THE Divine Warrant OF JNFANT-BAPTISM OR VI. ARGUMENTS FOR Baptism of Jnfants of Christians VIZ. I. Infants of Christians are rightly judged in the Promise of Propriety in God p. 1. II. Infants of Christians are rightly judged to be of the Church p. 20. III. Infants of Christians are rightly judged meet for Baptisme p. 25 IV. The sealing of the Promise to Infants of visible professors hath been the practise of the Universal Church ever since God added seals to the Covenant p. 30 V. The profit of Baptism is great to the Infants of Christians p. 36 VI. The Promise was sealed by the initiall Sacrament aforetime to Infants of Visible Professors both Jews and of the Gentiles p 38 By JOHN CHURCH M. A. Minister of Seachurch in the County of Essex Repent and be Baptized every one of you in the Name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins For the promise is to you and to your CHILDREN and to all that are a far off even as many as the Lord our God shal call Act. 2.38.39 LONDON Printed by John Macock for George Calvert and are to be sold at his shop at the sign of the Half Moon in Watling street neer Austins gate MDCXLVIII To the sober-minded Reader HAving read this short Treatise we find the Divine Warrant of that a Quod autem apud simplicem vulgum disseminant longam annorum sertem post Christi resurrectionem pâ—aeteriisse quibus incognitus erat paeâ—oâ—aptismus in eo foedissime mentiunâ—ur Siquidem nullus est Scriptor tam vetustus qui non ejus originem ad Apostolorum seculum pro certo referat Calv. Inst l. 4 c. 16. sect 8. ancient Ordinance of Christ viz. Infant-Baptism so clearly compendiously and solidly proved therein not by Ecclesiastical Tradition b Anabaptistas Duraee Scripturarum armis opprimimus quibus solis haeretici superantur Si enim nulla nobis arma suppeterent nisi haec viz. Ecclesiae Traditiones quae tu commemoras nae Anabaptistae nostrum impetum non valde reformidarent Whitak contra Duâ—ae l 8. sect 80. p 197. in fol. but by Scripture-demonstration that we do heartily commend it to thy serious perusal wherein thou mayst discern that Infants of Christian Parents are true Denizons of the visible Church and Kingdom of God having just right to and interest in Gods Magna Charta or Covenant of Grace though some enemies to them and to the Truth have of late but in vain attempted to voyd and overthrow their Title Many learned Tractates of this subject have been already published if their prolixity or polemical contendings for this truth against Anabaptistical or Catabaptistical fancies deter or discourage thee from reading them yet this invites thee being Dogmatical rather then Polemical and not tedious but compendious Here thou hast as they say an Iliad in a nut-shel much in a little the strength of former Writers Arguments for the c Legentibus brevitas ejusmodi plurimum pâ—otest dum non intellectum legentis sensum liber longior spargit sed subtiliori compendio id quod legitur tenax memoria custodit D. Cypr. Praefat. in Testam ad Quirinum help of memory extracted and contracted with select additional notions of the Authors inserted All are thine that the Truth of Christ may abide in thee FRAN. ROBERTS Pastor of the Church at Augustines Lond. JOHN GEREE Minister at Faith's To the right Honorable and most noble Lord Robert Earl of Warwick Lord Rich Baron of Leeze c. Right Honorable IT was hoped not long since that the time was come in which God would gloriously exalt his Truth and make Ierusalem a praise in the earth for God seemed to appear more for us then ever in our or our forefathers days In assembling so many Worthies in Parliament in calling an Assembly of so able and worthy Divines in bringing the Nation into the bond of a Covenant to root out Popery Prelacy Errors Heresies Schism and all that is contrary to sound doctrine and in subduing the publike enemies of Truth and Peace But our iniquities have separated between God and us and our sins have hid away his face from us We looked for light and behold darkness God hath let loose men of corrupt minds reprobate concerning the faith who resist the trurh and bring in damnable Heresies and many follow their pernicious ways The abounding of Errors and in particular the spreading of Anabaptism calling all to contend for the faith hath compelled me contrary to my intentions to make publike this defence of * Tanto magis pro infantibus loqui debemus quanto minus ipsi per se loqui possunt August Poedo baptism which is the fruit of some hours spared from my other studies I am bold Right Honorable humbly to dedicate these my first fruits to your honor and with all observancy to subject them to your judicious censure That which hath made me thus presuming is your singular goodness and unparalleld humility which makes you worthily had in honor of all Artaxerxes the Persian Monarch received with a chearful countenance a present of water of a poor labourer when he had no need of it accounting it the part of a truly Noble and generous spirit to take in good part smal presents offered with an hearty affection as wel as to give great things liberally This smal present most Noble Lord is presented with an intire affection to one as truly Noble and generous as Artaxerxes Your unfeigned love to the truth manifested by your constant cleaving to it even in this hour of temptation which is come upon us in which many are turned aside after Satan Your care to place able and faithful Pastors over people where you have opportunity to do God this service and casting honor and respect upon such in these times in which they are cast down and filled with contempt Your great fidelity to your Country and your many heroick vertues shining in you Make it our duty who are Ministers of the Gospel to celebrate your due praises for the honor of your noble deservings and the incouragement of others to walk in your pious steps That your honor may be preserved in safety in these sad divisions of the Kingdom receive a daily increase of honor and continue faithful to the death that you may receive the crown of life shall be the prayer until death of him who is your Honors Humble and Devoted Servant Iosiah Church VI ARGUMENTS FOR THE BAPTIZING OF THE Infants of Christians ARGUMENT I. The Infants of Christians are rightly iudged in the promise of propriety in God therefore they may be baptized THE Antecedent I prove by ten Arguments Argum. 1 I. The Infants of the Jews so long as they continued visible professors were rightly judged to be in the Promise of propriety in God for it was sealed to them by the initiall Sacrament Gen. 17.7 12 no lesse then to actuall professors Therefore the Infants of Christians are rightly
that the promise of grace appertains to them Retinemus infantium baptismum quia certissimum est promissionem gratiae ad eos pertinere Sax. Confess The Helvetian Church condemns Anabaptists for denying baptism to such infants because by the doctrine of the Gospel such are in the promise Helvet Confess To these many more instances might be added which being consonant to the Scripture and right reason soundly conclude Objection 1 The judgment of charity that any are in the prom se is not a sufficient reason for administring baptism to them there must be shews of grace for more certainty Answer Shews of grace and actual profession are a reason for baptizing only as they are a ground for the judgment of charity that the parties to be baptized are in the promise for else if the Devil should take an humane shape and make a verbal profession though he were known to be the Devil he must be baptized 2. The judgment of charity was the rule by which Iohn Baptist and the Apostles walked in baptizing they had no infallible knowledg of the individuals for they baptized Hypocrites not a few Objection 2 A right to Evangelical promises is not the adaequate reason of baptism for the Iews were in the promise Acts 2.38.39 yet not baptized without praeceding repentance Answer A visible right to the promise either by shews of grace as in those of riper years or by the naming a species in the promise without restriction of which the parties to be baptized are individuals as the infants of visible professors are is a sufficient reason for baptism For 1. The most learned and rational of the Anabaptists confess that if it could appear to them that an infant is in the Covenant they would not doubt of the baptism of it 2. Those Iews rejecting and crucifying Christ and atheistically mocking at Gospel-truths ceased to have a visible right to the promise until they regained it by repentance Also they were a mixt company to whom the Apostles spake and not all Iews Acts 2.8 11 for they were of divers languages Inter illa millia hominum qui baptizabantur multi eo tempore confluxere ex omni natione Ames To which may be added they were adulti 3. It is most probable that repentance was in them only in fieri before their baptism and that the Apostles accepted of probabilities of it and baptized them as Iohn is said to baptize some coming to him unto repentance Matth. 