although that might have been sufficient to hinder its first entry, yet it is not enough to throw it out, because it hath gotten strength and reasonableness by long custom and dwelling upon the minds of men, and hath some forces beyond what it derives from the first causes of its introduction. And therefore whoever will persuade men to quit their long persuasions and their consonant practices, must not tell them, that such persuasions are not certain, and that they cannot prove such practices to be necessary; but that the doctrine is false, against some other revealed truth which they admit, and the practice evil; not only useless, but dangerous or criminal. So that the anabaptists cannot acquit themselves and promote their cause, by going about to invalidate our arguments, unless they do not only weaken our affirmative, by taking away not one or two, but all the confidences of its strength, but also make their own negative to include a duty, or its enemy to be guilty of a crime. And therefore if it were granted, that we cannot prove the baptism of infants to be necessary, and that they could speak probably against all the arguments of the right believers; yet it were intole rable that they should be attended to, unless they pretend, and make their pretence good, that they teach piety and duty and necessity for nothing less than these can make recompense for so violent, so great an inroad and rape upon the persuasions of men. Whether the anabaptists do so or no, will be considered in the sequel.

Thirdly these arguments, which are in this section urged in behalf of the anabaptists, their persons I mean, finally, not their cause at all but in order to their persons, can do the less hurt, because they rely upon our grounds, not upon theirs; that is, they are intended to persuade us to a charitable comport towards the men, but not at all to persuade their doctrine. For it is remarkable, that none of them have made use of this way of arguing since the publication of these 'Adversaria; and of some things they can never make use. in that exposition of the words of St. Peter, "Be baptized, and ye shall receive the Holy Ghost;" which is expounded to be meant not in baptism, but in confirmation: which is a rite the anabaptists allow not, and therefore they cannot make use of any such exposition, which supposes a divine institution of that, which they at no hand admit. And so it

As

is in divers other particulars; as any wary person, that is cautious he be not deluded by any weak and plausible pretence of theirs, may easily observe.

But, after all, the arguments for the baptism of children are firm and valid, and though shaken by the adverse plea, yet as trees that stand in the face of storms, take the surer root, so will the right reasons of the right believers, if they be represented with their proper advantages.

Ad 3. and 13.-The first argument is the circumcising of children, which we say does rightly infer the baptizing them: the anabaptist says no; because, admit that circumcision were the type of baptism, yet it follows not that the circumstances of one must infer the same circumstances in the other; which he proves by many instances: and so far he says true. And therefore, if there were no more in the argument than can be inferred from the type to the antitype, both the supposition and the superstructure would be infirm; because it is uncertain whether circumcision be a type of baptism; and if it were granted, it cannot infer equal circumstances. But then this argument goes farther, and to other and more material purposes, even to the overthrow of their chief pretension. For "circumcision was a seal of the righteousness of faith:" and if infants, who have no faith, yet can by a ceremony be admitted into the covenant of faith, as St. Paul contends that all the circumcised were, and it is certain of infants, that they were reckoned amongst the Lord's people as soon as they were circumcised; then it follows, that the great pretence of the anabaptists, that for want of faith infants are incapable of the sacrament, comes to nothing. For if infants were admitted into the covenant of faith by a ceremony, before they could enter by choice and reason, by faith and obedience; then so they may now, their great and only pretence notwithstanding. Now, whereas the Anabaptist says, that in the admission of the Jewish infants to circumcision, and of Christian infants to baptism, there is this difference, that circumcision imprints a character on the flesh, but baptism does not; circumcision had no word added, but baptism hath; and therefore, infants were capable of the former, but not of the latter; for they might be cut with the circumcising-stone, but they cannot be instructed with the word of baptism: in that there was a

VOL. VIII.

