It shews that it is the will of God that it should be so because Christ passed through each Age to sanctify it to us Thus Irenaeus who lived about an hundred and fifty years after Christ these are his words Ideo per omnem venit etatem infantibus Infans factus c. Therefore Christ passed through every Age for Infants he was made an Infant sanctifying Infants in little Children being a little Child sanctifying them that have that very Age here 's clear proof from Antiquity of Infant Church-membership Argument 3. If Infants are federally holy then they have a right to visible Church-membership but Infants are federally holy 1 Cor. 7.14 as we have before shewed and all sound Interpreters tell us Argument 4. If Infants belong to the Kingdom of Heaven then they belong to and are Members of the visible Church but Infants do belong to the Kingdom of Heaven therefore they belong to the visible Church Now some Infants do belong to the Kingdom of Heaven Matth. 19.14 Suffer little children to come unto me and forbid them not for of such is the kingdom of heaven By the Kingdom of Heaven here must needs be meant either the Kingdom of Grace that is the Gospel-Church here and then the meaning is That the Gospel Church which is Christ's Kingdom on Earth is made up of Infants as well as adult persons and this is most likely to be the meaning And so the thing in question is clearly proved Or else by the Kingdom of Heaven must be meant the Kingdom of Glory That is Children shall go to Heaven as well as grown Persons If so still the consequence is clear if Infants are Members of the invisible Church then have they an undoubted right to be Members of the visible Church I grant a Person may be a Member of the invisible Church and yet no Member of the Visible Yet whoever is a Member of the invisible Church hath a right to visible Church-membership Argument 5. If Infants are to be received in Christ's name then they do undoubtedly belong to Christ's Church But we are commanded to receive Infants in Christ's name Mark 9.36 37. He that receiveth one such child in my name receiveth me c. Doth Christ take them into his Arms and would he have them cast out of his Church Are we to receive them in Christ's name and do they not belong to Christ nor to his Church See Mark 10.13 14 15. Did Christ say all this to deceive us certainly they are visible Members of the visible Church Now if this be so that some Infants were sometimes admitted by God's own appointment and that by vertue of the Covenant of Grace visible Church-members Then undoubtedly they ought to be baptized for Baptism is the only Rite that Jesus Christ who is Head of the Church hath appointed for the admitting Members into his Church Matth. 28.18 19. All that are or will be Christ's Disciples must be baptized in his name if any know any other let them shew it Now these two Arguments are abundantly sufficient to prove the Infants right to Baptism and it is needless to name any other But yet because some think a thing never proved unless much be said and many Arguments be brought I shall therefore add some other Arguments though I shall not dwell nor enlarge on them because the right understanding of these already mentioned will give light to what remains CHAP. IV. Containing the Third Fourth Fifth Sixth Seventh Eighth and Ninth Arguments for Infant Baptism ARGUMENT III. IF any Infants are Christ's Disciples then those Infants ought to receive the Badg of a Disciple which is Baptism But some Infants are Disciples Act. 15.10 Why lay you a yoke upon the necks of the disciples Now this Yoke was Circumcision as v. 1. and v. 5. There were some that would impose Circumcision on the Disciples of Christ Now this must needs be understood of Infants as well as others because that Circumcision was most commonly administred to Infants Therefore if Infants are not only meant they are chiefly intended now that all Disciples of Christ ought to be baptized there is a plain command for it and so a command for Infant Baptism Matth. 28.19 Go therefore teach all nations but in the Greek it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Go disciple all nations baptizing them Infants are Disciples as before therefore ought to be baptized ARGUMENT IV. If it hath been the constant custom of the Church of Christ all along from the Apostles days to baptize Infants none never denying It till some hundreds of years after Then we may rationally conclude it was the practice of the Apostles to baptize Infants but the former is true therefore the latter Now that Infant Baptism was practised in the Primitive Times by the whole Universal Catholick Church is evident Irenaeus who had seen Policarpus St. John's Disciple and therefore lived very near the Apostles days saith Christ came to save and sanctify all sorts Qui per eum venascuntur in Deum Infantes c. All that are born to God Infants little ones and Children Born to God in the Ecclesiastical Phrase is but the same with Infant Baptism Tertullian who lived about the Year of Redemption 200. moved some Scruples about Baptism yet never denied the lawfulness of it And in case that the Infant was in danger of death did vehemently urge it Origen who lived but little after him speaks again and again of the baptizing little Children and saith They received it by Tradition