3.11 It may be judged impossible that repentance visible by fruits was in all of them before baptism there being so little space to manifest it for immediatly after the exhortation to repentance they were baptized there could not be time to question every one of them apart whether they repented for the day was but about twelve hours Acts 2.15 and three hours of it were past before the Apostles began the Sermon by which they were pricked in their hearts and that Sermon consisting o◠so many weighty points must necessarily belong also they spake many words after it was ended yet three thousand were added to the Church Acts 2.40 by baptism that day Therefore this so much pleaded against baptism of infants of Christians argues more strongly for it These being grievous Apostates damnable rejectors of Christ crucifiers of him and Atheistical mockers at the Gospel preached miraculously confirmed with extraordinary gifts were as it is most like baptized upon probability of repentance Therefore infants of Christians guilty of no actual sin may be baptized unto repentance c. Si gravissimis delictoribus in deum multum antè peccantibus cū postea crediderint remissio peccatorū datur a baptismo atque a gratia nemo prohibetur quantò magis prohiberi non debet infans qui recens natus nihil peccavit nisi quòd secundū Adam Carnaliter natus contagiū mortis antiqua primâ nativitate contraxit Cypr. Ep. ad Fidum 4. Being in the promise is the only reason mentioned by the Apostles for baptism If any disable the Reason he imputes not a little weakness to the Apostles and their Converts for baptism being a Sacrament of a new administration of the Covenant newly begun and as it is most like wholly unknown to many of them until then many of them being strangers living in remote parts It was wisdom in the Apostles to give and in them to have a satisfactory Reason for receiving it ARGUMENT II. Infants of Christians are rightly iudged to be of the Church with Christians of riper years therefore they may be baptized Argum. 1 I. THE Antecedent I prove by ten Arguments I. Infants of Christians are rightly judged in the promise of propriety in God therefore they are rightly judged to be of the Church Ephes 2.12 for they only are aliens from the Common-weal of Israel which are strangers from the Covenant Argum. 2 II. Infants of Christians are rightly called the Lords Children for his manner hath been to call the children of his people his Children In the old world some were called the Sons of God Gen. 6.2 3 as children of his people and the infants of Israelites were called by him his Children born to him Ezek. 16.20 21 Mal. 2 14 15 Psalm 22.30 Jer 30.20 Psal 11.6 16 and their lawful seed a seed of God And the Jews were accounted to him great and small in every age until the breaking off and the same was prophesied of the Gentiles when they should be converted and of the Jews when they should be graffed in again and the Psalmist calls himself the Lords servant as he was the son of his hand-maid Therefore such infants are rightly judged to be of the Church which is the House of God Argum. 3 III. The Apostle denominates the children of Christians holy 1 Cor 7.14 Isaiah 4.3 Therefore they are rightly judged to be of the Church which consists of such as are rightly denominated holy to which may be added they are denominated holy because they appertain to the Church Quia ad Ecclesiam pertinent hoc nomine Apostolus eos sanctos praedicat Pet. Martyr Argum. 4 IIII. The Infants of visible professors aforetime were rightly judged to be of the Church with their Parents for they were initiated into it by circumcision Rom. 3.30 Rom. 15.8 which was the Sacrament of initiation for that time for which cause that Church was called the Circumcision Therefore the Infants of Christians are rightly judged to be of the Church for they appertain to it as such infants did to the Church Si rogaveris quomodo silii Christianorum ad Ecclesiam pertineant respondebimus non aliter quam filil hebraeorum Pet. Mart. These may be as rightly judged to be of the Church as Infants of visible professors of Jews and Gentiles were aforetime for faith was then no less required to Communion with the Church then now Rom. 4.11 Circumcision the Sacrament of initiation was called
the seal of the righteousness of faith Argum. 5 V. Christ affirmed the Kingdome of God to be of such Mark 10 14. Therefore they are rightly judged to be of the Church for all that enter into the Kingdom of glory are first of the Church and all that are aliens from the Church are without hope Ephes 2.12 extra Ecclesiam non est salus Christ is the head and Saviour of that body onely Objection 1 Those Children were brought to Christ onely for some bodily cure Answer Negatively 1. If they had been brought for a bodily cure the Apostles would not have rebuked those that brought them Si aegroti fuissent non prohibuissent 2. There is not any intimation of a bodily cure desired for them or wrought upon them 3. The Kingdome of God the greatest of all blessings is affirmed to appertain to them Objection 2 Those children were of riper years capable of instruction and not Infants Answer They were Infants For 1. They are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by which termes infants sucking the breast are usually signified 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nominantur quibus verbis Graeci infantes ab uberibus pendentes significant Calv. 2. They were brought to Christ in the Armes 3. If they had been capable of instruction the Disciples had not any shew of reason to hinder the bringing of them to Christ Objection 3 Onely those which were like infants for innocencie c. Were meant and not infants Answer Parvulos vocat et per aetatem infantes et per simplicitatem morum adultos Mald. Both Infants and such of riper years as are like them are meant For 1. the intention of Christ in rebuking his Disciples for hindring them was to declare that he would have infants brought to him 2. If onely those of riper years like them for innocencie c. were meant Christ had not just cause of such anger at his Disciples for being against the bringing of infants to him but rather to approve them in it and to have called for such as were like them 3. Interpreting Christ of those of riper years only enervates Christs reason for bringing Infants to him which was the being of the Kingdom of God of such and renders it as strong for bringing sheep and Doves to him as infants of Christians for these are as innocent and docible and the Kingdome is of such as are like them 4. Excluding of such infants from being meant Neh. 6.1 Psa 103.17.18 Rev. 20.6 overturns all hope of salvation of them 5. such in scripture commonly signifies the same persons and them that are like them Objection 4 It is uncertain whether they were Infants of Christians Answer If actions may be interpreted the best that they signifie they which brought the children to Christ may charitably be judged Christians For 1. They brought not children for a bodily cure but aiming at an higher blessing which may be argued from Christs silence of that which concerned the body only and affirming the Kingdom of God to be of such it being his manner to speak according to the hearts of those that came to him 2. Their zeal was great to bring them to Christ it caused them to break through all discouragements from his Disciples and to wait for Christs blessing This argues that they more highly honored Christ then Infidels that knew him not 3. Christs great anger at his Disciples for rebuking and his imbraces of the children and affirmation that the Kingdom of God was of them Mat. 15 26 argues no less for he called Aliens and their children Dogs and there is a deep silence in his word of the appertaining of the Kingdom of God to any children of Infidels Argum. 6 VI. Infants of Christians are rightly judged to have the Spirit of God and to be regenerate Deut. 30.6 Isaiah 44.3 for the seed of visible professors is named in the promise of Circumcision of the heart and of the Spirit as such professors are and the Spirit is promised to children as children of the people of God 1 Cor. 12.13 Ephes 4.4 Therefore they are rightly judged of the Church for the Spirit initiates into that body all in whom it is Argum. 7 VII Infants of Christians are denominated Disciples those whom the false Apostles would have circumcised Acts 15.1.10 the Scripture denominates Disciples and they were infants of Christians for they urged Circumcision after the manner of Moses Therefore they are rightly judged of the Church which consists of Disciples Isaiah 8 16 Argum. 8 VIII Christians may hope that their children dying in infancy are saved they ought not to sorrow for their dead as those which have no hope 1 Thes 4.13 Therefore they are rightly judged of the Church for they that are Aliens from it are without hope Ephes 2.12 Christ being the Saviour of the body only Ephes 3.23 Argum. 9 IX Infants of Christians are not rightly judged Heathen and Dogs as some Anabaptists have judged them calling baptism of infants Lavacrum Canum Mat. 15.26 Rev. 22.15 Therefore they are rightly judged of the Church for they which are without are Dogs Argum. 10 X. Infancy is no let to being of the Church Christ an infant was head and King of the Church Matth. 2.2 and children of visible professors infants were parts of the Church in the time of the old Testament Wheat in the grass is Wheat though Tares are never Wheat So infants of the Church are Ecclesia in herba the Church in the bud though not infants of Infidels and if infancy were inconsistent with being of the Church it must also be inconsistent with salvation Therefore infants of Christians are rightly judged of the Church as infants in the family are rightly judged parts of the house to which they appertain notwithstanding infancy 1 Cor. 12.13 Therefore I conclude that infants of Christians may be baptized for baptism is the Sacrament of initiation into the Church and the ordinary way of entrance into it as it is confessed by the most learned and rational of the Anabaptists by it the Apostles initiated all that they judged meet to be added to the Church Acts 2.41 Acts 8.38 For this cause Orthodox Divines and Churches have approved and practised baptism of infants of Christians Ideò baptizantur nostri pueri sicut veterum circumcidebantur quia extra ecclesiam deputandi non sunt Pet. Martyr i. e. Therefore our children are baptized as of old such were circumcised because they are not to be judged without the Church Pet. Mart. Although baptism be a Sacrament and repentance of faith we affirm that infants ought to be baptized because they are judged with their parent in the Church of God French Church Confess Cur non per sanctum baptismum qui sunt peculium et in Ecclesia dei initiantur Helvet Confess Communion with the Church ought not to be denyed to any which are rightly judged of the Church except
