifies was made in the houſe; Luke puts it after the parable of the Publican and the Phariſee, but he is wont to relate things out of their right place. But what the holy Spirit doth intimate, by noting the time preciſely, I gueſſe not, unleſſe perhaps he would have it noted, that an occaſion was opportunely miniſtred, of amplifying the argument concerning making a mans ſelf an Eunuch for the kingdome of heaven, though this reaſon doth not very much like me.

As for the ſixth, the place is intimated, Mat. 19. 1. Mar. 10. 1. in the coaſts of Judea, beyond Jordan, in Matthew; By the farther ſide of Jordan, in Mark; about which it availeth not to our preſent purpoſe to inquire.

As for the ſeventh, the reaſon of repelling, is not known, but by conjecture, it is probable this bringing of little children, was troubleſom to them, either becauſe it did interrupt Chriſts Speech about marriage, and fitneſs to the Kingdom of heaven, or becauſe they ſought reſt in the houſe, or becauſe they did think this bringing would be in vain.

As for the eighth, Chriſt without doubt, was angry with the Diſciple, p. 18becauſe they hindred the occaſion of doing good to men, whereas Chriſt went about doing good, Act. 10. 38. And in this buſineſs the faith of the bringers was to be cheriſhed, and the power of bleſſing in Chriſt was to be manifeſted, & the excellent doctrine to be delivered, concerning little childrens being capable of the Kingdome of heaven, of the quality of them who receive the Kingdome of heaven; but whether Chriſt would that this fact ſhould remain, as a perpetuall rule for baptizing the Infants of Believers, is yet a queſtion. It ſeems, ſcarce probable it ſhould be ſo.

1. Becauſe Baptiſme of Infants, being meerly poſitive, ſo obſcure and doubtfull an inſtitution, is without example and reaſon.

2. Becauſe we find no practice or hint in Scripture, which may expound this fact to this ſenſe.

3. Becauſe, if he had given a command to the Apoſtles of baptizing Infants, he had rather ſaid, bring the little children to me, then ſuffer them to be brought to me.

4. He had declared whoſe Infants he would have baptized, and not have ſpoken ſo indefinitely, it is certain, before the command, Mat. 28. 19, 20. There is no Precept extant, concerning baptizing Gentiles, much leſſe concerning baptizing the Infants of the Gentiles.

5. The words, ſuffer & forbid not, and foreign, theſe little children, as Beza reads, ſhew that Chriſts words are meant only of thoſe children.

6. If this fact pertain to Baptiſme, then we muſt ſay, that Chriſt baptized, the contrary whereof is ſaid, Joh. 4. 2. As for that which is objected, that three Euangeliſts rehearſe this fact, that thence a perpetuall rule may be drawn, of bringing Infants to Chriſt by an outward Ordinance, which is not done but by Baptiſme, it is weak: For,

1. Three Euangeliſts rehearſe the bringing of the palſie man to Chriſt, the acceſſe of the leprous perſon to Chriſt, and many other things, from which yet no perpetuall rule is formed.

2. If any rule be hence to be formed, that is to be perpetually obſerved, this relation will ſerve more fitly to eſtabliſh Epiſcopall confirmation, by laying on hands, and praying, then Presbyteriall baptiſme.

Secondly, we muſt diſtinguiſh, concerning bringing to Chriſt; there is a bringing to Chriſt, by locall admotion, there is another bringing to Chriſt by ſpirituall inſtruction; this bringing to Chriſt, is the cauſe of Baptiſme, not the other: for many were brought by the command of Chriſt, to Chriſt, as the blind ſon of Timaeus, and others, of whoſe baptiſme, or converſion we reade not; for not all that were corporally healed by Chriſt, were alſo ſpiritually healed, as we are to ſay of the nine Lepers. Malchus and others.

p. 193. The Argument ſuppoſeth they may be baptized, whom Chriſt commands to be brought, but neither is this true of ſpirituall bringing; for not thoſe whom he commands to be brought ſpiritually, are to be baptized, but thoſe whom he hath brought; as for that which is ſaid, they are repelled from Chriſt, that are repelled from Baptiſme, it is a light thing, for Baptiſme doth not bring men to Chriſt, unleſſe the perſons be firſt in Chriſt; neither is therefore any man repelled from Chriſt, becauſe he is not baptized, but when he is kept back, being fit for baptiſm.

To the Argument therefore anſwer is made, by denying the Major univerſally taken.

Secondly, the Argument is thus formed:

Arg. Thoſe whom Chriſt imbraced, laid his hands on, bleſſed, may be baptized; But Chriſt imbraced Infants, &c. Ergo.

Anſw. I anſwer, this argument ſuppoſeth theſe acts of Chriſt, to have been all one, as if he had baptized, but this is ſaid without proof, in very deed, that act of bleſſing was more then Baptiſme, and yet it had not the ſame reaſon with Baptiſme; it is manifeſt out of Joh. 4. 2. that Baptiſme was an act of miniſtry, which Chriſt did not exerciſe by himſelf, but his Diſciples, but that bleſſing was an act, by which he obtained ſome ſingular gift from God by prayers for thoſe Infants, upon whom he had laid his hands; nor is this benefit ſaid to be beſtowed on them for the faith of their parents, but out of ſingular favour which Chriſt beſtowed upon many, as Lazarus, with his ſiſters, John the Apoſtle and others, therefore the Major Propoſition is to be denied; for there is no connexion between this act, which is extraordinary, and the act of ordinary miniſtery, which is to be fulfilled according to the Lords preſcription.