from the Apostles About 150 years after the death of St. John there was one Fidus who raised a doubt Whether Infants might be baptized before they were eight days old because Circumcision was not to be administred till then Therefore Cyprian Bishop of Carthage and 66 more met to consider this Case and agreed That Infants recens nati new born might be baptized And thus we might cite Testimonies of Athanasius Chrysostom Augustin and many others that it was the constant custom of the Church to baptize Infants Which Custom is still continued in all the Churches of Christ all the world over as appears in all the Confessions of all the Protestant Churches As Helvetia Bohemia Belgia Auspurg Saxony Wittenberg Swedeland France and Peidmont and Histories tell us 't is practised by the Russians Muscovites and all the Christians in India Syria Cyprus Mesopotamia Babylon Palastine and in every part of the world where there be any Christian Churches planted ARGUMENT V. The Fifth Argument for Infant Baptism is this If the Infants of believing Parents be in the Covenant of Grace and the Promise of the Covenant do belong to them then they may and ought to be baptized But such Infants are in covenant and the Promise of the Covenant doth belong to them therefore they ought to be baptized That they are in covenant as well as their Parents is undeniably evident from the tenure of that Covenant made with Abraham which was a
INFANT BAPTISM God's Ordinance OR CLEAR PROOF That all the Children of Believing Parents are in the Covenant of Grace And have as much a right to Baptism the now Seal of the Covenant as the Infant Seed of the Jews had to Circumcision the then Seal of the Covenant Rom. 16. 17 18. I beseech you brethren mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine ye have learned and avoid them For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ but their own belly and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple By MICHAEL HARRISON Minister of the Gospel in P's P. LONDON Printed for Thom. Cockerill at the Three Legs in the Poultrey over-against the Stocks-Market 1694. To all into whose hands this may fall especially those who sit under my Ministry Dear Friends THERE are two things which do most evidently prove man by nature a lost Creature The one is the exceeding propensity and inclination in the heart of every man to actual sin Psal 58.3 Job 15.16 Though every man is not actually guilty of every sin yet is there not a sin in the world but is seminally and vertually in every one's Nature The other is that strange infatuation the Vnderstanding lieth under and its proneness to mistake darkness for light damnable and deformed Errors for beautiful and saving Truths And that which is saddest of all a tenacious adherence to and a resolved perseverance in these by-paths of Error is very oft a mournful consequence that follows them Now as these two things do shew the fearful ruines and miserable condition of all by Nature So there are two things which all Gospel-ministers should vehemently urge upon their people as effectual remedies against so dangerous and pernicious a malady The one is the absolute and indispensible necessity of the new birth Joh. 3.3 Except a man be born again he cannot see the kingdom of God This new birth is no less than a renovation of all the Powers and Faculties of the Soul a putting off the old man and a putting on Christ a changing that heart into a new gracious tender heart that was by nature an old unbelieving stony heart any thing that persons rest in short of this new birth is short of Salvation The other is soundness of judgment in the Doctrine of Christ it is not like that the Life should be holy if the Vnderstanding be corrupt there are damnable Principles as well as damnable Practices 2 Pet. 2.1 Indeed all Erroneous Opinions are not alike dangerous such as strike at the fundamental Articles of Christianity are most deadly such as err in lesser Points are not in so much danger Therefore as the more fundamental and noble a Doctrine is the more earnestly should we contend for it so the more directly any Erroneous Opinion subverts same fundamental Truth the more zeal and indignation we should shew against it as also the greater care to antidote our selves and others against it Now amongst those Erroneous Doctrines that have been like pricking Briars and wounding Thorns ever since the beginning of the Reformation to the Protestant Churches those wild and Erroneous Doctrines that have been broached by the Antipedo Baptists on Anabaptists have not created the least trouble to the Church of Christ but have been a perpetual vexation and trouble to all our godly Reformers as is evident by the sad complaints of those godly men in their Books as who will but read the Works or Lives of Calvin Luther Zuinglius Melancton Oeculampadius Musculus c. and our English Divines may be abundantly satisfied The danger many of you were in of being sucked in among the Anabaptists or at least to join with them in excluding your Infants from Baptism the Seal of the Covenant was that which first put me upon preaching upon this Subject and it is the earnest request of several of you that makes me consent to the Printing of it The Sermons you have lately heard upon this Text have been glory to Free Grace