that break his Covenant and theirs It witnesses that he visits the iniquity of the fathers which hate him upon the children unto the third and fourth generation and that he keeps Covenant and mercy with them that love him to a thousand generations and that he kept Covenant and mercy with the people of Israel and theirs until those of riper years of them became incurable haters of him and would have done it for ever if they had continued in his Covenant for he is ever mindful of his Covenant Psalm 111 5 Object 1. By generations and children infants are not meant but children of riper years loving God and keeping his Commandments Answ The infants of such are necessarily meant For 1. Those terms include infants 2. In the places mentioned they are opposed to parents and distinct from those that visibly love God and keep his Commandments 3. Excluding infants overturns the salvation of the infants of Gods people which is by vertue of such promises and leaves them actually as hopeless as the infants of Infidels and enervates the comparison of Gods goodness with his severity for the magnifying of it 4. If only those of riper years be meant visibly loving God and keeping his Commandments the sense is his mercy is from everlasting to everlasting to them that fear him and to them that fear him which is nugatory 5. He shews mercy to children of Infidels Ezekâ—el 18. which coming to riper years visibly love him 6. By children in the other part of the Antithesis he means infants and not only such as coming to riper years hate him visibly as their fathers For 1. God punishes visible Idolators not only to the third and fourth generation but for ever Quis nescit deum visitaturum impiam generationem impiorum patrum in perpetuum Rivet in decal 2. God visits their own sin upon them 3. Experience teaches that God punishes the generations of Idolaters great and small by taking away the means of grace and casting them out of his sight therefore Infants are meant in the latter part of the Antithesis Object 2 God sometimes casts away the children of the godly and shews mercy to children of wicked men he hath reserved a libertie to himself and hath mercy on whom he will and whom he will he hardens Rom. 9 18. Deus servat libertatem in judiciis bonorum distributione Answer Loquituâ— de ijs quae ut pluriâ—â—um aâ—cidunt Rivet The libertie reserved by God is not to be inquired into by us the Scripture is the rule by which we must walk which speaks in such places as it usually falls out We ought to judge the generations of Idolaters mentioned great and small to be those on whom God will visit the iniquitie of the Fathers and the children of those that keep the Covenant to be those that God will shew mercy to so long as those of riper years cleave to the Lord by a visible profession and if it happen otherwise to any individuall of either it is to us anomalous and we ought not to make rules of accidents As in a case not unlike the Scripture saith that the Evil doers shal be cut off Psalm 37.9 and that they which waite on the Lord shal inherit the earth It sometimes happens otherwise to some individuals yet we ought to judge that the wicked shall be cut off and that the righteous shall inherit the earth Eccles 7.15 Solomon observed that sometime a just man perished in his righteousness and a wicked man prolonged his dayes in his wickedness Prov. 2.21 22 yet he judged that the upright should dwel in the Land and that the wicked should be cut-off and transgressors rooted out Argum. 8 VIII The seed of visible professors in which term infants are included is expressed in the most eminent promises as visible professors are without limitations and restrictions therefore the one is as rightly judged to be in the promise as the other Inst 1. The seed is named in the promise of propriety in God given to Abraham the great Father of the Faithful as well as himself in which promise it is certain Infants were meant which promise was the most eminent of the Catholick Covenant of grace greater than which there was none it may be compared to the great tree which Nabuchadnezzer saw in a Vision Dan. 4.11.12 Deut. 30.6 28.4 whose top reached to Heaven and fruit was much all other promises are branches of it Inst. 2. Psalm 37.26 Psalm 112.2 Job 5.25 Prov. 20 7. Psalm 1.2.28 Psalm 12â— 3 Pro 14.26 c. Deut 5.29 The seed of visible professors is named in the promises of Circumcision of the heart of Gods blessing c. as visible professors are and men are exhorted to love of righteousness that their children may be blessed and that it may be well with them Object By seed infants are not meant but children coming to riper years making a visible profession Ans Infants are meant in the term seed For 1. Those promises were sealed aforetime to infants by the initial Sacrament as well as to visible professors 2. Infants are more properly the seed 3. The seed is mentioned as distinct in those promises from those of riper years making a visible profession 4. Excluding infants is inconsistent with the manifold restriction of those promises to the seed of the faithful and it throws down to hell all the infants of Gods people Ephes 2.12 for they that are strangers from the Covenant are without hope Argum. 