The Covenant of God Entered with Mankind, Chapter 58
CHAP. LVIII.
The Children of all that are Chriſtians in profeſsion, are by vertue of Covenant-Intereſt, to be received into the Church by Baptiſme.
THen it farther followes by way of neceſſary Corollary, that according to the Parents Intereſt in the Covenant, the childe hath Intereſt in the Sacrament of Baptiſm; But all profeſſing Parents ſeparate from Idols, and profeſſing the worſhip of the true God, though nothing more of a Chriſtian be in them, in the latitude as hath been ſhewn, are in covenant; the infants of all theſe then have intereſt in Baptiſme. The Major cannot be queſtioned by any that acknowledge a right in infants, derived from their Parents for Baptiſm, for it is intereſt in the covenant that gives the title to parent and infant: The Minor I have abundantly proved. The covenant muſt either be made to appeare to run in a more narrow channel (which I ſuppoſe will hardly be done) that a man in Ignorance, or in Impenitency, as he does not keep covenant, ſo he never entred covenant, or elſe this muſt neceſſarily follow. To aſſert this byaArguments evincing the right of Chriſtians in this latitude. Arguments.
Firſt, Their children whom God owns as his peculiar people, above others have right to Baptiſme. This cannot be denied; either theſe have a juſt claim, or elſe no children at all. But God owns all in viſible profeſſion, as his people, Iſa. 1. 2. Iſa. 5. 13. Hoſ. 4. 6. Jer. 2. 11, 13, 31, 32. Jer. 4. 22. Jer. 5. 51. therefore the children of viſible profeſſors have right to Baptiſm.
Secondly, Their children, that are brought forth to God, by their parents, have right to Baptiſm; This is as plain: But viſible profeſſors bring forth children to God, Ezek. 16. 20. therefore their children have right to Baptiſm.
Thirdly, Thoſe children whoſe Parents are children of the Kingdome of God, have their title to Baptiſme; But thoſe that are in ſin, and in a way to be caſt out for ſin, are children of the Kingdome, Mat. 8. 12. Mat. 21. 43. Ergo the children of Parents in ſin have right to Baptiſm.
Fourthly, The children of thoſe, who are themſelves Diſciples of Chriſt, ought to be baptized; But men in ſin are Diſciples of Chriſt, Joh. 6. 66. whole Nations, among whom are many wicked ones, are Diſciples, Matth. 28. 19. The children then of thoſe that are in ſinne, ought to be baptized.
Fifthly, The children of thoſe that are of the number of brethren in the faith of the Goſpel, have right to Baptiſm: But men in ſinne are brethren in the faith of the Goſpel, 1 Cor. 5. 11. If any that is called a brother, be a fornicatour, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner, &c. This our diſſenting brethren will not deny to be meant of Chriſtians, therefore their children are to be baptized.
Sixthly, Thoſe children that are holy by reaſon of birth from one or both beleeving parents, are to be baptized: But the children of thoſe that are in ſin may be holy by reaſon of birth of one, or both beleeving parents, 1 Cor. 7. 14. To clear this place, which ſome weakly enough, have urged for the contrary▪ Let us enquire who the Apoſtle means by a Beleever, and who he means by an unbeliever, and this will ſoone be decided; if we look to the caſe propounded by letter from the Corinthians, which he there reſolves, and anſwers their ſcruples; That is confeſt to be marriage between a Chriſtian and a Heathen a profeſſed Believer and an Infidel, a man removed from an Infidel, (to take upon him the name of Chriſt), is there a Beleever, and many of theſe even in Corinth, were men in ſinne. They that will have the Beleever there to ſet out only a juſtified and ſanctified perſon, they muſt by unbeleever mean all unſanctified perſons, and ſo the caſe propounded and ſatisfied, is, whether a regenerate perſon ſanctified by the Spirit, married to one that gives not full, or at leaſt hopeful evidences of ſanctification, may continue a marriage-ſociety? whether a man of Jobs integrity might have lived with ſuch a wiſe to whom Job was joyned? a thing that was never yet brought into queſtion, either by Jew or Chriſtian; and altogether unworthy of an Apoſtles determination. The thing is plaine,Amplification of this poſition. that as infants have right to Baptiſme, ſo all the infants of thoſe parents that nomine tenus are Chriſtians, have right to Baptiſm. See more, Treatiſe of the Sacraments, page 161.
