Anabaptism and Other Errors, Chapter 5
CHAP. V. The lawfulneſſe of Infants Baptiſme.
I Have at ſome length in the preceding Chapters ſet down the way and Tenets of the Anabaptiſts both here and over Sea,The extreame malignity of the Anabaptiſtick ſpirit. both of the preſent & the former times: wherby it may appear to all who are willing to ſee, how malign a ſpirit has ruled in that Sect from its firſt beginning to this very day: a ſpirit carrying to the greateſt errours and the groſſeſt vices that ever any who were called Chriſtians have ſtumbled upon: a ſpirit as much oppoſite to the honour of God, and to the ſalvation of men,Its enmity to the ſalvation of men. as any that ever troubled the Church ſince its firſt foundation. Its favour towards the ſalvation of man appears in its great zeal to caſt out of the Church, and deprive of the means of grace almoſt all mankinde with the exception of a very few, if of any at all. When the moſt reformed of the Proteſtant Churches come before the fan of their cenſure, at the firſt ſhake they blow away that largeſt and moſt innocent part of them, their infants: all children who have not attained to the acts of faith and repentance, are to them in the fleſh, under the power & within the verge of the Kingdom of Satan, as well as Jews, Turks, Pagans, and others who are not ſo much as entred within the hedge of Chriſts ſheepfold: and leſt the ſpoiling of children of all the grace and gifts of God had not been a ſufficient vaſtation, they are carried on by the ſpirit that leads them, to make as great havock and deſolation among thoſe of riper years: they Unchurch the moſt of thoſe whom otherwiſe they love as their beſt friends; they charge all the Independents, and the Browniſts, and the moſt rigid of the Separatiſts for their baptizing of infants with no lighter a burthen then Antichriſtianiſm, and a clear deniall of Chriſts Incarnation: Neither here does their raſhneſſe ſtand, the ſmall remnant of Chriſtians, the Anabaptiſtick Societies, which alone they will honour with the title of true Churches, ſeem to them too many to be ſaved; therefore new ſeparations are run into, and thoſe ſo ſevere, that there lives not an Anabaptiſt upon earth, who by multitudes even of Anabaptiſts, is not condemned with all who adhere to his ſubdiviſion, as a man in a falſe way not only without, but in oppoſition to the true Church.
In its di honoring of God be ſetting up a liberty, firſt for all errours.This their extream cruelty againſt the ſouls of men wont to be coloured with the ſhew of zeal to the truth and honour of God, but this varniſh is now almoſt quite wiped off: Behold, whither their zeal to the truth and honour of God is now evaniſhed! They for ſome times were ſo eminently zealous againſt errors and vices, that very ſmall ones were wont to draw from them an ejection out of the Church, a deliverance to Satan, and where the Civill Sword was in their hand, a putting out of this life, a publick execution by the hand of the Hangman, when their Princes and Prophets were not at leiſure to adminiſter Juſtice in their own perſons. Notwithſtanding the loudeſt note that this day ſounds in their ſong, is liberty and freedom from all puniſhments for what ever crimes; when all abominations imaginable are publickly proclaimed, when many more and much viler errours walk in our ſtreets then ever any one place in any time did hear of, the great zeal of theſe religious men breaks out daily, in all the diſcourſes they pleaſe, and actions they dare for the ſafeguard of the curſed inſtruments of theſe errours; paſſionately denying all power in any on earth to reſtrain, in the leaſt meaſure, the open propagation of the moſt abominable lies, which Satan is able to utter by the tongue of any creature; no matter of Religion ſay they can fall under the cogniſance of any State, the falſe Church has no right to cenſures or any Church Ordinance, the trueſt Churches can meddle but with their own members; they who never were of them, or have renounced memberſhip with them, are without their Juriſdiction: ſo neither State nor Church can put any barre of the ſmalleſt cenſure upon the propagation of any errour.
And next for all vice.And leſt vice, the neer kinſman of errour, ſhould finde any harder meaſure, any greater ſtop from the hand of ſuperiour powers; this Sect with all the ſpeed it can, is poſting back to its firſt principles, the overthrow of the civill State as much as of the Church: That when ever they are found in the practiſe of their Doctrine, of the lawfulneſſe of adultery, and inceſt, robbery, and murder, there may be none upon earth to controll them. For this end they caſt down the King and Parliament, Commons as well as Lords, all Incorporations, all Judicatories in Burgh and Land; that an abſolute Monarchy, a full liberty for every man to do all his pleaſure, without any fear of puniſhment, may be ſet up; That the Crown and Scepter, the Kingſhip and abſolute Soveraignty may at laſt be reſtored to the onelyonly true owners, the free-born people of England, the individuals, as they love to ſpeak, of the whole Nation.
All this & much more have they ſet under their own hands as may be ſeen in the former Chapters.Their Browniſtick and Arminian Tenets I have refuted in other Treatiſes I have neither time nor minde to diſpute all their poſitions; in my little Antidote againſt Arminianiſm I have in a ſhort and popular way impugned it; their Tenets againſt the Proteſtant Churches in the heads of election, redemption, grace, free-will, and perſeverance; In the firſt Part of my Diſſwaſive, I have debated at length enough the chief of thoſe errours which they have taught their children the Separatiſts: The reall holineſſe of all Church members, the neceſſity of ſeparation for want of ſatisfaction in this point alone, the power of every member of the Church to preach the word, to ordain and to excommunicate when there is cauſe their very Paſtors and Elders, the Independency of every Congregation from Presbyteries and Synods, the thouſand years of Chriſts viſible raign upon earth; All this new light did ſhine firſt, and ſtill burns moſt brightly among the Anabaptiſts.
Although many of the Tenets mentioned in the former Chapter be diſſembled and denied by divers of this Sect,Their Antipaedobaptiſme and dipping ſhall here bee briefly and plainly conſidered. yet all of them will acknowledge as their own, what ever almoſt is practiſed either by the Independents or Browniſts; and beſides, two Tenets more, Antipaedobaptiſm, and Dipping: all who carry the name of Anabaptiſme, though through ignorance they know not, or through better inſtruction they diſſent from many poſitions of their Brethren, yet will avowedly and oft with paſſion profeſſe their minde againſt the ſprinkling of infants: paedorantiſme to all of them I ever heard of, is an abomination.
It will not therefore be amiſſe before I leave them to ſpeak ſomething to thoſe two points, which all of them are content to take upon themſelves as a Characteriſtick diſtinction from any other Sect. Let us then conſider, Firſt, whether it be lawfull to baptize any infant; Secondly, whether ſprinkling be ſufficient, or if it be neceſſary to dip over head and eares all who are baptized?