9 IX Christians may hope that their children dying in infancy are saved David hoped that his infant dying though illegitimate was saved 2 Sam. 12.13 1 Thes 4.13 for he comforted himself with hopes of going to him and Christians ought not to mourn for their dead as Infidels who are without hope mourn for theirs Nos certo scimus ex mente dei revelata non debere de suis mortuis contristari sicut ethnici qui spem non habent Ames Therefore the infants of such are rightly judged to be in the promise for this judgment is the foundation of Christian hope which is not a meer Conjectural expectation without a promise but an expectation of a future promised good Ephes 2.12 1 Thes 4.13 Mat 13 26. Objectum spei est bonum futurum promissum Ames medul and there is no hope of them that are visibly out of the promise such are to be judged doggs which shall be without Argum. 10 X. The seed of visible professors ought to be accounted a seed blessed of the Lord Isaiah 61.8 9. Psalm 143 13. therefore they are rightly judged in the promise of propriety in God in which blessedness consists Objection 1 There is not in such infants actual faith nor shews of divine grace therefore they cannot be rightly judged in the promise there being no ground for a judgment of charity of them which is a judging the best that the words and
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
upon him their off-spring and issue which the faithful have done with desired success as the Psalmist witnesses saying I was cast upon thee from the womb Psalm 22.10 and thou art my God from my mothers belly Therefore such infants are righly judged meet for baptism the efâ—â—cacy of which depends upon Gods blessing Robins de relig p. 76. 77. Who can give the grace signified before or after baptism Deus potest vel ante vel post ba tismum gratiam Communicare Ames Bellarm. enerv Argum. 9 IX Infants of Christians have by imputation that which is absent in them by infancy as well as Christians that which is wanting in them by invincible infirmity As both have guiltiness by imputation from Adam Rom. 5.19 so both have righteousness by imputation from Christ the defects of both are made up out of Christs treasury Col. 3.11 Christ is all in all else it were impossible for infants to be saved Therefore infants of Christians are rightly judged meet for baptism Argum. 10 X. Shews of grace are not necessary to the judging infants of Christians meet for baptism as they are to judg the like of all of riper years For 1. They are not necessary to the judging the things signified by baptism in them If Adam had not sinned infants though not any of riper years had been rightly judged to have original righteousness in them without shews as now they are rightly judged to have original sin in them without shews of it and Isaac and other infants were rightly judged to have the grace of the new Covenant in them without shews of it 2. Visible grace doth not necessarily praecede initial Sacraments in all they err that affirm it Quidam rem temporis ordine signum sempâ—r praeire volunt sed falsò Calv. In those of riper years it ought to have a praecedency but not in infants of Christians to these initial Sacraments are profitable before they have visible grace Rom. 3.1 2 which is evident in Circumcision Adultis quidem nisi fidem propriam attulerint non est salutare Sacramentum Parvulis vero quia fidelium liberi sunt atque foederâ— includuntur etiam si ad huc propter aetatem credere non possunt est tamen salutare Sacramentum Whitak Contr. Durae p. 682. Grace visible by effects afterwards supplies in them the present absence as it did in such in the initial Sacrament aforetime and in baptism in the Sea and in the Cloud which was the same in substance and signification with baptism in this dispensation Christ washed Peter in whom there might have been actual knowledg for as much as he might know afterwards the mystery of it John 13 7 much more may infants of Christians have the washing of baptism without actual knowledg the presence of it in them being impossible and the absence of it innocent Baptism is called baptism unto repentance as well as baptism of repentance Matthew 3.11 Therefore infants of Christians are rightly judged meet for baptism though they have not shews of grace Objection 1 1. Infants of Christians cannot pâ—rform the Covenant to which they are ingaged by baptism therefore they are not rightly judged meet for baptism Answer 1. An ingagement may praecede ability of performance the infants of visible professors aforetime were ingaged by Circumcision which made men Debtors to keep the Covenant according to the tenor of the administration Galat. 