The Baptizing of Infants Justified, Part 2
The Judgement of Modern Proteſtant Divines of Foraine parts, touching Infants Baptiſme.
Mercer.ALthough there be no ſet time appointed for Baptiſme, as there was for Circumciſion, yet certainly it ought to be adminiſtred as ſoone as may be; not that wee ſhould doubt of their ſalvation that want Baptiſme, if they happen to die without it; for we doe not aſcribe ſo much vertue to the ſigne, as that when it cannot be had, we ſhould queſtion the reality of the thing ſignifyed. Mercer on Gen. 17.
Calvin.It is to be noted, that when a man is admitted into the Fellowſhip of Beleevers, the promiſe is not only made to him, but to his children: Gen. 17.7. Therefore he which is not within this Covenant from his cradle, is a ſtranger from the Church, till he be brought in by the Doctrine of Faith and Repentance: But then his ſeed begins to be of the Family of the Church. Therefore Infants of Beleevers are Baptized by vertue of this Covenant, which is made with their Fathers in their Name; In this therefore the Anabaptiſts doe miſerably deceive themſelves. Cal. Inſtitutions againſt Anabaptiſts.
Sadcel.If they underſtand Chriſts Inſtitution of Baptiſme to be neceſſarily continued in the Chriſtian Church, even to the end of the World, and that the children of Chriſtians ought to be Baptized, even ſo do we underſtand, and beleeve: As it appeares in the confeſon of the French Church: Artic. 35. Sadeelis opera Theol. pag. 428.
Junius.All the Elect are to be Baptized into the body of Chriſt; if moreover all of them, as well Infants as perſons of yeers, ought to put on Chriſt, then to ſeparate them from the body of Chriſt, and not to ingraffe them into Chriſt, were a moſt wicked thing. And againe; when Infants are Baptized, God doth both offer, and conferre all the good things of the Covenant, and ingageth himſelf unto it: Iunius in his Theſis of Baptizing Infants.
Voſſius.Although Infants have not actuall Faith, yet this ought no more to keepe them off from baptiſme, then meat ought to be denied them, becauſe the Apoſtle ſaith, he that will not labour let him not eate: Ʋoſſius, Defence of baptizing Infants.
Infants borne of Chriſtian parents ought to be baptized,Polanus. as may be proved by theſe arguments:
1. All that are in covenant with God ought to be baptized; but infants are within the covenant of grace, 1 Cor. 7.14. And Chriſt bleſſed and conſecrated infants, Matth. 19.
2. Becauſe to them belongs the promiſe of remiſſion of ſins by the blood of Chriſt, Acts 2.38, 39.
3. Becauſe infants doe belong to the Church of God; For theirs is the Kingdome of Heaven.
4. Becauſe they are redeemed with the blood of Chriſt, and waſhed from their ſinnes, and ſo by the vertue of the holy Spirit have the thing ſignified; why then ſhould they be debarred from participating of the ſigne?
5. Becauſe the holy Ghoſt is promiſed to them; yea, they have the holy Ghoſt.
6. Becauſe they ſhould be diſtinguiſhed from the children of Infidels, therefore the ſigne of diſtinction ſhould be put upon them.
7. Becauſe the Apoſtles baptized whole families.
8. Becauſe infants were circumciſed: Polani Syntagma, cap. de Bapt.
The Anabaptiſts deale very preſumptuouſly,Aretius. in denying infants to have faith; but ſuppoſe they have not faith, their parents have; and their children are holy, 1 Cor. 7.14. and doe belong to the Church, and have the Spirit of God, who adminiſtreth the true baptiſme; why therefore ſhould they not be baptized? ſhall our children be more unhappy then the children of the Jewes, which were not debarred the ſigne of the covenant? Is our baptiſme inferiour to circumciſion, that it may not be adminiſtred to infants as that was? but infants have faith in their kind, their parents doe believe, and they have the Spirit of God; 'tis our part therefore to hope well of them, ſeeing election is one of the hidden ſecrets of God: Therefore by no honeſt reaſon may baptiſme be denyed to Infants. Aretius com. places: loco. 66.
