The Covenant Sealed, Treatise · Chapter 11 · Section 3
SECT. III. Objections againſt the former doctrine.
Obj. 1 HEre it is objected, Where the blood of Chriſt on Gods part is offered, and applyed for pardon of the guilt of ſin, and no impediment put on his part that receives it, there the guilt of ſin is remitted; But in the Baptiſm of Infants, the blood of Chriſt on Gods part is offered and applyed, and no impediment put by him that receives it; Ergo in the Baptiſme of Infants the guilt of ſin is remitted.
Anſw. 1 Anſw. 1. This Argument will hold with equal ſtrength for proof of that which theſe deny; as for that which they would aſſert, Where the Spirit of Chriſt is offered on Gods part, and applyed for regeneration, and true ſanctification, and no impediment put by him that doth receive it, there regeneration, ſanctification, and all other gracious habits are wrought: But in the Baptiſme of Infants the Spirit of Chriſt is thus offered, and applyed, and no impediment is put: Ergo. The Major in this ſyllogiſme can be no more denyed, then in the former. The Spirit of Chriſt is as efficacious for regeneration, as his blood for pardon; It were over-much boldneſſe to put any difference between them. And for the Aſſumption, none can deny but the Spirit is as well applyed in Baptiſme, as blood; either then both muſt hold, or both muſt be denyed.
2. I utterly deny, that the blood and Spirit of Chriſt, that either Anſw. 2 blood or Spirit, are thus applyed in Baptiſme; In caſe of ſuch application, they would produce their effects, above, and againſt all reſiſtance, there is no vain application of either of theſe to any perſon. If the Spirit of Chriſt had been in Baptiſme applyed to Simon Magus, it would ſo have ſeazed upon him, and wrought in him, that Peter would not have addreſſed himſelf to him in that language, which he heard from him, and ſo I may ſay of the blood of Chriſt, ſuch an application of it to his ſoul, would have had that effect, that Peter would have ſaid to him in the words of the Seraphim to Iſaiah, when he had applyed the coal from the Altar to his mouth, Thine iniquity is taken away, and thy ſin is purged; and not as he did, that thou art in the gall of bitterneſſe, and the bond of iniquity. The blood of Chriſt upon the ſoul of an Infant, or man of years, muſt needs be as efficacious as a coal from the Altar on Iſaiah's lips. Univerſal redemption, we know, is aſſerted by theſe Authors, though it be with ſuch limits, as not to cloſe with Arminians, but to remain their oppoſite. If now there be not onelyonly impetration of the merit of Chriſt, but alſo application in that latitude as Baptiſme is adminiſtred. I know nothing that can ſtand in the way of ſalvation, of all thoſe that are baptized. He that would ſee the conſent of modern Writers, of the moſt eminent note, in the denyal of this propoſition, let him conſult learned Mr. Gataker, Diſcep. pap. 6, &c. whereby his induſtrious pains (after his manner) many are multiplied; Danaeus leads the way, He is deceived (ſaith he) that thinks that Chriſt and his benefits, are applyed by the ſign of water, which is onelyonly the ſeal of ſuch application.
3. According to theſe principles laid by theſe Authors, no guilt of ſin is taken away by Baptiſme, either in Infants, or men of years: for either it is pardoned before Baptiſme, or elſe a barre in Baptiſme is put againſt the pardon of it. If they are regenerate before Baptiſme, then ſin is pardoned before they are baptized. In caſe they are unregenerate when they are tendred to Baptiſme, then there is a barre put to it. Original ſin in Infants is mortal, otherwiſe they would be ſaved without Baptiſme, as well as in it. And ſin in the unregenerate is mortal likewiſe. There are therefore barres put by both of theſe, or at leaſt an impediment found, and conſequently no mans ſin is thus remitted upon account of his Baptiſme.
Obj. 2 Secondly, It is objected. Every Infant is conceived and born in ſin [ordinarily,] which David confeſſes of himſelf, Pſal. 51.5. Of unclean ſeed, Job. 14.4. A child of wrath, Eph. 2.3. and held under Original guilt. But there is a promiſe of remiſſion of ſin made to the Infant, when it is initiated by the Sacrament of Baptiſme: Repent and be baptized every one of you, for remiſſion of ſins—; for the promiſe is made to you, and your children, Acts 2.38, 39.
