Discovery of the Unscripturalness of Anabaptism, Chapter 4
CHAP. IV.
Shewing and proving, that the Infants of Believing Gentiles (now under the Goſpel) have as real a Right to the Covenant of Grace, and to Baptiſm, the (now) Viſible Sign and Seal thereof; as had the Children of Abraham (according to the Fleſh) to it, and to Circumciſion, the then Seal of the Covenant of Grace.
And, that they are as capable of the Grace and outward Seal of the Covenant, as are the moſt Adult grown Believers.
I ſhall lay down Four Arguments, to evince and make good (againſt all Oppoſition) what I now aſſert.
Arg. 1. THE firſt Argument is thus fram'd: If God (himſelf) did, by abſolute Soveraign Grace, comprehend Abraham's Church-Seed in the Covenant of Grace he made with believing Abraham, (their Stipulating and Covenanting Father) and never ſince Repeal'd that Gracious Act of his: Then the Infants of Abraham's Church-Seed are ſtill Intereſted in the Covenant of Grace, and have as great Right to, and are as capable of the Grace and Seal of that Covenant as ever.
But God (himſelf) did by abſolute Soveraign Grace, comprehend Abraham's Church-Seed in the Covenant of Grace he made with believing Abraham, (their Stipulating and Covenanting Father) which Gracious Act of his was never ſince Repealed.
Therefore the Infants of Abraham's Church-Seed are ſtill Intereſſed in the Covenant of Grace, and have as great a Right to, and are as capable of the Grace and Seal of that Covenant as ever.
I cannot ſee how this Argument can (poſſibly) be overthrown, but by proving, that God did alter and change that Covenant he made with Abraham (his Friend,) for himſelf and for his Church-Seed: The which, when the Adverſary doth by Evidence of Scripture, (not abuſed and perverted,) I ſhall then yield the Cauſe, and bewail my Miſtake. But two things cauſe in me an unſhaken Confidence, that this can never be done. Firſt, The Immutability and Unchangableneſs of God, on which very account he is ſtyled a Covenant-keeping God, who never yet caſt off any poor Sinner, until that Sinner did firſt actually caſt God off; the which (I think) the Adverſary dares not deny. Secondly, The Impoſſibility of poor Infants actually caſting God off, and that becauſe of their Incapacity in reſpect of Age.
Arg. 2. If Infants be at all Saved, they are Saved by the Grace of God's Covenant made with Abraham; which Covenant, and the External Seal thereof, (in the Viſible Church) muſt belong to them alſo.
But Infants are Saved by the Grace of God's Covenant, (made with Abraham) and in no other way.
Therefore the Covenant of God's Grace (by which they are Saved) and the Seal thereof, (in the Viſible Church) muſt belong to them alſo.
This Argument hath been conſtantly maintained (by the Orthodox) againſt the Enemies of Infant-Baptiſm, with ſuch ſucceſs, that I never yet heard the Man's Name, who was able to anſwer or overthrow the ſame by ſound or ſolid Argument.
To deny Salvation to Infants is a Principle ſo monſtrouſly Cruel and Uncharitable, (expoſing to the Judgment of God, and to the deſerved Frowns of all Tender-hearted Parents) that ſome, who account it a point of great Skill and Wiſdom, (in the Myſtery of the Goſpel) to Decry and Witneſs againſt Infant-Baptiſm, have declared themſelves ſtrongly inclin'd to believe, that all Infants are Saved, and that without diſtinguiſhing between Elect and Reprobate, or between the Seed of Profeſſing Godly Believers, and that of Mahometans, &c. a Principle (altogether) as ſilly and groundleſs as that of denying the Right of Believers Infant-Seed to the Covenant of Grace, and the Viſible Token or Seal thereof in the Church. And at what Door this (Heterodox) Dream ſhould enter, or from what Root or Principle it ſhould ſpring, I know not, unleſs from that Popiſh Arminian Principle of general Redemption and univerſal Grace. Here, by the Conceſſion (or Grant) of the very Adverſaries, Infants are Saved; but how, or in what way? whether by a Covenant or without a Covenant. Here they are (profoundly) ſilent, not daring to mention any Covenant at all, fearing an Advantage may be (thereby) given, to diſcover or prove the Right of Infants to the Covenant. It is ſufficient (ſuch Dreamers Judge) to leave poor Infants to the general Mercy and Grace of God, as thoſe do, who Dream and Conceit, that the very Damned in Hell ſhall (at length) be delivered from the Torments of that Place. For which Chymerical Whym, there is as much to be ſaid (from the Word of God.) As there is to prove, that God will extend the Grace of his Covenant to all Infants Dying ſo.
The Adverſary (I diſpute againſt) knows (very well,) that ſhould it be granted (in Terminis) in plain Terms, that Infants are Saved by the Grace of the Covenant, it can no way be avoided, but that Infants muſt be in that Covenant, and muſt have an Indiſputable Right (in foro Eccleſiae) to the outward Seal thereof.
But this muſt be deny'd, and its contrary aſſerted, (for the moſt Glorious Goſpel-Truth,) (viz.) That Believers only (excluding their Infants) are Intereſted in the Covenant, and have a Right to the Seal thereof; and that in the Right of the Profeſſion they make before Men.
