Apology for Our Public Ministry and Infant Baptism, Part 2
The ſecond Queſtion.
WHether Baptiſm belong's and bee rightly adminiſtred to Infants of Chriſtian Parents in the New Teſtament? Affir?
Baptiſm is the firſt viſible Act of God's Grace whereby hee doth receiv us into his favor and familie: And the firſt viſible means whereby hee doth apply to us by Word, Sign and Seal the blood of Jeſus Chriſt for remiſſion of ſins. Now the Queſtion is to whom this Seal of merciemercy doth belong.
Anabaptiſts have ſundrie pretences to ſcorn and deride Infant baptiſm: in their account the Baptiſm of Infants is no Baptiſm, becauſ according to Chriſt's Inſtitution (as they conceiv) true Baptiſm doth alwaies preſuppoſe actual belief in the receivers, and is otherwiſe no Baptiſm; therefore they rebaptize.
Others allow of Infant-baptiſm, they eſteem it as an Ordinance which Chriſt hath inſtituted in ſpecial love and favor to his people, onelyonly they reſtrain this priviledg to the Infants of Parents who joyn themſelvs in Church-Covenant to ſom particular Congregation. My debate is with the former, who deny all Infant-baptiſm, the which, if it be proved to belong to any Infants, it is enough for my purpoſe; and the ſame Arguments which prove it to belong to Infants of this or that Congregation, do prove it to belong to the whole viſible Church and their Infants; it being a vain pride and great preſumption to make new conditions of Church-memberſhip, which God hath not made, and to aſcribe to the inventions of men a power to ſuperſede the Ordinances of God, to caſt both us and our Infants out of the Covenant; us, that were baptized into that one bodie, if wee ſubſcribe not to their Articles, and our children, becauſ wee ſubſcribe not, thus making voide the Commandment of god, by the commandments and Ordinances of men.
I the rather force my ſelf to ſpeak ſomthing of this beaten point, becauſ there bee three yong heathens in my Pariſh, and three others dead out of the Covenant, through their Parents frowardneſs. Now for the convincing and ſatisfying, if it may bee, of theirs, and other poor peoples judgments in the preſent Controverſie, I ſhall content my ſelf with five Arguments; the firſt will depend upon a clear poſitive Anſwer to another queſtion, viz.
Queſt. Did God make the Covenant of grace onelyonly with actual Believers, or with them and their Infant-ſeed? Did God take into Covenant the Parents with their children or the Parents onelyonly?
Anſw. Not the Parents onelyonly, but with them their Infant-ſeed; this is the expreſs Tenor of the Covenant, Gen. 17.7. between God and Abraham, between mee and thee, and thy ſeed, to bee a God unto you: What ſeed meaneth hee? his Infant-ſeed, verſ 12. Hee that is eight daies old, whether it bee a child of thy loines, or of a ſtranger, a proſelyte, which is not of thy ſeed: this Covenant was firſt made with Abraham, Gen. 12.3. wherein God promiſed that in his ſeed ſhall all the Nations of the Earth bee bleſſed,Of God's Covenint. i. e. in Chriſt; And it was renewed with the Sign of Circumciſion added unto it, Gen. 17 7, 12.
Wherein obſerv three things: 1. That the Covenant made with Abraham was the Goſpel-Covenant, wherein bleſſedneſs was promiſed in and through Chriſt the promiſed Seed, for God preached the Goſpel to Abraham, when hee ſaid, In thy ſeed ſhall all Nations bee bleſſed, as S. Paul reaſoneth, Gal. 3.8. the which Covenant, ſeeing it was 430 years before the Law, and not diſanulled by the coming of the Law, it was to endure till the Seed ſhould com to whom the promiſs was made, verſ 17.19. and conſequently to the end of the World, becauſ Chriſt came to eſtabliſh the Covenant made to the Fathers,Rom. 15.8. and after Chriſt, no more changes to bee expected.
2. Note, that the Perſons with whom that Goſpel-Covenant was made, were Abraham and his Infant-ſeed, and all Nations, even us Engliſhmen and our Infant-ſeed, as appear's, Gen. 17.4.12. My Covenant is with thee and with thy ſeed in their Generations, and with the ſtranger that is not thy ſeed, all of them muſt bee Circumciſed. Compared with Rom. 15.8, 15. Now I ſay, that Jeſus Chriſt was a Miniſter of the Circumciſion, i. e. of the Jews, for the truth of God, to confirm the promiſes (of the Covenant) made unto the Fathers, and that the Gentiles might glorifie God for his merciemercy, beeing made partakers with them of the ſame promiſes, according as it is written, Rejoice yee Gentiles with his People, &c. Now this Covenant of promiſes made with the Fathers, Chriſt ſhould not confirm, but clip and curtail it, if ſo great a part as all our Infants bee left out and excluded: But if God take our Infants into Covenant, who ſhall dare to exclude them?
