Defense of the Lawfulness of Baptizing Infants, Tract · Chapter 1
CHAP. I. Containing an Anſwer to reaſons ſet downe in page 25. why Infants ſhould not be Baptized; the ſeverall Reaſons being ſet downe in order, their ſeverall and reſpective Anſwers doe follow.
Reaſon I BEcauſe there is neither command nor example for the baptizing Infants in the New Teſtament; the order and government of which is no way inferiour to the old: But in the old there was an expreſſe rule by command from God what Communicants were to be admitted to Circumciſon, and other Ordinances of that nature, and what not: But this order is no where found in the New Teſtament for the baptizing of Infants, and therefore the ſame is not to be practiſed.
Anſwer. This firſt Reaſon placed in the front is wholly upon ſuppoſition, concluding, and ſo taking that for granted which is wholly in controverſie, and the contrary as confidently affirmed by his Oponents as denyed by him (namely, That there is neither Precept nor Example for baptizing Infants) which they affirme there is. Againe, this Reaſon is wholly by way of deduction and inference, without any Scripture either for ground or confirmation of it, of which he complaineth in his Epiſtle, and yet he practiſeth it himſelfe, and that in his firſt Reaſon.
Secondly, it is obſervable how he by this Reaſon excludeth a great and maine part of the Scripture, namely, neceſſary conſequence, and right inference, being ſuch a way as our Lord himſelfe uſed to confute the Sadduces withall,*Mat. 22. 32. I am the God, &c. God is not the God of the dead: here is neither command nor example, and yet the truth fully evinced, the minde of God manifeſted, and the Sadduces confuted.
Thirdly, it is an unſound concluſion, that becauſe there is no command or example in the New Teſtament, therefore not to be done. There is no particular example nor particular command for womens partaking in the Supper, yet they are judged lawfull Communicants. There is no example nor particular command for tranſlation of Scriptures, or that ſuch tranſlations be uſed in Church-meetings, yet it is lawfully done. Laſtly, there is no command or example for an unbaptized perſon to baptize himſelfe or others. So as if this firſt Argument were true, I. S. and thoſe of his way would be in a poore caſe.
Fourthly, it is untrue that which he inferreth, there being both example and precept in the Scripture for the baptizing of Infants, though he cannot ſee it, 1 Corinth. 10. Matth. 28. compared with Eſay 52. 15. which ſhall be further ſhewed hereafter in making it to appeare that children are yet a part of the Church; and ſo, both precept and example being for the waſhing of the whole, it muſt include them neceſſarily as a part, Epheſ. 5. 26.
Reaſon II It is a high contempt and injury to Chriſt, as he is Husband of the Church his holy Spouſe, to force on him a naturall wife, himſelfe being ſpirituall, and deſires the like aſſociate; as ſuch a Church is founded upon nature, namely, Infants; becauſe commonly to one borne of the Spirit there is twenty borne of the fleſh.
Anſwer. Firſt, here is a high charge without proofe, no Scripture produced for confirmation. Is not this rather a high contempt and preſumption? Is it not a ſad thing that a man ſhould fall under the condemnation of his owne law, or otherwiſe exempt himſelfe from that which he will binde others unto (namely, to bring the Scriptures and not conſequences?
Secondly, this Reaſon accuſeth God himſelfe, in giving the Church of old, namely, thoſe ſeed of Abraham by generation (which he calleth carnall) to Chriſt his Sonne to wife; Jeſus Chriſt our Lord being the ſame ſpirituall Head and Husband, Yeſterday, and to day, and for ever, Heb. 13. 8.
Thirdly, it is no injury to Chriſt or contempt of him (though without any Word of God he ſo ſay) for Chriſt to have the heathen Pſal. 2. 8.given him for inheritance, and the ends of the earth for his poſſeſſion. It is no injury to him (though the Diſciples thought it was) to have little children brought to him, his Kingdome conſiſting of ſuch (in quantity as well as quality) Matth. 19. 13.
Fourthly, why cannot Children be ſpirituall and holy as well now under the Goſpell as they were under Abraham and Moſes; when they as well as thoſe of yeers were an holy people to the Lord God *Exod. 19. 6, 7 Dent. 6, 7. Eſay 9. 2.? and the ſame is ſaid of the Church now: but ye are an holy Nation, a peculiar people, 1 Pet. 2. 9. Beſide, what ſpiritualneſſe was there in the five fooliſh Virgins *Matth. 25,, I would know, that is not, or may not be in children? and is not there as much injury offered to Chriſt in giving them to Chriſt to wife? Truly this is weake and inconſiderate ſo to reaſon, not minding that many are called, and few choſen, Matth. 22. 14.
