that which God hath provided for them 1. That the Infants of Christians are as capable is proved by that of Cor. 7.14 They are holy And what is that Ther be who gloss upon the text and say That â—hildren are Holy indeed but how As the wife not otherwise viz. As she is sanctified to the use of her Husband so the children to the use of their Parents But they falsifie the text For the text saith not of the wife She is sanctified to her husband but by her Husband 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Nor of the children it is said as of the wife 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is sanctified but they are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Holy which is more full and more emphaticall Others shift it of with this That the children are said to be Holy because Notwithstanding the difference of Religion in the Parents yet the children are legitimate This is further of than the former Nor can it stand except this be presupposed That all the children of Heathens are illegitimate No more than the former can stand without this being presupposed That neither wife nor children of Pagans are sanctified to their use Wherfore ther is nothing left but that they are said to be Holy by the Holines of the Covenant and sanctified with a federall sanctification The which is so much the more manifest because it appeareth by the context That the pretence of them who did repudiate their wives for their infidelity was a fear lest the infidelity of the wife should deprive the Husband of his interest in the Covenant of Grace which hee had imbraced and that his conjunction with her should rend him of as did the Sinn of Fornication cap. 6.15 from Communion with Christ St. Paul denyeth this and sheweth that rather the Faith of the Beleevers should so farr preponderate and prevail as to draw the other parties also after a sort within the Covenant So that the unbeleeving wife is sanctified and accounted as one interressed in the Covenant by the Husband His reason is because otherwise the children of such should be accounted Vnclean or altogether barred from the Covenant wher-as now they are Holy i. e. Heirs of the Covenant and admitted to the Seals ther-of Admitted I say For this is worthy our observation That suppose any of the Corinths would have been so wilfull to doubt of this Medium and deny th' Argument of St. Paul what is ther to convince the Gainsayer but only the practise of Israel continued in the Christian Churches viz. That the children of one beleeving Parent are admitted to the Seals of the Covenant This must of Necessity be presupposed else doth the Argument fall to the ground and overthrow it self To say That it resteth upon the Authority of th'Apostles affirmation is not sufficient in as much as he doth not positively set it down as a thing to be learned as he had done the former point The wife is sanctified but brings it in as a Reason to confirm that former point And we know that the Reason of a Position is alway presupposed as a thing already yeelded and confessed 2. That the Infants of Christians have as much need of partaking in the Covenant of Grace as had the Jewish Infants is thence confirmed Because That which is born of the Flesh is flesh Naturall corruption is common to all Why was Circumcision ordained but that ther-by the Uncircumcision of the Heart might be taken away that the Corruption of Nature might bee cured and the Guilt of that first sinn cut off from the Israel of God That Abraham by Faith apprehending the promise of God might ther-in have a Ground of comfort to himself in respect of his Sonn viz. That tho he had begotten him in his own likeness and had been a mean to convey unto him the Guilt and Filth of Originall sinn yet now by the mercy of God he was provided of a Remedy for that Malady of his child and using that Sacrament in Faith he might comfortably assure himself that the Remedy should prevail against the Malady And is not this Ground of comfort needfull also for Christians Surely they are deceived who either deny the propagation of originall sinn to Infants or dream of any Universall Demolition of it by the Death of Christ without the particular Application of his Blood by the Sacrament of the Gospell If there be no such Malady no such Guilt in our Infants how cometh it to pass that they dy Is ther any place for Death in Mankind wher ther is no sinn at all If the Beasts decay and dy by reason of their naturall mortality yet we know that sinn it was which brought Death upon Adam and his Posterity Where ther is no sinn inherent Death can claim no interest in that party Wher Death seizeth upon man we must not deny sinn some sin ther must be Actuall ther is none in these Infants Not yet have they sinned after the Similitude of Adams transgression viz. by listening to the Tentation of Satan and therfore it is Originall Guilt and corruption which is in them If the Disease be in their Nature Is ther not need of