The third Argument is thus formed.

Arg. They may be baptized, whoſe is the Kingdome of heaven; but of Infants is the Kingdome of heaven; Ergo.

Anſw. I anſwer, the Major Propoſition is true, if it be underſtood of thoſe whoſe is the Kingdome of heaven, when it appears that the Kingdome of heaven belongs to them, otherwiſe it is not true. Secondly, it is not ſaid in the Text [of Infants is the kingdom of heaven] but, of ſuch is the kingdome of heaven; and Chriſt expounds what he means, Mar. 10. 15. Luke 18. 17. to wit, of them who in humility of mind, are like little children, as it is Mat. 18. 3, 4. but if [of ſuch] be to be expounded, as Beza would, Annot. in Mat. 19. 14. of theſe and the like, as above, 18. it is not proved from thence, that the kingdome of heaven pertains to all Infants of Believers, but to them whom he then bleſſed, and to thoſe perſons who either are ſo bleſſed, or are converted and humble as little children.

p. 20Whence it is anſwered; firſt by denying the Major, if it be expounded univerſally and unreſtrainedly: ſecondly, by denying the Minor, as it is put indefinitely, for the reaſons above put.

THe Argument from the place,§. 7. The Argument from Acts 15. 16. &c. for Infant-Baptiſme examined.Acts 15:16 Act. 16. 15. 32. 33. Act. 18. 8. 1 Cor. 1. 16. is thus formed: If the Apoſtle baptized whole houſholds, then Infants; but the Apoſtle baptized whole houſholds, Ergo.

Anſw. This Argument reſts on a ſleight conjecture, that there were Infants in thoſe houſes, and that thoſe Infants were baptized, whereas the words of the Text evince not theſe things, yea, thoſe things which are ſaid, Acts 16. 32. He ſpake the Word of the Lord to him, and to all in his houſe; and verſ. 33. He rejoyced, believing God with all his houſe. Act. 18. 8. Criſpus believed the Lord with his whole houſe, do plainly prove, that under the name of the whole houſe, are underſtood thoſe only that heard the Word of God and believed. Whence it is anſwered by denying the conſequence of the Major Propoſition.

Some other arguments occur, which make a number without ſtrength.

FIrſt,§. 8. The Argument from generall promiſes for Infant-baptiſme examined. it is argued from generall promiſes, made to the godly and their ſeed, Exod. 20. 6. Pſal. 112. 2, &c. Whence it is gathered, that God makes a difference betwixt the children of the godly and the wicked, that he promiſeth bleſſing to thoſe, not to theſe, therefore the children of the godly are to be baptized, not the other.

Anſw. The promiſes recited, are firſt generall and indefinite; ſecondly, for the moſt part concerning corporall good things; thirdly, with the exception of free election; fourthly, to be underſtood with the implyed condition of faith and repentance, and ſo they ſerve not to this purpoſe.

SEcondly,§ 9. The Argument from Iſa. 49. 22. for Infant-Baptiſme examined.Isa 49:22 from Iſai. 49. 22. it is foretold that Gentiles ſhould bring their ſons in their arms, and their daughters on their ſhoulders, therfore the Prophet foreſaw in ſpirit, the baptiſme of the little ones of the Gentiles.

Anſw. Firſt, little ones might be brought for other ends then baptiſme, as Mat. 19. 15.

Secondly, I will uſe the words of Francis Junius in his Annot. on the place, All theſe things are ſaid Allegorically, of the ſpirituall amplification of the kingdome of Chriſt, as the Prophets are wont, they are fulfilled in the perſwaſions in which the Gentiles exhorted their children to imbrace Chriſt.

THirdly,§. 10. The Argument from 1 Cor. 10. 2. for Infant-Baptiſme ex…1 Cor 10:2 from 1 Cor. 10. 2. All our fathers were baptized, therefore alſo Infants.

I anſwer, firſt, if this verſe prove that Infants were baptized, the verſes following will prove that they received the Lords Supper.

p. 212. The ſenſe is not that they were formally baptized, with the rite of Baptiſme, begun by John Baptiſt, and ordained by Chriſt; but that by a like repreſentation, the ſea and the cloud ſignified ſalvation to them by Chriſt as baptiſme doth to us, and that they were in a like condition, as if they had been baptized.

FOurthly,§. 11. The Argument from Eph. 5. 26. for Infant-Baptiſme examined.Eph 5:26 from Epheſ. 5. 26. where it is ſaid, that Chriſt cleanſed the Church with the waſhing of water through the Word, therefore Infants either belong not to the Church, and ſo are excluded from the benefit of Chriſts death, or they are to be baptized.

Anſw. If this Argument be of force, the thief crucified with Chriſt, and repenting on the croſſe, Infants, Catechumeni, Martyrs, and others, dying before baptiſme, are excluded out of the Church, and from the benefit of Chriſts death; we are therefore to ſay, that either the Church is taken for the more famous part of the Church, or that purification is to be underſtood of that, which is for the moſt part.

FIfthly,§. 12. The Argument from 1 Pet. 2. 9. for Infant-baptiſme examined.1 Pet 2:9 from 1 Pet. 2. 9. Believers are called a choſen generation, a holy nation, which things are ſaid of the Iſraelites, Exo. 19. 5, 6. therefore Believers of the nations obtain the ſame birth-priviledges, which the Iſraelites had, and therefore their children are within the Covenant, and to be baptized as the children of the Iſraelites were to be circumciſed.

