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
since God added seals to the Covenant of grace Ergo THat it was the practise of the Church in the time of the old Testament notwithstanding some omissions and intermissions cannot be denyed And that it hath been the practise of the Catholick Church in the present dispensation of the Covenant I conclude from two Propositions which I will prove Propos 1. The sealing of the Covenant to the infants of Christians by baptism the initial Sacrament of the present dispensation was the practise of the Church in the Apostles times This I prove by four Arguments Argum. 1 I. Sealing the Covenant by an initial Sacrament to infants of Gods people aforetime was not peculiar to that Church-state For 1. The promise of propriety in God sealed to such infants was not peculiar to the infants of that time for it was part of the most eminent Promise of the Catholick Covenant of Grace with the universal Church 2 Sealing the Promise by an initial Sacrament is not only in reference to a particular Church either National or Congregational but principally in reference to the Catholick Church for initial Sacraments primarily respect it this is evident in that Baptism is mentioned as a Sacrament of initiation into that body 3. 1 Cor. 12 13. The dissolution of that Church state did not dissolve the sealing of that Promise by an initial Sacrament to all Infants Rom. 21 17. for there was a breaking off only of some branches and not of all and therefore some are in statu quo prius and of right to enjoy such priviledges as were not specialties but common to the species therefore the method used aforetime was observed in their days Argum. 2 II. In this dispensation the Apostles judged the same of Infants of Christians that was judged in the former of the Infants of Gods people They affirmed the children in the Promise with the parents denominated the Children of Christians holy taught that the blessing of Abraham was come on the Gentiles by Christ Acts 2.39 1 Cor 7 14. Gal 3.14 Rom 11 17. and that Christians were graffed in for Jews broken off c. therefore the Promise was sealed by the initial Sacrament to Infants with their Parents as afore time in their days for such as they judged such things of the initiated by Baptism Argum. 3 III. Where the heads of families became Christians the Apostles baptized them and all theirs Acts 16.15 33 1 Cor. 1.16 even their whole housholds at their request of which divers instances as sufficient witnesses that it was their practise are left upon the sacred file of the Word which was the method used aforetime in the initial Sacrament Gen 17. Objection By housholds must be understood the discipled of them by preaching of the Gospel and not every individual Exod. 12.48 for in those times there were in Christian Families oft Infidels which ought not to be baptized Answer The Apostlâ—s practise is best interpreted by practises in like cases Gen. 17.12 13 Exo 12.48 49 Abraham was required to circumcise all his males born in his house and bought with his money likewise the Converts of the Gentiles in whose families some doubtless were Infidels and refused Circumcision such might depart the family and were to be cut off from it Gen. 17.14 and all the rest having a natural capacity great and small were circumcised The like was the practise of the Apostles in baptizing households for the order that they gave concerning Infidels in Christian families was that they should have liberty to depart the family 1 Cor. 7.13 though tyed to it by the strongest relation and there is great reason to conclude that they baptized the rest great and small For 1. it was an ancient known custom in the Church for religious Parents to devote their Infants with themselves to the Lord and to undertake the bringing them up in the fear of God 1 Cor. 11 16. and ancient pious customs of the Church they honored and followed 2. They judged the Children with the Parents in the Promise and foederally holy 3. They had been sharply rebuked by Christ for despising the day of those small things and sent to learn of them innocency humility c. and taught that the kingdom of God was of such as well as of actual professors 4. There is nothing in the Apostles Commission inconsistent with sealing the Promise to Infants of Christians by Baptism the initial Sacrament For that which was given them in Commission Mat. 28.19 20 was that they should Disciple the Nations which were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 baptizing and teaching them to do all that Christ had commanded which was the method used in the former dispensation Abraham and all of riper years were Discipled before the sealing of the Covenant by the initial Sacrament yet was the Covenant sealed to Infants of visiblâ— professors by the initial Sacrament which was a seal of the righteousness of faith 5. Isai 22.24 Infants are essential and most innocent parts of the family the off-spring is the glory of the house Argum. 