5.3 yet had not abilities to perform it until afterwards Deut. 29.11 and the Israelites in Moses days ingaged their infants with themselves in a national Covenant which they were not able actually to perform Parents oft ingage children in the cradle actually knowing nothing to perform duties and pay debts when they come to riper years 2. Performance according to ability renewed is accepted with God If Adam had not sinned infants could have acted nothing of the Covenant of works yet breach oâ— Covenant had not been charged upon them Circumcision a token of the Covenant was accepted in infants of visible proffessors in the time of it Gen. 17.9.10 Isai 38.18.19 2 Cor. 8.12 for performance of the Covenant for it was called the Covenant the dead bodies of the Saints act not in the grave yet they are not guilty of transgressing the Covenant God accepts what one hath and requires not what one hath not Mark 14 8 Mar 12 42 43 44 Christ saith of the woman that poured the ointment on his head she hath done what she could and of the widow that cast in the two mites she hath cast in more then all for she hath cast in all she had Objection 2 2. If they are rightly judged meet for baptism they may be received to the Lords Supper It may as well be given to infants as baptism they being alike insensible of both Answer Infants of Christians have a right to the Lords Supper and the substance of both Sacraments is the same viz. the benefits of Christs death in our Justification Sanctification and Glorification yet the Lords Supper ought not to be given to such infants For 1. The Ceremonies of Administration and outward elements in the Lords Supper are such as that it cannot be given to such infants which argues that God hath intended the supper only for those of riper years In the Administration of baptism passion only is required in the subject it is a passive Sacrament as of old Circumcision was the receiver acts not necessarily about it but suffers it to be done But in receiving the Lords Supper actively about the elements is necessarily required as â—eeing with the eye taking with the hand eating with the mouth c. and it cannot be given to any meerly passive 2. Baptism iâ— a Sacrament of initiation and entrance into the Church Baptismus est in ecclesiam in gressus Calv. but the Lords Supper is a Sacrament of progress in it In baptism we are incipientes but in the Lords Supper proficientes Heb. 6.1 2 Baptism is the first Ceremony used about those that are received into the Church He that may be matriculated may not therefore take the degree of master and he that may be taken into the lowest form in the school may not therefore be caught up into the highest and because a schollar is not meet to be of the highest form it follows not therefore he may not be in the lowest They which cannot be judged meet for baptism are not rightly judged meet for the other Sacrament and they that are rightly judged meet for baptism are not therefore necessarily judged meet for the other no uncircumcised person was meet to eate the passover neither were all that were circumcised Exodus 12.48 therefore to eat the passover Some were a time expectants and a special preparation was required in those that were to eat it ARGUMENT IIII. Sealing the Covenant by an initial Sacrament to infants of Gods people hath been the practise of the universal Church ever
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
it will be difficult to excuse the Apostle from too great boldness in affirming an actual being of the promise to the children as to the Parents without exception Argum. 5 V. The children of Christians are denominated holy in this dispensation therefore they are rightly judged to be in the promise 1 Cor. 7 14 for they are denominated holy because they are included in the Covenant Sancti dicuntur quia foedere includuntur Ames Bellar. Enerv. 