since God added seals to the Covenant of grace Ergo THat it was the practise of the Church in the time of the old Testament notwithstanding some omissions and intermissions cannot be denyed And that it hath been the practise of the Catholick Church in the present dispensation of the Covenant I conclude from two Propositions which I will prove Propos 1. The sealing of the Covenant to the infants of Christians by baptism the initial Sacrament of the present dispensation was the practise of the Church in the Apostles times This I prove by four Arguments Argum. 1 I. Sealing the Covenant by an initial Sacrament to infants of Gods people aforetime was not peculiar to that Church-state For 1. The promise of propriety in God sealed to such infants was not peculiar to the infants of that time for it was part of the most eminent Promise of the Catholick Covenant of Grace with the universal Church 2 Sealing the Promise by an initial Sacrament is not only in reference to a particular Church either National or Congregational but principally in reference to the Catholick Church for initial Sacraments primarily respect it this is evident in that Baptism is mentioned as a Sacrament of initiation into that body 3. 1 Cor. 12 13. The dissolution of that Church state did not dissolve the sealing of that Promise by an initial Sacrament to all Infants Rom. 21 17. for there was a breaking off only of some branches and not of all and therefore some are in statu quo prius and of right to enjoy such priviledges as were not specialties but common to the species therefore the method used aforetime was observed in their days Argum. 2 II. In this dispensation the Apostles judged the same of Infants of Christians that was judged in the former of the Infants of Gods people They affirmed the children in the Promise with the parents denominated the Children of Christians holy taught that the blessing of Abraham was come on the Gentiles by Christ Acts 2.39 1 Cor 7 14. Gal 3.14 Rom 11 17. and that Christians were graffed in for Jews broken off c. therefore the Promise was sealed by the initial Sacrament to Infants with their Parents as afore time in their days for such as they judged such things of the initiated by Baptism Argum. 3 III. Where the heads of families became Christians the Apostles baptized them and all theirs Acts 16.15 33 1 Cor. 1.16 even their whole housholds at their request of which divers instances as sufficient witnesses that it was their practise are left upon the sacred file of the Word which was the method used aforetime in the initial Sacrament Gen 17. Objection By housholds must be understood the discipled of them by preaching of the Gospel and not every individual Exod. 12.48 for in those times there were in Christian Families oft Infidels which ought not to be baptized Answer The Apostlâ—s practise is best interpreted by practises in like cases Gen. 17.12 13 Exo 12.48 49 Abraham was required to circumcise all his males born in his house and bought with his money likewise the Converts of the Gentiles in whose families some doubtless were Infidels and refused Circumcision such might depart the family and were to be cut off from it Gen. 17.14 and all the rest having a natural capacity great and small were circumcised The like was the practise of the Apostles in baptizing households for the order that they gave concerning Infidels in Christian families was that they should have liberty to depart the family 1 Cor. 7.13 though tyed to it by the strongest relation and there is great reason to conclude that they baptized the rest great and small For 1. it was an ancient known custom in the Church for religious Parents to devote their Infants with themselves to the Lord and to undertake the bringing them up in the fear of God 1 Cor. 11 16. and ancient pious customs of the Church they honored and followed 2. They judged the Children with the Parents in the Promise and foederally holy 3. They had been sharply rebuked by Christ for despising the day of those small things and sent to learn of them innocency humility c. and taught that the kingdom of God was of such as well as of actual professors 4. There is nothing in the Apostles Commission inconsistent with sealing the Promise to Infants of Christians by Baptism the initial Sacrament For that which was given them in Commission Mat. 28.19 20 was that they should Disciple the Nations which were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 baptizing and teaching them to do all that Christ had commanded which was the method used in the former dispensation Abraham and all of riper years were Discipled before the sealing of the Covenant by the initial Sacrament yet was the Covenant sealed to Infants of visiblâ— professors by the initial Sacrament which was a seal of the righteousness of faith 5. Isai 22.24 Infants are essential and most innocent parts of the family the off-spring is the glory of the house Argum. 4 IV. The most ancient credible Writers refer the original of Baptism of Infants to the Apostles times Calvin affirms that there is no Writer so ancient which doth not refer the original of Baptism of Infants to the Apostles days Nullus est scriptor tam vetustus qui ejus originem ad Apostolorum seculum pro certo non refert Calv. instit l. 4. c. 16. § 8. Origen affirms that the Church received instruction to baptize Infants from the Apostles Ecclesia traditionem baptizandi parvulos ab Apostolis accepit Orig. l. 2. in Roman c. 6. Dionysius saith that it was delivered by the Apostles that Infants should be baptized Ab Apostolis traditum fuit ut Infantes baptizarentur Dionys Augustine mentions it as a custom of the universal Church received from the Apostles and saith it were not to be received if it were not Apostolical Consuetudo matris ecclesiae in baptizandis parvulis non esset omnino credenda nisi Apostolica traditio esset August Propos 2. Baptizing Infants of Christians hath been the practise of the universal Church from the times immediately following the Apostles days and it hath been held by the same a divine institution long before the man of sin was revealed Zanchy whose testimony is honored by all of sound judgment witnesses that the Catholick Church never doubted of Baptism of Infants of those that might be judged of the Church De Infantibus eorum qui de Ecclesia esse judicentur Ecclesia Catholica nunquam dubitavit Zanch. in Eph. p. 226. In the second Century about the year 143. Higinus Bishop of Rome appointed god-fathers and god-mothers to undertake for Infants in Baptism Willet in Rom. c. 6. controv 6. which argues that Baptism of Infants was in use then and before Augustine lived in the fourth Century and he called it the custom of the mother Church Origen living
judged to be in that promise The Consequence I prove by four Arguments Argum. 1. That promise of proprietie in God was not a specialtie which I prove by seven Arguments 1. It was not peculiar to Abraham and visible professors for it was sealed by the initiall Sacrament to the infants of such neither was it peculiar to Abraham and his naturall seed for it was sealed by the initiall Sacrament to the infants of visible professors of the Gentiles no less then to them no difference was to be made the stranger was as one home-born Exod. 12 48 49 and there was one Law for both Nor yet was it peculiar to that Church-State it being a Nationall Church 1. Promises of proprietie in God are not to any in reference to a particular Church onely either Nationall or Congregationall but in reference to the Catholick Church to which they appertain 2. Visible professors and their Infants were judged in that promise before the existence of a Nationall Church 3. Visible professors and their Infants which were of other Nations were judged in that promise 4 Since the dissolution of that Church-State Christians are said to be Children of the Promise after the manner of Isaac Gal. 4.28 who was in that promise as an infant of beleeving Parents before he was in it as an actuall beleever 2. That promise was a Catholick promise the most eminent promise of the Covenant of Grace which was a Catholick Covenant therefore it was no specialty but the blessing of Abraham which was to come on the Gentiles by Christ Gal. 3.14 Rom. 11.17 Rom. 15.8 9 and the fatness of the Olive tree in which they were to pertake and the promise which Christ came to confirm that the Gentiles might glorifie God for his mercy 3. Promises of proprietie in God are no specialties for God is a God to his in every age upon the same terms during the Covenant by which he gives proprietie in himself 4. That promise was given to Abraham as father of all the faithfull of every Nation Gen 17 5. and a publick person representing them in every age and not onely as father of the Jewish Nation onely and therefore no specialty 5. That promise was an everlasting promise and not to end with the dispensation and some temporarie promises of it Gen. 17.7 1. This is expresly affirmed of it 2. God is a God to his in every age upon the same terms Mal. 3.6 he changes not 3. Visible professors and their Infants are alike in every age and there is nothing in them Iam. 1.17 inconsistent with proprietie in God in one age more than in another 4. That promise is not taken away by the comming of Christ for since he finished the work he came to do Rom. 11.28 the Apostle saith the Children are beloved for the Fathers and parents becomming visible professors their children were judged by the Apostles to be in the promise with them and denominated holy Act. 2.39 1 Cor. 7.14 Esa 61.8 9 Ier. 30.20 as aforetime and it was prophesied that when the Jews shall be graffed in again which shall be by vertue of that promise the off-spring shall be accounted blessed with the parent and that the children shall be as aforetime 6. Though a priority in God may be yeelded to the Jews and their seed yet a sole propriety may not The Jew was the elder sister and Christs first bride and they had the first hand-sell of Free-grace in a Church-way but they and their seed never had the sole propriety in God Gentiles becomming visible professors did partake in it and their Infants whosoever feared God Psal 128.1.3 his Children were Olive plants as well as theirs 7. The former part of that promise I will be a God to thee is undenyably common to all beleevers Therefore that Promise being not a specialty the Infants of Christians are rightly judged to be in it as the Infants of the Jews were for Christians and their Infants have the same priviledges specialties excepted Eph. 2.14 1. The Partition wall is broken down and they are made one 2. The breaking off was of incorrigible Apostates and their seed and not of visible professors and theirs these suffered no losse by the breaking off Rom. 11.1 Eph. 4. 