A Public Dispute Touching Infant Baptism, Part 1
A relation of a conference had between Mr. John Tombs B. D. and Henry Vaghan M. A. in St. Maries Church in Abergevennie, Sept. 5. 1653. touching Infants Baptism, briefly, and punctually set down to the sense of both.
V.
INfants may lawfully be Baptized; for they may be admitted into the covenant of grace now by Baptism, as they were before, and under the Law, admitted into the same covenant by Circumcision.
T.
I deny your consequence.
V.
You must deny it, either because the covenant of grace made with Abraham, and his seed, is not the same in substance with that which is now actually in force with beleevers, and their Children, or Secondly, because Baptism succeedeth not in the room of Circumcision.
T.
I could deny your division: yet I say, to gratifie you, for both those reasons.
V.
For the Former. That the covenant made with Abraham, and his seed, is the same which is now actually in force with beleevers, appears by comparing Genes. 17.2. with Galat. 3.14. where it is clearly set forth, that the promise made to Abraham, came unto the Gentiles through Jesus Christ.
T.
Here he distinguisheth of a towfold seed of Abraham, the naturall, and spirituall, and saith, that the covenant was made with Abrahams spirituall seed, and not the naturall.
V.
Even all the children of Abraham were Circumcised, and consequently admitted into the covenant, not one excepted; for every Man-child was to be Circumcised, Gen. 17.10. It appears by what hapned to Moses for not circumcising his Child, Exod. 4.24. Even Ishmael was circumcised, Genes. 17.23: who belonged not to the promise, but was of the naturall seed.
T.
Ishmael, and the naturall Children of Abraham were admitted to the externall part, namely outward privileges, and temporall blessings, and not to the internall, or spirituall part thereof.
By the Internall part he must needs mean that part of it expressed Gen. 17.7. in these words, To be a God unto thee, and unto thy seed after thee, and in the end of v. 8. I will be their God.
To justifie this his distinction, he referred us to Rom. 9. and I think v. 8. where the Children of the promise are contradistinguished from the Children of the flesh, or the naturall Children of Abraham; So that the covenant was made not to the naturall Children of Abraham, but to such of them as were elect, and faithfull.
V.
This covenant was made alike in the same extent, and latitude, promiscuously with all the seed of Abraham; and those that lost the promise, and the benefit of this covenant (which men you call the naturall seed) lost it not because they were not at first comprehended in the covenant, but because of their own unbeleef, Rom. 11.20. I confesse that the Children of Isaack are, Rom. 9. called the Children of the promise, not in regard of any peremtory election, or designation to faith, and Salvation, or on the contrary▪ of any absolute reprobation of the seed of Ishmael.
For if it had been Pauls designe to declare the Children of Ishmael, yea the greatest part of the Jewes, to have been rejected by a certain absolute decree, why should he v. 1.2. so much lament their incredulitie? wish himself accursed for their sakes, v. 3. and Rom. 10. v. 1. desire, and pray for their conversion? since upon such an absolute decree of reprobating them, all that happened to them was inevitable.
But the Children of Isaack are called the Children of promise, First, because they onelyonly were to inherite the land of Canaan; and Secondly, because Christ according to the flesh was to descend from the progenie of Isaack, not of Ishmael.
I might have added, that if none but the elect, and faithfull, can be admitted into the covenant, there is no subject left for the ordinance of Baptism, it being impossible for man to know who are elect, spirituall, and true believers. Neither can you Baptize with right, or safety, all such grown persons as you Baptize, since you cannot be assured that they are elect, Spirituall, or true believers, (Revel. 2.17.) nor have any light to guide you, save that of charitable opinion, and conjecture.
Again, it being admitted that none but the Spiritually, elect, and believing, can be Baptized, the same charitie that swayes your judgment for grown persons, must much rather move you to hope the best of innocent infants, guiltie of no actuall sin, since it hopes all things, and thinks no evill, 1. Cor. 13.2. They may have faith (in semine & habitu) in the seed (as they have the habit of principles, and reason) tho they cannot exercise it till ripe years. 3. Though they have not actuall faith, yet the faith of their parents may, and doth, put them into a capacitie of being admitted into the covenant, nor is it news that the parents faith advantageth the Children. Joh. 4.50.