a Remedy Had the Infants of the Jews a Remedy and is ther none provided for the Infants of Christians Is ther a Remedy provided for them and a ground of comfort for their Parents and shall it be denyed and they debarred Objection The force of this Argument some think to elude by denying Circumcision to be a Seal of the Covenant of Grace and consequently no Remedy against that originall Malady wher-of we speak We oppose that honourable Elogie of it Rom. 4 11. The Apostle termeth it A Seal of the Righteousnes of Faith They answer it was a seal of Abrahams Faith not in the Promise of the Messiah and the Covenant of Grace but in the promise of a Neumerous Off-spring That he should be the Father of many Nations This was say they that part of Gods Covenant with Abraham which was sealed by Circumcision A fleshly Covenant had a fleshly Seal But in this Answer we find a twofold ignorance bewrayed 1. The mis-interpretation of the Phrase The Righteousnes of Faith A phrase peculiar to St. Paul by which is intimated not the Act of Faith but the Benefit ther-of The phrase is equivalent to and to be expounded by that of Rom. 9.30 10.6 The Righteousnes which is by faith and that also Rom. 3. 21. 10.3 The Righteousnes of God Both which are joined in one Rom. 3.22 The Righteousnes of God which is by Faith and therby is signified the Benefit of imputed Righteousnes which God bestoweth on Beleevers for their Justification This benefit God having bestowed upon Abraham did seal it up to Him afterward by Circumcision which is therfore called Not the Seal of his Faith but the Seal of the Righteousnes i. e. of Justification which cometh by Faith and not by Works 2. Another point of ignorance is in dis-joyning those things which ought
not to be dis-joined viz. the Covenant of Grace and the Promise of a Numerous off-springs Is it not evident that in Gen. 17. ther is speciall mention of the Covenant of Grace viz. I will be the God of thee and thy seed after thee and then followeth Thou shalt therfore keep my Covenant thou and thy seed This is my Covenant Every man-child among you shall be circumcised Why should Circumcision be restreyned to the Promise of a Numerous of-spring when the text doth not restrein it If any reply That in Gen. 15. wher the Righteousnes of Faith is mentioned to which the Apostle alludeth ther is only mention made of a Numerous of-spring promised Be it so But that of Calvin is sound who saith That whatsoever promises God did give to Abraham Jn dubium est axioma apud Christianos quascunque promissiones Abrahae dedit Deus prâ—mae illius fuisse appendices Ergo cum audiret Abraham Erit semâ—n tuum siâ—ut arena mâ—â—is in hoc verbo non substitit sed ipsum potius includebat in gratia Adoptionis tanquam partem in toto Calv. in Câ—l 3 6. they were Appendices of that first promise made to Him and so this of a numerous of spring was by Faith received as a fruit of that first Grace he bestowed on Him viz. His Adoption Nay more That Promise of a Numerous of-spring that he should be the Father of many Nations Was it fulfilled in the children of the flesh only or in the children of the Promise also And how came he to be the Father of those children but by Faith in the Covenant of Grace Conclude therefore That Circumcision was a Seal of the Covenant of Grace A Remedy of that Dis-ease which is derived from Father to Sonn by Propagation Which being in the Posterity of Beleeving Christians no less than in the Posterity of Beleeving Jewes It followeth that these have as much need as the other And being Holy by virtue of their Parents interest in the Covenant are as capable of this Benefit as the other were Consequently that the implantation of Infants into that Mysticall Body of Christ by a Sacrament is not incompatible with the state of the Church in the New Testament And if not so Since it is not repealed by Christ and his Apostles we conclude That ther is a Precept virtuall and implicit And tho it be not said in direct terms Go and baptise Beleevers and their Children yet in that it is said Circumcise them their Baptism is included so much the more Because it will appear that ther is also for the Baptising of Infants Pattern virtuall and Implicit This is in the Baptising of whole Families upon the conversion of the Masters ther-of The whole Housholds of Lydia Crâ—spus Cornelius and others were baptised To say that in them ther might be no children because none are mentioned is to speak against all sense and reason As well may it be said ther were no servants and so make up a Family of I know not how few What say we to those three thousand souls mentioned Acts 2. which were added to the Church in one day Is it probable that they were all present at the Sermon and converted to the Faith by that Sermon it being in a private House Is it not more probable that the Men being present and converted they brought also their Families to be baptised which they might well do because they heard St. Peter