Now, how abſurd and contrary to the very Tenure and Deſign of God's Covenant with Chriſt (in the behalf of the Elect) this Principle of Anabaptiſm is? I leave to every Unprejudiced Reader (who underſtands any thing in Religion) to Judge. And whether to reſtrain the Promiſe of God's Covenant (which equally extends to all the Elect) to that part of the Elect, which are Adult and Grown up, to make a Profeſſion, and to extend the Grace of God beyond the bounds of his own Covenant, be not equally to Raſe the Foundation of Goſpel-Truth, and to Uſurp the Throne of God (or to Invade his Prerogative) in the Church; I leave to Wiſe Men to determine.
If thus to do falls not under that dreadful Commination (or Woe threatned) in Rev. 22.18. I am greatly miſtaken.
Arg. 3. If Infants do ſtand in as real need of the Grace of God's Covenant as the Adult do, and be (every way) as capable thereof as the Adult are, then muſt they (of neceſſity) be allow'd the Seal thereof in the Church.
But Infants do ſtand in as real need of the Grace of God's Covenant, and are (every way) as capable thereof as the Adult are.
Therefore the Seal of God's Covenant in the Church muſt (of neceſſity) be allow'd them.
That Infants are Partakers of Adam's Guilt, and alſo of that Pravity and Pollution of Nature, which came by Adam's Fall, I am confident will be deny'd by none (unleſs by downright Dreamers) now to own this.
And at the ſame time to Teach and Hold, that Infants are (becauſe not Grown up to the uſe of Reaſon and actual Faith) uncapable of Regeneration, is to deny Salvation to all Infants, who Die Infants: And how well this Principle accords with all Infants being Saved, (who Die Infants) is not difficult to underſtand. If this be not Contradictio in Terminis, (viz.) A Contradiction in plain Terms, I know not what a Contradiction means.
The Lord Chriſt (who can neither lye nor be deceived in what he ſaith) aſſures us, that except one be Born again, he cannot (poſſibly) ſee the Kingdom of God. Jo. 3.8. wherein the abſolute need of Regeneration is diſcovered and aſſerted; and the Subject of which, this is predicated (in that Text) being indefinitely and univerſally expreſt; we are taught that neither Adult nor Infant, ſhall ever enter Heaven, till that work of Regeneration paſs on the guilty polluted Soul: And to ſay that an Adult (or grown) Perſon (by reaſon of his Age) is capable of this great Change, but that an Infant (becauſe he wants the uſe of reaſon, &c.) is uncapable of it. What is this but (interpretatively) to hold and ſay that the Creatures own will and reaſon muſt concurr to the producing the New Creature in a Dead Soul.
And how advantageous this Principle is to Papiſts, Arminians, Pelagians and Socinians; the Learned and Orthodox well know.
The Enemies themſelves do (with us) acknowledge that Water-Baptiſm is a Paſſive Ordinance; and ſtrange it is, that thoſe (of that Party) who are concerned to deck and adorn the Frontiſpiece of their Books (againſt Infant-Baptiſm) with ſuch Ornate Floriſhes of Greek, Hebrew, and Latin Sentences, do not (in their way of arguing about this matter) give us to underſtand that they underſtand and know the meaning and proper ſignification of the word Paſſive, better than it appears they do; certain it is, and the Learned know it) that the term Paſſive ſignifies and imports a Non-agency in the Subject, when a change is paſſing on it, or a work producing in it; to the effecting of which change (or work) the Subject Recipient neither wills nor acts any thing towards the production of ſuch a change.
If I underſtand any thing of Gods Mind (revealed in the Sacred Scripture) or was ever (experimentally) acquainted with the Spirits method in paſſing that great change on a Sinner, in effectual Calling. The work conſiſts of two parts. Firſt, Gods Gracious Acts, in freely Pardoning all the Rebels Sins and Tranſgreſſions committed againſt the Law, imputing to him that ſpotleſs Righteouſneſs of Chriſt his Son (the Sinners Sponſor or Surety) as truly and really as if that ſpotleſs Righteouſneſs had been acted performed by the Sinner himſelf (Perſonally.) This is the firſt part wherein that great change lyes or conſiſts, which (in Divinity) is called Juſtification.
The Second is, Go…s quickening and renewing the inward Powers and Faculties of the Soul, by communicating a principle of Spiritual Life to the Sinner, in every of the Souls faculties within: I do not mean (or intend) that in this work of Regenerating the Sinner, the Natural faculties (concreated with the Nature of Adam) are deſtroyed or annihilated, but that the Predominancy of thoſe vitious qualities (inhering in the Souls faculties) is overpowered by the Sanctification of the Spirit; and a contrary Principle of ſaving (and unlooſable) Grace is communicated to every of theſe faculties in the Soul, whereby the new Principle communicated, maintains its own Being in thoſe reſpective Faculties, (and this through the continual ſupply of the Spirit which produced the change) and making continual reſiſtance againſt that Vice and Corruption (as yet) remaining in the ſame Faculties where the new Creature is appointed to War and Combat, until that Sinleſs Perfection (promiſed in the Covenant of Grace) ſuperſede and diſpoſſeſs that indwelling Corruption (in the Soul) under which the new Creature continues to groan, until a perfect releaſe come.