Concerning the ſtate of the firſt Queſtion,The ſtate of the firſt queſtion. we need not controvert the quality of the infants to be baptized, Whether they muſt be the children of true beleevers, or onelyonly of profeſſors without ſcandall; whether of Church members only, or if it be enough that their Parents be Chriſtians in the largeſt ſignification, all this belongs to another place. The onelyonly point pertinent here, is, Whether any infants may be baptized? The champions for the Anabaptiſts ſide in their Declaration of the publick Diſpute intended by them with the City Miniſters for their Tenet, ſet down their Theſe in theſe expreſſe terms, No infants ought to be baptized; The formall contradiction hereof is, Some infants ought to be baptized: for this Poſition, I propone ſome few Scripturall reaſons. Who have leiſure to ſee this point debated at length, may look upon the worthy and judicious Writs of M. Marſhall, M. Black, M. Geere. M. Ainſworth alſo in his laſt Writ, and M. Cotton in his lateſt, learnedly and zealouſly maintain this truth againſt the Anabaptiſts.
The firſt reaſon for the affirmative.My firſt reaſon I frame thus, Who ever have a good right to the firſt Sacrament of the New Teſtament ought to be baptized: But ſome infants have a good right to the firſt Sacrament of the New Teſtament: Ergo, Some infants ought to be baptized. The major is naturally clear, it needs no more for its proof but the explication of the terms of the Propoſition, for Baptiſm and the firſt Sacrament of the New Teſtament are one thing, and ought to be baptized is nothing elſe but to have a good right to Baptiſm.
Who have right to the chief promiſes have right to ſome of the ſeals which God has appointed to be a means of aſſurance of theſe promiſes, unleſſe the Lord himſelf have made a ſpeciall exception.All the queſtion lies in the minor, which thus I prove, Who ever have right to the chief promiſes of the New Teſtament, they have right to the firſt Sacrament of the New Teſtament, if the Lord have not put ſome impediment to their participation of that Sacrament; But ſome infants have right to the chief promiſes of the New Teſtament, and the Lord has put no impediment to their participation of that Sacrament: Ergo. About the major I ſee one, and but one, makes ſome velitation, all the reſt give it for granted, for it is grounded likewiſe on the nature of the terms of the propoſition, the chief promiſes of the New Teſtament and the firſt Sacrament; this is the ſign and ſeal, that the thing ſignified. The reaſon proceeds not from every thing ſignified to every ſign, but from the chief thing ſignified to the firſt ſign: ſome of the bleſſings which Circumciſion did ſeal, belonged to Melchiſedek, to Lot, to Job, and others who were not ſo farre as we reade circumciſed, but the main promiſes ſealed by Circumciſion, In thy ſeed all the Nations of the earth ſhall be bleſſed; The Meſſias comming of the poſterity of Abraham, Iſaac, and Jacob, the Covenant of grace as it was adminiſtred under the figures of the Ceremoniall Law, did belong to the people of Iſrael alone, and to the proſelytes who joyned themſelves to their body. Nor do we ſpeak but of the firſt ſign, for unleſſe there be a right to this, there is a right to none, and where the Lord has appointed ſignes to ſeal up thereby the aſſurance of his promiſes, to deny to them whom God wil have to be aſſured of the promiſe, the uſe of all the ſeals, which he has inſtituted to be the ſpirituall means of that aſſurance, were on mans part a great unjuſtice, except the Lord himſelf have put a barre to the participation of theſe ſeals, as in the Sacrament of Circumciſion of old he did to women, and to male infants before the eighth day, and to all born in the Wilderneſſe during the time of their fourty years wandering therein.
But it is upon the minor that our Adverſaries beſtir themſelves to purpoſe: they deny ſtoutly both its parts,Infants have good right to the promiſes of the Covenant of grace. all the Scripturall objections which they can make againſt infants baptiſm, they count impediments put by God to paedobaptiſm; and upon this ground they deny the laſt part of the minor; this we ſhall conſider when we come to anſwer their objections, it were not ſo pertinent in this place. The firſt part likewiſe of the minor they deny, affirming that no infants have right to any promiſe of the New Teſtament before the time of their actuall faith, which they ſay cannot poſſibly be in them before the years of their diſcretion. This is the greateſt and moſt dangerous knot in the whole debate, for we do not ſo much contend for the outward Sacrament to infants, as for their ſpirituall right in God and his promiſes: all our adverſaries deny to all infants all right in God, all intereſſes in his promiſes and Covenant, as much as they do to Turks and Pagans: Some of both (ſay they) may be elected and ſaved, but neither of both have any place in the Covenant of grace or any Goſpel promiſes, till they be called by the Word, and by an actuall faith have embraced the Goſpel. If therefore we make good the right and intereſt of any infants in the chief promiſes of the New Teſtament, we eſtabliſh the main hinge of this whole controverſie. For this end we will endeavour to clear from Scripture theſe four propoſitions; Firſt, that the infants of the Jews had reall and true intereſt in the Covenant of grace, even before the comming of Chriſt; Secondly, that the infants of the Jews had that ſame right in the Covenant of grace, after the comming of Chriſt in the New Teſtament; Thirdly, that the infants of the Gentiles under the old Teſtament, when their Parents became proſelytes, had right to the Covenant of grace; Fourthly, that the infants of the Gentiles under the New Teſtament had that ſame right continued.
The firſt we prove from Geneſis 17. ver. 7, 12, 13.The infants of the Jews had reall intereſt in the Covenant of grace before the comming of Chriſt. Gen. 17.7, 12, 13. I will eſtabliſh my Covenant betwixt me and thee, and thy ſeed after thee in their generations for an everlaſting Covenant to be a God unto thee and to thy ſeed after thee: And he that is eight days old ſhall be circumciſed among you, and my Covenant ſhall be in all your fleſh. Here God enters in Covenant, and promiſes not only things temporall, but the chief of all ſpirituall bleſſings, that he will be a God to Abrahams ſeed as well as to himſelfe; and this his ſeed is underſtood of infants as well as others, for with all theſe this Covenant is made, who carried the ſeal of it in their fleſh, and ſome of theſe are expreſly ſaid to be but eight days old: this gracious Covenant was the ground of their Circumciſion, and of all the legal ceremonies exerciſed about them as true members of the Jewiſh Church: The firſt males were holy to the Lord, Chriſt as was the cuſtome of other infants was brought to the Temple, Luke 2.Luke 2. to be preſented to the Lord and to have a ſacrifice offered for him; in the ſecond command the Lord promiſes mercy to the children of faithfull parents, not only in the third and fourth, but in the thouſand generation; and although the Parents were wicked, yet the Lord acknowledges his intereſt in the Jewiſh children, and theirs in him, Ezek. 16.20, 21.Ezek 16.20, 21 Moreover thou haſt taken thy ſons and thy daughters whom thou haſt born unto me, and theſe haſt thou ſacrificed unto them to be devoured, thou haſt ſlain my children. Here the Jewiſh infants burnt by their idolatrous Parents and ſacrificed to Molech, are called Gods children, and are ſaid to be born to God.
