this can have no place of an Argument in any case where one of the Parents is not an Infidell but this was not the case among the Jews Hagar and Thamar and the Concubines however sinfull in those acts yet themselves were beleevers belonging to the Covenant of God and that barre lay not against their children as did in the unbeleeving wife indeed if a beleeving man or woman should adulterously beget a childe upon a Pagan a Heathen or Unbeleever there this objection deserves to bee further weighed but here it comes not within the compasse of the Apostles Argument Before I passe from this second conclusion let me further shew you why the Lord will have the children of beleeving Parents reckoned even in their Infancy to belong to him First his own beneplacitum his free grace and favour which moves him to shew mercy to whom he will is a sufficient answer to all But secondly he will have it for his owne glory It is the honour of other Princes that all who are born in their kingdome should be accounted borne their Subjects and the honour of great Masters that the children of their servants born in their houses should be born their servants Solomon counts it a peece of his glory that he had servants born in his house And on the other side it is a dis-honour to a King not to be able legally to lay claime to those born in his kingdome but that another King yea an enemy might legally challenge them to be his Subjects So is it with the Lord he having left all the rest of the world to be visibly the devils kingdome will not for his owne glories sake permit the devill to come and lay visible claime to the sonnes and daughters begotten by those who are the children of the most High And thirdly he doth it both for the comfort and duty of those who are in Covenant with him partly I say for their comfort and priviledge while they may see their children visibly to be provided for by a better Father under a Covenant of Grace to whose care and under whose wing they may leave them when themselves shall faile and partly to be an obligation to bring them up for God not to themselves much lesse to the devill but ever to look upon themselves in the education of their children to be but nursing Fathers and Mothers to train them up in the nurture and feare of the Lord unto whose kingdome family and Covenant they thus belong I have been the larger upon these two first Conclusions because indeed the proving of these gains the whole cause if the Covenant be the same and children belong to it then they are to be owned as Covenanters and to be admitted to the distinguishing or discriminating sign betwixt Gods people and the devils and this the most learned of the Anabaptists doe professe that if they knew a childe to be holy they would baptize it In the other Conclusions I shall be more briefe The Lord hath appointed and ordained a Sacrament or seale of initiation to be administred unto them who enter into Covenant with him Circumcision for the time of that administration which was before Christs incarnation Baptisme since the time of his incarnation both of them the same Sacrament for the spâ—rituall part though differing in the outward Elements both appointed to be distinguishing signes betwixt Gods people and the devils people both of them the way and means of solemne entrance and admission into the Church both of them to be administred but once and none might be received into the Communion of the Church of the Jewes untill they were circumcised nor into the Communion of the Church of the Christians untill they be Baptized none but the circumcised might eat of the Paschall Lamb none may but those who are baptized be admitted to eat the Lords Supper which succeeds in the room of the Passeover and this our Lord himselfe taught us by his own example who was circumcised as a professed Member of the Church of the Jews and when he set up the new Christian Church he would be initiated into it by the Sacrament of Baptisme Of this Conclusion there is no great doubt but because some of the Anabaptists doe deny the Sacrament of Baptisme to succeed in the roome place and use of Circumcision be pleased to observe how plaine the Apostle makes it Coloss. 2.8 9 10 11 12. where the Apostles scope is to disswade the beleeving Christians from the rudiments of the world and Jewish Ceremonies and observations upon this ground that we are compleate in Christ and that in him as in the head the Church hath all perfections and because he would take them wholly off from Circumcision the use wherof ingaged them to the use of the rest of Jewish Ceremonies he tels them that in Christ we are circumcised with a Circumcision made without hands a better Circumcision then the Jewes was in putting off the body of the sinnes of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ And whereas the Jewish teachers would be ready to object that the receiving of the inward grace of Circumcision did not make them so compleate as Abraham and his seed was because they also had an outward sensible signe whereby they might be farther perswaded comforted and confirmed to this he answers ver. 12. That neither is this priviledge wanting to Christians who have as excellent and expresse a Sacrament of it being buried with Christ in Baptisme the effect whereof he there sets downe and therefore they needed not Circumcision as their false Teachers insinuated thereby directly teaching that our Baptisme is in stead of their Circumcision And the Analogy lies betweene two Sacramentall types of the same substance regeneration to both Jews and Gentiles And in truth had not Baptisme come in the roome of it the Apostle could not have pitched upon a worse instance then that of Circumcision which was so much valued by them and was so great and usefull a priviledge unto them Nor had there been any reason to have here named Baptisme but that he meant to shew Baptism to Christians was now in the roome of Circumcision to the Jews That by Gods owne expresse order infants as well as growne men were in the time of the Jewes to be initiated and sealed with the signe of Circumcision Whether Jewes by nature or Proselytes of the Gentiles one Law was for them al if they receive the Covenant they and their children receive Circumcision and although as I touched before this signe was actually applyed onely to the Males yet the females were virtually circumcised in them as is apparent both because the whole Church of the Jewes were called the Circumcision and because by Gods expresse order no uncircumcised person might eate of the Passeover which we are sure the women did as well as the men And whereas some who see which way the strength of this Conclusion bendeth doe
