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
these are no lesse the seed of the blessed of the Lord then they were and there is not a greater absence of actuall faith and knowledge in these then was in them neither is there any thing to render them uncapable of it which was not in Infants of Jews Argum. 4. The promise of proprietie in God hath no new conditions annexed God required no less faith and repentance in the former dispensation then in the present he indented with Abraham to walk before him and to be perfect Gen. 17.1 7 that he might be a God to him and to his seed and Circumcision the initiall seal of that promise Rom. 4.11 is called the seal of the righteousness of faith and they that were visible unbeleevers Isai 1.10 though Jews were no more accounted of then Sodomites and aliens Therefore the Infants of Christians being certainly no lesse in that promise then were the Infants of Jews aforetime they are rightly judged to be in it as they were Argum. 2 II. The Infants of Converts of the Gentiles in the former dispensation were rightly judged to be in the promise of propriety in God for it was sealed to them by the initiall Sacrament and the stranger was as one born in the Land Exod. 12 48 49 Therefore the Infants of Christians are rightly judged to be in that promise 1. The breaking off was of Jews and not of Gentiles Rom. 11.21 2. Christ by his comming spoyled not the off-spring of his people of any happiness injoyed before the off-spring being as innocent as before It is not to be imagined that their condition is worse since his coming Num post Christum factam esse deteriorem parvulorum sortem existimemus Whitak Cont. Durae p. 681. His loving imbracing and blessing such witness for him Psal 55.21 he is not like Davids friend having words as smooth as butter and war in his heart 3. The renting away that promise from the Infants of visible professors there being no new degeneration in that species argues a diminution of the grace of God which cannot be imagined without execrable blasphemy 4. As inlargement of priviledges to Infants of visible professors is most congruous to the present dispensation so it is most probable Ezra 10 1 44 for afore-time if one parent were an infidel the children were not rightly accounted to the Lords people but since the present dispensation began if one Parent were a visible professor 1 Cor. 7.14 the children were holy though the other Parent were an Infidell 5. If in this dispensation children of Christians are not to be accounted in that promise they are in a far more uncomfortable condition then the children of visible professors in the former and it was much better to be born under the Law then under the Gospel which is contrary to the common doctrine of the Scriptures Argum. 3 III. Jews becoming Christians in this dispensation their infants are rightly judged to be in the promise of propriety in God 1. The Apostles judged the children of their Converts who were most Jews in that promise with their Parents Act. 2.39 2. It was prophesied That when the Iews should be converted and be as aforetime that their children should be as aforetime Ier. 30.20 3. The breaking off was not universal the tree was not broken down Rom. 11 17 but only some branches were broken off Therefore the infants of Christians are rightly judged to be in that promise Rom. 10.12 for as there was no difference in the former dispensation between Iews and Proselites and the seed of either so there is no difference in the present Acts 2.39 Argum. 4 IIII. The Apostles judged the children of those which became Christians in the promise with their parents therefore the children of Christians are rightly judged to be in the promise The promise in which they judged them is that of propriety in God taken in the sense in which it was given to Abraham which was that he would be a God to him and his natural seed great and small and to visible professors and their natural seed of every nation in regard of external adoption and priviledges so long as those of riper years did cleave to him by a visible profession also to him and the elect great and small which are properly the seed of his faith in regard of saving graces and eternal life That this is the sense of that promise experience and right reason teach for the Jews were not neither are a people making a visible profession broken off until a general desperate Apostacy in those of riper years and we know that the elect both great and small obtain grace and glory The promise is not only of extraordinary gifts 1. The promise is mentioned to Minister unto them hopes of salvation to stay them from the pit of despair into which their rejecting and crucifying Christ was like to praecipitate them it had been a vain thing to mention a promise of extraordinary gifts for that end because extraordinary gifts are common to them that perish Mat. 7.22 23 and are not saving gifts 2. The promise mentioned appertained to all called and to be called by the Gospel but extraordinary gifts were given but to some and in the first times 3. The promise included the children to which extraordinary gifts are of all most impossible 4. The promise with their relation to it is the only Argument used for receiving Baptism which extraordinary gifts are least Argumentative for being the least matter signified by it also for repentance to which such gifts are weak motives Mat. 7.22 23 for these may be in workers of Iniquitie By children infants are necessarily meant 1. The word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which primarily signifies infants 2. These of riper years are comprehended in those words the promise is to you for they speak them to all that were pricked in their hearts 3. The children are mentioned as a distinct party from them that were called and them that were after to be called who are said to be afar off Ephes 2.13 which the Scripture speaks not of infants of visible professors 4. The restriction of the promise to children of riper years called excludes all infants of Christians dying in infancy from interest in God and hope of salvation Ephes 2.12 which extends no further then the promise 5. It undermines the priviledg which infants of Christians have above the infants of Infidels according to the common doctrine of the Scripture for the promise is to their children called by the Gospel 6. Most to whom the Apostles spake were Jews whose infants had always been rightly judged in the promise 7. They that restrain the promise to children of riper years must prove that those thousands of Converts had no infants and that their children were all actually called and none of them visible rejectors of Christ which might probably be in so great a multitude of children else
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
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.