Anſw. 1 Anſw. 1. It was not with good advice, that birth-ſin, confeſſed by David, is in the Major propoſition branched out in that latitude, as to comprize both uncleanneſſe and wrath; For it makes way for the Aſſumption to be as large, namely that in Baptiſme the Spirit is promiſed, and applyed, to take away filth as well as blood, to deliver from wrath, otherwiſe the remedy doth not anſwer the malady. And ſo we have more in the concluſion then they would have, though no more then is in the premiſes, viz. that in Infant Baptiſme there is both remiſſion of ſin, and regeneration. The Infant is thus made, both happy and inherently holy.
Secondly, The fruit of Baptiſme, a right carried on, (conſcience Anſw. 2 anſwering to baptiſmal engagements) is indeed forgiveneſſe of ſins: But the promiſe that place mentioned, is not remiſſion of ſins (ſuppoſedly to follow upon the act of Baptiſme), but it is that which did denominate them children of the promiſe, namely the promiſe made to Abraham, Gen. 17. and continued to them who were his off-ſpring, which argued them to be yet in Covenant. And the Apoſtle makes uſe of it, as a motive to preſſe them to accept of Baptiſme, the preſent initiating ſeal of it. See this text further ſpoken to, Treatiſe of the Covenant, Chap. 37, 43.
Thirdly, It is objected. That which Baptiſme figures, that Obj. 3 it works, otherwiſe it is a ſign that is fallacious: But Baptiſme figures out remiſſion of ſin, and the taking away the guilt of it.
Anſw. 1. Baptiſme alſo figures out a further work, of regeneration, Anſw. 1 and ſanctification, Rom. 6.4. Col. 2.11, 12.
2. This Propoſition univerſally underſtood, without any limits, Anſw. 2 is denied on all hands. They that aſſert this Sacramental work, will have it to be with this proviſo, that no barre be put by the receivers.
3. Sacraments do effect what they figure, as ſeales effect what the Covenant conveyes, upon Covenant-terms, all is effected Anſw. 3 that in Sacraments is figured. The Apoſtle tells us with what limits this propoſition holds, 1 Pet. 3.21.
4. The great objection is. If Sacraments have no other work Obj. 4 upon the ſoul, then by way of ſign and ſeal, as they have their influence upon the underſtanding, and faith of the receivers, then infant baptiſme is uſeleſſe, and unprofitable; there is no end why they ſhould be baptized, ſeeing there is no work wrought, either upon their underſtanding, or faith in this ordinance, and ſo their Baptiſme is vain and needleſſe. And therefore upon this account, complaint is made by ſome friends of Infant Baptiſme, that the doctrine de nudis ſignis (as it is called) making Sacraments bare and empty ſignes, is the ground of Anabaptiſme. And the greateſt ſticklers againſt Infant Baptiſme, have publickly profeſſed, that if that tenent of the opus operatum (as we may call it) in Sacraments could be clearly proved, they would no longer oppoſe that practice.
