The Covenant Sealed, Treatise · Chapter 7 · Section 8
SECT. VIII. Propoſition. 7.
Admiſſion unto the Sacrament of initiation is facile.THere being a double Sacrament in the Church, both in the Old and New Teſtament: one for initiation into the Church viſible, the other for confirmation: one in which it is ſufficient having a due title to be paſſive, and the other ſuch in which we muſt be active. Admiſſion unto the Sacrament of initiation, ſeems more facile, whether it be of grown perſons in the firſt plantation of Churches, upon converſion from Gentiliſme, Judaiſme, or any other way diſtinct from Chriſtianity, or of infants that are confederate with their parents; and though ſome lay it down as a Maxime, Adultorum eadem eſt ratio utriuſque, There is the ſame reaſon for admiſſion of men of years to either Sacrament; yet it is but gratis dictum. Neither any Scripture text, nor ſolid argument drawn from thence doth evince it. Leſſe is expected in a childs entry into the School, or a youths matriculation into the Univerſity, then in the time of growth and further proficiency. Profeſſed Diſciples are taken into the Church by Baptiſme to learn; but they muſt be proficients as ſhall appear, before they are able to make improvement of the Supper.
For infants there can be no barre at all for their initiation.There is no barre to the initiation of infants in confederation on with their Parents. They that hold that Sacraments conferre grace non ponenti obicem, that is, upon all ſuch that put no barre or obſtacle to it, do withall conclude (and undenyably if they can make good their Poſition) that all infants in Baptiſme, are regenerate, ſeeing, they put no actuall barre, either by ſin or unbeliefe, to the working of it for regeneration; ſo we that hold that infants are confederate with their Parents, do conclude likewiſe, that they put no obſtacle or barre to their admiſſion to the ſign or ſeal. As there was no further qualification required in an infant for title to Circumciſion, then to be the ſon of an Iſraelite, or one by Circumciſion joyned to Iſrael: ſo there was no barre by reaſon of uncleanneſſe, or want of previous purification mentioned either in the command given to Abraham, Gen. 17. or in the Law given by Moſes, Levit. 12. There is mention made of the uncleanneſſe of the Mother, that hath born a man child, Levit. 12.1, 2, 3. ſhe was to continue in the blood of her purifying thirty three dayes, and to touch no hallowed thing, nor come into the Sactuary untill the dayes of her purifying be fulfilled: but nothing ſaid of the uncleanneſs of the child, but on the eighth day the fleſh of his foreskin was to be circumciſed; without mention either of uncleanneſs, or purification. Thoſe that can find no barre in the child tendred to Baptiſme, but ſeek for one in the Parent, to withhold it from this initiating Ordinance, may here ſee that when the Parent was perſonally polluted, the child was clean; when the Parent might touch no hollowed thing, the child was yet to be circumciſed. And moral uncleanneſſe in the Parent can have no more influence on the child, to indiſpoſe for this priviledge, then legal, when according to themſelves Original ſin (though transfuſed by the Parent into the child) is no barre. In vain do they make the Parents actual ſins an obſtacle, which is terminated in the Parent as defiling the perſon, but tranſmitting no blot to poſterity. It is a moſt un-Scriptural way in thoſe, that in their judgement are for Paedo baptiſme, to inhibite the tender of infants, upon pretence of either their Parents ſin, or their want of Congregational memberſhip. And here that ſuppoſed great argument, to debarre the infants of ignorant and ſcandalous perſons from Baptiſme, may have an eaſie anſwer; Such Parents, if they were now to be Baptized, ought not to be Baptized; Ergo they cannot challenge it for their children; Baptiſme belongs primarily to the Parent. The conſequence is here manifeſtly falſe, ſeeing ſuch Parents have unqueſtionably a fundamental firſt right, both to Baptiſme and the Lords Supper, in their reſpective order, by virtue of their profeſſion of the worſhip of God in Chriſt as their God, in oppoſition to all falſe gods; and their profeſſion of the wayes of Chriſtianity, in oppoſition to all other wayes; though their ignorance and ſcandal do prove a barre to their preſent admiſſion to either, and having this right, and being to be Baptized, their children with them are enrighted; and children putting in no barre, may be actually admitted. Priviledges in Church, and Common-Wealth, are ex traduce, and ſo are not crimes. In this I