3. Christians have like precious faith and their Infants are no more Infidels then theirs were 4. Christians in this dispensation are children of Abraham Luc. 19.9 1 Pet. 3 Rom. 8.17 Zacheus becomming a Christian is called a son of Abraham and Christian women daughters of Sarah and therefore heirs of his priviledges which were not specialties in Abrahami successimus haereditatem quae de illo dicta sunt in nobis liberis nostris quadrant Pet. Martyr 5. Christians are in this dispensation as Jews were in the former they are called as they were An holy Nation a peculiar people 1 Pet. 2.9 Tit. 2.14 a Royall priesthood c. And every Nation receiving the faith as the Nation of the Jews did and in which there is a nationall agreement in doctrine worship and discipline as was in the Nation of the Jews is to be accounted to the Lord in every age Psal 22.30 even Aegypt and Assyria with Israel Isai 19.25 Gen. 17.5 Posita causa ponitur Causatum and may call Abraham Father who obtained the father-hood of many Nations and may be accounted a nationall Church no lesse then that nation was 6. That promise of proprietie in God was to Abraham and the Jews as Beleevers and promises to believers as such if they be not specialties appertain to all beleevers as they do to any Iosh 1.5 Heb 13 5 The promise of Gods presence with Joshua is applyed to all beleevers Argum. 2. As much love is manifested to the Infants of Christians in this dispensation as was to the Infants of Jews in the former Christ in this dispensation became one of them the Infants of Jews had the promise and of Christians the performance Christ on earth commanded the Infants of such as honoured him to be brought to him and with anger rebuked his Disciples for despising the day of those small things he imbraced them blessed them Mark 10 14 16 affirmed that his kingdome was of them numbred them with beleevers Mat. 18 and taught that his Angels were their Guardians and admonished those of riper years to be like them in innocencie humilitie Ephes 6.4 c. commanded by his Apostles that they should be brought up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord c. Therefore it is not to be beleeved that the promise of propriety in God is rent away from the Infants of visible professors and that they are without God Eph. 2.12 and without hope in this dispensation as the children of Infidels are Argum. 3. The Infants of Christians are as capable of the promise of propriety in God as the Infants of the Jews were
it will be difficult to excuse the Apostle from too great boldness in affirming an actual being of the promise to the children as to the Parents without exception Argum. 5 V. The children of Christians are denominated holy in this dispensation therefore they are rightly judged to be in the promise 1 Cor. 7 14 for they are denominated holy because they are included in the Covenant Sancti dicuntur quia foedere includuntur Ames Bellar. Enerv. 1. Holiness of Regeneration is rightly judged in such infants 1. Because the promise of Circumcision of the heart is to visible professors and their seed alike 2. Christians ought to hope Deut. 30 6 1 Thes 4.13 that their infants dying are saved which they cannot without judging them Regenerate Iohn 3 5 for none unregenerate can see the Kingdom of God and none ordained to salvation are called out of this life which are not first sanctified Nemo electorum è praesenti vita evocatur qui non prius sanctificatur Rom. 8 30 Calv. 3. Infancy is no let of sanctification Infants are as capable of the habits of sanctity as men if Adam had not sinned they should have been holy in and from the womb by original justice and grace may be infused into them as well as original justice might have been propagated to them It is questionless that many such infants are Regenerate therefore we must charitably suppose it of every individual for when we come to particulars which dare we exclude there being no visible difference He is too hardy that dares pass his peremptory censure of this or that particular that it is unregenerate 2. A relative holiness is rightly concluded of all such infants in relatione ad deum sancti sunt Ames Which is a priviledg some injoy which are not Regenerate untill a desperate Apostacy deprive them of it they are accounted to the Lords people and have visible Communion with the elect in all priviledges which are not peculiar to them This two-fold holiness is meant where Israel is said to be an holy people Deut. 14 2 Ier. 2 3 and holiness to the Lord Some which were not Regenerate were the Lords in the face of the visible Church in facie Ecclesiae visibilis 1 Cor. 7 14 Also by the Apostle denominating children of Christians holy who judges of such as the children of visible professors were judged of aforetime which were called an holy seed Ezra 10 2 Esa 22 24 and compared to the vessels of small quantity in the Temple which were no less accounted holy then vessels of greater quantity 3. Actual holiness required in those of riper years is in such infants only potentially It is not necessary to their being foederally holy it being impossible in them nemo tenetur ad impossibile and therefore not to the judging them foederally holy Object The Apostle means only a matrimoniall holiness which is legitimation and the sense is the Infidel is sanctified in the Christian by marriage and the copulation is not adulterous for the children are not bastards but legitimate Answer The Apostle means a foederall holiness and not a legitimation only which I prove by six Arguments Argum. 1. It is evident by the common doctrine of the Apostle that he judged the children of Christians holy otherwise then by a matrimonial holiness only which is common to the children of Infidels He taught that the blessing of Abraham was to come on the Gentiles by Christ Gal. 3 14 of which a principal part must be that propriety in God given to him and his seed by the Covenant Rom. 11 16 that the Christian Gentiles were graffed in for Jews broken off Gal. 4 28 and did partake of the root and fatness of the olive tree as they did that Christians were children of the promise after the manner of Isaac Eph. 2 14 that the partition wall was broken down that the breaking off was not of Gentiles but of Jews Rom. 11.17 Rom. 11 28. and but of some of them that the children are beloved for the fathers That there is the same faith in Christians that was in Abraham and visible professors aforetime which was the condition obligatory of the promise of propriety in God That the main promises in the former dispensation were confirmed by Christ Rom. 13.8 9. that the â—entiles might glorifie God for his mercy of which the most eminent was the promise of propriety in God including infants That children were in the promise with their parents Acts 2.39 Galat. 2.14 That there was an actual difference between the people of God and aliens from the birth c. Therefore he meant a foederal holiness and not a matrimonial only Argum. 2 II. By Sanctification of the Infidel in the Christian is not meant a legitimation only that they might live together in marriage without imputation of adultery For 1. The Infidel is mentioned as meerly passive is said to be sanctified and not to sanctifie if only a legitimation by marriage be meant the Christian is sanctified in the Infidel no less then the Infidel in the Christian 2. If legitimation only be meant the term Infidel is impertinently so often mentioned which relates not to marriage 3. By sanctification of the creatures by the word and prayer 1 Timothy a legitimation of them only is not meant that a Christian may possess and use them without imputation of theft and robbery For Infidels which neglect that means of sanctification have a legal right to them as a matrimonal right to their yoak fellows yet all things are impure to them even the use of marriage Titus 1 16. though it be not adulterous Matrimonia infidelium impura ut alia omnia opera non naturâ operum sed vitio authorum Pet. Martyr Therefore by the holiness of the children is not meant legitimation only Argum. 3 III. By unclean are not meant only bastards The Scripture denominates adulterous unclean but not bastards whose parents are not Infidels Such as want foederal holiness Isaiah 52.1.2 Eccles 9.2 it denominates unclean which it denies not of bastards the Covenant was sealed to them by the initial seal aforetime and they were accounted to the Church though they were not advanced to offices in it Deut. 23.1 3 Objection Bastards were numbered with the unclean as Moabites Ammonites c. Answer 1. Christ numbers Infants with Beleevers yet Anabaptists allow them not the denomination of Beleevers Mat. 18. 2. Bastards in the place mentioned are numbered with those which want foederal holiness as Moabites c. If for this they are denominated unclean by unclean is meant wanting foederal holiness and then by holy must be meant having foederal holiness 3. The opposition of things in Scripture doth not always bring those things under one denomination Acts 15.20 Fornication Idolatry and things strangled and blood are numbered together yet Fornication and Idolatry are not to be denominated
