The Plea of the Children of Believing Parents, Section 5
SECT. V.
BUt come we to the great Argument, which all uſe, and that wherewith I was aſſaulted. Matth. 28.19. and Mark 16.16. Only Believers are to be Baptiſed. To which I Anſwer,
This took with me in my Meditations, I thought there was ſtrength in it.
Had the Goſpel-Church been firſt erected amongſt the Gentiles, and had Baptiſm been firſt Inſtituted in the Gentile-Churches, then the Anabaptiſts Argument from hence, would have carryed me. But the firſt Goſpel-Church was erected among the Jews, in Jeruſalem, and Baptiſm was Inſtituted in the Jewiſh-Church firſt, where the Anabaptiſts cannot deny but the Infants were Members with their Parents, and under the Seal of the Covenant. So that they muſt firſt prove that by this Text, the Children of the Believing Jews in the Goſpel-Church, were not Members with their Parents, which I am ſure cannot be forced from this Text, nor doth it in the leaſt prove the Repealing of Abraham's Covenant with his Seed.
Circumciſion did Seal up the Promiſed Seed, in whom all Nations ſhould be Bleſsed, or Chriſt to come; and ſurely required, therefore their Faith in the Meſſiah to come. After Chriſt's Aſcenſion, in the Goſpel-Church Baptiſm ſeals up this Promiſed Seed, or Chriſt now come, with a full and clear Revelation of him; the difference of the Faith as to the Object of it, is only Chriſt to come, and come. If then the Children of the Jews, while the Parents did believe in the Meſſiah to come, were under a Covenant, Reputed Members of the Church, and Circumciſed; ſhould, when their Parents believe in Chriſt come, be caſt out of Covenant, out of the Church, and not Baptiſed, I know no Reaſon, nor Warrant from God's Word; this would have made ſtrange work.
If the Anabaptiſts ſay the Jews did not believe in the Meſſiah to come, they muſt prove it; the Meſſiah ran much in their minds, we may ſee by the Woman of Samaria. Joh. 4.25. Read Acts 26.7. and by the Jews. Joh. 1.19, 20, 21. If Chriſt were then clearly revealed, why ſhould this caſt the Infant out? the Infant is not therefore guilty of the more Sin, when Chriſt was clearly revealed, and ſo deſerve to be caſt out.
We are to conſider Ordinances in their Inſtitution, wherefore God appointed them, what they carry in them, in their own Nature, and what Men ought to do who partake of them, not what Men do; we know what Baptiſm ſignifies, what it implies, and what they ought to do who partake of it, though Men abuſe it. The Caſe was the ſame as to Circumciſion.
That this was one thing it Sealed up, as I ſaid, the Promiſe of Chriſt to come, the Anabaptiſts cannot deny, and it is the true Anſwer which Pererius gives, from Aquinus, to that Question, what was the difference between the Circumciſion of the Jews, and of other Nations? for that other Nations did Circumciſe beſides the Jews, not only Cyprian, de ratione Circumvis, & Hierom. on Jer. 9. ult. [who upon that Text I think well;] but alſo Herodotus, who lived ſome hundreds of years before Chriſt in Xerxes's Time, tells us, inſomuch, that Herodotus ſaith the Jews took it up from the Egyptians; among whom it was in ſo much eſteem, that there was no entrance into the moſt Honourable Offices amongſt them, unleſs they were Circumciſed. Now Pererius makes this difference: Other Nations uſed it, taking it up as a cuſtom and right, tranſmitted to them from their fore-Fathers, whom they had in Honour. But the Jews uſed it, as it was a Sacrament containing in it, the Profeſſion of their Faith and Obedience towards God, and the Divine Promiſe of the Meſſiah to come; he adds, And Expiation of Original Sin, as the Ancients ſpeak of Baptiſm, and ſo many do now.
That other Nations do not uſe it as a Seal of God's Covenant, it appears by the time of Circumciſing; the day God appointed, was the eigth day, but Iſhmael's Poſterity, Circumciſe in the thirteenth year of their Age, then Iſhmael was Circumciſed; ſo that it is meerly in Honour of him, ſo Joſephus tells us. l. 1. c. 12.
To go on, If then the Seed of the Jews believing in Chriſt come, be ſtill under the Covenant, and Church-Members with their Parents, and if ſo, ought to be Baptiſed, by Mr. Tombe's Conceſſion; Then let the Believing Gentiles and their Seed come in alſo for now no difference between Jew and Greek, Gal. 3.28. And for more full proof, the Apoſtle tells the believing Epheſians, and ſo all believing Gentiles, Epheſ. 2.19. We are no more ſtrangers [from the common-wealth of Iſrael, v. 12.] but Chriſt having broken down the middle Wall of Partition between the Jews and us, v. 14.] we are now fellow-citizens with the Saints, and of the Houſhold of God.
