Answer to Two Questions Regarding Infant Baptism, Answer 1

Answer to Two Questions Regarding Infant Baptism · Answer 1

p. 1The Anſwer to the firſt Queſtion.

AS for the firſt, I anſwer affirmatively: There is ſufficient Ground in that Scripture to warrant the conſcience of a Chriſtian to preſent his Infants to the Sacrament of Baptiſm, with an expectation of Benefit that may accrew unto them by it: wherein I obſerve two particulars. 1. Whether the Parent ſo doing may be excuſed from ſinning through an unwarrantable uſe and Application of Gods Ordinance? 2. Whether he may in the uſe thereof expect any Benefit accrewing to the Infant? Theſe two are different in their own Nature, and require either of them ſeverall Grounds of Satisfaction. For tho, if it be ſinfull for the Parent to bring his Infants to Baptiſm, he can expect no good for them by it: In as much as no man may expect good to come from what is evill: yet tho it be not ſinfull in the Parent, it will not follow that Good may be expected by it: But I hold the Affirmative part of Both to be the Truth of God.

The firſt Argument.

This I build upon the words of our bleſſed Saviour in Mat. 19.14. Suffer little children, and forbid them not to come unto me — Children. The children p. 2here m…ntioned were Infants, ſuch as men do hold in their arms: The text ſaith foreign, that He took them up in his arms, &c. Where we ſee that our Saviour was highly diſpleaſed with his Diſciples, who had rebuked the Parents for bringing their children to Chriſt. Hence I argue Chriſts juſtification of what is done doth preſuppoſe the lawfulneſſe of the thing. It was (therfore) lawfull for the Parents to bring their children to Chriſt to receiv his Bleſſing if lawfull for them, ſo alſo for others, for all. Conſequently even for us there is a ſufficient warrant to preſent our Infants to Chriſt, that they may receiv his bleſſing. You will reply: That, tho it be lawfull to preſent Infants to Chriſt to receiv his bleſſing, yet not (therfore) lawfull to preſent them to Baptiſm: I admit your reply but rejoin thus. If lawfull to preſent them to Chriſt for his bleſſing: Then lawfull to preſent them to him in his Ordinances in which that bleſſing is to be expected. This I ſuppoſe will ſtand good: That whoſoever might be welcom to Chriſt in his perſon, were he here upon earth may be admitted to his Ordinances in which he is preſent by the power of his Spirit. For who doubteth but that he hath ſet up his Ordinances in the Church for this end; that in them he might meet thoſe of his who deſire to draw neer unto Him: and by theſe Ordinances as by a Mean appointed for that end convey to them that Bleſſing and Grace, which were he preſent with us in the fleſh, he would beſtow upon them. This being laid down for a Ground: I build upon it thus: but ther is none other of Chriſts Ordinances, in which, and by which a Chriſtian can preſent his Infants to Chriſt, with expectation of his Bleſſing excepting this of Baptiſm: Conſequently, either by Baptiſm they may be preſented to Chriſt for his bleſſing, or not at all: If not at all: Either Chriſts preſence in his Ordinances is not equivalent to his Corporall preſence, or ſome prohibition hath in a ſpeciall maner put in a Barr to keep them off from his Ordinances which did not keep them of from him when here upon earth: If any ſuch there be, let it be named: if not: Then is ther a ſufficient ground to warrant the Parents bringing their children to Chriſt in his Ordinances, and particularly in Baptiſm, that ther-in they may expect the Benefit of Chriſts Benediction.

I know what hath been objected: viz. That ther is a Barr to hinder Infants implyed in theſ texts: Math. 28.19. Mar. 16.16. Act. 8.36. from whence this Argument is framed: without Faith none may be baptiſed: Infants want Faith, and (therfore) They may not be baptiſed: And then, To what purpoſe ſhould they be preſented to that Sacrament. To which I anſwer: That granting the Aſſumption to be true, (tho if a man deny it as ſome do, Vide Greg. Decretal lib. 3. cap. 3. De Baptiſmo & ejus effectu, I ſee not how it can be proved): But I ſay, let it be granted that Infants have not Faith: The Propoſition is utterly falſ: viz. That without Faith none may be baptiſed: For neither do the texts prove it; and beſides, ther is good reaſon againſt it.

1. The texts prove it not: 1. Not Mat. 28.19. This indeed ſheweth what the p. 3Miniſtery muſt do: Not what the People: The Miniſtery, muſt teach all Nations; But defineth nothing, whether they may not be baptiſed before they have learned, or before they do beleev: much leſs doth it ſay, None but beleevers may be baptized. 2. Nor Mar. 16. This text ſheweth, what is the iſſue of Beleeving, and b…ing Baptiſed, viz. That ſuch ſhall be ſaved: and contrarily, He that beleeveth not ſhall be damned: But ſaith not, That none may be baptiſed who beleeveth not. Ob. But the Order of the Words doth inferr it. Beleeving ſet before Baptiſing: Sol. I reply: That Doctrines collected from the order of words are not alway ſound, nor ſuch Arguments concluſive: Ex. gr. Mat. 3.6. they were baptiſed, confeſſing their ſinns. And Joh. 3.5. Born again of water, and of the Spirit: Here is Baptiſed before Confeſſing: and Water before Spirit: yet doubtleſs they did confeſs their ſins before they were baptiſed: And who knoweth not, that the Spirit doth ſometime prevent the Water of Baptiſm. 3. Nor yet Act. 8.36. This indeed proveth the affirmative, viz. That He who beleeveth may be b…ptiſed. But from thence to conclude the Negative, That He who beleeveth not, may not be baptiſed, is againſt all Rules of reaſoning: which will yet more plainly appear by this: Philip ſaith, If thou believe with thy whole heart, thou maiſt; Will any man thence conclude, That whoſo beleeveth not with his whole heart, may not be baptiſed? And ſo take liberty to barre all ſuch as preſenting themſelves, and profeſſing their faith, may yet perhaps juſtly be ſuſpected of Fiction and Diſſimulation? You ſee then, the texts do not prove the Propoſition. Nay, ſuppoſe that not by inference, but in direct terms, ſome of theſe texts ſhould ſay, He that beleeveth not, ſhall not be baptiſed: ought we not to underſtand it as true only in thoſe perſons of whom the text ſpeaketh? viz. Of them that have been taught, and yet do frowardly refuſe, and profeſs a diſlike and misbeleef of what hath been taught them? And ſo it will be too weak an Argument, to prove that univerſall Propoſition, and much leſs to draw on the deſired concluſion, Without faith none may be baptiſed, None, Ergo, Not Infants: ex. gr. That text of Mark ſaith: He that beleeveth not ſhall be damned, q. d. Without Faith none ſhall be ſaved: Will any man underſtand this in that Univerſality as to include Infants? Will he aſſume Infants beleeve not, have no faith. (therfore) They ſhall not be ſaved? God forbid: The Propoſition hath it's latitude of Truth, beyond which it may not be extended. So then, theſe texts do ſhew what is required of the Apoſtles and their ſucceſſors: What of the Nations and Heads of the Families in the Nations, perſons that are Sui juris, not under the command of another: But determineth nothing of inferiours, and much leſs concludeth againſt Infants Baptiſm.