Anſw. 1. If this Argument proceed, it will follow, that there is ſome nationall-church among the Gentiles, as of old among the Jews, which is not to be granted, which I would have underſtood in this ſenſe, there is now no ſuch nationall-church, as amongſt the Iſraelites, ſo as that a perſon ſhould be accounted a member of a church, in that he is an Engliſhman, Scot, Dutchman, &c. In this ſpeech I oppoſe not them which affirm the outward government of the Church ſhould be ſubject to nationall Synods. 2. Exod. 19. 5, 6. God ſpeaks not of a priviledge flowing from birth, but obedience. 3. The Epiſtle was written to the diſperſed Jewes, and therefore the Argument lies liable to exception, when it is drawn from that which is ſaid of the Jews, as if it were ſaid of the Gentiles. 4. But letting theſe things paſſe, the ſenſe is, ye which believe, as it is verſ. 7. whom God hath called out of darkneſſe, are a holy nation, whether Jews or Gentiles, by ſpirituall regeneration, as Believers are called a family or kindred, Epheſ. 3. 15. the houſhold of faith, Gal. 6. 10. the houſe of God, 1 Tim. 3. 15. a people, 1 Pet. 2. 10. wherefore in this family, kindred, houſe, people, are only Believers, whom not carnall birth, but ſpirituall cauſeth to be reckoned in that number.

SIxthly,§. 13. The Argument … churches failing, if infant-baptiſme be not lawfull examined. the Church of God fails not, but we muſt ſay, the Church of God hath failed, if baptiſme of Infants be not lawfull, Ergo.

p. 22Anſw. 1. The Church of God may conſiſt without baptiſme, as in the crucified converted thief, &c. Secondly, neither perhaps, is it neceſſary to be ſaid, that the baptiſme of Infants, becauſe not lawfull, is therefore nall. Thirdly, there was in the Church Baptiſme of perſons grown, in all ages. Ludov. Vives in his Comment. upon Aug. de Civit. Dei. lib. 1. cap. 27. hath theſe words, No man of old was brought unto**Sacro baptiſterio admovebatur. the place of holy baptiſme unleſſe he were of grown age already, and when the ſame perſon knew what that myſticall water meant, and deſired to be waſhed in it, and that more then once, an Image of which thing we ſee yet, in our baptiſme of Infants; for as yet the Infant, though born the ſame day, or the day before, is asked, whether he would be baptized, and that thrice; for whom the ſureties anſwer, that he would. I hear in ſome cities in Italy, that the old cuſtome, for a great part is yet preſerved.

SEventhly,§. 14. The Argument from Heb. 6 2. for Infant-baptiſme examined.Heb 6:2 Heb. 6. 2. the Apoſtle ſpeaks of the doctrine of baptiſmes, and laying on of hands; now this is not likely to be underſtood of laying on of hands in healing ſick perſons, or beſtowing the Holy Ghoſt, for theſe were extraordinary or miraculous, and therefore not to be put in the number of the principles of the oracles of God, the foundation, milk for babes, nor of impoſition of hands for ordination to ſpecial function in the church, for that, though ordinary, yet not likely to be put among the principles, the foundation, milk for babes, therefore it remains, that it was the laying on of hands on children formerly baptized in infancy, which though corruptly made a Sacrament by Papiſts, and ſuperſtitiouſly abuſed, yet being freed from the abuſe were very uſefull, as being an Apoſtolicall ordinance, from this Text, and manifeſts that there was Infant-baptiſme in the Apoſtles dayes, which is confirmed, becauſe it is coupled with baptiſme, and therefore ſeems to be a conſequent upon it.

Anſw. 1. There is great incertainty, what this impoſition of hands mentioned, Heb. 6. 2. ſerved for, the reaſon to prove that it could not be either for healing, or giving the Holy Ghoſt, becauſe they were miraculous or extraordinary, is not cogent; for though they were by more then ordinary power, yet were they frequent in thoſe times, and might well be put among the elements to be in thoſe days firſt learned: nor is the reaſon cogent to prove it could not be the impoſition of hands in ordination, for ſpeciall function in the Church; for it is more likely that it ſhould be meant, which it is certain was ſtill in uſe, and to continue to be uſed, and therefore it was needfull to be taught younglings, as well as the doctrine of baptiſmes: then laying on of hands for confirmation of baptiſme, of which there is no certainty (though pretended examples) in Scripture, be brought to give ſome colour to it; nor is impoſition of hands in ordination unfitly coupled to baptiſme, both being ordinances for initiation, the one into the pro- …

p. 232. But if it were ſuppoſed that this impoſition of hands, meant Heb. 6. 2. were on the baptized; yet this proves not the baptiſme of Infants in the Apoſtles dayes, unleſſe it could be proved that it was uſed after the baptiſme of Infants only, for a confirmation either of the baptiſme, or baptized. Or the contrary, it is apparent out of Tertul. de corona militis, c. 3. that in the primitive times the baptiſied did make his confeſſion at baptiſme, ſub manu antiſtitis, that is, the Miniſter laying hands on him. And to ſave labour in reciting teſtimonies, Chamier may be ſeen, who in his Panſ. Catholica, tom. 4. l. 4. c. 11. ſec. 14. at large proves out of the Ancients, that the impoſition of hands, which after was made a diſtinct Sacrament, called Confirmation, was either a part or appendix of Baptiſme: and many paſſages he cites to ſhew, that it was when the baptized was to confeſſe the faith, and to renounce Satan: And if Hierom, tom. 2. in his Dialogue againſt the Luciferians, do aſſert that uſe of Impoſition of hands from Scripture, yet he alleadgeth not Heb. 6. 2. for it, but the examples of giving the Holy Ghoſt by laying on of hands, in the Acts of the Apoſtles.