of it in their lives and conversations So much for the first Conclusion that the Covenant of grace for substance was alwayes one and the same Ever since God gathered a distinct select number out of the world to bee his Kingdom City House-hold in opposition to the rest in the world which is the kingdom city house-hold of Satan he would have The Infants of all who are taken into Covenant with him to bee accounted his to belong to him to his Church and Family and not to the devils As it is in other Kingdoms Corporations and Families the children of all Subjects borne in a Kingdome are borne that Princes Subjects where the Father is a free man the childe is not born a slave where any are bought to be servants their children born in their Masters house are born his servants Thus it is by the Laws of almost all Nations and thus hath the Lord ordained it shall be in his kingdome and family the Children follow the Covenant-condition of their Parents if he take a Father into Covenant he takes the Children in with him if hee reject the Parents out of Covenant the children are cast out with them Thus without all question it was in the time of the Jews Gen. 17.9 c. and when any of any other Nation though a Canaanite or Hittite acknowledged Abrahams God to be their God they and their children came into covenant together And so it continues still though the Anabaptists boldly deny it Act. 2.38 39. when Peter exhorted his hearers who were pricked in their hearts to repent and be baptized for the remission of sins he useth an Argument to perswade them taken from the benefit which should come to their posterity for the Promise saith he is unto you and unto your children and to all that are afarre off even as many as the Lord our God shall call if once they obey the call of God as Abraham did the promise was made to them and to their children whether they who obey this call were the present Jews to whom he spake or were afarre off whether by afarre off you will meane the Gentiles who as yet worshipped afar off or the Jews or any who as yet were unborn and so were afarre off in time or whether they dwelt in the remotest parts of the world and so were afarre off in place the Argument holds good to the end of the world Repent and be baptized for the remission of sins and ye shall receive the Holy Ghost For the Promise is made to you and to your children they shall bee made free of Gods City according to Abrahams Copy I will be thy God and the God of thy seed Let Zacheus the Publican once receive Christ himselfe be he a Gentile as some thinke he was be he a great sinner esteemed as a heathen as wee all know he was let him professe the faith of Christ and the Covenant of Salvation comes to his house for now he is made a sonne of Abraham that is Abrahams promise now reacheth him Neither can the evidence of this place be eluded by saying the promise here meant is of the extraordinary gifts of the Holy Ghost to speake with tongues c. For we all know that all who then beleeved and were baptized did not receive those extraordinary gifts of the Holy Ghost and beside this Argument remaines still in force to be used to the end of the world Who ever beleeves and is baptized shall receive remission of sinnes and the gift of the Holy Ghost Which was not true if by the Holy Ghost was meant onely those extraordinary gifts Nor secondly can it be avoyded by that shift of others who interpret it thus To you and your children as many of them as the Lord shall call that is say they whether your selves or your children or any other whom the Lord shall call if they repent and be baptized they shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost for it is plaine that the strength of this Argument lieth in this That if they did repent and were baptized the promise should be made good to them and to their children and what comfortable argument can this be taken from respect to their children if the Apostle must be interpreted as these men would have him viz. You and your châ—ldren have hitherto beene an holy seed but now if you beleeve in Chrâ—st your selves your children shall bee in no better condition then the rest of the Pagan world strangers from the Covenant of God but if afterward any of them or any of the Heathen shall for their parts beleeve and be baptized their perticular persons shallbe tooke into Covenant but their children still left out Had this thinke you beene a comfortable Argument to perswade them to come in in relation to the good of their children after them The plaine strength of the argument is God hath now remembred his Covenant to Abraham in sending that blessed seed in whom he promised to be the God of him and his seed doe not you by your unbeliefe deprive your selves and your posterity of so excellent a gift And except in relation to the Covenant there was no occasion to name their children it had beene sufficient to have said a promise is made to as many as the Lord shall call As plaine it is out of the 11. of the Rom. 16. c. where the Apostles scope is to shew that we Gentiles have now the same graffing into the true Olive which the Jewes formerly had and our present graffing in is answerable to their present casting out and their taking in in the latter end of the world shall be the same graffing in though more gloriously as ours is now Now all know that when they were taken in they and their children were taken in when they were broken off they and their children were broken off when they shall be taken in in the latter end of the world they and their children shall be taken in and that because the root is holy that is Gods Covenant with Abraham Isaac and Jacob extends yet unto them when their unbeleefe shall be taken away The root being like Nebuchadnezzars tree the tree hewen downe and the root bound with a band of yron untill seven times were passed over it and then the bands should be broken and the root should spring and the tree should grow againe so their present Nation like this tree is cut downe and this holy root the Covenant made with their forefathers is suspended bound with an iron barre of unbeliefe blindnesse being come upon them untâ—ll the fulnesse of the Gentiles be come in and then all Israel shall be saved And marke that in all this discourse the holinesse of the Branches there spoken of is not meant of a personall inherent holinesse but a derivative holinesse a holinesse derived to them from their Ancestors the first fruit is holy the lumpe holy the root holy the braâ—ches