have delivered my ſelf, Treatiſe of the Covenant, chap. 46. as alſo in my Birth-priviledge, making good this poſition by ſeveral arguments, That the children of all that by profeſſion are Chriſtian, are by virtue f Covenant-intereſt to be received into the Church by Baptiſme; Enlarging my ſelf in ſeveral particular inſtances, in ſuch whoſe ſeed ſome would debarre, which yet according to Scripture rules we ought to receive; Examining Mr. Firmins grounds to the contrary in his ſerious queſtion ſtated; Mr. Firmins appendix as to the latitude of infant-Baptiſme examined.And anſwering his arguments, he hath been pleaſed in one day to read, and undertake to refute what I have ſpoke. He muſt therefore give his Reader leave, from his own mouth, to believe that it is a very haſty birth, and what need there is that he ſhould yet lick it over, the work it ſelf will ſpeak. I little expected (I confeſſe) ſo unfair dealing from a man of his candour, he might eaſily have ſeen that all that I ſpeak to him in this thing there, is by way of Corollarie or inference drawn from that which by Scripture-teſtimony, and arguments in ſeveral foregoing Chapters I had made good. Which (as it appears from his own hand) when his refutation came out, he had never read, and therefore (by his own acknowledgement) hath taken my concluſion into conſideration, having never ſeen the premiſes, and ſo muſt judge according to his own reaſon, onelyonly having never had any ſight of mine. Before I come to give anſwer to his exceptions againſt that which this Poſition affirmes, I muſt clear my ſelfe from ſome imputations of his, touching my dealing with him.The Author cleared from ſome imputations. I obſerve ſometimes (ſaith he) you dreſſe my argument in ſuch a faſhion, that I cannot know it to be mine but, diſclaime it, then you find fault.
To give the Reader here an account, Mr. Firmin had framed this argument againſt the power of mediate Parents to conferre Baptiſme on poſterity; If that promiſe doth give this power to predeceſſours, then though there were none to educate this child (for the ignorant and prophane Parents will not, but teach them how to breaks Covenant; predecſſours cannot, they are dead, and are not) yet we muſt ſeal to the child. Having explained my ſelf to avoid miſtake, I firſt anſwer, that Mr. Firmin himſelf here concludes ſuch a childs intereſt. In caſe he can be brought to break Covenant, he is intereſſed in the priviledges of the Covenant; to which he ſayes nothing at all, but either in haſte or prudence paſſeth it by, and dealing with Mr. Caudrey ſpeaks fully to confirm the ſtrength of it: Intereſt in the Covenant of the Goſpel (he ſaith, Pag. 4.) gives firſt right to Baptiſme. This child hath this intereſt, otherwiſe he can be in no capacity to break Covenant, he hath therefore this firſt right, and let Mr. F. ſee how he can deny an infant the ſecond. I add in the ſecond place, let him make it up into a formal argument, and then it runs thus: That child whoſe immediate Parents will not bring it up to the power of Godlineſs, hath no right to Baptiſme. Here his exception lyes, and therefore he demands, Where have I mentioned the power of Godlineſſe, as a requiſite in him who claimes Baptiſme? but to bring up a child in it, is harder matter. To which I reply, 1. That here is a ſtrange queſtion, ſeeing we were not ſpeaking to any prerequiſite for Baptiſme, but after education, which was his exception. 2. Though he mentions not education in the power of godlineſſe in words; yet in caſe his meaning be not ſo, his argument anſwers it ſelf; For the child of ſuch a parent that he mentions, ſhall infallibly (ſo farre as man can judge) have education in a away of Chriſtianity, ſo farre as to be of the Society of profeſſed Chriſtians, under the diſpenſation of thoſe Ordinances that are able to ſave the ſoul, and are called by the Apoſtle the power of God to ſalvation, Rom. 1.16. He further addes, Sometimes your anſwer is a bare laying down your own judgement, with a ſimilitude added for illuſtration, quoting pag. 441. He addes, we call for Scripture and reaſon, Similia ad pompam non ad pugnam. This that he relates unto was thus occaſioned: In his ſerious Queſtion ſtated, pag. 8. he ſaith, If the predeceſſour may by this promiſe give right to Baptiſme without the immediate parent, then I pray tell us how farre we may go for this predeceſſour? how many generations? where hath Gods Word limitted Miniſters? you may go to this predeceſſour, and no further. After that I had replied, that I knew but few that ſay the predeceſſour gives right, without the immediate parent, but