An Exercitation presented
to the Chairman of a Committee of the Westminster Assembly of DIVINES. By JOHN
TOMBES. B. D.
Prov. 23. 23. Buy the truth, and sell it not.
Acts 8. 36, 37, 38. And the Eunuch said, See here is water, what doth hinder me to be baptized? And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou may. And he answered, and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. And he commanded the Chariot to stand still, and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the Eunuch, and he baptized him.
LONDON, Printed for George Whittington, and
are to be sold at the signe of the Blackmore in Bishopsgate-streete.December
15. 1645.
The Author of this Examen being
(as I hear) a godly man, and of the Presbyterian judgment,
though I am not of opinion with him (notwithstanding anything I have here read)
viz. That
Infants are not the subject of Baptism; yet the end of his writing, as I
conceive, being the provoking of others to write, that so his arguments being
answered, himself and those that are of his mind may receive satisfaction, I
permit it to pass the Press: Not doubting but since now (according to the
desire of many) it is known where the chief strength of the Catapaedobaptists lies, some will be found out in due
time to encounter with it.
John Bachiler.
The Contents of the first TREATISE.
· Pag. 1. sect. 1.
THe first argument for Infant-Baptism from the interest in the
promise, Gen. 17. 7. examined.
· Pag. 5. sect. 2.
The second argument for Infant-Baptism, from the succession of
Baptism to Circumcision, examined.
· Pag. 8. sect. 3.
The third argument from the parity of grace in the New Testament to that in the
Old, examined.
· Pag. 9. sect. 4. The argument from Acts. 2.
38, 39. for Infant-Baptism, examined.
· Pag. 10. sect. 5. The argument from 1 Cor.
7. 14. for Infant-Baptism, examined.
· Pag. 16. sect. 6. The arguments from Matth.
19. 15. for Infant-Baptism, examined.
· Pag. 20. sect. 7. The argument from Acts
16. 15. &c. for Infant-Baptism, examined.
· sect. 8.
The argument from general promises for Infant-Baptism, examined.
· sect. 9.
The argument from Isai. 49. 22. for Infant-Baptism, examined.
· sect. 10.
The argument from 1 Cor. 10. 2. for Infant-Baptism, examined.
· Pag. 21. sect. 11. The argument from Ephes.
5. 26. for Infant-Baptism, examined.
· sect. 12.
The argument from 1 Pet. 2. 9. for Infant-Baptism, examined.
· sect. 13.
The argument from the Churches failing, if Infant-Baptism, be
not lawful, examined.
· Pag. 22. sect. 14. The argument from Heb.
6. 2. for Infant-Baptism, examined.
· Pag. 23. sect. 15.
The argument from the institution of Christ, Matth. 28. 19.
against Infant-Baptism confirmed.
· Pag. 26. sect. 16.
The argument from John Baptist and the Apostles practise
against Infant-Baptism, confirmed.
· Pag. 27. sect. 17.
The argument from the practise in the age next the Apostles against Infant-Baptism, confirmed.
· Pag. 28. sect. 18.
The argument from the wrong original of Infant-Baptism, confirmed
against it.
· Pag. 29. sect. 19.
The argument against Infant-Baptism, from humane inventions,
occasioned by it, confirmed.
· Pag. 30. sect. 20.
The argument against Infant-Baptism, from the errors
occasioned by it, confirmed.
· sect. 21.
The argument against Infant-Baptism from many abuses caused by
it, confirmed.
· Pag. 31. sect. 22.
The argument from unnecessary disputes caused by it against Infant-Baptism, confirmed.
· sect. 23.
The argument against Infant-Baptism, from the opposition to it
in the midst of Popery, confirmed.
· Pag. 33. sect. 24.
The argument against Infant-Baptism, from assertors difference
about the ground of it, confirmed.
· sect. 25.
The argument against Infant-Baptism, from it's voiding the
chief end of Baptism, confirmed.
ERRATA.
Treatise 1. Pag. 7. line 24. rationals, read rationale, p. 9. l. 3.
17. r. 7. p. 10. l 20.
Minor, r. Major. p. 16. l. 4. put such back. r. put back such p. 22. l.
30. dele () p. 28. margin r. 18. p. 29. l. 24. baptism, r. baptism, may be supplied p. 34. l. 16. as well, r. as well as.
AN EXERCITATION ABOUT INFANT-BAPTISME;
Presented in certain Papers, to the
Chair-man of a COMMITTEE of the WESTMINSTER ASSEMBLY OF DIVINES,
Selected to consider of that ARGUMENT, in
the years, 1643, and 1644. With some few Emendations, Additions, and an Answer to one new Objection. Translated out of Latine, by the Author.
Published according to Order.
LONDON, Printed by M. S. for George Whittington, 1646.