3. Note, when God at firſt gave that Covenant to Abraham and to the Nations, hee gave withal a Commandment, Gen. 17.12that the initial mark of the Covenant ſhould bee ſet upon all whom hee had taken into Covenant both Jews and Gentiles and their Infants: The Covenant it ſelf and the mark of the Covenant are alike extended to all the ſame perſons whether yong or old: Note farther, that when Chriſt, renewed and eſtabliſhed that Covenant in his own blood, though hee changed the Sign, yet hee repealed not that Commandment: Nay,Mat. 28.19. hee added a new commandment, enjoining the new Sign, Baptiſm, to bee given to all Nations, without exception of any perſons formerly received into Covenant: ſo that wee are under a twofold Commandment to Baptize our Infants, one, of God who firſt made the Covenant and gave that Commandment, the which is ſtill ſo of force, that if Chriſt the Lord of the houſ had not changed it, wee were all bound at this day to bee Circumciſed; and ſeeing hee hath changed that Sign into Baptiſm, but not the Covenant it ſelf, nor the Commandment thereto annexed; it followeth, that by the old Commandment enjoining Infants to bee marked, and by Chriſt's new Commandment, enjoining Baptiſm to bee that mark; all, that are not excepted out of the Covenant ſtand bound to recei it. In like manner as the fourth Commandment injoining one day of ſeven for an holy Reſt to the Lord, doth binde us to obſerv our Lords-day; the Commandment ſtand's of force, though the firſt day bee changed: ſo the Commandment for ſigning of the Nations whom God received into Covenant and their ſeed, doth ſtill oblige us to ſet the New Seal upon them; eſpecially, ſeeing wee are again commanded by Chriſt ſo to do without any exception of Infants. Hence I thus argue,
Argument. 1 All that are taken into the Covenant of Grace, ought to receiv the judicial Sign of the Covenant [what ever the Sign be, that God ſhall chuſe,] and that according to the Commandment of God and our Lord Jeſus Chriſt.
But Infants are taken into Covenant with their Parents, as is proved; therefore by the Commandment of the Lord, they ought to recev the Sign which God hath enjoined to bee uſed, and that Sign is Baptiſm:
Or thus,
If Infants have a right to the Covenant and the initial ſign thereof then it is a wrong to deny them. But Infants have a right to the Covenant and the initial Sign thereof both by God's Original Grant. Gen. 17.11, 14. And by Chriſt's confirmation of that Covenant made with the Fathers, Rom. 15.8. therefore it is a wrong to deny it to them. The Covenant under which wee are is the Goſpel-Covenant, made long ſince with us Engliſhmen and our Infant-ſeed, with a command of giving them the Sign, which at firſt was Circumciſion, and now Baptiſm by the ſame Divine Autoritie enjoyned, and commanded to bee given without any exception of any within the Covenant.
Argument 2 My ſecond Argument is grounded on Act. 2.38, 39. then Peter ſaid, Repent and bee baptized, &c. In which paſſage of Scripture, I note three things.
1. Who the perſons were, of whom Peter ſaith, The promiſe is to you and to your children, they were a mixt multitude of many Nations, as appears, verſ 10. ſtrangers of Rome, Jews, Proſelyts, Creets, and Arabians. Note
2. What promiſe that is, of which S. Peter ſaies, it belongs to ſuch people and their children, and is applied to his hearers as the ground of their beeing baptized: It is that grand promiſe made to Abraham to bee a God to him and his ſeed, foreign that Goſpel-promiſs of good tidings, gratuitum Dei promiſſum, quatenùs opponitur legi, ſaith Beza; in a word, it is that promiſs of bleſſedneſs, Jer. 31.34.which conſiſts in remiſſion of ſins to bee obtained by the promiſed Meſſiah.
Object. Nay, Why not rather underſtand it of the promiſe of the gifts of the holy Ghoſt promiſed Joel 2.27. and given by laying on of the Apoſtles hands, eſpecially becauſ it is ſaid in the end of verſ 38. Bee baptized and yee ſhall receiv the gift of the holy Ghoſt.
