to their repenting, then the promise is unto persons within the Christian
the promise is to you, therefore repent and be baptized; he argues from their privilege to their duty. Again, the promise is said to be to such "as are afar off, even to as many as God shall call," meaning the Gentiles, Eph. 2:13. "Ye who sometimes were afar off." The call here spoken of, is the outward and external call, which puts the Gentiles into the same case with those Jews who surely were not savingly called, so that the promise is to their seed also, as well as to the Jews' seed. Hence I form a twofold argument.
1. If the promise be to the born Israelites and their seed even antecedently to their repenting, then the promise is unto persons within the Christian church and to their seed, antecedently to true repentance in them: but the former is true: Ergo, and if the promise be so to them, the seal of it must be so likewise.
2. The promise is to the Gentiles, whom the Lord externally calleth, and to their seed; but such are openly wicked Christian parents: Ergo, Who can forbid water to their infants?
ARGUMENT. V. John Baptist and the apostles admitted all to baptism that offered themselves, Matt. 3:5, 6. "Then went out to him Jerusalem and all Judea, and were baptized of him." He debarred none; no not the Pharisees, whom yet he called "a generation of vipers," ver. 7. That he did baptize them, is clear from his own express testimony, ver. 11. where, speaking to the Pharisees and Sadducees, he saith, "I indeed baptize you with water." Luke 3:21, it is expressly said, "When all the people were baptized." Now the practice of John plainly holds forth, that they had a right to that ordinance, and that they were in covenant: Ergo, a majori the infants of wicked Christian parents are to be baptized. Now, if we look to the practice of the apostles, we shall find, that notwithstanding of all that John baptized, yet Christ by his disciples baptized more than he; as the evangelist expressly testifies, John 4:1. Philip, on a bare profession of faith, baptized the eunuch; and so in other examples. Now, it is certain, that they would never have refused baptism to the infants of the parents whom they baptized; but so it is, that those children whose title to this ordinance is questioned, are the children of such parents as profess their faith in Christ; why then should not their right to the ordinance be acknowledged?