say The Promise is made to you and to your children So that the totall summe of men women and children might be 3000. souls Some such thing doubtless is intimated in that phrase 3000. souls answerable to that in the story of Gen. 46. ver 27. Act. 7.14 All that came down into Egipt with Jacob were 70 souls Souls i. e. persons men women and children And here doubtless the course and practice of the Converts was answerable to that in Gen. 17. No sooner is the Covenant made with Abraham but he circumciseth all the Males in his house both young and old So doubtless No sooner is the Covenant of Grace ratified betwixt Christ and the Beleeving Parents by Baptism but the Houshold is also accounted Holy and so baptised Doubtless what St. Peter said to them in Act. 2. The Promise is made to you and to your children The same did St. Paul preach to the Gentiles when they were converted that they might know the large bounty of God to them and theirs in the Covenant of Grace And how should they confirm this to them but by baptising their children Take away this and you leav open a wide gapp to an Objection which is not easily answered For they might object What tell you us of the Grace of God in Christ of the super-abundance of that Grace Do we not see the contrary This is nothing answerable to that of Abraham and Israel They by their Faith received a Benefit for their children yea their servants Not so here We our selves per-aduenture may be the better for our Faith But our children remain still as they were strangers to the Covenant Will you imagine the Apostle to reply Nay but the Promise is to you and your children So that when they come to beleev they also may be admitted How justly might the Objector rejoin what great priviledge is this So may the very Heathen all that are afarr of when they beleev If this be all that we gain Our children notwithstanding our Faith are in no better condition than the Heathen themselves Nothing so good as the children of the Jews And so the great boast of super-abundant Grace falls to the ground Thus we see good Reason to acknowledge this Custome of baptising Infants to be warranted both by Precept and Pattern tho not formall and explicite yet virtuall and implicit And that with so great light and evidence from Scripture that greater in that kind cannot be expected Before I proceed to an other Argument Let me improve this further That Custome and Practise of the Church may well be presumed to be Apostolicall which is so consonant to the text of Scripture that it doth readily illustrate the text and openeth a door of light to understand the same Such is the Custome of Infants Baptised therfore That which being granted giveth light and which being denyed doth leave the text under such a cloud of obscurity that it is not easily understood how it may pass for Truth This must be granted to open a door of light to understand the text of Scripture Now then suppose this Act of the Apostles baptising Infants we easily see how 3000. souls may be added to the Church in one day notwithstanding the Sermon were in a privat house We see how St. Peter might confirm their Beleef in this The Promise is made to you and to your children even the Promise of super-abundant Grace We see how St. Paul might urge this your children are Holy But take away the supposition of this Custome and
act of the Parents corruption of Nature is propagated their act it is tho not voluntary in them So by the act of the Parents in this it is a voluntary act by Faith laying hold upon the Promise of God in that Sacrament is obtained for the Infant and bestowed upon him the Grace of Regeneration This to be the root and spring of future holines and righteousnes as the other was the root and spaun of wickednes and profaness Ob. It is said That every man must live by his own faith not by anothers Sol. By his faith indeed it is said that the just shall live Hab. 2.4 It is not said Not by anothers this is not in the text of the Prophet Nor doth the text speak simply of the Benefit it self gained by Faith but of the Pre-assurance ther-of No pre-assurance of Salvation but by Faith But this doth not prove That by his faith the Parent may not obtain for his child this benefit of Baptism the Remedy for that Malady We read in the Gospell That the woman of Canaan obtained mercy for her daughter The man for his lunatick sonn the Centurion for his servant the friends and neighbours for the Palsie-sick man Which instances have been alleged by Divines to manifest this point in hand viz. The Benefit of Baptism obtained for the child by the Faith of the Parents Bernard Seâ—m 66. in Cantica Ecbertus contra Cathacos Serm. 7. Remigius on Mat. 15.21 Calvin Harmon on MÃ t 9. That note of Remigius is worth the noting She saith not Help my daughter but help me and have mercy on me and so Mar. 9.21 The father of the Lunatick saith If thou canst do any thing have compassion on us and help us He puts himself in as