THe ſecond Argument followeth:

That which agreeth not with the Lords inſtitution of Baptiſme,Arg. 2. that is deſervedly doubtfull.§. 15. The argument from the inſtitution of Chriſt, Mat. 28. 19. againſt Infant-baptiſme, confirmed.Matt 28:19

But the rite of Infant-Baptiſme agrees not with the Lords inſtitution of Baptiſme, Ergo.

The Major is proved, becauſe Inſtitution is the rule of exhibiting worſhip to God.

The Minor is proved from the words of Inſti…ution, Mat. 28. 19. Going therefore, diſciple ye all nations, baptizing them.

Whence I gather thus:

That rite agrees not with the Lords inſtitution of Baptiſme, according to which they are baptized, whom the Lord appointed not to be baptized.

But after the rite of Infant-Baptiſme, they are baptized whom the Lord appointed not to be baptized, Ergo.

The Major is manifeſt of it ſelf.

The Minor is proved: The Lord appointed not Infants to be baptized, Ergo. The Antecedent is proved;

Thoſe, and no other, the Lord appointed to be baptized, who have been made diſciples.

p. 24But this cannot be ſaid of Infants. Ergo.

The argument is confirmed from John 4. 2. where it is ſaid that Jeſus made more diſciples, then, that he baptized: firſt it is ſaid that he made diſciples, then baptized.

Some one perhaps will ſay that Baptiſme of Infants is elſewhere inſtituted, although not here.

To which is anſwered, Let he that can, bring forth that inſtitution, and the doubt will be looſed.

But infants may be diſciples, for they may be ſanctified by the Spirit?

Anſw. It is true, Infants may be ſanctified by the Spirit of God, purged by the blood of Chriſt, ſaved by the grace of God, my minde abhorrs from the doctrine of them that aſſert, that Infants not baptized, neceſſarily periſh, or are deprived of the Kingdome of God, nor do I doubt, but that the Elect Infants dying in infancy are ſanctified, yea if it ſhould be made known to us that they are ſanctified, I ſhould not doubt that they are to be baptized, remembring the ſaying of Peter, Act. 10. 47. Can any man forbid water, that theſe ſhould not be baptized, who have received the Holy Ghoſt as we?

Then you will ſay [make diſciples] in that place, may be ſo expounded, as that it may include infants?

Anſw. It follows not; but this only follows, that in eaſe extraordinary, we may depart from the ordinary rule: But the ordinary rule is, make diſciples, that is, by preaching the Goſpell, make diſciples, as appears from Mark. 16. 15. and baptize them, to wit, whom you have made diſciples, and in the ordinary courſe of miniſtry, we muſt follow the ordinary rule.

Perhaps ſome one will except, that Chriſt teacheth that ſuch diſciples ſhould be baptized, but that the ſpeech is not excluſive.

Refut. But it is meet he remember, who ſhall thus except, if inſtitution be the rule of worſhip, it is neceſſary that he that ſhall adminiſter the worſhip, binde himſelf to the rule, otherwiſe he will deviſe will-worſhip, and arrogate the Lords authority to himſelf: Surely the Apoſtle in the buſineſſe of the Lords Supper, inſinuates this, when being about to correct the aberrations of the Corinthians, concerning the Lords Supper he brings forth theſe words, 1 Cor. 11. 23. For I have received of the Lord, that which I alſo have delivered unto you.

Beſides as Chriſt Mat. 19. 4. 8. argues from the inſtitution of p. 25Marriage, againſt Divorce for a light cauſe, and Polygamie, becauſe it is ſaid, Two, not more then two ſhall be one fleſh; ſo in like manner it may be here argued, Chriſt ſaid Baptizing them, and not others, therefore theſe and not others are to be baptized.

But as for him who gathers from this place, infants are to be baptized, becauſe Chriſt commands all Nations to be baptized, verily he is faulty. 1. In caſting away that reſtriction that Chriſt hath put.

2. By determining that all men whatſoever are to be baptized, ſo that this is not a priviledge of believers and their children, but common with them, to all Infidels and their children.

And in very deed, however aſſertors of Infant-baptiſme, crack of a priviledge of believers and their offeſpring, not only the uſuall practiſe of baptiſing any little children offered, but alſo ſayings prove, that men have gone far, not only from Chriſts inſtitution, but alſo from the principles, upon which, men at this day are buſie to eſtabliſh Infant-baptiſme. I ſhall prove this by ſome inſtances. In the 59. Epiſtle of Cyprian to Fidus, from which Auguſtine is wont in his diſputations againſt the Pelagians, to take his proof for Infant-baptiſme, and to which Writers attribute much, although that I may ſay no worſe, without cauſe, this reaſon is put, why it was not aſſented to Biſhop Fidus, who thought that an Infant was not to be baptized, afore the eighth day, according to the Law of ancient Circumciſion, We all rather judged, that the mercy and grace of God is to be denied to none, that is born of men.