works of any may be interpreted to signifie Answer Actual faith and shews of grace are necessary in all of riper years for a right judging them in the promise but not in such infants For 1. If Adam had not sinned infants had been visibly in the Covenant without actual faith and shews of grace 2. Infants of visible professors in the former dispensation were rightly judged in the promise without actual faith and shews of grace though not any of riper years 3. Actual faith is not necessary to the being of such infants in the promise as it is to the being of all of riper years in it and therefore not necessary to the judging them to be in it 4. The judgment of charity of such infants is the judging the best of them that the promises may be interpreted to signifie Objection 2 All such infants are children of wrath by nature as well as others and in infancy there is no actual difference between them and children of Infidels only there is a more likelihood that they are of the election and there is more hopes of them for the future being born in the bosom of the Church under the means they are in a nearer possibility children of Christians are in potentia propinqua and of Infidels in potentia remota only Answer As infants of Christians and of Infidels are children of Adam there is no actual difference they have the same birth-sin but as the children of Christians are children of a people in a Covenant of grace they actually differ from the children of Infidels from the conception and birth The Apostle makes an actual difference between Jews born of parents in Covenant and Gentiles born of parents strangers from the Covenant and that from the time of birth Galat. 2.15 where he saith we are Jews by nature and not sinners of the Gentiles and he made an actual difference between the children of Christians 1 Cor. 7.14 and of Infidels denominating the former holy and not the latter which actual difference is not properly called a birth-priviledg because it is not of natural generation though contemporary with it but of free grace which God is pleased to honor his people with Deut. 10.13 and to deny others He hath chosen their seed above all others He hath given precious promises to his people and their seed as of being a God to both Circumcising the hearts of both blessing both c. but not to Infidels and their seed His manner hath been to call the children of his people Ezekiel 16 20 21 his children born to him but not the children of Infidels He hath taken care of the children of his people that they should be taught to know him and truâ—t in him Psalm 78.5.7 Ephes 6.4 and be brought up in his nurture and fear but hath visibly neglected others David acknowedges that he was his God from his mothers belly Psalm 22 10 When the Ninivites repented at the preaching of Ionah Jonah 4.11 he took an exact account of their children and his bowels were troubled for them He numbers the hairs of the heads of his people Luke 12.7 and well may be judged tenderly to regard their children Also God hath required a difference to be made by all Isaiah 61.8 9 between the children of his people and the children of others the one to be accounted blessed and not the other Object 3 All infants of Christians are not in the promise and which are not cannot be discerned during infancy therefore we cannot judg any thing until riper years Answer 1. All infants of Christians are in the promise as the infants of visible professors were in the former dispensation which were rightly judged in it 2. That species being named in the promise without restriction and there being no visible difference in the individuals we rightly judg every individual in the promise for we are not to make a difference where none is visible as in the case of actuall professors all are not elect and regenerate and in the promise for life many are Hypocrites and perish In ecclesia plurimi sunt hypocritae qui nihil habent praeter titulum et speciem Christi Calv. Yet we rightly judg the individuals elect and regenerate until the contrary appear in any by this rule the Apostles walked towards the children of Christians they affirmed them all to be in the promise with their parents Acts 2.39 1 Cor. 7.14 and denominated them all holy 3. A certain knowledg of any individual that it is in the promise for life even of actual professors is not attainable by us God only knows who are his 2 Tim. 2.19 ours is a judgment of probability which may be of such infants the promise being to them without shews of grace as well as of actual professors giving shews of grace 4. Many infants and actual professors have been rightly judged by men in the promise who were not in it for life 5. Iohn baptist and the Apostles never indeavoured an exact knowledg of individuals they applyed the promise without long inquiry to many which were Hypocrites Therefore I conclude that infants of Christians are rightly judged in the promise of propriety in God Therefore they may be baptized The Consequence I prove by three Arguments Argum. 1 I. Ever since God added seals to the Covenant the initial seal might be granted to those that could rightly be judged in the promise In the former dispensation it was granted to all such desiring it for themselves and their infants except to infants not eight days old wanting strength to endure it and to women wanting a natural capacity or because it was not administrable to them with modesty In the latter dispensation Iohn Baptist and the Apostles denyed not the initial seal of it to any whom they judged to be in the promise Matth. 3.5 Iohn Baptist gave it to Ierusalem all Iudea and the region about Iordan and the Apostles to many thousands in a day Acts 2 and denyed it not any which were not visibly strangers from the Covenant and like to continue such Argum. 2 II. Being in the promise is the reason rendred by the Apostles for the receiving of baptism Acts 2.38.39 therefore they that are rightly judged in it may be baptized Argum. 3 III. It is the judgment of Orthodox Divines and of the Reformed Churches that baptism belongs to all that may be rightly judged in the promise To whom the Covenant belongs to them baptism belongs Perkins in Galat. p. 263. Omnibus de bet administrari baptismus ad quos foedus gratiae pertinet quia est prima obsignatio foederis Ames medul p. 188. Baptism ought to be administred to all to whom the Covenant belongs because it is the initial seal of it Baptism belongs to the children of those which are discipled by vertue of the Covenant Whitak Cont. Duraeum p. 685. The Saxon Church baptizes such infants because they judg it certain
in the case of scandal which never occurs in infants of Christians The unavoidable want of baptism is not yet the denyal of baptism to any is an excluding of them from Communion with the Church and keeping them visibly without baptism being the ordinary way of initiation into the Church and sign of it Baptismus est signum initiationis quo Cooptamur in Ecclesiae societatem Calv. ARGUMENT III. Infants of Christians are rightly iudged meet for Baptism notwithstanding the absence in them of the Faith Knowledge c. necessary in all of riper years iudged meet for Baptism who ought to be discipled b fore they are baptized Adultos infideles prius oportet Catâ—châ—menos esse quam baptizari Bez. in 1 Cor. 7.14 Therefore they may be baptized THE Antecedent I prove by ten Arguments Argum. 1 I. The infants of visible professors both of Jews and Gentiles in the former dispensation were rightly judged meet for the initial Sacrament which was Circumcision Therefore the infants of Christians in this dispensation are rightly judged meet for the initial Sacrament which is Baptism for the initial Sacrament in the former dispensation signified the Circumcision of the heart and was a seal of the righteousness of Faith Deut. 30.6 Col 2.11 12 Rom. 4.11 no less then the initial Sacrament in the present and none of riper years were rightly judged meet for it but such as are now judged meet for baptism Argum. 2 II. Infants of Christians are rightly judged meet for the Kingdom of God for Christ affirms the Kingdom of God to be of such Mark 10.14 and that those of riper years must be like them if they be meet for the Kingdom of God Mat. 18.2 and not that such infants must be like those of riper years if they be meet for it Therefore such infants are rightly judged meet for baptism 1 Pet 3.21 it being the initial Sacracrament of it and the first Ceremony to be used about those which are saved Argum. 3 III. Infants of Christians are denominated holy notwithstanding the absence of that faith knowledg 1 Cor. 7.14 c. which is necessary in all of riper years that they may be denominated holy Therefore such infants are rightly judged meet for baptism Argum. 4 III. Infants of visible professors are called the Lords Children and a seed of God c. Ezek 16.20.21 Malachi 2.15 Matth. 28.19 Galathians 3 Therefore they are rightly judged meet for baptism It being the Sacrament of putting his name on his children and outward sign of adoption Baptismus est externum pignus adoptionis Whitak Argum. 5 V. Christ on earth despised not the day of those small things but judged them meet to have a visible access to him Mark 10.13 and to be blessed with his own hand and he blessed them with the choicest of blessings Therefore such are rightly judged meet for the washing of baptism by the hand of his servants Argum. 