Infant Baptism Gods Ordinance, Chapter 3
CHAP. III. Containing the Second Argument for Infant Baptiſm.
IF the Infants of believing Parents ought to be received and admitted viſible Church-members, then ſuch Infants ought to be baptized; but the Infants of believing Parents ought to be received and admitted viſible Church-members, therefore they ought to be baptized.
Now that ſuch Infants ought to be received into the viſible Church as viſible Church-members, I prove by theſe Arguments.
Argument 1. If by the merciful Gift and Appointment of God, not yet repealed, ſome Infants were once to be admitted Members of the viſible Church by vertue of the Covenant of Grace; then 'tis certain ſome Infants are ſtill to be ſo admitted: but the former is true, therefore the latter.
Two things muſt here be done to ſhew,
1. That ſome Infants were once admitted Members of the viſible Church.
2. That this Church-memberſhip was never repealed.
1. Some Infants were once ſo admitted by vertue of the Covenant of Grace. If any deny this, thus it is proved.
1. Infants were part of them that entered into covenant with the Lord God, and into his Oath, that he might take them to be a peculiar People to himſelf; Deut 29.10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15. Ye ſtand this day all of you before the Lord your God; your captains of your tribes, your elders with your officers, with all the men of Iſrael. 11. Your little ones, your wives, &c. 12. That thou ſhouldeſt enter into covenant with the Lord thy God, and into his oath which the Lord thy God maketh with thee this day. 13. That he eſtabliſh thee to day for a people unto himſelf; and that be may be unto thee a God, as he hath ſaid unto thee; and as he hath ſworn unto thy fathers, to Abraham, to Iſaac, and to Jacob. 14. Neither with you only do I make this covenant, and this oath; but v. 15. with him that ſtandeth here with us this day before the Lord your God; but with him that is not here with us this day.
This was not a new Covenant, but a renewing the Covenant made with Abraham, as v. 13. Into this Covenant their little ones preſent were taken, and their little ones yet unborn.
2. Infants were engaged to God by the Seal of the Covenant, which was Circumciſion, Gen. 17.10. Circumciſion was not a meer politick Rite, as ſome Frantick Anabaptiſts have dreamed; but a Seal of the Covenant of Grace, Rom. 4.11. He received the Sign of Circumciſion as a Seal of the Righteouſneſs of Faith: That is, Circumciſion was 1. a Sign; of what? of the Circumciſion of the heart by the Spirit of Chriſt; of the mortifying and killing the old man; of the ſad effects of Sin, both original and actual; and the way of recovery by Jeſus Chriſt. 2. It's a Seal of the Righteouſneſs of Faith; that is, of the Righteouſneſs of Chriſt imputed to the Believer, and received by faith; this is a Periphraſis of the Covenant of Grace, wherein righteouſneſs is promiſed, and made over to us in a way of believing.
3. Infants were baptized to Moſes in the Cloud, and in the Sea, 1 Cor. 10.1, 2, 3. And Stephen calls that Aſſembly, whereof they were Members, the Church in the Wilderneſs.
From hence it is evident beyond rational contradiction, that Infants were ſometimes taken into the viſible Church, as viſible Church-members, by vertue of the Covenant of Grace.
Secondly, That this Infant Church-memberſhip was never repealed.
For if Infant Church-memberſhip be repealed, then that repeal muſt be either in Mercy or Judgment; but it was in neither, therefore it was never repealed.
1. Infant Church-memberſhip was never repealed in Judgment; for God never revokes his Covenant to any People, till firſt that People break covenant with him, which Infants never did; therefore being once taken into covenant, 'tis certain God did never caſt them out.
Now it was a mercy to have Infants taken into covenant, Deut. 29.10, 11, 12. therefore if this Privilege be revok'd, it muſt be in Judgment; for as it is a great Mercy to be in the viſible Church, ſo 'tis a ſore Judgment to be out of it, to be caſt out of covenant.
Now if Infant Church-memberſhip be repeal'd, then the Infants of Believers under the Goſpel are in a much worſe condition than before Chriſt's Incarnation; certainly Chriſt did not come to make our Children miſerable, or to put them into a worſe condition than they were in before; this would make Chriſt a Deſtroyer, who is the only Saviour.
But certainly the Church is now in a much better condition, and her Privileges more ample and larger than they were before; ſhe hath loſt none of her Privileges, but gained many more, Heb. 8.6. A more excellent miniſtry, better promiſes, Rom. 5.15, 16, 17. 'Tis certain Infants are not thrown out of covenant, for that would much darken the Grace of God received in the Goſpel.
2. Nor is Infant Church-memberſhip repeal'd in Mercy; for it can be no Mercy to take away a Mercy, unleſs it means to give a greater Mercy in the room of it. Now let the Anabaptiſts ſhew what greater Mercy God hath given in the room of Infant Church-memberſhip; there is none: Therefore it was never repealed.
2. If that Covenant, by vertue whereof Infants were received into the viſible Church, was the Covenant of Grace, then 'tis certain it was never repeal'd.