We ought to believe that Chriſt died for infants,Brentius. and that the Father is well pleaſed with them in him, and that God is not onelyonly the God of men growne, but even of infants alſo. In this confidence we ought to pray for the ſalvation of infants, and to offer them in baptiſme, that being incorporated into the body of Chriſt by baptiſme, they may attaine eternall life. Brentius on Luke 5.
Pareus.Circumciſion and Baptiſme doe agree in their principall ends:
1. In that both doe ſignifie the grace of Chriſt juſtifying and regenerating by the blood and Spirit of Chriſt.
2. In that both doe ſolemnly bind to the faith and obedience of Gods covenant.
3. In that in both there is a ſolemne reception of all in covenant, as well infants as thoſe of yeeres, into the Church, and diſtinguiſhing them from aliens.
4. In that both doe belong to all ages, as well infants as men growne. Pareus on Gen. 17.
Spanhemius.We conclude the baptiſme of infants to be juſtly retained in the Church of Chriſt, for theſe reaſons:
1. Becauſe it is founded on Gods Commandement, on holy examples, and on the promiſe, as hath been ſhewed before.
2. Becauſe the ſigne of the covenant ought to be given to all that are within the covenant.
3. Becauſe otherwiſe the children of believers ſhould have no more priviledge, then the children of Jews or Gentiles.
4. Becauſe baptiſme ſucceedeth circumciſion, and beares a correſpondency with it. The condition of the Jewes children under the old Teſtament ſhould not be better then that of the infants of Chriſtians under the new, Spanh. Dubia Evangelica. part. 3.
Lavater.Seeing the grace of the Goſpell extends it ſelfe more largely then that of the Law, it was expedient that a Sacrament ſhould be ordained, divulging more grace then circumciſion; Therefore baptiſme is adminiſtred to women, though circumciſion was not: whereby we may conclude againſt thoſe who deny the baptizing of infants. For if children under the Law were circumciſed, notwithſtanding they could know nothing of the nature and benefit of that covenant; why ſhould not our children be baptized now? was the condition of children better under the old Teſtament then under the new? none but ſuch as are paſt ſhame will affirme it: Lavater on Ioſ. 5.
Gualter.Let no man thinke we goe about to patronize the Anabaptiſticall madneſſe: for they doe both erre dangerouſly from the truth, and rage againſt it, whiles they contend that the ſame courſe is to be taken with the children of believing parents, and ſtrangers of growne yeeres. For they which were formerly ſtrangers, and out of the Church of Chriſt (ſuch as were Jewes and Gentiles) we ſay ought not to be baptized (unleſſe we would profane that holy Ordinance of baptiſme) untill they can give an account of their faith: But there is a great difference betweene them and the children of believers; for theſe are to be accounted members of the Church, and within the covenant: ſuch are holy, and Chriſt will have ſuch to come unto him; and 'tis manifeſt that ſuch doe pleaſe God, in that their Angels doe alwaies behold the face of their Father. And though we cannot comprehend their ſtate and condition, yet Chriſt teſtifies that they have faith, and are capable of the Spirit of God; as the example of Iohn Baptiſt and others, who were ſanctified in the wombe, doth teſtifie: Therefore to deny baptiſme to ſuch is an extreame impiety, and a wickedneſſe of a monſtrous impudency: Gualter on Act. 8.
By no meanes the ſigne of the covenant is to be denied them to whom the right of the covenant belongs;Muſculus. ſeeing therefore that baptiſme is nothing elſe but a ſigne of the covenant and grace of God, in the new Teſtament, and the children of beleevers amongſt the Gentiles are no leſſe partakers of this teſtament and grace of God, which is given to the elect in the Kingdome of God by Jeſus Chriſt, then the children of the Jewes; what madneſſe is it to deny them the ſigne of this grace? what elſe is this but to account our children excluded, as ſtrangers, from the grace and covenant of God? he that denies the ſign, doth certainly (as much as in him lies) take away the thing ſignified: Muſculus on Matth. 8.