a Co-partner of his childs misery Say the same here It is a mercy to the Father that he can prevail for his child who if he do rightly understand himself suffereth in his child yea not only by the way of compassion but as feeling the smart and punishment of himself And therfore hath need to sue unto God for the Removing of that punishmâ—nt which lyeth upon himself in his child Yea he hath this reason to châ—llenge it at the hand of God by the prayer of Faith that so he may obtain the fulnes of the Promise made to the faithful in the Covenant of Grace Infants are part of their Parents So that the promise of Grace mentioned in the Covenant betwixt God and the Faithfull Gen. 17. is not ratified to the whole Parent except also it do extend to his Infants So then it is the Faith of the Parent laying hold on the Promise which qualifieth his Infant for the Grace and good effect of Baptism Nay yet more This text on which the Argument was grounded Mat. 19. cometh yet neerer to the point For first the blessing of Christ which the Parents sought and found for their children was not terminated in an externall and corporall Benefit as per-adventure it might be replyed touching those former Instances Doubtless the Blessing of Christ extended to the good of their souls and yet procured by the Faith of the Parents without any concurrence of Faith in the Infants I will not per-emptorily affirm it But probable enough it is that these Parents having been by Johns Baptism directed to Christ when they knew him brought their children to Him to receiv a further blessing from him even that which John told them he could not give but they must expect it from another even from Christ Next it may be worth the noting That our Saviour saith Suffer little children to come unto mee To come not To be brought The act of the Parent is reputed the act of the child That none may deride the saying of the Ancient Credit in alio sicut peccavit in alio He beleeveth and cometh to Christ in and by his Parent as formerly he had sinned in the loins of another Corollary To conclude this first Argument Since by that text of our Blessed Saviour we have ground to believ That Infants presented to him are accepted Since what persons might be brought to him may be presented to his Ordinance There being no barr put in by any word of Christ to keep them of Nay more Since the Faith of the Parent doth lay hold upon the promise of Grace not only for himself but for his Infants yea ther is ground to believ the imputation of the Parents faith to the Infant I conclude ther is sufficient ground in Scripture to warrant Parents to present their Infants to this Ordinance and that with expectation to obtain the Grace and Benefit of the same The second Argument THis I ground upon the words of our Saviour Mat. 28.0 A charge given to the Apostles to instruct the Nations whom they should convert to the Faith to instruct them I say in the observation of all such Ordinances as Christ had commended to them This Observation enjoyned hath speciall reference to matters of Discipline for the right Ordering and Government of the Churches and Assemblies of Christians in which he instructed his Apostles no lesse than in matters of Faith and Doctrine as it is evident out of Act. 1.2 where is mention made of some Commandements which Christ gave to his Apostles touching things pertaining to the kingdom of God And it is no less evident by some passages in the New Testament ex gr Cor. 11.2 2 Thes 2.15 2 Tim. 2.2 that some things were delivered to the Churches and particularly to the Ministers ther-of which were not then committed to writing but delivered from Hand to Hand called therfore Traditions These were not matters of Doctrine especially not Articles of Faith None such do we acknowledge but what are delivered and set down in the writings of the Holy Apostles and Evangelists But matters of Discipline and Rules of good order in the Church These Ordinances sett up and practised by th'appointment of the Apostles are equivalent in Authority to what Christ himself hath immediatly ordained Hence that of St. Paul Cor. 14.37 Consequently a Ground on which Conscience may build and therby may assure it self that ther-in it doth not sinn against God Of the which we cannot doubt if reading that of Cor. 11.16 we note what is the Question and what is the Resolution The Question is Whether it were indifferent for men and women to be covered or not covered in the Church-assemblies as they listed St. Paul saith No it is not but the Men must do so and the Women so Now saith he If any man be contentious q d if he will presumptuously contend against all reason that the thing is indifferent and so he may in this use his own liberty What then why saith he We have no such Custome nor the Churches of God q d The Custome of the Church which is establisht must over-rule mens froward fancies and stand for a law to quiet the conscience of him that is willing to be satisfied So