2. Good reaſon againſt it. For why? Firſt, a profeſſion of Faith is enough to entitle men to Baptiſm: Tho there be no ſoundneſs and ſincerity in the heart at all: Witneſs the admiſſion of Simon Magus. True indeed, except there be p. 4ſoundnes in the heart, God may juſtly deny man the Benefit which otherwiſe he might expect. But, if he make profeſsion to b…leeve in Chriſt, who ſhall dare to d…ny him the Sacrament. 2. That which is preſuppoſed to aſſert the neceſsitie of Fait…: (underſtanding it of the grace it ſelf, is doubtful, viz. That without Faith no man hath wher…with-all to r…ceiv the Benefit of Baptiſm. This I ſay may well be doubted, if not denyed: eſpecially if we intend to comprehend Infants and little child…en: They have a paſſive capacity, which is enough to receive that Gr…ce and Benefit which we conceiv is reached forth to them in that Sacrament: And what is that? Not ſ ch a fulneſs of Grace, or the Habits ther-of, as may be expected by them who have formerly been prepared by the Diſcipline and information of the Word: But rather initiall and ſeminall Grace, that ſeed of God, wher-of the Scripture ſpeaketh, Pet. 1.23. 1 Joh. 3.9. The which doth not preſuppoſe Grace in the Heart, but is it ſelf the ſeed and root of Faith, and all other actuall Graces whatſoever. To men and women converted by the Word, and then coming to Baptiſm, viz. To Criſpus, Cornelius, Lydia &c. we beleev that Baptiſm doth (as to Abraham Circumciſion did) convey a ſuper-addition of further Grace to what they had formerly received in and by the Word: But to their children, Baptiſm conveyeth (as did Circumciſion to Jſaac) the beginning and firſt ſeeds of Grace; And conſequently calleth for no previous diſpoſitions and preparations in the Recipient: only a paſſive capacity not croſs-barred with obſtinacy and infidelity. It is the property of preventing Grace, to be the firſt mover in the Heart, and to make way for it's own Reception: Is this acknowledged to be done in the miniſtry of the Word upon the Parents (as it is ſaid of Cornelius and Lydia) and ſhall it ſeem unreaſonable to grant it to be done by this firſt Sacrament in their children? For why? Did we conceiv the Spirit (who is the chief Agent and efficient working in and by the miniſtry of the Word and Sacraments, and with-out whoſe operation and aſſiſtance, they are but as empty veſſ…ls and edgleſs tools) the Spirit I ſay did we conceiv him working only as a morall Agent, to ſtand at the door and knock, as only ready and willing to enter if the door be opened; to proffer Grace, if man will receiv it; Then were it reaſon indeed to require Faith in Children no leſs than in their Parents: But it is not ſo: We conceiv him in the Baptiſing of Infants working as a Naturall or rather as a ſuper-naturall Agent, viz. opening the door and entring, putting Grace in the Heart, and working it in the Will, conferring upon them ſuch a Grace as for the preſent they are capable of, viz. initiall, and ſeminall, as before was ſaid.

Add this alſo: That in the Baptiſing of Infants, ther is not Baptiſm altogether without Faith. Ther is preſuppoſed the Faith of the Parent; And this ſufficeth to qualify the Infant for Baptiſm, yea, for the Grace and Benefit of that Sacrament. What is the Benefit of Baptiſm? Is it not Remiſsion of ſin and ſpirituall p. 5Regeneration? To the obtaining of which, why may not the Faith of the Parent ſuffice? In the child, as yet corruption of Nature which he brought into the world is not active: it hath produced neither thoughts, words, nor deeds againſt the law: and therfore calleth for no perſonall Act of Grace to remove the Guilt ther-of. Guilty he is and polluted, but guilty only by i…putation, and polluted, not by any conſent of his own, but by the act of another, viz. of his Parents**Quantò magis prohiberi non d…het infàns, qui recens natus nihil peccavit, niſi quòd ſ… cundum Adam carnaliter natus: qui adr…m…ſſam peccatorum accipiendam hoc ipſo ſaciliis, acced t, quòd illi remittuntur non propria, ſid aliena peccata. Cyprian. Epla. 59.: Is it any wonder that the imputation of anothers faith, ſhould procure for him Remiſsion and removall of that which cometh by the imputation of anothers act? That as he ſinned in another, ſo he may be ſaid to beleev in another? Here is then the equity of Gods proceedings; that what Malady and miſchief was contracted without his will, ſhall be cured and remedyed without him, and any act of his: It is by the ordinance and inſtitution of God that the guilt of Adams tranſgreſſion is imputed to the Infant, and the Corruption of Nature propagated: And it is by the Ordinance of God, that the Guilt of that ſin is remitted, and a Remedy againſt that Native diſeaſe provided: and both theſe are done in and upon the Infant, without any concurrence of his own will. And as by the act of the Parents, corruption of Nature is propagated (their act it is, tho not voluntary in them) So by the act of the Parents (in this it is a voluntary act) by Faith laying hold upon the Promiſe of God in that Sacrament is obtained for the Infant, and beſtowed upon him the Grace of Regeneration: This to be the root and ſpring of future holines and righteouſnes, as the other was the root and ſpaun of wickednes and profaneſs. Ob. It is ſaid, That every man muſt live by his own faith, not by anothers. Sol. By his faith, indeed it is ſaid that the juſt ſhall live, Hab. 2.4. It is not ſaid, Not by anothers, this is not in the text of the Prophet; Nor doth the text ſpeak ſimply of the Benefit it ſelf gained by Faith, but of the Pre-aſſurance ther-of: No pre-aſſurance of Salvation but by Faith: But this doth not prove, That by his faith the Parent may not obtain for his child this benefit of Baptiſm, the Remedy for that Malady. We read in the Goſpell, That the woman of Canaan obtained mercy for her daughter: The man for his lunatick ſonn, the Centurion for his ſervant, the friends and neighbours for the Palſieſick man. Which inſtances have been alleged by Divines to manifeſt this point in hand, viz. The Benefit of Baptiſm obtained for the child by the Faith of the Parents.Bernard Se…m. 66. in Cantica. Ecbertus contra Cathacos, Serm. 7. Remigius on Mat. 15.21. Calvin: Harmon on Màt. 9.Matt 15:21 That note of Remigius is worth the noting. She ſaith not, Help my daughter, but help me, and have mercy on me: and ſo Mar. 9.21. The father of the Lunatick ſaith, If thou canſt do any thing have compaſſion on us, and help us. He puts himſelf in as a Co-partner of p. 6his childs miſery, Say the ſame here. It is a mercy to the Father that he can prevail for his child; who if he do rightly underſtand himſelf ſuffereth in his child: yea, not only by the way of compaſſion, but as feeling the ſmart and puniſhment of himſelf: And therfore hath need to ſue unto God for the Removing of that puniſhm…nt which lyeth upon himſelf, in his child. Yea, he hath this reaſon to ch…llenge it at the hand of God by the prayer of Faith, that ſo he may obtain the fulnes of the Promiſe made to the faithful in the Covenant of Grace. Infants are part of their Parents; So that the promiſe of Grace mentioned in the Covenant betwixt God and the Faithfull. Gen. 17. is not ratified to the whole Parent, except alſo it do extend to his Infants. So then, it is the Faith of the Parent laying hold on the Promiſe which qualifieth his Infant for the Grace and good effect of Baptiſm.