For the word Fellow-citizens, in the City or Church of the Jews: I pray, who were eſteemed Citizens? Were not the Children put into Abraham's Charter: were not they then Citizens with their Parents? What, hath God ſent his Quo Warranto, and taken away Abraham's Charter, when the Parents, the Citizens, believe in Chriſt ſincerely, and keep Covenant with him, and walk in the ſteps of Abraham: will now God take away their Charter, and caſt out their Seed from being Citizens? What, hath Chriſt by his blood made us both One, taking down the partition-wall between Jew and Gentile, v. 14. And doth he now ſet up the partition Wall between the Jewiſh believing Parent and his Seed, bringing now the Seed of the believing Jews into that condition the Gentiles were in before Chriſt came, Epheſ. 2.11, 12. Shall the Anabaptiſts make us believe this, unleſs God hath ſaid ſo in expreſs terms? What a Bar had this been againſt the Jews ever receiving the Goſpel: Did they any where make this Objection againſt it? Now we Gentiles believing, are Fellow-citizens with them of the ſame Houſhold of God with them. Are not Children part of the Houſhold? Were not the Jews Children part of the Houſhold of God? then the Apoſtle tells us, we alſo are Fellow-citizens, and of the Houſhold of God, as the Jews are.
As for the Texts, Matth. 28. and Mark 16. Bleſſed Jeſus, the Promiſed Seed to Abraham, in whom all Nations ſhould be bleſſed, is now come; fulfilled the Law, Crucified, Dead, Aſcended: Salvation is onelyonly to be had in him. Now this was the great Doctrine the Apoſtles were to preach, firſt to the Jews, than to the Gentiles, and call all Nations to believe in this Chriſt, that they may be bleſſed, according to the Promiſe made to Abraham. True, none but Adult perſons, or perſons of underſtanding, can underſtand this Doctrine, and actually believe in Chriſt. No more could any but Jews Adult, or of ripe years, underſtand the Promiſe of Chriſt to come, in whom all Nations ſhould be bleſſed; but yet the Jews Children were reputed with them Believers in the Meſſiah to come, by Gods Covenant with them, and the Church Conſtituted of them. So now Believers in Chriſt come, their Seed are Reputed with them.
Muſculus [whom my Author hath put in his Catalogue of Authors, [hoc. com. p. 603.] which makes the ignorant Anabaptiſt think he is on their ſide; but rancks the Anabaptiſts in a ſecond, or lower degree of Hereticks, for denying Infant-baptiſm, and an Oath.] In anſwer to an Argument of the Anabaptiſts, there was a Command for Circumciſing, but no expreſs Command for Baptiſing. Thus writes, Facit hoc non contra nos, ſed pro nobis, &c. [ibid. 338.] This doth not make againſt us, but for us, ſaith he, the ſum of his anſwer [being too long to tranſcribe all] is this. Since God hath plainly declared his Will, that the Infants of Believers, whoſe Father Abraham is, ſhould be Partakers of the Grace and Sign of the Covenant, and no where do we read that this Will of God is Repealed; what neceſſity is there, after ſuch a clear expreſſion of his Will, to deſire another Command in the New Teſtament? Since therefore Chriſt gave no ſpecial Command, what ſhould be done with the Infants of Believers, he did ſufficiently intimate to his Apoſtles, who were Jews, and brought up among the Jews, that he did not take away that Grace, by which God declared himſelf to be the God, not only of Believers, but alſo of their Seed, and that he will have them Sealed with the Sign of his Grace. To which, do but add, Matth. 19.13, 14, 15. we may ſee Chriſt hath not taken away this Grace from them. This Anſwer of Muſculus, is full and clear, and runs upon that I have been calling for, an Infallible proof of God's Repealing of Abraham's Covenant. I have rather wronged Muſculus, by not Tranſcribing the whole Paragraph, for brevities ſake, I deſire the Reader to view him. For my part, I do not yet ſee any abſurdity, if I ſhould ſay, as in the fourth Commandment, the morality of it being, that a ſeventh part of time be ſet a part for the Worſhip of God; therefore let God pleaſe to change the day, yet that Commandment binds us to ſanctify that day. So when God ſhall pleaſe to make a Gracious Covenant with Believing Abraham, and his Seed, and gives Command to have that Covenant Sealed, and never declares his Repealing of the Covenant, and its Sealing; the Covenant ſtanding ſtill in force, though God may pleaſe to change the Seal, and bring in another Seal under a new diſpenſation, yet God's former Command may well warrant us to adminiſter the Sign and Seal of the Covenant to Abraham's Seed, as before.
