to what end elfe fhould we baptize! infants, or why were Durand. ra tiɔ they circumcifed into future faith, repentance, and newness nal.l.1.c.7. n. of life? We utterly diflike Popish baptizing of Bels, Chur- 12,&c. ches, Altars, &c. 3. We fay further, That Covenants between man and man, require that both parties exprefsly understand & know the tenour, fubftance, and particulars of the fame; but in Covenants between God and his Creatures, that Rule doth not univerfally hold; for here God ftipulateth and principally tranfaceth with the creature according to that which he will have done, or do in, or by them. So he established his Covenant with Noah and his feed after him, and with every living creature, the Fowle, Cattell, Beafts, &c. Gen. 9. 10. How much more rationally may be make covenant with infants, though yet without the actuall use of reason ? · Again, fometimes fuch covenants are made between men, as that the parent or parents covenant for, or in ftead of their children, because they are not yet of age to understand the words and purport of the covenant, and it ftandeth good. How much rather may God covenant with an infant, whose mouth and Advocate, Chrift Jefus,faid exprefsly, Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not, for of Such is the Kingdom of Heaven, Mark 10. 14. Luke 18.16. I demand, quo jure, by what right is the Kingdom of Heaven theirs? What, by defcent from naturall parents? Nay, buc that which is born of the flesh,is flesh, John 3. 6. And flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of God, 1 Cor.15.50. It must therefore be by the free covenant of God with them, out of which it can belong to none by right of any infant-innocency, feeing all are conceived and born in fin, the children of wrath, but for the grace and covenant of God with them, which they yet understand not, yet is it valid and effectuall to their falvation,, as we may alfo understand in cafe of Circumcifion, in which the circumcifed Child understood as little what was faid, or done, as the baptized infant, now doth, and yet it was Gods covenant with them, Gen. 17.7, 10, 11, 12. and effectual for them. To conclude, if you mean that it is requifite that none should be admitted to baptifm, but Pfal. 51. Ephes 2. Urfin. Gat part. 2. de Baptifm. but thofe that have the actuall ufe of reafon,that is, men and women of years, you beg the question. of_the_Sacrament, and the impress made upon the Spirit.] Concerning a Character or imprefs fet upon the baptized, the Schoolmen and Jefuits have moved fundry questions: whether it be an abfolute or relative quality, which yet they fay, sticks faft upon them also that are in hell? Whether it be an ens rationis, or a relatio realis? Whether a quality, action, or paffion? And if a quality, of what kind it is? Whether the fubject thereof be the foul, or fome active or paffive faculty thereof? Whether it be a figure or form? Whether the Sacraments of the old Teftament made the like imprefs? &c. In all which, and the like vain fpeculations, we may not unprofitably note the juft judgment of God,giving them over to unfruitfull delufions, who forfaking the true and conftant light of his holy word, give themselves o ver to follow the ignes fatuos of their own fancies. I hope you are not of their fenfe, though you mention this impress. Concerning the feal of our implantation into Chrift, I have spoken a little before; and onely add, that we receive grace, and the obfignation thereof, but are not fenfible of all, untill we receive a greater measure, that we might know the things that are freely given unto us of God. Since therefore (fay you) the reafon of this parity does wholly fail, there is nothing left to inferre a neceffity of complying in this circumstance of age any more then in the other annexes of the type.] It wholly holds in fubftance for ought you have said to the contrary and therefore your following inftances are frivolous. As concerning baptizing the eighth day, we anfwer, 1. That, whereas God appointed no fet day for bap. tifm, we have the greater liberty to do it at the most convenient season, on the first, second, third, fourth, &c. or on any day, fo that we neither contemn Gods ordinance, nor unneceffarily delay it. 2. As hath been noted, baptifm fucceeded circumcifion, not in every circumftance, but in the thing fignified,in the end and ufe. 3. This your argument Fallacia accidentis eft, cum is a fallacious and childish caption: à fallacia accident is, quidvis rei, from the subject to the accident, from the tubftance to the accidenti: i. e. circumftance, as the learned Dr. Featly obferveth, such a subjecto de ejus fallacy is this. attribute,fimi What the Jews were commanded in the fourth Comman_liter attribuitur. Arift. 1. 1. dement,that we Chriftians are bound to perform: But the Elench. c.4. "Jews were commanded to keep holy the leventh day from Dr. Featly པ the creation; Therefore we Chriftians are bound to keep child. Bap. "that day. Such is this Paralogifm. juftified.pag 72. m. terminum, uma If Baptifme fucceeded Circumcifion, then children ought to be baptized the eight day: it no more followeth,then that Non abs re 7. diem præteriiffe children ought to be baptized in the fame part where they expectabant Fu were circumcifed: it will follow rather, "That because dei, quod is 66 Circumcifion was adminiftred to the infant as foon as Plutar. in Pro"it was capable thereof, or could receive the Sacrament blen, Fefto "without danger, therefore children ought to be baptized maxime pericu teftificantibus, "as foon as conveniently they may, But you fay, lofus fit infantiThe cafe is clear in the Bishops queftion to Cyprian, for why bus, fi vexenfball not infants be baptized just upon the eighth day, as tur,nec ante eum well as circumcifed? If the correspondence of the Rites be bilicus refolva an Argument to inferre one circumftance which is imper- tur, ante que tinent and