The ſecond propoſition, the continuance of this right to the Jewiſh infants under the Goſpel: ſome deny it, but abſurdly; for Chriſt when he came was a Mediator of a better Covenant, Heb. 7.22.Alſo after Chriſts comming under the new Teſtament. Heb. 7.27.8, 6. By ſo much was Jeſus made a ſurety of a better Teſtament; and 8.6. He is the Mediator of a better Covenant which was eſtabliſhed upon better promiſes. The Covenant of grace for the ſubſtance was ever the ſame, but for the manner of its adminiſtration it was the longer the better, and after Chriſts incarnation beſt of all: but it had been evidently worſe after that time in a very great and main particular, if all Jewiſh infants which before were Church-members and partakers of the ſacrifices and Sacraments, as the elect ones of them were of the ſpirituall promiſes, ſhould have loſt theſe priviledges, after the comming of Chriſt; and have been ſo far then unchurched, that neither Covenant, Sacrament, Promiſe, nor any ſuch benefit could belong to them before their years of diſcretion. But they who are reſolute to controvert this point, I hope will be content to be ſilenced by the Apoſtles determination,Acts 2.39. The promiſe is unto you and to your children: It is a vain eluſion to ſay, the Apoſtle is ſpeaking of the promiſes of the extraordinary gifts of the holy Ghoſt, for infants are leſſe capable of thoſe then of any graces and gifts in controverſie; alſo it is evident that the Apoſtle is ſpeaking of the great promiſe of making Jeſus crucified and riſen from the dead, Lord and Chriſt, v. 36. the Author of remiſſion of ſins, v. 38. of ſalvation, v. 31. as well as of the extraordinary gifts of the holy Ghoſt. Neither is their evaſion better who would have no other children here underſtood then theſe who are called, for ſo neither remiſſion of ſins, nor ſalvation, nor Chriſt, nor any gracious promiſe, ſhould belong at all to any child of Abraham before he were called, no not to Iſaac, nor Jacob, the children of the promiſe, in the time of their infancy, which is expreſly contrary to the former Scripture, and to the common ſenſe of all well adviſed Chriſtians.
As for the third propoſition, the right of proſelyte infants under the Law to the Covenant and the Sacrament which then did ſeal it; it is clear from Gen. 17.12.The Infants of proſelyte Gentiles under the old Teſtament had right in the Covenant of grace. Gen. 17.12. He that is eight days old ſhall be circumciſed among you every man-child in your generations, he that is born in the houſe, or bought with money of any ſtranger which is not of thy ſeed. The infants of ſtrangers bought with mony though not of Abrahams ſeed, are commanded to bear the ſign of the Covenant of the Lord in their fleſh. Exod. 12.48, 49.Ex. 12.48, 49. When a ſtranger ſhall ſojourn with thee, and will keep the Paſſeover to the Lord, let all his males be circumciſed, and then let him come neer and keep it, and he ſhall be as one born in the Land, one Law ſhall be to him that is home-born, and one to the ſtranger that ſojourneth among you. Here the ſtranger Gentile, who is deſired to joyn, is admitted to the ſame Law and priviledge with the Jew.
The Infants of believing Gentiles under the New Teſtament have right in the Covenant of grace.For the fourth, that the infants of beleeving Gentiles have right to the promiſes of God under the New Teſtament, it is clear from what is ſaid: for if it were otherwiſe, then their condition after Chriſts incarnation ſhould be much worſe then before, which may not be admitted: but however this may be, many places in the New Teſtament will decide the quarrell, I cite but two, Rom. 11.24.Rom. 11.24. For if thou wert cut out of the olive tree, which is wild by nature, and were graffed contrary to nature into a good olive tree; how much more ſhall theſe which be the naturall branches be graffed into their own olive tree? Here the whole Church of the Gentiles is graffed into the root of the naturall olive, and that the more room might be left for them the Jews are broken off. Before the breaking off of the Jewiſh branches ſome of the Gentiles were ingraffed with them in the root Chriſt, and then the infants of the Gentiles as well as their Parents enjoyed the priviledges of the new Covenant; when the body of the Jews is broken off, to this end that the Gentiles may grow in their place; ſhall not the Gentiles then enjoy the Jewiſh priviledge, at leaſt their own priviledge which themſelves enjoyed in worſe times? for as we have ſhewed, under the Law the infants both of Jews and Gentile proſelytes did live by the fatneſſe of the root, as well as their Parents: The manifold windings and turnings of the adverſary from this place, does but wrap them the further in the net.
The next place I cite is the firſt of the Cor. 7 14.How infants are holy. 1 Cor. 7.14. For the unbeleeving husband is ſanctified by the wife, and the unbeleeving wife is ſanctified by the Husband, elſe were your children unclean, but now are they holy. Here the children of Chriſtians are affirmed to be holy, that is, ſeparated and dedicated to the ſervice of God, as thoſe who are in Covenant with him, to whom he is a God and whom he takes for his people: for the Church in the Old Teſtament, both young and old, were accounted a holy and ſeparate people, Deut. 14.1, 2. Ye are the children of the Lord your God, thou art an holy people unto the Lord thy God, and the Lord hath choſen thee to be a peculiar people unto himſelfe above all the Nations that are upon the earth. Iſaiah 63.18. The people of thy holineſſe have poſſeſſed it but a little while: This priviledge continues to the Church in the New Teſtament to the worlds end, 1 Pet. 2.9. But ye are a choſen generation, a royall Prieſthood, an holy Nation, a peculiar people, which in time paſt were not a people, but are now the people of God. The Anabaptiſts for to looſe the knot of this argument, endeavour with much paine to caſt a miſt of confuſion upon the whole text; but to make clear and ſhort work with them we reaſon thus, The holineſſe ſpoken of by the Apoſtle Paul here, is one of three, either the holineſſe of juſtification and inherent ſanctification flowing from the application of the bloud of Chriſt, and inhabitation of the holy Ghoſt; or elſe a civill holineſſe of legitimation flowing from the lawfulneſſe of a juſt matrimony; or elſe a foederall holineſſe, whereby the whole church of God, young and old, by vertue of his covenant with them are ſeparate and dedicated unto him; no other ſenſes uſe to be aſcribed to the word holy in this place by any diſputant: the firſt two are inconſiſtent with the text, the third therefore muſt be received. The firſt cannot be approved by any who is ſound in the doctrine of juſtification and ſanctification: for who ever will make all the children of every beleeving parent to have the holineſſe of a reall juſtification and ſanctification, muſt either recall this tenet, or in the end cannot but join with the Papiſts and Arminians in their great article of totall and finall apoſtaſie from the moſt ſaving grace.