Turkes dying in their Infancy as well as some of the Infants of Christians and so carry salvation by Christ out of the Church beyond the Covenant of grace where God never made any promise That God hath made a promise to bee the God of believers and of their Seed wee all know but where the promise is to bee found that hee will bee the God of the seed of such Parents who live and die his enemies and their seed not so much as called by the preaching of the Gospel I know not These men say the Covenant of grace made to the Jewes differs from the Covenant of grace made with Us but I desire to know whether in the one or in the other they find any promise of salvation by Christ to any Infants dying in their Infancie whose Parents no way belonged to the Family of GOD or Covenant of Grace The matter then being of such consequence and many amongst us in such danger of being seduced further then is easie to imagine through the subtilty activity and diligence of such as with a great shew of Scriptures and under a pretence of zeale doe creepe into Houses yea proclaime these things openly in Pulpits I take my selfe bound upon this occasion to shew you upon what grounds the Orthodox Church hath hitherto retained this practise and shall bring all that I intend to speake of it under two Arguments and under them shall indeavour to Answer whatsoever I have found of any moment objected to the contrary My first Argument is this The Infants of beleeving Parents are foederati therefore they must bee signati they are within the Covenant of grace belonging to Christs body kingdome family therefore are to partake of the seale of his Covenant or the distinguishing badge between them who are under the Covenant of grace and them who are not The ordinary Answer to this Argument is by denying that Infants are under the Covenant of Grace onely some few deny the consequence that although they were within the Covenant yet it followes not that they must bee sealed because say they the Women among the Jewes were under the Covenant yet received not Circumcision which was the seale of the Covenant but this receives an easie answer the Women were Circumcised in the Males else could not God have said that the whole house of Israel were Circumcised in the flesh else could not the whole Nation of the Jewes bee called the Circumcision in opposition to all the World beside who were called the Uncircumcision But for the better clearing of this whole Argument I shall indeavour to make good these five Conclusions First that the Covenant of Grace hath alwayes for substance been one and the same Secondly God will have the Infants of such as enter into Covenant with him bee counted his as well as their Parents Thirdly God hath ever since Abrahams time had a Seale to bee applied to such as enter into Covenant with him Fourthly by Gods owne order the Seed or Infants of Covenanters before Christs time were to be sealed with the seale of admission into his Covenant as well as their Parents Fifthly the priviledge of such as are in Covenant since Christs time are as honourable large and comfortable both to themselves and their children as they were before Christs time and these five Propositions made good the Argument will be strong and undeniable The first is That the Covenant of grace for substance hath alwayes been one and the same both to the Jewes and to the Gentiles Which to understand know that the new and living way to life was first revealed to Adam immediately after his fall and that blessed promise concerning the Seed of the woman was often renewed and the Patriarchs faith therein and salvation thereby recorded plentifully in the Scripture but the first time that ever it was revealed under the expresse name of a League or Covenant was with Abraham and therefore we shall need looke no higher then his dayes who because he was the first explicite Covenanter is called the father of the faithfull and ever since clearly hath all the world been divided into two distinct bodies or families the one called the Kingdome City Houshold of God to which all who owne the way to life were to joine themselves and these were called the Children of God the Sons of Abraham the Children of the Kingdome all the rest of the World the Kingdom of the Devill the Seed of the Serpent Strangers from the Covenant of Grace without God in the world c. Now I say that this Covenant of Grace hath for substance been alwayes the same for substance I say for wee must distinguish betwixt the Covenant it selfe and the manner of administration of this Covenant The substance of the Covenant on Gods part was to be Abrabrahams God and the God of his Seed to bee an Al-sufficient portion an Al-sufficient reward for him to give Jesus Christ to him and Righteousnesse with him both of Justification and of Sanctification and everlasting life On Abrahams part the substance of the Covenant was to beleeve in the promised Messiah to walke before God with a perfect heart to serve God according to his revealed wil to instruct his family c. The manner of administration of this Covenant at the first was by types and shadowes sacrifices c. And foure hundred and thirty yeeres after the Law was added with great terrour upon Mount Sinai not as a part of this Covenant but as the Apostle saith expressely it was added because of Transgressions to bee a Schoolemaster to whip to Christ Plainly in that giving of the Law there was something of the Covenant of workes made with Adam in Paradise yet in order to the Administration of the Covenant of grace there was a rehearsall of the Covenant of workes under which all men lie by nature untill they bee brought under the Covenant of grace and this was delivered with great terror and under most dreadfull penalties that they who were prone to seeke justification in themselves by finding the {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} the impossibility of their keeping the Law might be driven to seeke for a better Mediator even the Lord Jesus Christ as was excellently shadowed out Exod. 20.18 19 20. Deut. 5.24 when they cryed out to Moses that they might no more heare this dreadfull voice which would kill them but that they might bee spoken unto by a Mediator and GOD said they had well spoken and presently accepted Moses for their typicall mediator and by him gave them the Gospel in their Tabernacle Ordinances And there was also somthing of the administration of the Covenant of grace partly because all the threatning and cursing part of it was intended as a preparative and meanes to fit them for Christ and partly because the directing part of it containes that very rule whereby Abraham and all his Seed were ordered to walke in