Anſw. 1. If the doctrine de nudis ſignis were (as is objected) Anſw. 1 the ground of Anabaptiſme, then I marvel how it comes to paſſe that that doctrine ceaſing, Anabaptiſme doth not ceaſe with it. I read Calvin and others (to whom in this I ſubſcribe) oppoſing it, I know none that now aſſert it. As ſoon as Calvin hath done with refutation of one, he preſently falls upon refutation of this other, I here oppoſe; It is hard to ſay, whether he be more zealous againſt the doctrin de nubis ſignis, Inſtit. lib. 4. cap. 14. Sect. 13. or againſt this other doctrine of Sacramental efficacy, Sect. 14. And Chamier, lib. 1. de Sacram. in gen. cap. 10. Sect. 11. having mentioned that uſe of Sacraments as diſtinguiſhing ſigns, ſaith, yHic tamen nec ſolus eſt finis nec praecipuus Sacramentorum; itaque Anabaptiſtas aeque cum Bellarmino improbamus, quos etiam ante illum Calvinus refutavit: quibus Sacramenta nihil ſunt quam ſigna inſtituta ad diſcernendum Chriſtianos à Judaeis & Paganis, ut Romanis olim toga erat ſignum quo diſcernebantur a Graecis palliatis.This is not yet alone or chief end of them; therefore (ſaith he) we oppoſe Anabaptiſts, as well as Bellarmine; and Calvin alſo before him had refuted them, in that they make Sacraments nothing more then ſignes diſtinguiſhing Chriſtians from Jewes, and Pagans as a gown ſometimes was a ſign whereby a Roman was known from a Greek. I remember when in the Divinity Schools, a reſpondent in his verſes (according to cuſtome premiſed) called the ſignes in the Sacraments, ſurda elementa (it may be metri cauſâ) The Dr. of the chair made a ſharp animadverſion on it. They that do not raiſe them ſo high, as to make them inſtruments of conveyance of this nature, yet do not ſet them ſo low, as to be naked and empty ſigns. They are not naked, though ſuch clothes, that every one woul put upon them, do not fit them.
2. It is no marvel that Anabaptiſts are ready to offer to come in to us, upon theſe terms, when this doctrine is fully cleared, being well aware, that it never will nor can be proved, and ſo they have a good ground given them to hold on in their oppoſition. Our great revilers of the place of our publick meetings, calling them by the name of Steeple-houſes, or thinking that too gentle, Jeroboams calve-houſes, I doubt not but will promiſe to forbear that language if it can be clearly proved, that they are of divine inſtitution, and that they have that holy ſanction put upon them, as once the Temple had at Jeruſalem; but when thoſe that put ſo high an honour upon them, riſe ſo high in their elogies, and yet fall ſo low in their proofs, they put an argument into their mouthes, and (as I may ſay) an axe or hammer into their hands to demoliſh them, making them to think that this is all that can be ſaid for them. Mr. Fuller in his hiſtory of holy warre, lib, 3. cap. 20. quoting out of Reinerius a charge againſt the Albigenſes, that they gave no reverence to holy places, anſwers, It is true. And then gives in this for a reaſon, becauſe moſt in that age ran riot in adoring of Churches, as if ſome inherent holineſſe was ceiled to their roof, or plaiſtered to their walls, yea, ſuch as might more ingratiate with God the perſons and prayers of people there aſſembled. Let men take heed that they raiſe not Sacraments above the honour that Scripture gives them, with like ſucceſſe as theſe did places of publick holy aſſemblies; a good cauſe hath not a greater adverſary then a weak argument taken up in the defence of it. This argument, I confeſſe, had it ground to ſtand upon, might be of force for the battery of Anabaptiſme, but having no Scripture-bottome, it preſently falls before any adverſary, and Anabaptiſme gathers ſtrength by the fall of it.
3. As to the argument it ſelf, tending to evince the uſeleſſeneſſe of infant-Baptiſme, it may very fitly be parallelled with that Objection, made againſt Pauls doctrine, Rom. 3.1. when he had made it his great buſineſſe, to ſet circumciſion on its right bottom, and declared, that it was not efficacious in the way that they expected, and that it was without uſe for ſalvation, unleſſe it were anſwered with the Circumciſion of the heart, an objection preſently is raiſed, What profit is there then of Circumciſion? ſo theſe likewiſe when Sacraments are not raiſed to that height, as the Schoolmen have advanced them, to be inſtruments of conveyance of grace by the work done, and as they expect from them, they preſently demand, what profit? And affirm (as to infants at leaſt) that they are uſeleſſe.