Nay yet more: This text on which the Argument was grounded, Mat. 19. cometh yet neerer to the point; For firſt, the bleſſing of Chriſt which the Parents ſought and found for their children, was not terminated in an externall and corporall Benefit, as per-adventure it might be replyed touching thoſe former Inſtances: Doubtleſs the Bleſſing of Chriſt extended to the good of their ſouls; and yet procured by the Faith of the Parents without any concurrence of Faith in the Infants. I will not per-emptorily affirm it: But probable enough it is, that theſe Parents having been by Johns Baptiſm directed to Chriſt, when they knew him, brought their children to Him to receiv a further bleſſing from him, even that which John told them he could not give, but they muſt expect it from another, even from Chriſt. Next it may be worth the noting: That our Saviour ſaith, Suffer little children to come unto mee. To come, not, To be brought; The act of the Parent is reputed the act of the child: That none may deride the ſaying of the Ancient, Credit in alio ſicut peccavit in alio, He beleeveth and cometh to Chriſt in and by his Parent, as formerly he had ſinned in the loins of another.

Corollary: To conclude this firſt Argument, Since by that text of our Bleſſed Saviour, we have ground to believ, That Infants preſented to him are accepted; Since, what perſons might be brought to him, may be preſented to his Ordinance; There being no barr put in by any word of Chriſt to keep them of. Nay more, Since the Faith of the Parent doth lay hold upon the promiſe of Grace not only for himſelf, but for his Infants; yea ther is ground to believ the imputation of the Parents faith to the Infant; I conclude ther is ſufficient ground in Scripture to warrant Parents to preſent their Infants to this Ordinance, and that with expectation to obtain the Grace and Benefit of the ſame.

p. 7The ſecond Argument.