T.
I could wish you could prove that Infants of believers might be admitted to Baptism by virtue of their parents faith.
V.
They were admitted into the same covenant by Circumcision, into which we are admitted now by Baptism, but Circumcision is a seal of the righteousness of faith, Rom. 4.11, 12. Whence it will follow, that either they had the righteousness of faith inherently in themselves, or that of their parents imputed to them (chuse you whether) or else it will follow that Circumcision was a false seal.
T.
It is not said there that Circumcision was the seal of righteousness of the Childrens faith, but onelyonly of Abrahams own faith in particular.
V.
But the covenant, or promise, was the same and alike to Abraham, and his seed, Rom. 4.13. Gen. 17.7. and alike to us believers, and to our Children, Act. 2. 39.
2. This truth appears yet further from. 1. Cor. 7- 14. Where we find that the faith of either of the parents makes the Children holy, at least in that degree of holyness (which is the meanest imaginable) to be in capacitie of being admitted into the same covenant with their parents.
T.
The scope of the Apostle here, is to satisfie a scruple of the Corinth. viz. whether the believing yoak-fellow might live in the enjoying and use of the unbelieving yoak-fellow? he resolves them in the affirmative, saying, The unbelieving husband is sanctifyed in (as 'tis in the Greek) or to (not for, or by) the wife, &c. That is, he may lawfully use, and enjoy her, and she enjoy him—and their Children holy, that is, legitimate.
V.
But here is certainly some speciall privilege set forth to the Children of believers accruing to them from the believing parents. Besides, it had been no news to tell them they might have the lawfull use of one another, and that their Children were legitimate, and no bastards. For where both husband, and wife were unbelievers, no man ever doubted but their enjoyment of one another was lawfull, and their issue legitimate.
T.
The case is meant where both parties at their entrance into marriage were unbelievers, but afterwards one of them happens to be converted, whether then they might cohabit, and enjoy the use of one another.
V.
Though this were granted (which I shall not contend about) yet the Apostles sense can not be of the lawfull use, and enjoyment of each other, for the word foreign sanctifyed, never denotes to be lawfull. Or if ever you shew me that foreign which is render'd holy, signifies lawfull, I shall urge no further.
T.
Ther's that acception of the word 1. Tim. 4.4, 5. Every creature of God is good, and not to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving, for it is sanctified (foreign) by the word of God, and prayer here sanctifyed is for lawfully used, as standing in opposition to that which is refused.
V.
The sense is, that such use of the creature is pleasing to God, as acknowledging him the authour, and sender; for suppose a sinfull man eat his meat without invoking God for a blessing, hath he not a lawfull use of the creature?
T.
His next instance was 1. Thes. 4.3, 4, 7. Where sanctification is used for chastitie, and might hear that sense in this place, 1 Cor. 7.17. in agitation.
V.
I deny it, for sanctification is there used in its full latitude, as appears by the context.
But I will descend to prove the second ground of my consequence, at the beginning, which you denied, viz.
That Baptism succeeded in the Room of Circumcision.
Mr. Tombs had told us that it was impossible, for then women should not be Baptized, because they were not Circumcised, [which is Bellarmines Argument] To which I answered, that indeed the males only were mentioned in the covenant of Circumcision, for in the eyes of all laws whatsoever, the women are but as ignoble creatures, and therefore the usuall stile of laws, and covenants is, Si Quis and Qui in the masculine [except such as particularly respect their sex]
2. That they are included in the word Seed, and because descended from man, did partake of the privilege, and promise annexed to the covenant. [I thought also to have told him, that I well knew that before Christs time, Baptism and Circumcision were both practised on the Proselites called Proselitae Justitiae (as I could have shewed out of severall authours) yet that hinder'd not, but that Baptism now under the Gospell should be the sole means to admit us into the same covenant, into which the Jews were admitted by Circumcision. Even as the bread and wine were taken by the Jews at the eating of the Passeover, and now that the Jewish Passeover is abrogated, the bread and wine were only by Christ retained to commemorate his passion, the true Passeover. 1. Cor. 5.7.