Anſw. The promiſe here ſpoken of, cannot bee underſtood (I conceiv) of the miraculous gifts of the holie Ghoſt. 1. Becauſ Peter's bearers received no ſuch gifts, and therefore S. Peter made no ſuch promiſe to them, for doubtleſs they received what was promiſed. 2. Such a promiſe muſt here bee underſtood as belongs to Parents and their children, and to all that ſhall bee called to the worlds end; But there is no ſuch promiſe in all the Scripture, that the miraculous gifts of the holie Ghoſt ſhall fall upon Parents with their children, and all that are to bee converted to the worlds end. 3. A promiſe of ſuch gifts ſeems not ſutably applied to Peter's hearers comfort; for their Queſtion was, what ſhall wee do to bee ſaved? And Peter gives them; 1. A direction: 2. And a Promiſe: A direction to repent, and to acknowledg Chriſt to bee head and foundation of the Covenant of Grace, and that life and remiſſion of ſins is in his blood, where of Baptiſm is the Seal: And then hee recites and applies to this comfort the promiſes of the Covenant, q. d. yee ſhall receiv the benefit of the Covenant, remiſſion of ſins, and alſo the gift of the holie Spirit, the Seal thereof; thoſe firſt motions now begun in your hearts, ſhall bee followed with increaſ of Sanctification of ſpiritual light, of joy, comfort and aſſurance. This interpretation doth exactly agree with the Apoſtles diſcourſ, Gal. 3.14. where ſpeaking of the bleſsing of Abraham to com on the Gentiles, hee ſaith, that wee being delivered from the Curſe, and reſtored into God's Grace by Chriſt, ſhall receiv the promiſe of the Spirit through Faith, i.e. the ſpirit of Grace (which is the Seal of the promiſes of the new Covenant) the gifts of the holie Spirit which had been ſo often, and ſo ſolemnly promiſed by the Prophets, Eſ. 44.3. I will pour water upon him that is thirſtie (as Peters hearers now were) and Floods upon the drie ground, I will pour my ſpirit upon thy ſeed, and my bleſſing upon thine off-ſpring, and one ſay, I am the Lords, and another ſhall call himſelf by the name of Jacob, with Ezek. 11.19. & cap. 36.27. A new ſpirit will I put within you, I will take the ſtonie heart out of your fleſh, and give you an heart of fleſh:Act. 2.38. Gal. 3.2, 14. So that the gift of the Spirit in Peter's Sermon, and the promiſe of the ſpirit in the Galatians and in the Prophets, is all one thing for ſubſtance.
As for that place Joel 2.27. S. Peter expounds it, Act. 2.17. of the deſcending of the holy Ghoſt upon the Apoſtles in fierie Tongues, and it may well have relation to all thoſe, upon whom in like manner it did deſcend: But if any man conceivs, that that place hath a farther accompliſhment in the New Teſtament in the larger pouring forth of the gifts of the ſpirit of illumination and underſtanding in the mysteries of Chriſt, and his Kingdom more generally upon all ſorts and conditions of people, and in a greater meaſure, ſo that all ſorts and ſexes, now, ſhall have as much, or more light and illumination then the Prophets had in the old Teſtament; the common light of the Elect now under the Goſpel ſhall bee clearer and better, then that of prophecie of old, (according to that of Zach. 12.8. Hee that is feeble, ſhall bee as David and the houſ of David, as the Angel of the Lord.) I ſhall not withſtand him, and ſo that place of Joel in this large ſenſ, doth contain a part of the promiſes of the new Covenant, whereof Baptiſm is a Seal. But as for thoſe miraculous gifts of the holie Ghoſt, I no where finde them communicated with or annexed unto Baptiſm. Sometimes they were poured forth before Baptiſm received at the Apoſtle's preaching, as upon Peter's hearers that were with Cornelius, Act. 10.45, 47. Somtimes after Baptiſm, by another Ceremonie of laying on of hands, as Act. 8.16, 17. Act. 19.6.—Somtimes upon their fervent praiers, as Act. 4.31. And upon theſe conſiderations it is, that I take the promiſs here ſpoken of and applied to Peter's hearers and their children, to bee the promiſe of bleſſedneſs made to Abraham and all Converts.
The third thing to bee obſerved in Peter's words, Act. 2.39. is this that this promiſe, (bee it what it will) did belong as well to his hearers children, as to themſelvs, (it is to you and your children.)
Object. True ſay they, when they are in a capacitie to receiv the promiſs, i.e. to as many of our children as are calld to actual faith, not of our Infants.
