This is the constant doctrine of all protestant churches in tire world ; and it hath had place in the government of these nations, for Queen Elizabeth was born during the life of Queen Katharine, from whom her father was divorced.
VOL. XVL 1 7
or INFANT BAPTISM AND DIPPING.
OF INFANT BAPTISM.
I. The question is not whether professing believers, Jews or Gen- tiles, not baptized in their infancy, ought to be baptized ; for this is by all confessed.
II. Neither is it whether, in such persons, the profession of saving faith and repentance ought not to go before baptism. This we plead for beyond what is the common practice of those who oppose us.
Wherefore, testimonies produced out of authors, ancient or modern, to confirm these things, which consist with the doctrine of infant bap- tism, are mere tergiversations, that belong not to this cause at all; and so are all arguments produced unto that end out of the Scriptures.
III. The question is not whether all infants are to be baptized or not ; for, according to the will of God, some are not to be baptized, even such whose parents are strangers from the covenant. But hence it will follow that some are to be baptized, seeing an exception con- firms both rule and right.
IV. The question is only concerning the child i"en or infant seed of professing believers who are themselves baptized. And, —
First, They by whom this is denied can produce no te^thnony of Scripture wherein their negation is formally or in terms included, nor any one asserting what is inconsistent with the affirmative ; for it is weak beneath consideration to suppose that the requiring of the baptism of believers is inconsistent with that of their seed. But this is to be required of them who oppose infant baptism, that they pro- duce such a testimony.
Secondly, No instance can be given from the Old or New Testa- ment since the days of Abraham, none from the approved practice of the primitive church, of any person or persons born of professing, believing parents, who were themselves made partakers of the initial seal of the covenant, being then in infancy and designed to be brought up in the knowledge of God, who were not made partakers with them of the same sign and seal of the covenant.
Thirdly, A spiritual privilege once granted by God unto any can- not be changed, disannulled, or abrogated, without an especial divine
OF INFANT BAPTISM. ' 259
revocation of it, or the substitution of a greater privilege and mercy in the room of it; for, —
1. Who shall disannul what God hath granted? What he hath put together who shall put asunder ? To abolish or take away any grant of privilege made by him to the church, without his own ex- press revocation of it, is to deny his sovereign authority.
2. To say a privilege so granted may be revoked, even by God himself, Without the substitution of a greater privilege and mercy in the room of it, is contrary to the goodness of God, his love and care unto his church, [and] contrary to his constant course of proceeding with it from the foundation of the world, wherein he went on in the enlargement and increase of its privileges until the coming of Christ. And to suppose it under the gospel is contrary to all his promises, the honour of Christ, and a multitude of express testimonies of Scripture.
Thus was it with the privileges of the temple and the worship of it granted to the Jews ; they were not, they could not be, taken away without an express revocation, and the substitution of a more glori- ous spiritual temple and worship in their room.
But now the spiritual privilege of a right unto and a participa- tion of the initial seal of the covenant was granted by God unto the infant seed of Abraham, Gen. xvii. 10, 12.
This grant, therefore, must stand firm for ever, unless men can prove or produce, —
1. An express revocation of it by God himself; which none can do either directly or indirectly, in terms or any pretence of conse- quence.
2. An instance of a greater privilege or mercy granted unto them in the room of it ; which they do not once pretend unto, but leave the seed of believers, whilst in their infant state, in the same condi- tion with those of pagans and infidels; expressl}' contrary to God's covenant.
All this contest, therefore, is to deprive the children of believers of a privilege once granted to them by God, never revoked, as to the substance of it, assigning nothing in its room ; which is contrary to the goodness, love, and covenant of God, especially derogatory to the honour of Jesus Christ and the gospel.
Fourthly, They that have the thing signified have right unto the sign of it, or those who are partakers of the grace of baptism have a right to the administration of it: so Acts x. 47.
But the children of believers are all of them capable of the grace signified in baptism, and some of them are certainly partakers of it, namely, such as die in their infancy (which is all that can be said of professors) : therefore they may and ought to be baptized. For, —