accidentall to the mysteriousnese of the Rite, homo proprior eft why shall it not inferre all?] palta quam aniThe cafe is as clear in the Question of Fidus the Presbyter, Virg.de inven. mali,c. Poly. (whom you call Bishop) as it is in your objecting it. Fidus rer.l.4.c.4. made a querie,or rather affirmed, that Infants ought not to Effe apud ombe baptized on the fecond or third day,but that the law of an- nes, five infancient circumcifion ought to be confidered; fo that he thought tes, five majores vini muneris aqualitatem. nam Deus ut perfonam non accipit, fic nec atatem, cum fe om nibus ad coeleftis gratia confecutionem æqualitate librata præbeat parem-ft etiam graviffimis deli&toribus, & in Deum multum ante peccantibus, & à baptifmo atq; gratia nemo prohibetur,quanto magis prohiberi non debet infans, qui recens natus nihil peccavit, nifi quod fecundum Adam contagium mortis antiqua prima nativitate contraxit. Cyprian. 1.g.ep.8. Fido. Quantum vero ad caufam infantium pertinet, quos dixifti intra fecundum vel tertium diem qua nati funt, conftitutos, baptizare non oportere,& confiderandam legem effe circumcifionis antique, ut intra octavum diem, eum qui natus eft baptizandum & fan&tificandum non putares; longe aliud in concilio noftro omnibus vifum eft. In boc enim quod tu putabas effe faciendum, nemo confenfit:fed univerfi potius judicavimus, nulli bominum nato, mifericordiam Dei & gratiam... effe denegandam. Cyprian.q.6. the natu, unam Di - the new-born infant might not be baptized within, or before the eighth day: Cyprian answereth: There is one equality of the Divine gift to all,whether they are infants or old men: for as God is no accepter of perfons, so neither is he of ages, but he fhews himself in an even-ballanced equality, alike to ali,as to their attaining heavenly grace if to grievous offenders, and to thofe who have before that much finned against God and no man is prohibited baptifm and grace, how much less ought the infant to be prohibited, who being new-born,hath committed no fin, onely that in Adam. He hath in his firft nativity been infected with the contagion of ancient death. But concerning the cause of infants who you fay are not to be baptized at two or three dayes old, and that we are to confider the law of ancient circumcifion, fo that you think that a child born may not be baptized before the eighth day; all that were in our Coun cell are of a far different judgment; for no man confenteth to that which you thought was to be done: but we all ra. ther judged, that the mercy and grace of God is to be denied to no man born. Let the Reader judge how clear the cafe is in the Bishops question to Cyprian. To the rest of your Arguments we fay you difpute ex non conceffis: We do not fay that the correspondence of Rites inferre the circumstances, but the fubftance: but errors are fruitfull, and one abfurdity granted, many eafily follow. For that you fay from your own fancy, which you run away withall. And then alfo females must not be baptized, because they were not circumcised.] We answer, 1. As we have faid before, baptifm fucceeded circumcifion not in every circumftance (which your Calu. Infiit.1.4. felves juftifie in that you baptize women) but in the fub. c.16.felt.16.fin. ftance, the thing fignified,the end and ufe: or as others fay, in the inward mystery, in the promises, in ufe, in effects, 2. God exprefsly reftrained circumcifion to males, Gen. 17. 10, 12, 14. yet the females were comprehended in the males and to be born of circumcifed parents, was to them in ftead of circumcifion, and fo were they born to God, and in his account Daughters of Abraham, Luke 13, 16, and fo : within his covenant of grace and merey: and the fealing of males was then limited to the eighth day; but now in baptifm the circumstances of sex, age, and a fixed day, are not exprefsly mentioned, but we have a generall commandement to baptize all, without exception to any time, fex, or age. 3. Though women were not capable of circumcifion, and therefore it was not enjoyned them, yet the female is as capable of baptifm as the male, and therefore without exception to fex, they who are all one in Chrifts account, muft equally be baptized into him. 4. Circumcifion and Baptifm agreeing in fubftance, did yet differ in many circumstances. First, in the Rite or Ceremony. Secondly, in the manner of fignifying For Circumcifion held out grace in the Meffias then to come; but baptifm prefenteth it in Chrift exhibited. Thirdly, in the particular teftimony annexed to make good the promife: for then God promised, not onely a covenant with his Church, but a peculiar place for the fame, the land of Canaan, untill the coming of the promised Seed: but baptifm hath no particular promise of this,or that fixed place. Fourthly, in the manner of binding; Circum cifion did oblige the circumcifed to the observation of the whole Law, Morall, Ceremoniall, and Judiciall: but baptism G1:5. 3. bindeth us onely to the obfervation of the Morall I aw; that is, faith, repentance, and newness of life, according to the holy Rule of Gods will revealed in the Moral Law, from the curse whereof, in respect of non-performance, we are deli- Gal. 3.13. vered in Chrift, into whom we are baptized. Fifthly, in their appointed continuance; Circumcifion was appointed onely for Abrahams pofterity, and to continue onely unto the coming of Chrift: but baptifm was inftituted for all Nations and times unto the worlds end. Laftly,in circumftance of Matth.28.19, fex and age, fo far as circumcifion was limited to males and 20. the eighth day. So that to argue, as you do, from the subftance to the circumftance,or that which is accidentall,is fal- Fallacia accilacious, and captious, as hath been fhewed. You fay-Therefore as Infants were circumcised, so spirituall Infants fhall be baptized &c.] This you think a right understanding of the business; D after Gal.3. 19. Gal.s. 2 dentis. |