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-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
Gospel-covenant Gen. 17.7 as we have abundantly proved and that the Promise of the Covenant is to them is as evident Act. 2.39 The promise is to you and to your children he means the Promise of God to Abraham the Promise of Salvation by Christ which was promised both to Jews and Gentiles but to the Jews in the first place Or suppose the Apostle hath respect unto Jer. 31.33 34. or to Joel 2.28 it alters not the case for those were all branches of the Covenant of Grace and Explications of what was virtually contained in that first Promise to Abraham Gen. 17.7 ARGUMENT VI. The Sixth Argument for Infant Baptism is this If the Infants of one or both of the believing Parents be federally holy then they ought to be baptized but the former is true therefore the latter 1 Cor. 7.14 By the holiness of Children there is not meant Legitimacy i.e. not Bastards so they would have been if both the Parents had been Pagans Nor is it meant that they are savingly sanctified but federally holy that is in the Covenant of Grace and so had an undeniable right to the Seal of the Covenant which is Baptism ARGUMENT VII The Seventh Argument for Infant-Baptism is this If the Kingdom of Heaven belong to Infants then they ought to be baptized but the Kingdom of Heaven doth belong to some Infants Matth. 19.14 Suffer little children to come to me for of such is the kingdom of heaven 1. Suppose by the Kingdom of Heaven is meant the Kingdom of Glory little Children when they die shall go to Heaven this sense the Anabaptists cannot disallow for they say all Children dying in infancy are saved the Infants of Turks Pagans Infidels Papists all sorts Then if they are Heirs of Glory this must be by vertue of their interest in and union with Christ for there 's no other way to Heaven but by Jesus Christ John 14.6 I am the way the truth and the life no coming unto the father but by me There 's no Name under Heaven whereby we can be saved but only Jesus Christ Now if Infants have a right to Glory by vertue of their union with and interest in Christ then have they a right to be baptized if they have a right to Heaven by Christ then to receive the Badge of a Disciple of Christ which is Baptism no person can have any plea for Heaven that had not a right to be baptized Acts 2.47 The Lord added to the Church such as should be saved This adding to the Church was by Baptism v. 41. And let them shew that can what right those have to Heaven that are not or at least have not a right to be so added to the visible Church 2. But by the Kingdom of Heaven is oft understood the gospel-Gospel-Church So Mat. 22.1.13.47.8.20 21.11.12 and in most of our Saviour's Parables And this is most likely to be the meaning of this Text of such is the kingdom of heaven that is the gospel-Gospel-Church takes Infants as well as adult persons to be visible Members in it And then the consequence is unavoidable The visible Church and Kingdom of Christ is made up of Infants as well as adult persons Baptism is the Door into the visible Church therefore they must needs be baptized ARGUMENT VIII The Eighth Argument for Infant Baptism is this If Infants are to be received in the name of Christ they are to be baptized in the name of Christ but Infants are to be received in the name of Christ Mark 9.36 Whoso receiveth one such child in my name receiveth me to receive them in the name of Christ is to receive them as the Disciples of Christ or because they belong to Christ And if they ought to be thus received in Christ's Name as the Friends and Disciples of Christ then they ought to receive the Badge of a Disciple to have the name of Christ named over them in Baptism ARGUMENT IX If in our Saviour's time the Head and Master of a Family was never baptized but his whole Family was baptized with him then Children and Infants ought to be baptized for they are a considerable part of Families But we never read of any Head or Master of a Family baptized but his or their whole Houshold were baptized with them as is evident in Cornelius Acts 10. and Lydia and the Jailer Acts 16. So 1 Cor. 1.14 c. Object But there 's no mention of any Infants in any of these Families Answ No more is there of any of riper years And it 's much more likely that there was Infants in those Families than otherwise there is no mention in Scripture of Children of believing Parents baptized at adult age I shall multiply no more Arguments by these the unprejudiced Reader will be abundantly satisfied that Infant-Baptism is God's Ordinance CHAP. V. Shewing that the Doctrine of the Anabaptists in excluding Infants from Baptism and shutting them out of the visible Church makes all Infants to be of the visible Kingdom of Satan and so leaves us no well-grounded hope of the salvation of any dying in infancy and is therefore to be justly abhorred as false Doctrine Argum. 