recovery does follow the taking of physic,-not as an effect to the cause or to the proper instrument, but as a consequent is to an antecedent in a chain of causes accidentally, and by positive institution depending upon each other.-Who can help it if men will say, that it happened that they recovered after the taking physic, but then was the time, in which they should have been well however? The best confutation of them, is to deny physic to them when they need, and try what nature will do for them without the help of art. The case is all one in this question, this only excepted, that in this case it is more unreasonable than in the matter of physic, because the Spirit is expressly signified to be the baptizer in the forecited place of St. Paul'.

From hence we argue, that since the Spirit is ministered in baptism, and that infants are capable of the Spirit, the Spirit of adoption, the Spirit of incorporation into the body of Christ, the Spirit sealing them to the day of redemption, the Spirit entitling them to the promises of the Gospel, the Spirit consigning to them God's part of the covenant of grace; they are also capable of baptism: for whoever is capable of the grace of the sacrament, is capable of the sign or sacrament itself.

To this last clause the Anabaptist answers two things. First, that the Spirit of God was conveyed sometimes without baptism. I grant it; but what then? Therefore baptism is not the sign or ministry of the Holy Ghost? It follows not. For the Spirit is the great wealth and treasure of Christians, and is conveyed in every ministry of divine appointment; in baptism, in confirmation, in absolution, in orders, in prayer, in benediction, in assembling together. Secondly: the other thing they answer is this, that it is not true, that they who are capable of the same grace, are capable of the same sign; for females were capable of the righteousness of faith, but not of the seal of circumcision. I reply, that the proposition is true not in natural capacities, but in spiritual and religious regards: that is, they who in religion are declared capable of the grace, are, by the same religion, capable of the sacrament or sign of that grace. But naturally they may be incapable by accident, as in the objection is mentioned. But then this is so far from invalidating the argument, that it confirms it

i 1 Cor. xii. 13.

in the present instance. Exceptio firmat regulam in non exceptis.' For even the Jewish females, although they could not be circumcised, yet they were baptized even in those days, as I have proved already *; and although their natural indisposition denied them to be circumcised, yet neither nature nor religion forbade them to be baptized; and therefore, since the sacrament is such a ministry of which all are naturally capable, and none are forbidden by the religion, the argument is firm and unshaken, and concludes with as much evidence and certainty as the thing requires.

Ad 10. The last argument from reason is, that it is reasonable to suppose, that God in the period of grace, in the days of the Gospel, would not give us a more contracted comfort, and deal with us by a narrower hand than with the Jewish babes, whom he sealed with a sacrament as well as enriched with a grace, and therefore openly consigned them to comfort and favour.

Ad 22.-To this they answer, that we are to trust the word, without a sign; and since we contend that the promise belongs to us and to our children, why do we not believe this, but require a sign? I reply, that if this concludes any thing, it concludes against the baptism of men and women; for they hear and read and can believe the promise, and it can have all its effects and produce all its intentions upon men; but yet they also require the sign, they must be baptized. And the reason why they require it is, because Christ hath ordained it. And therefore, although we can trust the promise without a sign, and that if we did not, this manner of sign would not make us believe it, for it is not a miracle, that is, a sign proving, but it is a sacrament, that is, a sign signifying; and although we do trust the promise even in the behalf of infants when they cannot be baptized; yet by the same reason as we trust the promise, so we also use the rite, both in obedience to Christ; and we use the rite or the sacrament because we believe the promise; and if we did not believe that the promise did belong to our children, we would not baptize them. Therefore this is such an impertinent quarrel of the anabaptists, that it hath no strength at all but what it borrows from a cloud of words, and the advantages of its representment. As God did openly consign his grace to the Jewish

k See the Great Exemplar, part 1. disc. of Baptism. numb. 8-10.

babes by a sacrament, so he does to ours: and we have rea son to give God thanks, not only for the comfort of it (for that is the least part of it), but for the ministry and conveyance of the real blessing in this holy mystery.