But that Covenant, by vertue whereof they were taken in, was the Covenant of Grace, therefore it was never repealed. But that Covenant, by vertue whereof they were taken into the viſible Church, was the Covenant of Grace, as is moſt evident, Deut. 29.10, 11, 12. And ſo the Covenant made with Abraham, whereof Circumciſion was a Seal, Gen. 17.7, 10. as the Apoſtle clearly proves, Rom. 4.11. Now the Covenant of Grace is an everlaſting Covenant, 2 Sam. 23.5. never was, nor ever will be repeal'd.
Infant Church-memberſhip was no Ceremony, neither was it any part of the Ceremonial Law; if any ſay it was, let them ſhew what it typified under the Goſpel.
If it were a Ceremony, then the Materials of the Church would be a Ceremony, and ſo the Church it ſelf, which would be very abſurb to affirm.
Neither was it part of the Moral Law, the Covenant of Works, whatever pains ſome of the oppoſite Perſuaſion have taken to prove it; for the Covenant of Works knows no Mercy; neither was it any part of the Judicial Law, for Church-memberſhip was not a piece of meer Policy; the Church is one thing, and the Commonwealth another.
3. If there be no mention or record of the Repeal of Infant Church-memberſhip in any part of the New Teſtament, then it is moſt certain it was never repealed. But there is no record of any ſuch Repeal in any part of the New Teſtament, therefore it was never repealed; if any ſay it was, let them ſhew where that Repeal is recorded. 'Tis true Circumciſion is ceaſed, becauſe it was a Ceremonial Type; but Infant Church-memberſhip being no Type or Ceremony, is not ceaſed.
Argument 2. If an Infant was Head of the viſible Church, then an Infant may be a Member of the viſible Church. But an Infant was Head of the viſible Church; for who will deny, but that Jeſus Chriſt was Head of the viſible Church in his infancy? what honour was done to Chriſt in his infancy both by Angels and men? Hence it appears,
1. That the Nonage of Infants doth not make them uncapable of being Church-members, ſuppoſing God's will.
2. It ſhews, that it is the will of God that it ſhould be ſo; becauſe Chriſt paſſed through each Age to ſanctify it to us. Thus Irenaeus, who lived about an hundred and fifty years after Chriſt, theſe are his words; Ideo per omnem venit etatem, & infantibus Infans factus, &c. Therefore Chriſt paſſed through every Age; for Infants he was made an Infant, ſanctifying Infants; in little Children, being a little Child, ſanctifying them that have that very Age; here's clear proof from Antiquity of Infant Church-memberſhip.
Argument 3. If Infants are federally holy, then they have a right to viſible Church-memberſhip; but Infants are federally holy, 1 Cor. 7.14. as we have before ſhewed, and all ſound Interpreters tell us.
Argument 4. If Infants belong to the Kingdom of Heaven, then they belong to, and are Members of the viſible Church; but Infants do belong to the Kingdom of Heaven, therefore they belong to the viſible Church. Now ſome Infants do belong to the Kingdom of Heaven, Matth. 19.14. Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not, for of ſuch is the kingdom of heaven. By the Kingdom of Heaven here, muſt needs be meant, either the Kingdom of Grace, that is, the Goſpel-Church here; and then the meaning is, That the Goſpel Church, which is Chriſt's Kingdom on Earth, is made up of Infants, as well as adult perſons; and this is moſt likely to be the meaning: And ſo the thing in queſtion is clearly proved. Or elſe by the Kingdom of Heaven muſt be meant the Kingdom of Glory: That is, Children ſhall go to Heaven as well as grown Perſons. If ſo, ſtill the conſequence is clear; if Infants are Members of the inviſible Church, then have they an undoubted right to be Members of the viſible Church.
I grant a Perſon may be a Member of the inviſible Church, and yet no Member of the Viſible: Yet whoever is a Member of the inviſible Church, hath a right to viſible Church-memberſhip.
Argument 5. If Infants are to be received in Chriſt's name, then they do undoubtedly belong to Chriſt's Church: But we are commanded to receive Infants in Chriſt's name, Mark 9.36, 37. —He that receiveth one ſuch child in my name, receiveth me, &c. Doth Chriſt take them into his Arms, and would he have them caſt out of his Church? Are we to receive them in Chriſt's name, and do they not belong to Chriſt, nor to his Church? See Mark 10.13, 14, 15. Did Chriſt ſay all this to deceive us? certainly they are viſible Members of the viſible Church.
Now if this be ſo, that ſome Infants were ſometimes admitted by God's own appointment, and that by vertue of the Covenant of Grace, viſible Church-members;
Then undoubtedly they ought to be baptized; for Baptiſm is the only Rite that Jeſus Chriſt, who is Head of the Church, hath appointed for the admitting Members into his Church, Matth. 28.18, 19. All that are, or will be Chriſt's Diſciples, muſt be baptized in his name; if any know any other, let them ſhew it.
Now theſe two Arguments are abundantly ſufficient to prove the Infants right to Baptiſm, and it is needleſs to name any other: But yet becauſe ſome think a thing never proved, unleſs much be ſaid, and many Arguments be brought; I ſhall therefore add ſome other Arguments; though I ſhall not dwell, nor enlarge on them, becauſe the right underſtanding of theſe already mentioned, will give light to what remains.