THis I ground upon the words of our Saviour, Mat. 28.0. A charge given to the Apoſtles to inſtruct the Nations, whom they ſhould convert to the Faith, to inſtruct them (I ſay) in the obſervation of all ſuch Ordinances as Chriſt had commended to them. This Obſervation enjoyned hath ſpeciall reference to matters of Diſcipline for the right Ordering and Government of the Churches and Aſſemblies of Chriſtians: in which he inſtructed his Apoſtles no leſſe than in matters of Faith and Doctrine, as it is evident out of Act. 1.2. where is mention made of ſome Commandements which Chriſt gave to his Apoſtles touching things pertaining to the kingdom of God. And it is no leſs evident by ſome paſſages in the New Teſtament, ex: gr. Cor. 11.2. 2 Theſ. 2.15. & 2 Tim. 2.2. that ſome things were delivered to the Churches, and particularly to the Miniſters ther-of which were not then committed to writing, but delivered from Hand to Hand, called therfore Traditions. Theſe were not matters of Doctrine, eſpecially not Articles of Faith (None ſuch do we acknowledge but what are delivered and ſet down in the writings of the Holy Apoſtles and Evangeliſts) But matters of Diſcipline, and Rules of good order in the Church. Theſe Ordinances ſett up and practiſed by th'appointment of the Apoſtles, are equivalent in Authority to what Chriſt himſelf hath immediatly ordained. Hence that of St. Paul, Cor. 14.37. Conſequently a Ground on which Conſcience may build, and therby may aſſure it ſelf that ther-in it doth not ſinn againſt God. Of the which we cannot doubt, if reading that of Cor. 11.16. we note what is the Queſtion, and what is the Reſolution. The Queſtion is, Whether it were indifferent for men and women to be covered or not covered in the Church-aſſemblies as they liſted: St. Paul ſaith No, it is not: but the Men muſt do ſo, and the Women ſo: Now ſaith he, If any man be contentious q: d: if he will preſumptuouſly contend againſt all reaſon that the thing is indifferent, and ſo he may in this uſe his own liberty: What then▪ why ſaith he, We have no ſuch Cuſtome, nor the Churches of God: q: d: The Cuſtome of the Church which is eſtabliſht muſt over-rule mens froward fancies, and ſtand for a law to quiet the conſcience of him that is willing to be ſatisfied. So then the Cuſtomes of the Church ordained by the Apoſtles are a Ground of ſatisfaction. Nor are they therfore in themſelves leſs authenticall, becauſe they are not mentioned in the text of Scripture, as preſcribed by the Apoſtles, if yet it may appear that from them they fetch their firſt Originall. It is not the writing that giveth things their Authority,See Hooker: Eccleſiaſticall Polity, lib. 1 ſect. 14. pag 44. Field on the Church, lib. 4.20. but the worth and credit of Him that delivereth them, tho but by word and lively voice onelyonly. More certainty to us-ward things have by writing, but not more Authority in themſelves, ex: gr. That ſaying of our Saviour not mentioned by the Evangeliſts, p. 8yet now known to be his by the Allegation of St. Paul, Act. 20.35. That Proph…cy of Enoch, Jude 14. Theſe in themſelves were no… leſs authentick truths before, than after thoſe allegations, So for Apoſtolicall Cuſtomes: Thoſe mentioned in the Scripture have a more unqueſtioned Certainty than Traditions, but not greater Authority. Neither is this to ſett up Tradition (as do the Papiſts) to the prejudice of the Scripture; Becauſe we admit none for Apoſtolicall, which either are contrary to the Scripture, or which may not by good reaſon from ſome text of Scripture be confirmed for Apoſtolicall. You ſee whither all this tendeth, viz. To make way for this Aſſumption: That if the Baptizing of Infants may reaſonably be judged one of thoſe Apoſtolicall Traditions, one of theſe Church-Cuſtoms, which were eſtabliſhed in the Churches according to the commandement of Chriſt: Then is ther ſufficient Ground in Scripture to warrant the uſe and practiſe of it. And tho ther be no mention of it in the text of Scripture: yet if it may appear to have been ordained by th'Apoſtles, and uſed by the Churches even from the dayes of the Apoſtles, why ſhould it not be acknowledged to be the commandement of Chriſt, and ſo a Ground for Conſcience to build upon. Well: But (you will ſay) how may it appear to have been a cuſtome of the Churches ordained by the Apoſtles? Here it may be worth our Obſervation: That the pattern and preſident from whence moſt (if not all) of them was …aken, was the cuſtome of Iſrael in the Old Teſtament: It is the obſervation of Jerome. Ut ſciamus traditiones Apostolicas ſumptas ex veteri Te…amento; Quod A…ron & fi… ejus at que , Levit…e in Templo …crunt, hoc ſibi Epiſcopi Presbyteri, at que Diaconi vend…ant in Ecclia — Hieron— Epla. 85. ad Evagrium.And this may be one ſpeciall reaſon, why the Providence of God did not take ſo much care for the writing of every Cuſtome and Ordinance for the Government of the Church-Aſſemblies in the New Teſtament; Becauſe as ther was not ſo much danger of Corruption in them as in points of Doctrine: So the Preſident from whence they were take being at hand, if any aberration did creep in, it might eaſily be amended by reducing it to the pattern. Yea, and who can tell, whether the wiſdom of God did not hereby provide to uphold the credit of the Church of Iſrael, and the Authority of the writings of Moſes and the Prophets againſt the frowardnes of ſome who were but too apt and ready to diſ-eſteem them. That the Inſtitutions of God by Moſes for the Church of Iſrael were the Pattern for the Apoſtolicall Traditions which were appointed for the Diſcipline and Order to be obſerved in the Chriſtian Congregations; it will appear more evidently if we conſider, that the ſubject matter of theſe Orders are, Times, Places, Perſons, and the like. In all which the Apoſtles by the Commandement of Chriſt ſetled ſuch Rules as were conſonant to what had been formerly in the Church of Iſrael. That we might know, that no better Orders for the Church can be deviſed, than ſuch as in Conformity to the Church of the Old Teſtament may juſtly, and without wrong to the time of Truth p. 9and Grace be framed, and as it were thence tranſlated. Was it not for this cauſe, that divers particulars which ſhould be in the Chriſtian Churches are prophetically deſcribed in phraſes taken from the Church of Iſrael? See theſe texts: Eſai. 66.21. & 23. Zech. 12.16. I ſaid, Without wrong to the time of Truth and Grace, Becauſe, as ſome judiciall lawes were peculiar to that Nation; and to that Age of the World, and ſo may not be now taken into the Statutes of the Common-wealth: So ſome Eccleſiaſticall Rites were peculiar to that Age of the Church, and may not now be taken into the Canons of the Chriſtian Church: tho others may, which are more morall, and ſo more perpetuall. Ex. gr. In the Old Teſtament ther was one day in ſeven ſet a part to be a Day of Holy Reſt; i. e. a time for the Aſſemblies and Holy Convocations meeting together for the works of Piety and Devotion. In imitation where-of th'Apoſtles by the Direction of our Bleſſed Saviour conſecrated the firſt day of the week to the ſame ends and uſes, and gave it that honourable name which ſtill it beareth The Lords Day. Then for Places Iſrael had their Synagogues beſide the Temple: And who knoweth not that even in th'Apoſtles times ther were places ſett apart for the Aſſemblies to meet in, and even then began to be called Churches. So for Perſons Iſrael had thoſe who were ſett apart to the ſervice of the Altar and the Temple: Accordingly the Apoſtles ordained in ſeverall Churches certain Elders, men ſett apart and ſeparated to the work and office of the Miniſtry, who by that ſolemn Rite and Ceremony of their Ordination might be known and acknowledged to receiv from God a ſpeciall deſignation to that function, from which they might not return to ſecular employments and the cares of the world. The maintenance of them, doth St. Paul affirm to be ordained of the Lord in conformity to the Ordinance of the Old Teſtament, Cor. 9.13.14. And whether the ſubordination of Some in the Miniſtery to other in the ſame Order were not likewiſe an Apoſtolicall Inſtitution appointed by Chriſt, and this alſo fetcht from the pattern of Moſes, I diſpute not. But this I make no queſtion will be acknowledged by all: That the Cenſures of the Church: That the Directions given to the Church how to proceed in the execution of thoſe Cenſures; That theſe, I ſay were received from Iſrael: and that not only by the Apoſtles appointing them, Cor. 5. Tit. 3. but alſo by our Saviour himſelf, Mat. 18.15. That the Liberty which women have to come to the Table of the Lord muſt be acknowledged a Tradition of the Apoſtles taken from the Pattern of the Paſsover. Nay yet more, The Cuſtome of the Apoſtles to baptiſe the whol houſholds of them that beleeved, and that immediatly upon the Converſion of the Maſter of the family, and his ſubſcription to the Faith of Chriſt; whence they ſhould have it, except from that like pattern and Preſident in the Old Teſtament, viz. Abraham circumciſing all the Males in his houſe, that very day in which the Lord made a Covenant with him, and the practiſe of Iſrael who did the like by all the male-children and infants which p. 10they bought with their money: Whence I ſay that Cuſtome ſhould come, except from this preſident, I ſee not. That they did ſo is evident by the ſtory of their Acts, and being done by them we doubt not of the lawfulnes: No Revelation had they for it that is recorded: This Ground of Conformity to the Pattern of the Old Teſtament we find in others, and therfore conclude this alſo: Now them; The iſſue of all returns to this text. Why this Rule ſhould hold in ſo many particulars, and only fail in this point of Baptiſing Infants, I leav for them to give a reaſon, who know what difference ther is betwixt reaſon and abſurdity. Eſpecially ſince it is plain enough by the Teſtimony of the Ancients who lived in the next Ages after the Apoſtles, That this alſo was a Cuſtome eſtabliſht by the Apoſtles.In Pam…lius notes on Cyprian, Epla. 59. you may find the names of the Ancients who referr it to an Apoſtolicall Tradition. So alſo doth Augusti…, lib. 4. De Baptiſmo c…ntra Donatiſt. cap. 23. And in his Epl. 28. Ad Hyeronimum, ſpeaking of the 59 epiſtle of Cyprian, the Title wher-of is Ad Fidum de Infantibus Baptiſandis, he ſaith, Beatus Cyprianus non aliquod dec…etum condens novum …ed Eccleſi…e fidem firmiſſimam ſe…ans ad corrigendum cos, qui putabant ante octavum d…m nitivitatis non eſſe parvulum baptiſandum, mox natum rite baptiſari cum ſuis quibusſdam coepiſsopis cenſuit.