4 IV. The most ancient credible Writers refer the original of Baptism of Infants to the Apostles times Calvin affirms that there is no Writer so ancient which doth not refer the original of Baptism of Infants to the Apostles days Nullus est scriptor tam vetustus qui ejus originem ad Apostolorum seculum pro certo non refert Calv. instit l. 4. c. 16. § 8. Origen affirms that the Church received instruction to baptize Infants from the Apostles Ecclesia traditionem baptizandi parvulos ab Apostolis accepit Orig. l. 2. in Roman c. 6. Dionysius saith that it was delivered by the Apostles that Infants should be baptized Ab Apostolis traditum fuit ut Infantes baptizarentur Dionys Augustine mentions it as a custom of the universal Church received from the Apostles and saith it were not to be received if it were not Apostolical Consuetudo matris ecclesiae in baptizandis parvulis non esset omnino credenda nisi Apostolica traditio esset August Propos 2. Baptizing Infants of Christians hath been the practise of the universal Church from the times immediately following the Apostles days and it hath been held by the same a divine institution long before the man of sin was revealed Zanchy whose testimony is honored by all of sound judgment witnesses that the Catholick Church never doubted of Baptism of Infants of those that might be judged of the Church De Infantibus eorum qui de Ecclesia esse judicentur Ecclesia Catholica nunquam dubitavit Zanch. in Eph. p. 226. In the second Century about the year 143. Higinus Bishop of Rome appointed god-fathers and god-mothers to undertake for Infants in Baptism Willet in Rom. c. 6. controv 6. which argues that Baptism of Infants was in use then and before Augustine lived in the fourth Century and he called it the custom of the mother Church Origen living
in the third Century mentions it as the practise of the Church received from the Apostles And the first Sect opposing Baptism of such Infants as an Innovation Popish figment and delusion of the devil sprang up in Germany but in the sixteenth Century Some omissions and intermissions of Baptism of Infants in the first times argues not that it hath not been the practise of the universal Church nor that it hath not been held as a divine institution For in the time of the Old Testament there were omissions of Circumcision in evil times and intermissions for many years in the times of the travels of the Israelites Joshua 5. it was intermitted the space of fourty years yet Circumcision was the practise of the Church in the Old Testament and held by it a divine institution The reason of those omissions and intermissions of Baptism of Infants and that some were expectants until riper years was not because Baptism of Infants was accounted sinful and a delusion of the devil for it was not so judged Cyprian who lived in the third Century affirms that the Baptism of Infants was in his time approved in a Councel of 66 Bishops nemine contra dicente Epist ad Fid. In a Councel at Millain it was decreed that whosoever should deny Baptism of Infants should be Anathema Quicunque parvulos baptizandos negat Anathema sit Concil Melevit The reason why Tertullian urged delay of Baptism until riper years was because many baptized Infants of Infidels as well as of Christians Jun. Constantines Baptism was delayed out of a desire to be baptized in Jordan where Christ was baptized and some lived among Infidels and could not enjoy it for their children and some among Hereticks and could not have it rightly administred and some their Parents were Infidels during their Infancy therefore they were not baptized until riper years Some delayed Baptism until death because of an erroneous opinion that after Baptism there is no remission of sin Baptismum tum demum suscipiam cum 〈◊〉 viciis et iniquitatibus de sistam c. Some were baptized in riper years because having been baptized by Novatus the Heretick they thought they had not been rightly baptized and some because they would be baptized by Donatus thinking those only rightly baptized which were baptized by him and his party Objection Prelacy hath been in the Church ever since the first times yet it doth not follow that it may be continued so neither doth it that Baptism of Infants is to be practised because it hath been long in use Answer Prelacy hath not been in the Church from the first times as a divine Institution as Baptism of such Infants hath been It is certain that Prelacy was not an Apostolical Institution for the Apostles subjected the spirits of the Prophets to the Prophets 1 Cor. 14 32 and not to a single Bishop and the Government of the Churches to Elders in common Acts 14 23. Act. 20.25.28 not advancing one over the rest and this at their departure from them never to see them more and Elders and Bishops were all one they called the Elders Bishops Hujusmodi principatus nondum natus erat cum primum incepit postea quam adempti Apostoli erant Brightman Jerom affirms that Bishops and Elders were one and that the Church was governed by a Councel of Elders and that Bishops obtained the preheminence above Elders by Humane Custom and not Divine Institution Episcopus Presbyter unum sunt antequam studia in religione fiebant communi Presbyterorum Concilio Ecclesia gubernata fuit Hieron in Tit. 1. Noverint Episcopi se Presbyteris majores consuetudine magis quà m dominiâ—ae dispositionis veritate Idem Ammonius in