of admirable use to establish and settle those of you that were staggering in this Doctrine that whereas there was many scruples in many persons about Infant Baptism yet now there are very few if any of those that constantly frequent this Congregation but have attained great satisfaction As God that knows my heart can testify for me that it is not yours but you that I seek your present holiness and eternal happiness so my greatest joy amongst you will be to find that my labour is not in vain that you are gained to Christ and joined to him by so firm a faith as the gates of Hell may never prevail against I bless God for that encouragement I have had amongst you many of you that sprung from Parents of the opposite Persuasion having so chearfully listed your selves in Christ's Service and by receiving Christ's Press-money have more solemnly engaged your selves to be his Servants for ever And that so many of you and many even of adult age have thought it their honour to be catechised in the Publick Congregation which I hope will be followed by many others In short Your exceeding willingnss to wait on the Ministry with those saving impressions which I hope God hath made on many of your hearts are to me a ground of hope that what is so hopefully begun amongst you will be as comfortably finished in the glory of God and your Eternal Salvation If any demand a reason why one who willingly acknowledges himself to be the unfittest of a thousand hath attempted this work which hath been so well performed by several abler Pens I only answer That what others have done being either too voluminous or Answers to other Books were therefore not so proper Besides they that know my Circumstances the confident repeated Challenges the restless Insinuations of the Anabaptists together with the various Attempts that the Persons of that Persuasion have made to ensnare and draw away my Hearers though I bless God with no success to their own way will see that I lay under a kind of necessity for what I have done Christian study thy own heart love all that fear God though differently persuaded in some lesser things And pray for him who desires to serve thee in our common Saviour Michael Harrison INFANT BAPTISM GOD'S Ordinance GEN. 17.7 And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant To be a God unto thee and thy seed after thee GOD having in Gen. 12.3 promised Abraham that in him all nations should be blessed comes now in this 17th Chapter in a more express and formal manner to establish his Covenant with Abraham In which observe three things 1. The Persons covenanting 1. Ex parte Dei God stands on the one side of the Covenant O the Infinite Condescention of the Great God to take any notice of lost Sinners that when we had broken the First
out of covenant without taking notice of it A Doctrine may be very clear the Scriptures brought to prove and the Argument thence deduced clear and convincing and yet it may remain dark to one that is uncapable of discerning it An Object may be very obvious and yet not well discerned by reason the Eye is clouded How plain are the Doctrines of the Trinity the Divine Nature of Christ Justification by Imputed Righteousness c. and yet many are so blind as not to see these things So the matter in debate viz. That the Infants of believing Parents have a right to Baptism is as clear to me as the other yet many will not see it The generality of Christians are but Babes in knowledge have but dark and confused apprehensions of the clearest Truths in Religion and must needs be much more at a loss in what hath not that clearness and perspicuity in it CHAP. II Containing the First Argument for Infant Baptism IF God doth own the Infant Seed of Believers as his then they ought to receive the Token of his so owning of them But God doth own the Infant Seed of Believers as his therefore they ought to receive the Token of his so owning of them which is Baptism Now that God doth own the Infant Seed of Believers as his I prove by these Four Arguments 1. If the Children of believing Parents are God's Children their Sons and Daughters his Sons and Daughters then God owns them But the Children of believing Parents are God's Children as is evident Ezek. 16.20 21. Moreover thou hast taken thy sons and thy daughters whom thou hast born unto me and these hast thou sacrificed to be devoured Thou hast slain my children and delivered them to pass through the fire for them These Idolatrous Israelites were at this time much degenerated but yet God had not given them a bill of Divorce the Covenant was not dissolved and therefore these Children born within the Covenant were God's Children and his not merely by right of Creation so all are his but by right of Covenant There was little reason to believe the Parents were gracious but however being visibly in covenant God claims their Children as his own as belonging to his Church and Family by a Covenant-Right 2. If the Children of such Parents who are one or both of them Believers are federally holy then God owns them but the former is true 1 Cor 7.14 therefore the latter else were your children unclean but now are they holy the question was Whether when the Husband was a Believer and the Wife an Unbeliever or the Wife a Believer and the Husband a Pagan they might yet continue to live