This is called Sanctification; and when the ſet time (prefixt in Gods Decree) for calling an Elect Sinner, is come; what produceth this great change?
I will ſuppoſe the Sinner to be come to the Years of Manhood, capable of acting or exerciſing his natural Faculties; doth his will or his reaſon help the Almighty in producing ſo miraculous a change? can the Eye of this Sinners blind reaſon (and underſtanding) ſee into or comprehend the hidden Myſtery of that Wiſdom manifeſted and ſet forth in that ſtupendious and aſtoniſhing contrivance of Gods juſtifying and reconciling to himſelf an Apoſtate, Rebel, Sinner, by the imputed Righteouſneſs of another? can the Eye of blind reaſon be capable of this? can the Will of this dead Sinner incline or move it ſelf towards the Sinners own Converſion, to be a Coadjutor or Fellow-helper, to forward or help the Almighty in effecting this ſtrange and miraculous change? can it (poſſibly) be that Spiritual (or Corporal) Blindneſs can cure it ſelf, or that Enmity and Rebellion can change its own Nature?
Let the experience of every (rightly) aſſured Believer ſpeak to this.
If then nothing in the poor dead Sinner, neither the uſe of his natural reaſon, nor yet any activity in his unrenewed Will doth contribute any help to produce ſo wonderful a change; the work muſt needs be (entirely) Gods own work. From which I argue in the behalf of poor Infants, if God can, and doth freely pardon and blot out the Millions of actual Sins (added to the original guilt) of an adult Sinner; if he can and doth freely and moſt graciouſly impute the Righteouſneſs of his Son; and by thus doing, juſtifies an adult Sinner: If God can (and doth) by the irreſiſtable efficacy of his own Holy Spirit, renew the faculties of the Soul of an adult Sinner, which is (as I may ſay) ſteeped (and even ſoaked) in Vitioſity and actual Pollution; cannot the ſame Almighty, Juſt, Wiſe and Gracious God do and effect the like change in and upon a poor helpleſs Infant, though that Infant underſtand not what is done to it, neither is capable of contributing any help towards ſo great a change?
From what hath been (here) offered to conſideration, to me it is evident and plain, that when Men cry out and ſay, Infants, (while Infants) are uncapable of Regeneration, becauſe they want the uſe of reaſon, &c. they ſpeak moſt injuriouſly and ignorantly againſt God himſelf, as if he could not (or would not) effect that in and for an Elect Infant which he doth for an adult Sinner; as the juſtifying and renewing an adult Sinner hath no dependence on the reaſon, will or ſpeech of a grown Sinner, even ſo the want of actual reaſon, activity of Will or Speech in an Infant, cannot (poſſibly) hinder God from effecting this great and gracious work in and upon an Elect Infant, though the poor Infant can do nothing towards ſo great a change. The Subject Recipient of this work of Regeneration, is (every way) Paſſive, the adult as well as the Infant.
Agreeable to this Act of Gods in changing a Sinner, is that Ordinance of Water-Baptiſm, whoſe principal uſe is twofold. Firſt, to ſignifie and repreſent his own gracious dealing with the Sinner (Baptized) in Pardoning all his Sins, for Chriſts ſake; whoſe Blood repreſented by the Water in Baptiſm) was ſhed for the Remiſſion of the Sins of all, comprehended in that Covenant of Grace, whereof Baptiſm is a Seal. And Secondly, that it may be a Seal to confirm to the Baptized (if Elect) all the gracious Promiſes of the ſame Covenant of Grace; as Gods work (upon the Soul of a true Convert) is (in reſpect of the Sinner) wholly Paſſive, ſo Baptiſm (the outward Sign and Seal of Gods Covenant of Grace) is altogether Paſſive: And as the Wiſdom of Chriſt ſaw fit to appoint the Element of material Water to be uſed in Baptiſm, as (above all the other Elements) moſt ſuited to the deſign of that Ordinance, becauſe of the Analogie and reſemblance which is between Water and the Blood of Chriſt; ſo no mode or way of adminiſtring this Water-Baptiſm doth ſo exactly and to the life, ſet forth the freeneſs of Gods Grace and Mercy (exhibited) in the Covenant of Grace, then the act of Sprinkling or pouring out the Water on the Party Baptized. By this way of Sprinkling (under the Goſpel) there is a ſweet and orderly Harmony kept between the Pen-men of Gods Word, both under the Old and New-Teſtament Diſpenſation, with whom, whoever ſtudys to agree (in applying the Water of Holy Baptiſm) they will be (at length) found to be in the right; how many and black Cenſures ſoever are heapt on them by injudicious Spirits: The Spirit of God (in the work of Regeneration) applys the Spiritual Baptiſm by Sprinkling or pouring out of his Graces on the Soul. There muſt be an Analogie kept between the thing ſignified and the outward Sign.
Againſt what hath been laid down to prove Infants right to Baptiſm, (the Seal of Gods Covenant) many things are objected. I will (for brevity ſake) contract the Objections (with my Anſwers) to as few particulars as (poſſibly) I can.