N

character left, by which they might be instructed when they come to age, but in baptism there is no character, and the word they understand not; therefore, that was to purpose, but this is not. I answer, that this is something to the circumstance of the sacraments, but nothing to the substance of the argument. For if the covenant of faith can belong to infants, then it is certain they can have the benefit of faith before they have the grace; that is, God will do them benefit before they can do him service; and that is no new thing in religion, that God should love us first. But then, that God is not as much beforehand with Christian as with Jewish infants, is a thing which can never be believed by them who understand that, in the Gospel, God opened all his treasures of mercies, and unsealed the fountain itself: whereas before, he poured forth only rivulets of mercy and comfort. That "circumcision is a seal of the righteousness of faith," St. Paul affirms; that so also is baptism (if it be any thing at all) the anabaptists must needs confess, because they refuse to give baptism to them who have not faith, and make it useless to them, as being a seal without a deed. But then the argument is good upon its first grounds. But then for the title Reparties but now mentioned, that circumcision imprints a character, but baptism does not; that baptism hath a word, but circumcision had none; they are just nothing to the purpose. For as that character, imprinted on the infant's flesh, would have been nothing of instruction to them unless there had been a word added, that is, unless they had been told the meaning of it, when they came to be men; so neither will the word added to baptism be of use either to men or children, unless there be a character upon their spirits imprinted, when or before they come to the use of reason, by the holy Spirit of God: but therefore, as the anabaptists would have our infants stay from the sacrament till they can understand the word; so also might the imprinting of a character on the flesh of the Jewish infants have been deferred, till the word should be added, that is, till they could understand the word, or declaration of the meaning of that character, without which they could not understand its meaning. The case is equal. In the Jewish infants, the character was before the word; in the Christian infants, the word is before the character; but neither that nor this alone could do all the work of the

sacrament; but yet it could do some, and when they could be conjoined, the office was completed. But therefore,as the infants under Moses might have that, which to them was an insignificant character; so may the infants under Christ have water, and a word, whose meaning these shall understand as soon as those could understand the meaning of the character. So that these pretended differences signify nothing; and, if they did, yet they are not certainly true, but rather certainly false; for although the Scriptures mention not any form of words used in the Mosaic sacraments, yet the Jews' books record them. And then, for the other, that there is no character imprinted in baptism it is impossible they should reasonably affirm, because it being spiritual is also undiscernible, and cometh not by observation. And although there is no permanent or inherent quality imprinted by the Spirit in baptism that we know of, and therefore, will not affirm (but neither can they know it is not, and therefore, they ought not to deny, much less to establish any proposition upon it); yet it is certain that, although no quality be imprinted before they come to the use of reason, yet a relation is contracted, and then the children have title to the promises, and are reckoned in Christi censu,' in Christ's account,' they are members of his body: and though they can as yet do no duty, yet God can do them a favour; although they cannot yet perform a condition, yet God can make a promise; and though the anabaptists will be so bold as to restrain infants, yet they cannot restrain God, and therefore, the sacrament is not to be denied to them. For although they can do nothing, yet they can receive something; they can by this sacrament as really be admitted into the covenant of faith, even before they have the grace of faith, as the infants of the Jews could: and if they be admitted to this covenant, they are children of faithful Abraham, and heirs of the promise. All the other particulars of their answer to the argument taken from circumcision are wholly impertinent: for they are intended to prove that circumcision, being a type of baptism, cannot prove that the same circumstances are to be observed: all which I grant. For circumcision was no type of baptism, but was a sacrament of initiation to the Mosaic covenant; and so is baptism, of initiation to the evangelical: circumcision was a seal of the righteousness of faith, and so

is baptism; but they are both but rites and sacraments, and therefore cannot have the relation of type and antetype; they are both but external ministries fitted to the several periods of the Law and the Gospel, with this only difference, that circumcision gave place to, was supplied and succeeded to by, baptism. And as those persons, who could not be circumcised, I mean the females, yet were baptized, as is notorious in the Jews' books and story, and by that rite were admitted to the same promises and covenant as if they had been circumcised: so much more, when males and females are only baptized, baptism must be admitted and allowed to consign all that covenant of faith which circumcision did, and therefore. to be dispensed to all them who can partake of that covenant, as infants did then, and therefore, certainly may now. So that, in short, we do not infer that infants are to receive this sacrament, because they received that; but because the benefit and secret purpose of both is the same in some main regards: and if they were capable of the blessing then, so they are now; and if want of faith hindered not the Jewish babes from entering into the covenant of faith, then neither shall it hinder the Christian babes: and if they can and do receive the benefit, for which the ceremony was appointed as a sign and conduit, why they should not be admitted to the ceremony is so very a trifle, that it deserves not to become the entertainment of a fancy in the sober time of the day, but must go into the portion of dreams and illusions of the night.

answers.

Ad 4.—And as ill success will they have with the other For although we intend the next argument but as a reasonable inducement of the baptizing infants by way of proportion to the other treatments they received from Christ; yet this probability, notwithstanding all that is said against it, may be a demonstration. For if infants can be brought to Christ by the charitable ministries of others, when they cannot come themselves; if Christ did give them his blessing, and great expressions of his love to them, when they could not by any act of their own dispose themselves to it; if the disciples, who then knew nothing of this secret, were reproved for hindering them to be brought, and upon the occasion of this a precept established for ever, that children should be suffered to come to him;' and though they were brought