their Children belong to Gods family and kingdom and not to the Devils certainly the greatest treasure of Parents is their children and in them the salvation of their souls Now how uncomfortable a thing were this to Parents to take away the very ground of their hope for the salvation of their Children and I dare affirm it that we have no ground of hope for any particular person untill he be brought under the Covenant of grace All the world as I have formerly touched is divided into two kingdoms the kingdom of Christ which is his Church and the kingdom of Satan which is the rest of the world now so long as any person is visibly a member of the kingdom of Christ we have no cause to doubt their election salvation until they visibly shew the contrary although we know that there are some reprobate among them so on the other side although we know Christ hath many of his elect to be gathered out of the Devils kingdom yet we have no cause or ground to hope that any particular person is any other then a reprobate being a visible professed member of Satans kingdom untill he give hope to the contrary now what a most uncomfortable abridgment were this of the Covenant of grace thus apparently to cut off the Seed of Beleevers from their visible right in the Church of Christ and to put them in the visible Kingdome of Satan And Secondly as really unwilling must they look to find Parents to part with their childrens right to the Seale of the Covenant this their right to the Covenant being all the ground of hope that beleeving Parents can have that their Infants who die in their Infancy are saved rather then the Infants of Turkes had need bee sealed if they live untill they are grown men and give other signes of grace they may conceive good hopes of them though they were not sealed with a Sacramentall seale This therefore is apparent that the cutting off our priviledges and comfort in these two were a great abridgment of the priviledges of the new Covenant and would put the Seed of Abrahams faith into a farre worse condition in regard of their posterity then the Seed of his flesh were in And the Jews in Acts 2.39 if this Doctrine had been preached to them might have replied unto St. Peter when he exhorted them to be baptized for their Childrens good Nay Peter even therefore we will not be baptized for as yet we are sure our Children are in Conant with God and reckoned to his family but if we receive your new way our children must be counted to the kingdom of the Devill and so might they in Coloss. 2. when Paul told them they need not be circumcised because Baptism came in the room of it they might have replied that though they need not be circumcised themselves yet they would still circumcise their children because Bapâ—ism was not to be applied to them according to these mens Doctrine Upon these five Conclusions 1. That the Covenant of grace is alwayes the same 2. That the Infants of those in Covenant are alwayes reckoned Covenanters with their Parents 3. That our Baptisme succeeds in the room and use of their Circumcision 4. That by Gods expresse order their Infants were to be Circumcised as it was a seale of the Covenant And 5. that our priviledges for our selves and our Children are at least as honourable large and comfortable as theirs were The Conclusion follows undeniably that therfore the Infants of beleeving Parents are to be baptized Against this Argument the Anabaptists object many things They say the Covenant was not the same some of them say the children of the Jewes were not under the Covenant in relation to spirituall things They say Circumcision and baptism served not for the same ends and uses They say Circumcision was administred as a nationall badge and properly sealed temporal blessings They say whatever priviledges Infants of Beleevers had before Christs time they have now none at all and many such like things All which I have so fully cleared in this former Discourse that I suppose I need not adde any more the main and only Objection remaining which hath any colour of weight in it is this There is no command no expresse institution or cleare example in all the New Testament of baptizing of Infants And in the administration of Sacraments we are not to be led by our owne reason or grounds of seeming probability but by the expresse order of Christ and no otherwise If by institution command and example they meane an expresse syllabicall command c. I grant that in so many words it is not found in the New Testament no expresse command in the New Testament that they should be baptized no expresse example where Children were Baptized but I also adde that I deny the consequence that if in so many words it be not commanded in the New Testament it ought not to be done this is not true divinity that Christians are not tyed to observe that which is not expresly and in so many words set down in the New Testament there is no expresse reviving of the Laws concerning the forbidden degrees of marriage in the New Testament except of not having a mans fathers Wife 1 Cor. 8. no expresse law against Polygamy no expresse command for the celebration of a weekly Sabbath are therefore Christians free in all these cases Yea in the Point of Sacraments there is no expresse command no example in all the New Testament where Women received the Sacrament of the Lords Supper there is no expresse command that the Children of Beleevers when they are grown shoud be instructed and Baptized though instructed by their Parents expresse command there is that they should teach the Heathen and the Jewes and make them Disciples and then baptize them but no command that the Children of those that are Beleevers should be baptized when they are grown men nor any example where ever that was done will any man therfore say that Christian women are not to be partakers of the Lords Supper nor the children of beleevers when growne men be baptized I think none will be so absurd as to affirm it If it be said though these things be not expressely and in terminis in the New Testament yet they are there vâ—rtually and by undeniable consequence I confesse it is true so have we vertually and by undeniable consequence sufficient evidence for the baptizing of children both commands and examples For first we have Gods command to Abraham as he was the Father of all Covenanters that he should seale his Children with the seale of the Covenant Now this truth all our Divines defend against the Papists that all Gods commands and institutions about the Sacraments of the Jewes bind us as much as they did them in all things which belong to the substance of the Covenant and were not accidentall unto them as because circumcision
