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
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-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
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
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