To amplifie this in ſome particulars, and if it may be, to make it more clear to doubting Chriſtians.
Firſt, A life in diſtruſt of God, and rebellion againſt God, provoking him to the higheſt puniſhment of the parents doth not diveſt the child of the title to the covenant, and intereſt in the Sacrament of initiation into the number of Chriſtians. For proof of this, look upon that act of Joſhua, when the people were got out of the Wilderneſſe, and were brought into the Land of Canaan, Joſh. 5. 6, 7. The children of Iſrael walked fourty yeers in the Wilderneſſe, till all the people that were men of warre that came out of Egypt were conſumed, becauſe they obeyed not the voice of the Lord; And the children which he raiſed up in their stead, them did Joſhua circumciſe, for they were uncircumciſed, they had not circumciſed them in the way; you ſee what the fathers were, yet the children Joſhua ordered to be circumciſed; Concerning their converſation, the parents were enemies, but as touching the election, the choice made of God, the iſſue is to be numbred among the beloved. Who had a worſe father than Joſiah, yet where was there a better ſon? A circumciſed man, who in youth began to ſeek the God of his father David, 2 Chron. 34. 3.
Secondly, Misbelief in a parent diveſts not the iſſue of this birth-priviledge; though the father erre in the faith, yet the child is not to be ſhut out of the number of beleevers. We have in this particular the Apoſtle for a precedent, had misbelief in the parent denuded the childe of this priviledge. Saint Paul had not beene a Jew by nature, but an Heretick, or Sectary by nature, being before converſion a Phariſee, and the ſon of a Phariſee; Scribe was a name of office, but Phariſee the name of a Sect, and therefore Chriſt warns to beware of the leaven, that is, of the Doctrine of the Phariſees, as of the Sadduces; Such was Pauls parentage, and yet by deſcent and off-ſpring, he is of the people of the Jewes. What we ſay of Phariſees, is as true of Sadduces; It is not to be doubted but they were circumciſed perſons, and entitled their children according to the Directory in Scripture for circumciſion, as appears by their embodying of themſelves with the people of the Jewes, Matth. 22. 23. Acts 23. 6. The moſt ſtrict of Phariſees took them into their ſociety, which they had not done, had they not been men of the circumciſion, we ſee the accuſation charged on Peter on this occaſion, Acts 11. 2, 3. A man tranſmits not his errors, nor his vices no more than he doth his graces.
Thirdly, ignorance of needful truths, in a parent doth not diveſt the childe of this priviledge. Thoſe were the people of God (and therefore brought forth children to God) that did periſh for lack of knowledge, Hoſea 4. 6. that went into captivity for lack of knowledge, Iſa. 5. A reverend brother, giving his reaſons why he is among his brethren ſingular in this point, not baptizing all born in his Pariſh; one maine one is, the groſſe ignorance among them, and that (as he ſayes) not in Cumberland, and thoſe parts, but in Eſſex, ſuch, that if he ſhould print, his Reader would ſcaree beleeve it were poſſible to be true; To which I only ſay, I wiſh that our own experience in the places where we live, did give us occaſion of ſuſpition, that any wrong is done them. Therefore to let the truth paſſe unqueſtioned, I would only wiſh him to conſider, whether there might not have been found the like in Corinth, that Church of the Saints, 1 Cor. 15. 34. Some have not the knowledge of God, I ſpeak this to your ſhame. Whether there he might not have found the like among the illuminated Hebrews, were not there thoſe that were dull of hearing, that when for the time they ought to be teachers, they had need that one teach them againe, which be the firſt principles of the Oracles of God, and were become ſuch as had need of milke, and not of ſtrong meat? yet theſe were of the Church, and therefore with them their children.