Object. 1. In the Words of the Grand Commiſſion, there is not one word concerning Infants. Mat. 28.19. Go ye and Teach all Nations, Baptizing them in the Name, &c.
This ſeems too weak, (though well meaning) Minds to be unanſwerable: But in the ſtrength of him who gave out this Grand Commiſſion, I hope to ſhew how wretchedly the Objector is miſtaken herein.
In order whereto, let two things be ſeriouſly (and warily) conſidered.
Firſt, that albeit Chriſt the Lord doth not mention Infants (in particular) yet he includes them in the Words of the general Commiſſion… Go Teach all Nations, Baptizing them, &c. Here the Lord commands (expreſly) that all ſuch as belong to Gods Covenant (with Abraham) Gen. 7.7. ſhall be Baptized; Namely, all who ſhall embrace the Son of God by Faith, and their Infant-Seed (if any they have) That this is the true ſenſe and meaning of Chriſt in that place, is clear to any who do not (wilfully) ſhut their Eyes; for evident it is, and none can deny that he (there) commands to Baptize all Nations, not excepting againſt or forbidding the Diſciples to Baptize little Infants: He knew that he ſpake to Men, who (after the ſending of the Holy Ghoſt) ſhould know and conſider that Abrahams Covenant (with Believers and their Infant-Seed) was to remain and continue the ſame to the end of the World. And this, (together with the ſharp rebuke he gave to his Apoſtles, for offering to hinder Little Ones being brought to him; and his laying before them ſuch a convincing reaſon wherefore ſuch ſhould not be kept from coming to him. Mar. 10.14. was the principal, (if not the only reaſon) wherefore his infinite Wiſdom ſaw it not needful to mention Infants in particular, they being (moſt certainly) included in the general term all Nations: All Men (who know any thing of Learning) underſtand that Omne majus continet in ſe minus, (every greater includes (or contains in it the leſſer) is a ſure and ſtanding Rule both in Logick and Divinity.
Agreeing with this ſenſe (I have given off the Grand Commiſſion) is that of Peter, Acts 2.39. For the Promiſe is to you and to your Children, &c. which affords an invincible Argument to prove that there is (now under the Goſpel) no change of Abrahams Covenant, (any other than in the external adminiſtration of it) The Covenant (in its ſubſtance) abides the ſame for ever: By the Grace thereof all Gods Elect (both of the Jewiſh and Gentile Race) are to be Saved. Rom. 3.29. What I have ſaid will yet receive farther confirmation by what is laid down by Paul in Gal. 3.14. That the Bleſſing of Abraham might come upon the Gentiles, through Jeſus Chriſt, &c. The places now quoted out of Acts 2.39. and Gal. 3.14. preſuppoſe a command to all, (whether Jew or Gentile) who (by Faith) receives Jeſus Chriſt for a Saviour) that they ſhall be Signed with the Seal of Abrahams Covenant, according to Gen. 17.9. For if the Gentiles (who believe in Abrahams Saviour) do expect that they and their Infants ſhould be made actual Partakers of the Bleſſings of Abrahams Covenant; they muſt be ſure to obſerve and keep Gods Covenant with Abraham throughout their Generations.
Secondly, ſeeing that Chriſt (himſelf) words the Commiſſion ſo in general terms, (which (undoubtedly) includes the particular) not excepting againſt Infants: It muſt (neceſſarily) follow, that if Infants be a part of thoſe Nations which the Apoſtles, &c. are commanded to Baptize; that Chriſt commands them to Baptize Infants as well as any others. Reader, obſerve the Words of the Commiſſion, Go and Teach all Nations, &c. Here is no more mention of grown Perſons, Men or Women, than there is of Infants. If then Anabaptiſts cannot deny that Infants are a part of Nations, and that they can no way prove how Abrahams Bleſſing can come on the Gentiles (through Chriſt Jeſus) any other way than by and through the Covenant of Abraham. It will (unavoidably) follow, (all the Wit in Man cannot oppoſe it with ſucceſs) that Infants as well as adult Perſons are (as the proper Subjects of Baptiſm) intended (by Chriſt) in the Grand Commiſſion.
Object. 2. None are the proper Subjects of Baptiſm, but ſuch as are firſt taught Go and Teach, &c. Infants are not capable of Mans Teaching, therefore they are not the proper Subjects of Baptiſm.
Anſw. This, with the Objection already ſpoken to, ſeems (to weak and injudicious People) to be unanſwerable, (for excluding Infants from Baptiſm) but he that looks into it with a Spiritual Eye, will find nothing in it againſt Infants.
In order to diſcover the weakneſs and miſtake of the Objector, let it be obſerved (with care) that the Word Teach, is twice mentioned in the Words of the Commiſſion; Go and Teach all Nations, Baptizing them; &c. And in Ver. 20, Teaching them to obſerve, &c.
The firſt Teach is (in the Original) Matheteuſate; and the other is Didaskontes; which I chooſe to ſet down in the Engliſh (rather than in the Greek) Character, to the end the Unlearned may Read them; and (in Reading) obſerve the great difference which is between the two Words, and that both in the Letters and Sound of the Words; if this be taken notice of, it will afford to the Unlearned (who would not be impos'd upon) ground to ſuſpect, not only the Skill (in Tongues,) but alſo the Honeſty and Faithfulneſs of thoſe Guides, whom they Judge come nearer to Infalibility in what they Teach, than do the other eminent Servants of Chriſt, who differ from them; and at whoſe Labours the ableſt Preachers of that Party, are glad to Light their Candles.