As for the ſecond ſenſe, we deny that ever in Scripture children are called holy, becauſe begotten in lawfull marriage: for ſo the children of the greateſt Idolaters and worſt of the Pagans, who have no relation at all to God, but as ſinfull creatures dedicated to Idols; that is, of creatures very unholy, and at beſt meerly naturall and civill, muſt be accounted holy according to Scripture. 2. The Apoſtle ſpeaking of an holineſſe which belongs to the Corinthians children, from this, that one of their parents is a beleever; Legitimation cannot be ſuch an holineſſe, for the faith of one or both parents contributes nothing to that; the children of two unbeleevers are as lawfull as the children of two beleevers, and ſo as holy in ſuch a ſenſe. But the holineſſe whereof the Apoſtle is there ſpeaking, is ſuch whereof the children of parents who are both unbeleevers are not capable, for it belongs to the children by vertue of the faith of one of the parents: So this civill holineſſe of legitimation, if there were any ſuch, could not agree to the Apoſtles words in hand.
The firſt two ſenſes being removed from the words, onelyonly the third does remain, a foederall holineſſe, whereby the children are joined with God in covenant, and dedicated to the ſervice of God by vertue of that covenant, as well as their parents. Such an holineſſe is a good reaſon of that which goes before, and a ſolid ground of ſolution of the Corinthians ſcruple which the Apoſtle is looſing: they had propounded to the Apoſtle their doubt, If a beleeving husband might lawfully cohabit with his unbeleeving wife; the Apoſtles anſwer is affirmative: and the reaſon of the anſwer is, becauſe what ever the unbeleeving parties may be in themſelves, yet their cohabitation is ſanctified to beleevers, and of this ſanctification the holineſſe of their children is brought for an evidence, ſince the Lord counted their children holy and in covenant with him, the beleevers might reſt aſſured that their abode with their companions (though unbeleeving) was acceptable unto God.
The Apoſtle here is ſpeaking of husbands and wives, not of men and whores, though ſome other Scriptures ſhould prove the baſtards of beleevers to be holy, yet this Scripture ſpeaks nothing either of them or of their holineſſe, or of any thing elſe belonging to them: only to ſettle the conſcience of beleeving husbands and wives, concerning their lawfull abode and ſanctified cohabitation with their unbeleeving companions, the foederal holines of their children is brought in for a proof. To have ſaid that children was lawful, was no more then that their marriage was lawful, wch was not the queſtion: but to ſay that the children of their lawfull marriage were holy, did infer not onelyonly the lawfulneſſe of the marriage, but the ſanctified uſe of the marriage, and that now their cohabitation was without ſin and acceptable to God.
My ſecond argument I take from infants Circumciſion,The ſecond argument is from the Circumciſion of Infants. which thus I frame. Circumciſion was adminiſtred to infants under the Law. Ergo, Baptiſme ought to be adminiſtred to infants under the Goſpel. Nothing here is doubtfull but the conſequence, which thus I prove. Baptiſme under the Goſpel ſucceeds to Circumciſion under the Law. Ergo, if Circumciſion was miniſtred to infants under the Law, Baptiſme ought to be miniſtred to infants under the Goſpel. Both the conſequence and the antecedent of this argument are denyed.
When for the proof of the conſequence we bring in the common rule of reaſoning from analogy and proportion,It is ſafe to reſume from Scripturall conſequences, yea, proportions. theſe of the adverſaries who prove to be ſo great diſputers as to challenge the chief Miniſters of the City to publick debates, doe deny to us all ſuch rules of diſputation, and which is much worſe, avow their miſ-regard of what ever conſequence we are able to fetch from any Scripture by the rules of the righteſt reaſon; leading us directly to that baſe and brutall fancy of the Jeſuite Veron, who for a time did pleaſe himſelf to admit from Proteſtants in all controverſies, no conſequences at all, but onelyonly expreſſe, formall, and ſyllabick texts. Though the Jeſuits themſelves did cry down and cruſh this irrationall & inhumane conceit of their colleague, yet the Anabaptiſts, among many more exploded and ſopited errors, ſhew their boldneſſe to renue this alſo; but in this madnes, their learned friend M. Tombs deſerts them; for he only admoniſhes us to be ſparing & cautious in our reaſoning from proportion in poſitive and inſtitute worſhip: his advice we mind to follow as very reaſonable: for we doe not from analogy infer the inſtitution of Baptiſme, or any other poſitive worſhip, onelyonly the application of Baptiſme, a worſhip inſtituted by an expreſſe command, to a certain ſubject, to wit, infants; and to reaſon thus far, yea farther from proportions and analogies is the frequent cuſtome both of Chriſt and his Apoſtles; thus the Lord proves it lawfull for his Diſciples to pluck the ears of corn on the Sabbath, from Davids eating of the ſhew-bread: and the Apoſtle proves the neceſſity of maintaining the Miniſters, from not muzling of the mouth of the Oxe that treadeth out the corn, and their living by the Altar who ſerve at the Altar, 1 Cor. 9.9.
But the greateſt ſtick is upon the antecedent, Baptiſmes ſucceſſion to Circumciſion; we therefore prove it from Col. 2.11, 12.Baptiſme ſucceeds to Circumciſion. Col. 2.11, 12. In whom alſo ye are circumciſed with the circumciſion made without hands, in putting off the body of the ſinnes of the fleſh by the Circumciſion of Chriſt: buried with him in Baptiſme, wherein alſo you are riſen with him. The Apoſtle here ſhewing our compleatneſſe in Chriſt, tels us that we have in him the main thing ſignified by Circumciſion, the ſpirituall Circumciſion of the heart not made with hands, the putting off of the body of ſin: alſo that in place of the aboliſhed rite of Circumciſion we have the new rite of Baptiſme, whoſe ſubſtance and ſignification was the very ſame with Circumciſion, a buriall with Chriſt, and a reſurrection with him, a killing of the body of ſin, and quickning of the new man in the life of every grace. The Apoſtle in this his parallel and compariſon of the two Sacraments is clear, in making the ſubſtance and ſignification of both to be really one. In this alſo that Circumciſion is put away, and accompliſhed by the comming of Chriſt, the body of all the old ſhadows; but that Baptiſme yet remains in the Chriſtian church in place of Circumciſion, having the ſame ends and ſignifications therewith. Many diſſimilitudes are here brought by ſome to hinder all proportion, analogy, and parallel betwixt theſe two Sacraments, but how many ſoever can be brought they will prove no more but that thoſe two are not one, which was never affirmed by any: things that are like and agree onelyonly in ſome third cannot poſſibly be one, for identity deſtroys analogy and ſimilitude.
