Infant Baptism Vindicated, Tract
Infant-Baptiſm VINDICATED FROM THE EXCEPTIONS OF Mr. Thomas Grantham.
By SAM. PETTO, Miniſter of the Goſpel in SUDBURY.
Acts 2. 39.
For the Promiſe is unto you, and to your Children.
LONDON, Printed by T. S. for Ed. Giles, Bookſeller in Norwich, and T. Parkhurſt, at the Bible and Three Crowns in Cheapſide, 1691.
TO THE Chriſtian Reader.
THere is ſuch Scripture-Evidence for Infant-Baptiſm, that intelligent, unprejudiced Men may find what Mr. Grantham ſaith againſt my Defence of it, a Reply, and no Anſwer; Preſumption, and no Proof.
The Practice of that Perſon which withdrew from our Communion, was ſuch as (if admitted) is deſtructive to all Goſpel of Church-Order, and ſo is no ſlight Occaſion to write upon: But I had other weighty Matters enſuing, which neceſſitated my Writing; and Mr. Grantham (not being medled with) can ſhew none ſuch for his Replying.
As to what he ſaith to me, I ſhall very briefly anſwer, being ſtill of the ſame Mind that I was of▪ Let all be meaſured by the Rule of the Word: And that thou mayeſt have Ʋnderſtanding therein, ſhall be the Prayer of him, who is
Thine to ſerve thee In the Goſpel, Sam. Petto. Octob. 12. 1687.
Infant-Baptiſm VINDICATED.
INfants were diverſified by the Covenant made with Abraham, Gen. 17. and ſo ſtill may be by the Will of Chriſt, all not being the Seed of Abraham.
My Argument, pag. 3. was Ad Hominem, as appears there, and by my Poſtſcript; and ſaith only, [That Infant-Baptiſm is not expreſly forbidden, therefore either it is lawful, or elſe Scripture-Conſequences must be admitted,] which is undeniable. It was occaſioned by my being told in a Conference, that there ſhould be expreſs Scripture in ſuch a Caſe; therefore it was not my Miſtake. Neither is my Argument anſwered by ſaying, as he doth, p. 2. [There is no expreſs Scripture for Infant-Baptiſm, therefore Infant-Baptiſm may be omitted.] This is falſe; for there is no expreſs Scripture for Women's Receiving the Lord's Supper, and divers other things, yet they may not be omitted, becauſe by Scripture-Conſequences, rightly deduced, they are required. And hence I can ſubſcribe to every Word which he mentions of that Author of our own, p. 2. and to Tertullian's Rule; I am of the ſame Mind; there is nothing therein againſt my Argument, and I can eaſily withſtand any Innovation which is not expreſly forbidden in Scripture; for I think things may be commanded or forbidden by good Scripture-Conſequence: And it was and is my Judgment, that all in the Worſhip of God muſt be commanded there, either expreſly, or by neceſſary Conſequence.
Thus Mr. Grantham, at his firſt beginning with me, and frequently after, by a multitude of impertinent Words, would make his incautelous Reader believe, that I bring Scriptures for one purpoſe, which are brought for another. As, p. 4. I bring Act. 8. 3. and 9. 1. to prove that to be a Church-Member is, in Scripture, to be a Diſciple; whereas he would have it believed, that I thereby would immediately prove Infants Diſciples, p. 4. So the Scriptures by which I prove, p. 5. that the Name [Holy] is given to Father, Son and Spirit, as, 1 Pet. 1. 15. Lev. 19. 2. and 20. 7. Heb. 7. 26, &c. he, p. 5, 6, 7. would make the Reader believe, that I bring them immediately to prove Infants diſcipled. And the like uſe he maketh, p. 6, 7. of the Scriptures whereby I prove, p. 5. that the Name [Holy] is given to the Church and its Members. So that, either from great Ignorance or Inadvertency, he may bluſh that he beats the Air, and abuſeth me.
As to my firſt Argument, That ſome Infants are diſcipled ſo as to have the Name of Trinity upon them.
At laſt, he denieth my Antecedent; ſaying, That no Infants are diſcipled at all, much leſs ſo as to have the Name of Father, Son and Spirit upon them.