1. THat Doctrine that makes all Infants to be of the visible Kingdom of the Devil is false Doctrine But to deny Infants Baptism is to deny them to be of the visible Church of Christ and if they are not visibly in the Church of Christ they are visibly out of it and of the Kingdom of the Devil there is no third or middle state on Earth between the visible Kingdom of Christ which is his Church and the Kingdom of the Devil and all men and women and Infants too are visible Members of the one or the other If any know of any middle state let them show it Christ and Satan share the whole world between them and if Infants are not visibly in the Kingdom of Christ they are visibly in the Kingdom of the Devil the consequence is unavoidable what barbarous usage is this to our poor Infants Christ commands us to bring them to him and tells us of such is the kingdom of God and the Anabaptists perversely thrust them away from Christ and from the Church of Christ set them among Pagans and Infidels who are of the Visible Kingdom of the Devil Argument 2. That Doctrine that leaves us no well-grounded hope of the Salvation of any Infants dying in Infancy is certainly false Doctrine But the Anabaptists in denying Infant Baptism to the Seed of Believers leave us no well-grounded hope of the Salvation of any such dying in Infancy I do not say That the Anabaptists do positively assert the Damnation of all Infants dying in Infancy for they do the direct contrary assert the certain Salvation of all Infants even Turks Pagans and Jews But I say they leave us no well-grounded hope of the Salvation of any such for if Infants ought not to be Baptized then are they out of the Visible Church all who belong
25.1 2 3 4. This is the ground of Baptism we do not baptize persons as the Elect of God or Infants as the Infants of the Elect but as making a visible and credible profession of Religion so the Apostles did presently baptize such as did profess repentance towards God and faith towards our Lord Jesus Christ Act. 2.41 Simon Magus in barely professing to believe in Christ was baptised Thus all those who visibly profess Christianity and are baptised in the name of Christ and do not scandalous Sins notoriously contradict their Profession are to be accounted Believers in Covenant and their Children to be baptised Ezek. 16.20 21. 3. That all Infants of such believing Parents are in the Covenant of Grace and have as much a right to Baptism the now Seal of the Covenant as the Infants of the Jews had to Circumcision the then Seal of the Covenant This is the principal thing designed from this Text. There are you know a sort of restless people amongst us who are perpetually letting fly and with great indignation spurning at Infant Baptism telling you your Infants have no right to the Seal of the Covenant and thereby tempt you to be cruel to the Children of your own Bowels setting them among Pagans and Infidels Therefore I hope it will be an acceptable service to plead the Cause of your poor Infants who cannot yet speak a word for themselves to assert and prove their right to the Covenant and the initiating Seal thereof which is Baptism I hope to find very few amongst you who will join with the Enemy of Infants but rather put to a helping hand to restore them those Priviledges God allows them In speaking to this I shall 1. Lay down some Conclusions to clear the Doctrine of Infant Baptism 2. Prove the Doctrine by several Arguments 3. Shew the dangerous Consequence of denying Infant Baptism 4. Answer Objections 5. Prove that Dipping over head in baptizing in these cold Countreys is no Ordinance of God but a grievous Sin CHAP. I. Containing five Introductory Considerations very needful for the right understanding the Controversy of Infant Baptism 1. COnsider that a Doctrine or Practice may be proved to be of God two ways 1. By the express words of Scripture as the Resurrection of the dead may be proved from such a Text as cannot be denied by any that own the Scripture to be God's Word as John 5.28 All that are in the grave shall come forth 2. Or from Evident Consequences drawn from Scripture then have we the mind of Christ when we have the right meaning of Scripture thus Christ proves the Resurrection to the Sadduces Luke 20.37 38. Now that the dead are raised even Moses shewed at the bush when he calleth the Lord The God of Abraham the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob God is not the God of the dead but of the living Now this Scripture doth not prove the Resurrection in direct terms but remotely and by consequence How little satisfaction would this Text have given our Modern Anabaptists if they had been present at the Dispute between Christ and the Sadduces would they not have reprov'd Christ for his Impertinence We will not believe the dead will rise unless we have a plain Text would not these men have reported abroad that Christ could could not prove the Resurrection Thus they deal with us at this day We challenge you say they to prove Infant Baptism to be