By the anſwer of Auguſtine to Bonifacius, Tom. 2. Epiſt. 23. Enquiring concerning the truth of Sureties, in affirming the unknowne faith of little ones, and promiſing for them, it will appeare to the Reader, that the baptiſme of any little ones offered to baptiſme, is defended by him, Although they were not brought, that they might be regenerated to eternall Life, by Spirituall grace, but becauſe they thinke by this remedy (I uſe the words of Auguſtine) to retain or receive temporall health: John Gerhard, Loc. Theolog. Tom. 4. de Baptiſ. Cap. 7. Sect. 4. defends the practiſe of the Ancients baptizing the Children of unbeleevers: And the words of Mr. Samuell Rutherford, Scot, in his Booke lately put forth in the Engliſh tongue, intituled A peaceable and temperate plea, c. 12. arg. 7. ſeems to me to propend too much to this opinion, The words are theſe, If then the Jewes in Pauls time were holy by Covenant, p. 26howbeit for the preſent the Sons were branches broken off, for unbelief, much more ſeeing God hath choſen the race and nation of the Gentiles, and is become a God to us and to our ſeed, the ſeed muſt be holy, with holineſſe of the choſen nation, and holineſſe externall of the Covenant, notwithſtanding the Father and Mother were as wicked as the Jews, who ſlow the Lord of glory.

And the grave confutation of Browniſts, by Rathband, Part. 3. Pag. 50. Fourthly, Children may be lawfully admitted to Baptiſme, though both their Parents be profane, if thoſe who are inſtead of Parents to them do require Baptiſme for them, and give their promiſe to the Church for their religious Education, ſeeing they may lawfully be accounted within Gods Covenant, if any of their Anceſtors in any Generation were faithfull. Exod. 20. 5.

Laſtly, if this Argument be not of force, Chriſt commandeth firſt to Diſciple, and then to baptize thoſe that are Diſcipuled; to exclude Infants from Baptiſme; neither will the argument be of force, from 1 Cor. 11. 28. Let a man examine himſelf, and ſo let him eat, to exclude infants from the Lords Supper, for by the like cluſion this argument may be rejected by ſaying, that the ſpeech of the Apoſtle is not excluſive, and is to be underſtood of receiving the Lords Supper by perſons grown only, yea, verily, neither will the argument be of force from the inſtitution of the Supper, Mat. 26. 26, 27. therefore only believers are to be admitted to the Lords Supper. If any reply. But the Apoſtle 1 Cor. 10. & 11. hath declared, that the inſtitution is excluſive, the ſame may be ſaid of the inſtitution of Baptiſm, from the following Argument.

THE third Argument is taken from the practiſe of the Apoſtles and John Baptiſt, Arg. 3.which is the beſt interpreter of our Lords inſtitution,§ 16. The argument from John Baptiſt and the Apoſtles practiſe againſt Inſant-baptiſm confirmed. from whence the Argument is thus formed:

That tenet and practiſe, which being put: Baptiſme cannot be adminiſtred as John Baptiſt and the Apoſtles did adminiſter it, agrees not with the practiſe of John Baptiſt and the Apoſtles.

But the tenet and practiſe of Infant-baptiſme being put; Baptiſm cannot be adminiſtred, as John Baptiſt and the Apoſtles adminiſtred it, Ergo.

The Major is of it ſelf manifeſt.

The Minor is proved; Before the Baptiſme of John even the Jews did confeſſe ſins, the Apoſtles before baptiſme did require p. 27ſhews of faith and repentance, but this cannot be done in the baptiſme of Infants: The Major is proved by looking on theſe places, Mat. 3. 6. Luk. 3. 10. Act. 2. 38. Act. 8. 12, 13. and ver. 37. when the Eunuch had ſaid to Philip, What letteth me to be baptized? Philip anſwered, If thou believeſt with thy whole heart thou maiſt; he implies the defect of faith to be an impediment of Baptiſme, Act. 9. 18. Act. 20. 47. Act. 11. 17. 18. Act. 16. 15, 31, 32, 33. Act. 18. 8. Act. 19. 5. Act. 22. 16.

This Argument is confirmed, for if it be rightly argued from 1 Cor. 11. 28 That the Lords Supper is not to be granted to Infants, becauſe ſelf-examination is pre-required, by like reaſon we may ſay Baptiſme is not to be yeelded to infants, becauſe repentance and faith are pre-required, Act. 2. 38. Act. 8. 37. and that of thoſe who are deſcended from Abraham, and to whom the promiſe was.

THE fourth Argument is taken from the practiſe of the nextArg. 4. Age after the Apoſtles.§. 17. The argument from the practiſe in the Age next the Apoſtles againſt Infant-baptiſm confirmed.

That tenet and practiſe is doubtfull of which it cannot be proved that it was in force or uſe, in the next Age after the Apoſtles.

But it cannot be proved that the tenet or practiſe of Infant-baptiſme was in force or uſe in the Age next after the Apoſtles, Ergo.

The Major is of it ſelf manifeſt.

The Minor is proved by the teſtimony of Lodovicus Vives above recited, to which Voſſius in theſibus Hiſtorico Theologicis, of Infant-baptiſme, joynes the teſtimony of VValafridus Strabo, and by the examining of places brought to that purpoſe, and by the continuation of queſtions propounded to the baptized in Ages following, and other tokens from Councils and Eccleſiaſticall writers, which in Hiſtoricall buſineſſe are wont to beget credit.

The words of Walafridus Strabo, who lived about the year 840. in his book de rebus Eccleſiaſticis, Chap. 26. are theſe, We are alſo to note, that in the firſt times the grace of Baptiſme was wont only to be given to them, who by integrity both of body and minde were already come to this, that they could know and underſtand what profit is to be obtained in baptiſme, what is to be confeſſed and believed, what laſtly, is to be obſerved of them that are born again in Chriſt.

p. 28THe fifth Argument:Arg. 4.