In Anſwer, I evidenced it various ways: They are ſaid to be [holy,] and ſo are diſcipled: God hath put his Name upon them before their Baptiſm, though it is ſolemnly ſignalized and declared after, when they are baptized.
His firſt Reaſon, p. 3. from Act. 10. 28. is anſwered in my Book, p. 49, 50, 51. I grant there is no diſtinction between Jew and Gentile, but thoſe of both who are viſibly in Covenant (whether Adult, or Infants) are more clean than others who are out of Covenant; and are a holy People, differenced from others, if not by Qualitative, yet by Relative Holineſs in Church-ſtate, Rom. 11. 16. 1 Pet. 2. 9. as of old, and nothing here againſt it.
As to his ſecond Reaſon, I ſay, Men, by the Word of God, are to be inſtrumental to bring Men within the Covenant, which extendeth to their Seed; therefore alſo to make Infants Diſciples. Some may be made Diſciples without actual teaching, or learning; as we put Children to School, who at firſt learn nothing. Learned Spanhemius well obſerveth, foreign, non ſignificat ſolum docere, ſed Diſcipulos facere, & aequipollet, foreign, Joh. 4. 2. Dub. Evang. Par. 3. p. 93. giving Reaſons for it.
I do not ſay, that all who are under Means for Inſtruction (though Perſecutors) are Diſciples, but all who are in the School of Chriſt's Church; of which, ſome are Infants. The Infant-Seed of Believing Jews were in it (by Covenant, Gen. 17. and ſo, when that was ſpoken, Matth. 28. 19. (not being broken off till afterward;) and ſo alſo the Seed of Believing Gentiles.
I proved ſome Infants to be Diſciples, from Act. 15. 10. He denies that every one were Diſciples whom they would have circumciſed, yet proves it not. But all which the Apoſtle blameth them for impoſing Circumciſion practically upon, are called by him Diſciples, and theſe were principally Infants, Gen. 17. 10, 11, 12. Will he ſay, they were not blamed for laying Circumciſion upon Infants? His Inſtance of Infant-Sprinkling is not parallel, becauſe Infant is not a Genus for all that we would have baptized.
I proved, ſome Infants had the Name of the Trinity upon them, 1 Cor. 7. 14. they are [holy.] This Holineſs he takes for being Legitimate, but anſwers not what I ſaid againſt it; nor doth he prove all to be holy that are legitimate.
[Elſe,] i. e. Say ſome, If one be not a Believer; or [elſe,] if the Unbeliever were not ſanctified to or by the Believer, then the Children were unclean, not illegitimate: For where there is no Sanctification of one, to or by the other, but both are Infidels or Unbelievers, yet the Children are legitimate, Heb. 13. 4. are no Baſtards. The being [holy] then muſt be by a Separation unto God.
There is no Good in Sin, but it becometh of humbling and abaſing uſe to the Soul, and ſo accidentally is turned by God to Good to it; which I ſuppoſe Mr. C. intendeth, by its being ſanctified to. And this is no new Doctrine, but as old as the Days of Hezekiah, 2 Chron. 32. 25, 26. and Paul, 1 Tim. 1. 13.
And if all Infants be in a viſible State of Salvation by the Covenant of Grace, as Mr. Grantham ſaith they are, p. 19. then they have the Name of the Trinity upon them, for the Covenant is a part of his Name, and ſo they are diſcipled; and what hinders their being baptized? Doth not Matth. 28. 19 command it?
He thinks then they ought to partake of the Lord's Table. But are they as capable of Self-Examination, and of that Eating and Drinking, and Spiritual Growth, as they are of being waſhed?
As to my ſecond Argument, from ſome Infants being viſibly or externally in the Covenant made with Abraham:
Obj. He premiſeth, that the Covenant of Grace with Abraham was Twenty four Years before Circumciſion: Others under it, as Salah,—not ſo circumciſed: And others were, to whom the Covenant of Grace ſeems to have the leaſt extent, as Iſhmael, Eſau, Bond-men,—p. 9.
Then if by Covenant, Mr. P. means the Covenant of Circumciſion and Infants of Chriſtians, or the Covenant of Grace, Gen. 12. he denies the Minor: But if Infants be in a viſible State of Salvation, yet he denieth the Conſequence of the Major, that they are to be baptized, p. 10.