all concurre in a joynt way to communicate a Covenant intereſt; I there for further ſatisfaction of his Queſtion demand, in titles of honour and inheritance of Lands which men claim by deſcent from their Anceſtors, where is it that they will ſtay? adding that it will ſoon be anſwered, that they ſtay, when they can go no higher, to find out any other predeceſſor veſted in ſuch honour, or inheritance; and then I bring it home by applicatian of Scripture inſtances, full to our purpoſe. Some can make no claime at all from parents, they are the firſt of their houſe in honour or inheritance; and this was the caſe of Abraham, he had no intereſt in Covenant from Terah; ſuch was the caſe of the primitive converts; and ſuch is the caſe of the Indians, that now by a gracious providence are converted by the Engliſh. Some can go no further then their immediate parents, they were the firſt in honour, or that gained an inheritance to their houſe; This was the caſe of Iſaac and thoſe children called by the Apoſtle, holy, 1 Cor. 7.14. and will be the caſe of the children of Indian converts. Others can riſe to the third or fourth generation; others can go as high as the conqueſt; ſome can claime beyond the conqueſt, by Deeds without date: ſo it is with Chriſtians, they may go as high as Anceſtors have been in Chriſtianity. I here demand, whether there be not reaſon in this parallel, ſeeing Chriſtian priviledges (as I have proved at large, and he never denyed) are deſcendable from parent to child, as are honours and inheritances, and whether Scripture be wanting in that anſwer? I had proved at large, pag. 436. that mediate parents give this right: and I appeal now to the Reader, whether that queſtion of his, Where we may ſtay? hath not a ſufficient anſwer both from Scripture and reaſon, ſo that he might have ſpared his call for it?
I tell Mr. F. that his firſt argument brought for the excluſion of infants of ignorant and ſcaudalous perſons from Baptiſme managed in the way that he doth, was Mr. Blackwoods argument before him, to debarre all Infants from Baptiſme, putting his own Medium into Syllogiſticall forme againſt him, with equall force concluding againſt all Infant Baptiſme, which he ſaies, Sir, is no clever way of diſputation, pag. 53. Then I am to learn how to diſpute cleverly, if I may not deal by retortion againſt a man, with his own weapon: did not Chriſt diſpute in a clever way with the Phariſees, when they charged him to caſt out devills by Beelzebub? anſwering them, By whom then do your children caſt them out? Matth. 12.27. He anſweres for himſelf, that he never ſaw any thing of Mr. Blackwoods, and I never had it in my thoughts to charge him with borrowing from him, but onelyonly to ſhew him that either his arguments might have an anſwer, or elſe he muſt deny Baptiſme to all Infants, which is againſt both his own judgement, and practice. He tells me that Mr. Johnſon hath anſwered the argument before me, and I in his words, though he ſaies, it may be I ſaw him not, which to me is ſtrange, that we ſhould ſo hit in one, I having ſeen no more of Mr. Johnſon then he hath done of Mr. Blackwood; but it is worth the obſerving how he goes about to avoid it, as turned againſt himſelf; For he knew well that I brought it not as an argument ad rem, (for he ſaies, I have anſwered it) but ad hominem. His argument is this, pag. 18. of his Serious queſtion, Such perſons as de jure ought, and de facto are excluded by godly Miniſters from the Lords Supper, ought alſo to be excluded from their childrens Baptiſme: But ſuch perſons as the queſtion mentions, de jure ought, and de facto are excluded from the Lords Supper: Ergo. The Major he proves thus, If Baptiſme doth ſeal to the ſame Covenant, which the Lords Supper doth, and doth ſignifie and ſeal as great bleſſings and priviledges, as the Lords Supper doth, then thoſe who are excluded from the Lords Supper, ought alſo to be excluded from their childrens Baptiſme: But the antecedent is true: Ergo the conſequent is true. This in Mr. Blackwoods behalfe I thus urge againſt him, If Baptiſme doth ſeal to the ſame Covenant, which the Lords Supper doth, and doth ſignifie and ſeal, as great bleſſings, and priviledges as the Lords Supper doth, then thoſe that are excluded from the Lords Supper ought alſo to be excluded from Baptiſme: But all Infants are excluded from the Lords Supper eo nomine becauſe they are Infants; and therefore they are to be excluded from Baptiſme. Further adding, when Mr. Firmin hath given a fair, and a full anſwer to this Syllogiſme, he may eaſily fit it to his own, to give like ſatisfaction.