the fourth Century a man of eminent piety dismembered himself and fled because he would not be a Prelate Socr. l. 4. c. 18. Likewise Evagrius about the same time fled for the same cause Ambrose being chosen Bishop by an universal vote of the people of Millain denyed utterly to be Bishop and by no importunity would yeeld his consent Socr. l. 4. c. 25. until Valentinianus the Emperor commanded him to be created Bishop volens noleâ—s And his refusal was not from excess of modesty but knowledg that the Church had been and ought to be governed by Elders Eccl sia seniores habuit quorum sine Concilio nihil agebatur in Ecclesia quod quâ negligent â obsoleverit nescio nisi fortè doctorum desid â aut magis superbiâ dum soli volunt aliquid videri i. e The Church had Elders without the Councel of whom nothing was done in the Church which thing by what negligence it grew out of use I know not unless perhaps through the sloath or rather pride of the Teachers whilst they alone would be thought somewhat Ambros in 1 Tim. 5. Therefore I conclude that sealing the Promise to Infants of Gods people hath been the practise of the universal Church ever since God added seals to the Covenant of Grace and that it is no Innovation or Popish figment and that it is intolerable presumption in those that so censure it for to despise any pious custom of the universal Church and to judg it evil is insolent madness Consuetudo matris Ecclesiae non est spernenda August Insolentissimae infanie est existimare non recté fieri quod ab universa Ecclesia fit Idem ep 111. ARGUMENT V. The profit of Baptism is great to the Infants of Christians therefore they may be baptized THe Antecedent I prove by six Arguments Argum. 1 I. The profit of Circumcision which was as Baptism is Rom. 3.1 2. a Sacrament of Faith and Repentance was great to the Infants of Gods people Therefore the profit of Baptism is great to the Infants of Christians For Baptism is not less profitable then Circumcision was neither are such Infants less capable of the profit of Baptism then such were of the profit of circumcision Argum. 2 II. By Baptism Infants of Christians are solemnly consecrated to the Lord Matth. 28.19 and his name is put upon them Per illum consecramur patri filio spiritui sancto eorum nomina super baptizatos vocantur Ames Medull p. 187. Therefore the profit of it is great to such Infants for it is no light matter to be consecrated to him and called by his name Deut. 28.10 Argum. 3 III. By Baptism Infants of Christians are solemnly initiated into the Church 1. Cor. 12 13. for Baptism is the Sacrament and ordinary means of initiation into it Therefore the profit of it is great to them Isai 65.4.7 for it is a great priviledg to have a visible standing in the Church This is evident by the contrary the visible breaking off of the Jews and their seed that they should no more be accounted to the Church then Infidels was the greatest evil that ever befel them and Excommunication which is a visible casting out of the Church is a dreadful
The initial Sacrament in this dispensation is as applyable to Infants of Christians as the initial Sacrament aforetime was to Infants of Gods people For 1. It is as passive and no more action is required in the subject Nulla actio externa requiritur ut in alijs Sacramentis Ames Yea it is more facil and common in the Administration and needs not a restriction to the male as that aforetime did 2. It is the same Sacrament in this dispensation that the other was in the former Sacramentia illa in signie diversa in rebus paria August For 1. They are both initial Sacraments of the Covenant of grace 2. They are both the first Ceremonies used about those that may rightly be judged to be in the promise and accounted of the Church 3. As Circumcision was rightly administred to those only that might be accounted to the Church so is Baptism Nemo extra ecclesiam baptizandus Cyp. Ep. ad Januar. 4. As Circumcision was the only ordinary way of entrance into the Church aforetime 1 Cor. 12.13 Exod. 12.48 so is baptism 5. As no uncircumcised person might communicate with the Church in the passeover so no unbaptized person did eat the Lords Supper in the Apostles times Acts 2.41 42 Gal. 5.3 6. As Circumcision was an engagement to observancy of the Covenant according to the tenor of the former Administration so is Baptism an engagement to observancy of it according to the tenor of the present it is called Baptism unto repentance and of repentance Matthew 3.11 Luke 3.3 Romans 6 3 Ephes 4.1 5 and the Apostle argues against living in sin from Baptism and for an holy life becoming the Gospel and Luther reports of a Virgin that repelled all temptations to sin with baptizata sum i. e. I am baptized 7. As Circumcision was a sign of mortification and putting off the body of sin Deut. 10.16 Col. 2.11 Romans 6.3 Col. 2.12 so is Baptism We are said to be buryed by Baptism with Christ and that Baptism should be the sign hereof in this dispensation it seems to be foreseen by the Prophet Jeremiah Ieremiah 4.14 who cals Circumcision of the heart washing of the heart from wickedness 8. As Circumcision was an external seal of the righteousness of Faith Romans 4 11 1 Sam. 17.36 Gen. 34.14 so is Baptism 9. As Circumcision was a sign distinguishing the people of God from Infidels so is Baptism 10. As Circumcision sealed both temporal and spiritual promises so doth Baptism for in the Covenant in this dispensation are both as well as in the former and Christians have Christ Matthew 5 Matthew 6.33 Romans 8.32 and all other things by the same Charter 11. Circumcision of right ended when Baptism began to bâ— an initial Sacrament for Christs Circumcision was the period of it and it ceased to be needful so soon as John began to baptize Luke 16.16 for the Law is said to continue but until John Lastly The Apostle plainly teaches that Baptism is the same Sacrament to Christians that Circumcision was to Gods people aforetime Col. 2. 