should be discipled before baptism Sensus est qui adult â sunt aetate ante sunt instituendi quà m baptizandi non si se rumpant aliud ex hoc loco ostendent Calv. And that the Apostles repulsed Christians desiring sealing the promise by the initial Sacrament to their Infants Acts 2.29 1 Cor. 7.14 doth not appear but the contrary is rather to be beleeved for they judged children of Christians in the promise and foederally holy as well as their parents and baptized Christians and all theirs where it was desired of which sufficient instances as witnesses are left us upon record Therefore I conclude that the promise of propriety in God being sealed to Infants of Gods people in the former dispensation by the initial Sacrament thereof It may be sealed to Infants of Christians in this dispensation by the initial seal of it Objection 1 The Covenant sealed aforetime to Infants of Gods people by an initial Sacrament was much differing from that whereof Baptism is the initial Sacrament for that was not purely Evangelical but a mixt Gospel-Covenant consisting partly of Evangelical promises appertaining to Beleevers as such and partly of domestick and civil promises both which were sealed by the initial Sacrament of that time which for that cause might be administred to some which could not be rightly juâ—ged Beleevers But the Covenant whereof Baptism is the initial Sacrament is purely Evangelical consisting of promises belonging only to Beleevers as such Answer 1. Spiritual and temporal promises may be said to make a mixt Covenant but not a mixt Evangelical Covenant for a mixt Gospel-Covenant is a Covenant partly of works and partly of grace and the Covenant of which Circumcision was the initial Sacrament was not mixed after that manner for the Law was not given until four hundred thirty years after it Galat. 3.17 and then it was not mixed with it but only annexed to it 2. The difference was only in the dispensation and not in the substance of the Covenant the Covenant of which Circumcision was the initial Sacrament was as purely Evangelicall as this whereof Baptism is the initial Sacrament for the Gospel is said to be preached unto them as well as to us Galat. 3.8 Heb. 3.19 Matthew 5.5 Matth. 6.33 Rom 9. â—2 Ezek. 36.25 30 and the temporal promises were Evangelical and belonged to Beleevers as such for because of unbelief many obtained them not Also there are temporal promises in this dispensation and the people of God have Christ and all other things by the same Charter 3. The promises sealed in the former dispensation were principally spiritual Certò certius est primarias promissiones sub veteri testamento spirituales fuisse Calv. Heb. 11.13 For the Fathers had temporal things little in their eye they sought a better Country then Canaan Rom 15.8 9 and Christ who is called the Minister of Circumcision for the confirming the promises made to the Fathers did not restore to the Iews temporal things when he came the Romans did tyrannize over them and he brake not their yoak from their neck and not long after their Country was utterly destroyed Also the Gentiles that did not take hold of that Covenant are said to be without Christ hope and God Yea Ephes 2.12 spiritual promises only were sealed by the initial Sacrament to many Infants for the promise of Canaan and other civil and domestick promises were not sealed by it to Infants of Converts of the Gentiles for these things did not appertain to them but to the natural seed of â—braham Also only spiritual promises were sealed by it to Infants dying in infancy and if these were not sealed to them none were Rom 3.1 2 and their bodies were wounded and their souls were not profited and Circumcision was a punishment and no benefit which is contrary to the Scripture Objection 2 Circumcision was administred to some to whom the Covenant did not extend as to Ishmael and others and it was not administred to some to whom the Covenant did extend as to Melchizedeck Job Lot Infants not 8 days old and women Answer 1. Circumcision could not rightly be administred to any that could not be rightly judged in the Covenant for it is called the Covenant Gen. 17.10 and the token of it therefore might not be carryed beyond it Also Ishmael was rightly judged in the Covenant when he was circumcised though he was not in it for life as appeared afterwards for he was the seed and of the family of Abraham and not then actually broken off 2. It is uncertain whether Circumcision were instituted in the days of Melchizedeck Job and Lot and if it were it is uncertain whether the institution of it came to their knowledg they being removed far from Abraham and if both these could be known it is uncertain that they were not circumcised and certain that they might have been circumcised and most probable that they were if that there were not some lets and in such cases some of the Israelites were not circumcised Joshuah 5.5 for Circumcision was intermitted fourty years in the wilderness 3. Infants not eight days old had a dispensation not having strength to indure and women not having a natural capacity or to prevent the transgressing the bounds of modesty in circumcising them or perhaps it was denyed that sex for a chastisement because the woman was first in the transgression of the first Covenant Objection 3 3. In the former dispensation all the seed of Abrahams flesh were his seed and therefore they might have the promise sealed to them by the initial Sacrament But in this only such as have Abrahams faith are to be accounted his seed which Infants not having they cannot be accounted his seed therefore they cannot have the Promise rightly sealed to them by the initial Sacrament Answer 1. They which being of riper years have not visible faith cannot be accounted Abrahams seed yet Infants of Christians are rightly accounted his seed without it For 1. the Sâ—ripture speaks expresly that the faithful are the seed of the blessed of the Lord and their off spring with them Isa 65.23 2. The Converts of the Gentiles and their Infants aforetime were rightly accounted the seed of Abraham Exod. 12 49. the stranger was to be accounted as he that was home-born and it must be granted that they were to be accounted the seed of his faith for they were not the seed of his flesh 3. The most learned and rational of the Anabaptists confess that elect Infants are Abrahams spiritual seed yet there is not in them visible faith 4. The Lord calls the Infants of visible Professors his Children and their seed the seed of God Eze 16.20 21 Mal. 2 15. Maâ—k 10.14 therefore the Infants of such may be called the seed of Abraham 5. Christ on earth affirmed the Kingdom of God to be of such therefore they may be accounted to Abrahams family 6. Christ numbred
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
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