All his anſwer is, My argument is not hurt at all, though the parent may be ſuſpended for a time, what is this to the ſuſpenſion of three parts of a Church, ſix or ten yeares together, and never proceed further? And I ſay, what is this to the purpoſe? Though parents be ſuſpended all their daies, whether juſtly, or injuriouſly, root and branch are not therefore under ſuſpenſion.
Words of mine, pag. 426, 424. he challenges: Infants of parents that are nomine tenus Chriſtians have right to Baptiſme, if they profeſſe the worſhip of the true God, though nothing more of a Chriſtian be in them. In which how much my words are curtailed, for haſte, I leave to the Reader, by comparing to find out.
For anſwer, He ſpeakes firſt by way of conceſſion, I make no queſtion but many ſuch nominal ones a Miniſter may baptize, and their children, though they have not truth of grace in them; and goes on, But I perceive your ſcope is to ſpread the Word very large, and that directly oppoſite to my queſtion; If they will ſay they are Chriſtians, bear the Name of Chriſt, own his worſhip (though it be but from the cuſtome of the Nation, others do ſo, and ſo do they) though their courſe and frame of converſation be like the infidels, or worſe, yet they are Chriſtians nomine tenus, hence we muſt baptize if they have but fides, no matter for obſervation. The great fault is, it ſeemes, that I preſume to go oppoſite to his queſtion, which I muſt ingenuouſly acknowledge; but ſeeing I am allowed to baptize both parent and child, where there is no truth of grace in the parent, and yet am chidden for being too large, I demand when I muſt ſtay? in what latitude I may walk? Men of the Congregational way are wont to limit me to parents one or both of the truth of grace, and will allow none but beleevers children; If juſtifying faith be not in the parent, no baptiſmal water ſhall come on the child. All other Chriſtians from the beginning of Chriſtianity (thoſe excepted that as of yeſterday have oppoſed infant Baptiſme) look upon them under what notion you will, have allowed to go as farre as profeſſion of Chriſtianity. Mr. Firmin that will be larger then the one, and narrower then the other, muſt tell us where we muſt fix. He hath my rule to except againſt, I have not his to challenge. To let me underſtand my error in being too large, he demands, But, Sir, I pray what if they be heretical about the natures of Chriſt, as of old ſome deny the humanity of Chriſt, and ſome the Deity of Chriſt? and then proceeds to further inſtances. To which I firſt anſwer, Perhaps he may find ſome called Chriſtians, that it is a contradiction in adjecto to name them ſo, ſuch that receive not the Goſpel at all, but profeſſedly abhorre it. If any ſuch are intended, I ſhall ſay my meaning is known. They that are no Turkes, Infidels, Pagans, but in oppoſition to them of the faith, worſhip, and way, that is Chriſtian. Secondly, For the Heretiques inſtanced in, ſuch as were of old, Mr. Firmin being ſo well verſt in the way of antiquity, I wiſh him to enquire what the Orthodox thought in thoſe times of their Baptiſme? Did they rebaptize thoſe that had received their Baptiſme? Did they deny their infants Baptiſme? They were to be trained to hear that Word that was able to convince this error: And how much worſe, reſpective to ſalvation, were theſe tenents then that of the denyall of the reſurrection? yet the Infants of ſom ſuch were circumciſed, (as I have ſhewen) and of others baptized. He goes on: What if they think Chriſt was a Woman? as (he ſaies) he hath given inſtance in one; And indeed a wild one, of one who had a prayer where this was often repeated, that Jeſus was her name; perhaps he was a Welſh-man, and then (according to their dialect) her is the Maſculine gender. This indeed were an error, full of folly, but not of ſuch danger, for two reaſons. 