6 VI. Infants of Christians may be solemnly Dedicated to the Lord. For 1. It hath been a practise of his people graciously accepted of him Deut. 29.11 In the days of Moses the people devoted their little ones with themselves to him by a solemn Covenant and their pious act was accepted Ieremiah 2 3 Ezek 16 2â— Ioel 2 16 the Lord accounted them holy great and smal and called their children his children and called for such of them as sucked the breast to bear a part in days of humiliation for transgressing the Covenant with their parents Anna desiring a son 1 Sam. 1.24 made a vow to give him to the Lord all his days and God heard her desire and accepted the performance of her vow The Psalmist affirms Psalm 22.10 that he was cast upon the Lord from the womb and that God was his God from his mothers belly Christ on earth commanded little children to be brought to him and such as were brought he imbraced and blessed Oblatos humaniter et benigne accepit solennique benedictonis ritu eosdem patri consecravit 2. The infants of Christians are peculiarly the Lords with their parents in which regard the Apostle denominates them holy for that is rightly called holy that peculiarly belongs to him 1 Cor. 7.14 Sanctum diâ—itur quod deo peculiariter devotum et consecratum est Bâ—z Therefore they may be rightly dedicated to him for the reason why the first born in Israel were in a special manner to be dedicated to the Lord was because they were most peculiarly his 3. The absence of shews of divine grace in such infants is no let of a solemn dedication of them to the Lord for infants of Gods people in the old Testament were by such ways as the people of God then had dedicated to the Lord without them and infants of Christians are denominated holy in the new Testament without shews of grace which are necessary in those of riper years nor yet is the dedication of infants of Christians any Argument for baptism of infants of Infidels for the Scripture is silent of their holiness for which cause they are not visibly the Lords and the Lord never required of them that refused to devote themselves a dedication of their children to him Therefore such infants are rightly judged meet for baptism for it is the Sacrament of Dedication to the Lord in the new Testament Mat. 28.19 by which the party baptized is solemnly consecrated to him and his name is put upon him that he may be accounted his and the outward sign of adoption for in the instant of Christs Baptism the voyce from Heaven was Mat. 3.17 this is my beloved Son declaring the meaning of that sign to be the glorious priviledg of son-ship Gal. 3.26 27 and the Christians in Galatia are called Children of God from their baptism Argum. 7 VII Infants of Christians are rightly judged to have in them the principal things signified by baptism though not in such a degree as actual professors Insunt actu primo non secundo in semonte non in messe in radice non in fructu Tilen For this was rightly judged of the infants of visible professors aforetime in regard of the initial Sacrament which signified the Circumcision of the heart and was a seal of the righteousness of Faith in the time of it no less then baptism now is Therefore such infants are rightly judged meet for baptism Argum. 8 VIII God undertakes for what is wanting in the infants of his people through infancy as he doth for what is wanting in his people through infirmity Psalm 119.122 Deut. 30.6 Mat. 18.19 He is a surety for his people for good and he hath given his Word for their seed that their heart sha â— be circumcised and hath promised to do for his people and theirs What ever they shall ask for themselves and theirs Isaiah 22.24 and expects that his people should not only depend upon him themselves but also hang
thing it is a delivering up to Satan and a putting the party visibly in his Kingdom in which all visibly are that have not a visible standing in the Church Argum. 4 IV. By Baptism Infants of Christians are solemnly initiated into Christs death Rom. 6.3 for Baptism is a visible participation of it by way of initiation Per modum initiationis Ames Medul p. 188 as eating things offered to Idols is fellowship with devils 1 Cor. 10. By it the unspeakable benefit of Christs death is absolutely sealed to as many as stand to the agreement Therefore the profit of it is great to such Infants Argum. 5 V. Baptism is a strong ingagement to repentance from dead works to serve the living God Matth. 3.11 It is called Baptism unto repentance Eo ad serium dei colendi studium non mediocriter stimulamur Gal. 5.3 Calv. as Circumcision was in the time of it an ingagement to serve the Lord according to the tenor of that Administration Therefore the profit of it is great Isai 49.1 5. Psal 58.3 for God hath formed us to serve him from the womb and we are apt to go astray from the womb Argum. 6 VI. Baptism is an ordinary means of the salvation of those of whom the Kingdom of God is and necessary as a means 1 Pet. 3.21 Baptismus est necessarius ad salutem non tantum ut res praecepta sed etiam ut salutis medium ordinarium Ames Bellar. enervat Therefore the profit of Baptism is great to the Infants of Christians the Kingdom of God being of such Objection Baptism is a means of the salvation only of those that have Faith and the answer of a good Conscience and not of Infants Answer 1. Faith and the answer of a good Conscience are necessary only in those of riper years that Baptism may be effectual to them for Salvation and not in such Infants for these are not necessary in them to salvation 2. Baptism is compared to the Ark and is said to save as the Ark saved from the flood of waters in which some had a temporal deliverance which was a type of 1 Pet. 3 21. and help to eternal salvation which yet after perished Object 2 It is uncertain whether any individual Infant shall receive any profit by Baptism Answer 1. It is certain Baptism is as profitable to Infants of Christians as Circumcision was to Infants of Gods people in the time of it and that every such Infant baptized is solemnly dedicated to the Lord initiated into the Church and into Christs death and made a debtor to serve the Lord in righteousness and holiness all the days of his life and is by it set upon the advantage ground for salvation 2. There is not to us any infallible certainty that Baptism administred to any actual professor shall be effectual to him to salvation John Baptist and the Apostles could not say of any individual this man shall be baptized with the holy Ghost and be saved They baptized Individuals as David prayed for his sick Child namely 2 Sam. 22.12 because he did not know but the Lord might hear him he said who can tell but the Lord may be gracious unto me that the Child may live and there is ground of hope of the effectualness of Baptism in the Infants of Christians as well as in actual Professors because God hath promised to be a God of the seed of his people and to circumcise their hearts and hath commanded them to hang upon him their issue and their off-spring Isai 22.24 and required them to be accounted a seed that he hath blessed Isai 61.8 9. and hath declared that the Kingdom of God is of them c. ARGUMENT VI. The Promise was sealed by the initial Sacrament aforetime to Infants of visible Professors seeking it for â—hâ—m both Iews and of the Gentiles therefore it may be sealed to the Infants of Christians by the initial Sacrament THE Consequence I prove by six Arguments Argum. 1 I. The principal promise sealed aforetime which was the promise of propriety in God is not made voyd For 1. It was not a temporary promise Gen. 17.7 Heb. 8 7. Eph. 2.14 for that promise was faultless and it was no part of the partition wall broken down by Christ 2. Infants of Christians are as faultless as the infants of Gods people in the former administration undeniably included in it Therefore it may be sealed to the infants of Christians by the initial Sacrament in this dispensation Argum. 2 II. Sealing that promise by an initial Sacrament to infants of Gods people which was the substance of Circumcision and a distinct thing from it did not of right cease with the Jewish Church-State For it was not peculiar to that Church as a national Church For 1. That promise was sealed to infants by the initial Sacrament long before the existence of a national Church Gen. 17. and to infants of strangers which were not of that Nation 2. Sealing the promise by an initial Sacrament is principally in reference to the Catholick Church for shews of grace are sufficient to it Acts 8.36 37 c. 10.47 though the parties have not joyned themselves to any particular Church and one that cannot be rightly iudged to be of the Catholick Church cannot have the promise rightly sealed to him by an initial Sacrament though he be a Member of a particular Church Argum. 3 III. Sealing the promise by the initial Sacrament in this dispensation is upon such terms as the sealing of it was in the former Faith and repentance were no less required in the former then in the present dispensation Fides et resipiscentia non magis am constituunt foedus dei quà m tempore Abrahami Ames The seal is changed but not the Faith Sacramenta sunt mutata non fides August God indented with Abraham to walk before him and to be perfect Gen 17.2 before sealing the promise to him by the initial Sacrament Rom. 4.11 and that Sacrament was called the seal of the righteousness of Faith yea a greater measure of Faith might seem necessary aforetime Heb. 11.13 Rom. 13.11 for they were to behold things afar off which to us are nearer and there was a vayl of Ceremonies upon things which are to us open and naked Therefore the promise may be sealed to Infants of Christians in this dispensation by the initial Sacrament Argum. 4 IIII. Infants of Christians are as capable of the promise and sealing of it by the initial Sacrament as the Infants of Gods people were aforetime for there is not in them a greater absence of Faith Knowledg c. neither is there less innocency and ability to bear it Infants of Christians are now as able to indure sprinkling or washing with water as Infants of Gods people aforetime the cuting with the knife Therefore the promise may be sealed to the Infants of Christians by the initial Sacrament Argum. 5 V.