with the Unbeliever To this the Apostle answers they might and gives this reason for it viz. The unbeliever is sanctified by the believer Sanctified in Scripture usually signifies either 1. Savingly sanctified by Grace and Spiritual Life infused into the Soul by the Spirit of God or 2. Setting Persons apart for some holy Use or Office as the Priests Sabbath Tabernacle and all the Utensils thereof and all the People of Israel who were circumcised but the unbelieving Husband or Wise here were sanctified in neither of these respects therefore it 's otherwise to be understood Candidatus est fidei say some they are in a fair way of being won over to the Faith of Christ or prepared by God for such a use so sanctified signifies in Isa 13.3 but the meaning is plainly this That in regard that all the Faithful are Heirs of the Covenant of Grace Gen. 17.1 I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant to be a God unto thee and to thy seed after thee Acts 2.39 The promise is to you and to your children This Promise being to believing Parents and their Infants this Covenant the unbelieving Party cannot undo by his or her unbelief hence their Children were holy 1. Not merely legitimate for so they would have been had both the Parents been Pagans to say as the Anabaptists do they are not Bastards is saith Doctor Featly a Bastard Exposition 2. Nor can it be meant that they are saved justified and sanctified by the Holy Ghost though if that were the sense it would not contradict but confirm the Doctrine of Infant Baptism for whoever hath Justification and Sanctification the thing signified by Baptism hath undoubtedly a right to the Sign and Seal 3. Then by holy must unavoidably be meant federally holy i. e. within the Covenant as the Infants of the Jews were a holy Seed and had a right to Circumcision so the Infants of Christian Parents though but one of them a Believer had a federal holiness and a right to be baptised as if both the Parents had been Believers 4. If the Kingdom of Heaven belongs to little Children then Christ owns them but the Kingdom of Heaven doth belong to them Matth. 19.13 14. Then were there brought little children unto him that he should put his hands on them and pray and the disciples rebuked them But Jesus said Suffer little children and forbid them not to come unto me for of such is the kingdom of heaven Here Christ declares the Kingdom of Heaven belongs to them By the Kingdom of Heaven is meant either the Kingdom of Glory in the next World or the Kingdom of Grace here the latter is most probable for so the Church is called Matth. 22.1 2. Now be it the one or the other its evident Christ owned them as his 5. If the promise of the Covenant of Grace may be made to the Infant Seed of Believers then Christ owneth them but the promise of the Covenant of Grace is to the Infant Seed of Believers as well as to their believing Parents Gen. 17.7 I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant to be a God unto thee and thy seed after thee And this Promise the Apostle recites as belonging to all Believers Acts 2.39 The promise is to you and to your children Now from all it 's abundantly evident that God doth own the Children of believing Parents as his Therefore they ought to receive the Token of his so owning them which is Baptism The conclusion is unavoidably If it be evident God owns a Person that Person ought to be baptized let him shew that can any reason why a Person so owned by God should not be admitted into the Church by Baptism CHAP. III. Containing the Second Argument for Infant Baptism IF the Infants of believing Parents ought to be received and admitted visible Church-members then such Infants ought to be baptized but the Infants of believing Parents ought to be received and admitted visible Church-members therefore they ought to be baptized Now that such Infants ought to be received into the visible Church as visible Church-members I prove by these Arguments Argument 1. If by the merciful
in all or some of those Families than any have to think there was none Obj. 9. The Baptism of Believers is come in the room of Infant Church-membership Ans it hath been abundantly proved that Infant Church-membership was no Ceremony or Type if any say it was let them prove it Therefore as it was never abolished nor Infants never unchurched nothing can be said to come in the room of it 2. That Baptizing Adult Believers should exclude Infants is as if the receiving and Circumcising the Gentile Proselytes into the Church of Israel had been a means to have unchurched their Infants which for any to affirm would be extremely ridiculous Obj. 10. How can Infants covenant with God or be engaged by this Sign or where doth God engage Parents to promise any thing for their Children Answ That Parents may and ought to covenant for their Children plainly appears 1 From Nature Lex naturae est Lex Dei may not Parents take a Lease for their Children who buyeth Lands and not for himself and Heirs are not Children bound by those Ties and then much more to God 2. From Scripture Deut. 29.10 11 12 13. here you may see the Parents Covenant not only for their Children then present but unborn and they were by Circumcision to enter them into Covenant so Deut. 26.17 18. and hath the Gospel taken away the Parent 's Right in