But if two concordances betwixt Baptiſme and Circumciſion be made good, the third for which we reaſon will of its own accord follow, if it be clear that Circumciſion and Baptiſme be both of them ſeals of the ſame covenant; and both of them initiating ſeals; it follows that if infants were capable of the one, they are alſo of the other. If the firſt two doe not clearly enough appear from the laſt paſſage of the Apoſtle, there be many more Scriptures beſide to make them evident.
The firſt ſimilitude betwixt Baptiſme and Circumciſion is, their ſealing of the covenant of grace,Circumciſion did ſeal the Covenant of grace. and the bleſſings therein contained; this of Baptiſme was never queſtioned, but of Circumciſion the Anabaptiſts did ever deny it; we prove it firſt from Gen. 17.11.Gen. 17.11. and it ſhall be a token of the covenant between me and thee; what covenant was this whereof Circumciſion is here called a token? (or as the Apoſtle ſpeaks, Rom. 4.11. a ſign and a ſeal) Moſes expreſſes it in the 7. v. calling it an everlaſting covenant, wherein God promiſed to be a God to Abraham and to his ſeed after him: this covenant muſt be of grace, ſince the Lord the fountain of grace and glory promiſes therein to communicate even himſelf to Abrahams poſterity. It is true, according to the wiſe and wonderfull diſpenſation of the grace of God, both under the Law and Goſpel, the promiſe is preached to the whole ſeed, and all the members of the viſible church whether elect or reprobate; but what is offered to all in the Word and Sacraments, is conferred onelyonly upon the elect by the efficacy of his grace who works all in all according to the good pleaſure of his will.
It is clear alſo from Deut. 30.6.Deut. 30.6. that Circumciſion was a ſeal of the covenant of grace, and the Lord thy God will circumciſe thy heart, and the heart of thy ſeed, to love the Lord thy God with all thy heart and with all thy ſoul that thou mayeſt live; here the thing ſignified by the rite of Circumciſion is the ſanctification of the Spirit, and the planting of the love of God in the mortified heart, which without all doubt are two of the principal promiſes of the covenant of grace.
Likewiſe, Rom. 4.11.Rom. 4.11. is ſo clear that in reaſon it ought to ſtop all mouths from farther debating in this point, and he received the ſign of Circumciſion a ſeal of the righteouſneſſe of faith. Whence we reaſon, The covenant that brings to Goſpel juſtification, to the righteouſneſſe of faith, to remiſſion of ſins and happineſſe, is the covenant of grace. But the Apoſtle there affirms Circumciſion to have been a ſeal of ſuch a covenant. Ergo.
It's true, the covenant of grace,The covenant of grace has been diverſly adminiſtred, but ever the ſame and never mixed. in its adminiſtration before Chriſts comming in the fleſh, was cloathed with many ſhadows of now aboliſhed ceremonies, and had adjoined to it upon mount Sinai the old covenant of works to be a ſevere paedagogue for the pointing out the way to Chriſt, unto the very unruly children of Iſrael, and for keeping them in awe and terrour by its threats and curſes; alſo for alluring them to obedience by its temporall promiſes: we grant becauſe of thoſe adjuncts the covenant of grace is ſometimes ſpoken of as an old covenant, and is diſtinguiſhed from its very ſelf as it was adminiſtred by Chriſt after his incarnation, the old dreſſe of Sinai being changed as of an old garment: but that the thing was ever the ſame, adviſed Chriſtians muſt be loath to doubt, for if the covenant which the Lord made with Abraham and his ſeed under the Law be not truly and ſubſtantially the new covenant of grace, we deſire to know by what means they obtained either grace or glory: and to put all the Fathers of the Old Teſtament in ſo beaſtly a condition as excludes from grace and glory, who dare be ſo inſolent? Now if we grant them a covenant which did bring them to a ſtate of grace in this life, and of glory hereafter, how can we deny it to be gracious?
That which they ſpeak of a mixed covenant is not much to the purpoſe, we did never deny the adjunction of ceremonies and temporall promiſes, and the whole covenant of works unto the covenant of grace under its firſt adminiſtration: yea, under the very New Teſtament where the adminiſtration is much changed, the new covenant wants not both its ſacramentall ceremonies and the promiſes of this life; but none of thoſe adjuncts doe change the ſtate and nature of the principall; it remains ever a covenant of pure grace without any mixture; it is neither in the whole, nor in any ſubſtantiall part turned into a covenant of works; it may not loſe its denomination if it keeps its nature; it may neither be counted wholly a covenant of works, nor a mixed covenant of grace and works.
For the other part of the ſimilitude that Circumciſion and Baptiſme as they are ſeals of the ſame covenant, ſo they are both initiating ſeals,Both Circumciſion and Baptiſme are initiating ſeals. ceremonies whereby the firſt ſolemn entry into this covenant is made, is ſcarce controverted by any; of circumciſion the thing is evident, whatever covenant it ſealed it was an initiating ſeal thereof; for it was the very firſt ceremony exerciſed about any perſon: they of age at their profeſſion of the faith were circumciſed, and infants in the eight day of their life; no uncircumciſed perſon might enter the Tabernacle or Temple, or eat of the Paſchall ſupper. The ſame is true of Baptiſme, upon thoſe of age who profeſſe faith, Chriſt immediately puts Baptiſme, Goe preach and baptize: none may participate of the Lords Supper who is not before baptized: this was the order of the Apoſtolick Churches, Acts 2.38.41, 42. The Apoſtle exhorts his hearers, firſt to repent and be baptized: this being done, thereafter they goe to the breaking of bread. M. Tombs the over-turner of this order is deſerted herein, as in many other of his notions, by all the Anabaptiſts I know.
Thus the parts of the analogy which we touch upon are made good, as for our inference that Baptiſme being an initiating ſign of the ſame covenant in which Circumciſion initiates, therefore as Circumciſion was adminiſtred to infants in their ſolemn admiſſion to the covenant under the Law; ſo baptiſme ought to bee adminiſtred to infants in their ſolemn admiſſion to the ſame covenant under the Goſpel. The main things objected againſt this concluſion are two; firſt, that neither under Law nor Goſpel infants were admitted to any covenant of grace. I grant if this exception were made not to the concluſion which is an informal way of anſwering, but to the conſequence or antecedent or ſome propoſition, it is very relevant if it were true; but in the former argument I have demonſtrated from divers clear Scriptures its falſhood.