That which in ſucceeding Ages,§. 17. The argument from the wrong originall of Infant-baptiſm, confirmed againſt it. in which it was in uſe, was in force, 1. as a Tradition not written; 2. Out of imitation of Jewiſh Circumciſion; 3. Without univerſall practiſe; 4. Together with the error of giving Infants the Lords ſupper, and many other humane inventions, under the name of Apoſtolicall traditions; That is deſervedly doubtfull.

But in ſome ages after the firſt from the Apoſtles, the tenet and practiſe of Infant-Baptiſme was in uſe, 1. as a tradition not written, as appears from Origen, Hom. on Rom. 6. Of which book nevertheleſſe let me add the cenſure of Eraſmus on the Homilies of Origen upon Leviticus, But he that reads this work, and the enarration of the Epiſtle to the Romans is uncertain whether he read Origen or Ruffinus. And the teſtimony fetched from theſe books for Infant-Baptiſme, is ſo much the more to be ſuſpected, becauſe Auguſtine, Hierom, &c. rely (ſo far as yet is manifeſt to me) on no other teſtimony, then of Cyprian and his fellow-Biſhops in the Councel, of which mention is made Epiſt. 59. ad Fidum.

Secondly, out of imitation of Jewiſh circumciſion, as the doubt of Fidus, in the 59. Epiſtle of Cyprian to Fidus, intimates, though there were alſo other reaſons of Infant-baptiſme; as the opinion of the neceſſity of Baptiſme to ſalvation, and the greedineſſe to increaſe the number of Chriſtians, and perhaps the imitation of heatheniſh luſtration of little ones; and ſome other.

Thirdly, without univerſall practiſe: for it is manifeſt that Conſtantine, although born of Helena his mother, a Chriſtian, was not baptized till aged, as Euſebius in the life of Conſtantine written by him. The ſame is manifeſt from the book of Confeſſions of Auguſtine, concerning Auguſtine hmſelf, whoſe mother Monica was a Chriſtian. The things which may be drawn out of Theodoret, Auguſtine, and others, concerning Theodoſius, Alipius, Adeodatus, and many others (although my books, and notes out of them are wanting to me, by reaſon of the injury of the times) unleſſe I be deceived will evince that (though in the Churches of thoſe times, little ones were baptized, yet) many were not baptized, whoſe baptiſm its likely the Church would ſooner have diſpatched, if the opinion of Baptiſm that now obtains, had then obtained.

Fourthly, together with the error of giving the Lords ſupper to Infants, as is manifeſt out of the book of Cyprian de lapſis, and others. p. 29And that many other Inventions of men under the name of Apoſtolicall tradition, out of a wrong liking of Judaiſme, did then prevaile, as the Paſchall ſolemnity, &c. is ſo obvious to him that reads Fathers and Eccleſiaſticall writers, that no man will need proofe, Ergo.

And in very deed, as of old, becauſe the rite of Infant-baptiſme ſeemed to be of ſo great moment againſt the Pelagian hereſie, and for the authority of the Councell under Cyprian, the Councel of Milevis, Auguſtine, Hierom, and others, rather then from any ſolid argument out of Scripture, in former ages, Infant-baptiſme prevailed; ſo in this laſt age, ſome modern men ſeem to imbrace this tenet of Infant-baptiſm, out of horror of mind, leſt they ſhould go headlong into the pernicious errors of former Anabaptiſts, and their mad furies, or leſt they ſhould ſeem to deſert the leading men of the Reformed Churches, or move troubles in the Church; rather then from perſpicuous foundation in the Scriptures. Which they will think that I have not ſaid as one that dreams, who ſhall read what Robert Lord Brook hath in the end of his Treatiſe concerning Epiſcopacie, Daniel Rogers in his treatiſe of Baptiſme, and others elſwhere.

THe ſixth Argument follows:Arg. 6.

That which hath occaſioned many humane inventions,§. 19. The argument againſt Infant-baptiſme, from humane inventions occaſioned by it confirmed. partly by which Infant-baptiſme it ſelf may be under-propped, partly the defect in the policy of the Church, which in very deed is to be ſupplied by the lawfull uſe of Baptiſme, Of that it is deſervedly doubtfull whether it be not in it ſelf weak and inſufficient for its proper work.

But the matter is ſo in the buſineſſe of Infant-baptiſme,

Ergo.

The Minor is proved by inſtances: they are,

1. The uſe of ſureties in Baptiſme, which is an humane invention, for a ſhadowy ſupplement, and I had almoſt ſaid ſporting, of that profeſſion of faith which at firſt was made by the baptized in his own perſon.

2. Epiſcopall confirmation, in which the Biſhop layes hands or anoints the catechized, that Baptiſme, or the baptized may be confirmed, and they made capable of the Lords ſupper.

3. The reformed union, by examination, confeſſion, ſubſcription, of the received doctrine in the Church, before the communion of p. 30the Euchariſt, of which Parker of Eccleſ. policie, l. 3. c. 16.

4. The Church-covenant, as they call it, afore the admiſſion of members into Church-fellowſhip, of which the New-England Elders in the little book in Engliſh, called Church-Covenant, which in very deed are deviſed to ſupply the place of Baptiſme; for by Baptiſme, according to Chriſts inſtitution, a perſon is exhibited a member of Chriſt and the Church, 1 Cor. 12. 13. Gal. 3. 27. Epheſ. 4. 5.

THe ſeventh Argument:Arg. 7.

That which hath occaſioned many errors,§. 21. The argument againſt Infant-baptiſm, from the Errors occaſioned by it, confirmed. that is deſervedly doubtfull, whether it be right.