Laſtly, this Reaſon is wholly upon ſuppoſition, the accuſation without proofe: who forceth on Chriſt? It is his pleaſure to take ſuch, and reproveth ſuch as would hinder them, and ſaith, Suffer ſuch to come, they being of my Kingdom, Matth. 22. The computation in the end is as weake as all the reſt, for it was ſo of old, no new thing at all; all are not Iſrael that are of Iſrael, *Rom. 9. 27.and if the number of Iſrael were as the ſand of the ſea, but a remnant ſhall be ſaved.
Reaſon III It is a practiſe that over throwes the body of Chriſt or holy temple of God, for in time it will come to conſiſt of naturall and carnall members; amongſt whom if any godly be, they will be brought into bondage, and become ſubjects of ſcorne and contempt, and the power of government reſt in the hands of the wicked.
Anſw. This is but onelyonly ſaid, and that by one that may erre and be miſtaken. John Baptiſt though ſent of God, yet he cryeth, as it is written. Matth. 3. 3.I. S. is a ſtranger in his reaſons to what is written, though, as we noted before, he doth account it ſuch a faulty thing in others, yet he pleaſeth himſelfe all along in his reaſons to infer this and the other thing to little purpoſe, unleſſe to deceive.
Secondly, this practice of old (namely of propagating the Church by generation) was ſo far from deſtroying the Church, as that it did tend to the increaſe of it greatly, and was a meanes of Gen. 17. 20. 22. 17. 26 4 24. Eſay 4. 8, 19. Pſal. 105. 8.the continuing of it according to the gracious Covenant of God to a thouſand generations, and his promiſe to the ſeeds ſeed. aEſay 59. 14.Now that Covenant is yet in force, and that promiſe Yea, and Amen b2 Cor. 1. 20.in Chriſt, as are all other of like nature.
Thirdly, this is an inference ſavouring of ignorance, or elſe diffidence, or both; hath not God ſaid that he will poure his Spirit upon their ſeed (to wit of his Church) and his bleſſing upon cEſay 44. 3.their off-ſpring? and that all their children ſhall be dEſay 54. 13.taught of God? that his Church ſhall be a praiſe in the world eEſay 62. 7.when he ſhall returne in favour to Sion, that the Gentiles ſhall bring their riches to her fEſay 60.? nay, hath he not ſaid, that the kingdome and greatneſſe thereof ſhall be given to the Saints of the moſt high, gDan. 7. 27.and that this honour have all the Saints hPſal 144 9.?
Laſt of all, what ever is or can be conceived in this reaſon, either in the parts of it or the whole put together, cannot amount to make good the charge, the whole ſuppoſed proofe reaching but to the wel-being and purity of the Church at the moſt, and not to the being of it, it being ſo far from deſtroying of it, as is affirmed; the which I leave to the judgement of the Reader.
Reaſon IV It is unlawfull to baptize Infants, becauſe it is a ground both of ignorance and errour; for it holds people in blindneſſe, that they cannot come to ſee and know the nature of that holy Ordinance, nor what the ſame requires in the ſubjects thereof; and alſo it cauſeth the ſimple to conceive that Baptiſme is of neceſſity to ſalvation.
Anſw. That it is ſo as this Reaſon affirmeth, if any pleaſe to beleeve it they may; ſure there is no Word of God produced to enforce them, nor yet good reaſon or neceſſary conſequence, which the Author diſliketh in others, to move them to it.
Secondly, this Reaſon ſavoureth of arrogancy, and intrencheth on the wiſdome of God that eſtabliſhed this very thing in the ſubſtance of it in circumciſion of old, it being then no ground of ignorance nor errour; neither is it now, though he ſo ſay, there being no more cauſe given to ſimple now to thinke ſo of Baptiſme, then was given them then in caſe of Circumciſion. Indeed it is rather likely their keeping ſuch adoe about Baptiſme, and building ſuch high things thereon may occaſion ſome ſtrange thoughts to ſuch as are ſimple, as ſurely it doth.