AN EXERCITATION CONCERNING
Infant-Baptisme.
THe present Tenent,* according to which Infant-Bap∣tism is practised, is, that the Infants
born of a Believer, are universally to be baptized.
This Doctrine and Practice conformable, is made doubtful to me, by
these Arguments.
Arg. 1. That which hath no testimony of Scripture
for it, is doubtful.
But this Doctrine of Infant-Baptism, hath no testimony of
Scripture for it; Ergo, it
is doubtful.
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 business; 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 the Gospel-covenant agrees;
therefore to them the sign of the Gospel-covenant agrees, and consequently
Baptism. TheMinor is proved from Gen. 17. 7. where God promises 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 ofAbraham 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 baptism 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 Evangelical, belonging to those to whom the Gospel
belongeth, some are Domestique, or Civil promises, specially respecting the
House of Abraham,and
policy of Israel; Ergo.
That was Evangelical which we read, 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
beAbrahams children by believing, Rom. 4. 17, 18. It was Evangelical, 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 whomAbraham is father, Gal. 3. 8, 9. and by Christ, who is the
seed of Abraham,
Gal. 3. 16. Acts 3.
25.
Domestique and Civil 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 Euangelical,
according to the more inward sense of the Holy Ghost, do point at the privileges
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 Evangelicall, and
so pertain to Believers, as such, although there be Evangelicall promises in
that Covenant, pertaining to all Believers, as Believers. There were annexed to the Covenant on Mount Sinai, sacrifices
pointing at the sacrifice of Christ, and yet we call not that Covenant simply
Evangelicall, but in some respect.
Secondly, The seed of Abraham is
many ways 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 spiritual seed. Thirdly,
there was a natural seed of Abraham, to
whom the inheritance did accrue; this was Isaac, Gen. 21.
12. Fourthly, a natural seed, whether lawful, 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 spiritual seed of Abraham in Evangelical benefits, to the
natural seed inheriting, in domestic and political 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 substantial and essential part of that
covenant, to wit, Christ, Faith, Sanctification, Remission of sins, Eternal
life; yet this
Evangelical 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 kingdom; otherwise in the New Testament, in
plain words, 2Cor. 3. 6. Heb. 8. 10. It had likewise diverse
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 Paschal Lamb, and the sprinkling of blood on the book, the rain of Manna,
and other signs; to David by
an oath; in the New Testament, by Christ's 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, Baptism
signifies and confirms the same promise according to the form, sanction and
accomplishment of the new Testament: Now these forms and sanctions differ many
ways, as much as concerns our present purpose in these: First, circumcision
confirmed not only Evangelical promises, but also Political; and if we may
believe Mr. 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 signify
sanctification: But
Baptism signifies only Evangelical benefits. Secondly, circumcision did confirm
the promise concerning Christ to come out of Isaac; Baptism
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, Baptism to the Church gathered out of
all nations; whence I gather, that there is not the same reason of circumcision
and baptism, in signing the Evangelical covenant; nor may there be an argument
drawn from the administration of the one to the like manner of administering
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 nevertheless, 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 Jews comprehended in the covenant made with Abraham, and circumcised, were nevertheless not
admitted to Baptism by John Baptist, and
Christ's Disciples, till they professed repentance, and faith in Christ. Hence
I gather, first, that the right to Evangelical promises, was not the adequate
reason of circumcising 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].
Whereupon 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 sanction 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 Abraham's children,
who are his spiritual seed, according to the election of grace by faith, which
are not known to us, but by profession, or special Revelation.
To whom circumcision did agree, to them Baptism doth agree, but to
Infants Circumcision did agree, therefore also Baptism.
The Major is
thus proved: If the baptism of Christ succeeds into the place of circumcision,
then Baptism 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 Baptism.
For Answer: This Argument supposeth Baptism to succeed in the
place of Circumcision, which may be understood many ways.
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 Baptism 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 righteousness of faith, Rom. 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 alleged, Col. 2.
11, 12. to which I think meet to add; that if the Text be looked into, that
place speaks not of any circumcision, but of Christ's circumcision in whom we
are complete, 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 complete in Christ, because we are circumcised in him, and
buried with him in Baptism, 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 Baptism doth not succeed into the place of
Circumcision, in respect of signification: For, first Circumcision did signify
Christ to come of Isaac, according
to the flesh, Gen. 17.
10. 21. but Baptism doth not signify 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 Baptism signifieth, that all are one in Christ, Gal. 3. 28. Thirdly, Circumcision signified
that Moses Law was to be observed, Gal. 5. 3. but Baptism doth signify that Moses, his Law is made void, and the Doctrine
of Christ to be retained, Acts 10.