11 12 Demonstrat id esse baptismum Christianis quod antca fuerit Judaeis Circumcisio Calv. instit Arguing against the continuance of Circumcision in this dispensation he uses two Arguments which argue no less For 1. Christ being come who was the body of the old shadows they of right ceased 2. That Baptism was now the sign of our mortification for which Circumcision served aforetime Ostendit quòd adempti sumus eam in Baptismo Aquin. Argum. 6 VI. Nothing can be soundly collected from the Scriptures against sealing the promise to Infants of Gods people in this dispensation by the initial Sacrament of it as aforetime by the initial Sacrament For 1. The abolishing Circumcision the initial Sacrament aforetime is no Argument against it as the abolishing of Sacrifices used aforetime in making solemn Covenant with God Psalm 50.5 is no Argument against solemn Covenant with God in the time of the Gospel For 1. Circumcision was a distinct thing from sealing the promise and only a ceremony of it for a time 2. The outward sign is ceased not the substance signified by it Circumcisio suum habet externum quasi corpus mortale et suum internum quasi animam immortalem prius aboletur non posterius Zanch. The sealing of the promise is not ceased for seals are added in this dispensation to the Covenant 3. Baptism the initial seal is more facil to Infants then Circumcision was which was the initial seal aforetime 2. Nothing appears in Iohn Baptists Commission inconsistent with sealing the promise by the initial Sacrament to Infants of Christians he mentions an alteration of the ceremony but no change of the subject John 1.33 nor yet in the execution of his Commission is there any thing apparently against it If it be alledged that he preached repentance before he sealed the promise to any by the initial Sacrament I answer so also was the Gospel preached aforetime Galathia 3.8 before the promise was sealed to any by the initial Sacrament yet it was sealed to the Infants of Gods people by the initial Sacrament If any plead that men confessed sins and shewed signs of grace before the promise was sealed to them by the initial Sacrament I answer no less did Abraham and all of riper years in the former dispensation before the sealing the promise to them by the initial Sacrament thereof Also Iohn Baptist who best understood his Commission affirmed that he baptized with water unto repentance Matthew 3.11 which is consistent with Baptism of Infants of Christians 3. It doth not appear that Christ the Author of the now initial seal did abolish the sealing the promise by an initial seal to Infants of Gods people For 1. He brake down only the partition wall of which the promise of propriety in God and sealing it by an initial Sacrament to Infants of Gods people were no part though Circumcision the initial seal for a time was a part thereof Christus legâ—m a Mose latam non sustulâ—t nisi quatenus gentes à Iudaeis separabat Riveâ— in decal 2. Abolishing the former initial Sacrament he instituted another more facil to Infants 3. There is no more in Infants of Gods people in this dispensation against it then was in such Infants aforetime 4. He with anger rebuke his Disciples for despising the day of such small things and gave them nothing in Commission inconsistent with it for the sum of their Commission was that they should Disciple the Nations which were strangers from the Covenant Mat. 28.19 20 baptizing them and teaching them to do all things which he commanded which was the method God used himself in the former dispensation Gen. 17.1 for he discipled Abraham before he sealed the promise to him and his males by the initial Sacrament of it All that can be soundly concluded is that all of riper years