Anſw. This is a miſerable ſhift for thoſe words, [as many as the Lord our God ſhall call] are quite a new thing, clearly relating to another ſort of people, then his preſent hearers, viz. All that are afar off, which as yet never heard of Chriſt. Thoſe words do not exegetically expound to which of his hearers children the promiſs did belong, as if Peter meant to tell them, to ſom of their children it doe's belong not to others, but by the very order of the Text, they point out others that were afar off, in their ſeveral generations to bee called by the Goſpel, to whom ſaie's Peter this promiſe doe's belong, to them and their children, as well as to you, and your children. The children then of Peter's Converts were within the promiſs.
Fourthly, Obſerv Peter's reaſoning and argumentatisn, in this word [For] verſ 39. where S. Peter give's a reaſon of his direction, why thoſe hearers ſhould bee baptized, viz. becauſ that grand promiſs of bleſſedneſs by remiſſion of ſins, did belong to them; and upon this, as upon a principal foundation, he build's his Exhortation to them to bee baptized; the holy Ghoſt in that manner of reaſoning clearly teaching this Doctrine. Doct. viz. To as many as the bleſſings or promiſs of the Covenant belong's, to them alſo belong's Baptiſm; For therefore doe's the Sign belong to Peter's hearers, becauſ the Promiſs did firſt belong to them. And by the like reaſoning, the ſame Apoſtle doth juſtifie his Baptiſm of Cornelius and his Family, Act. 10.47, 48. Can any forbid water that theſe ſhould not bee baptized who have received the holie Ghoſt as well as wee? And hee commanded them to bee baptized in the name of the Lord; which diſcourſ, if reduced to form of Argument, ſaie's this; they that receiv the ſame Grace are capable of, yea have right to, the ſame Sign; but Infants are capable of the ſame Grace (of the holy Ghoſt, and of remiſſion of ſins, as ſhall bee proved anon) therefore of right they are to receiv the ſame Sign, i.e. the Sacrament of Baptiſm.
The ſame Doctrine doth our Saviour teach, uſing the ſame manner of reaſoning; for the admiſſion of Infants to the outward ſign of bleſſing, Mat. 19.13, 14. There were that brought unto him little children that hee ſhould put his hands on them and pray; and his Diſciples rebuked them, but Jeſus ſaid, Suffer little children to com unto mee, for of ſuch is the Kingdom of God: In which words obſerv 1. Christ's practice: 2. The reaſon of his Practice: By his practice, Hee admitted Infants to the outward ſign of Bleſſing, though they underſtood not what was ſaid or don unto them, yet did Chriſt give them his Bleſſing, and the Sign thereof (hee laid his hands on them) contrarie to the carnal judgment of his Diſciples, who thought it a mockerie to give Infants a Sign, which they underſtood not. 2. The Reaſon of Chriſt's practice is this, Infants are not excluded from the Kingdom of Heaven, therefore they are not to bee excluded from the outward Sign of the right and entrie to ſuch a Grace. And if Chriſt did eſteem it a ſufficient reaſon, why little children ſhould bee admitted to the Sign of his Bleſſing, becauſ of ſuch is the Kingdom of God; then by the ſame reaſon, Infants muſt bee admitted to Baptiſm and not debarred from the firſt Sign of entrie into Chriſt's Kingdom, viz. Becauſ the Kingdom of Heaven belong's to Infants before actual Faith.
Now if they will give us leav to make uſe of Chriſt and his Apoſtle's manner of reaſoning, my ſecond Argument for Infant Baptiſm will bee this.
Argument. 2 All thoſe to whom the Bleſſings and Promiſes of the Covenant do belong, to them alſo belong's Baptiſm, the Sign thereof (by the Doctrine of St Peter and of Jeſus Chriſt himſelf.)
But to Infams of believing Parents, the Bleſſings and Promiſs of the Covenant do belong, before actual Faith; therefore by the Doctrine of the holie Ghoſt in Scripture, ſuch Infants ought to bee baptized before actual Faith.
The Major, or firſt part of this Argument, is the very reaſon of the Text: The Minor Propoſition, viz. that the Bleſſings and Promiſſes of the Covenant do belong to Infants before actual Faith, is proved by theſe reaſons. 1. By the expreſs words of Peter, which ſay, the Promiſe is to your children. 2. By the expreſs words of our Saviour, (of ſuch is the Kingdom of Heaven) 3. By example of Iſaac and Jacob, they were children of the Promiſe before actual faith, and had applied unto them the Seal of the righteouſneſs of Faith. 4. Som Infants dying are ſaved, they are members of Chriſt's Kingdom; therefore the Bleſsing of the Covenant, viz. Regeneration and Remiſſion of ſins through the blood of Chriſt, do alſo belong to them, for except an Infant bee born again, Joh. 35.and cleanſed by the bloud of Chriſt, hee cannot enter into the Kingdom of Heaven;Heb. 9.22, 23. But ſom Infants do enter into Heaven; therefore ſom Infants are born again juſtified and ſanctified in the bloud of Chriſt. Now what hath the Anabaptiſt to except againſt this plain Doctrine of Scripture?