37. Fourthly, Circumcision did sign the promise of the Land of Canaan, Baptism eternal life by Christ.
From hence I answer to the Argument: First, by denying the Major of the fore Syllogism. Secondly, to
the conditional Syllogism, 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 Egg is laid, out of which manifest Judaisme may be hatched, but if it be taken
restrainedly, no more follows thence, but that Baptism and Circumcision in some
things, signify the same, which is more plainly said of Noah's flood, 1 Pet. 3. 21. of the red Sea, and the cloud
that guided, 1 Cor. 10.
2. and yet we say not that Baptism succeeded into their place, much less do we
infer any rite to be instituted in their stead, respecting the same persons;
yea verily it is to be seriously thought on.
1. That by such Arguments drawn from Analogies, not conceived by
the holy Spirit, but drawn out of our wit, a new kind of instituting Rites, to
wit, from Analogies, is brought in, besides our Lord's Precepts and the Apostle's
examples.
2. This being once laid, by like manner of argumentation, it will
be lawful to bring into the Christian Church, under other names and forms, the
whole burden of Jewish Rites;
yea, almost, out of what you will, to conclude what you will; for who shall put
a bound to men's wits feining Analogy, when they go beyond the Lord's Precepts,
and the Apostle's examples? It is well known, that the divine appointment of tithes
to be paid, and many other things, in the writings of Divines, are asserted by
this kind of Argument, besides the rule of the Lord's Precept and the Apostle's
example.
3. Hereby will the opinion of Papists be
confirmed, who affirm from 1 Cor. 10.
11. the Sacraments of the Jews, 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 universal Bishop, because there
was an High Priest amongst the Jews; for
sacrificing Priests, because the Jews had
such; for a linen garment at Mass, 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 Passover, and of right, all the males were to appear thrice in the year,
before the Lord; and therefore it is certain they did eat the Passover; and it
shall be after shewed, that the place, 1Cor. 11. 28. will not avoid 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 add, that grave, godly and learned men, have often
warned, that we are to take heed, that we do not rashly frame arguments from
Analogies: 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, consciences may be freed from the danger of will-worship and
polluting so remarkable an Ordinance of Christ as Baptism is, specially this
care lies on them, who by Prayers, Sermons, Writings, Covenants and Oaths, do
deter Christians from humane inventions, in Gods
worship diligently, and as is to be hoped sincerely.
If Baptism 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 Baptism 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 straightened, because we give not the Lords
Supper to children, to whom the Passover was given, as appears by that which
was above said.
3. Yet it is not absurd to say, that in respect of some privileges,
the Grace of God is more contracted in the new Testament then in the old: For
instance, no family hath now the privilege that was granted to Abrahams family, that out of it Christ should
be born; no man besides Abraham is
called The
father of the faithful; no
woman besides one, The mother of Christ; nevertheless, 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 mystery of the Gospel: I would have
it weighed, whether those phrases of the Apostle, Rom. 11. 21. as the natural
branches, ver. 24. The wild
Olive by nature, weren't grafted
contrary to nature. These which be natural branches, do not sufficiently imply, that the Jews children by their birth had a privilege
beyond the Gentile's 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 straighetning the grace of God, in respect of some privilege,
although the Assumption may be granted, if
understood of the straightening God's grace simply.
The sum of the Answer to the Arguments, drawn
from Gen. 17. 17. is this: The Sacraments are not to be administered
according to rules taken from our reasonings, but Gods appointment. Rightly
doth Mr. Ball
forenamed, in the Book forenamed, Posit. 3. & 4. pag. 38. say, But in whatsoever Circumcision and
Baptism, 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 administered, 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. 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 spoke to,
and their children, then to them that are afar off, who, whether they be Gentiles, who are said to be afar of, Ephes. 2. 12. or Jews, 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 showes
the promise to appertain to them not simply as Jews, but as called of God, which is more
expressly affirmed, Acts 3. 26. To you, God having raised up his Son Jesus,
sent him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from his iniquity: or as Beza, Every
one of you turning yourselves from your iniquities; therefore the promise here is not said
to be made but with condition of calling, and faith, which may be confirmed abundantly
from Rom. 4. 13, 14. 16. Gal. 3. 9. 14. 22.
3. That Peter, vers.
38. doth exhort to repentance and Baptism together, and in the first place
persuades to Repentance, then Baptism, which
showes Repentance to be in order before Baptisme.
4. That mention is made of the promise, not as of itself, yielding
right to Baptism without Repentance, but as a motive, inciting together, to
Repentance and Baptism. 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 showed signs 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 Baptism the
question is; as for the Text, it speaks not expressly 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 Jew's Infants.