be a Disciple of Christ or to beare the name of Christ is all one and that such Infants do belong to Christ and beare the name of Christ I have sufficiently proved already And I desire it may be seriously weighed whether that expression Act. 10.15 Now therefore why tempt ye God to put a yoke upon the necks of the Disciples do not necessitate us to give the name of Disciples to Infants as well as to grown men for I reason thus All they upon whose necks those false Teachers would have put the yoke of circumcision are called Disciples and to be called Disciples but they would have put the yoke of circumcision upon Infants as well as grown men therefore Infants as well as grown men are called Disciples and to be called so The major is undenyable the minor I prove thus They who pressed circumcision to be in force according to the manner of Moses Law and would put it upon their necks after the manner of Moses his Law they would put it upon Infants of those who were in Covenant with God as well as upon the necks of those who were grown men for so Moses Law required but these fals teachers pressed circumcision to be so in force as is apparent Act. 15.1 Another command by good consequence for the baptizing of Infants you shall find in that forementioned place where the Apostle exhorted them to repent be baptized c. Because the promise was made to them and to their children which as I shewed you clearely proves that the Children of such who beleeve and are baptized are taken into Covenant and therefore by good consequence they also are to receive the seale of the Covenant The Text not onely shewing that they are within the Covenant but also that a right to Baptisme is a consequence of being within the Covenant Thus for Commands for Examples though there should be none there is no great argument in it when the rule is so plain yet we have examples enough by good consequence for you shall finde the Gospell took place just as the old administration by bringing in whole families together when Abraham was taken in his whole Family was taken in with him when any of the Gentiles turned Proselytes ordinarily their Families came in with them so in this new Administration usually if the Master of the House turned Christian his whole Family came in and were baptized with him The whole household of Cornelius the first converted Gentile Act. 11.14 the household of Stephanus the household of Aristobulus the household of Narcissus the household of Lydia the household of the Gaoler these are examples not to be contemned And whereas some object against this Argument taken from whole Families that the argument is at least as strong to prove that the Jewish Infants did eat the Passeover because not only severall Families might but did and that by Gods appointment eat the Passeover I Answer by denying the consequence the argument is not so strong for the one as for the other because no other Scripture shews that the Passeover doth belong to Infants but we have other plaine Scriptures proving that Baptisme is in the room of Circumcision which belongs therefore to Infants as well as grown men If any can instance of any families of Gentiles who were circumcised the consequence were good Therefore Infants were if there were any Infants because other Scriptures shew that circumcision belongs to Infants as well as grown men but in this case the argument is not good So much for my first and main Argument they are foederati and therefore must be signati they are under the Covenant of Grace and therefore are to be signed with the seale of admittance into the Covenant The second Argument To whom the inward grace of Baptism doth belong to them belongs the outward sign they ought to have the signe who have the thing signifyed the earthly part of the Sacrament must be granted to them who have the heavenly part but the Infants of beleevers even while they are Infants are made partakers of the inward grace of Baptisme of the heavenly and spirituall part as well as grown men therefore they may and ought to receive the outward sign of Baptism The major Proposition that they who are made partakers of the inward grace may not bee debarred of the outward signe is undeniable it is Peters argument Act. 10. Can any man forbid water that these should not bee baptized who have receâ—ved the Holy Ghost as well as wee and againe Act. 11. For as much as God gave them the like gift as hee did unto us what was I that I could withstand God And this is so cleare that the most learned of the Anabaptists do readily grant that if they knew any Infants to have received the inward grace they durst not deny them the outward signe and that the particular Infants whom Christ took up in his Armes and blessed might have been baptized And for the assumption or mâ—nor That the Infants of Beleevers even while they are Infants do receive the inward grace as well as grown men is as plaine not onely by that speech of the Apostle who saith they are holy but our Saviour saith expressely Mark 10. That to such belongs the kingdom of God as well as to grown men And whereas some would evade it by saying that the Text saith not to them belongs the Kingdome of God but of such is the kingdome of Heaven {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} of such like that is such as are graced with such like qualities who are humble and meek as children are and that Luk. 18. is parallell to this in the meaning of it Whosoever doth not receive the kingdome of Heaven as a little childe hee shall not enter therein But I answer though it be true that in other places this is one use that Christ makes of an Infants age and condition to shew that such as receive the Kingdome of Heaven must be qualifyed with humility c. like unto children yet here it cannot be his meaning because his argument is suffer them to come to mee and forbid them not because of such is the Kingdome of God that is my Church and Kingdom is made up of these as well as of others This was the very cause why the Disciples rebuked those who brought the children to Christ because they were little not fit to bee instructed and therefore not fit that Christ should be troubled about them this Christ rebukes in them and tels them that the littlenesse of children is no argument why they should be kept from him Suffer them said he to come and forbid them not for of such is the Kingdome of God and what kind of argument had this been if the Text should be interpreted as these men would have it Suffer little children to come unto me that I may touch them take them up in mine armes put my