judged to be in that promise The Consequence I prove by four Arguments Argum. 1. That promise of proprietie in God was not a specialtie which I prove by seven Arguments 1. It was not peculiar to Abraham and visible professors for it was sealed by the initiall Sacrament to the infants of such neither was it peculiar to Abraham and his naturall seed for it was sealed by the initiall Sacrament to the infants of visible professors of the Gentiles no less then to them no difference was to be made the stranger was as one home-born Exod. 12 48 49 and there was one Law for both Nor yet was it peculiar to that Church-State it being a Nationall Church 1. Promises of proprietie in God are not to any in reference to a particular Church onely either Nationall or Congregationall but in reference to the Catholick Church to which they appertain 2. Visible professors and their Infants were judged in that promise before the existence of a Nationall Church 3. Visible professors and their Infants which were of other Nations were judged in that promise 4 Since the dissolution of that Church-State Christians are said to be Children of the Promise after the manner of Isaac Gal. 4.28 who was in that promise as an infant of beleeving Parents before he was in it as an actuall beleever 2. That promise was a Catholick promise the most eminent promise of the Covenant of Grace which was a Catholick Covenant therefore it was no specialty but the blessing of Abraham which was to come on the Gentiles by Christ Gal. 3.14 Rom. 11.17 Rom. 15.8 9 and the fatness of the Olive tree in which they were to pertake and the promise which Christ came to confirm that the Gentiles might glorifie God for his mercy 3. Promises of proprietie in God are no specialties for God is a God to his in every age upon the same terms during the Covenant by which he gives proprietie in himself 4. That promise was given to Abraham as father of all the faithfull of every Nation Gen 17 5. and a publick person representing them in every age and not onely as father of the Jewish Nation onely and therefore no specialty 5. That promise was an everlasting promise and not to end with the dispensation and some temporarie promises of it Gen. 17.7 1. This is expresly affirmed of it 2. God is a God to his in every age upon the same terms Mal. 3.6 he changes not 3. Visible professors and their Infants are alike in every age and there is nothing in them Iam. 1.17 inconsistent with proprietie in God in one age more than in another 4. That promise is not taken away by the comming of Christ for since he finished the work he came to do Rom. 11.28 the Apostle saith the Children are beloved for the Fathers and parents becomming visible professors their children were judged by the Apostles to be in the promise with them and denominated holy Act. 2.39 1 Cor. 7.14 Esa 61.8 9 Ier. 30.20 as aforetime and it was prophesied that when the Jews shall be graffed in again which shall be by vertue of that promise the off-spring shall be accounted blessed with the parent and that the children shall be as aforetime 6. Though a priority in God may be yeelded to the Jews and their seed yet a sole propriety may not The Jew was the elder sister and Christs first bride and they had the first hand-sell of Free-grace in a Church-way but they and their seed never had the sole propriety in God Gentiles becomming visible professors did partake in it and their Infants whosoever feared God Psal 128.1.3 his Children were Olive plants as well as theirs 7. The former part of that promise I will be a God to thee is undenyably common to all beleevers Therefore that Promise being not a specialty the Infants of Christians are rightly judged to be in it as the Infants of the Jews were for Christians and their Infants have the same priviledges specialties excepted Eph. 2.14 1. The Partition wall is broken down and they are made one 2. The breaking off was of incorrigible Apostates and their seed and not of visible professors and theirs these suffered no losse by the breaking off Rom. 11.1 Eph. 4. 3. Christians have like precious faith and their Infants are no more Infidels then theirs were 4. Christians in this dispensation are children of Abraham Luc. 19.9 1 Pet. 3 Rom. 8.17 Zacheus becomming a Christian is called a son of Abraham and Christian women daughters of Sarah and therefore heirs of his priviledges which were not specialties in Abrahami successimus haereditatem quae de illo dicta sunt in nobis liberis nostris quadrant Pet. Martyr 5. Christians are in this dispensation as Jews were in the former they are called as they were An holy Nation a peculiar people 1 Pet. 2.9 Tit. 2.14 a Royall priesthood c. And every Nation receiving the faith as the Nation of the Jews did and in which there is a nationall agreement in doctrine worship and discipline as was in the Nation of the Jews is to be accounted to the Lord in every age Psal 22.30 even Aegypt and Assyria with Israel Isai 19.25 Gen. 17.5 Posita causa ponitur Causatum and may call Abraham Father who obtained the father-hood of many Nations and may be accounted a nationall Church no lesse then that nation was 6. That promise of proprietie in God was to Abraham and the Jews as Beleevers and promises to believers as such if they be not specialties appertain to all beleevers as they do to any Iosh 1.5 Heb 13 5 The promise of Gods presence with Joshua is applyed to all beleevers Argum. 2. As much love is manifested to the Infants of Christians in this dispensation as was to the Infants of Jews in the former Christ in this dispensation became one of them the Infants of Jews had the promise and of Christians the performance Christ on earth commanded the Infants of such as honoured him to be brought to him and with anger rebuked his Disciples for despising the day of those small things he imbraced them blessed them Mark 10 14 16 affirmed that his kingdome was of them numbred them with beleevers Mat. 18 and taught that his Angels were their Guardians and admonished those of riper years to be like them in innocencie humilitie Ephes 6.4 c. commanded by his Apostles that they should be brought up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord c. Therefore it is not to be beleeved that the promise of propriety in God is rent away from the Infants of visible professors and that they are without God Eph. 2.12 and without hope in this dispensation as the children of Infidels are Argum. 3. The Infants of Christians are as capable of the promise of propriety in God as the Infants of the Jews were