The Argument from the place, 1 Cor. 7. 14. may be thus formed: They who are
holy with Covenant-holiness, may be baptized: But the Infants of a Believer are
holy, with a Covenant-holiness; 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 follows, 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 entered 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,
unless we would have the branches broken off to be grafted into the Church; and
therefore, although the sense were in the place of 1 Cor. 7. 14. your children are holy with
Covenant-holiness, 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
yielded any showes of divine grace.
2. The Minor is
not proved from the place alleged: For it doth not speak of federal holiness,
but of holiness, that I may so call it, Matrimonial, so that the sense is, your
children are holy, that is, legitimate. Whether any in the ages before, the age
last past, expounded it, of federal holiness, as they call it, I am not yet
certain: as for the exposition of that place, of that holiness, I called
Matrimonial, 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 usual change of the Tense, that is, is sanctified, in the lawful
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 add as a reason, the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the believing
wife, of which Speech
divers interpretations are made, but the true and natural 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 we say Swine's 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 connection 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 shows, 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 unskilful Christians
thought such dwelling together to be unclean and unlawful; and they did fear,
lest they should be made one body with the yoke-fellow that was an Idolater, as
he that is joined to an Harlot, is made one body with the Harlot, and so of the
members of Christ, should make them members of an 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 virtue of marriage; so that his conjunction and copulation, hath nothing
unclean: so in like manner also, the unbelieving wife, by reason of lawful
wedlock, in which she is joined to the man, even long ago is cleansed, that the
believer is not defiled, if she live together with him; for the word holiness
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 holiness, of that
holiness 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 holiness of the
conjugal 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 cleanness, not to the faith of the believing yoke-fellow,
but to the marriage, by reason of the appointment of God; with Hierome [Jerome ed.], who saith,
because by God's appointment, marriage is holy; and Ambrose, who hath it
thus, the children are holy, because they are born of lawful 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
anything be to be added, it is better to be added, the lawful wife or husband,
that we may understand, that the unbelieving husband is cleansed in his lawful
wife, that is, by virtue
of their lawful 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 profane depart, the holy draw near. [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
lawful 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 conjoined in marriage, as if he had said, unless 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 Baptism, 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 Baptism, 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 cleanness of lawful marriage
even of Infidels: for not only to children, to whom perhaps, the holiness 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 holiness or
cleanness of children meddled with, then that which agrees also to unbelieving
parents, for to them, no other agrees, then that which is by lawful 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 holiness 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 signify, 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 legal 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 add 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 Hebrews do name that
divine whatsoever doth excel, 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 should be born a legitimate and
clean off-spring. Secretly therefore doth the Prophet here show, 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 lawful 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 yoke-fellow, with
the unbelieving? The reason of doubting was, because that conjunction seems
impure, by reason of the impurity of the unbelieving yoke-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 read, and it seems the Apostle of purpose so spoke, that the reason
of Sanctification may be intimated to be taken, not from
the faith of the yoke-fellow, but conjugal relation.***
3. [?????] is not rightly rendered, [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 diligencePage 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 [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] is rendred in Latine in the Dative, [to the wife] for the particle 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, is often so used, as Gal. 1. 16. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,* to me, 2 Pet. 1. 5. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, to faith, Acts 4. 12. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, to men; and 1 Cor. 7. 15. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 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. [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, else] plainly shewes, that absurdity
would follow, if this were not granted, that the unbelieving husband is
sanctified to the wife, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 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 withinPage 16the Covenant, neither to be circumcised nor baptized, whereas not only Ishmael by Abraham, but
also many sons ofJacob, 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 CorinthianChristians, 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.* 19. 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- 〈1 line〉
Page 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,Page
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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 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.
Page 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.
Page 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, 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, 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, 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,* 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.
Page 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,* 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, from 1 Pet. 2. 9. Believers are called a chosen
generation, a holy nation, which
things are said of theIsraelites, 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 anEnglishman, 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, the Church of God fails not, but we
must say, the Church of God hath failed, if baptisme of Infants be not lawfull, Ergo.
Answ. 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 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, 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- 〈1 line〉
Page 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:
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.
Page 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 ofPage 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.
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,* which is the best interpreter of our
Lords institution,* 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 requirePage 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 fromAbraham, and to whom the promise was.
THE fourth Argument is taken from the practise of the next Age after the Apostles.
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.
Page 28THe fifth Argument:
That which in succeeding Ages, 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 ofErasmus 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.Page 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:
That which hath occasioned many humane inventions, 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 ofPage 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:*
That which hath occasioned many errors,* 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:*
That which hath caused many abuses and faults in Discipline,* 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?
Page 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.
That is deservedly doubtfull, that yeeldeth occasion to many
unnecessary disputes, fostering
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.
That in the midst of the darknesse under the Papacythe same men
opposed Infant-baptisme,* 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.
Page 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 the 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, is,
Because the Assertors of Infant-Baptisme little agree among themselves, 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, 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. Page 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.