Males in his house that very day in which the Lord made a Covenant with him and the practise of Israel who did the like by all the male-children and infants which they bought with their money Whence I say that Custome should come except from this president I see not That they did so is evident by the story of their Acts and being done by them we doubt not of the lawfulnes No Revelation had they for it that is recorded This Ground of Conformity to the Pattern of the Old Testament we find in others and therfore conclude this also Now them The issue of all returns to this text Why this Rule should hold in so many particulars and only fail in this point of Baptising Infants I leav for them to give a reason who know what difference ther is betwixt reason and absurdity Especially since it is plain enough by the Testimony of the Ancients who lived in the next Ages after the Apostles That this also was a Custome establisht by the Apostles In Pamâ—lius notes on Cyprian Epla 59. you may find the names of the Ancients who referr it to an Apostolicall Tradition So also doth Augustiâ— lib. 4. De Baptismo câ—ntra Donatist cap. 23. And in his Epl. 28. Ad Hyeronimum speaking of the 59 epistle of Cyprian the Title wher-of is Ad Fidum de Infantibus Baptisandis he saith Beatus Cyprianus non aliquod decâ—etum condens novum â—ed Ecclesiâ—e fidem firmissimam seâ—â—ans ad corrigendum cos qui putabant ante octavum dâ—â—m nitivitatis non esse parvulum baptisandum mox natum rite baptisari cum suis quibussdam coepissopis censuit The Breviat of all this discours is this Every Commandement of Christ is to be observed Mat. 28. Infants-Baptism is the Commandement of Christ Every Apostolicall Institution is the Commandement of Christ Infants Baptism is an Apostolicall Institution therfore The Major is proved Cor. 11.25 and 14.37 and must be acknowledged except we would suspect them of fals and faithless dealing The Minor is acknowledged by the Ancients And ther is great reason for it because it doth as do the rest of the Rules for Order and Discipline delivered to the Church carry in its face and fore-head the stamp of Christs Ordinances viz. Conformity to the Pattern of the Church of Israel So then To them who think they may triumph in that Argument produced against Infants Baptism That it being presupposed that the Testament of Christ is so perfect and he so faithfull that nothing ought to be practised of Christians which is not therein warranted either by Precept or Pattern And it being assumed that ther is neither Precept nor Pattern for this Custome Therfore it may not be practised To them I say we see what Answer may be returned 1. To the Major Flourished with that text of Heb. 3.2.6 as Moses So Christ was faithfull Nay more Moses only as a servant but Christ as a Sonn And therfore his Testament as perfect nay more perfect than that of Moses True indeed But know we not that the faithfulness of a man in his office is to be measured according to the intent and scope of his Office imposed In which if he fail and faulter then is he unfaithfull if not then is he not unfaithfull tho he look not to other things ex gr The Minister may be faithfull tho he meddle not with the Sword of Justice The Magistrate tho he fight not with the sword of the Spirit So then what was the office of Moses and what of Christ The Office of Moses was to settle the Common-wealth and the Nationall Church of Israel The Office of Christ was to make Reconciliation betwixt God and man to work out the Redemption of Mankind It was fitt that Moses should sett down particular laws for the Common-wealth and Ordinances for the Church Neither of these did pertain to the Office of Christ yet by his Apostles and their successors in severall Ages doth he provide whatsoever is necessary for the welfare and good order of the Church of the New Testament But in his own person and by himself he established the Covenant of Grace ordained the Seals ther-of sett up a Ministery gave to them the word of life and salvation and pointed to them a pattern for good Order and Government and so was faithfull in his house as a Sonn and worthy of more honour than Moses This for the Major 2. To the Minor We grant That neither Precept nor Pattern formall and explicite is to be found in the books of the New Testament for Infants baptising i. e. There is no Precept that saith Go and baptise Infants no more is ther any Precept to baptise Women nor to observ the Lords day as a Christian Sabbath Ther is no text that saith The Children and Infants of this or that man were baptised Nor is ther any text that saith Such a woman was admitted to the Table of the Lord. But we say that both Precept and Pattern virtuall and implicit may be found to warrant it The which if found is not to be neglected Precept Virtuall and implicit Here we pitch upon the continuation of the Custome in Israel to present their Infants to the Sacrament of initiation and we frame the Argument