It is not to be doubted,Chemnitius. but that the Spirit of Chriſt doth worke ſo effectually, even in infants that are baptized, as that it makes them capable of the Kingdome of God, although we doe not know how it is done. For baptiſme is the laver of regeneration and renovation, which the holy Spirit powreth on them that are baptized; whereby they being juſtified are made heires of eternall life, Tit. 3.5. and that little children doe receive the Kingdome of God, Chriſt himſelfe affirmeth. Matth. 10.15. and this is called the faith of infants; for as circumciſion in the old Teſtament, was to infants a ſigne of the righteouſneſſe of faith, Rom. 4.11. ſo in the new Teſtament, becauſe children that are baptized doe pleaſe God, and are ſaved, they neither may nor ought to be rejected amongſt Infidels, but are truely to be reckoned amongſt beleevers; and ſo unto them belong the words, He that believeth and is baptized ſhall be ſaved, Mar. 16.16. Chemnitii loca Theol. de Bapt.
Marlorat.If you aske, how the children of Chriſtians doe belong to the Church, or to Chriſt; we anſwer. No otherwiſe then the children of the Jewes (being the ſeed of Abraham) are ſaid to be within the covenant of God, Gen. 17.7. therefore our children are baptized, as theirs were circumciſed; becauſe they are not to be reputed out of the Church; for we are the ſonnes of the promiſe, and are partakers of the inheritance with Abraham; and what was ſaid to him, is promiſed to us, and our children: For they may have the Grace and Spirit of Chriſt, ſeeing they are members of us, and of the Church. If the root be holy, the branches are alſo holy, Rom. 12.16. which things, though they be ſpoken of the Jewes, yet doe they belong to us. And if the Lord hath ſevered the children of believing parents from the common ſort of men, why doe we deny them the ſigne? This therefore refutes the brain-ſicke opinion of the Anabaptiſts, who deny baptiſme to Chriſtians children, whom the Apoſtle pronounceth holy, by vertue of the promiſe. Marlorat on 1 Cor. 7.14.
Beza.The words of the covenant are cleare; I will be thy God, and the God of thy ſeed. Now by ſeed is meant all the Gentiles that believe with righteous Abraham, Gal. 38. And the Apoſtle doth manifeſtly declare, that the children of believing parents are holy, yea, though but one of the parents believeth; by which holineſſe, nothing elſe can be underſtood, then being within the covenant; whereby holy perſons are diſtinguiſhed from profane. Therefore we ought to judge hopefully of all that are borne of Chriſtian parents, as the indefinite words of the covenant, and the rule of charity teacheth us. Beza, Queſtions and Anſwers.
Hemingius.The command of Chriſt is generall; that all Nations ſhould be baptized, Matth. 28. therefore we gather that it is ſacriledge to deny baptiſme to infants. Hemingii Euchiridion de Bapt.
Zanche.We believe with the ancient catholicke Church, that not onelyonly perſons of yeeres, (who can expreſſe repentance, and are able to make profeſſion of their faith) ſhould be admitted to the Sacrament of baptiſme, but even infants alſo, ſeeing we are to account them within the covenant: for the Apoſtle ſaith; that the children of believers are holy, 1 Cor. 7.14. eſpecially ſeeing Chriſt hath no where altered the command of God given to Abraham, for ſigning the children of believers with the ſigne of the covenant; yea he hath ſaid, Suffer little children to come unto me, for of ſuch is the Kingdome of Heaven, Matth. 19.14. Zanch. de Rel. Chriſtiana.
Becauſe this queſtion (whether infants ſhould be baptized) hath been much perplexed with the diſputations of the Pelagians of old, and of late with the clamors of the Anabaptiſts;Daneus. we will collect ſome reaſons to prove that the infants of believers may, and ought to be baptized. The Papiſts indeed teach, that this practice hath prevailed onelyonly by the degrees of ancient Fathers, and cuſtome of the Church, and by the traditions of men. But we better and more truely affirme, that both the doctrine and practice hereof is founded and eſtabliſhed by the Word of God; although the Scripture doth not in expreſſe termes declare that infants ſhould be baptized, yet by conſequence and the analogy of faith, it will appeare to be the direct ſenſe and meaning of the written Word. We will not inſiſt upon all the reaſons that may be produced to this purpoſe, but onelyonly ſelect ſome, &c.