Anſ 1. The Covenant of Grace was made and publiſhed before Abraham, Gen. 3. 15. and thoſe might have Salvation by it through Chriſt; as Salah, Arphaxad.—Then the Church was Domeſtical, but no ſuch clear Declaration of the Subjects, and their Church-ſtate and Privilege, in a Community of many Families for publick Worſhip and Ordinances; no ſuch Sign or Token of the Covenant for Infants, till Circumciſion was granted, Gen. 17. And after that Grant to Abraham, all good Men that could were obliged to joyn with him, or his Seed, as the only Church in ſuch Order then in the World, as they would enjoy ſuch Church-Privileges: Witneſs his Servants which were Profeſſors, v. 13. Gen. 18. 19. and the Proſelytes, Exod. 12. 48, 49. Iſa. 56. 3, 6.
2. I mean that Covenant which Circumciſion was a Token of, Gen. 17. v. 7, to 15.
Indeed, This is the ſame Covenant, for ſubſtance, with that, Gen. 12. but in a new Edition; with a Declaration of the ancient Subjects, and an Enlargement of Privileges, as aforeſaid, which expreſly extended to the Infant-Seed, Gen. 17. 7, 9, 12 In the ſame Covenant and Breath, Abraham himſelf, and alſo his Seed, are commanded to be circumciſed; and that as a Token of the Covenant between God and him, v. 9, 10, 11. He and his Seed then were in the ſame Covenant, and Circumciſion was of the ſame uſe to him and others: And that Covenant was not only for Circumciſion and the Land of Canaan, but that (at leaſt viſibly) God would be a God to them; and there is a double Aſſurance thereof, v. 7, 8. and that clearly was a Covenant of Grace, and is ſtill continuing; for it was to him a Seal of the Righteouſneſs of Faith, Rom. 4. 11.
It is then his groſs Miſtake, to think that the Covenant, Gen. 12. is one, and that, Gen. 17. another diſtinctione. Indeed, the Sign Circumciſion is ceaſed, but the Covenant is not repealed, as to the Subject of it, Infants: This cannot be proved. 'Tis true, ſome did forfeit their viſible, external Intereſt in the Covenant, as Iſhmael and Eſau; and ſo may Profeſſors of the Goſpel alſo, after duly baptized: But they were ſo in Covenant before, as it had been broken if the Token had been neglected, or not applied, Gen. 17. 14.
3. At laſt, he denieth the Conſequence of the Major; which is to ſay, That though ſome Infants be viſibly or externally in the Covenant which God made with Abraham, yet by the Will of Chriſt they are not to be baptized.
I am glad to hear Men of this Perſuaſion confeſs Infants within that Covenant; which indeed they muſt do, or elſe ſhew a Repeal of that Covenant, as to the Subjects of it, which I think they can never prove. But I am ſorry this Man granteth Infants being in that Covenant upon ſuch a corrupt, unſcriptural Principle, viz. That all Infants are in a viſible State of Salvation by the Covenant of Grace; he muſt ſay by the Covenant with Abraham, if he deny my Major, which is grounded upon that; and it will be impoſſible for him to prove all Infants in the World to be the Seed of Abraham, that in the very mentioning of it importing a Limitation.
The ground of his Denial is, p. 10. upon a great Miſtake, viz. that the Covenant of Grace muſt be abſtracted from the Covenant of Circumciſion; whereas that which Circumciſion is annexed to (as I have proved) is the Covenant of Grace, only in a new Edition. Alſo he ſaith, [That never required the Application of any Ceremony to Infants, as a Pledge of it, either before the Law, or as it is now eſtabliſhed—in the Goſpel.]
All which is falſe; for Circumciſion was ſuch a Pledge and Token of the Covenant, to be applied to Infants, above Four hundred Years before the Law, Gal. 3. 17. and ſo Baptiſm under the Goſpel, Act. 2. 38, 39. for that is commanded upon that Ground and Encouragement, that the Promiſe is to them; and that is there to a double Subject [You Repenters, and your Seed,] and ſo to Infants, and ſo they are commanded to be baptized. All that are under the Ground and Encouragement unto the Duty of being baptized, are obliged to the Duty; and ſome Infants are under that, for the Promiſe is to them.