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
thing it is a delivering up to Satan and a putting the party visibly in his Kingdom in which all visibly are that have not a visible standing in the Church Argum. 4 IV. By Baptism Infants of Christians are solemnly initiated into Christs death Rom. 6.3 for Baptism is a visible participation of it by way of initiation Per modum initiationis Ames Medul p. 188 as eating things offered to Idols is fellowship with devils 1 Cor. 10. By it the unspeakable benefit of Christs death is absolutely sealed to as many as stand to the agreement Therefore the profit of it is great to such Infants Argum. 5 V. Baptism is a strong ingagement to repentance from dead works to serve the living God Matth. 3.11 It is called Baptism unto repentance Eo ad serium dei colendi studium non mediocriter stimulamur Gal. 5.3 Calv. as Circumcision was in the time of it an ingagement to serve the Lord according to the tenor of that Administration Therefore the profit of it is great Isai 49.1 5. Psal 58.3 for God hath formed us to serve him from the womb and we are apt to go astray from the womb Argum. 6 VI. Baptism is an ordinary means of the salvation of those of whom the Kingdom of God is and necessary as a means 1 Pet. 3.21 Baptismus est necessarius ad salutem non tantum ut res praecepta sed etiam ut salutis medium ordinarium Ames Bellar. enervat Therefore the profit of Baptism is great to the Infants of Christians the Kingdom of God being of such Objection Baptism is a means of the salvation only of those that have Faith and the answer of a good Conscience and not of Infants Answer 1. Faith and the answer of a good Conscience are necessary only in those of riper years that Baptism may be effectual to them for Salvation and not in such Infants for these are not necessary in them to salvation 2. Baptism is compared to the Ark and is said to save as the Ark saved from the flood of waters in which some had a temporal deliverance which was a type of 1 Pet. 3 21. and help to eternal salvation which yet after perished Object 2 It is uncertain whether any individual Infant shall receive any profit by Baptism Answer 1. It is certain Baptism is as profitable to Infants of Christians as Circumcision was to Infants of Gods people in the time of it and that every such Infant baptized is solemnly dedicated to the Lord initiated into the Church and into Christs death and made a debtor to serve the Lord in righteousness and holiness all the days of his life and is by it set upon the advantage ground for salvation 2. There is not to us any infallible certainty that Baptism administred to any actual professor shall be effectual to him to salvation John Baptist and the Apostles could not say of any individual this man shall be baptized with the holy Ghost and be saved They baptized Individuals as David prayed for his sick Child namely 2 Sam. 22.12 because he did not know but the Lord might hear him he said who can tell but the Lord may be gracious unto me that the Child may live and there is ground of hope of the effectualness of Baptism in the Infants of Christians as well as in actual Professors because God hath promised to be a God of the seed of his people and to circumcise their hearts and hath commanded them to hang upon him their issue and their off-spring Isai 22.24 and required them to be accounted a seed that he hath blessed Isai 61.8 9. and hath declared that the Kingdom of God is of them c. ARGUMENT VI. The Promise was sealed by the initial Sacrament aforetime to Infants of visible Professors seeking it for â—hâ—m both Iews and of the Gentiles therefore it may be sealed to the Infants of Christians by the initial Sacrament THE Consequence I prove by six Arguments Argum. 1 I. The principal promise sealed aforetime which was the promise of propriety in God is not made voyd For 1. It was not a temporary promise Gen. 17.7 Heb. 8 7. Eph. 2.14 for that promise was faultless and it was no part of the partition wall broken down by Christ 2. Infants of Christians are as faultless as the infants of Gods people in the former administration undeniably included in it Therefore it may be sealed to the infants of Christians by the initial Sacrament in this dispensation Argum. 