Fourthly, illegitimation of birth, adulterous copulation in the parents, diveſteth not ſuch iſſue of this priviledge, David had never in that manner ſought in faſting and prayer his childes life, had he believed that he muſt not have been of the ſeed of the Jews, but of the uncircumciſed Heathen; Pharez was of ſuch a birth, yet who bore a greater name and glory in Iſrael than he, and his family? even where the illegitimation of his birth is noted, there the glory of his race is magnified, which is yet farther honoured in that Chriſt according to the fleſh was made of his ſeed. That ſeed of Abraham per eminentiam, was out of his loynes; Jepthah indeed was driven out by his brethren, but not becauſe that he was not of the ſeed of the Jews, and people of God, but becauſe they would not have him to ſhare of the inheritance among them. A Reverend Divine ſaith, Objections an∣ſwered. That ſome perſons may be notorious offenders (as known Atheiſts, mockers of Religion, Idolaters, Papiſts, Hereticks, Witches) and yet profeſſe before men the faith, ſeemes to him to imply a contradiction. Theſe (I confeſſe) are plauſible words to take with well-meaning ſouls, that attend not to the language of the Scripture in this particular. And for the firſt, if he meanes Atheists in judgement, that profeſſedly maintaine in word, what Davids fool ſaid in his heart, that there is no God, and by mockers of Religion, not thoſe alone that oppoſe the power, but with Lucian, all notion of Religion; and by Idolaters, thoſe that profeſſedly worſhip falſe gods, and worſhip not at all the Lord Jehovah, then it cannot be denied▪ that this is a contradiction: But Reverend Maſter Rutherford, whom he oppoſeth in that place▪ hath no ſuch meaning; But for an Atheiſt in life, to be a profeſſour of the faith, we have Paul expreſſely for it, Titus 1. 16. They profeſſe that they know God, but in works they deny him, being abominable, and diſobedient, and unto every good work reprobate. The Apoſtle (we ſee) ſaw no contradiction in it; and for mockers of Religion, Peter did not foretell them to be out of the Church, but within the boſome of it, when he ſaid, There ſhall come in the last dayes ſcoffers, walking after their own luſts, 2 Pet. 3, 3. For Idolaters, if an Iſraelite might be an Idolater, then a Chriſtian; How high were thoſe in Idolatry mentioned, Pſal. 106. 36, 37, 38, 39? and yet in covenant, ver. 45. For the Church of Corinth the Apoſtle is plaine, A brother may be an Idolater, 1 Cor. 5. 11. It is within the Church, and not without, where men eſcape death by plagues, yet repent not of the works of their hands, that they ſhould not worſhip Devils, and Idols of gold, and ſilver, and braſſe, and ſtone, and of wood, which neither can ſee, nor heare, nor walke, Rev 9. 20. For Papiſts, I marvel how they are diſtinguiſhed from Idolaters and Hereticks; for Hereticks as falſe Prophets were of the Church of the Jewes, ſo Hereticks are of the Church in Goſpel-times, 2 Pet. 2. 1. The Apoſtle tells the Elders of Epheſus, Acts 20. 30. Of your own ſelves ſhall men ariſe, ſpeaking perverſe things to draw away Diſciples after them. For Witches, though there were a Law in Iſrael not to ſuffer a Witch to live, Exod. 22. 