1. Chriſt were yet of mankind, and had taken our nature, had he been of that ſex. 2. It were not likely that he ſhould make over ſuch an opinion to his poſterity: He leaves hereſy, (which he might have ſpared, ſuch ſhunne our Congregations) and falls to inſtance in ignorance What if he knew not whether he was God or man, as before? what: if ten Gods? with abundance ſuch ſtuffe. I ſay, the caſe of ſuch is ſad, & more ſad in the degree, then I have met with any of the uſe of reaſon, and in capacity for marriage ſociety. I wiſh from my ſoul that all meanes were ſought that theſe blind might ſee; yet as long as God is not hereby provoked to remove our Candleſtick, but light ſtill ſhines in our Horizon, the Kingdome of God being not yet removed; ſo that when the parent is blind, the child may ſee, as I have known many happy experiences, yea, the ignorant parents glorying in it. There is not cauſe that we ſhould be more ſevere then the Lord himſelf, as to thruſt out their poſterity from the ſociety of the Lords people. This were to provoke them to ſhut their eyes, and not to open them to receive the light that ſhines about them; I think it were to exceed in our zeal againſt ignorance, as farre as the diſciples did againſt the Samaritanes, when they would have fire to come down from heaven to conſume them, Luke. 9.54. I had inſtanced in ignorance in Church-members, not onelyonly among the Jewes, but Chriſtians, as the H…brewes, Heb. 5.12. the Corinthians, 1 Cor. 15.34. That of the Hebrewes, he ſaies, he thinkes hurts him not; That of the 1 Cor. 15.34. (he ſaies) is moſt likely, when I know not whether of theſe two is more likely. To that concerning the Corinthians, ſome have not the knowledg of God, I ſpeak this to your ſhame, (which he onelyonly thinkes is worthy of an anſwer) he ſaies, 1. Sir, do you think it was ſuch groſſe ignorance as I have given inſtance? To which I anſwere, 1. That I know no more then the Apoſtle tells me, and he ſaies it was want of the knowledge of God. 2. I demand, will you allow me to baptize the children of thoſe that I find not equalling ſuch in ignorance that you mention, viz. the children of all that know that God is one, and the Commandements tenne? 2. He demands, Was not Paul as true to his work as Abraham or the Jewes were to be in admitting to Circumciſion? which I mention, pag. 445. To which I ſay, I do not think that the admiſſion of all was Pauls work, and that many were admitted, after he left them, before he wrote this Epiſtle to them. 2. I know he admitted few among them, their admiſſion was by Baptiſme; and how many, or (if you will) how few he baptized in Corinth, you may learn from himſelf, 1 Cor. 1.14, 16. 3. He ſaies, I have found ſo much ignorance that the perſons deſerved ſhame, but yet dared not to keep them from the Lords Supper, becauſe I found ſuch a work on their heart, though they could not expreſſe it in a definition. To which I ſay, that I find ſo much ignorance in my ſelf that deſerves ſhame, and ſuch that may not be able to expreſſe the thing that might be in queſtion, might paſſe with me, for knowing men; Periti eſt artificis definire; But were they ſuch that you could ſay to their ſhame, that they had not the knowledge of God? and yet durſt you not exclude them from the Lords Supper? He tells us of many ſad inſtances of ignorance in fathers, upon which he refuſeth to give admiſſion to infants; But were it granted that ſuch, as to all priviledges were meer heathens, as it was with thoſe in Corinth mentioned by the Apoſtle that were joyned in marriage with believers, and their ignorance not onelyonly groſſe, but total, and in all reſpects to be reckoned among thoſe that were without God in the world (as I ſhall not yeeld as long as the candleſtick is not removed,) yet I do not hear that he makes any enquiry after the mothers of thoſe infants; that he takes the paines to go to them in Child-bed, to demand any account of their proficiency: perhaps they might give as good an account, as ſome that he ſaies he durſt not keep from the Lords Table. And then as in the Apoſtles judgement, they ſanctifie their husbands in unbelief, as to the producing of an holy ſeed, being no profeſſed infidels, but in name Chriſtians: So according to his own judgement, as to that end, they ſanctify their husbands in ignorance, being ſo far knowing Chriſtians.