2 II. Sealing that promise by an initial Sacrament to infants of Gods people which was the substance of Circumcision and a distinct thing from it did not of right cease with the Jewish Church-State For it was not peculiar to that Church as a national Church For 1. That promise was sealed to infants by the initial Sacrament long before the existence of a national Church Gen. 17. and to infants of strangers which were not of that Nation 2. Sealing the promise by an initial Sacrament is principally in reference to the Catholick Church for shews of grace are sufficient to it Acts 8.36 37 c. 10.47 though the parties have not joyned themselves to any particular Church and one that cannot be rightly iudged to be of the Catholick Church cannot have the promise rightly sealed to him by an initial Sacrament though he be a Member of a particular Church Argum. 3 III. Sealing the promise by the initial Sacrament in this dispensation is upon such terms as the sealing of it was in the former Faith and repentance were no less required in the former then in the present dispensation Fides et resipiscentia non magis am constituunt foedus dei quà m tempore Abrahami Ames The seal is changed but not the Faith Sacramenta sunt mutata non fides August God indented with Abraham to walk before him and to be perfect Gen 17.2 before sealing the promise to him by the initial Sacrament Rom. 4.11 and that Sacrament was called the seal of the righteousness of Faith yea a greater measure of Faith might seem necessary aforetime Heb. 11.13 Rom. 13.11 for they were to behold things afar off which to us are nearer and there was a vayl of Ceremonies upon things which are to us open and naked Therefore the promise may be sealed to Infants of Christians in this dispensation by the initial Sacrament Argum. 4 IIII. Infants of Christians are as capable of the promise and sealing of it by the initial Sacrament as the Infants of Gods people were aforetime for there is not in them a greater absence of Faith Knowledg c. neither is there less innocency and ability to bear it Infants of Christians are now as able to indure sprinkling or washing with water as Infants of Gods people aforetime the cuting with the knife Therefore the promise may be sealed to the Infants of Christians by the initial Sacrament Argum. 5 V.
should be discipled before baptism Sensus est qui adult â sunt aetate ante sunt instituendi quà m baptizandi non si se rumpant aliud ex hoc loco ostendent Calv. And that the Apostles repulsed Christians desiring sealing the promise by the initial Sacrament to their Infants Acts 2.29 1 Cor. 7.14 doth not appear but the contrary is rather to be beleeved for they judged children of Christians in the promise and foederally holy as well as their parents and baptized Christians and all theirs where it was desired of which sufficient instances as witnesses are left us upon record Therefore I conclude that the promise of propriety in God being sealed to Infants of Gods people in the former dispensation by the initial Sacrament thereof It may be sealed to Infants of Christians in this dispensation by the initial seal of it Objection 1 The Covenant sealed aforetime to Infants of Gods people by an initial Sacrament was much differing from that whereof Baptism is the initial Sacrament for that was not purely Evangelical but a mixt Gospel-Covenant consisting partly of Evangelical promises appertaining to Beleevers as such and partly of domestick and civil promises both which were sealed by the initial Sacrament of that time which for that cause might be administred to some which could not be rightly juâ—ged Beleevers But the Covenant whereof Baptism is the initial Sacrament is purely Evangelical consisting of promises belonging only to Beleevers as such Answer 1. Spiritual and temporal promises may be said to make a mixt Covenant but not a mixt Evangelical Covenant for a mixt gospel-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
THE Divine Warrant OF JNFANT-BAPTISM OR VI. ARGUMENTS FOR Baptism of Jnfants of Christians VIZ. I. Infants of Christians are rightly judged in the Promise of Propriety in God p. 1. II. Infants of Christians are rightly judged to be of the Church p. 20. III. Infants of Christians are rightly judged meet for Baptisme p. 25 IV. The sealing of the Promise to Infants of visible professors hath been the practise of the Universal Church ever since God added seals to the Covenant p. 30 V. The profit of Baptism is great to the Infants of Christians p. 36 VI. The Promise was sealed by the initiall Sacrament aforetime to Infants of Visible Professors both Jews and of the Gentiles p 38 By JOHN CHURCH M. A. Minister of Seachurch in the County of Essex Repent and be Baptized every one of you in the Name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins For the promise is to you and to your CHILDREN and to all that are a far off even as many as the Lord our God shal call Act. 2.38.39 LONDON Printed by John Macock for George Calvert and are to be sold at his shop at the sign of the Half Moon in Watling street neer Austins gate MDCXLVIII To the sober-minded Reader HAving read this short Treatise we find the Divine Warrant of that a Quod autem apud simplicem vulgum disseminant longam annorum sertem post Christi resurrectionem pâ—aeteriisse quibus incognitus erat paeâ—oâ—aptismus in eo foedissime mentiunâ—ur Siquidem nullus est Scriptor tam vetustus qui non ejus originem ad Apostolorum seculum pro certo referat