Thirdly, I aske what ſhould be the reaſon they cannot ſee the nature of the ordinances, &c. The Baptizing of Infants doth not let or hinder the knowledge of perſons of yeers, thoſe are not the perſons he meaneth ſurely; for I appeale to himſelfe, whether he in particular be hindred at all thereby. Nay further, it hindreth not Infants when they come to yeers from underſtanding the nature and ends of the Ordinance, no more then it did in the caſe of Circumciſion the Iſraelites of old; it being Gods appointment, that children Epheſ. 6. 4.now, as of old, ſhould bee trained up in knowledge and underſtanding. If any be hindred from underſtanding the nature and ends of this Ordinance, ſuch are a great cauſe of it, in regard of many that are of the judgement and practice of I. S. who being ſo mutable in their courſe, one while laying downe, another time taking up, and then caſting away againe. And beſide altering the ends of Baptiſme and rejecting the proper ſubjects of it, namely, the lineall ſeed of the faithfull, that many they converſe withall are at their wits end, and know not what to hold or ſettle upon. And that it is ſo, and alſo that this reaſon hath no force in it againſt the baptizing Infants, I leave the Reader to judge.
Reaſon 5 It keepeth up the ſtate of Antichriſt, by granting of him this ſo chiefe a corner-ſtone of the Lords Houſe to lie in his foundation; for that Church where Baptiſme is the true ordinance of God in the adminiſtration of it, is by the rule of the Goſpel a true Church; ſo that if Antichriſts Baptiſme, which he adminiſtreth be Gods Ordinance, then that Church wherein he doth ſo adminiſter the ſame muſt be alſo the Church of God, and thoſe in ſinne that refuſe communion with it.
Anſwer. It may here be minded that divers things are here in this Reaſon affirmed and concluded, but nothing at all proved; we know what is written to the Law and Teſtimony, Eſay 8. 20. but I. S. ſeemeth to be a ſtranger to that, and chuſeth inferences, ſuch as he found great fault with in his Epiſtle. No man needs to beleeve what is ſaid in this Reaſon unleſſe he will.
Secondly, who granteth this to lie in the foundation of Antichriſt? ſurely I. S. ſurmiſeth and taketh for granted that which is not acknowledged; if any doe or have done, it is not for want of ignorance. Jeroboam made a ſchiſme, ſet up an idolatrous way of worſhip and calves; and yet notwithſtanding that way of his, there was Circumciſion, the Ordinance of God, and no part of the foundation of his idolatrous way, nor any corner-ſtone in the building thereof. Neither is Baptiſme now any more a part of the foundation of Antichriſt, or corner-ſtone in that building. And if I. S. were not ignorant of this myſtery of iniquity, he would not thus reaſon as he doth. This myſtery of iniquity it wrought in the Church 2 Theſ. 2.in the Apoſtles time, when Baptiſme was Gods Ordinance, and no part of that foundation or corner-ſtone in that building, as neither is now any part of it. Let I. S. if he can, ſhew when Baptiſme became ſuch a corner-ſtone in the foundation of that building; or why it ſhould be ſo, more then Circumciſion of old was a corner-ſtone in that idolatrous ſtate and way of Jeroboam and the Calves: let him ſhew how long it continued Gods holy Ordinance, and when it ceaſed ſo to be.
Thirdly, Chriſt is the chiefe corner-ſtone, and this corner-Stone is in Epheſ. 2. 20.that deſſection (yet no part of it;) I ſuppoſe I. S. granteth it, and will not deny it, That there is in many in this Kingdome (eſpecially) and John Hus & alia.elſe where, as it was alſo formerly, ſuch as in whom Chriſt and his Word and Spirit dwell, yet are not come out of that ſtate according to his ſenſe. Now to grant this is more likely to keep up the ſtate of Antichriſt; and to deny this ſure he dare not. Let him ſee how he will avoid his own Argument upon his own ground: Surely ſome have ſeene this, and thereupon have held no faith, no grace, no Chriſt till ſo ſeparated from Babylon. Sure he muſt either renounce his reaſon or fall under the condemnation of it, if he be true to his owne principle. In this particular that now I ſet downe, if my judgement faile me not, he will never be able to avoid it, by granting the Scriptures tranſlated to be the Word of God, and uſefull in the Church; which Babylon hath tranſlated, keepeth and holdeth forth and buildeth upon. Now for him and others to receive, hold, and keep the ſame, and to acknowledge them as Gods, it muſt ſure be, according to his reaſon, a keeping up the ſtate of Antichriſt, by granting this foundation to his building, and this corner-Stone Jeſus Chriſt; for of the Scriptures its ſaid, and are built upon the foundation of the Prophets and Apoſtles, Chriſt the chiefe corner Epheſ. 2. 20.Stone.