1. Holiness of Regeneration is rightly judged in such infants 1. Because the promise of Circumcision of the heart is to visible professors and their seed alike 2. Christians ought to hope Deut. 30 6 1 Thes 4.13 that their infants dying are saved which they cannot without judging them Regenerate Iohn 3 5 for none unregenerate can see the Kingdom of God and none ordained to salvation are called out of this life which are not first sanctified Nemo electorum è praesenti vita evocatur qui non prius sanctificatur Rom. 8 30 Calv. 3. Infancy is no let of sanctification Infants are as capable of the habits of sanctity as men if Adam had not sinned they should have been holy in and from the womb by original justice and grace may be infused into them as well as original justice might have been propagated to them It is questionless that many such infants are Regenerate therefore we must charitably suppose it of every individual for when we come to particulars which dare we exclude there being no visible difference He is too hardy that dares pass his peremptory censure of this or that particular that it is unregenerate 2. A relative holiness is rightly concluded of all such infants in relatione ad deum sancti sunt Ames Which is a priviledg some injoy which are not Regenerate untill a desperate Apostacy deprive them of it they are accounted to the Lords people and have visible Communion with the elect in all priviledges which are not peculiar to them This two-fold holiness is meant where Israel is said to be an holy people Deut. 14 2 Ier. 2 3 and holiness to the Lord Some which were not Regenerate were the Lords in the face of the visible Church in facie Ecclesiae visibilis 1 Cor. 7 14 Also by the Apostle denominating children of Christians holy who judges of such as the children of visible professors were judged of aforetime which were called an holy seed Ezra 10 2 Esa 22 24 and compared to the vessels of small quantity in the Temple which were no less accounted holy then vessels of greater quantity 3. Actual holiness required in those of riper years is in such infants only potentially It is not necessary to their being foederally holy it being impossible in them nemo tenetur ad impossibile and therefore not to the judging them foederally holy Object The Apostle means only a matrimoniall holiness which is legitimation and the sense is the Infidel is sanctified in the Christian by marriage and the copulation is not adulterous for the children are not bastards but legitimate Answer The Apostle means a foederall holiness and not a legitimation only which I prove by six Arguments Argum. 1. It is evident by the common doctrine of the Apostle that he judged the children of Christians holy otherwise then by a matrimonial holiness only which is common to the children of Infidels He taught that the blessing of Abraham was to come on the Gentiles by Christ Gal. 3 14 of which a principal part must be that propriety in God given to him and his seed by the Covenant Rom. 11 16 that the Christian Gentiles were graffed in for Jews broken off Gal. 4 28 and did partake of the root and fatness of the olive tree as they did that Christians were children of the promise after the manner of Isaac Eph. 2 14 that the partition wall was broken down that the breaking off was not of Gentiles but of Jews Rom. 11.17 Rom. 11 28. and but of some of them that the children are beloved for the fathers That there is the same faith in Christians that was in Abraham and visible professors aforetime which was the condition obligatory of the promise of propriety in God That the main promises in the former dispensation were confirmed by Christ Rom. 13.8 9. that the â—entiles might glorifie God for his mercy of which the most eminent was the promise of propriety in God including infants That children were in the promise with their parents Acts 2.39 Galat. 2.14 That there was an actual difference between the people of God and aliens from the birth c. Therefore he meant a foederal holiness and not a matrimonial only Argum. 2 II. By Sanctification of the Infidel in the Christian is not meant a legitimation only that they might live together in marriage without imputation of adultery For 1. The Infidel is mentioned as meerly passive is said to be sanctified and not to sanctifie if only a legitimation by marriage be meant the Christian is sanctified in the Infidel no less then the Infidel in the Christian 2. If legitimation only be meant the term Infidel is impertinently so often mentioned which relates not to marriage 3. By sanctification of the creatures by the word and prayer 1 Timothy a legitimation of them only is not meant that a Christian may possess and use them without imputation of theft and robbery For Infidels which neglect that means of sanctification have a legal right to them as a matrimonal right to their yoak fellows yet all things are impure to them even the use of marriage Titus 1 16. though it be not adulterous Matrimonia infidelium impura ut alia omnia opera non naturâ operum sed vitio authorum Pet. Martyr Therefore by the holiness of the children is not meant legitimation only Argum. 