Chrift appointed the Sacraments for a remembrance of his Object.25. death and blood-shedding for our redemption: But In: fants, who have no acts of understanding, cannot remem ber; Therefore they ought not to be baptized.

We anfwer, This Argument would conclude, that In- 1 Cor.11.26. fants, as fuch, may not receive the Lords Supper, because they cannot do it in remembrance of Chrift, nor fhew his Tit.3.5. death thereby, therefore we do not administer it unto them. But Baptifm is the Laver of Regeneration, which they haven prefent need of, and whereof they are paffively capable,because their Parents are within the Covenant, which is to them and their children; and the Seal thereof is a part and condition of the fame to their children, as well as to them- Gen. 17.7. felves: Neither was the Covenant on Abrahams part ful-Acts 2.39. filled any more then to halves, before he had fealed his Mark 16. 16: children; and by proportion, neither do we fulfil our Covenant with God in Baptifm, if we refufe to baptize our Infants, who have as indefeasible a right to the fame as we; the fame promise for the main being to us and our children, Acts 2:39.

In the Old Teftament it was not lawful to offer sheep or goats Object.26. fofoon as they were cast, but at a certain age and ma--Servet.q. fup.l. turity of their perfection: This figured Infants not pre- 4.de regenerat. fently to be offered to God, or Sealed.

1.We answer: 1. By the fame Argument (if it were good) neither ought the Jews to have circumcifed their Infants on the eighth day.

2. Allegorical Arguments, when they are well applyed, Theologio alleilluftrate rather then prove: And if you will plead thus,tell- gorica non est us why every firft-born of man or beaft, fo foon as it came argumentat. into the world (that is, every male) was facred to the J. Gerhard de Lord; and the firit-born of the unclean beaft was to be re

S. bapt.

deemed or destroyed? and why seek ye further, omitting Exod 13, 12, the type of Circumcifion 20

13.

a19briff faith, He that believeth and is baptized fhall be Object.27.1 faved, Mark 16.16. without believing there is no falva tion, nor faving effect of Baptifm: But Infants cannot believe; Therefore their Baptifm is effect lefs and vain..

We

We anfwer: 1. That wholly concerns those who are of years; who when the Church was to be collected and setled, were firft and generally fuch perfons as were first to be inftructed in the faith of Chrift, and then to be baptized; it concerned not Infants.

2. That which immediately follows, But he that believeth not shall be damned--manifesteth that it concerned not Infants, who though they cannot actually believe, yet fhall not all be damned, though dying Infants.

3. If those words were to be prefidential to all Churches and times as a rule, what perfons we are to baptize, and what not; that is, that we ought to baptize none but fuch and fo qualified as are there described; then it would follow, that you must baptize none, but those who appear to have a juftifying faith; for fuch there Chrift speaks of and only such, relating to their falvation: And how few have this? and how can you who baptize discern this ?. Secondly, They must be such as can caft out Devils, fpeak unftudied Languages, take up Serpents, and if they drink any deadly thing, it fhall not hurt them, fuch as can cure the fick: For Chrift there thus marked out Believers of those times.

4. He faith not, He that believeth not fhall not be baptized; for that indeed might have concerned Infants Baptifm: But he faith, He that believeth not shall be damned; which cannot concern Infants, except you will fay they have faith (and fo you must grant them a capacity of Baptifm) or pretend that they all are damned who dye in Infancy, which is a damnable fancy.

Laftly, We muft diftinguish between an intereft in, and the effects of Baptifm. Many thousands born within the Covenant, have therefore a juft intereft in the Covenant of In Baptifmo in- Grace, and the Seal thereof, who neither believing nor oduitur Chriftus beying, have no effects thereof, nor grace of the Coye interdum facra- nant: So fome put on Chrift only facramentally,and others mento tenus, in to fanctification and falvation alfo.

terdum quoad

vita fanilificationem primum bonis do malis eft communes fecundum bonorum & piorum eft proprium.Aug. contr. Donatift.l.5.c.24.

It

It is abfurd and to no purpose to baptize any unto they know Object.28. not what: Such is Infants-Baptifm; Therefore they are abfurdly and to no purpose baptized.

1.We answer: Circumcifion was to Ifaar an Evangelical Ordinance and Seal of Gods Covenant of the fame Grace common to him and us; yet that being adminiftred to him at eight days old, he knew not what he was circumcifed to; yet was it neither in vain nor abfurdly adminiftred to

him.

2. Some myfterious things have been done to them, who though of age, knew not for the prefent what was done unto them; yet not abfurdly, nor to no purpofe; as when Peters feet were washed, John 13.7,&c. Chrift told him,what I do thou knoweft not now-yet was it not abfurdly, or to no purpose done. 3. No circumcifed Infants knew what was done to them for prefent, yet was it to purpose done to all either to falvation, or further condemnation.