God's Ordinance bring us a plain Text and we will believe Now if we prove Infant Baptism as plainly as Christ proved the Resurrection then it is certainly God's Ordinance and we are bound to own it Most we believe nothing but what we have totidem verbis in just so many words in Scripture then how shall we prove the first day of the Week to be the Christian Sabbath That a Woman may come to the Lord's Table That a Christian may be a Magistrate 2. Observe That a mind prepossessed with Error and Prejudice that is not seeking Truth but only something to defend their present Embraced Opinions will not be satisfied let the Text be never so clear or the Argument never so firmly built upon Scripture but will still be inventing some shift or other to ward off the force of any Text or Argument This is evident in the Example of the Sadduces beforementioned we find indeed Christ silenced them but we do not find so much as one of them convinced and brought off to a sound mind Men are generally so fond of their Errors that when they are beaten out of one hold they fly to another 3. Those Doctrines which were clearly revealed and fully confirmed in the Old Testament though little or nothing be said of them in the New Testament and were never repealed are yet to be owned received and believed as if much had been said of them in the New Testament the whole Scripture is God's Word and what need of proving the same thing twice unless the Authority of the Old Testament were questioned this is evident in the lawfulness of a Christian Magistracy in an Oath before a Magistrate and making war upon a just occasion There is so little said of these things in the New Testament many of the Anabaptists have denied them yet these being fully setled and confirmed by God in the Old Testament are to be owned though little be said of them in the New Now this is the case of Infant Baptism The Question is not by what Sign but at what Age persons are to be admitted into the visible Church Now this was fully determined in the Old Testament That Infants at eight days old were to be admitted Members of the Visible Church and suppose little be said of it in the New Testament it is because there was no need of it this truth having been once setled in the Old Testament and never repealed 4. Those Doctrines which were once throughly setled in the Old Testament and never called in question by any in the New there was no occasion given to speak of them again We find that what was but darkly hinted in the Old Testament and much questioned in the New is fully cleared and much is said of it as that glorious Doctrine of Justification by the imputation of the Righteousness of Christ This was very darkly hinted in the Old Testament and very much opposed by Legal Preachers in the New Testament therefore much is said in the New Testament to clear it But Infants right to the Covenant or to Church-membership there was much said of it in the Old Testament and it was neveâ— denied or called in question by any in the Apostles days they were setled and had had peaceable possession of their Priviledges ever since Abraham's time Had any in the Apostles days scrupled in Infants Right very much would have been said of it for the Jews who tenaciously adhered to their old Priviledges would never so silently have suffered their Children to be cast
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
Gift and Appointment of God not yet repealed some Infants were once to be admitted Members of the visible Church by vertue of the Covenant of Grace then 't is certain some Infants are still to be so admitted but the former is true therefore the latter Two things must here be done to shew 1. That some Infants were once admitted Members of the visible Church 2. That this Church-membership was never repealed 1. Some Infants were once so admitted by vertue of the Covenant of Grace If any deny this thus it is proved 1. Infants were part of them that entered into covenant with the Lord God and into his Oath that he might take them to be a peculiar People to himself Deut 29.10 11 12 13 14 15. Ye stand this day all of you before the Lord your God your captains of your tribes your elders with your officers with all the men of Israel 11. Your little ones your wives c. 12. That thou shouldest enter into covenant with the Lord thy God and into his oath which the Lord thy God maketh with thee this day 13. That he establish thee to day for a people unto himself and that be may be unto thee a God as he hath said unto thee and as he hath sworn unto thy fathers to Abraham to Isaac and to Jacob. 