thus What was instituted in the Old Testament and not repealed in the New nor is any way incompatible with the state of the Church in the New Testament that is understood to be continued and commended to the practise of the Christian Church But that Infants should be initiated and admitted into the Covenant of Grace by a Sacrament was commanded in the Old Testament neither is it repealed in the New nor incompatible with the state of the New Testament therfore That it is not repealed is thence confirmed Because in the Substitution of that new Sacrament of Initiation ther is no particular exception taken against Infants as before was noted in the first Argument That it is not incompatible with the state of the Church in the New Testament is thus further confirmed 1. The Infants of Christians are as capable of present incorporation into Christ and of admission into the Covenant of Grace as were the infants of the Jews And if so who shall barr them whom God hath not barred from the Seal of the Covenant 2. The Infants of Christians have as much need of the Communion and Participation in the Covenant of Grace as had the Infants of the Jews And their Parents as much need of a Ground of comfort as touching the Remedy of that which maketh them stand in need of the Covenant of Grace and the Benefits therof as the Parents of Jewish Infants If so who shall think that God hath not provided for them so well as for the other If he hath not how hath Grace abounded in the New Testament when in this particular it is much restreined both to Beleevers and to their Infants But if he hath who shall forbid them
none of these texts are so easie to be understood Consequently it is more than probable that even this Custome of Baptising Infants was instituted and ordained in the Churches by th'Apostles and that according to the commandement of Christ Add unto all that hath been sayd that of St. Ambrose Sicut nunc in ecclesià manet Constitutio salvatoris dicentis Nisi quis renatus sucrit Ita sacratissimè in lege suerat praecautum ut natus puer nisi die circumcideretur octavo exterminaretur anima ejas de populo suo Ambros Epist 33. Ad Demetriadem p. 132. who setts these two as paralell the law of God touching Circumcision The soul who is not circumcised shall be cut off from his people and the Sanction of our Saviour Except a man bee born again of water and of the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdome of God That this text is to be understood of Baptism as a mean and cause of Regeneration Not so principall as the Spirit yet so instrumentall to the Spirit that wher it may be had wee have no ground of Faith to beleev that the Spirit will work without it This is I say the constant and consentient judgement of all the Ancients and most of our modern Divines Some few only excepted who to avoid the Popish Tenet touching the absolute necessity of Bâ—ptism did fly to a Metaphor And it may be confirmed for Truth out of the Text it self if we note well To whom and upon what occasion the words were spoken viz. To Nicodemus upon occasion of his timerousnes A Disciple of Christ he was willing to be but loth to prosess it openly by being baptised To him is the commination directed and therfore the words must be understood of Baptism Now then consider well whether ther be any ground sufficient to keep of Infants from this Ordinance Any ground I say which may secure the conscience of not having sinned against the souls of our Infants if by our default they dy without this seal of the Covenant and so loos the Benefit ther-of Have not Infants need of Christ and the Application of his Blood for the washing their souls from sinn Is ther any Hope of Salvation without Christ Is ther any other way revealed by which any may have part in Christ but by his Ordinances Is ther any other Ordinance by which Infants may be made partakers of Christ and the Covenant of Grace except Baptism Is ther any text of Scripture that hath peremptorily barred their Admittance Or is ther any thing required of them that must be baptised the want wher-of may be a barr to Infants Thou doubtest because ther is no text that mentioneth either Precept or Pattern and with-out a text thou darest not venture 'T is well But when ther is such a fearfull sentence that runns in such generall terms as doth comprehend Infants also and the Danger of Omission is so great Why art thou not more cautelous on the safer side Why dost thou not as well call for a direct text to barr them or a direct Reason from Scripture which may be equivalent Is ther any text that saith None may be baptised that do not Beleev or that saith Infants for want of Actuall faith may not be baptised Doest thou not see Infants Circumcised yea by commandment Doest thou not hear the text that saith Children are Holy And are ther so many Probabilities that by th'Apostles themselves Infants were baptised And wilt thou rather hazard the soul of thy child than lay hold upon the