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
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
The initial Sacrament in this dispensation is as applyable to Infants of Christians as the initial Sacrament aforetime was to Infants of Gods people For 1. It is as passive and no more action is required in the subject Nulla actio externa requiritur ut in alijs Sacramentis Ames Yea it is more facil and common in the Administration and needs not a restriction to the male as that aforetime did 2. It is the same Sacrament in this dispensation that the other was in the former Sacramentia illa in signie diversa in rebus paria August For 1. They are both initial Sacraments of the Covenant of grace 2. They are both the first Ceremonies used about those that may rightly be judged to be in the promise and accounted of the Church 3. As Circumcision was rightly administred to those only that might be accounted to the Church so is Baptism Nemo extra ecclesiam baptizandus Cyp. Ep. ad Januar. 4. As Circumcision was the only ordinary way of entrance into the Church aforetime 1 Cor. 12.13 Exod. 12.48 so is baptism 5. As no uncircumcised person might communicate with the Church in the passeover so no unbaptized person did eat the Lords Supper in the Apostles times Acts 2.41 42 Gal. 5.3 6. As Circumcision was an engagement to observancy of the Covenant according to the tenor of the former Administration so is Baptism an engagement to observancy of it according to the tenor of the present it is called Baptism unto repentance and of repentance Matthew 3.11 Luke 3.3 Romans 6 3 Ephes 4.1 5 and the Apostle argues against living in sin from Baptism and for an holy life becoming the Gospel and Luther reports of a Virgin that repelled all temptations to sin with baptizata sum i. e. I am baptized 7. As Circumcision was a sign of mortification and putting off the body of sin Deut. 10.16 Col. 2.11 Romans 6.3 Col. 2.12 so is Baptism We are said to be buryed by Baptism with Christ and that Baptism should be the sign hereof in this dispensation it seems to be foreseen by the Prophet Jeremiah Ieremiah 4.14 who cals Circumcision of the heart washing of the heart from wickedness 8. As Circumcision was an external seal of the righteousness of Faith Romans 4 11 1 Sam. 17.36 Gen. 34.14 so is Baptism 9. As Circumcision was a sign distinguishing the people of God from Infidels so is Baptism 10. As Circumcision sealed both temporal and spiritual promises so doth Baptism for in the Covenant in this dispensation are both as well as in the former and Christians have Christ Matthew 5 Matthew 6.33 Romans 8.32 and all other things by the same Charter 11. Circumcision of right ended when Baptism began to bâ— an initial Sacrament for Christs Circumcision was the period of it and it ceased to be needful so soon as John began to baptize Luke 16.16 for the Law is said to continue but until John Lastly The Apostle plainly teaches that Baptism is the same Sacrament to Christians that Circumcision was to Gods people aforetime Col. 2. 11 12 Demonstrat id esse baptismum Christianis quod antca fuerit Judaeis Circumcisio Calv. instit Arguing against the continuance of Circumcision in this dispensation he uses two Arguments which argue no less For 1. Christ being come who was the body of the old shadows they of right ceased 2. That Baptism was now the sign of our mortification for which Circumcision served aforetime Ostendit quòd adempti sumus eam in Baptismo Aquin. Argum. 6 VI. Nothing can be soundly collected from the Scriptures against sealing the promise to Infants of Gods people in this dispensation by the initial Sacrament of it as aforetime by the initial Sacrament For 1. The abolishing Circumcision the initial Sacrament aforetime is no Argument against it as the abolishing of Sacrifices used aforetime in making solemn Covenant with God Psalm 50.5 is no Argument against solemn Covenant with God in the time of the Gospel For 1. Circumcision was a distinct thing from sealing the promise and only a ceremony of it for a time 2. The outward sign is ceased not the substance signified by it Circumcisio suum habet externum quasi corpus mortale et suum internum quasi animam immortalem prius aboletur non posterius Zanch. The sealing of the promise is not ceased for seals are added in this dispensation to the Covenant 3. Baptism the initial seal is more facil to Infants then Circumcision was which was the initial seal aforetime 2. Nothing appears in Iohn Baptists Commission inconsistent with sealing the promise by the initial Sacrament to Infants of Christians he mentions an alteration of the ceremony but no change of the subject John 1.33 nor yet in the execution of his Commission is there any thing apparently against it If it be alledged that he preached repentance before he sealed the promise to any by the initial Sacrament I answer so also was the Gospel preached aforetime Galathia 3.8 before the promise was sealed to any by the initial Sacrament yet it was sealed to the Infants of Gods people by the initial Sacrament If any plead that men confessed sins and shewed signs of grace before the promise was sealed to them by the initial Sacrament I answer no less did Abraham and all of riper years in the former dispensation before the sealing the promise to them by the initial Sacrament thereof Also Iohn Baptist who best understood his Commission affirmed that he baptized with water unto repentance Matthew 3.11 which is consistent with Baptism of Infants of Christians 3. It doth not appear that Christ the Author of the now initial seal did abolish the sealing the promise by an initial seal to Infants of Gods people For 1. He brake down only the partition wall of which the promise of propriety in God and sealing it by an initial Sacrament to Infants of Gods people were no part though Circumcision the initial seal for a time was a part thereof Christus legâ—m a Mose latam non sustulâ—t nisi quatenus gentes à Iudaeis separabat Riveâ— in decal 2. Abolishing the former initial Sacrament he instituted another more facil to Infants 3. There is no more in Infants of Gods people in this dispensation against it then was in such Infants aforetime 4. He with anger rebuke his Disciples for despising the day of such small things and gave them nothing in Commission inconsistent with it for the sum of their Commission was that they should Disciple the Nations which were strangers from the Covenant Mat. 28.19 20 baptizing them and teaching them to do all things which he commanded which was the method God used himself in the former dispensation Gen. 17.1 for he discipled Abraham before he sealed the promise to him and his males by the initial Sacrament of it All that can be soundly concluded is that all of riper years