Anti-Paedobaptism Part 3, Section 12
SECT. XII. Doctor Featley his argument for Infant-baptism from the Covenant, is examined.
MR. Rutherford is another of the Authors, whose writing Mr. Baxter tells, yet remains to be answered. But I know not any writing of his in which he doth directly dispute against Anti-paedobaptists.
I confess I have met with a dispute against those of the Congregational way of Discipline in his Peaceable and temperate Plea, c. 12. q. 12. for denying baptism to those infants whose next parent is not a known believer in some gathered Church, who yet do hold and practise baptism of such infants, whose next parent is a Church-member. But that dispute going only against them, and upon his grounds denied and refuted by me elsewhere, it were out of my way to answer what he saith there. If there be any other writing of his, I presume some one or other of the Antagonists I refute, have the strength of it: yet I intend if such a one do occurre to me, to give account of it as I shall find meet.
Mr. Robert Baillee is another to whose writing Mr. B. points me. But his first Argument I have already enervated in the Addition to my Apology in my letter to him, and answering his three first criminations, especially the third, and have shewed, sect. 1. that he doth but calumniate, when he charges us to affirm, That no infants have any place in the Covenant of grace, or any Gospel promises till they be called by the word, and by an actual faith have embraced the Gospel. What other arguments he brings are answered either in answering Others that bring the same, or its intended shall be answered in fit place.
There are many others who have written of this argument in the English tongue, each of which forms his Argument from the Covenant to the initial seal, from infant circumcision to infant-baptism, with some difference in terms, or phrasifying, though in effect all of them are reduced into the three forms in the 1, 2, 3. sect. of my Exercitation, and rest on these false principles, that interest in the Covenant of grace was the adequate reason of a persons title to circumcision, and is the adequate reason of a persons title to baptism, and that there is the like reason of baptizing infants of believers, as of circumcising infants of Abraham by virtue of the like interest in the Covenant, though there be not the like command for the one as for the other, nevertheless that it may not be said I have neglected any thing conceived worth answering, or to have slighted any of their labours, I shall briefly answer the Arguments of such as have come to my hands, and then more largely answer Mr. Geree, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Cobbet, Mr. Blake, Mr. Baxter, who have opposed my writings, taking in others by the way, as I see fit.
Dr. Featley is one that hath been a Leader of the Prelatical party, and is judged by them to have proved Paedobaptism learnedly. His dispute is in his Dipper d…pt, p. 46. arg. 5. thus.
[All they who are comprized within the Covenant, and are no where prohibited to receive the seal thereof, may and ought to receive it: But children are comprized within the Covenant of faith, whereof circumcision was a seal, Rom. 4.11. and now baptism is, Ergo children may and ought to receive Baptism.
Of the Major or first Proposition there can be no doubt; for it is unjust to deprive a Man of the confirmation of that to which he hath a true right or title. And for the Minor or Assumption, it is as cleer, for so are the words of the Covenant Gen. 17.17. I will establish my Covenant between me and thee, and thy seed after thee.]
Against which I except, first, That the Syllogism is many waies faulty; 1. That he puts in the Conclusion [children] as all one with infants. 2. That in the Conclusion there is this term not exprest in the Major [may and ought to receive baptism] for that which is in the Major [may and ought to receive the seal of the Covenant] is not all one with [may and ought to receive baptism] baptism and seal of the Covenant being not equipollent, besides Circumcision, passeover, Lords Supper, the Ephesians are said to be sealed with the holy spirit of promise Ephes. 1.13. nor is the term [seal of the Covenant] applyed to Sacraments any other than a novel expression, neither used in Scripture, nor the Antients. Rom. 4.11. doth not term circumcision (much less other Sacraments as they are called) a seal of the Covenant of faith, as the Doctor misallegeth it, but a seal of the Righteousness of faith, which he had being yet uncircumcised. Whence it appears that it was a Seal of what he had, not of a covenant concerning what he was to have: and this is said onelyonly of Abrahams circumcision, with such an observing of particularizing circumstances, as shew it to be appropriated to Abrahams circumcision, what ever is said of circumcisions being a seal of the righteousness of faith, however Divines dictate to the contrary, and therefore what the Doctor addes in the Minor (which multiplies the terms in the Syllogism) [and now baptism is] asserting thereby baptism to be a Seal of the Covenant of faith, is said without proof, though I should not stick to grant it in this sense, that to the true believer his baptism assures righteousness according to Gods Covenant, and the true believer by baptism gives testimony or assurance of his faith according to his Covenant, as being unwilling to wrangle about terms if we agree in the meaning. But in the sense Paedobaptists use it, as containing the nature of a Sacrament, I shall reject it in that which followes. 3. Against the Doctors omission of some words in the Minor, [and are no where prohibited to receive the seal therof] which were in the Major. 4. That the term [and are no where prohibited to receive the seal thereof] is ambiguous. For it may be understood either of an express prohibition in forbidding terms, or a prohibition by consequence. It is granted in so many express words, infants are not prohibited to receive baptism, no nor the Lords Supper, yet they are by good consequence to be denied both, in as much as both are disagreeing from the institution and practice of those rites in the new Testament. Wherefore to the Doctors argument, I except against the form of it, as containing more then three terms, the predicate in the conclusion not being in the Major, part of the medium in the major being left out in the Minor. And if it be thus formed [all they who are comprized within the covenant of faith, and are no where prohibited to receive the seal thereof, may and ought to be baptized: But infants of believers are comprized, &c. Ergo.] I deny the Major if meant of Gods covenant to us, or promise either of faith or righteousness to infants by it, as the alleging Gen. 17.7. imports the Doctor meant. But grant it of those who are comprized within the Covenant of faith by their covenanting to be believers, in which sense I deny the Minor, that children, that is infant-children are comprized in the Covenant of faith by their covenanting to be believers; yea and if the proposition be universal, all children, or all infant-children of believers are comprized in Gods covenant of faith or promise that he will give them faith or righteousness by faith, I deny it. Nor is the Major proved by the Doctor. For it is no unjust thing to deny baptism to a person to whom it is not appointed; now baptism is appointed to disciples or believers, not to whom God promiseth to give faith or righteousness by faith. Besides were it true that God had so promised it and confirmation of it were due; yet without institution confirmation by baptism were not due; God hath other waies to confirm it, as by his Oath Heb. 6.17. the blood of his Son, 1 Cor. 11.25. his Spirit, 2 Cor. 1.22. A man that is bound to pass an estate, and to seal it, may not be bound to a further Confirmation by fine and recovery. Besides its no injustice not to confirm ones right who doth not claim and prove it. But this infants do not. And for the Minor, the words Gen. 17 7. have nothing about the second part of the proposition, nor do indeed prove any to be comprized in that promise, but Abraham and his seed, of which sort none of Gentile-believers children are, but those that are true believers as he was, or elect by God to adoption of children. The objection the Doctor brings in is not rightly framed, nor do I deny the answer the Doctor gives is sufficient to overthrow it as so formed. But what the Doctor dictates, That all true believers and their children are to be reckoned among children of the promise, is contradictory to the Apostles determination Rom. 9.7, 8. as the Apostle is expounded by Dr. Featly himself in the New Annot. on Rom. 9.8. in which he thus speaks, not all they who are carnally born of Abraham by the course of nature are the children of God to whom the promise of grace was made; but the children of promise, that is, those who were born by vertue of the promise, those who by Gods special grace were adopted (as Isaac by a special, and singular promise was begot by Abraham) they only are accounted for that seed mentioned in the Covenant, I will be thy God, and the God of thy seed.