1. Infants and children of believers, even they are believers and within the covenant, and belong to God, even as the fathers themſelves, Gen. 17.7. Exod. 20.6. Therefore the ſigne of Gods covenant belongs to them, as well as their parents; which now under the Goſpell is baptiſme. For the children of believers are ſanctified from the wombe, 1 Cor. 7.14. therefore baptiſme, which is the ſigne of ſanctification, belongs to them.
2. Thoſe to whom God giveth and applieth the thing it ſelfe, to them doth the ſigne appertaine: (for no man ought to reſtraine or withſtand the grace of God, Acts 11.17.) now God doth give to infants of beleeving parents the thing ſignified in baptiſme, which is remiſſion of ſins, and ſanctification, although the effects of thoſe gifts doe not preſently appeare in them, 1 Cor. 7.14. for he affirms, that of ſuch is the Kingdome of Heaven. So that infants of believers are heires of the Kingdome of God, as well as thoſe that are of yeeres of underſtanding: therefore to them belong the ſignes of thoſe graces; for the baptiſme of Chriſt belongs to the whole Church.
3. Circumciſion as well as baptiſme was a ſigne of the righteouſneſſe of God, Rom. 4, 11. and circumciſion was to the Jewes a ſigne of mortifying the fleſh, as baptiſme is to us, Deut. 10.30. Rom. 6.4. and God commanded that infants ſhould be circumciſed; therefore they ought to be baptized; otherwiſe the grace of God under the Goſpell ſhould be ſcanter, and intended to fewer, then under the Law.
4. Chriſts command for baptiſme was generall, not excluding infants, Matth. 28.19. therefore baptiſme belongs to them; and the Apoſtles are ſaid to baptize whole families, Acts 16.15 33. amongſt which tis probable that there were infants.
5. The example of the univerſall Chriſtian Church confirms this practice: which may appeare by the teſtimony of divers writers in ſeverall ages, as Origen on Rom. 6. Aug. lib. 4. of baptizing infants, againſt the Donatiſts.
6. Heb. 6.2. The doctrine of baptiſme is called the doctrine of impoſition of hands, which belongs to infants, 'Daneus Iſag. part. 4.
P. Martyr.As of old circumciſion was adminiſtred to infants, ſo ought it not to be denied them now; for if they have the thing ſignified, why ſhould they not have the ſigne? Let no man doubt that circumciſion and baptiſme are alike, and that there is the ſame reaſon of the one as of the other. This doth Paul plainly teach to the Coloſſians, where he cals baptiſme the circumciſion of Chriſt. And they who allow that the Hebrews children ought to be circumciſed, and yet deny that ours ſhould be baptized, doe make God better to the Jewes, then to Chriſtians. But ſome will ſay, foraſmuch as we cannot tell whether infants have the matter of the Sacrament, why doe we give them the ſigne, and apply the Seale to that which is uncertaine? To whom we anſwer that this queſtion is not ſo much againſt us, as againſt the Word of God; for he hath abſolutely commanded that children ſhould be circumciſed. We ſay of our Infants, that 'tis enough for us, that their parents or any other, in whoſe power they are, doe preſent them to the Church; and if election and predeſtination concur with the Sacramentall action, then what we doe is confirmed; but if not, then all is void; for our ſalvation depends upon the election and mercy of God. Peter Martyr, on Rom. 4.
Bucer.It appeares plainly by St. Paul, that baptiſme ſucceeds circumciſion, and that baptiſme is the ſame now, that circumciſion was of old; excepting that the Spirit is given more powerfully now, and the knowledge of Jeſus Chriſt is more fully and plainly manifeſted. As therefore of old, the infants of Gods people were admitted into the covenant by circumciſion, even ſo ought ours, by baptiſme; neither are our children leſſe deare to God, then were the children of the Jewes. And whereas ſome deride us, ſaying, why then doe we not baptize males onelyonly, ſeeing onelyonly ſuch were circumciſed? We anſwer, that in Chriſt there is neither male nor female, &c. Bucer on Matth. 3.