hands upon them and blesse them because the Kingdom of God belongs to them who have such like qualities who resemble children in some select properties By the very same ground if any had brought doves and Sheep to Christ to put his hands upon them and blesse them the Disciples had been liable to the same reproofe because of such is the Kingdome of God such as are partakers of the Kingdom of God must be indued with such like properties Beside what one thing can be named belonging to the initiation and being of a Christian whereof Baptisme is a seale which Infants are not capable of as well as grown men they are capable of receiving the Holy Ghost of union with Christ of adoption of forgivenesse of sins of regeneration of everlasting life all which things are signifyed and sealed in the Sacrament oâ— baptism And it is further considerable that in the working of that inward grace of which baptism is the sign and seale all who partake of that grace are but meere patients and contribute no more to it then a childe doth to its own begetting and therefore Infants as fit Subjects to have it wrought in them as grown men and the most grown men are in no more fitnesse to receive this grace when it is given them in respect either of any faith or repentance which they yet have then a very little childe it being the primary intention of the Covenant of Grace in its first worke to shew what Free Grace can and wil do to miserable nothing to cut miserable man off from the wild Olive and graffe him into the true Olive to take away the heart of stone to create in them a heart of flesh to forgive their iniquities to love them freely what doth the most grown man in any of these more then an Infant may do being onely passive in them all and of this first grace is the Sacrament of Baptism properly a seale and who ever will deny that Infants are capable of these things as well as grown men must deny that any Infants dying in their Infancy are saved by Christ Against this Argument severall things are objected which I shall indevour to remove out of the way First It is said that although Infants are capable of these things and they no doubt are by Christ wrought in many Infants yet may not we baptize them because according to the Scripture pattern both of Christs command Matth. 28. in his institution of Baptisme where this was injoyned and John the Baptist Christs Disciples and Apostles They alwaies taught and made them Disciples by teaching before they baptized any I answer First that of Matth. 28. is not the institution of Baptisme it was instituted long before to be the Seale of the Covenant it 's only an inlargement of their Commission whereas before they were to go onely to the lost sheepe of the House of Israel now they were to go unto all the world And beside it is no where said that none were baptized but such as were first taught and what reason we have to beleeve the contrary you have before seen Secondly It is said indeed that they taught and baptized and no expresse mention made of any other but the reason is plain there was a new Church to be constituted all the Jews who should receive Christ were to come under another administration and their Infants were to come in only in their right and the Heathen Nations who were to be converted to Christ were yet wholly without the Covenant of Grace and their children could have no right untill themselves were brought in and therefore no marvaile though both John and Christs Disciples and Apostles did teach before they baptized because then no other were capable of baptism but when once themselves were instructed and baptized then their children were capable of it by vertue of the Covenant If any in the Jewish Church had received Commission to go and make other Cities Proselytes to them their Commission must have run thus Go teach and circumcise would it therefore have followed that none might be circumcised but such as were first taught But it is expresly said That hee that beleeves and is baptized shall bee saved Faith in Christ is the Condition upon which men may be baptized and this is the most common objection among the Anabaptists Unbeleevers may not bee baptized children are unbeleevers therefore they may not bee baptized We have say they cleare evidence that Faith is a condition required in those that are to be baptized no evidence of any other condition that makes them capable of Baptism Others of them adde that under an affirmative command the negative is to be included beleeving is the affirmative unbeleeving is the negative therefore where beleevers are commanded to be baptized unbeleevers are forbidden to be baptized this objection they much glory in and some of them dare all the world to answer it I Answer first but if this argument have any strength at all against the Baptizing of infants it hath much more strength against the salvation of infants it is said expresly he that beleeveth and is baptized shall be saved but he that beleeveth not shall bee damned there yee have both the negative and affirmative set downe Hee that beleeves shall bee saved hee that beleeves not shall bee damned now I frame their owne argument thus against the salvation of infants All unbeleevers shall bee damned all infants are unbeleevers therefore they shall bee damned now look at what doore they will goe out for the salvation of infants at the same will we go out for the baptizing of infants how ever they will evade the one we shall much more strongly evade the other if they say this Text is meant of growne men of the way which God takes for the salvation of grown men Infants are saved another way upon other conditions the same say we of infants baptisme the Text means of the condition of baptizing of grown men infants are baptized upon other conditions if they say infants though they cannot have actuall Faith they may have virtuall Faith Faith in the seed and roote the same say we if they say though infants have not Faith yet they may have that which is Analogous to faith the same say we they have somwhat which hath analogy to faith and as effectuall to make them capable of baptism as of salvation Secondly I answer it is no where said Unbeleevers or rather Non-beleevers it should be said may not bee baptized it is said indeed hee that beleeveth and is baptized shall bee saved and it is said that he that beleeveth with all his heart may be baptized it is no where said that he that beleeveth not may not be baptized Therfore I deny the consequence if all beleevers must be baptized then no Unbeleevers or Non-beleevers may be baptized these two are not here intended by way of opposition Christ excludes Infants neither from baptism nor from salvation