Object. 1 The Bleſſings of the Covenant belong to Elect Infants, not to all: Shall wee under that pretence baptize all in general? (This was objected to mee in our Conference.
Anſw. If Baptiſm belong but to one Infant, it is enough to confute them who deny it to all, becauſ they are Infants. 2. And if it belong to ſom Infants, why not to all? for who ſhall judg which are elected and which are not? It concerns not us to know who are and who are not Elected, becauſ the Sacraments do belong to the Elect, not as Elect, but as viſible members and Profeſſors; upon which account S. Peter baptized Simon Magus: And Abraham by God's appointment circumciſed Iſmaël though a reprobate, Eſau and all the children of the fleſh were circumciſed. 3. Laſtly, by your reaſon, Men of years ſhould not bee baptized, becauſ wee cannot tell whether they bee Elected, or not.
Object. 2 But where have you any Example of children baptized?
Anſw. There is no need of example when wee have the Doctrine of the holie Ghoſt for it, which is of greater Autoritie and force, then bare Example; Howbeit, the practiſe of the Apoſtles may go for an Example; their baptizing of whole houſholds, is an Example of baptizing all within the houſ old and yong, that are not excepted; Even as under the name of Abraham's houſhold, are comprehended his Infants: Abraham and his houſhold were circumciſed, ſo the Jailor and his houſhold were baptized, the phraſe is the ſame, the caſe the ſame, and why not the perſons?
Object. 3 Yea, but the Scripture ſaies, Go, Teach and Baptize: and they that gladly received the Word, were baptized: and again they were baptized confeſſing their ſins; therefore men muſt bee capable of teaching of Faith and repentance before they bee baptized.
Anſw. Tis true, When wee first bring the Goſpel to a People, they muſt bee firſt Taught, confeſs their Faith and their Repentance, and then bee baptized; But it as true, that when the Parents have received the Faith and are baptized, their children alſo are taken into Covenant. Thus Abraham was firſt taught, and then circumciſed; But his Infants were firſt circumciſed and then taught. This one Error doth much bemiſt your underſtandings, you conceiv that the Covenant take's in onelyonly actual Believers: That is indeed a part of the Covenant, but not the whole extent of it, as hath been proved. For as wee by deeds do purchaſe and convey Lands holden in Leaſ or Copie to our children, yea, to children which ſhall bee born, as well as to them that bee already born; and though our children at that age knew not what their Fathers did for them, yet when they come to age, they claim thoſe Lands by virtue of the Land-Lord's Grant and Seal annexed, paying their Rents and doing their covenanted Services and Homage: So doth the great Land-Lord of Heaven put both us and our children into the Copie of Heaven, and confirms it by Seal of Baptiſm; And when our children com to have Faith, they may claim the good things covenanted by virtue of God's Grant and Covenant made with their Fathers, they performing the conditions of their Father's Covenant.
From Scripture I proceed to ſom Reaſons for Infant-Baptiſm.
Reaſons 1 Infants are capable of the thing ſignified in Baptiſm, viz. of the blood of ſprinkling; therefore of Baptiſm it ſelf: If they have the thing ſigned which is the greater, why ſhould they bee debarred the Sign which is the leſs? It cannot bee denied them upon any juſt ground of Faith or Reaſon.
Object. Yes, Say they, becauſ Infants have not Faith nor Repentance.