Sure I am, this expreſs Command the Anabaptiſts require for Baptiſing Infants, will caſt out the Lord's-Day, and Magiſtracy out of a Chriſtian Common-wealth, Women from the Lord's Table; For though there were divers Women attended Chriſt, Luke 8.2, 3. yet there was not one of them with him at his Inſtitution of the Lord's Supper: nor do we read expreſly, that Women were at the Lord's Table in their Churches; For him that would prove it from the words, 1 Cor. 11.28. foreign, there tell us, That foreign is of the Epiceen Gender, and includes Male and Female.
I anſwer, If foreign did alwaies ſignify Male and Female, and not the Male only, then it were a good proof: but I told twenty places in Matthew's Goſpel [I looked no further] where it ſignifies only the Male. Beſides, what Gender is foreign of, which is joyned with it? Nor can we have ground to Excommunicate Women, if they walk impenitently ſcandalous in the Church.
Partly upon their Principle, who call for expreſs Command, and partly becauſe the caſting out of the Seed of Believers, and Repealing the Covenant, are ſo ſtrange, that it cannot be proved by any Conſequence I have yet met with, therefore I call for Srciptures as clear at leaſt as expreſs Commands, or ſignification of God's Will.
To return to Infants, They muſt be regenerate, and have Faith ſome way, elſe they muſt all periſh; what ſhould make the thing ſo impoiſible they ſhould have the Habit or Seed of Faith, and of all ſaving Graces in them? I hope it is not becauſe Chriſt is known only by Revelation. I pray, what Act of Faith in God, what Act of Love to God, or Fear of God, &c. did Iſaach or John put forth towards God, when, being Infants they were Circumciſed? yet I am confident they had the Seeds of all theſe at that time they were ſanctified then, and why not then a Seed of Faith in Chriſt? had not John it when he leaped? &c.
In the firſt Synod held in New-England, this was one queſtion diſcuſſed; Whether we be juſtified by the Habit, or the Act of Faith? Arguments were brought pro and con, ſome were for the Habit of Faith, then why not Infants juſtified by a Habit of Faith? Dr. Ames in his proofs for Infant-baptiſm, makes this his firſt Argument; That in the very beginning of Regeneration, the Soul is a meer paſſive, the Infant is as capable of a paſſive reception of Chriſt and Grace, as another Man: but Baptiſm Seals to our Regeneration. [modul. theal. c. 4. th. 12. Got. of grace, p. 27. &c. Socin. pro. flig. p. 781.]
That ſervant of Chriſt Mr. Tho. Hooker, proves that Children may have Faith, and hath a pretty large diſcourſe upon it; The Socinians ſay it is a Dream [if they mean Actual Faith, who do not ſay it] Caelonius in anſwer to them, proves by ten or eleven Arguments, that Children may have Faith, to be ſure, we may obſerve that they whom the Holy Page Records to be Godly [except Menaſſeh] were ſo from their Child-hood. Iſaac, Jacob, Samuel, Hezekiah, Joſiah, David, Obadiah, Jehoſhaphat, where do you read of the Saints firſt running a courſe of wickedneſs, and then Converted? How many Children may we obſerve, that we may ſay as Dr. Thomas Goodwin ſaid, are ſanctified from the Womb. What is the matter then, that all Infants are caſt out of the Church, and muſt not be Baptiſed?
Object. If you ſay, If you could tell which they are, they ſhould be Baptiſed.
Anſw. Can you tell who have ſaving-Faith and Grace, though they make Actual Profeſſion, and tell you they have it? they who you ſay are Droſs, Chaff, Canaanites, no true Iſraelites, in your Baptiſed Congregations, they told you they had Faith, when you Dipped them, but you were miſtaken.
2. If that be yielded, that Infants may be Regenerate, may have Faith and Grace Seminally, then this Text which you do ſo talk of does not cut them off from Baptiſm.
3. By Abraham's Covenant, let the Parents be viſible Believers, by their competent knowledg of Chriſt, profeſſion of their Faith in him, and Converſation in ſome meaſure becoming Chriſtians, giving up themſelves to the Ordinances, and Rules of Chriſt's Houſe, prove themſelves thus to be viſible Chriſtians: and we can as regularly Baptiſe the Children of ſuch Believers, as you Baptiſe your Adult perſons, though as to the reality of ſaving Faith, we are miſtaken, and ſo are you.