done on Gods part let them serve another God and take their lot for time to come But what benefit comes to children by such kind of sealing as this is it seems then say they by your own confession that this is but a conditionall sealing on Gods part viz that they own it and ratifie it when they come to age and if they then refuse to stand to it all is then nullified were it not therefore better to defer it to their years of discretion to see whether they will then make it their own voluntary act yea or no Answ. 1. This objection lay as strongly against Gods widsome in requiring the Jewes Infants even in their Infancy thus to seale and therefore argues no great wisdome or modesty in men who would thus reason with God about his administrations 2. God hath other ends and uses of applying the seale of the Covenant to them who are in Covenant with him then their present gaine it 's a Homage Worship and Honour to himself and it behoves us even in that respect to fulfill all righteousnesse when Christ was baptized and circumcised he was as unfit for the ordinance through his perfection as children through their imperfection being as much above them as children are below them 3. I Answer The benefit and fruit of it at the present is very much both to the Parents and to the children to the Parents first whilst God doth hereby honour them to have their children counted to his Church to his kingdome and family to be under his wing and grace whilest all the other Infants in the world have their visible standing under the Prince and in the kingdom of darknesse and consequently whilest others have no hope of their childrens spiritual welfare untill they be called out of that condition these need not have any doubt of their childrens welfare if they die in their Infancy nor if they live untill they shew signes to the contrary God having both reckoned them unto his people and given them all the meanes of salvation which an Infants age is capable of Secondly here is much priviledge and benefit to the children when as beside what inward secret worke God is pleased to worke in them they being Members of the Church of Christ have their share in the Communion of Saints are remembred at the throne of Grace every day by those that pray for the welfare of the Church and perticularly in those prayers which are made for his blessing upon his Ordinances And lastly it 's no small priviledge to have that Seale bestowed upon them in their Infancy wch may afterwards plead when they are grown and come to fulfill the condition But if their being capable of the spirituall part must intitle them to the outward signe why then doe we not also admit them to the Sacrament of the Lords Supper which is the seale of the Covenant of Grace as well as the Sacrament of Baptisme And this is urged the rather because say they the Infants of the Jewes did eate of the Passeover as well as were circumcised now if our Infants have every way as large a priviledge as the Infants of the Jewes had then can we not deny them the same priviledge which their Infants had and consequently they must partake of the one Sacrament as well as the other I answer that Infants are capable of the grace of Baptisme we are sure not sure that they are capable of the grace signed and sealed in the Sacrament of the Lords Supper for though both of them are seales of the new Covenant yet it is with some difference Baptisme properly seales the entraâ—ce into it the Lords Supper properly the growth nourishment and augmentation of it Baptisme for our birth the Lords Supper for our food now Infants may be borne againe while they are Infants have their Originall sinne pardoned be united to Christ have his Image stampt upon them but concerning the exercise of these graces and the augmentatâ—on of them in Infants while they are Infants the Scripture is altogether silent and for what is said concerning the Infants of the Jewes eating the Passeover to which our Sacrament of the Lords Supper doth succeed there is no such thing mentioned in all the Booke of God it is said indeed that the severall families were to eate their Lambe if the household were not too little for it and that when their children should aske them what that service meant they should instruct them about the meaning of it but no word injoyning nor any example witnessing that their little children did eate of it If they say as some of them doe that those little ones who were able to enquire concerning the meaning of that service and capable to receive instruction about it did eat of the Passeover with their Parents I answer although the Scripture speakes nothing of their eating yet if that be granted it is no prejudice to us because the Gospel prohibites not such yong ones from the Lords Supper who are able to examine themselves and discerne the Lords Body Thus have I according to my poor ability made good this second argument also and vindicated it from all Objections of any weight wch I have met with all to the contrary it remains that I winde up all with a briefe Application And first it serves for just reproofe of the Anabaptists and all such as by their rash and bloody sentence condemne Infants as out of the state of Grace it 's a great sinne to passe sentence upon any particular person for any one act as was that of Eli concerning Hannah how much more heinous is it to condemne ail the Infants of the whole Church of Christ as having nothing to doe with the Covenant of Grace or the seale of it We read of Herod the Tyrant that he destroyed all the children in Bethlehem and the Coasts thereof from two yeares old and under is not this a farre more cruell sentence to set these in no better state then Pagans and Infidels Without Christ aliens from the Common-wealth of Israel as strangers from the Covenant of promise having no hope and wâ—thout God in the world can any sober Christian thinke this a small fault Our blessed Saviour saith It is not lawfull to take the childrens bread and give it to dogs but these men take Children and in their judgement conclude them for no better then dogs baptisme is the bread of the Lord which he would have given to his children and to deny it to them as none of their right is to make them no better then dogs The Prophet Elisha wept when he looked upon Hazael because he foresaw that he would dash the infants of Israel against the wall and even Hazael thought himselfe worthy to be esteemed a dog if ever he should do such a thing But certainly thus to dash all Infant children of beleevers out of the Covenant of Grace as much as in them lyeth to