But now in ſtead of the Word of the Lord, for proofe of what he had affirmed in his reaſon, he giveth onelyonly his owne ſaying to very little purpoſe ſurely; That Church, ſaith he, where Baptiſme is the true Ordinance of God (as if God had ſome falſe Ordinances) in the adminiſtration of it. Obſerve, he hath got the word true to helpe him along; that Church, ſaith he, by the rules of the Goſpel is a true Church; what rule or rules he meaneth is hard to gueſſe, he ſetteth downe no place of Scripture. Againe, it is obſervable how he cloſeth with them he oppoſeth, making the Word and Sacraments infallible marks of the Church; yea, one of them alone, to wit, Baptiſme. And yet he holdeth a Church may be Chriſts without Baptiſme, as in his book may be ſeen.
He inferreth further, and thereby will prove (for want of Scripture) that if Baptiſme be true, the Church is true. I aske Maſter I. S. if the Apoſtate ten tribes were a true Church, for it is certaine their Circumciſion was true. So as here the Reader may ſee how he maketh the Church and Baptiſme ſuch ſpeciall relatives, as the one gives being to the other, as the father doth to the ſonne, &c. and yet he holdeth an unbaptized Church, as we noted before.
He addeth further, That it being the Church of God, it is ſinne in any not to communicate with her. A confident charge, but where is the proofe? alas, it is altogether wanting: Communion with a Church is the queſtion to which I ſhall ſay a little, and leave the Reader to judge. Firſt, I diſtinguiſh of Churches; ſecondly, of Communion: Churches are either pure and undefiled, or otherwiſe corrupt, and in ſundry things polluted. Communion, it is either generall, conſiſting in owning, acknowledging, and ſtanding for, or it is ſpeciall and peculiar in fellowſhip and worſhip.
Now for a Church corrupt and defiled, generall communion only can lawfully be extended; eſpecially, if ſhe be greatly defiled, for we may not partake of others ſins, though we are to own their vertues and good things that are in them, and hold relation to them while they 1 Tim. 5. 22.hold the head: but with a pure Church we may and ought to extend communion in all the parts of communion. But the queſtion being of communion with a corrupt Church, I ſay, we are to hold generall communion with the ſame, and to owne it for the relation it hath to Chriſt, ſo long as it holdeth the head. And if particular communion in Ordinance can be extended without partaking in ſinne, we ſhould not be wanting that way, as occaſion is offered. But though with ſuch a Church in generall, and further as we can without ſinne, yet not with her in ſinne; we are to keepe our ſelves pure, as before. And in this caſe, that is very conſiderable, Revel. 18. 4. Come out of her, my people, that ye partake not of her ſinnes.
So that here I both grant and alſo deny that which I. S. affirmeth. I grant, if it be a Church, though corrupt, yet ſo long as it hath relation to Chriſt, it is ſinne not to owne her and acknowledge her relation. I wiſh I. S. were free from this ſinne that condemneth as no Churches of Chriſt all the Churches of God in the world; onelyonly thoſe of his way. I pray him to conſider of it.
I alſo deny what he ſaith, being referred to that ſpeciall communion in ordinance and worſhip, which we are bound no further unto then as we may partake with them without ſinne and defilement; the ſeven thouſand could not, might not, ought not to have bowed to Baal, or kiſſed the calves, or gone to Gilgal to tranſgreſſe; Rom. 11. 4. Hoſea 13. 2. Hoſea 4. 15. Amos 5. 5.nor yet joyne with thoſe Prieſts made of the loweſt of the people, yet were they the Church of God, and Circumciſion and other of Gods Ordinances might be done lawfully of them. Yea, thoſe of the Church did not ſinne in abſtaining communion in Judah it ſelfe in the time of Ahaz and Manaſſes; for, as in going to Gilgal, ſo in going to Hieruſalem they ſhould have tranſgreſſed.