That Tenet and Practife, which being put, or fuppofed Object.29. Baptifm, cannot be adminiftred as John Baptif and the

Mr. Tombes:

Apofttes adminiftred it, agreeth not with the Practice in of John Baptift and the Apostles: But the Tenent and exercit.arg. 3. Practice of Infant-Baptifm being put, Baptifm cannot felt.16. be adminiftred as John Baptift and the Apoftles ad

miniftredit; Ergo.

We answer: Here is an Ignoratio elenchi, the argument driving at that which is not in queftion. The queftion is not whether John Bi and the Apostles did baptize Infants; for in cafe they had not opportunity fo to do, it follows not, that when opportunity was, baptizing fuch agreed not with their practice; no more then to have circumcifed men of years had not agreed with Mofes Inftitution of Circumcifi on, because we never read that he ever did circumcife any Jews of years.

2. The Minor can never be proved. How know you that fohn B. or the Apostles never baptized any Infants? You have been often told, a non Scripto ad non factum followeth not: No man can certainly fay, thar John B. and the Apostles never baptized Infants: The contrary appeareth in that which hath been faid.

CHAP.

Obj. 1.

Object .2.

Object. 3.

CHAP. II.

Mr. Fishers Objections, at Folkftone in Kent, March 10.1650. answered.com, podanie O

F Baptifm of Infants be no Ordinance of Chrift, then it is unlawful: But the Baptism of Infants is no Ordidinance of Chrift: Ergo.

We deny the Minor.

If the Baptifm of Infants is not ordained in the New Tefta ment of Chrift, then it is no Ordinance of Chrift & But it is not ordained in the New Testament of Chrift; Ergo, &c.

U.

-

We deny the Minor. 15 mundode of

If it be ordained in the Teftament of Christ, then it is to be found where; Ergo, &c. dro

Weanfwer: 1. The minor is again denyed; for the matter in question is to be found in feveral places, from firm and good confequence.

2. If otherwife, you argue negatively from Scriptures in refpect of exprefs terms. We further fay: 1. That the like reafon might be urged against baptizing of women, and adminiftring the Lords Supper to them, there being no express or particular precept in terminis for either; nor express example of the latter, nor promife to it in all the Scripture b And if you fay women are comprehended in the general precepts; we answer, fo are Infants of believing Parents, as parts of Families and Nations: If you fay women are admitted to the Communion, because Chrift dyed for them as well as men: We fay fo to; and that he as certainly dyed for Infants. 2. The command for baptizing Infants, is Matth.28.19.The examples, Acts 16 33. 1 Cor.1.16. And the promise, Acts 2. 39.

Object.4. If Infant-Baptifm be an Ordinance of Chrift, then it is exprefly fet down: But it is not exprefly fet down; Ergo, &c.

-We anfwer: 1. If the queftion be concerning the ex

Zample

ample of Christ or his Difciples baptizing Infants; and you would reafon thus, They did never baptize Infants, because it is not exprefly written: We have often faid, a non fcripto ad non factum, non valet argumentum : Christ and his Apostles did many things which are not exprefly writ

ten.

2. We may understand this word (Exprefly) to fignifie either a writing in terminis; that is, fo many words and fyllables(Go and Baptize Infants )if you would have it fo ftrictly understood, that it is not the Ordinance of Chrift that any fhould be baptized, but fuch as are fo mentioned in Scriptures; then you must alfo conclude, that the Baptifm of women is no Ordinance of Chrift (and indeed there might appear more colour of doubting concerning their baptizing, who were not fealed under the Law, then of male Infants which were) and then giving the Eucharift to women must be no Ordinance of Chrift; nay, baptizing of men and women of ripe years, muft then be no Ordinance of Chrift; for where can you fhew us, where Chrift exprefly faid, Go and baptize men and women of ripe years? Where can you fhew us in terminis, Thou Thomas, John, Andrew, &c. shalt be baptized and faved? This you will put upon neceffary confequence, where you have no express word: And why fhall we not have the like liberty for Infant-Baptifm? Or we may understand this word (Exprefly) in a greater latitude, to import a general and implicite command in fuch terms and grounds, quibus pofitis, alia necef fariò confequuntur: So we fay Chrift exprefly commanded Infant-Baptifm,where he said, without any limitation or exception to Infants, Go baptize all Nations: whereof Infants then and ever were, and are a great part; because (except in case of some evident incapacity) eadem eft ratio partis & totius.

3. Taking (Exprefly) in a proper and strict sense, as it feems you here do, for (in terminis) fo many words and fyllables: We fay from other inftances, that your affertion may appear falfe and erroneous: For 1. There is no exprefs place of Scripture which nameth three perfons in the

T

Unity