Anti-Paedobaptism Part 3, Section 13
SECT. XIII. The Arguments of Mr. William Lyford, from the Covenant for infant-baptism are examined.
MR. William Lyford in his Apology for Infant-baptism page 33. thus disputes. All that are taken into the Covenant of grace ought to receive the initial sign [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 receive the sign which God hath enjoined to be used, and that sign is baptism.
To which I answer, by denying the Major, and for his proof out of Gen. 17.7, 12. I deny,
1. That there is any command for any other initial sign but Circumcision.
2. That circumcision is there appointed to all who are taken into the Covenant of grace, not to Lot, Melchisedeck, Job or their children, not to the females of Abrahams house, not to the males under eight daies old, not to the Proselytes of the gate as Cornelius was.
3. That the adequate reason why any was to be circumcised was interest in the Covenant, Gen. 17.7. but the command only. For both Ishmael who was not in the covenant was to be circumcised because of the command, and as hath been shewed, others in the covenant were not to be circumcised through defect of the command. Nor is the Minor true, if understood of all the infants of believers, or any of them as their infants, nor is there a word to prove it Gen. 17.7. which is onelyonly a promise to Abrahams seed, and they of the Gentiles are only true believers or elect persons. But perhaps Mr. Lyford mends the matter in the next form, which is this pag. 34.
If infants have a right to the covenant and the initial sign therof, then it is a wrong to deny it to them. But infants have a right to the Covenant and the initial sign thereof, both by Gods original grant, Gen. 17.11.14. and by Christs confirmation of that Covenant made to their Fathers, Rom. 15 8. therefore it is a wrong to deny it them. The Covenant under which we 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 authority enjoined and commanded to be given without any exception of any within the Covenant.
I answer by denying the Minor, and to the proof by denying that Gen. 17.11, 14. there is command of any other initial sign than Circumcision, or that circumcision is commanded to all that had a right to the Covenant, or that the Gospel Covenant was made long since with us Englishmen, and our seed as our seed, or that there was in that of circumcision any command to us to baptize infants, or that Divine authority hath commanded baptism to be given without any exception of any within the Covenant. But I affirm he hath commanded only to baptize those in the Covenant who are disciples or believers. But Mr. Lyford adds further p. 37.
All those to whom the blessings and promises in the Covenant do belong, t them also belongs baptism, the sign thereof (by the doctrine of St. Peter, and of Jesus Christ himself) But to infants of believing parents, the blessings and promises of the Covenant do belong before actual faith, therefore by the Doctrine of the Holy Ghost in Scripture, such infants ought to be 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 promises 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 actuall faith, and had applied unto them the seal of the righteousness of faith. 4. Some infants dying are saved, they are members of Christs Kingdom, therefore the blessing of the covenant, viz. regeneration and remission of sins through the blood of Christ do also belong to them.
To which I answer, blessings of the covenant are of sundry sorts, such as certainly accompanie salvation, regeneration, justification, adoption, or such as are common to reprobates, as to have teachers, example, and acquaintance with the godly, &c. Both these may belong to them in present possession or assurance for the future: when they belong to them in present possession, it is either discernibly or indiscernibly. Actual faith may be in the exercise or habit. Infants of believers are elect or non-elect. It is true all those to whom the blessings of the Covenant which accompany salvation belong in present possession discernibly, to them also belongs baptism: but so the Minor is false, understood of all infants of believers: they belong not to all, but only to the elect, nor them certainly in present possession, much less discernibly during infancy: or if it be discernible, then they have actual faith, and so the Minor is not true, that to infants of believing parents the saving blessings of the covenant do belong in possession discernibly before actual faith. If it be meant of the blessings of the Covenant in future assurance only the Major is false. Nor is it true that the Major is the very reason of the text Act. 2.38, 39. It is false that this is Peters reasoning, therefore does the sign belong to Peters hearers because the promise did first belong to them. For the term [foreign for] does not infer a right which they might claim, but imports a motive to duties, and of these duties first to repentance, and then baptism: so that if from thence a right be concluded, they must conclude as well a right to repentance in the first place, and then to baptism. Nor is it true that Acts 10.47, 48. the Apostles discourse is reduced to M. Lyfords form of argument, or saies as he saies, They that receive the same grace are capable, yea have right to the same sign, but infants are capable of the same grace, therefore of right they are to have the same sign, i. e. the Sacrament of baptism. For although the Major be granted of actual possession of the spirit and magnifying God, yet it is not true only of the promise thereof. But the Minor [infants are capable of the same grace] alters the