14. Neither with you only do I make this covenant and this oath but v. 15. with him that standeth here with us this day before the Lord your God but with him that is not here with us this day This was not a new Covenant but a renewing the Covenant made with Abraham as v. 13. Into this Covenant their little ones present were taken and their little ones yet unborn 2. Infants were engaged to God by the Seal of the Covenant which was Circumcision Gen. 17.10 Circumcision was not a meer politick Rite as some Frantick Anabaptists have dreamed but a Seal of the Covenant of Grace Rom. 4.11 He received the Sign of Circumcision as a Seal of the Righteousness of Faith That is Circumcision was 1. a Sign of what of the Circumcision of the heart by the Spirit of Christ of the mortifying and killing the old man of the sad effects of Sin both original and actual and the way of recovery by Jesus Christ 2. It 's a Seal of the Righteousness of Faith that is of the Righteousness of Christ imputed to the Believer and received by faith this is a Periphrasis of the Covenant of Grace wherein righteousness is promised and made over to us in a way of believing 3. Infants were baptized to Moses in the Cloud and in the Sea 1 Cor. 10.1 2 3. And Stephen calls that Assembly whereof they were Members the Church in the Wilderness From hence it is evident beyond rational contradiction that Infants were sometimes taken into the visible Church as visible Church-members by vertue of the Covenant of Grace Secondly That this Infant Church-membership was never repealed For if Infant Church-membership be repealed then that repeal must be either in Mercy or Judgment but it was in neither therefore it was never repealed 1. Infant Church-membership was never repealed in Judgment for God never revokes his Covenant to any People till first that People break covenant with him which Infants never did therefore being once taken into covenant 't is certain God did never cast them out Now it was a mercy to have Infants taken into covenant Deut. 29.10 11 12. therefore if this Privilege be revok'd it must be in Judgment for as it is a great Mercy to be in the visible Church so 't is a sore Judgment to be out of it to be cast out of covenant Now if Infant Church-membership be repeal'd then the Infants of Believers under the Gospel are in a much worse condition than before Christ's Incarnation certainly Christ did not come to make our Children miserable or to put them into a worse condition than they were in before this would make Christ a Destroyer who is the only Saviour But certainly the Church is now in a much better condition and her Privileges more ample and larger than they were before she hath lost none of her Privileges but gained many more Heb. 8.6 A more excellent ministry better promises Rom. 5.15 16 17. 'T is certain Infants are not thrown out of covenant for that would much darken the Grace of God received in the Gospel 2. Nor is Infant Church-membership repeal'd in Mercy for it can be no Mercy to take away a Mercy unless it means to give a greater Mercy in the room of it Now let the Anabaptists shew what greater Mercy God hath given in the room of Infant Church-membership there is none Therefore it was never repealed 2. If that Covenant by vertue whereof Infants were received into the visible Church was the Covenant of Grace then 't is certain it was never repeal'd But that Covenant by vertue whereof they were taken in was the Covenant of Grace therefore it was never repealed But that Covenant by vertue whereof they were taken into the visible Church was the Covenant of Grace as is most evident Deut. 29.10 11 12. And so the Covenant made with Abraham whereof Circumcision was a Seal Gen. 17.7 10. as the Apostle clearly proves Rom. 4.11 Now the Covenant of Grace is an everlasting Covenant 2 Sam. 23.5 never was nor ever will be repeal'd Infant Church-membership was no Ceremony neither was it any part of the Ceremonial Law if any say it was let them shew what it typified under the Gospel If it were a Ceremony then the Materials of the Church would be a Ceremony and so the Church it self which would be very absurb to affirm Neither was it part of the Moral Law the Covenant of Works whatever pains some of the opposite Persuasion have taken to prove it for the Covenant of Works knows no Mercy neither was it any part of the Judicial Law for Church-membership was not a piece of meer Policy the Church is one thing and the Commonwealth another 3. If there be no mention or record of the Repeal of Infant Church-membership in any part of the New Testament then it is most certain it was never repealed But there is no record of any such Repeal in any part of the New Testament therefore it was never repealed if any say it was let them shew where that Repeal is recorded 'T is true Circumcision is ceased because it was a Ceremonial Type but Infant Church-membership being no Type or Ceremony is not ceased Argument 2. If an Infant was Head of the visible Church then an Infant may be a Member of the visible Church But an Infant was Head of the visible Church for who will deny but that Jesus Christ was Head of the visible Church in his infancy what honour was done to Christ in his infancy both by Angels and men Hence it appears 1. That the Nonage of Infants doth not make them uncapable of being Church-members supposing God's will 2.