Anſw. You muſt add 1. that have not Faith, nor ever will com to have Faith. 2. You muſt add that they have not Faith nor any other means of applying Chriſt's blood, elſ your exception is not ſufficient: In men of years, it is applied by the Spirit of God, and by Faith in Infants by the Spirit alone, which is given unto them. It is the Application of Chriſt's righteouſneſs that juſtifieth us, not our Act of apprehending it; the thing applied, not our Act of applying: God by his Spirit in Infants doth all things on our part, which Faith ſhould do. Joh. 3.8. the wind bloweth where it liſteth, thou heareſt the ſound thereof, but canſt not tell whence it cometh and whither it goeth; ſo is everie one that is born after the ſpirit, i. e. As the power of God is ſeen in the wind moving the aër, ſo it is in the changing and renewing of us, though the manner bee bid from us. Thou knoweſt not what is the way of the Spirit, nor how the bones do grow in the womb of her that is with child, Eccleſ. 11.5. Thus much wee know from Chriſt's own mouth, that Infants are bleſſed, for hee bleſſed them, Mar. 10.16. Shall wee denie it becauſ wee know not the manner how they are bleſſed? Or, ſhall wee deny them to bee reaſonable creatures, becauſ wee cannot diſcern in them the uſe of reaſon? Or, ſhall wee deny them to bee ſinners, becauſ they know not what the Law is, nor what the tranſgreſſion of the Law is? Wee need not trouble our ſelvs about the manner how Chriſt's righteouſneſs is applied to them, ſeeing God is as gracious to apply unto them the righteouſneſs of the ſecond Adam, as in juſtice hee did the ſin and condemnation of the firſt Adam.
2. That Exception about Faith and Repentance is no more a barr againſt the Baptiſm of Infants, then againſt the Circumciſion of Infants, foraſmuch as in Circumciſion were required all the ſame qualifications, which you ſay are required to Baptiſm, viz. the inward Circumciſion of the heart.
Little children muſt bee brought unto Chriſt and none forbid them, and by Baptiſm they do com unto him, where the Miniſter in Chriſt's ſtead receiveth them, and bleſſeth them, and the Lord ſealeth up unto them their receiving into his favor and grace for his own mercies ſake without any merit of ours.
Reaſon 2 Chriſt confirmed the Covenant made unto the Fathers, Rom. 15.8. Hee bettered it and no way worſted it: And when hee commanded a new Seal to bee ſet in ſtead of Circumciſion, hee did it without altering the ſubſtance of the Covenant in the leaſt degree; but now the very ſubſtance of the Covenant would bee altered to the worſ, if ſom perſons formerly received into Grace, ſhould by Chriſt bee excluded; yea, and Believers children are in worſ condition then in the Jewiſh Church, which to affirm, were not onelyonly derogatorie to Chriſt's Grace, but againſt Scripture it ſelf, which ſaith, Epheſ. 3.6. that the Gentiles are Fellow-heirs with the Jews, and of the ſame bodie, and partakers of his Promiſe in the Goſpel; of which they are not partakers, nor Fellow-heirs, if ſo great a part of the Gentiles as their children ſhould bee excluded. The Infants of Jews and Proſelyts at the coming of Chriſt had intereſt and right to the Covenant of Grace: And if that right bee taken away, then their condition after Chriſt is worſ then before: Shall they bee looſers by becoming Chriſtians? This, no ſober man will affirm: Neither is this a complaining againſt God but againſt them, who would exclude, whom the Lord hath not excluded: God's grace is not ſtraitned by Chriſt's coming; therefore our Infants are not excluded.
Reaſon 3 Our laſt Reaſon is grounded on 1 Cor. 7.14. The Apoſile there ſpeaks of ſuch an Holineſs, which belongs to the Corinthians children from this ground, that one of the Parents is a Believer, and whereof the children of Parents beeing both unbelievers are not capable, but remain unclean: Now this cannot bee meant of a civil holineſs or cleaneſs, for ſo the children of unbelieving Parents were holie, as well as the children of Believers, ſeeing holie Matrimonie is not an Ordinance peculiar to the Church: And no where in Scripture are children called holie, becauſ their Parents are joined in holie Wedlock, and may lawfully live together:Federal holineſs what? But it is meant of a Federal holineſs, whereby the children are joyned with God in Covenant, dedicated to his Service, have right to the means of ſalvation, and the ſacrament of Baptiſm, and whereby they are diſtinguiſhed from Heathens, Turks,Apollonius, p. 84. and ſuch other Infidels. This Federal holineſs is transferred from the Parents to the children, not by Generation or Legitimation, but by the merciful will of God, whereby hee promiſeth to bee a God to them and their Seed. Thus the whole Church both yong and old by virtue of God's Covenant with them, are ſevered from other Nations, dedicated to God's pure Worſhip and Service, and for that cauſ are counted holie, Deut. 14.1, 2. Thou art an holie people unto the Lord, with Ezra 9.2. the holy Seed had mingled themſelvs with the people of thoſe Lands: the Jews were the holy Seed, the Heathens unholy, not becauſ they were illegitimate, or wanted a civil holineſs, but becauſ they were without God's Covenant, as Paul deſcribeth the State of all Heathens, Epheſ. 2.11. Remember that in time paſſed, yee were Gentiles in the fleſh, without Chriſt, Aliens from the Commmon-wealth of Iſraël, and ſtrangers from the Covenant of Promiſſes.