18. Yet Iſrael had Witches, as is ſeen in thoſe that Saul put out of the Land, and her that in his diſtreſſe he ſought unto, 1 Sam. 28. Paul had never reckoned up witchcraft among thoſe ſinnes that ſhut out of the Kingdome of heaven, and certified the Churches of Galatia of it, had there been an impoſſibility that any ſuch ſhould be found of their number that made claime to it; This the Reverend Authour doth as much as acknowledge in the words that follow, I deny not (ſaith he) but that in ſome ſenſe, any ſuch notorious offendor may have the eſſence and being of a member of the Church as viſible, to wit, in this ſenſe a corrupt and rotten member fit to be cut off. A member of the viſible Church, (though formerly an inoffenſive profeſſor of the faith) may afterwards fall away into any of theſe notorious ſcandals, and yet for a while ſtill retain the eſſence and being of a member of the Church as viſible. Maſter Rutherford that is there oppoſed (I ſuppoſe) will affirme no more, Reſpective to the power of godlineſſe, there is in them no ſoundneſſe, nor yet in thoſe that are better than theſe; Some ſay that one that is ſuch in any known foule ſinne, to them is no better than a Heathen, as bad as a Turke, or Pagan, and nothing at all better for the name Chriſtian. And I ſay, that to me they are as bad, as to them, and perhaps worſe in the eyes of God. This priviledge in which they ſtand thus intereſſed, is an aggravation of their ſinne, and a farther provocation of God againſt them; When the Lord ſaw it, he abhorred them, becauſe of the provoking of his ſonnes and of his daughters, Deut. 32. 19. yet ſuch is Gods long-ſuffering, and forbearance of them, that he is pleaſed to vouchſafe them farther and more large evidences of his favour, Nehem. 9. 30. Hieruſalem was corrupted more than Sodom and Samaria, in all her wayes, Ezek. 16. 47. Sodom and her daughters, had not done as Hieruſalem and her daughters, ver. 48. Samaria had not committed halfe her ſinnes, ver. 51. In her abominations ſhe had juſtified both of them; yet Hieruſalem enjoyed thoſe priviledges, that Samaria and Sodom enjoyed not; Hieruſalem was in covenant, ver. 16. when Sodom and Samaria were no covenant-people, but worſhipped they knew not what, John 4. ver. 22. Corazin and Bethſaida, Cities of Iſrael, were no better in the eye of God than Tyre and Sidon, yea their ſinnes deſerved an heavier weight of judgement, Matth. 11. 22. It ſhall be more tolerable for Tyre and Sydon at the day of judgement, than for you, ſaith our Saviour; and ſo it was with Capernaum, compared to Sodom, ver. 23. yet Chorazin, Bethſaida, Capernaum, enjoyed thoſe priviledges from God, that Tyre, Sydon and Sodom wanted. As the Apoſtles zeal againſt the Samaritanes▪ ſinnes, Luke 9. 54, did out-ſtrip our Saviours, when they would have fire from heaven to conſume them; ſo our zeale out-goes Gods, when we would have ſuch men, root and branch, parent and child ſtruck out of covenant, before God hath ſued out any Bill of divorce againſt them, or removed his Candleſtick, and taken all covenant-priviledges from them. For the baptiſm of children of Apoſtates, there is a greater difficulty. Some of reverend worth ſay, They ſee not how juſtly a Parents Apoſtaſy ſhould deprive the childe of Baptiſme, and ſome Texts of Scripture ſeem ſtrongly to favour that opinion, Ezek. 16. 20, 21. Moreover, thou haſt taken thy ſonnes and thy daughters whom thou haſt borne unto me, and theſe haſt thou ſacrificed unto them to be devoured; Is this of thy whoredomes a ſmall matter, that thou haſt ſlain my children, and delivered them, to cauſe them to paſſe through the fire for them?