to the Visible Church have a right to Baptism therefore in denying Infants Baptism they throw them out of the Visible Church And let him shew that can tell how what grounds there are to hope or expect the Salvation of any out of the Visible Church I grant a person may want the engaging Sign and yet have a right to Church-membership yea to Salvation so an Elect Infant dying unbaptized is saved though it have not the Sign yet it had a right to it Now without a promise we can neither believe nor hope Rom. 15.4 13. Eph. 1.18 Eph. 4.4 Col. 1.5 23 27. Heb. 6.18 19. Again such as God intends to save he adds to the Church Acts 2.47 't is the Visible Church there spoken of and such who are not so added or have not a right to be so added let them shew that can what ground there is to hope for their Salvation And thus all well-grounded hope of the Salvation of any Infant dying in Infancy is taken away by the Anabaptists For thus they argue from Mat. 28.18 19. None but those who are Taught are Disciples Infants cannot be Taught therefore are not Disciples and that this is the only way to make Church-members and may we not on the same ground say they cannot be saved because they cannot believe Mark 16.16 He that believes not shall be damned I appeal to all unbiassed persons whether there is not on their own bottom the same reason to say they are uncapable of Salvation as of Baptism but there is great reason to believe and hope for the Salvation of some Infants for as we have shewed they are in the Covenant of Grace Gen. 17.7 Acts 2.39 Deut. 29.10 11 12 13. they are to be joined in standing Church-ordinances 2 Chron. 20.13 Joel 2.16 From all which and much more might be said it 's evident some Infants are Saved though the Anabaptists by their erroneous Doctrine take away all well-grounded hope of the Salvation of any Infants dying in Infancy CHAP. VI. Objections of Anabaptists Answered Obj. 1. IF it be God's Will Infants should be baptized Why is there no Command for it as there was for their Circumcision 1. The general Command includes Children therefore there was no need of any particular mentioning of them 2. The promise is as express to Children as to Parents Acts 2.39 The promise is to you and to your Children 3. It had been absurd to have given a new Command for Children seeing they were in the actual possession of their Priviledg and had been so ever since Abraham's time none had ever questioned their right and title to the Covenant There was no Anabaptists in the Apostles days nor of many hundred years after Obj. 2. But that Covenant Gen. 17.7 was a Covenant of Works Indeed some weak Anabaptists have said so But it was not a Covenant of Works for that knows no Mercy to fallen Sinners but there is Mercy in that Covenant that God will be a God to his People and to their Seed It was a Covenant of Grace and that the Apostle proves Rom. 4.11 as hath been abundantly proved before Obj. 3. Though Infants were then Church-members it doth not follow they are so now the Church is now built on another foundation Thus a Preacher among the Anabaptists lately urged to me Ans 1. If this be true then the Church of Christ under the Old Testament had a different foundation from the Church now under the New Testament The Foundation is now Jesus Christ but what was it then What will not Proud and Ignorant men say to maintain an Errour 2. The Foundation of the Church then was Christ and the Covenant of Grace was the same then as now only then was but the dawning of the day the darker appearances of the Son of Righteousness but now the Sun shines in his full strength Heb. 10.1 Rom. 4.3 11. Obj. 4. But though Infants were then Visible Church-members and had a right to the Sign of the Covenant God has now cast off the Jews and so Infant Church-membership is ceased Ans The Apostle assures us That Church-membership and all other Priviledges are as sure and ample now to the Believing Gentiles as they were before to the Jews Rom. 11.17 And if some of the branches be broken off and thou being a wild Olive tree wert grafted in amongst them and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the Olive tree Obj. 5. But Circumcision is abolished therefore Infant Church-membership Ans Circumcision and Infant Church-membership were two things Circumcision was but the Rite of admitting Visible Members the Rite is changed but not Church-membership Baptism comes in the room of Circumcision Col. 2.10 11 12. Obj. 6. Infants are not capable of the ends of Baptism for it 's an engaging Sign and signifies the washing away sin both guilt and stain Infants being uncapable of the use of Reason must be so of Baptism Ans Baptism hath more ends than one 1. It 's Christ's listing Sign for admitting Soldiers into his Service or Disciples into his School or Subjects into his Kingdom and this is what Infants are capable of 2. It 's an engaging Sign wherein they are by Parents or other engaged to God and this they are capable of also 3. The inward Grace thereby signified as Pardon Justification Sanctification Adoption these Infants are capable of otherwise they could not be Saved and if these are not the Sacrament may be without them 4. A lease for years with a Covenant to a Child that understands it not may be of great use So Baptism though at present the Child understands nothing of it yet it may be and to converted Believers is of great use afterwards and Godly Parents at present have the comfort For God herein hath provided for the comfort of Parents 5. A Person may be Baptized that is not capable of all the ends of Baptism one end of Baptism is to wash away Sin c. this was an end Jesus Christ was not capable of and yet he was Baptized 6. Those Infants Christ took into his Arms and Blessed and those Circumcised at Eight days old knew no more of the benefits they received than ours do now they were no more capable of Faith and Repentance than ours are and yet they entered into the Covenant of Grace Rom. 4.11 Obj. 7. But we have no express Command in the New Testament to Baptize Infants Ans I have shewn there needed none their Priviledg had been setled many Ages before and never questioned by any nor repealed by Christ their former Right continuing firm Acts 2.39 the general Command includes them Obj. 8. But if they had a Right we might expect to find some Examples of their Baptizing Ans 'T is manifest that Believers housholds were Baptized with them Acts 10. Acts 16.15 16 33. and if no Infants are mentioned so neither any Children of Believing Parents Baptized at Age and we have much more reason to believe there were Infants
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