As theſe two Words differ in Letters and Sound, as the Unlearned themſelves will find, (if they be but Faithful to themſelves,) ſo they differ alſo in their Senſe and Signification, as the Orthodox and Learned well know. I begin with the firſt, (viz.) Matheteuſate, which ſignifies (properly) to Diſciple, or to make Diſciples in all Nations, where the Goſpel ſhall be (gladly) received.
How is this to be done? Anſw. Even as God Taught Abraham, when he Inſtructed him in the great Myſtery of the Covenant: The which, when Abraham Embrac'd for himſelf and his Infant-Seed, he received (gladly) the Viſible Token or Seal of that Covenant of Grace, (viz.) Circumciſion, and marks out his Infant-Seed, by putting the ſame Seal of the Covenant on them, and that in compliance with God's Command.
It is but Rational to ſuppoſe and grant, that the firſt Subjects of an Ordinance ſhould be Perſons Adult, and Grown up to the uſe of Reaſon, that they may be capable of Acting for not only themſelves, but for their Off ſpring and Poſterity alſo, who are not (while Infants) capable of Acting for themſelves.
This was God's Way and Method with Abraham (his Friend) he Propounds his Covenant of Grace to him and (in him) to his Seed, as their Stipulating and Covenanting Head and Repreſentative. In Inſtructing Abraham, God (in Abraham's Perſon) Inſtructs his Infants, ſo as by that Inſtruction, his Infant-Seed became Diſciples, and were (accordingly) Sign'd with the Seal of their Stipulating Father's Covenant.
This (undoubtedly) was the Method which the Apoſtles went in, when they were ſent forth to make Diſciples (to Chriſt) in every Nation. They Inſtructed Adult and Grown Perſons in the Myſtery of God's Grace (by Chriſt;) and when ſuch laid hold on Chriſt (in the Covenant) by an External Profeſſion of Faith, (in him) they were Baptized with their Infants, (if any they had.) Hence we Read of the Jaylor in Acts 16.33. who (on his Believing) was Baptized, he and all that were of him, (viz.) His own Perſonal Off-ſpring, ſo the Greek Word ſignifies. Hence alſo we Read of whole Families, who were Baptized (by the Apoſtles) on the Faith of ſuch as were the Heads of ſuch Families. It was no more neceſſary, that Infants ſhould be made mention of, (as being in ſuch Families when Baptized) than it was, that they ſhould be nam'd in the Grand Commiſſion; the Spirit which gave out the Grand Commiſſion, was in, and with the Apoſtles, when they Baptized; and it is (to me) convincing, that Infants are intended in both, ſeeing they are excepted againſt, in neither, which the Adverſary muſt (needs) be convinc'd of, unleſs he be able to prove, that Infants are neither a part of Nations or of Families.
The other Word Teach in the Commiſſion is, Didaskontes, which (properly) ſignifies a Teaching or Inſtructing (Doctrinally) thoſe, who are (already) made Diſciples by the former way of Teaching. Neither can it (without Lying) be ſaid to be Nonſenſe and folly, to term Infants (who are by the firſt Teaching made Diſciples) Schollars or Diſciples, ſeeing, that Infants (in Age) are (by the Spirit of Truth) ſo ſtyl'd, witneſs Acts 15.10. where ſuch are called Diſciples, who were made ſo by the Initiating Ordinance of Circumciſion, who afterwards (when grown up) were taught (Doctrinally) what they were to know and practice; neither is this (any whit) repugnant to the Method God took with Abraham, but rather agreeing with it; as appears by Gen. 18.19. and even among Men nothing more common and frequent, than to call our little Children Schollars or Diſciples, and that from the very firſt day of their being entred into a School: And as in Mens Schools there are ſundry Ranks or Claſſes of Schollars, ſome lower and ſome higher; ſo in the School of Chriſt (the great Prophet of his Church) there are ſeveral Ranks or Degrees of Church Members. It is well known how ignorant (in the Myſteries of the Goſpel) the very Apoſtles themſelves were, when they firſt entred into Chriſts School; yet Chriſt calls them his Diſciples for all that. The Apoſtle Paul could not write or ſpeak unto the Corinthians, but as unto Babes, as unto Carnal Men; yet they were Church Members for all that. Theſe things duly conſidered, forces me to conclude thoſe Men profoundly ignorant in the Myſtery of Gods Holy Covenant; who (becauſe Infants are uncapable of being taught and inſtructed (Doctrinally) as adult and grown Men are) peremptorily deny that Infants are capable of being made Diſciples (to Chriſt) by the Miniſtry of Men. This Principle came (no doubt) from the ſame Spirit which teaches that Infants, (while Infants) are uncapable of Regeneration; which are both (manifeſtly) falſe, becauſe contrary to Gods revealed Will.
Object. 3. Baptiſm is a Seal of the Righteouſneſs of Faith, to which none have a right, but he or ſhe who is a real true Believer.