The Breviat of all this diſcourſ is this: Every Commandement of Chriſt is to be obſerved, Mat. 28. Infants-Baptiſm is the Commandement of Chriſt; Every Apoſtolicall Inſtitution is the Commandement of Chriſt: Infants Baptiſm is an Apoſtolicall Inſtitution (therfore.) The Major is proved, Cor. 11.25. and 14.37. and muſt be acknowledged except we would ſuſpect them of falſ and faithleſs dealing: The Minor is acknowledged by the Ancients; And ther is great reaſon for it, becauſe it doth (as do the reſt of the Rules for Order and Diſcipline delivered to the Church) carry in its face and fore-head the ſtamp of Chriſts Ordinances, viz. Conformity to the Pattern of the Church of Iſrael.

So then; To them who think they may triumph in that Argument produced againſt Infants Baptiſm: That, it being preſuppoſed that the Teſtament of Chriſt is ſo perfect, and he ſo faithfull, that nothing ought to be practiſed of Chriſtians, which is not therein warranted either by Precept, or Pattern: And it being aſſumed, that ther is neither Precept nor Pattern for this Cuſtome; Therfore it may not be practiſed, To them I ſay we ſee what Anſwer may be returned.

1. To the Major, Flouriſhed with that text of Heb. 3.2.6. as Moſes: So Chriſt was faithfull: Nay more, Moſes only as a ſervant, but Chriſt as a Sonn; And (therfore) his Teſtament as perfect, nay more perfect than that of Moſes. True indeed; But know we not, that the faithfulneſs of a man in his office is to be meaſured according to the intent and ſcope of his Office impoſed? In which if he fail and faulter, then is he unfaithfull; if not, then is he not unfaithfull tho he look not to other things, ex. gr. The Miniſter may be faithfull, tho he meddle not with the Sword of Juſtice: The Magiſtrate, tho he fight not with the ſword of the p. 11Spirit. So then, what was the office of Moſes? and what of Chriſt? The Office of Moſes was to ſettle the Common-wealth, and the Nationall Church of Iſrael: The Office of Chriſt was to make Reconciliation betwixt God and man, to work out the Redemption of Mankind. It was fitt that Moſes ſhould ſett down particular laws for the Common-wealth, and Ordinances for the Church: Neither of theſe did pertain to the Office of Chriſt; yet by his Apoſtles and their ſucceſſors in ſeverall Ages doth he provide whatſoever is neceſſary for the welfare and good order of the Church of the New Teſtament: But in his own perſon, and by himſelf he eſtabliſhed the Covenant of Grace, ordained the Seals ther-of, ſett up a Miniſtery, gave to them the word of life and ſalvation, and pointed to them a pattern for good Order and Government, and ſo was faithfull in his houſe as a Sonn, and worthy of more honour than Moſes. This for the Major.

2. To the Minor: We grant, That neither Precept nor Pattern formall and explicite is to be found in the books of the New Teſtament for Infants baptiſing, i. e. There is no Precept that ſaith, Go and baptiſe Infants; no more is ther any Precept to baptiſe Women; nor to obſerv the Lords day as a Chriſtian Sabbath: Ther is no text that ſaith, The Children and Infants of this or that man were baptiſed; Nor is ther any text that ſaith, Such a woman was admitted to the Table of the Lord. But we ſay, that both Precept and Pattern virtuall and implicit may be found to warrant it, The which if found is not to be neglected.

Precept Virtuall and implicit.

Here we pitch upon the continuation of the Cuſtome in Iſrael to preſent their Infants to the Sacrament of initiation, and we frame the Argument thus. What was inſtituted in the Old Teſtament, and not repealed in the New, nor is any way incompatible with the ſtate of the Church in the New Teſtament, that is underſtood to be continued, and commended to the practiſe of the Chriſtian Church: But that Infants ſhould be initiated and admitted into the Covenant of Grace by a Sacrament, was commanded in the Old Teſtament, neither is it repealed in the New, nor incompatible with the ſtate of the New Teſtament (therfore.) That it is not repealed is thence confirmed, Becauſe in the Subſtitution of that new Sacrament of Initiation, ther is no particular exception taken againſt Infants, (as before was noted in the firſt Argument. That it is not incompatible with the ſtate of the Church in the New Teſtament is thus further confirmed. 1. The Infants of Chriſtians are as capable of preſent incorporation into Chriſt, and of admiſſion into the Covenant of Grace, as were the infants of the Jews: And if ſo, who ſhall barr them (whom God hath not barred) from the Seal of the Covenant. 2. The Infants of Chriſtians have as much need of the Communion and Participation in the Covenant of Grace as had the Infants of the Jews: And their Parents as much need of a Ground of comfort, as touching the Remedy p. 12of that which maketh them ſtand in need of the Covenant of Grace and the Benefits therof as the Parents of Jewiſh Infants. If ſo? who ſhall think that God hath not provided for them ſo well as for the other. If he hath not, how hath Grace abounded in the New Teſtament, when in this particular it is much reſtreined both to Beleevers, and to their Infants: But if he hath, who ſhall forbid them that, which God hath provided for them?

