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
that the promise of grace appertains to them Retinemus infantium baptismum quia certissimum est promissionem gratiae ad eos pertinere Sax. Confess The Helvetian Church condemns Anabaptists for denying baptism to such infants because by the doctrine of the Gospel such are in the promise Helvet Confess To these many more instances might be added which being consonant to the Scripture and right reason soundly conclude Objection 1 The judgment of charity that any are in the prom se is not a sufficient reason for administring baptism to them there must be shews of grace for more certainty Answer Shews of grace and actual profession are a reason for baptizing only as they are a ground for the judgment of charity that the parties to be baptized are in the promise for else if the Devil should take an humane shape and make a verbal profession though he were known to be the Devil he must be baptized 2. The judgment of charity was the rule by which Iohn Baptist and the Apostles walked in baptizing they had no infallible knowledg of the individuals for they baptized Hypocrites not a few Objection 2 A right to Evangelical promises is not the adaequate reason of baptism for the Iews were in the promise Acts 2.38.39 yet not baptized without praeceding repentance Answer A visible right to the promise either by shews of grace as in those of riper years or by the naming a species in the promise without restriction of which the parties to be baptized are individuals as the infants of visible professors are is a sufficient reason for baptism For 1. The most learned and rational of the Anabaptists confess that if it could appear to them that an infant is in the Covenant they would not doubt of the baptism of it 2. Those Iews rejecting and crucifying Christ and atheistically mocking at Gospel-truths ceased to have a visible right to the promise until they regained it by repentance Also they were a mixt company to whom the Apostles spake and not all Iews Acts 2.8 11 for they were of divers languages Inter illa millia hominum qui baptizabantur multi eo tempore confluxere ex omni natione Ames To which may be added they were adulti 3. It is most probable that repentance was in them only in fieri before their baptism and that the Apostles accepted of probabilities of it and baptized them as Iohn is said to baptize some coming to him unto repentance Matth. 3.11 It may be judged impossible that repentance visible by fruits was in all of them before baptism there being so little space to manifest it for immediatly after the exhortation to repentance they were baptized there could not be time to question every one of them apart whether they repented for the day was but about twelve hours Acts 2.15 and three hours of it were past before the Apostles began the Sermon by which they were pricked in their hearts and that Sermon consisting o◠so many weighty points must necessarily belong also they spake many words after it was ended yet three thousand were added to the Church Acts 2.40 by baptism that day Therefore this so much pleaded against baptism of infants of Christians argues more strongly for it These being grievous Apostates damnable rejectors of Christ crucifiers of him and Atheistical mockers at the Gospel preached miraculously confirmed with extraordinary gifts were as it is most like baptized upon probability of repentance Therefore infants of Christians guilty of no actual sin may be baptized unto repentance c. Si gravissimis delictoribus in deum multum antè peccantibus cū postea crediderint remissio peccatorū datur a baptismo atque a gratia nemo prohibetur quantò magis prohiberi non debet infans qui recens natus nihil peccavit nisi quòd secundū Adam Carnaliter natus contagiū mortis antiqua primâ nativitate contraxit Cypr. Ep. ad Fidum 4. Being in the promise is the only reason mentioned by the Apostles for baptism If any disable the Reason he imputes not a little weakness to the Apostles and their Converts for baptism being a Sacrament of a new administration of the Covenant newly begun and as it is most like wholly unknown to many of them until then many of them being strangers living in remote parts It was wisdom in the Apostles to give and in them to have a satisfactory Reason for receiving it ARGUMENT II. Infants of Christians are rightly iudged to be of the Church with Christians of riper years therefore they may be baptized Argum. 1 I. THE Antecedent I prove by ten Arguments I. Infants of Christians are rightly judged in the promise of propriety in God therefore they are rightly judged to be of the Church Ephes 2.12 for they only are aliens from the Common-weal of Israel which are strangers from the Covenant Argum. 2 II. Infants of Christians are rightly called the Lords Children for his manner hath been to call the children of his people his Children In the old world some were called the Sons of God Gen. 6.2 3 as children of his people and the infants of Israelites were called by him his Children born to him Ezek. 16.20 21 Mal. 2 14 15 Psalm 22.30 Jer 30.20 Psal 11.6 16 and their lawful seed a seed of God And the Jews were accounted to him great and small in every age until the breaking off and the same was prophesied of the Gentiles when they should be converted and of the Jews when they should be graffed in again and the Psalmist calls himself the Lords servant as he was the son of his hand-maid Therefore such infants are rightly judged to be of the Church which is the House of God Argum. 3 III. The Apostle denominates the children of Christians holy 1 Cor 7.14 Isaiah 4.3 Therefore they are rightly judged to be of the Church which consists of such as are rightly denominated holy to which may be added they are denominated holy because they appertain to the Church Quia ad Ecclesiam pertinent hoc nomine Apostolus eos sanctos praedicat Pet. Martyr Argum. 4 IIII. The Infants of visible professors aforetime were rightly judged to be of the Church with their Parents for they were initiated into it by circumcision Rom. 3.30 Rom. 15.8 which was the Sacrament of initiation for that time for which cause that Church was called the Circumcision Therefore the Infants of Christians are rightly judged to be of the Church for they appertain to it as such infants did to the Church Si rogaveris quomodo silii Christianorum ad Ecclesiam pertineant respondebimus non aliter quam filil hebraeorum Pet. Mart. These may be as rightly judged to be of the Church as Infants of visible professors of Jews and Gentiles were aforetime for faith was then no less required to Communion with the Church then now Rom. 4.11 Circumcision the Sacrament of initiation was called
in the 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