But the practiſe of Infant-baptiſme hath occaſioned either the birth or foſtering of many errors, Ergo.

It is proved by inſtances:

1. That Baptiſme conferres grace by the work done.

2. That Baptiſme is Regeneration.

3. That Infants dying, are ſaved by the faith of their parents, faith of ſureties, of the Church receiving into her lap: which is to be aſcribed alone to the grace of God by Chriſt.

4. That ſome regenerate perſons may utterly fall from grace.

THe eighth Argument:Arg. 8.

That which hath cauſed many abuſes and faults in Diſcipline,§. 20. The argument againſt Infant-baptiſm, from many abuſes cauſed by it, confirmed. and Divine worſhip, and Converſation of men, that is deſervedly doubtfull.

But Infant-Baptiſme is ſuch, Ergo.

It is proved by enumeration.

1. Private baptiſme.

2. Baptiſme by women.

3. Baptiſme of Infants not yet brought into light.

4. Baptiſme of Infants of uncertain progeny, whom we call children of the earth and world.

5. They are baptized in the name of the Lord, who know not the Lord, nor have ever conſented, or perhaps will conſent to the confeſſion of the name of our Lord.

6. It hath brought in the admiſſion of ignorant and profane men into the communion of the Church, and to the Lords ſupper: for who can deny rightly, the right of the Church to the baptized?

p. 317. It perverts the order of diſcipline, that firſt a man be baptized and after among the catechized.

8. The Sacrament of baptiſme is turned into a meer Ceremony, yea into a profane meeting to feaſt together.

9. Men forget Baptiſme, as if they were never baptized, ſo that it hath the force of a carnall rite, not of a ſpirituall Inſtitution.

10. It takes away, or at leaſt diminiſheth zoale, and induſtry in knowing the Goſpel.

THE ninth Argument.Arg. 9.

That is deſervedly doubtfull,§. 22. The argument from unneceſſary diſputes cauſed by it againſt Infant-baptiſme, confirmed. that yeeldeth occaſion to many unneceſſary diſputes, f…ſtering only contention, and which cannot be determined by any certain rule.

But the tenet or rite of Infant-baptiſme is ſuch,

Ergo.

It is proved by inſtances.

1. Of baptizing the Infants of Excommunicated perſons.

2. Of baptizing the Infants of Apoſtates.

3. Of baptizing the Infants of ſuch Parents as are not members in a gathered Church.

4. Of baptizing …he Infants of thoſe, whoſe Anceſtors were believers, the next Parents remaining in unbelief; Theſe things ſhew that men have departed from the Rule, when they know not where to ſtay.

THE tenth reaſon of doubting is,Arg. 10.

That in the midſt of the darkneſſe under the Papacythe ſame men oppoſed Infant-baptiſme,§ 23. The argument againſt Infant-baptiſm from the oppoſition to it in the middeſt of Popery, confirmed. who oppoſed invocation of Saints, prayer for the dead, adoration of the Croſſe, and ſuch like; This is manifeſt out of the 66. Sermon of Bernard, on the Canticles, where of the Heretiques (as he cals them) who he ſaid boaſted themſelves to be Succeſſors of the Apoſtles, and name themſelves Apoſtolique, he hath theſe words, They deride us, becauſe we baptize Infants, becauſe we pray for the dead, becauſe we ask the ſuffrages of the Saints, and in his 140. Epiſtle to Hildefonſus, Earl of Saint Giles, he complains of Henricus the Heretique, formerly a Monke, that He tooke away holydayes, Sacraments, Churches, Prieſts, that the life of Chriſt is ſtopped to the little ones of Chriſtians, while the grace of Baptiſme is denied, and they are not ſuffered to draw neer to ſalvation.

p. 32From the Epiſtle of Peter Abbat. Cluniacenſis, to three Biſhops of France, againſt Peter de Bruis, and Henricus, holding errors, digeſted into five heads.

1. That little ones are not to be baptized.

2. That Churches or Altars ought not to be made.

3. That the Croſſe of our Lord is not to be adored or worſhipped, but rather to be broken and trodden under feet.

4. That the Maſſe is nothing, nor ought to be celebrated.

5. That the good deeds of the living, nothing profit the dead; That we are not to chaunt to God. He ſaith, that the hereſie of the Petrobruſians was received in the Cities of Gallia Narbonenſis.

And from Lucas Oſiander his Epitome of the Eccleſiaſticall Hiſtory, Cent. 13. l. 1. c. 4. at the year 1207. where he accuſeth the Albigenſes as conſenting with the Anabaptiſts.

To which I adde, That in the ages neer the Apoſtles, Tertullian and Gregory Nazianzen diſſwade the baptiſme of Infants, unleſſe the danger of death happen. The words of Tertullian are in his book of Baptiſme, c. 18. Therefore for the condition and diſpoſition, alſo age of each perſon, the delaying of Baptiſme is more profitable: Yet chiefly about little ones; for what need that the Sureties be alſo caſt on danger, who themſelves may by mortality be wanting to their promiſes, and be deceived by the comming forth of an evill diſpoſition. The Lord ſaith indeed, Do not prohibite them to come to me; let them come when they are grown, let them come when they learn, let them be taught when they come, let them be made Chriſtians when they can know Chriſt. Why doth innocent age haſten to the remiſſion of ſinnes? ſhall it be done more warily in things ſecular, that to whom earthly ſubſtance is not committed, divine ſhould? Let them know how to ask ſafety, that thou maiſt know to give to him that asketh.