3 III. By unclean are not meant only bastards The Scripture denominates adulterous unclean but not bastards whose parents are not Infidels Such as want foederal holiness Isaiah 52.1.2 Eccles 9.2 it denominates unclean which it denies not of bastards the Covenant was sealed to them by the initial seal aforetime and they were accounted to the Church though they were not advanced to offices in it Deut. 23.1 3 Objection Bastards were numbered with the unclean as Moabites Ammonites c. Answer 1. Christ numbers Infants with Beleevers yet Anabaptists allow them not the denomination of Beleevers Mat. 18. 2. Bastards in the place mentioned are numbered with those which want foederal holiness as Moabites c. If for this they are denominated unclean by unclean is meant wanting foederal holiness and then by holy must be meant having foederal holiness 3. The opposition of things in Scripture doth not always bring those things under one denomination Acts 15.20 Fornication Idolatry and things strangled and blood are numbered together yet Fornication and Idolatry are not to be denominated
indifferent nor things strangled and blood sinful And if by unclean are not meant only bastards by holy are not meant only legitimate Argum. 4 IIII. The Scripture denominates not any holy for legitimation only Isaiah 52.1.2 Eccles 9.2 Tit. 1 15 Mat. 15 26 but all that have not besides it foederal holiness it denominates unclean yea dogs Therefore the Apostle denominates not children holy for legitimation only Argum. 5 V. Interpreting holiness to be legitimation only renders the Apostle an underminer of the priviledg which the children of Christians have above the children of Infidels from the time of the birth Isaiah 61.8 9 and which they ought to be acknowledged to have and a giver of no more to the one then to the other for children of Infidels born in marriage are matrimonially holy Hac ratione nihil plus tribueret liberis fidelium quam infidelium Ames Infidelium filij si ex matrimonio procreentur legitimi sunt Pet. Martyr But the Apostle was no under-miner of the priviledges of the faithful or of their seed therefore he meant not legitimation only Argum. 6 VI. If by holiness is meant legitimation only the Apostle was mistaken about the question proposed which was not whether their living together were not adulterous they being married each to other For 1. Such a doubt could not arise in any having any use of reason all know that living in marriage is not living in adultery and that children begotten in marriage are not bastards 2. It is granted by those that interpret the holiness to be legitimation only that they believed that their children were not bastards how then could they doubt that their living in marriage together was adulterous It is easier for a Christian married with an Infidel to be assured that the Infidel is his wife then to know that the children that he hath by her are his children The Question was Whether a Christian might with a safe conscience have such intimate familiarity with an Infidel as living together in marriage required the Infidel being a professed enemy of Christianity For this was dangerous for the Christian and seemingly inconsistent with precepts given to Christians to have no familiarity with Idolaters but to seperate from them yea from scandalous Christians though orthodox with whom familiarity might seem in that regard more tolerable The answer is The Christian having a lawful calling being in marriage with the Infidel might continue with the Infidel for the Christian had this priviledg by faith and the Covenants that he or she in this case should not be infidellized by the Infidel but preserved yea the Infidel was in some sort sanctified in the Christian for the children born of them were not Infidels but Christians as aforetime the children of Jews were Jews and not Heathens If the answer were that the Christian might live with the Infidel because the Infidel is legitimate by marriage else the children were bastards c. and nothing else were intended it had been no more then that a Christian might live with an Infidel as one Infidel with another and familiarity with Idolaters may be sinful in Christians and pernicious to them though no adultery be committed Such interpreters make the Apostle sectari minutias Object If foederal holiness be meant and the Sanctification of the Infidel in the Christian be a consequent of faith and the Covenant then a believing adulterer may live with an Infidel adulteress For where the cause of sanctification is the effect will follow Posita causa ponitur effectum Answer 1. This inference hath no proportion to the case about which the Apostle speaks which was the case of a Christian in marriage with an Infidel which was in those times common one imbracing Christianity and the other continuing in infidelity If a Question had been propounded whether a believing Adulterer might