Calv. Inst l. 4 c. 16. sect 8. ancient Ordinance of Christ viz. Infant-Baptism so clearly compendiously and solidly proved therein not by Ecclesiastical Tradition b Anabaptistas Duraee Scripturarum armis opprimimus quibus solis haeretici superantur Si enim nulla nobis arma suppeterent nisi haec viz. Ecclesiae Traditiones quae tu commemoras nae Anabaptistae nostrum impetum non valde reformidarent Whitak contra Duâ—ae l 8. sect 80. p 197. in fol. but by Scripture-demonstration that we do heartily commend it to thy serious perusal wherein thou mayst discern that Infants of Christian Parents are true Denizons of the visible Church and Kingdom of God having just right to and interest in Gods Magna Charta or Covenant of Grace though some enemies to them and to the Truth have of late but in vain attempted to voyd and overthrow their Title Many learned Tractates of this subject have been already published if their prolixity or polemical contendings for this truth against Anabaptistical or Catabaptistical fancies deter or discourage thee from reading them yet this invites thee being Dogmatical rather then Polemical and not tedious but compendious Here thou hast as they say an Iliad in a nut-shel much in a little the strength of former Writers Arguments for the c Legentibus brevitas ejusmodi plurimum pâ—otest dum non intellectum legentis sensum liber longior spargit sed subtiliori compendio id quod legitur tenax memoria custodit D. Cypr. Praefat. in Testam ad Quirinum help of memory extracted and contracted with select additional notions of the Authors inserted All are thine that the Truth of Christ may abide in thee FRAN. ROBERTS Pastor of the Church at Augustines Lond. JOHN GEREE Minister at Faith's To the right Honorable and most noble Lord Robert Earl of Warwick Lord Rich Baron of Leeze c. Right Honorable IT was hoped not long since that the time was come in which God would gloriously exalt his Truth and make Ierusalem a praise in the earth for God seemed to appear more for us then ever in our or our forefathers days In assembling so many Worthies in Parliament in calling an Assembly of so able and worthy Divines in bringing the Nation into the bond of a Covenant to root out Popery Prelacy Errors Heresies Schism and all that is contrary to sound doctrine and in subduing the publike enemies of Truth and Peace But our iniquities have separated between God and us and our sins have hid away his face from us We looked for light and behold darkness God hath let loose men of corrupt minds reprobate concerning the faith who resist the trurh and bring in damnable Heresies and many follow their pernicious ways The abounding of Errors and in particular the spreading of Anabaptism calling all to contend for the faith hath compelled me contrary to my intentions to make publike this defence of * Tanto magis pro infantibus loqui debemus quanto minus ipsi per se loqui possunt August Poedo baptism which is the fruit of some hours spared from my other studies I am bold Right Honorable humbly to dedicate these my first fruits to your honor and with all observancy to subject them to your judicious censure That which hath made me thus presuming is your singular goodness and unparalleld humility which makes you worthily had in honor of all Artaxerxes the Persian Monarch received with a chearful countenance a present of water of a poor labourer when he had no need of it accounting it the part of a truly Noble and generous spirit to take in good part smal presents offered with an hearty affection as wel as to give great things liberally This smal present most Noble Lord is presented with an intire affection to one as truly Noble and generous as Artaxerxes Your unfeigned love to the truth manifested by your constant cleaving to it even in this hour of temptation which is come upon us in which many are turned aside after Satan Your care to place able and faithful Pastors over people where you have opportunity to do God this service and casting honor and respect upon such in these times in which they are cast down and filled with contempt Your great fidelity to your Country and your many heroick vertues shining in you Make it our duty who are Ministers of the Gospel to celebrate your due praises for the honor of your noble deservings and the incouragement of others to walk in your pious steps That your honor may be preserved in safety in these sad divisions of the Kingdom receive a daily increase of honor and continue faithful to the death that you may receive the crown of life shall be the prayer until death of him who is your Honors Humble and Devoted Servant Iosiah Church VI ARGUMENTS FOR THE BAPTIZING OF THE Infants of Christians ARGUMENT I. The Infants of Christians are rightly iudged in the promise of propriety in God therefore they may be baptized THE Antecedent I prove by ten Arguments Argum. 1 I. The Infants of the Jews so long as they continued visible professors were rightly judged to be in the Promise of propriety in God for it was sealed to them by the initiall Sacrament Gen. 17.7 12 no lesse then to actuall professors Therefore the Infants of Christians are rightly
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