Covenant for thy seed nay for thy self and that only upon a fear and a doubt of unlawfulnes yea such a doubt that hath no surer ground either in Scripture or Reason to countenance it than the contrary resolution Here is then the Case if these Grounds formerly mentioned prove good as ther is great probability Then thou presenting thine Infant to Baptism building upon these grounds thou hast saved thy self and thine Infant but forbearing and keeping him of thou sinnest against thine own soul and his also Again if those grounds should not prove good yet hast thou not wronged thine Infant nor thine own self Because upon such probabilities as are next door to an Evident Demonstration thou hast done that which is intended for the Glory of God and the Good of the Infant Thou hast not transgressed against any Precept no nor any light of Reason which might justly with-hold thee from seeking the Good of thine Infant at the Hands of Christ in this Ordinance I conclude therfore That ther is sufficient Ground in Scripture to warrant the Conscience of a Christian to bring his Infants to this Sacrament of Baptism with a confident expectation to receiv Benefit by the same Nay more Ther is Ground enough to warrant the Accusation of Him that upon such uncertain Reasons shall forbear to present his Infant to this Sacrament of Initiation the Accusation I say of Him as one that sinneth against the Ordinance of God and trespasseth against the Soul of his Infant yea of Himself So much for the first Question THE SECOND QVESTION Quest Whether it be not sinfull for a Christian to receiv the Sacrament in a mixt Assembly A Mixt Assembly is that wherein good and badd are mingled together and make up one Congregation when the precious are not severed from the vile nor any difference put between the Holy and Prophane Now these good and badd these precious and vile are not to be reckoned in respect of their spirituall estate toward God i. e. as they are Elect or Reprobate Sincere or Hypocriticall but in respect of their Ecclesiasticall state in the ey and judgement of Men as they are in their courses and conversations in their Calling and Profession holy or profane These bad and vile are again to be considered A parte ante or A parte post viz. Either such as yet profess not themselves in Covenant with God by joining themselves to the Assembly of his servants Or such who having formerly had a standing in the Church do afterward run out into exorbitant courses to the scandall of Religion and so deserv to be separated from the Society of the Saints and by the Sentence of Excommunication cut of from the Assembly So that the Question is Whether if either of these be found in the Congregation and company of them that draw neer to the Table of the Lord to partake of those holy Mysteries either those who as yet have not been admitted or those that by the laws of Christ ought to be shutt out and sequestred whether their presence do make it unlawfull in point of conscience for a Christian to receiv the Sacrament among them so that if he do he is eo nomine therby desiled and become partaker of their sinn Where also for the better understanding of the Answer to this Question we are to note what is granted and what is questioned and demanded Things granted are these 1. Some are not to
be admitted to the Table of the Lord. This is evident enough No uncircumcised person might eat of the Passover Nor any person unbaptised be admitted to the Lords Supper how morally righteous soever he bee The Reason her-of is Because None may be received into the Communion and fellowship of the Church till he have professed himself one of them that desire to lay hold on the Hope of Eternall life by the Mean and Mediation of Christ in whom alone is founded the Covenant of Grace Now this Profession is by submitting himself to the Sacrament of Baptism Hence it is that our Blessed Saviour hath joined these two together He that beleeveth and is baptised As none unbaptised So not all that are baptised Children so soon as they be able to learn must be taught and by teaching be fitted to discern the Lords Body before they be admitted to it Of old Israel must instruct their children in the Rites of the Passover Exod 12 26 13.14 In imitation wher-of Christians receiv a charge touching their children to bring them up in the knowledge and practise of their holy Profession Yea and by an Apostolicall Ordinance as it is probable from that of Heb. 6.2 The Pastours of the Church in all ages according to the trust committed to them have taken an account of what the Parents have done in this Education of their children examining them in the Articles of their Beleef and the points of the Catechism And ther-upon have approved those whom they found Proficients and by their Benediction have confirmed and comforted them in these their happy Beginnings This Order of solemn Confirmation is acknowledged by the Godly learned to be of merveilous good use in the