live with an Infidel Adulteress he would have answered silentio et contemptu 2. He meant not that faith and the Covenant exclusively were the cause of the sanctification of the Infidel in the Christian 1 Tim. 4.4 As where he saith every creature of God is good if it be received with thanksgiving c. He means not that it is good without a legal right to it though it be received with thanksgiving which is usual in thieves and robbers but in the case of civil right only Zech. 11.3 One cause produceth not the effect una causa non producit effectum 3. It supposes a believing Adulterer living with an Infidel Adulteress which is not to be supposed for a beleever may fall into that sin but living in it is inconsistent with faith Acts 15 9. which purifies the heart with Ecclesiastical Discipline which if despised the despiser is to be accounted an Heathen Mat. 18.17 Job 31.11 and not a Christian and with civil Laws for it is an heynous crime to be punished by the Judges And if a defect of these happen the Word of God which shall judg men at the last day judgeth such to be without Rev. 22.15 and such are to be accounted Infidels no lâ—ss then the Infidels with whom they so impurely live Argum. 6 VI. God never made a visible partition wall between the Parent and the Infant In the first Covenant which was of works the parent and the infant were comprehended alike and the second which was of grace was in this Gen. 17.7 like the former the seed was named with the parent in the most eminent promise of it and the infants of visible professors had it sealed to them by the initial Sacrament so soon as seals were added to it and in the present dispensation of it Acts 2.39 1 Cor. 7.14 the Apostles judged the parents and the children alike in it and Christians in their days doubted not of the holiness of their children and it is the doctrine of the Scripture that the off-spring is blessed with the parent Isaiah 61.8.9 and so to be accounted of all until a visible breaking off for Apostacy in those of riper years In adultis incipit omne malum Also when for a violation of Covenant by those of riper years there hath been a visible breaking off the manner hath been to reject the infant with the parent Adam and his were rejected alike for violation of the first Covenant and the Jews and theirs for the transgression of the second Therefore the infants are rightly judged in the promise with their parents Argum. 7 VII Threatnings extend to infants of Covenant-breakers Isaiah 13 18 Iob 20.19 Exodus 20.5 Hosea 2 4. c. 9.16 c 13 16 Ezekiel 9 6 Psalm 109 Deut. 7.9 Psa 103 17.18 to the fruits of their womb with their children of riper years Therefore the promises are rightly judged to extend to infants of such as continue in the Covenant for the Scripture holds forth the goodness of God to be of greater extent to them which keep his Covenant and theirs then his severity against them
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
in the case of scandal which never occurs in infants of Christians The unavoidable want of baptism is not yet the denyal of baptism to any is an excluding of them from Communion with the Church and keeping them visibly without baptism being the ordinary way of initiation into the Church and sign of it Baptismus est signum initiationis quo Cooptamur in Ecclesiae societatem Calv. ARGUMENT III. Infants of Christians are rightly iudged meet for Baptism notwithstanding the absence in them of the Faith Knowledge c. necessary in all of riper years iudged meet for Baptism who ought to be discipled b fore they are baptized Adultos infideles prius oportet Catâ—châ—menos esse quam baptizari Bez. in 1 Cor. 7.14 Therefore they may be baptized THE Antecedent I prove by ten Arguments Argum. 1 I. The infants of visible professors both of Jews and Gentiles in the former dispensation were rightly judged meet for the initial Sacrament which was Circumcision Therefore the infants of Christians in this dispensation are rightly judged meet for the initial Sacrament which is Baptism for the initial Sacrament in the former dispensation signified the Circumcision of the heart and was a seal of the righteousness of Faith Deut. 30.6 Col 2.11 12 Rom. 4.11 no less then the initial Sacrament in the present and none of riper years were rightly judged meet for it but such as are now judged meet for baptism Argum. 2 II. Infants of Christians are rightly judged meet for the Kingdom of God for Christ affirms the Kingdom of God to be of such Mark 10.14 and that those of riper years must be like them if they be meet for the Kingdom of God Mat. 18.2 and not that such infants must be like those of riper years if they be meet for it Therefore such infants are rightly judged meet for baptism 1 Pet 3.21 it being the initial Sacracrament of it and the first Ceremony to be used about those which are saved Argum. 