deprive them of the seale of it is in a spirituall sense farre more heavy And I dare appeale to the tender bowels of any beleeving Parents whether it were not easier for them to thinke that their Infants should be dashed against the stones and yet in the meane time to die under Christs wing as visible Members of his Kingdome Church and Family rather then to have them live and behold them to have a visible standing onely in the Kingdome of the Devill These men know not how much they provoke Christs displeasure against themselves He was greatly displeased with his owne Disciples for forbidding little children to come unto him one day such men will know that he is much more displeased with them who with so great violence oppose the bringing of beleevers children unto his holy Sacrament that with unspeakable wrong injury and slander they prosecute all the Ministers of Christ who give Infants this their due condemning them for Ministers of Antichrist and limbes of the Beast yea some of them proceeding so farre as condemning all the Churches of Christ to be no Churches who cast not their children out of the Covenant of Grace and the seale of it and doe cry out upon the Baptizing of Infants as one of those great sinnes which bring and continue all our judgements upon us The Apostate Emperour Julian is justly cryed out upon for his cruelty against the Christians for denying to their bodies humane Sepulture how much more cruell is it to deny to the souls of Infants the just priviledge and benefit of the Covenant of Grace We know he did it out of hatred to Christianity which I am farre from charging upon these men but if we compare the sentence and fact of the one with the other we shall find the latter be their principle what it will farre more injurious to the Church of Christ then the other The Lord in mercy give them to see how unjust that sentence and how heavy that doome is which they thus passe not only upon Infant Children but upon all the Churches of Christ and seriously to consider whether the Lord who once in his displeasure threatned to dash their Infants against the Stones who had dasht the Infants of the children of Israel against the Stones will indure it at the hands of any to expunge the Seed of the faithfull out of his Covenant and to drive them from his City and Kingdom after this cruell manner Secondly how much may this comfort the Soule of every beleeving Parent to behold this great love and goodnesse of God in his Covenant of Grace to them and their posterity that not only themselves but even their Infants for their sakes should be reckoned to the household of God put into the Arke wrapped up in a Covenant of love brought under the wing of God When God had promised to David that he should have a son to whom God would be a Father and that all his posterity should after such a gracious manner be regarded his heart was even ravished with it O Lord God said he what am I and what is my house that thou hast brought mee hitherto and this was yet a small thing in thy sight O Lord God but thou hast spoken also of thy servants house for a great while to come and is this the manner of men O Lord God And even so should Christian Parents break out into admiration of his goodnesse in taking their children into that gracious Covenant which is not only the womb and vessell but also the well-head of so many mercies which are terminated not in themselves but flow down to their posterity from generation to generation And this is yet more admirable in our eyes when we seriously consider how uncleane and filthy how viperous a brood they are as proceeding out of our loines empty of all goodnesse full of all wickednesse an uncleane leprosie having bespread them from the crown of the Head to the sole of the Foot fit only to be cast into the open field to the loathing of their persons in the day that they are born as all the rest of the world are and that God should set his heart upon such as these to take them thus neere unto Himself when he passes by both Parents and Infants of all the world beside now would our hearts melt in his praises if we could consider these things 2. How should this ingage all Christian Parents to look to the education of their Children to bring them up in the nurture and feare of the Lord It 's a wofull thing to consider the wretched carelesnesse of many Parents yea not onely carelesnesse but ungodlinesse of many Parents who prostitute their children to the Devill and his service after they have consecrated them to Christ by baptisme train them up in ignorance profanenesse c. To whom God may say as he did to that Harlot Ezek. 16. Thou hast taken my Sonne and my Daughter whom thou hast born unto mee and these thou hast sacrificed unto Devils A generation of wretched men who take more care of their Hogs and Dogs then they doe of their Infants immortall soules nourishing the former murdering the latter that we may say of them as Augustus did of Herod that it is better to be Herods Dog then his Son I have often heard a sad Story of a wretched Woman who perswaded her Daughter to yeeld to the lust of a rich man in hope he would marry her as he had promised to doe which she did and presently after fell sick and died The wretched mother hereupon grew distracted and in her madnesse cryed out O my Daughters soule my Daughters soule I have damned my Daughters soul Verily thus may many Parents cry out upon themselves for murthering their childrens soules and their children may wish that they had beene either dogges or swine rather then their Sons or Daughters miserable children of miserable Parents what will such Parents answer God when he comes to demand his children of them Suppose a Prince or Noble man should put a Child to Nurse unto some mean man and pay them well for the education of it or rather suppose a Great man should adopt the child of a poor man to be his own and should say unto this poore man as Pharaohs daughter said to Moses mother Bring up this Child for mee and I will give thee thy wages afterward comming to see this Child should find they had lamed the Child and taught it nothing but to speake evill of them and to fight against them thinke I pray you what they would say or doe to this wretched man How much more abominable is the sin of many Parents who by their own carelesnesse and vile example leaven their children with principles and lead them in wayes quite contrary to the Covenant of grace tending to nothing but to dishonour God and to their own destruction If any of you have