1. That the Infants of Chriſtians are as capable: is proved by that of Cor. 7.14. They are holy: And what is that? Ther be who gloſs upon the text and ſay, That …hildren are Holy indeed, but how? As the wife not otherwiſe, viz. As ſhe is ſanctified to the uſe of her Husband, ſo the children to the uſe of their Parents: But they falſifie the text: For the text ſaith not of the wife, She is ſanctified to her husband, but by her Husband, foreign, Nor of the children it is ſaid as of the wife. foreign, is ſanctified, but they are foreign, Holy, which is more full, and more emphaticall. Others ſhift it of with this: That the children are ſaid to be Holy, becauſe, Notwithſtanding the difference of Religion in the Parents, yet the children are legitimate. This is further of than the former; Nor can it ſtand, except this be preſuppoſed, That all the children of Heathens are illegitimate: No more than the former can ſtand without this being preſuppoſed; That neither wife, nor children of Pagans are ſanctified to their uſe. Wherfore, ther is nothing left, but that they are ſaid to be Holy, by the Holines of the Covenant, and ſanctified with a federall ſanctification: The which is ſo much the more manifeſt, becauſe it appeareth by the context, That the pretence of them, who did repudiate their wives for their infidelity, was a fear, leſt the infidelity of the wife ſhould deprive the Husband of his intereſt in the Covenant of Grace which hee had imbraced: and that his conjunction with her ſhould rend him of (as did the Sinn of Fornication, cap. 6.15.) from Communion with Chriſt. St. Paul denyeth this, and ſheweth that rather the Faith of the Beleevers ſhould ſo farr preponderate and prevail as to draw the other parties alſo after a ſort within the Covenant, So that the unbeleeving wife is ſanctified and accounted as one interreſſed in the Covenant by the Husband: His reaſon is, becauſe otherwiſe the children of ſuch ſhould be accounted Vnclean, or altogether barred from the Covenant, wher-as now they are Holy, i. e. Heirs of the Covenant, and admitted to the Seals ther-of. Admitted, I ſay, For this is worthy our obſervation: That ſuppoſe any of the Corinths would have been ſo wilfull to doubt of this Medium, and deny th'Argument of St. Paul: what is ther to convince the Gainſayer, but only the practiſe of Iſrael continued in the Chriſtian Churches, viz. That the children of one beleeving Parent are admitted to the Seals of the Covenant. This muſt of Neceſſity be preſuppoſed, elſe doth the Argument fall to the ground and overthrow it ſelf. To ſay, That it reſteth upon the Authority of th'Apoſtles affirmation, is not ſufficient: in as much as he doth not poſitively ſet it down as a p. 13thing to be learned, (as he had done the former point, The wife is ſanctified) but brings it in as a Reaſon to confirm that former point: And we know, that the Reaſon of a Poſition is alway preſuppoſed, as a thing already yeelded and confeſſed.

2. That the Infants of Chriſtians have as much need of partaking in the Covenant of Grace, as had the Jewiſh Infants, is thence confirmed: Becauſe, That which is born of the Fleſh, is fleſh. Naturall corruption is common to all. Why was Circumciſion ordained, but that ther-by the Uncircumciſion of the Heart might be taken away: that the Corruption of Nature might bee cured, and the Guilt of that firſt ſinn cut off from the Iſrael of God: That Abraham by Faith apprehending the promiſe of God might ther-in have a Ground of comfort to himſelf in reſpect of his Sonn, viz. That tho he had begotten him in his own likeneſs, and had been a mean to convey unto him the Guilt and Filth of Originall ſinn: yet now by the mercy of God, he was provided of a Remedy for that Malady of his child, and uſing that Sacrament in Faith he might comfortably aſſure himſelf that the Remedy ſhould prevail againſt the Malady: And is not this Ground of comfort needfull alſo for Chriſtians? Surely they are deceived, who either deny the propagation of originall ſinn to Infants; or dream of any Univerſall Demolition of it by the Death of Chriſt without the particular Application of his Blood by the Sacrament of the Goſpell. If there be no ſuch Malady, no ſuch Guilt in our Infants, how cometh it to paſs that they dy? Is ther any place for Death in Mankind, wher ther is no ſinn at all? If the Beaſts decay and dy by reaſon of their naturall mortality, yet we know that ſinn it was which brought Death upon Adam and his Poſterity. Where ther is no ſinn inherent, Death can claim no intereſt in that party: Wher Death ſeizeth upon man, we muſt not deny ſinn, ſome ſin ther muſt be: Actuall, ther is none in theſe Infants. Not yet have they ſinned after the Similitude of Adams tranſgreſſion, viz. by liſtening to the Tentation of Satan; and therfore it is Originall Guilt and corruption which is in them: If the Diſeaſe be in their Nature; Is ther not need of a Remedy? Had the Infants of the Jews a Remedy, and is ther none provided for the Infants of Chriſtians? Is ther a Remedy provided for them, and a ground of comfort for their Parents, and ſhall it be denyed, and they debarred?