Anſw. I anſwer in three particulars. Firſt, If Baptiſm be a Seal of the Righteouſneſs of Faith, then muſt it needs ſucceed and come in the room of Circumciſion: And ſo the truth is (here) granted, which elſe where is denied, that Circumciſion is a Seal of the Righteouſneſs of Faith; is moſt plain from Rom. 4.11. Now if Baptiſm be a Seal of the Righteouſneſs of Faith, (as the Objector grants, and as I believe and affirm it is) then Baptiſm did (undeniably) come in the room of Circumciſion, that the ſame might be to Believing Gentiles (under the Goſpel) what Circumciſion was (of Old) to Abraham, (viz.) a Seal of the Covenant of Grace.
Secondly, If none but actual Believers have a Right to that Righteouſneſs of w…ich Baptiſm is a Seal, then muſt it follow (unavoidably) that all Infants (who Dye in Infancy) are Eternally loſt: And how (cruel this Doctrine is, and how inconſiſt…nt with the Doctrine which teacheth that all Infants (Dying Infants) are ſaved, all Men may ſee.
Thirdly, If none but real true Believers have a Right to Baptiſm, I would gladly ſee how thoſe (I Diſpute againſt) can juſtify their own practices, in admitting ſo many poor ignorant Folk to that Ordinance (in their way) who (with ſome who admit them) are as ignorant of the Myſtery of Regeneration and of Baptiſm, (the external Seal thereof) as was Nicodemus. Can they (without a Divine Revelation) know that thoſe whom they admit to Baptiſm are (infallibly) real true Believers?
Object. 4. To apply Baptiſm, (the Seal of the Covenant) to an unintelligent Subject, who neither knows what is done to him, nor yields conſent thereto: It is all one as to preſent a Picture to a Blind Man, which to do is moſt abſurd and ridiculous.
Anſw. To this I ſhall reply in four particulars. And firſt, I ſay (with a Learned Man) this is (at beſt) but a blind Compariſon; and (which is far worſe) a high and fancy Reflection on the infinite Wiſdom and uncontroulable Soveraignty of the moſt high God; for moſt certain it is, that nothing can be offered as an Argument to keep Infants from Baptiſm, (meerly) on the account of their being unintelligent Subjects, and uncapable of yielding their conſent to what is done to them in Baptiſm) But what will be of as great force to keep them back from Circumciſion? And ſo the Objector may ſee (plainly) how (herein) he arraigns the Wiſdom and Soveraignty of God at the Bar of a ſhallow and corrupt Creatures Reaſon, which demonſtrates him to be more Brutiſh; (I am ſure more proud end wicked) than thoſe Non-intelligent Subjects which the Objection is levelled againſt.
This will appear by conſidering Gods dealing with Abraham, in that he commanded him to Mark (or Seal) his Son Iſaac with the Seal of Circumciſion at Eight Days old. Had Iſaac the uſe of reaſon at that Age? Had he actual Faith or Speech to expreſs his conſent to what was (then) done to him? No ſure; what then muſt God be charged with weakneſs or unreaſonableneſs for applying the Seal of his Covenant to an unintelligent Subject? By theſe kind of Objectors, Gods Act (herein) ſtands charged with weakneſs and folly, but I conclude with Paul, Rom. 3.4. Yea, let God be true, but every Man a Lyar. God commands nothing in vain, and the reaſon is, becauſe his Ordinance hath no kind of dependence on the Creature, to give it power, or to make it effectual to accompliſh what he hath appointed it to, but on his own free Spirit, which works moſt powerfully, yea, irreſiſtably where he himſelf hath purpoſed to confer the Spiritual Good, ſignified by the outward Ordinance.
Object. 5. The Promiſe of Gods Covenant is made to the Elect, and none but they have a Right to the Seal: No Man can affirm that an Infant brought to Baptiſm is Elect.
Anſw. I Anſwer to this in two things. Firſt, I grant that none ſhall ever reap any ſaving Benefit by the Covenant, but the Elect; (and that in the right of Election) yet doth it not hence follow, that none but they have a right to the Seal of the Covenant in the Church Viſible, ſeeing that by the very Conſtitution of Gods Covenant (with Abraham the Eccleſiaſtical Father, and pub ick Viſible Head of all the Seed of Believing Church-Members) God commands that the Seal of his Covenant ſhall be equally apply'd to all the Male-Seed of the Believer; and that without any regard to the Election, which is a Secret known (only) to God; about which he would not have us to trouble our Spirits, any farther than to give all (becoming) diligence to make our own (Pe ſonal) Election ſure to our ſ…lves. As touchi…g the Infants of Church Memb…rs, (about whom all the Diſpute is) We are not (…nxiouſly) to be concerned about them, whether they be in the Election of God, yea or no. It is ground ſufficient for us to Bleſs and thank God for his dealing ſo Graciouſly with our Infants, in that they (with us) are taken into the ſame Covenant, and Sealed with the Seal thereof; for by Gods dealing thus with Believers Infant-Seed, Believers have a good foundation laid, whereon to bottom their Hope and Comfort, (with reference to thei… Dying or Deceaſed Infants) and alſo of wreſtling with God in Prayer for their Converſion and Eternal Welfare; the which the Enemies to Infant-Baptiſm, do (by denying that Infants belong to the Coven…nt, or have any right to the Promiſ…s thereof, till they themſelves B…lieve) deprive, and (inſenſibly) ſ…oil themſelves of. This is moſt evidently true, as will appear if it be ſ…riouſly conſi…ered, tha… all right Prayer is a Pl…i…g the Promiſes of Gods Covenant, in the Name and Merit of Chriſt his own So…, in and through whom, the ſaid Promiſ…s are intail'd on all the Children of Promiſe: Now if my Infant be Sick or Ailing? If he be going on in Sin, &c. how can I (by the Anabaptiſt Principle put up a Prayer to God for him, ſeeing there is no promiſe of Gods Covenant belongs to him? Or how can I comfort my ſorrowful Spirit (with reference to my Deceaſed Children) if I muſt look on my dear Babes as Strangers and Enemies to God, (the which they are by Nature; and muſt remain ſo for ever) in caſe they be not Partakers of the Grace of Gods Covenant?