4. That anſwer, which Paul gives to his Queſtioniſts, that demanded what profit is there of Circumciſion I give to thoſe that demand, what profit is there of infant-Baptiſme? Having aſſerted in general, Much every way: he anſwers more punctually, inſtancing in one eminent priviledge, that virtually comprized all the external priviledges enjoyned by Iſrael as Church-members, chiefly that to them were committed the Oracles of God. It was ſaid before that theſe priviledges in all Sacraments, are either actually conferred or infallibly evidenced. In Baptiſme a true title is legally conferred. Upon account of our baptiſme we have an orderly and legall right, and title to all ſucceeding Church-priviledges, as the Jewes had done upon account of their Circumciſion, though there be not alwayes an aptitude for actual admiſſion to them, or improvement of them. Upon this ground infants have, 1. Their ſhare and intereſt in all the prayers made for the Church collectively, even in all that are preferred to God by his people for Zion and Jeruſalem. This was the duty of every ſon of Zion, Pſal. 122.6. This was the faithfulls practice, Pſal. 51.18. and in theſe, infants as Church-members had their intereſt, on this account infants were brought to Chriſt,Priviledges following upon infant-baptiſme. That he might put his hands upon them, and pray, Matth. 19.13. 2. They have their ſhare in the bleſſings of the Church; we ſee with what ſolemnity it was to be done, Num. 6.22. &c. The Lord ſpake unto Moſes, ſaying, Speak unto Aaron and unto his ſons ſaying, On this wiſe ye ſhall bleſſe the children of Iſrael, ſaying unto them, The Lord bleſſe thee and keep thee, &c. and they ſhall put my Name upon the children of Iſrael, and I will bleſſe them. Infants had their ſhare here, and upon this account, infants were bleſſed of Chriſt, Mar. 10.16. 3. Their relation to God by virtue of Covenant-intereſt, is hereby evidenced and ratified. How tranſcendent a priviledge this is to have the Lord for our God; we ſee, Pſal. 144.15. having reckoned up ſeveral mercies, the Pſalmiſt concludes, Happy is the people that is in ſuch a caſe, yea, happy is that people whoſe God is the Lord This is the priviledge of every infant, that upon Covenant title is baptized; God will not ſuffer their enemies to paſſe without vengeance. As it was an acceptable work to daſh the infants of Babylon againſt the ſtones, Pſal. 137.9. being a ſeed growing up againſt God; ſo it is as diſpleaſing, and provoking to harme theſe, that, are a ſeed dedicated unto, and growing up for God. 4. Baptiſme teaches them to know as ſoon as they are of capacity to learn to whom they belong, what Maſter they are to ſerve, and in what School they are to be trained. 5. A neceſſity is ſeen to get the knowledge of Chriſt, and timely to walk in his wayes. 6. A delight is wrought in them, towards thoſe in whoſe communion they are bred, and that own them as theirs, whereas being debarred in childhood from this ſociety, and denyed this badge, it is the way to bring them to maligne them: each one is apt to love thoſe of his owne fraternity, and on the contrary to ſtudy the oppoſition of others. 7. The aggravation of their ſin preſently rings in their ears, by reaſon of the favour they receive from God, the ſociety into which they are incorporated, when their, converſation doth not in ſome meaſure anſwer their profeſſion. 8. Parents here ſee a ſtrong engagement, to bring them up for Chriſt, whom they have thus dedicated to him, and put into the fellowſhip of thoſe who are his Saints and members. When they have brought forth children unto God, they ſee their ſin heightned in giving them to Moloch, or any other beſides God, and there is no example of any believing parent in all the Scripture bringing, up a child for Covenant, but in Covenant with the Lord. Theſe alone, though more might be added, might ſtop the mouthes of all that inſultingly move this queſtion.
5. That which in preſent does not, but hereafter may work upon the underſtanding, is not vain and uſeleſſe when it is done. That was not vain which Chriſt did to Peter, Joh. 13.17. when he ſaid unto him, What I do, thou knoweſt not now, but thou ſhalt know hereafter.
6. Seals of purchaſes taken in infants names, are of uſe to infants; though during infancy they know not how to make actual improvement themſelves of them: If Baptiſme hath its actual uſe in behalf of infants, whileſt infants, as hath been ſhewed, and remains with them, to be improved by their underſtanding and faith, when they come to maturity, it cannot be thought to be vain and uſeleſſe.