Their other exception is,There needs not a particular command for the application of a ſacrament to the divers ages, and ſexes, and conditions of perſons. that the parallel were it moſt harmonious in never ſo many things, yet if it be to the purpoſe, it muſt hold alſo in this, that as Circumciſion had an expreſs command for its application to infants, ſo muſt Baptiſm. We anſwer, that this exception is the very point in queſtion, which this whole argument and the former, and all that follows intend to prove; that for the application of Baptiſm to infants, there is ſo much of a divine commandment as is requiſite in ſuch a caſe. That expreſſe cōmands are not required for the application of ordinances to the diverſe ages, ſexes and conditions of ſubjects, is clear in a number of inſtances: Who ever did require a particular command, or expreſſe inſtitution for admitting of women to the Lords Supper? for the baptiſme of old men, the baptiſme of Kings, of Queens, of Merchants, and ſo forth? If the premiſes therefore be granted as we have proved them from Scripture, that infants are in the covenant of grace, that Circumciſion was, and Baptiſme is a Sacramentall ſeal, initiating and ſolemnly bringing into this covenant all who are admitted thereto; and that Circumciſion did initiate infants therein, it will not in reaſon be avoided, but Baptiſme muſt ſtill do the ſame, and that to deny Baptiſme the initiating ſeal of the covenant of grace to infants, is nothing elſe but the excluding of them from the covenant of grace it ſelf.
It is Mr Tombes remark, that under the very Law Baptiſm was in uſe,Infants Baptiſme under the Law. and Mr Marſhall addes very judiciouſly from the Talmud from Maimonides and other Authors, that who ever were circumciſed among the Jews were alſo baptized, infants as well as their parents, women as well as men. That this cuſtome of baptizing all who were added to the church, children as well as parents, did conſtantly continue in all ages of the Chriſtian church, is proved by many without any ſatisfactory reply; but we intend here to diſpute from Scripture alone.
Our third argument we take from Mat. 28.19.The third argument from Mat. 28.19. Goe ye therefore and teach all Nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the holy Ghoſt. Hence we reaſon thus, To duplicate page duplicate page whom that commiſſion of the Apoſtles to baptize did extend, they are commanded to be baptized: But to ſome infants that commiſſion of the Apoſtles does extend. Ergo. The minor only is queſtionable, we prove it by theſe reaſons; firſt, To whom the chief matter of that commiſſion does belong, to them the commiſſion does extend; But to ſome infants the chief matter of that commiſſion does belong:The promiſes of the Goſpel belong to infants. for the chief matter thereof was the glad tidings of ſalvation in Chriſt, the holy covenant and mercy promiſed to the Fathers, the oath ſworn to Abraham, as Zachary expounds it, Luke 1.72, 73. Now that the covenant and promiſe in the very tearms of it concerned infants as much as any, appears by the words of God to Abraham, Gen. 17.7. I will be thy God and the God of thy ſeed; and Peter, Acts 2.39. does preach expreſly, that this promiſe did belong as well to his hearers children as to themſelves.
Infants are not in a worſe condition under the Goſpel then under the Law.A ſecond proof, if this commiſſion of the Goſpel of ſalvation, and its initial ſeal extend not to any infants, then the extent of the covenant of grace ſhould be much ſtraiter among the Gentiles then it had been among the Jews: for infants are a great part of every Nation, and among the Jews the covenant in the promiſe of grace and of glory, and in the ſeals of both was extended to infants as well as to any others; ſo if among the Gentiles now under the Goſpel infants were excluded, it would be a very ſenſible and pitifull reſtraint of the covenant; but a very abſurd one, for every chriſtian Nation has the covenant of grace communicate to them in no worſe, but in much better tearms then the Jews of old.
All who are baptized needs not be capable of teaching.The great objection againſt al this, is this argument; None are the objects of baptiſme, but who firſt are the objects of teaching; But infants are not the objects of teaching. Ergo. We anſwer, that both the propoſitions may be denyed, there is no neceſſity of the major, for although the commiſſion of teaching and baptizing goe together, yet this infers not any neceſſity of applying theſe two commands to the ſelf ſame perſons; be it ſo that theſe two acts are ever conjoined, and that teaching muſt ever goe before baptizing, for the parents ought to be inſtructed before the children be baptized, and in the right adminiſtration of baptiſme, the nature of the covenant is always declared before the ſeal of the ſacrament be appended; yet it follows not that the ſame perſons who are to be baptized, are at that ſame time to be taught: as in the commiſſion for Circumciſion, Gen. 17. all the precepts concern not the ſelf ſame perſons, but ſome the parents onelyonly, ſome the infants only, and ſome both, v. 12. he that is eight days old ſhall be circumciſed among you; this belongs onelyonly to infants, but the 11. v. ye ſhall circumciſe the fleſh of your fore-skin, this belongs onelyonly to the parents, and thoſe of age, for no other could obey this injunction: and v. 10. every man-child among you ſhall be circumciſed, belongs alike both to old & young. Even ſo that in the Law of Baptiſm ſome of the injunctions ſhould belong only to the Paſtors, as the act of preaching; and baptizing and others, onelyonly to the elder people that are to be baptized, as that of being taught; and others, as that of being baptized, to the younger alſo who are not able to bee taught, there is no abſurdity.
The minor alſo is denyed upon divers grounds.Infants are Diſciples. I ſpeak not of that which divers maintain of the actuall faith of children, and of the application to infants, of that of Iſaiah; they ſhall be all taught of God, from the leaſt to the greateſt. But I deſire that to be conſidered, which many more affirm, and divers of the Anabaptiſts themſelves doe preſſe, that the word which Chriſt uſes in his commiſſion to the Apoſtles is, matheteuein, which ſignifies ſay they, not to teach, but to make Diſciples; now infants may very well goe under the name of Diſciples, for they are brought to the School of God, the viſible Church, and there they are dedicate to Gods diſcipline, and have their names given up to be the Lords ſubjects and ſcholars. Sundry ſcriptures alſo are produced where infants are counted Diſciples, as Act. 15.10. why tempt ye God to put a yoke upon the neck of the Diſciples? Circumciſion is the yoke whereof the Apoſtle is ſpeaking, now they on whoſe neck ordinarily that yoke was put were onelyonly infants.
A third reaſon for the proving of our firſt minor, is this,Infants have intereſt in the Trinity. To whom the form and end of Baptiſme expreſſed in the place in hand does belong, to them the commiſſion ſet down in Mat. 28.19. does extend; But to ſome infants the form and end of Baptiſme expreſſed in that place does belong. Ergo. The minor is grounded upon the words of the text, for they make the form and end of Baptiſme to be a dedication of the perſon baptized to the Father, Son, and holy Ghoſt, and an intereſſing of the three Perſons in the baptized party: now the neceſſity to dedicate chriſtian infants to their Creator, Redeemer, and Sanctifier, and the intereſt of all the three Perſons in the infants of their ſervants ſo dedicated unto them is evident.