Gen. 17. ſpeaketh not expreſly of Baptiſm, but it commandeth the Keeping the Covenant by applying the Token of it, which now is not Circumciſion, but Baptiſm; and ſo commandeth that even to Infants, ſeeing they are in the Covenant, as aforeſaid; and there is no Scripture-Warrant to delay the applying that firſt Token of it after Opportunity is offered. If it were limited (as Circumciſion was) to the Eighth Day, it might be delayed till then, but now may be applied before. The Females were uncapable, wanting the part, and yet were deemed circumciſed in the Males, for all Iſrael are called the Circumciſion: Which anſwers his p. 9, 10, 11, 12.
It ſtill runs there in his Head, that all I ſay is brought forthwith to prove Infant-Baptiſm; whereas I prove other Mediums in order to it. Thus, p. 8. I mention Heb. 10. 16, 17. only to prove Remiſſion of Sins to be a great Bleſſing of the Covenant: He, p. 11. dreams that I muſt mean it of Infants.
So I mention the Second Commandment, as requiring the obſerving Goſpel-Inſtitutions, as Baptiſm after the alteration of the Sign, as of old it required Circumciſion: He fancieth, that I produce it preſently to prove Infant-Baptiſm.
So I, p. 41. mention Matth. 16. 18. Rom. 16. 16, 1 Cor. 12. 27. &c. to prove that the Church is Chriſt's: He, p. 13. conceiteth, that I would hereby prove Infants viſibly Chriſt's; which I do by other Mediums. And here he talketh that Infants may be ſaved who were never baptized, which was not there my Buſineſs.
I am weary of his Impertinencies, but hope that by ſerious reading my Book, any judicious Perſon will have enough there to anſwer him.
Abraham had an Eccleſiaſtical Seed, even of Infants, Gen. 17. The Infant-Seed of Jews were broken off with their Parents, from external Intereſt in, and Privilege by the Covenant, Rom. 11. unleſs he can prove the Infants remained in Covenant ſtill.
The Seed of Believers are viſibly under the Promiſe, the Word of Faith, as the Seed of others are not, and ſo are of the Faith.] I ſee nothing to invalidate what I ſaid thereof.
I ſaid, Infants Intereſt in the Covenant, Gen. 17. is not cut off.
Inſtead of proving a Repeal, and the Cutting them off, without which, all that he or others ſay is nothing, he replieth,
Obj. 1. Infants had as good Right to the Covenant of Grace before Circumciſion, and have the ſame Right now, v. 17, 18.
Anſ. And what if they had, and have it? That is for me, not against me. But, under favour, Circumciſion was a new Privilege, which Infants had not before, Gen. 17.
However, this doth not prove them cut off from any, but the contrary.
Obj. 2. No Perſon's Right to Circumciſion did ariſe out of the Covenant of Grace, but it did only iſſue from the Command of God, p. 17.
Anſ. 1. Here is no Syllable to prove that Infant-Intereſt in the Covenant, Gen. 17. is cut off: Some Infants certainly had it, and ſo muſt ſtill, unleſs there be a Repeal.
2. The Command is expreſs to all the Seed of Abraham, to keep the Covenant by applying the Token: And Infants are expreſly concerned in that Command, Gen. 17. 9, 10, 11, 12. and ſo all Infants within that Covenant are under that Command ſtill, unleſs cut off. 'Tis true, the Sign of Circumciſion is changed, but the Covenant is the ſame, and the Subject of it the ſame: So that whether the Right ariſeth from the Covenant, or from the Command, or both, it matters not; all his Seed, Infants and all in it, by the Command, are to paſs under the Sign: And Circumciſion then being a Token of the Covenant, the Right to it muſt ariſe from the Covenant, although a Command was the Direction for applying the Sign.
Obj. 3. As Circumciſion did not give Abraham's Seed an Intereſt in the Covenant of Grace, ſo the Abrogation did not take that Interest from them: He inſtanceth in the delay of it to Moſes his Child, the Omiſſion Forty Years in the Wilderneſs:—Infants now have no part in the Covenant of Circumciſion, yet they loſt nothing by it. And then he ſpeaketh of the Typical Covenant of Circumciſion being made void, p. 17, 18.