And in like manner when Circumcision was abolished, yet was Baptism retained to admit the Infants of Christians, as Circumcision admitted them of the Jews; But the time, and his close manner of disputing not permiting this Enlarging by recourse to the originall, and institution of Baptism, which served more to illustrate than convince, I kept to the tedder allowed, and came at length to prove that proposition] from Col. 2.11.12. Where 1 the circumcision of Christ is set in opposition to the Jewish circumcisition made with hands. 2. An explanation of what is meant by the circumcision of Christ in these words, being buryed with him in Baptism.
T.
Paul here disswades them from the use of Jewish ceremonies (which some would have introduced amongst them) and particularly of Circumcision, because all those were but shadowes, but the body and realitie was of Christ.
V.
T'is confessed the Apostle speaks here against imposers of Jewish (and also Pythagorean) doctrines, and practises:
But see ye not here a double Circumcision, and the Circumcision of Christ described by being buried with him in Baptism. The word buried implyeth but the resemblance betwixt Christs death, and resurrection, with what is done in Baptism, where there is an Immersion or plunging in the water, to shadow his buriall, and Emersion or rising up out of the water, to represent his resurrection, which resemblance is more fully set forth Rom. c. 6.
T.
Here Mr. Tombs interrupted me, and desired the people to take notice of my ingenuous confession, that Baptism was then practised by plunging. He read also a passage out of Casaubons annot. on the New Test. where he saith that foreign to Baptise, denoteth a plunging of the whole body &c. Had he read out the passage, he might have found how that great scholar affirmes this to be a slender Argument against such as only sprinkle at Baptism, for saith he, the vertue and efficacie of Baptism consistes not in that, meaning the manner of washing.
V.
I shall satisfie the Auditours herein anon, in the mean time I desire Answer to my Argument, the Analogie between Circumcision and Baptism being so evident in this place; But receiving none, I addressed my self to the people, according to promise, saying, That indeed it seemed to me that for some Centuries of years, that Baptism was practised by plunging: For sprinkling was brought first in use by occasion of the Clinicks (as Cyprian Epist: a Magnum relates) being men which deferred their Baptism till some extremitie of sickness, who then in such case were only sprinkled with water, lest the plunging of their bodies might over-offend them in that feeble desperate condition.
T.
Here take notice that sprinkling took its rise from a corrupt custome.
V.
Though plunging be confessed the more antient way, yet is this no ground for that over-uncharitable speech of yours, in your sermon yesterday: That our Baptism, meaning of Infants, and by sprinkling, was but a nullitie, and Mockery, which concludes our selves, and all our Auncestours, even all in the western Church for 1500. years, under damnation.
For the Church hath power upon the sight of any inconvenience, and for order and decencies sake, to alter the circumstantials and externalls of any Ordinance.
T.
What have they to doe to alter any thing from the form of Christs institution?
V.
That they have such a power is confessed by all divines, and he is none that denies it, yea I believe it is acknowledged by your own practice.
T.
Wherein?
V.
In the administration of the Lords supper, which was done by Christ in the Evening, and also then by his Apostles after their Love-feastes: The whole Church of God, (and your self I suppose) take it in the morning, which custome hath taken place, and obtained every where for very many ages, even from their dayes who immediatly succeeded the Apostles.
Thus advising him to be wise to Sobriety, and cease to imbroyl the Church of God (so infinitly torn already) and to submit to the judgment, and scarce-interrupted practise of the Western Churches, even for 1500. years, To which Gods providence could not be so far wanting, as to suffer them to fall into such an Errour of admitting and retaining a Baptism (which in his account was none) we broke off,