Once more take the word foreign, Mat. 28.19. as Dr. Hammond ſaith it ought to be Tranſlated, Diſciple ye all Nations, or make Diſciples. Hence the Argument.
All they that are Diſciples ought to be Baptiſed.
But the Children of Believing Parents are Diſciples.
Therefore the Children of Believing Parents ought to be Baptiſed.
This Argument I gave to him who oppoſed me, but he could not tell which Propoſition to deny; a fit Man to diſpute in a Congregation.
For the proof of the Argument.
The Major, is the plain Text, there is no oppoſing of that.
The Minor, that ſuch Children are Diſciples, our Divines have ſo cleared it from Acts 15.1. and 10. v. compared, and other Texts, that I will not ſay what they have ſaid before.
I give my thoughts thus, They are Diſciples.
1ſt. By God's Reputation he eſteems them ſo; they are mine ſaith God, born to me. Ezek. 16.20, 21.
2ly, They are ſo by their Parents Dedication of them to Chriſt.
3ly, They are ſo by their Parents Education of them for Chriſt.
4ly, They are ſo, as I may ſay, jure Gentium, or rather jure Religionum, all Natitions, all Religions, take their Children to be the ſame that the Parents are.
Did not the Jews take their Children to be Moſes's Diſciples, as well as themſelves? John 9.28.
Do not the Turks take their Children to be Mahomet's Diſci…les, as well as themſelves? Should you deny it, you ſhould hear of it, if not feel it.
Yea, go the Indians whoſe Religion [i… I may call it ſo] is very Deviliſh and Superſtitious, were it not too good a word. When the Engliſh firſt began to dwell in New-England, Maſſaſoit the Sachem of Mount Hope, made a League with the Engliſh at Plymouth to live in Amity with them; The Articles were Seven; he kept the League well: A little before his death, he comes to renew his League for himſelf and his two Sons, Alexander and Philip, this was on September 25, 1630. But in his Treatiſe he urged this, That the Engliſh ſhould engage never to attempt to draw any of his people to the Chriſtian Religion: he inſiſted upon it very much; but the Engliſh were reſolute, and would make no League upon ſuch terms. But this we ſee by this Heathen, that he would have his Poſterity to be reckoned as he was, though his Religion was Deviliſh.
If then the Children of Jews, Turks, Pagans be reckoned with the Parents, why muſt not the Children of Believers in Chriſt be reckoned Diſciples of Chriſt with their Parents.
The Reader I ſuppoſe will pardon me, though I make a little Digreſſion: The Wars between the Indians and the Engliſh in New-England, I ſuppoſe muſt have heard. This Philip the Son of Maſſaſoit, before-mentioned, was he that began the Wars with the Engliſh, 1675. which laſted till 1677. The Engliſh when they ſaw Maſſaſoit ſtand ſo upon that Article, then ſaid, That God would root out the Poſterity of that Maſſaſoit; and ſo now it is come to paſs.
That Story which my worthy Friend Mr. William Hubbard gives us of Paſſalonaway, [the moſt noted Paneaw or Sorcerer; and I believe the oldeſt man in the Country. When I ſaw him, he was reckoned one of the oldeſt men of the Indians, but I perceived by the time of his dying, he lived about thirty years after] is worthy the obſerving. About Merimach River, Anno 1660, ſeveral Sagamoors meeting together, there was a great Dance: Theſe Solemnities, are the Times when the moſt Ancient tell Stories, and tranſmit them to their Poſterity. Paſſalonaway being preſent made his laſt Speech, and took his Farewel: thus,
I am ready to die, and not likely ever to ſee you meet any more; I will now leave this word of Councel with you; That you take heed how you quarrel with the Engliſh, for though you may do them much miſchief, yet aſſuredly you will all be deſtroyed and rooted out of the Earth if you do; for I was as much an Enemy to the Engliſh at their firſt coming into theſe Parts, as any one whatever, and did try all waies and means poſſible to have deſtroyed them, at leaſt to have prevented their ſitting down here, but I could no way effect it. Therefore I adviſe you never to contend with the Engliſh, nor make War with them. Accordingly his eldeſt Son Wonnalancot, as ſoon as he perceived the Indians were up in Arms, he withdrew himſelf into ſome remote place, that he might not be hurt by the Engliſh, or their Enemies.