term, which is in the Major thus [they have received the same grace] and so Mr. Lyford syllogism hath four terms. Nor doth the Apostle say, they that are capable of the same grace are to be baptized as well as we, but, none can forbid water to baptize them that had received the Holy Ghost, and so were manifestly actual believers as well as themselves, though they were of the Gentiles: which when it appears in infants I should yield they are to be baptized, but not meerly because of the promise or capacity of grace, for the promise agrees to Jews children elect, and capacity of grace to Turks children, and therfore if either or both these did intitle to baptism, the infant-children of such might be baptized. And for his proofs of the Minor, it is false, that to infants of believing parents the blessings and promises of the covenant do belong before actual faith, is proved by the express words of Peter. For though he say, the promise is to your children, yet he doth not say, to you as believers, or to your children in infancy as the children of believers, nor before actual faith, Yea the words [as many as the Lord our God shall call] do require actual faith afore the possession of the blessings of the promise: Nor is this any miserable shift: nor is it true, that those words are quite a new thing clearly relating to another sort of people, than his present hearers, and not to them, for that expression limits all the Subjects, and is put after all joined by copulative particles, and therefore is to be conceived to limit all of them. Nor is the speech true of any of them without that limitation. Nor is it true which Mr. Lyford saies, That the words do not exegetically expound to which of his hearers children the promise did belong. For they are a manifest limitation excluding some and including others.
And what he saith, that Peter saies [this promise does belong to them that are afar off, and their children, as well as to you and your children] is manifestly false. But of this text I have spoken in the first part of this Review, sect. 5. more fully.
To his second proof, I say it is false, that the express words of our Saviour (of such is the Kingdome of Heaven) prove his Minor. For [of such] is not all one with [infants of believing parents] nor when it is said [of such is the Kingdome of heaven] is it all one with this [the blessings and promises of the Covenant do belong to them afore actual faith] the Kingdom of heaven is not said to be of them, because their parents were believers, its uncertain whether they were so or no; and if they were, another reason may and ought to be conceived of their interest in the Kingdome of heaven, to wit Christs special and effectual blessing: nor is it said the Kingdom of heaven belongs to them in actual possession; and if it were so meant, and yet they were not appointed to be baptized (as it appears by the Evangelists they were not) it is a good presumption, Christ would not have infants, notwithstanding their interest in the Kingdom of heaven, to be baptized till they became believers by profession, and knew what their engagement is th…eby.
To his third, it is true, Isaac and Jacob were children of the promise before actual faith, yea before they were born, and therefore if the interest in the Covenant had been a sufficient reason of Circumcision, they should have been circumcised afore the eighth day, which because they were not, it is an argument, that not the Covenant, but the Command intitled them to Circumcision.
To the fourth, I never denied, that to some infants the covenant belongs; nor that they are saved, regenerated in infancy, but I deny, that this is true of all infants of believers. For the very instances brought prove the contrary, that though Isaac and Jacob were children of the promise, yet Ishmael and Esau begotten by believing parents were not, who yet were to be circumcised: nor is any a childe of the promise because he is the child of a believer, but because he is elect of God.
As for Mr. Lyfords answer to the Objection in conference with him, it is indeed no answer. For he that objects that the blessings of the Covenant, belong to elect infants, not to all, and therefore under that pretence all in general are not to be baptized, doth not by that speech grant, that baptism belongs to one infant, or to any because elect, but only shews the insufficiency of the adversaries proof for that practice: As for those who deny baptism to all because they are infants, I know not who they be, the reason why it is denyed them is not because they are infants, but because in infancy they appear not to be disciples, or believers in Christ, who only by the command are appointed to be baptized; and I agree with Mr. Lyford, That the Sacraments do belong to the elect not as elect, but as visible members and Professors (and that upon this account Simon Magus was baptized, though Mr. Lyford is mistaken in saying Peter baptized Simon Magus, which was done by Philip) whereby Mr. Lyford doth indeed overthrow his dispute. For if the Sacraments belong to the Elect as visible Members and Professors, then to all and onelyonly visible members and Professours. For what belongs to any quatenus ipsum as such, belongs to all and onelyonly such universally and reciprocally, and so if he will stand to his own words, though children be in the Covenant or elect, yet till they be visible members and Professors they are not to be baptized, which doth plainly refute his own Argument, viz. the Major of his own syllogism: nor need we by our reason know whether a person be elected that we may baptize him, but whether he be a visible member and Professor.