A fourth reaſon for the probation of that firſt minor, whoſoever may lawfully be baptized to them,Infants may be lawfully baptized. the commiſſion in hand does extend; for the baptiſm of women, of old men, of Kings, of Beggers, and of all ſexes, ages, and conditions, is grounded upon this command, though neither their names nor their qualities be therein expreſly ſet down, nor can be fetched frō thence, but only by conſquence. Now we aſſume, that ſome infants may lawfully be baptized: this, both the preſent argument and the two former, and theſe that follow, doe prove, and the Apoſtle Peter, Acts 2.39. does evince by this argument, To whom the chief ground of Baptiſme does belong they may lawfully be baptized; But to ſome children the chief ground of baptiſme does belong, to wit, the promiſes of the new covenant: thoſe ſays he, belong to you and to your children; and upon this as a principall foundation he builds his exhortation to them to be baptized.
Arg. 4. from the Baptiſm of whole families.Our fourth main argument is this, The bleſſing which God beſtows on whole families without exception of any infant, ought not to be denyed to all infants; But baptiſme is ſuch a bleſſing. Ergo. The major is grounded on that laudable conformity which ought to be in all men with God; when hee is good, our eye without reproof may not be evill: the minor is proved from divers Scriptures, where the Apoſtles did baptize, not only them who are declared to beleeve, but with them their whole houſehold, whoſe actuall beleeving is not at all expreſſed, Acts 16.15.Acts 16.15.31 when ſhe was baptized and her houſhold, ibid. v. 31. thou and thy houſe ſhall be ſaved; and v. 33. he and all his were baptized, and 1 Cor. 1.16.1 Cor. 1.16. I baptized alſo the houſhold of Stephanas. No exception here is made of infants, and if any ſhould except them becauſe they cannot hear the Word and beleeve, they muſt exclude them alſo from the other ſpirituall benefits mentioned in theſe places, even from ſalvation it ſelf; for as our Saviour ſpeaks to Zacheus, Luke 19.9. This day is ſalvation come to this houſe; and the Lord ſhewed by the Angel to Cornelius, that Peter ſhould tell him words whereby he and all his houſe ſhould be ſaved, Acts 11.14. So Paul tels the keeper of the priſon, that upon his faith himſelf ſhould be ſaved and his houſe, Act. 16.31. How great a wrong it were to exclude infants either from the promiſe or from the ſeal of ſalvation, when both are conferred upon whole houſholds, whereof infants are the moſt innocent parts, may be ſeen in all the preceding practiſes of God, from the firſt inſtitution of any initiating ſign to that day; What ever man, either Jew or Gentile, was moved by God to joine himſelf to the viſible church, as himſelf did hear and make profeſſion of his faith, and receive the ſeal of Circumciſion, ſo alſo all his male infants were circumciſed, though they could neither hear nor beleeve. This bounty and kindneſſe God did never afterward retract, and for any man to doe it, it were a great preſumption; for ſo the Jews in the New Teſtament where their comforts are enlarged ſhould be in a more ſorrowfull condition then the very Gentiles were in the Old; for then the Proſelytes upon the profeſſion of their faith, had all their infants though unable to beleeve, taken within the covenant, and all their children admitted to the ſeals thereof; but according to our adverſaries poſition, the Jews themſelves in the New Teſtament, though never ſo zealous of the faith, muſt have all their children excluded, not onelyonly from the ſeals, but from the covenant it ſelf, and all its gracious promiſes either of grace or glory, and from every ſpirituall bleſſing. It muſt be a very clear Scripture that ought to perſwade ſo great a change of Gods adminiſtration of his covenant, and its ſeals ſo much to the worſe of that which is confeſſed was before his uſuall practiſe and command.
A fifth reaſon,Arg. 5. from Chriſts laying of his hands on infants, and bleſſing them. Whoſoever by Gods expreſſe direction and practiſe is admitted to his favour and bleſſing, and to the outward ſigns and ſeals thereof, may be baptized. But by Chriſts expreſſe direction and practiſe, ſome infants are admitted to his favour and bleſſing, and to the outward ſigns and ſeals thereof. Ergo. The major is grounded upon the nature of baptiſme, which is a ſeal of Chriſts bleſſings: they to whom the bleſſing of Chriſt and the outward ſeal thereof belongs, why ſhould they not be admitted to baptiſme when once the Lord has ſolemnly declared his will, to initiate all to whom his bleſſings belong by the ſeal of baptiſme? The minor is clear from Mat. 19.13.Mat. 19.13. Then were there brought unto him little children that he ſhould put his hands upon them and pray, and the Diſciples rebuked them, but Jeſus ſaid, Suffer little children and forbid them not, for of ſuch is the kingdome of heaven; and he laid his hands on them; alſo, Mar. 10.13, 14, 15, 16.Mark 10.13, 14 15 16. And they brought young children to him that he ſhould touch them, and his Diſciples rebuked thoſe that brought them; but when Jeſus ſaw it, he was much diſpleaſed, and ſaid unto them, Suffer little children to come unto me and forbid them not, and he took them up in his arms, put his hands upon them, and bleſſed them. Here the Lord commands children to be brought to him, he is much diſpleaſed, and reproves his Diſciples for ſtopping of them, he laid his hands upon them and bleſſed them, declaring that of ſuch was the kingdome of heaven.
Exceptions againſt theſe places t…ken off.To this argument three things are anſwered; Firſt, that the children mentioned were not infants, but grown to ſuch years as made them capable of inſtruction. Secondly, that their bleſſing was not ſpirituall but a temporall health. Thirdly, that the ſign and ſeal mentioned is not baptiſme but impoſition of hands. To the firſt we reply, that the children were not of ſo many years as made them capable of inſtruction, for the text cals them expreſly young and little ones. Secondly, they were ſo young, that they could not walk, they were brought to Chriſt, they did not come but in the arms of their parents; Chriſt alſo took them up in his own arms. Thirdly, if they had been capable of inſtruction, the Apoſtles could not have been offended, for they knew that it was their maſters office and delight to inſtruct all who were capable, and the comming of ſuch to the great Doctor could have given no offence.
To the ſecond, the text gives not the leaſt hint that any bodily cure was either required or given. Secondly, the bleſſings given were ſuch, as Chriſt is deſired to ſeek from the Father by prayer, and theſe could not but be the beſt bleſſings, even ſpirituall and everlaſting. Thirdly, it's expreſſed in the place, that the greateſt of all bleſſings was theirs, even the very kingdome of heaven. While this is denyed by the adverſaries affirming that the kingdome of heaven belongs not to infants, but onelyonly to thoſe who are like them; the text refels this their ſhift; for the kingdome of heaven muſt belong much more to themſelves then to ſuch who were onelyonly like them. The ſcope and intention of Chriſt in this place is not to ſpeak of the condition of others like to infants, but of infants themſelves, who were unjuſtly ſtopped by the Apoſtles to come to him, and the Lord is pleading for the admiſſion onelyonly of infants to him upon this reaſon, that heaven belonged to ſuch, which had been an impertinent argument for his concluſion, if heaven had not belonged to infants at all, who upon this reaſon are required to be admitted to him. Farther, if infants were to be admitted to Chriſt, becauſe heaven belonged to theſe, who reſembled them in ſome qualities, it would follow that doves, lambs, ſerpents, ſtones, and trees might have been brought to him upon this reaſon as well as infants; for men reſembling theſe creatures in their good qualities are to goe to heaven.