Secondly, If none but the Elect have right to Baptiſm, this Objection will fall like a Mill-ſtone on them who Baptize whole droves of Men and Women; of whoſe Election (to Eternal Life) neither Baptizer nor Baptized, know any more than they know how many Stars in the Firmament; ſo that by thus arguing againſt poor Tongue-ty'd Infants, they may ſee how they deny Salvation to their own (as w…ll as others) Infants, and render themſelves uncapable of diſcharging a good Conſcience to their poor Children, in putting up (daily) Petitions to God for them.
Object. 6. We have an open Profeſſion from thoſe we Baptize, and that warrants our Baptizing ſuch as offer themſelves to join to the Churches. You have not the like from Infants.
Anſw. I Anſwer hereto in three particulars. Firſt, it were well for both Baptizers and Baptized, if both the one and the other were better acquainted with the Nature of right Converſion than they are, and that they were better grounded in the ſound (and experimental) knowledge of the Covenant of Grace; the which if they were, I dare (boldly) ſay, they would not be ſo precipitant and raſh in condemning and deſpiſing thoſe poor Infants, who are ſet forth (by the Wiſdom of God) as Patterns and Examples, by which grown Perſons are to be moulded and ſitted for Heaven: Neither would they be ſo forward to offer themſelves to Baptiſm on ſuch ſlight and evanid Motions, as falls ſhort (in too many) of common Convictions.
Secondly, poor Infants never (yet) broke or tranſgreſſed the Moral Law, (Perſonally) and that is one great reaſon why an actual confeſſion of Faith and Repentance is not required of them, to qualifie them for Baptiſm: As the Sin of Infants lyes in the imputation of Adams Diſobedience, and the Pollution of Nature, derived by fleſhly Generation; ſo their help and remedy lyes in the imputation of Chriſts Spotleſs Righteouſneſs to their Perſons; and his Spirits renewing their inward Faculties in Regenerating them. And this twofold work of the Spirit in Juſtifying and Sanctifying the Elect Infant, is (plainly) ſignifi…d and Sealed in that Ordinance of Baptiſm, to the Infant, as well as to a grown …eliever.
Thirdly, albeit Infants be not able to ſpe…k for themſelves, and to claim that right to the Seal of Gods Covenant which the Covenant it ſelf hath entail'd on them, (as they are the Church Seed of Believing Parents) yet there is one who ſpeaks for them, whoſe Judgment and Teſtimony of them is more ſure and infallible than all other Teſtimonies of Men and Angels; the Lord Jeſus (I mean) who (with his Father, and God the Holy Ghoſt) contrived and made the Covenant of Grace, wherein they are comprehended. I will lay down in ſix Particulars what is the Judgment of Chriſt concerning Infants, (as they are concerned in the Covenant) Firſt, he propounds them as Patterns, by which grown Perſons muſt be moulded and fitted for Heaven, Mat. 18.3. Secondly, declares their right to the Kingdom of God, Mar 10.14. For of ſuch is the Kingdom of God. Thirdly, rebukes (moſt ſeverely) his Diſciples for hindering Infants being brought to him, Mar. 10.14. But when Jeſus ſaw it, he was much diſpleaſed, &c. In the Greek it is Eganakteſe, which ſignifies to have the Bowels (inwardly) moved, or affected with Grief, to be filled with Indignation; (as Beza renders it, Indignatus eſt, to be Stomackt at a Perſon, or a thing which is greatly or highly diſpleaſing: A Word which judicious Sydenham obſerves, was never uſed by Chriſt in any caſe, or on any occaſion, beſides this of poor Infants, to inſtruct and teach Men: (No doubt) how greatly he was concerned for helpleſs Infants, and how diſpleaſed he was at the hardneſs of his Diſciples Hearts againſt them: Oh! that the conſideration of this might melt the hard Hearts of ſuch, into a Chriſt like tenderneſs towards poor Infants. Fourthly, commands Infants to be brought to him, Mar. 10.14. Suffer little Children to come unto me, &c. Fifthly, pronounces them Holy, Rom. 11.16. 1. Cor. 7.14. Sixthly, Bleſſeth them, Mar. 10.16. And he took them up in his Arms, laid his Hands upon them and Bleſſed them. Theſe ſix Particulars laid together, and weighed in the Ballance of Gods Sanctuary, I leave it to any Man of Senſe (in Spiritual matters) to judge whether is ſafer to credit this infallible Teſtimony of the Son of God, concerning Infants, than to rely on the bare Teſtimony of a meer Man, concerning himſelf; who may (in all he pretends to) be but a Painted Sepulchre.