Gregory Nazianzen, in his 40. Oration of holy Baptiſme:

For which we are to uſe all diligence, that we miſſe not the common grace. Some one will ſay, let theſe things be concerning them that ſeek Baptiſme: but what may you ſay concerning them that are yet babes, and neither perceive loſſe, nor grace? ſhall we alſo baptize them? Yes by all means, if any danger urge; for it is better that they be ſanctified without perceiving it, then to go away unſealed or unaccompliſhed. And the reaſon of this, to us, is Circumciſion on the eighth day, being a certain typical ſeal, & offered to them that had not yet the uſe of reaſon; as alſo the anointing of the poſts, which by things without feeling preſerved p. 33the firſt born. But for others, I give my opinion that they ſtay three yeares, or a little within this, or beyond it, when they may be able to heare and anſwer ſome myſticall points, if they cannot underſtand perfectly, yet being thus ſtamped, they ſhall ſanctifie both ſoules and bodies with the great myſtery of conſecration.

THe eleventh reaſon of doubting,Arg. 11. is, Becauſe the Aſſertors of Infant-Baptiſme little agree among themſelves,§. 24 The Argument againſt Infant-baptiſm, from aſſertors difference about the ground of it, confirmed. upon what foundation they may build Infant-Baptiſme. Cyprian and others of the Ancients draw it from the univerſality of divine grace, and the neceſſity of Baptiſme to ſalvation. Auguſtine, Bernard, and others, bring the faith of the Church as the reaſon of baptizing Infants: Others, among whom is the Catechiſme in the Engliſh Liturgie, put as the reaſon of Infant-Baptiſme, the promiſe of the Sureties, in the place of the faith and repentance of the baptized. The Lutherans, the faith of the Infant; others, the holineſſe of a believing Nation; others, the faith of the next parent; others, the faith of the next parent in covenant in a gathered Church. This difference of the maintainers of Infant-Baptiſm, deſervedly cauſeth doubt concerning the thing it ſelf.

THE laſt,Arg. 12. and that a weighty reaſon of doubting is, becauſe Infant-Baptiſme ſeemes to take away one, perhaps the primary end of Baptiſm; for many things argue that it was one end of Baptiſm, that it ſhould be a ſigne that the baptized ſhews himſelf a diſciple, and confeſſeth the faith in which he hath been inſtructed.

1. The requiring of confeſſion by John Baptiſt and the Apoſtles, was wont to be before Baptiſme, Luk. 3. 10. Act. 8. 35. Act. 16. 31.

2. The frequent manner of ſpeaking in the new Teſtament, which puts Baptiſm for Doctrine, Act. 10. 37. Act. 19. 3. ſhews this. Beza in his Annot. on Act. 19. 3. The anſwer is moſt appoſite, in which they ſignifie that they profeſſed in Baptiſm the doctrine propounded by John, and confirmed by uſe of Baptiſme with which they had been baptized, whereby they had acknowledged Chriſt but very ſlenderly.

3. The form of Chriſts inſtitution, Mat. 28. 19. compared with the phraſe as it is uſed 1 Cor. 1. 13. Or, were you baptized into the name of Paul? implies the ſame. On which place Beza,

The third reaſon is taken from the form and end of Baptiſme, in which we give our name to Chriſt, being called upon, with the Father and Holy Spirit.

p. 344. That which is ſaid, Joh. 4. 2. He made and baptized more diſciples. And Mat. 28. 19. Going, make diſciples in all nations, baptizing them; Intimate this. And if, as ſome affirme, Baptiſm was in uſe with the Jews, in the initiating of proſelytes into the profeſſion of Judaiſme; this opinion is the more confirmed. But in Infant-Baptiſme the matter is ſo carried, that Baptiſme ſerves to confirm a benefit, not to ſignifie a profeſſion made: and ſo one, perhaps the chief end of Baptiſme is voyded. And here I think it is to be minded, that the uſuall deſcription of a Sacrament, and ſuch as are like to it, That it is a viſible ſigne of inviſible grace; hath occaſioned the miſunderſtanding of both Sacraments, as if they ſigned a divine benefit, not our duty, to which in the firſt place the Inſtitution had reſpect.

It ſeems to ſome, that Infant-baptiſme ſhould be good, becauſe the Devil requires Witches to renounce it. Which reaſon, if ought worth, might as well prove Baptiſme of any Infants, Baptiſme by a Midwife, good; becauſe theſe the Devil requires them to renounce, as well that which is of the Infants of believers, by a lawfull Miniſter. But the true reaſon why he requires the Baptiſme of Witches to be renounced by them, is not becauſe the Baptiſme is good in reſpect of the adminiſtration of it, but becauſe the Faith mentioned in the form of Baptiſme, is good; and they that renounce not their baptiſme, do ſhew their adherence to that faith in ſome ſort, which cannot ſtand with an explicite covenant with the Devil. Nor is the aſſuming of baptiſme in ripe yeares by thoſe who were waſhed in infancy, a renouncing of baptiſme, as ſome in their groſſe ignorance conceit; but indeed a firmer avouching of baptiſme according to Chriſts mind.

This more likely might, be inferred from the Devils practiſe in requiring. Witches to renounce their baptiſme; That the profeſſion of Faith is the main buſineſſe in Baptiſme, which ſhould be before Baptiſme, if it were rightly adminiſtred after the firſt pattern.

FINIS.

End of the text · John Tombes, Two Treatises Covering Infant Baptism (1645)