As for their third anſwer it is very true, that the ſigne in the place alledged was not baptiſm, this was never alledged; for we read nothing of the baptiſm of the parents of theſe infants who were preſented to Chriſt; as yet the command of baptiſm was not made ſo publick as afterward, when the Lord at his aſcenſion ſent out his Diſciples in the power of the holy Ghoſt to gather a formed Church, and to baptize beleevers and their children; the reaſon proceeded not from baptiſme, but to baptiſme, and that à loco diſparatorum; ſince impoſition of hands, a ſeal of Chriſts grace and bleſſing, and of the kingdome of heaven belonged to infants; that therefore baptiſme a ſeal of that ſame kind, when once the Lord had ſolemnly at his aſcenſion appointed it to be the ordinary ſeal of initiation into his Church, ought not to be denyed unto them.
A ſixth reaſon;Arg. 6. Infants under the Law were baptized. Infants were baptized as well as their parents by Moſes baptiſme. Ergo, Infants as well as their parents ought to be baptized by Chriſts baptiſme. The antecedent is the Apoſtles, 1 Cor. 10.1, 2.1 Cor. 10.1, 2. M r…over brethren, I would not that ye ſhould be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all paſſed through the ſea: and were all baptized unto Moſes in the cloud and in the Sea. The Fathers baptized in the cloud, and in the ſea were the whole people as well young as old; for no doubt the infants went as well through the cloud and the ſea as their parents. The conſequence is proved thus; the reaſons which may be brought for the excluſion of infants from being baptized with their parents by Chriſts baptiſme, militar, as much againſt their being baptized with their parents by Moſes baptiſme. Therefore if notwithſtanding they were admitted to the one baptiſme, they may as well be admitted to the other. If it be ſaid that the infants did with their parents in the wilderneſſe eat of the Manna and drink of the rock, yet may they not now be admitted with their parents to eat and drink at the Lords Table: We anſwer, there is no ſuch neceſſary evidence of the infants eating of the Manna and drinking of the rock, as of their paſſing through the cloud and ſea; this neceſſity was ſimple and abſolute, the other not ſo; for infants may live on their mothers breaſts and the milk of cattle, without either eating of bread or drinking of water: but however, there is a poſitive precept that hinders them from participation of the Lords Supper; they cannot remember the Lords death, they cannot examine the ſtate of their own heart; no ſuch impediment is put in their way by the hand of God to keep them from baptiſme. M. Tombes obſerves it, that long before John the Baptiſts days, baptiſme was in uſe among the Jews, and M. Marſhal adds from the Talmud, Maimonides and other Authors, that it was a very ancient cuſtome to baptize all that were circumciſed, infants as wel as their parents, women as well as men; and that this cuſtome of baptizing all that were added to the Church, as well children as others, did continue in all ages among Chriſtians, is proved at length by many without any ſatisfactory reply: but we intend here to diſpute from Scripture alone.
7. Argument. Infants are partakers of remiſſion, of regeneration, of life eternal.Wee ſhall bring but one other reaſon and ſo paſſe on, To whom the Lord gives the whole ſignification of baptiſme, from theſe, men ought not to withhold the outward ſign thereof; But to ſome infants the Lord gives the whole ſignification of baptiſm. For the proof of the major we need not alledge the equity of giving the leſſe to them that gets the more, of not denying the ſhell and the cask to them who enjoy the kirnell and the pearl; for the Apoſtles words prove it ſufficiently, Acts 10.47.Acts 10.47. Can any man forbid water that theſe ſhould not be baptized which have received the holy Ghoſt as well as we? and he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord; the Apoſtle here reaſons from one part of the ſignification of baptiſme, and that but a temporary bleſſing, the extraordinacy gifts of the holy Ghoſt, to the outward ſign of baptiſme, how much more may we conclude it from its whole ordinary ſignification? The ground of this reaſon is granted by the principall of our adverſaries, who profeſs their willingneſſe to baptize any infants of whom they were certain that they had the ſaving graces of the holy Ghoſt, & avow their excluſion of infants from baptiſm upon this ground mainly, that they beleeve, they are excluded from the covenant of grace, remiſſion of ſins, the ſaving graces of the Spirit, till in the years of diſcretion they be brought actually to beleeve.
The minor, that ſome infants have the whole ſignification of baptiſme, is thus proved; Who have remiſſion of ſins, regeneration, and right to eternall life, they have the whole ſignification of baptiſme. But ſome infants have all theſe. The major is clear. I prove the minor; None enters into heaven, but they whoſe ſins are remitted, who are regenerate, and to whom life eternall belongs. But ſome infants enter into heaven. Ergo. The minor is not queſtioned, for the words of Chriſt, of ſuch is the kingdome of heaven, and the confeſſion of the adverſaries puts it out of doubt. The major alſo is clear from Revel. 21.27. And there ſhall in no wiſe enter into it any thing that defileth. Nothing comes into heaven but what is perfectly purged, juſtified, ſanctified, glorified; alſo, Ioh. 3.5. Ieſus anſwered, Verily verily, I ſay unto thee, except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdome of God; and Rom. 5.19. As by one mans diſobedience many were made ſinners: ſo by the obedience of one man many ſhall be made righteous. As Adam makes all that are deſcended of him ſinners, infants as well as others: ſo Chriſt communicates his righteouſneſſe to all who are in him, to all whom he receives and acknowledges to be his without any diſtinction of Jew or Gentile, male or female, young or old; who ever have intereſt in Chriſt, are juſtified and ſanctified by him; Now that ſome infants, eſpecially theſe elect ones, who die before the age of diſcretion, have intereſt in Chriſt and his covenant, hath oft been proved.
If it be ſaid, that infants by this argument may be admitted to the Lords Supper, we deny it, for the Lord himſelf hath put a barre to keepe them off from that Sacrament; alſo they are not capable of the whole ſignification of the Lords Supper, for the thing ſignified therein is not the Lords body and blood ſimply, but his body to be eaten, and his blood to be drunken, by the actuall faith of the communicants; of this active application infants are not capable; but in baptiſme no action is neceſſarily required of all who are to be baptized; for as the body may be waſhed without any action of the party who is waſhed: ſo the vertue of Chriſts death and life may be applied in remiſſion and regeneration, by the act of God alone to the ſoul as a meer patient without any action from it.