Object. 7. If Infants muſt needs have a right to Baptiſm, becauſe it is a Seal of the Covenant, then (of neceſſity) they muſt have a right to the Lords Supper alſo; for that is a Seal of the Covenant of Grace as well as Baptiſm. The Wine in the Supper might as well be poured down the Infants mouth with a Spoon, as to ſprinkle Water on his face.
Anſw. This Objection better becomes a Superannuated Man, who borders on perfect Dotage, than one who pretends to be a Teacher of ignorant and miſguided Souls; and not only ſo, but who takes on him to Uſurp the Seat of Judgment, in paſſing Sentence on all the Holy, Learned and Orthodox Divines, and Proteſtant Martyrs and Churches, who are gone to Glory in the unſhaken Belief that the Infants of Believing Parents have an unqueſtionable right to Baptiſm, and that they are as capable of the Seal of Baptiſm as they are of the Grace of Gods Covenant, ſignified thereby.
But that the Lords Supper belongs to none but to Adult and actual Believers, who are capable of thoſe qualifications required in a worthy Communicant; ſuch as Self-examination, (with reference to his State Godward) his faith in Chriſt, his progreſs in a Holy Life, his diſcerning the Lords Body, his keeping up a lively Communion with Father, Son and Spirit in that Ordinance, and judging ones ſelf in caſe of ſhort coming in Holy Duties.
Theſe are the qualifications required to be in one who comes to the Lords Supper; of which, any (not in a Dream) may judge an Infant cannot be capable, (while an Infant.) I humbly hope no judicious Chriſtian will cenſure me (as raſh and uncharitable) if I judge thoſe Preachers fitter for a Shopboard than a Pulpit, who are not able or willing to diſcern or diſtinguiſh between Milk and ſtrong Meat; and who will deny to Infants the Milk of Holy Baptiſm, (whereof they are capable, and whereto (by Gods Covenant) they have right, becauſe they are uncapable of receiving and digeſting the ſtrong Meat of the Lords Supper.
Object. 8. If Infant-Baptiſm were God's Ordinance, and were accompanied with his Bleſſing, to the Infant, how comes it to paſs, that ſo many Baptized, (in Infancy) prove ſo Carnal and looſe in their Lives and Converſations?
Anſw. Hereto I reply in three Particulars, wherewith I ſhall ſhut up the preſent Diſpute.
Firſt, It is with many Believers Infants now (under the Goſpel) as it was with Abraham and his Infants of old. Some are their Children by fleſhly Generation only, who (Iſhmael-like) prove Mockers and Scoffers at Holineſs, and Haters of God and good Men: Theſe, (notwithſtanding the Relation they ſtand in to the Church, by Virtue of their Baptiſmal Vow and the External Profeſſion they make in the Viſible Church for a time) being left to the darkneſs and folly lodged in their corrupted Nature, they give themſelves over to all kind of Looſeneſs. Baptiſm (now) is no more to be faulted on this account, than Circumciſion was formerly.
When the Children of believing Gentiles do (actually) violate God's Covenant, and depart from him; then will God do with them, as he did with Abraham's Carnal Seed, &c.
Secondly, As ſome of the Children of believing Parents, who were Baptiz'd in Infant State, prove looſe and vain, ſo (Bleſſed be God) a great many prove Holy and Upright Walkers with God, manifeſting in their Lives and Converſations, the lively Coppy of that Spiritual Circumciſion wrought (by the Spirit) in their Hearts when Converted, which was Signified and Sealed by that Baptiſm, which they were made Partakers of when Infants.
Thirdly and laſtly, If from the vain and ſinful Practiſe of ſome (Baptiz'd in Infancy) Infant-Baptiſm, muſt be diſallow'd, (as no Inſtitution of God,) how ſtrong an Argument will this prove, to overthrow the Baptizing grown Profeſſors? For (if I miſtake not) the Oppoſers of Infant-Baptiſm muſt own, (will they nill they) that many of thoſe Baptiz'd (in their way) have (notwithſtanding their ſhining Profeſſion, and their high Pretenſions to the Work of the Spirit within) fallen moſt foully, and never recover'd again.
And thus I have (according to the Wiſdom given from above) endeavoured to clear up, (from God's Word) that Abraham's Covenant, Gen. 17.7. is (moſt certainly) the Covenant of Grace. I have alſo prov'd (from the ſame Word,) that Circumciſion was the Seal of that Covenant: And that Baptiſm (under the Goſpel) is now ſucceeded (or come in the room) thereof. I have endeavoured to prove, that the Infants of believing Gentiles have as real a Right to Baptiſm as Abraham's Seed had to Circumciſion, under that dark Diſpenſation. And whether the Anſwers I have given to the moſt material Objections, I find brought againſt Infant-Baptiſm, be pertinent and convincing, I leave to the Judicious and Unprejudic'd to Judge.