Objection. The force of this Argument, ſome think to elude by denying Circumciſion to be a Seal of the Covenant of Grace, and conſequently no Remedy againſt that originall Malady wher-of we ſpeak: We oppoſe that honourable Elogie of it, Rom. 4 11. The Apoſtle termeth it, A Seal of the Righteouſnes of Faith: They anſwer, it was a ſeal of Abrahams Faith, not in the Promiſe of the Meſſiah, and the Covenant of Grace, but in the promiſe of a Neumerous Off-ſpring, That he ſhould be the Father of many Nations. This was (ſay they) that part of Gods Covenant with Abraham, which was ſealed by Circumciſion: p. 14A fleſhly Covenant had a fleſhly Seal. But in this Anſwer we find a twofold ignorance bewrayed. 1. The miſ-interpretation of the Phraſe: The Righteouſnes of Faith: A phraſe peculiar to St. Paul by which is intimated not the Act of Faith, but the Benefit ther-of. The phraſe is equivalent to, and to be expounded by that of Rom. 9.30. & 10.6. The Righteouſnes which is by faith, and that alſo, Rom. 3. 21. & 10.3. The Righteouſnes of God Both which are joined in one, Rom. 3.22. The Righteouſnes of God which is by Faith: and therby is ſignified the Benefit of imputed Righteouſnes which God beſtoweth on Beleevers for their Juſtification: This benefit God having beſtowed upon Abraham, did ſeal it up to Him afterward by Circumciſion, which is therfore called, Not the Seal of his Faith, but the Seal of the Righteouſnes, i. e. of Juſtification which cometh by Faith and not by Works. 2. Another point of ignorance, is in diſ-joyning thoſe things which ought not to be diſ-joined, viz. the Covenant of Grace, and the Promiſe of a Numerous off-ſprings. Is it not evident that in Gen. 17. ther is ſpeciall mention of the Covenant of Grace, viz. I will be the God of thee, and thy ſeed after thee— and then followeth, Thou ſhalt therfore keep my Covenant, thou and thy ſeed— This is my Covenant- Every man-child among you ſhall be circumciſed. Why ſhould Circumciſion be reſtreyned to the Promiſe of a Numerous of-ſpring, when the text doth not reſtrein it? If any reply, That in Gen. 15. wher the Righteouſnes of Faith is mentioned, to which the Apoſtle alludeth, ther is only mention made of a Numerous of-ſpring promiſed. Be it ſo: But that of Calvin is ſound, who ſaith, That whatſoever promiſes God did give to Abraham, Jn dubium est axioma apud Chriſtianos quaſcun que promiſſiones Abrahae dedit Deus pr…mae illius fuiſſe appendices— Ergo cum audiret Abraham. Erit ſem…n tuum ſi…ut arena m…is— in hoc verbo non ſubſtitit, ſed ipſum, potius includebat in gratia Adoptionis tanquam partem in toto, Calv. in C…l. 3 6.they were Appendices of that firſt promiſe made to Him: and ſo this of a numerous of— ſpring, was by Faith received as a fruit of that firſt Grace he beſtowed on Him viz. His Adoption; Nay more, That Promiſe of a Numerous of-ſpring, that he ſhould be the Father of many Nations; Was it fulfilled in the children of the fleſh only, or in the children of the Promiſe alſo? And how came he to be the Father of thoſe children, but by Faith in the Covenant of Grace?

Conclude (therefore) That Circumciſion was a Seal of the Covenant of Grace; A Remedy of that Diſ-eaſe which is derived from Father to Sonn by Propagation. Which being in the Poſterity of Beleeving Chriſtians no leſs than in the Poſterity of Beleeving Jewes: It followeth that theſe have as much need as the other: And being Holy by virtue of their Parents intereſt in the Covenant, are as capable of this Benefit as the other were. Conſequently that the implantation of Infants into that Myſticall Body of Chriſt by a Sacrament is not incompatible with the ſtate of the Church in the New Teſtament. And if not ſo: Since it is p. 15not repealed by Chriſt and his Apoſtles: we conclude, That ther is a Precept virtuall and implicit: And tho it be not ſaid in direct terms, Go and baptiſe Beleevers and their Children, yet in that it is ſaid, Circumciſe them, their Baptiſm is included: ſo much the more: Becauſe it will appear that ther is alſo for the Baptiſing of Infants.

Pattern virtuall and Implicit.

This is in the Baptiſing of whole Families upon the converſion of the Maſters ther-of, The whole Houſholds of Lydia, Cr…ſpus, Cornelius, and others were baptiſed: To ſay, that in them ther might be no children, becauſe none are mentioned, is to ſpeak againſt all ſenſe and reaſon. As well may it be ſaid ther were no ſervants, and ſo make up a Family of I know not how few. What ſay we to thoſe three thouſand ſouls mentioned, Acts 2. which were added to the Church in one day: Is it probable that they were all preſent at the Sermon, and converted to the Faith by that Sermon, it being in a private Houſe? Is it not more probable, that the Men being preſent and converted, they brought alſo their Families to be baptiſed, which they might well do, becauſe they heard St. Peter ſay: The Promiſe is made to you and to your children: So that the totall ſumme of men, women and children might be 3000. ſouls: Some ſuch thing doubtleſs is intimated in that phraſe, 3000. ſouls: anſwerable to that in the ſtory of Gen. 46. ver. 27. Act. 7.14. All that came down into Egipt with Jacob were 70 ſouls. Souls, i. e. perſons, men, women, and children. And here doubtleſs the courſe and practice of the Converts was anſwerable to that in Gen. 17. No ſooner is the Covenant made with Abraham, but he circumciſeth all the Males in his houſe both young and old: So doubtleſs, No ſooner is the Covenant of Grace ratified betwixt Chriſt and the Beleeving Parents by Baptiſm, but the Houſhold is alſo accounted Holy and ſo baptiſed. Doubtleſs, what St. Peter ſaid to them in Act. 2. The Promiſe is made to you and to your children; The ſame did St. Paul preach to the Gentiles when they were converted, that they might know the large bounty of God to them and theirs in the Covenant of Grace: And how ſhould they confirm this to them but by baptiſing their children? Take away this, and you leav open a wide gapp to an Objection which is not eaſily anſwered: For they might object: What tell you us of the Grace of God in Chriſt, of the ſuper-abundance of that Grace: Do we not ſee the contrary? This is nothing anſwerable to that of Abraham and Iſrael? They by their Faith received a Benefit for their children, yea their ſervants. Not ſo here: We our ſelves per-aduenture may be the better for our Faith: But our children remain ſtill as they were ſtrangers to the Covenant. Will you imagine the Apoſtle to reply: Nay, but the Promiſe is to you and your children. So that when they come to beleev they alſo may be admitted; How juſtly might the Objector rejoin: what great priviledge is this? So may the very Heathen, all that are afarr of when they beleev; If this be all that we p. 16gain; Our children, notwithſtanding our Faith are in no better condition than the Heathen themſelves, Nothing ſo good as the children of the Jews: And ſo the great boaſt of ſuper-abundant Grace falls to the ground. Thus we ſee good Reaſon to acknowledge this Cuſtome of baptiſing Infants to be warranted both by Precept and Pattern, tho not formall and explicite; yet virtuall and implicit; And that with ſo great light and evidence from Scripture, that greater in that kind cannot be expected.