such with beleevers and the Apostle judged such to be in the promise and denominated them holy therefore they may be accounted the seed of Abrahams faith 7. They cannot be denominated Infidels because they have not visible faith as they cannot be denominated unreasonable because they have not visible reason nor dumb because they speak not it not being the time in which they may and ought to have visible faith Vt aliquid privatum dicatur eo tempore quo adesse debuit forma absit The Anabaptists must either account them to Beleevers or to Infidels or a third party which if they do it will be needful that they bethink themselves of a third place for them a limbus Infantum when they dye 9. Perkins in Galat. p. 263. affirms it the ancient received doctrine of the Church that their being born in the bosom of the Church which is Gods family of his servants which take hold of his Covenant supplies in them the absence of visible faith and the ancients did abhor the accounting them Infidels Absit ut ego dicam non credentes infantes August de Baptis and judged them Hereticks that did not account them to Beleevers Inter credentes baptizatos parvulos numerabis nisi vis esse hereticus August ad Pelagium 2. The sealing of the Promise aforetime by the initial Sacrament to Infants and others was to them primarily as the seed of Abrahams faith for such as were visibly wicked so that they could not be accounted to the seed of his faith Isai 1.10 Jeâ— 9.25.26 Amos 9 7. were no more regarded of God then Sodomites Ethiopians Ammonites c. and they were visibly out of the Promise for life though they were Abrahams natural seed as well as Gentiles and many of them obtained not the temporal Promises given to Abraham The being Abrahams natural seed was no priviledg to such as were notoriously and incorrigibly wicked Matth. 3.9 that they could not be judged the seed of his faith Objection 4 4. There was an express Commandment aforetime for sealing the Promise by the initial Sacrament to the Infants of Gods people But there is no such commandment in this dispensation but the practice of baptizing Infants is upheld by weak Arguments from the Old Testament Answer I. It is most insufferable hypocrisie in the Anabaptists so rigidly to exact an express commandment in this particular and to refuse satisfaction by sound collections from the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament seeing that they cannot produce an express commandment for any thing which is proper to their way For 1. What express commandment can they shew for despising of dignities and for insurrections of private men against Magistrates which was their practice in Germany Magistrates though unrighteous are called gods and sons of the most high Psalm 82 6. Exod. 22 28. Rom. 13.1 2 Pet. 2 10. Jude 8. and reviling of them is forbidden and subjection to them commanded and despising of them made a character of an Heretick 2. What express Commandment can they produce for unchurching all reformed Churches and pronouncing them Antichristian for baptizing Infants of Christians 3. What express Commandment can they shew for railing accusations they bring against all faithful Ministers which labor in the Word Ier. 3.15 and feed people with knowledg and understanding many of which God hath used in the conversion of many souls to him because they baptize Infants of Christians Iude 9. The Angel dared not bring a railing accusation against the devil and they that despise faithful Ministers are despisers of Christ 1 Thes 4.8 Luke 10 16 4. What express Commandment can they shew for preaching of private men without abilities and authority Mechanick fellows not trained up in the study of divinity they allow to be preachers of whom it may be rightly said which Jerome complained of some docent priusquam discant i. e. they teach before they have learned themselves and which the Apostle before him of some they desire to be teachers 1 Tim. 1 7. understanding neither what they say nor whereof they affirm and they account their babblings and railings the only Gospel as Montanus did the dreams of his two harlots Prisca and Maximilla They all take upon them to be preachers Sumunt sibi omnes praedicandi officium Gasti In the Apostles days all were not Prophets they taught that Christ gave only some Prophets 1 Cor. 12.29 Eph. 4. and some Pastors and Teachers and that none might be a Preacher except he were sent that is Rom. 10.14 had authority rightly conferred upon him and abilities given to him 1 Cor. 7 20 and that men must abide in their callings 2 Cor. 2.16 and they thought none sufficient enough for preaching the Gospel much less not such as neither were trained up for it nor yet extraordinarily gifted Also Christ who had the greatest abilities took not upon him to preach until he was called to it until the voyce from heaven Heb. 5 4 Mat. 3 17 Mat. 28.19 this is my beloved Son hear him and his Apostles besides abilities had a commission to preach the Gospel It was a great sin in Ieroboam to suffer common people to execute the legal Ministry 1 King 12 31 and private men met with exemplary punishment from Heaven for meddling with it 2 Cor. 3 8. and the Ministry of the Gospel is much more glorious The taking away Prophets and Teachers from people Isaiah 3. â— is threatened as a heavy judgment and much lamented but if common people can prophesie and teach what punishment is it 5. What express Commandment is there for stripping and dipping silly women which hath occasioned the death of some and the defiling of others 6. What express Commandment can they shew for liberty to hold erroneous opinions and to divulge them which they call Liberty of Conscience but is indeed Licentious Errour Deut. 29.14.5 In Moses days the people covenanted not only that themselves present but all of them absent with themselves should walk after the Lord which they could not have done if men ought to have such a liberty Josiah and the people made a solemn Covenant to seek the Lord and he caused the people to stand to it 2 Chro 34.32 2 Chron. 15.13 Deut. 13 1.12 and Asah made a law that if any did not stand to the Covenant he should be put to death and lest not liberty for people to dissent God by Moses commanded that false teachers should not be tolerated and it was prophesied that great severity should be used against teachers of lyes under the Gospel Zech 13 2.4â— Gen. 17. When God instituted Circumcision he gave no liberty if any should scruple it to do otherwise every male that was not circumcised was to be cut off In the moral Law the stranger in the Jurisdiction of the people of God is not permitted to enjoy his opinion in following secular imployments
on the day which the Lord hath sanctified Exod. 20. Nulli cohabitanti permittitur Sabbathi dissolutio Lippom. Nehemiah threatned to lay hands on the Merchants of Tyre Neh 13 17. to 22 if they would not desist from such business on the Lords day The liberty of Conscience which we have by Christ is only to hold the truth and not a liberty to hold any error though it be conceived by men a truth the holy Scriptures and not mens phansies are the touchstone by which opinions are tryed Gal. 5.13 and Christian liberty is no occasion to the flesh To these many more might be added for which to bring an express Command or a sound collection from Scriptures of the Old or New Testament would be found very difficult II. There is no necessity of an express Commandment for sealing the promise to the Infants of Christians in this dispensation by the initial Sacrament as was for sealing it to the Infants of Gods people by the initial Sacrament in the former for Circumcisâ—on in the former administration was the first initial seal added to the Covenant and there was nothing for direction in the use of an initial seal before it Also Circumcision was very painful and seemingly as dangerous for tender Infants and to humane reason uncomely it was a yoak too heavy to be born and therefore not the least part of the partition wall which kept out the Gentiles Acts 15. for which cause there was a great necessity of an express Commandment 3. The express Commandment was not the principal reason of circumcising Infants and others but the Covenant Circumcisi olim Infantes propter foedus erant Whitak Contr. Durae Circumcision was called the Covenant and the token of it Gen. 17.10 14 and not the Commandment and the contempt and wilful neglect of it was called the transgression of the Covenant and not of the Commandment and despisers were threatned to be cut off for violation of the Covenant not of the Commandment c. Objection 5 5. Arguing from Circumcision for Baptism of Infants is the way to introduce Judaism and to subject the Church again to the whole burthen of Jewish Ceremonies and it justifies the Papists who argue for an universal Bishop from the high Priest among the Jews and for sacrificing Priests linnen garments c. from the custom in the Jewish Church Answer Arguing from the Jewish types for the substance of those shadows tends neither to an introducement of Judaism nor yet to a justification of the Quisquillian toys of the Papists for it is neither arguing for the Ceremonies of the Jewish Church nor for the fooleries of the Popish Synagogue but for priviledges which the faithful may expect by Christ of which those Ceremonies were prenunciative and are ceased not because they were