Church And reason giveth it so to be That so when children are come to a perfect Age and in some measure able to understand the matters of Religion and to give an account of their Faith they may then make an open profession of their Beleef and an open promise of their Obedience to the laws of God and so ther-upon in a solemn maner be admitted to the holy Communion And till they be thus confirmed I should yeeld it altogether unfitting at least for Orders sake that any be admitted to the Table of the Lord. 2. Some are to be shutt out and sequestred No doubt of this Adam was thrust out of Paradise that he might not tast of the Tree of life and feed himself with a vain hope of immortality The Leprous were to be shut out of the Camp They that were unclean by a dead body Num. 9.6 could not keep the Passover on the day The Refractary and Obstinate is to be accounted as an Heathen Mat. 18.17 The incestuous person must be delivered to Satan and Scandalous Christians excluded from civill much more from sacred Communion Cor. 5. Such order must be taken also with in-ordinate walkers 2 Thess 3. and with unreformable Heretiks Tit. 3.10 If any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ i. e. if any walk in a manifest Profession of Dislike and Detestation of Christ and his Gospel He must be pronounced Anathema This is the Discipline of the Church and good is the Reason ther-of 1. In respect of the Persons Delinquent That by the destruction of the Flesh the Spirit may be saved This was an wholsome severity a Church-punishment inflicted as a means appointed of God to reduce and reclaim those who were not desperately given up to a reprobate sense 2. In respect of the Congregation that others might hear and fear That others might shun familiarity wi h them for fear of infection by them 3. In respect of them that are without the Church That the name of the Lord might not be blasphemed by them but that they might see and know that as the Profession so the practise of the Church is a constant care of holines Nor will the Church of God indure it that any of their Society shall say one thing and do another talk holines and live profanely If any do forget himself and conform to the Men of the World in exorbitant courses he shall be shutt out from among them and cut off from their Communion that so the whol Assembly may even in the ey of the world be found in some measure conformable to the Holiness of Christ their Head For these Reasons some are to be shutt out and sequestred The first and second Reasons are perpetuall and press the Execution of this point of Discipline at all times The third was more urgent in the times of the first Plantation of the Church And in that respect it was as I conceiv that the Primitive Churches were so severe and rigid even to an over-great measure of extremity till experience taught them the Necessity of some more mildnes and moderation But yet alway ther is use of this point of Discipline to seperate and cut off scandalous persons that so the members of the Church may be secured from infection and the whol Body from scandal and imputation 3. The Neglect of the Church-Officers in doing their duty is a sinn that may expose the whol Congregation to the judgements of God Their office it is to watch over the Holy things of God that they be not laid open to contempt either by admitting them that are not fitted or by not sequestring them that ought to be sequestred And their Negligence is a provoking sinn was it not upon this ground that the Congregation doth smart in the case of Achan The Elders and officers were not so carefull as they should have been To which if ther be added also the Neglect of inferiour persons in doing what they ought it is their part to be eys and ears to the Governours informing them of what is amiss yea and in a dutifull way to admonish them of their duty and intreat their diligent circumspection which if they do not much more if they do approve of their slackness and like of them the better because they are not so officious What wonder if this Neglect of the Governour prove the destruction of the whol Congregation understand this in respect of temporall judgements God to shew his just indignation against sin and to teach all and every one to have a care of others both to greev for them and to admonish them doth for the sin of some one especially if an eminent person cause the whol to smart under the Rodd of some common Calamity This also is not denyed These things being premised as things granted and not at all questioned The Scruple doth ly in this one particular Whether the sinn of the unworthy and wicked person intruding himself into the company of them that draw neer to the Table of the Lord and the sinn of the Church-officers who should but do not exclude him whether this sinn of theirs defile the Conscience of Him a private Christian who hath no further communion with them save only that he is in their company and they in his