his Child Obj. We promise what we cannot perform Ans We promise to educate this Child for God to instruct him in Gospel truths leaving the renovation and sanctification of the Heart to God who works when on whom and by what means he pleaseth May not a man covenant for himself and Heirs to pay a yearly Rent and what follows in case it be not paid but forfeiture of his Lease and that from the person that should have paid it Obj. 11. If Infants must be baptized why may they not as well receive the Lord's Supper 1. If there were that Scripture-proof to administer the Lord's Supper to Infants as there is for baptizing them we would do it when they have as clearly proved the one as we have the other 2. Baptism is the initiating Seal of entering into the Church which Infants being Disciples of Christ are capable of the Lord's Supper is the confirming Seal to be administred only to grown Christians therefore Infants have a right to the one but not to the other Obj. 12. If Infants ought to be baptized why is it left so dark in the New Testament Ans 1. It 's not dark which admits of such clear proof as you see this doth 2. That all Christ's Disciples ought to be baptized is not dark Matth. 28.19 Infants are Disciples therefore 't is plain they ought to be baptized Obj. 13. The baptizing persons before they know occasions much gross Ignorance Ans 1. Christ is the occasion of the ruin and damnation of thousands for he was set for the fall as well as the rising of many in Israel Luke 2.3 4. but had it been better the world had had no Christ 2. The Gospel is the savour of death to many had it been better then we had had no Gospel What will not the wicked take hurt by 3. Let them shew what in Baptism tends to breed Ignorance Is the entring a Boy 's name in the School the way to breed him in ignorance if a Child's name be put into a Lease is this like to hurt him what harm is it to be in Christ's Family from our youth Nay the contrary is the way to breed Ignorance and Prophaneness for how many sad Examples have we among the Anabaptists who refusing to dedicate their Infants to Christ they are ignorantly and bruitishly brought up live and die like Pagans Thus it hath been proved abundantly that Infant Baptism is God's Ordinance that the Infant Seed of Believers were once taken into the Church as visible Church-members that Christ owns them c. therefore they ought to be baptized that it 's a false and dangerous Doctrine to deny them Church-membership and Baptism Enough hath been said for the satisfaction of those who are seeking Truth such who wilfully shut their Eyes it 's in vain to set light before them because seeing they see but do not understand and hearing they hear but do not perceive There 's one thing more remaining viz. The right manner of baptizing that shall next be dispatched CHAP. VII Shewing that Washing Pouring or otherwise applying Water to the Body is the right way of Baptizing and not Dipping as now used by the Anabaptists WHEN the Anabaptists speak of Baptizing as 't is now done generally by all the Reformed Churches they do it with much scorn and contempt and can scarcely do it in any other terms than Sprinkling They say we may as well sprinkle a Lamb nay a Dog or a Cat as an Infant what Christian Ear doth not abhor such Language Our Protestant Divines usually define Baptism thus it is a washing in or of water or an applying water to the Baptized Or by sprinkling the Baptized in the Name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost None say the Anabaptists are rightly baptized but such as are dipped or plunged over head in the water To this I answer three things 1. That which is a plain breach of the Sixth Commandment Thou shalt not kill is no Ordinance of God but a most heinous Sin but dipping over-head in cold water in these cold Countreys is a plain breach of the Sixth Commandment Thou shalt not kill which forbids the taking away of our own Life or the Life of our Neighbour unjustly or any thing that tends thereunto Now dipping in cold water tends to the taking away Life as many have found by experience who have contracted such Distempers in dipping as have hastened their Deaths Therefore the so doing is a great Sin 2. The Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 though it be derived from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to dip or plunge yet it 's taken for any kind of washing or cleansing where there is no dipping Mat. 3.11 Mark 7.4 and it sometimes signifies sprinkling yea to baptize by sprinkling 1 Cor. 10.2 They were all baptized unto Moses by the cloud in the sea all the world knows a Cloud doth but sprinkle Heb. 9.10 divers Washings or Baptisms 't is evident the Apostle means the sprinkling of Blood Exod. 29.20 21. and the Law of cleansing the Leper Lev. 14.4 to 9. 3. Washing sprinkling or pouring water upon the Body aptly represents the thing signified and the Sign need not exceed the thing signified The washing away Sin by the Blood of Christ is the thing signified in Baptism and this the Holy Ghost delights to express by washing sprinkling or pouring out water Psal 51.7 Ezek. 36.25 Zec. 12.10 1 Cor. 6.11 Tit. 3.5 1 Pet. 1.2 Heb. 9. and 12.24 Quest But did not the Apostles baptize by dipping did not Philip and the Eunuch go down into the water Ans 1. It was