Queſt. Som at Corinth thought themſelvs defiled by their marriages with Infidels, though contracted before their converſion, and thereupon moved a queſtion, Whether it were lawful to continue their marriage with the unbelieving partie, or whether they muſt not ſeek a ſeparation? 1 Cor. 7.1, 12.
Anſw. Paul is utterly againſt ſeparation, verſ 12.13. Let not him put her away, and let not the Wife leav her Husband: His reaſon is, verſ. 14. Becauſ the unbelieving Wife is ſanctified by the believing Husband, though the unbelieving partie bee unclean before God, and is not made an holy Perſon, yet the uſe of Matrimonie with her is Holy to the believing partie; and of this truth, the holineſs of their children is brought for an evidence, to this ſenſ, that ſeeing the Lord counted their children holy and in Covenant with him, the believing partie might reſt aſſured, that their abode together, and the uſe of their marriage is not polluted, but acceptable in the ſight of God.
Object. The ſanctification of the Wife is but a civil ſanctification in that place, i. e. ſhee is ſanctified to his uſe, that hee ought not to put her away. Again, the holineſs there ſpoken of, is a fruit of that ſanctification of the Wife, whereof it will follow, That ſeeing the effect cannot bee greater then the Cauſ, the Cauſ cannot produce a greater effect then it ſelf, the Cauſ beeing onelyonly a civil ſanctification, Of Chriſt exalted, p. 166.the holineſs of the children muſt bee the ſame, thus argueth Tho: Collier.
Anſw. 1. The queſtion was, Whether the Believer were polluted by his unbelieving Wife; the Apoſtle ſaie's, No, quia pluris eſt pietas unius ad ſanctificandum conjugium, Calvin. in loc.quàm alterius impietas ad inquinandum, i. e. the faith of the Believer is of greater force to ſanctifie their preſent cohabitation, then the unbelief of the other to pollute it. This hee proveth from a greater effect and fruit of the Husband's faith, viz. The holineſs of the children born of ſuch a Husband by ſuch a woman. The children are holy, not onelyonly civilly, as beeing born of lawful Wedlock, but federally as beeing ſevered from all children of unbelievers by ſpecial prerogative, holy to the Lord, conſecrated unto him, whereas by nature they were Aliens and unclean; according to that of Paul, Rom. 11.16. if the root bee holy, ſo are the branches.
The faith of the believing partie ſanctifieth the unbelieving Wife to bear not onelyonly a lawful, but an holy Seed; yea, it ſanctifie's the children and ſevereth them from the common condition of other children, which are prophane and unclean, without the Church, without God in the World.
2. Note, That the Holineſs of the child received from one of the Parents believing, is, more then the ſanctification of the Wife by her believing Huſband, becauſ ſuch a Wife is not taken into Covenant with her husband, but the child is; and therefore the Apoſtle ſaie's not, that ſuch as is the ſanctification of the Wife; ſuch is the holineſs of the child: But thus, Such as is the holineſs of the believing partie, ſuch is the childs holineſs in reſpect of Church-memberſhip; and ſo the faith of the believing Husband is the cauſ of both theſe effects, viz. That his coupling with his Wife is not impure, and alſo that his children are holy: And this latter an evidence of the former. And thus the holineſs of the childe is a ſign of the mother's ſanctification to holy cohabitation, and an effect of the Father's Faith by virtue of God's Covenant. To have ſaid, That their children were lawful, was no more then to have ſaid, That their marriage was lawful, which was not the queſtion; But to ſay, that the children of their lawful marriage were holy, This did inferr not onelyonly the lawfulneſs of their marriage but the ſanctified Uſe: As Mr Baily hath well obſerved, of Anabaptiſm, p. 138.