There could not be an higher evidence of Apoſtacy, than to give their children in ſacrifice to a falſe god. It was one of the higheſt acts of obedience that Abraham could teſtifie to the Lord, and yet theſe yield it to Idol-gods; They bring forth children to God, and give them to Moloch, Pſal. 106. 35, 36, 37, 38, 39. They were mingled among the heathen, and learned their works, and they ſerved their Idols, which were a ſnare unto them, yea they ſacrificed their ſons and daughters unto devils. And ſhod innocent blood, even the blood of their ſonnes and of their daughters, whom they ſacrificed unto the Idols of Canaan, and the land was polluted with blood. Thus were they defiled with their own works, and went a whoring with their own inventions. Theſe in this apoſtatized from God in covenant, yet God lookes upon them as a covenant people, ver. 45. And he remembred for them his covenant, &c. But this ſeemes to be but a partial Apoſtaſy, taking in the worſhip of Idols, they did not totally caſt off the worſhip of God. A line of profeſſion was ſtill (it ſeemes) held up, God was not wholly caſt off in Judah. They ſeem to be of thoſe, that ſwore by the Lord and Malcham, Zeph. 1. 5. keeping up the worſhip of the true God, and yet take in the worſhip of a falſe god with him. As for thoſe in whom Maſter Firmin inſtanceth; our Engliſhmen now in Turkey, apoſtatized from the Faith to that Religion; concerning whom quaeres are often put, it may ſeem equal, that as a man comes into covenant, and his poſterity with him; So, totally rejecting the covenant, denying God as well in profeſſion, as in his works; that he and his poſterity ſhould be out of covenant; Being before an holy root, to tranſmit holineſſe to his ſeed, now he becomes unholy, and put out of ſuch capacity, and is diſabled from making over any ſuch priviledge to them. But here we need not to trouble our ſelves with the Baptiſme of ſuch, having renounced Chriſt, they baptize not their infants in his name. A Miniſter ſhall have none of theſe rendered to him, and to baptize them into this body, when he well knowes they muſt be never ſuffered to be of it, were an high taking of Gods name in vaine, and a mockery of ſo ſacred an Ordinance. Now in caſe a grandfather ſhall take one of theſe children, and offer it unto Baptiſme; and being a Progenitor, ſhall undertake the education in the Chriſtian Faith, and not in the Turkiſh abomination, whether in this caſe there be right to Baptiſme, is the queſtion. Now theſe may be looked upon, either as meer Heathens, in the ſame condition, as if they never had an Anceſtor in the Faith, or elſe as iſſuing out of the loynes of mediate Anceſtors, believing, and ſo coming from a root that hath been holy. If conſidered in the former way, they may have a title to Baptiſme according to many eminent Divines, by vertue of their Adoption. Reverend Maſter Cawdrey obſerves a three-fold way to circumciſion from Gen. 17. One is perſonal upon profeſſion of Faith in a mans own perſon, ſo Abraham entered. A ſecond is paternal, when a man comes in by right derived from his Parents, ſo Iſaac and Iſhmael had title. A third, adoptive, being taken into the family of a Beleever according to that, Gen. 17. 12, 13. He that is eight dayes old among you, ſhall be circumciſed, every man childe in your generations, be that is born in the houſe, or bought with money of any ſtranger which is not of thy ſeed. He that is borne in thy houſe, and he that is bought with thy money, muſt needs be circumciſed, &c. Any bondman that he would take, and adopt into his family, in ſuch caſe had right of circumciſion: Rive…. on Gen. 17. Exercit. 8…. is cleare of this judgement, and ſayes, he remembers that it was ſo determined in the National Synods of the French Churches, quoting in like manner Proſper in his ſecond Book, De vocatione gentium, Chap. 8.aAliquando filiis infidelium praeſtatur baec gratia ut baptizentur cúm occultâ Dei providentiâ in manus piorum quomodocunque proveniunt. Sometimes this priviledge is vouchſafed to the children of Infidels, when by a ſecret providence they into the hands of the godly. Maſter Cotton I remember in his book of Infant-Baptiſme is for it. Maſter Norton againſt Apollonius for preſent ſuſpends his judgement, page 38. I had rather go his way, than theirs that determine it; and in my thoughts with ſubmiſſion to better