n

Ad 23, 24, 25.-That which remains of objections and answers is wholly upon the matter of examples and precedents from the apostles and first descending ages of the church: but to this I have already largely spoken in a discourse of this question1; and if the anabaptists would be concluded by the practice of the universal church in this question, it would quickly be at an end. For although sometimes the baptism of children was deferred till the age of reason and choice; yet it was only when there was no danger of the death of the children and although there might be some advantages gotten by such delation; yet it could not be endured that they should be sent out of the world without it. Κρείσσον γὰρ ἀναισθήτως ἁγιασθῆναι, ἢ ἀπελθεῖν dopgaviota nai ȧrékeσra, said St. Gregory Nazianzen: "It is better they should be sanctified even when they understand it not, than that they should go away from hence without the seal of perfection and sanctification."-Secondly: but that baptism was amongst the ancients sometimes deferred, was not always upon a good reason, but sometimes upon the same account as men now-a-days defer repentance, or put off confession and absolution and the communion till the last day of their life; that their baptism might take away all the sins of their life.-Thirdly: it is no strange thing that there are examples of late baptism, because heathenism and Christianity were so mingled in towns and cities and private houses, that it was but reasonable sometimes to stay till men did choose their religion, from which it was so likely they might afterward be tempted.-Fourthly: the baptism of infants was always most notorious and used in the churches of Africa, as is confessed by all that know the ecclesiastical story.-Fifthly: among the Jews it was one and all if themajor-domo' believed, he believed for himself and all his family, and they all followed him to baptism, even before they were instructed; and therefore it is that we find mention of the baptism of whole families, in which children are

1 Disc. of Baptism of Infants, versùs finem, in the Great Exemplar, part 1. p. 202, &c.

as well to be reckoned as the uninstructed servants: and if actual faith be not required before baptism, even of those who are naturally capable of it, as it is notorious in the case of the jailer who believed, and at that very hour he and all his family were baptized, then want of faith cannot prejudice infants, and then nothing can.-Sixthly: there was never in the church a command against the baptizing infants: and whereas it is urged that, in the council of Neocæsarea the baptism of a pregnant woman did no way relate to the child, and that the reason there given excludes all infants upon the same account, because every one is to shew his faith by his own choice and election; I answer, that this might very well be in those times where Christianity had not prevailed, but was forced to dispute for every single proselyte, and the mother was a Christian and the father a heathen; there was reason that the child should be let alone till he could choose for himself, when peradventure it was not fit his father should choose for him: and that is the meaning of the words of Balsamo and Zonaras upon that canon. But, secondly, the words of the Neocæsarean canon are rightly considered. For the reason is not relative to the child, but only to the woman, concerning whom the council thus decreed. The woman with child may be baptized when she will: Οὐδὲν γὰρ κοινωνεῖ ἡ τίκτουσα τῷ τικτομένῳ διὰ τὸ ἑκάστου ἰδίαν τὴν προαίρεσιν τὴν ἐν τῇ ὁμολογίᾳ δείκνυσθαι. For her baptism reaches not to the child, because every one confesses his faith by his own act and choice; that is, the woman confesses only for herself, she intends it only for herself, she chooses only for herself; and therefore is only baptized for herself. But this intimates, that if she could confess for her child, the baptism would relate to her child; but therefore, when the parents do confess for the child, or the godfathers, and that the child is baptized into that confession, it is valid. However, nothing in this canon is against it.

I have now considered all that the anabaptists can with probability object against our arguments, and have discovered the weakness of their exceptions, by which although they are and others may be abused, yet it is their weakness that is the cause of it: for which, although the men are to be pitied, yet it may appear now that their cause is not at all the better.

Ad 28.-It remains that I consider their own arguments by which they support themselves in their mispersuasion. First, it is against the analogy of the Gospel: for besides that Christ never baptized any infants, nor his apostles, there is required to baptism, faith and repentance; of which because infants are not capable, neither are they capable of the sacrament. To these things I answer, that it is true Christ never baptized infants, for he baptized no person at all: but he blessed infants, and what that amounts to I have already discoursed; and he gave a commandment of baptism which did include them also, as I have proved in the foregoing periods, and in other places. That the apostles never baptized infants, is boldly said, but can never be proved. But then as to the main of the argument, that faith and repentance are prerequired; I answer, it is in this as it was in circumcision, to which a proselyte could not be admitted from Gentilism or idolatry, unless he gave up his name to the religion, and believed in God and his servant Moses; but yet their children might: and it might have been as well argued against their children as ours, since in their proselytes and ours there were required predispositions of faith and repentance. 2. But it is no wonder that these are called for by the apostles of those whom they invited to the religion: they dealt with men of reason, but such who had superinduced foul sins to their infidelity; which were to be removed before they could be illuminated and baptized; but infants are in their pure naturals, and therefore nothing hinders them from receiving the gifts and mere graces of God's holy Spirit before mentioned. 3. But we see also that, although Christ required faith of them who came to be healed, yet when any were brought, or came in behalf of others, he only required faith of them who came, and their faith did benefit to others. For no man can call on him on whom they have not believed, but therefore they who call must believe; and if they call for others, they must believe that Christ can do it for others ". But this instance is so certain a reproof of this objection of theirs, which is their principal, which is their all, that it is a wonder to me they should not all be convinced at the reading and observing of it. I knew an eminent person amongst them, who having been abused by their fallacies, upon the m Matt. ix. 28. Mark, ix. 23. Matt. viii. 13. John, iv. 50.

m