3 III. Infants of Christians are denominated holy notwithstanding the absence of that faith knowledg 1 Cor. 7.14 c. which is necessary in all of riper years that they may be denominated holy Therefore such infants are rightly judged meet for baptism Argum. 4 III. Infants of visible professors are called the Lords Children and a seed of God c. Ezek 16.20.21 Malachi 2.15 Matth. 28.19 Galathians 3 Therefore they are rightly judged meet for baptism It being the Sacrament of putting his name on his children and outward sign of adoption Baptismus est externum pignus adoptionis Whitak Argum. 5 V. Christ on earth despised not the day of those small things but judged them meet to have a visible access to him Mark 10.13 and to be blessed with his own hand and he blessed them with the choicest of blessings Therefore such are rightly judged meet for the washing of baptism by the hand of his servants Argum. 6 VI. Infants of Christians may be solemnly Dedicated to the Lord. For 1. It hath been a practise of his people graciously accepted of him Deut. 29.11 In the days of Moses the people devoted their little ones with themselves to him by a solemn Covenant and their pious act was accepted Ieremiah 2 3 Ezek 16 2â— Ioel 2 16 the Lord accounted them holy great and smal and called their children his children and called for such of them as sucked the breast to bear a part in days of humiliation for transgressing the Covenant with their parents Anna desiring a son 1 Sam. 1.24 made a vow to give him to the Lord all his days and God heard her desire and accepted the performance of her vow The Psalmist affirms Psalm 22.10 that he was cast upon the Lord from the womb and that God was his God from his mothers belly Christ on earth commanded little children to be brought to him and such as were brought he imbraced and blessed Oblatos humaniter et benigne accepit solennique benedictonis ritu eosdem patri consecravit 2. The infants of Christians are peculiarly the Lords with their parents in which regard the Apostle denominates them holy for that is rightly called holy that peculiarly belongs to him 1 Cor. 7.14 Sanctum diâ—itur quod deo peculiariter devotum et consecratum est Bâ—z Therefore they may be rightly dedicated to him for the reason why the first born in Israel were in a special manner to be dedicated to the Lord was because they were most peculiarly his 3. The absence of shews of divine grace in such infants is no let of a solemn dedication of them to the Lord for infants of Gods people in the old Testament were by such ways as the people of God then had dedicated to the Lord without them and infants of Christians are denominated holy in the new Testament without shews of grace which are necessary in those of riper years nor yet is the dedication of infants of Christians any Argument for baptism of infants of Infidels for the Scripture is silent of their holiness for which cause they are not visibly the Lords and the Lord never required of them that refused to devote themselves a dedication of their children to him Therefore such infants are rightly judged meet for baptism for it is the Sacrament of Dedication to the Lord in the new Testament Mat. 28.19 by which the party baptized is solemnly consecrated to him and his name is put upon him that he may be accounted his and the outward sign of adoption for in the instant of Christs Baptism the voyce from Heaven was Mat. 3.17 this is my beloved Son declaring the meaning of that sign to be the glorious priviledg of son-ship Gal. 3.26 27 and the Christians in Galatia are called Children of God from their baptism Argum. 7 VII Infants of Christians are rightly judged to have in them the principal things signified by baptism though not in such a degree as actual professors Insunt actu primo non secundo in semonte non in messe in radice non in fructu Tilen For this was rightly judged of the infants of visible professors aforetime in regard of the initial Sacrament which signified the Circumcision of the heart and was a seal of the righteousness of Faith in the time of it no less then baptism now is Therefore such infants are rightly judged meet for baptism Argum. 8 VIII God undertakes for what is wanting in the infants of his people through infancy as he doth for what is wanting in his people through infirmity Psalm 119.122 Deut. 30.6 Mat. 18.19 He is a surety for his people for good and he hath given his Word for their seed that their heart sha â— be circumcised and hath promised to do for his people and theirs What ever they shall ask for themselves and theirs Isaiah 22.24 and expects that his people should not only depend upon him themselves but also hang