Anſ. 1. Who ſaith that Circumciſion did give them Interest in the Covenant of Grace? Rather a being in that Covenant gave Intereſt in Circumciſion, which was a Token of it. Moſes his delaylaying of Circumciſion was his Sin, Exod. 4. 24, 25, 26. and had like to have coſt him his Life; and Iſrael's Omiſſion of it was their Sin. And is it no Loſs, in Mr. Grantham's Account, to be cut off from External Privileges, unleſs Men be wholly cut off from the Covenant of Grace, and the Salvation thereof? Is it nothing for God to ſay, Loami? The Taking away Circumciſion was a Mercy, the Lord giving Baptiſm in lieu of it; but if he had taken away that, and all Church-Privilege, and External Covenant-Intereſt alſo, from Infants, which once they had, it muſt needs be a great Loſs, an unſpeakable Diſadvantage, a ſore Judgment.
2. Now he declareth that Covenant which Circumciſion did belong to, void, and diſtinguiſhed from the Covenant of Grace, and calleth it a Typical Covenant: But not one Syllable of Scripture-Evidence for any ſuch thing: We muſt believe it, if he will, becauſe ipſe dixit. Here he ſhould have proved a Repeal of that Covenant with Abraham; and not having done this, he hath done nothing. I believe that the Covenant, Gen. 17. wherein twice God declareth himſelf a God to the Seed of Abraham, v. 7, 8. the Sign whereof, Circumciſion, Abraham received, as a Seal of the Righteouſneſs of Faith, Rom. 4. 11. muſt needs be a Covenant of Grace, no Typical Covenant, nor void; for that Righteouſneſs was not of a Covenant only for Canaan, but of Grace, for Eternal Life. And that Abraham received it as a Sign of one Covenant, and his Seed of another, can never be proved: The contrary is plain, viz. that both had it by the ſame Command and Covenant, Gen. 17. 9, 10, 11.
But now Mr. Grantham, p. 19, 20, &c. findeth a Medium by a new Poſition, viz.
Poſit. That all Infants (as ſuch) are in a Viſible State of Salvation by the Covenant of Grace, and ſo are of the Ʋniverſal Church of God, and cannot be put out of that bleſſed State, till by their voluntary departure from God, by chuſing ſinful Ways, they deſtroy themſelves.
Anſ. If this were true, one would think that all Infants, without exception, might be baptized, being ſo in the Covenant of Grace, and of the Church; for then they are made Diſciples, and ſo are expreſly commanded to be baptized, Matth. 28. 19.
I hope Mr. Barret or ſome other will examine this Poſition, I ſhall not now inſiſt long upon it. If never ſo many Infants be in a State of Salvation, or be ſaved, this is not againſt my Principle of Infant Baptiſm: I would not diminiſh the number of ſaved Ones; however, I think this to be a falſe, unſcriptural Poſition.
Obj. He telleth us of five Demonſtrations, p. 20, to 24. but all of them come to one poor Argument from the Covenant of Grace, Gen. 3. 15. which he thinketh was made with all Mankind, with the whole World.
Anſ. 1. That all Mankind, or the whole World, is this Seed of the Woman with whom the Covenant of Grace was made, is altogether without Proof; and ſo all his Demonſtrations are wholly groundleſs. Let him but form an Argument from Gen. 3. 15. that is univerſal, and any may ſee it will have a Non ſequitur.
The utmoſt here ſaid is, that a Seed of the Woman, or ſome of her Seed, ſhould be ſaved; but it is not ſaid, All the Woman's Seed, as ſuch, ſhould be ſaved. His Poſition ſhould be his Concluſion of all his Demonſtrations▪ viz. That all Infants (as ſuch) are in a viſible State of Salvation by the Covenant of Grace. But ſuch a Concluſion hath no Footing in, no Countenance from this Text, not ſo much as by Conſequence. I think I have better than this for Infant-Baptiſm; and I might ſay as well, that all their Seed have the Spirit poured out upon them, and the Word in their Mouth, Iſa. 44. 3. and 59. 21.