Laſtly, If by holy, bee onelyonly meant a civil holineſs, then on the contrarie, by unclean, muſt bee meant a civil uncleanneſs. But when Paul ſaie's (elſ were your children unclean) his intent is not to make them all as an unclean birth and impure off-ſpring, which were born at Corinth of unbelieving Parents; but to ſhew that they are not comprehended within God's Covenant: And ſo when hee ſaie's, (but now are they holie,) hee notes ſom preheminence of the children of Chriſtians above the Heathens children: Though in civil reſpects, in reſpect of a lawful birth, both ſorts of children were equal, yet that civil holineſs beeing common to both, there is a preheminence of the Chriſtians child above the Heathens. The child of an Infidel at Corinth is to day unclean and the next day holie, in caſe his Parents turn Chriſtians; And what's the reaſon of this ſo ſudden alteration? It muſt needs bee in regard of the Covenant into which the partie now believing is taken with his children, his unbelieving Neighbor with his children ſtill remaining unclean: Hence I conclude with Calv. in loc. Seeing our children are exempted from the common condition of loſt mankind, and admitted into God's Church and Family, Cur eos à ſigno arceamus? upon what reaſon can wee drive them from the ſign of their admittance?
It is (ſaith a Learned man) God's great Work to Church the World,A Treatiſe entituled a blow at the root… or a diſcoverie of Satan's devices, p. 154. and the Divel's counter-work is, to Heathenize the Church. It troubles the Divel much, that children from their infancie ſhould bee under an Engagement to receiv nurture and admonition in the Lord, to frequent the Ordinances and to own Jeſus Chriſt by an external profeſſion, if hee could but contriv to prevent their coming into that Engagement, hee might hope more eaſily to keep them out when they are grown up, then to work them out, (ſo grown up) to a renouncing of Chriſtianitie, which yet hee hath brought ſom unto.
For a cloſe of both the queſtions hitherto debated, I deſire to bee reſolved by our Adverſaries, What is meant by the doctrine of Baptiſm, and laying on of hands, reckoned up among the principles of Chriſtian Religion, Heb. 6.2. By laying on of Hands, muſt bee underſtood, either the rite of confirmation, which ſtood 1. In inſtruction and examination of thoſe who had been baptized Infants. 2. And in Praying for them, that God would continue them in the Faith, &c. This was performed, when they grew up to years of diſcretion, and were called to give account of their Faith before their admiſſion to the Lord's Supper. And of this minde is judicious Mr Calvin: Inſt. l. 4 c. 19. de confirmatione, §. 4.And hee wiſhes that this Rite and Custom were again reſtored and practiſed in the Church of God, Talem ergò manuum impoſitionem quae ſimpliciter loco benedictionis fiat, laudo, & reſtitutam hodiè in purum uſum velim; and gives weightie reaſons of what benefit it would bee to the Church. Sect. 13.
Or ſecondly, by impoſition of hands muſt bee underſtood a Rite or Ceremonie uſed in the Ordination of Miniſters. Now chuſe which ſenſ you pleaſ; if the later, then you confeſs that Ordination is a Scripture-principle, to bee acknowledged of all Chriſtians, and ſo you yield our firſt queſtion; if the former ſenſ, then you acknowledg Infant-Baptiſm to bee a Scripture principle, fit for all men to imbrace; and ſo you yield our later queſtion: But why may wee not underſtand this laying on of hands in both reſpects? and ſo conclude both points? judicent docti. It is neceſſarie for all men to bee inſtructed and catechized in theſe ſix Principles of the Doctrine of Chriſt, and to believ.
1. That wee muſt Repent of all our ſins, which are dead works, and turn from them to ſerv God in newneſs of life.
2. That penitent perſons muſt believ in God and reſt on his merciemercy in Chriſt for ſalvation.
3. And, (for the grounding of people in Religion) that they bee inſtructed concerning the nature, uſe and ſignification of Baptiſm, whereby wee are baptized and planted into Chriſt, Rom. 6.3.to bee partakers of the benefits of his death.
4. And farther to bee instructed, that by laying on of hands, our baptized Infants ought to bee trained up in the knowledg and fear of the Lord ſeaſoned with the principles of Chriſt's Religion; and that for their good and the inſtruction of the whole Church, and for right diſpencing of Goſpel-Ordinances, and the means of ſalvation, it is neceſſarie that a ſucceſſion of Miniſters bee Ordained, for gathering and perfecting the Saints till wee all meet in Heaven.
5. And that all Chriſtian people bee taught to believ the Reſurrection of the dead.
6. And the last judgment, whereby all men ſhall be judged, and eternally diſpoſed of,2 Cor. 5.10. according to that they have don in the bodie, whether it bee good or bad.
O Lord our God, God of all Grace, Father of all mercies, vouchſafe for thy Son's ſake, to open all our underſtandings, that wee may conceiv and bow all our hearts to imbrace all ſaving Truthes: And let us never bee of the number of thoſe that ſtrive or rebel againſt the light.
Soli Deo gloria.
FINIS.
End of the text · William Lyford, Apology for Our Public Ministry and Infant Baptism (1652)