judgements, I rather incline in preſent to the contrary. Thoſe that Abraham bought with his money, I ſuppoſe were men of years, who were to be circumciſed and their iſſue; But whether they were not firſt inſtructed, is the queſtion. No uncircumciſed perſon was to be in his houſe, and whether he might compel to circumciſion may well be diſputed. He found them explicitely in covenant with falſe gods, and whether he might give them the ſeale of the covenant of the true God in that ſtate, I queſtion. It is ſaid, Gods covenant ſhall be in their fleſh, verſe 13. and that this ſhould be done, and no covenant with the true God at all profeſſedly in their mouth, no notion of him by way of aſſent in their heart, to me is ſtrange; I think it implies Abrahams work, firſt in inſtructing of them in the covenant, and upon their aſſent they were received, and their ſeed with them. Circumciſion did denominate them a people of God, and that is a ſtrong contradiction to have them circumciſed, whoſe faith was in a falſe god; and who applied themſelves to ſuch worſhip; Their entrance I ſhould rather take to be perſonal, than adoptive. Conſider them then as deſcending from the loynes of Chriſtian progenitors, having fathers of their fleſh heretofore in covenant with God, and we ſhall finde them in a better condition than thoſe Heathens that had ever been ſtrangers. And here the Apoſtle will help us to a diſtinction, Rom. 11. 28. Speaking of the Jewes cut off from the body of the Church viſible. As concerning the Goſpel, (ſaith he) they are enemies for your ſakes. Their preſent condition is as Heathens, being alienated from God by reaſon of unbelief of the Goſpel (which Apoſtaſy of theirs hath given occaſion to, and made way for the calling of the Gentiles:) But as touching the Election, they are friends, ſaith he; God hath reſpect to them, not totally to reject them for their fathers ſake; for the covenant which he entered with, and the love that he ſhewed unto their fore-fathers, being beloved upon the account of their fathers; When there is a father found to do them that office, to take them out of the wild Olive, to put them into the true Olive; I do not doubt, but that they have title: Though Baptiſme ſhould be denied to infants reſpective to all predeceſſors, pure Heathen (notwithſtanding Adoption, which I will not determine) yet the Apoſtle ſpeaking ſo much in favour of Jewes, even in their ſtate of blindneſſe, reſpective to the hope of their future call; I do not doubt but it might be vouchſafed (upon this account of Adoption) to an infant. Jew, if we can have any ground fairely to conclude his deſcent from Abraham, much more where we can eaſily evidence a deſcent from parents that are Chriſtian. And this I hope is ſome explication of my meaning where in anſwer to the demand of an adverſary I ſay, That infants be capable of Baptiſm, by deſcent from parents, either within mans memory, or beyond it; when a line of profeſſion holdi, or is againe restored, that the infants may be received into the viſible Church, and enjoy the ſaving Ordinances of Chriſt Jeſus, page 68. of my anſwer; and ſome ſatisfaction to the queſtion concerning the power of mediate Parents, giving title to Baptiſme, where out of the caſe of total Apoſtaſy there is ſmall difficulty. I ſhall conclude in the words of Rivet, aSi Parens carens verâ fide, cam tamen profiteatur & in externo Ecleſiae coetupro fideli habeatur, aut olim habitus fuerit ſub veteri Teſtamento infantes ex talibus naſcentes erant foederati & promiſſionis participes; quia etiam promiſſio acceptata fluerit, à parentibus majoribus in gratiam naſciturae poſteritatis cui non praejudicat immediati Parentis incredulitas aut hypocriſis quamdiu infans incredulitatem & hypocriſin Parentis imitari non poteſt. Rivet. in Gen. Cap. 17. Exercit. 88.If a parent wants true Faith, yet makes profeſſion of it, and in the external ſociety of the Church is accounted a Beleever, or hath been accounted heretofore under the Old Teſtament; the infants borne of ſuch parents; are in covenant with them, and partakers of the promiſe, even upon this account; becauſe the promiſe was received of the Anceſtors in behalfe of the poſterity that ſhould iſſue from them which the unbelief or hypocriſie of the immediate parent, cannot make invalid as long as the infant cannot imitate the unbelief or hypocriſie of the parent.