The truth is, Gen. 3. 15. cometh in as a Threatning of Puniſhment or Severity againſt the Serpent, (as any obſerving Eye may ſee,) yet implying a Promiſe of Mercy, attainable by ſome ſinning Men, through Chriſt, a Seed of the Woman. Until Adam did take hold of that Promiſe by Faith in that Seed, Chriſt, he remained out of Covenant, as others, Epheſ. 2. 8, 12. When Adam was actually and perſonally admitted into the Covenant of Grace, yet it was not as a common, publick Perſon, and Head of that Covenant, repreſenting all his Seed, as he was before his Fall a Head of the Covenant of Nature; for then Adam's After-Sins againſt the Covenant would have been imputed to all his Seed, as his former were, againſt the Covenant of Works, Rom. 5. 12, &c. v. 20.—
Now every individual Man was perſonally to be in Covenant; and if he derived external Privilege, it was only to his next or immediate Seed.
Hence, if Adam's Infant-Seed might have outward Privilege by being his Poſterity, (or any before Abraham,) yet if any of them after rejected the Covenant, (as Cain did,) they caſt themſelves out of that external Privilege, and their Infant-Seed with them. So in after Generations, Hagar, and Iſhmael her Seed were caſt out, and Eſau and his, the Iſraelites and theirs, Rom. 11. and thoſe were Strangers to the Covenants, Epheſ. 2. 12. See alſo Pſal. 37. 28.
I know not that Adam and Eve (two Perſons) made a Church: Let Mr. Grantham prove it. But that Promiſe laid a Foundation for the Erecting a Viſible Church afterward.
If Adam's Family was the Church, (as you ſay,) and the whole World, or all Mankind that then was (and ſo his Infant-Seed) were Members of it, yet Cain and his Seed were ſoon rejected; notwithſtanding which, many Perſons believing in that Seed, Chriſt, were ſo ſaved in after Generations, through that Promiſe. But that all Infants of rejected Cain, Iſhmael, or Eſau were in a viſible State of Salvation, and of the Viſible Church, or that all dying in Infancy are certainly ſaved, appeareth not, Gen. 3. 15. Mr. Grantham aſſerting, it is Preſumption without Proof.
2. That Gen. 3. 15. mentioneth a Seed of the Serpent, which is part of the World, as well as the Seed of the Woman, which the Covenant of Grace extendeth to; and hence this Text which he alledgeth is excluſive of ſome, and ſo confuteth his Demonſtration. For if there be in it another oppoſite Seed, then all Mankind, or the whole World, cannot be compriſed in the Seed of the Woman, who are under this Promiſe. Will he ſay, the Seed of the Serpent are viſibly in a State of Salvation, by the Covenant of Grace: Or that they are no part of the World?
3. Only thoſe are this Seed of the Woman, under this Covenant or Promiſe, who have Enmity againſt the Serpent, and ſuch Power over him, as to bruiſe his Head: And this is excluſive of others.
For that is expreſly the Qualification of the Seed of the Woman here intended: Yea, the whole of the Promiſe which here extendeth unto any of Mankind is, Gen. 3. 15. I will put Enmity between thee and the Woman, and between thy Seed and her Seed; it ſhall bruiſe thy Head; the following Words concern the Serpent, viz. his bruiſing his Heel. So then, none elſe are this Seed of the Woman, or viſibly in a State of Salvation, by this Covenant, but ſuch in whom is found that Enmity againſt the Serpent, ſo as to conflict with, and prevail againſt him. Therefore this [Seed of the Woman] can be only Chriſt, 1 Joh. 3. 8. Heb. 2. 14, 15. and ſuch as believe in him; for, 1 Joh. 5. 4. This is the Victory,—even our Faith. Hence the whole World cannot be here intended.
If whole Mankind, yea, all Infants were that Seed of the Woman, then all Infants have Enmity againſt the Serpent, and then they are capable of, yea have Love to God, and Faith in him, and ſo may be baptized.
It is the Covenant which I called the great Charter of Heaven, viz. of the God of Heaven: And as others, by denying Infants Intereſt therein, do take from it, ſo let him take heed of adding to it.