evil but because we have the substanc and truth of them which is much better Non quia damnata sed quia in melius mutata August It cannot be rightly argued from the high Priest in the Jewish Church that there must be such an universal Bishop as the Pope for no such thing was intended by that type but Christ was the substance of that shadow who is our great high Priest Heb 4.14 nor from the other Priests that there ought to be sacrificing Priests under the Gospel for if that any thing were typified by them it was a faithful Ministry under the Gospel to prepare people for the Lord Rom. 12.1.2 that they may be presented to him living sacrifices holy and acceptable and by their linnen garments innocency and righteousness with which the Ministers of God ought to be clothed The Apostle argues from the sacrifices in the Jewish Church the offering up of our selves Rom. 12 2 Heb. 23.25 and the sacrificing of praises which he calls the calves of the lips c. And from sealing the Promise by the initial Sacrament to Infants of Gods people aforetime may the sealing of the Promise by the initial Sacrament to Infants of Christians in this Dispensation be rightly argued Sealing the Promise being the substance of Circumcision and benefit intended by it and such arguing hath no colour of setting up Judaism for arguing for the thing signified tends not to the introducement of antiquated Ceremonies Therefore I conclude that orthodox Divines and reformed Churches have soundly concluded Bâ—ptism of Infants of Christians from Circumcision of Infants of Gods people aforetime from which many of them have argued for it as learned Whitaker Infants were circumcised of old time for the Covenant therefore for the same cause they ought to be baptized Circumcisi olim Infantes propter foedus erant ergo propter eandem causam baptizandi Whitak Contr. Durae p. 685. Also Calvin for as much as God was pleased to grant Circumcision the Sacrament of Repentance and Faith to Infants it cannot be absurd if now they are partakers of Baptism Cum Circumcisionem poenitentiae fidei Sacramentum Deus Infantibus communicaret non absurdum si nunc Baptismi participes fiant Calv. c. This Argument from Circumcision is filled with the scorning and contempt of the Anabaptists but if it appear in its full strength against them it alone is able to put to the rout the most numerous Army of them Huic argumento non omnes Anabaptistae resistent Whitak Contr. Durae p. 685. They are like the fish called Sepia which casteth out a great deal of black ink in the water to darken it that she may glide away the more easily from the hand that else would take her they think by the multitude of their scoffs and jeers at it to elude it and escape from it FINIS Imprimatur Edm. Calamy April 12. 1648.
in the third Century mentions it as the practise of the Church received from the Apostles And the first Sect opposing Baptism of such Infants as an Innovation Popish figment and delusion of the devil sprang up in Germany but in the sixteenth Century Some omissions and intermissions of Baptism of Infants in the first times argues not that it hath not been the practise of the universal Church nor that it hath not been held as a divine institution For in the time of the Old Testament there were omissions of Circumcision in evil times and intermissions for many years in the times of the travels of the Israelites Joshua 5. it was intermitted the space of fourty years yet Circumcision was the practise of the Church in the Old Testament and held by it a divine institution The reason of those omissions and intermissions of Baptism of Infants and that some were expectants until riper years was not because Baptism of Infants was accounted sinful and a delusion of the devil for it was not so judged Cyprian who lived in the third Century affirms that the Baptism of Infants was in his time approved in a Councel of 66 Bishops nemine contra dicente Epist ad Fid. In a Councel at Millain it was decreed that whosoever should deny Baptism of Infants should be Anathema Quicunque parvulos baptizandos negat Anathema sit Concil Melevit The reason why Tertullian urged delay of Baptism until riper years was because many baptized Infants of Infidels as well as of Christians Jun. Constantines Baptism was delayed out of a desire to be baptized in Jordan where Christ was baptized and some lived among Infidels and could not enjoy it for their children and some among Hereticks and could not have it rightly administred and some their Parents were Infidels during their Infancy therefore they were not baptized until riper years Some delayed Baptism until death because of an erroneous opinion that after Baptism there is no remission of sin Baptismum tum demum suscipiam cum 〈◊〉 viciis et iniquitatibus de sistam c. Some were baptized in riper years because having been baptized by Novatus the Heretick they thought they had not been rightly baptized and some because they would be baptized by Donatus thinking those only rightly baptized which were baptized by him and his party Objection Prelacy hath been in the Church ever since the first times yet it doth not follow that it may be continued so neither doth it that Baptism of Infants is to be practised because it hath been long in use Answer Prelacy hath not been in the Church from the first times as a divine Institution as Baptism of such Infants hath been It is certain that Prelacy was not an Apostolical Institution for the Apostles subjected the spirits of the Prophets to the Prophets 1 Cor. 14 32 and not to a single Bishop and the Government of the Churches to Elders in common Acts 14 23. Act. 20.25.28 not advancing one over the rest and this at their departure from them never to see them more and Elders and Bishops were all one they called the Elders Bishops Hujusmodi principatus nondum natus erat cum primum incepit postea quam adempti Apostoli erant Brightman Jerom affirms that Bishops and Elders were one and that the Church was governed by a Councel of Elders and that Bishops obtained the preheminence above Elders by Humane Custom and not Divine Institution Episcopus Presbyter unum sunt antequam studia in religione fiebant communi Presbyterorum Concilio Ecclesia gubernata fuit Hieron in Tit. 1. Noverint Episcopi se Presbyteris majores consuetudine magis quà m dominiâ—ae dispositionis veritate Idem Ammonius in the fourth Century a man of eminent piety dismembered himself and fled because he would not be a Prelate Socr. l. 4. c. 18. Likewise Evagrius about the same time fled for the same cause Ambrose being chosen Bishop by an universal vote of the people of Millain denyed utterly to be Bishop and by no importunity would yeeld his consent Socr. l. 4. c. 25. until Valentinianus the Emperor commanded him to be created Bishop volens noleâ—s And his refusal was not from excess of modesty but knowledg that the Church had been and ought to be governed by Elders Eccl sia seniores habuit quorum sine Concilio nihil agebatur in Ecclesia quod quâ negligent â obsoleverit nescio nisi fortè doctorum desid â aut magis superbiâ dum soli volunt aliquid videri i. e The Church had Elders without the Councel of whom nothing was done in the Church which thing by what negligence it grew out of use I know not unless perhaps through the sloath or rather pride of the Teachers whilst they alone would be thought somewhat Ambros in 1 Tim. 5. Therefore I conclude that sealing the Promise to Infants of Gods people hath been the practise of the universal Church ever since God added seals to the Covenant of Grace and that it is no Innovation or Popish figment and that it is intolerable presumption in those that so censure it for to despise any pious custom of the universal Church and to judg it evil is insolent madness Consuetudo matris Ecclesiae non est spernenda August Insolentissimae infanie est existimare non recté fieri quod ab universa Ecclesia fit Idem ep 111. ARGUMENT V. The profit of Baptism is great to the Infants of Christians therefore they may be baptized THe Antecedent I prove by six Arguments Argum. 1 I. The profit of Circumcision which was as Baptism is Rom. 3.1 2. a Sacrament of Faith and Repentance was great to the Infants of Gods people Therefore the profit of Baptism is great to the Infants of Christians For Baptism is not less profitable then Circumcision was neither are such Infants less capable of the profit of Baptism then such were of the profit of circumcision Argum. 2 II. By Baptism Infants of Christians are solemnly consecrated to the Lord Matth. 28.19 and his name is put upon them Per illum consecramur patri filio spiritui sancto eorum nomina super baptizatos vocantur Ames Medull p. 187. Therefore the profit of it is great to such Infants for it is no light matter to be consecrated to him and called by his name Deut. 28.10 Argum. 3 III. By Baptism Infants of Christians are solemnly initiated into the Church 1. Cor. 12 13. for Baptism is the Sacrament and ordinary means of initiation into it Therefore the profit of it is great to them Isai 65.4.7 for it is a great priviledg to have a visible standing in the Church This is evident by the contrary the visible breaking off of the Jews and their seed that they should no more be accounted to the Church then Infidels was the greatest evil that ever befel them and Excommunication which is a visible casting out of the Church is a dreadful