Before I proceed to an other Argument: Let me improve this further,

That Cuſtome and Practiſe of the Church may well be preſumed to be Apoſtolicall, which is ſo conſonant to the text of Scripture, that it doth readily illuſtrate the text: and openeth a door of light to underſtand the ſame: Such is the Cuſtome of Infants Baptiſed therfore. That which being granted giveth light: and which being denyed doth leave the text under ſuch a cloud of obſcurity, that it is not eaſily underſtood how it may paſs for Truth: This muſt be granted to open a door of light to underſtand the text of Scripture. Now then, ſuppoſe this Act of the Apoſtles baptiſing Infants: we eaſily ſee how 3000. ſouls may be added to the Church in one day, notwithſtanding the Sermon were in a privat houſe: We ſee how St. Peter might confirm their Beleef in this, The Promiſe is made to you, and to your children: even the Promiſe of ſuper-abundant Grace: We ſee how St. Paul might urge this, your children are Holy: But take away the ſuppoſition of this Cuſtome, and none of theſe texts are ſo eaſie to be underſtood. Conſequently: it is more than probable, that even this Cuſtome of Baptiſing Infants was inſtituted and ordained in the Churches by th'Apoſtles: and that according to the commandement of Chriſt.

Add unto all that hath been ſayd that of St. Ambroſe: Sicut nunc in eccleſià manet Conſtitutio ſalvatoris dicentis, Niſi quis renatus ſucrit — Ita ſacratiſſimè in lege ſuerat praecautum, ut natus puer niſi die circumcideretur octavo, exterminaretur anima ejas de populo ſuo— Ambroſ. Epiſt. 33. Ad Demetriadem. p. 132.who ſetts theſe two as paralell: the law of God, touching Circumciſion, The ſoul who is not circumciſed, ſhall be cut off from his people: and the Sanction of our Saviour: Except a man bee born again of water, and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdome of God. That this text is to be underſtood of Baptiſm, as a mean and cauſe of Regeneration, Not ſo principall as the Spirit: yet ſo inſtrumentall to the Spirit, that wher it may be had, wee have no ground of Faith to beleev that the Spirit will work without it: This is I ſay the conſtant and conſentient judgement of all the Ancients, and moſt of our modern Divines; Some few only excepted, who to avoid the Popiſh Tenet, touching the abſolute neceſſity of B…ptiſm, did fly to a Metaphor. And it may be confirmed for Truth, out of the Text it ſelf: if we note well, To whom, and upon what occaſion the words were ſpoken: viz. To Nicodemus, upon occaſion of his timerouſnes: A Diſciple of Chriſt, he was p. 17willing to be, but loth to proſeſs it openly by being baptiſed. To him is the commination directed: and therfore the words muſt be underſtood of Baptiſm: Now then conſider well, whether ther be any ground ſufficient to keep of Infants from this Ordinance? Any ground (I ſay) which may ſecure the conſcience of not having ſinned againſt the ſouls of our Infants, if by our default they dy without this ſeal of the Covenant, and ſo looſ the Benefit ther-of? Have not Infants need of Chriſt, and the Application of his Blood for the waſhing their ſouls from ſinn? Is ther any Hope of Salvation without Chriſt? Is ther any other way revealed, by which any may have part in Chriſt, but by his Ordinances? Is ther any other Ordinance by which Infants may be made partakers of Chriſt and the Covenant of Grace except Baptiſm? Is ther any text of Scripture that hath peremptorily barred their Admittance? Or is ther any thing required of them that muſt be baptiſed, the want wher-of may be a barr to Infants? Thou doubteſt, becauſe ther is no text that mentioneth either Precept or Pattern, and with-out a text, thou dareſt not venture: 'Tis well: But when ther is ſuch a fearfull ſentence, that runns in ſuch generall terms as doth comprehend Infants alſo: and the Danger of Omiſſion is ſo great: Why art thou not more cautelous on the ſafer ſide? Why doſt thou not as well call for a direct text to barr them? or a direct Reaſon from Scripture, which may be equivalent? Is ther any text that ſaith, None may be baptiſed, that do not Beleev? or that ſaith Infants for want of Actuall faith may not be baptiſed? Doeſt thou not ſee Infants Circumciſed yea by commandment? Doeſt thou not hear the text that ſaith, Children are Holy? And are ther ſo many Probabilities that by th'Apoſtles themſelves Infants were baptiſed? And wilt thou rather hazard the ſoul of thy child, than lay hold upon the Covenant for thy ſeed, nay for thy ſelf? and that only upon a fear, and a doubt of unlawfulnes; yea ſuch a doubt that hath no ſurer ground either in Scripture or Reaſon to countenance it, than the contrary reſolution?

Here is then the Caſe: if theſe Grounds formerly mentioned prove good, as ther is great probability: Then thou preſenting thine Infant to Baptiſm building upon theſe grounds, thou haſt ſaved thy ſelf and thine Infant: but forbearing and keeping him of, thou ſinneſt againſt thine own ſoul and his alſo: Again, if thoſe grounds ſhould not prove good: yet haſt thou not wronged thine Infant, nor thine own ſelf: Becauſe, upon ſuch probabilities as are next door to an Evident Demonſtration, thou haſt done that which is intended for the Glory of God, and the Good of the Infant. Thou haſt not tranſgreſſed againſt any Precept, no nor any light of Reaſon which might juſtly with-hold thee from ſeeking the Good of thine Infant at the Hands of Chriſt in this Ordinance.

I conclude therfore, That ther is ſufficient Ground in Scripture to warrant the Conſcience of a Chriſtian to bring his Infants to this Sacrament of Baptiſm, p. 8with a confident expectation to receiv Benefit by the ſame. Nay more: Ther is Ground enough to warrant the Accuſation of Him that upon ſuch uncertain Reaſons ſhall forbear to preſent his Infant to this Sacrament of Initiation, the Accuſation I ſay of Him, as one that ſinneth againſt the Ordinance of God, and treſpaſſeth againſt the Soul of his Infant, yea of Himſelf.

So much for the firſt Queſtion.