All which conſidered, I conceive it will appeare to be very fabulous which I. S. affirmeth of Infants Baptiſme keeping up the ſtate of Antichriſt; for indeed the contrary is rather true, That the deniall of them right to that holy Ordinance, doth rather keepe up that ſtate by the hardning them, that otherwiſe would come out. And alſo by the great confuſion (like another Babel) which this opinion and practice produceth. All which I leave to the judgement of the godly wiſe.
Reaſon VI It is unlawfull to baptize Infants, for that is to build faith upon humane teſtimony in matters fundamentall; for ſuch as are baptized in infancy, have no other way to ſatisfie themſelves or others but the bare word of man that muſt ſtand in the place of the Word of God, for ſuch their truly receiving ſo holy an Ordinance of God.
Anſwer. This Reaſon is very unlike, I. S. he promiſeth faire for gravity and wiſdome, &c. but ſurely ſuch a ſhallow and unſound Argument was never framed before: I ſuppoſe it is not his owne, but that he hath received it without conſideration from ſome one that he was highly taken withall; and being a new thing, it pleaſed him, and he ſet it amongſt his reaſons why he would not have children baptized, that they might be ſomething for number, though nothing in ſubſtance and weight.
His ſcope is eaſie, but his expreſſions darke and covert; I ſhall goe over them by way of quere. Firſt, I would faine know what faith he here meaneth, whether Hiſtoricall or of ſome other kinde. Secondly, I would know what he meaneth by building faith upon humane teſtimonies. Thirdly, I would know what he meaneth by matters fundamentall, and how the receipt of the Ordinance can be a matter fundamentall, when the perſon may not onelyonly be matter, but part of a Church without it, as he holdeth. Fourthly, I would know how the word of man ſtands in the place of the Word of God, and what he meaneth by the bare word of man in this matter of fact. Laſtly, I would know what he meaneth by truly receiving this holy Ordinance (and whither he hold there be a falſe receiving this Ordinance, and yet the Ordinance holy and true to them that receive it. This Reaſon, as it is ſet down, I take to be ſomething like a ſpell.
The ſumme of it in other words. I take to be this, Infants are not to be baptized, for that they cannot be aſſured when they come to yeers that they were baptized, but by the witneſſe of man; and if that fail, then there is no way of ſatisfying of themſelves that they were at all baptized.
To which I anſwer; firſt, that I would not much ſtrive with a perſon in ſuch a caſe: If that were the cauſe that the probableneſſe of his not being at all Baptized were the cauſe that moved him to deſire to be Baptized; eſpecially if it did appeare to them by whom he ſhould ſeek to be Baptized, that he had not been Baptized at all. But ſurely this is far from the caſe in queſtion; wherein men get themſelves baptized: not that they thinke they were not baptized at all, but that they judge it was not the Baptiſme of Chriſt, becauſe of the corruptions in the ſubject, inſtrument, or the manner of their being baptized, which made the matter null and void.
Secondly, I would have it minded how a perſon circumciſed in youth could be aſſured when he came to yeers, eſpecially if his Circumciſion were gathered and grown, ſo as he could not ſee the print in the fleſh: For this Reaſon, if it hath any force in it, it hath the ſame againſt Circumciſion in Infancy as againſt Baptiſme; for ſuch ſo circumciſed, could be no otherwiſe aſſured then ſuch a way as will come within the compaſſe of humane teſtimony. If it be ſaid, They might ſatisfie themſelves by the ſight of the print of the fleſh; I anſwer, that might be gathered and grown ſo as not to be ſeen. And again, if it were not, that fight is not the Word of God; and beſide, they might be miſtaken, or be circumciſed unlawfully.
Thirdly, that others were circumciſed of old, or are baptized now, eſpecially thoſe to be joyned with in publike Ordinances and ſpeciall communion. Now how could the Iſraelites know of old, or how can it be known now in particular, how will I. S. to put the caſe to himſelfe, how will he, I ſay, know and be aſſured that ſuch and ſuch as he holdeth communion withall are baptized, but by humane teſtimony, inſtead of the Word of God, as he ſaith; he muſt take their own word in their own caſe, whether it be not humane, I leave it to him to judge.
And I demand further, whether upon this his ground any can in faith joyn in fellowſhip and ſpeciall communion, or could of old with any they did not ſee or have not ſeen circumciſed of old, Epheſ. 44. 9.or Baptized now in this diſpenſation of the Goſpell; for ſuppoſe they were Baptized in Holland or in ſome part of this Kingdom, nay in this City, and I not ſee it done, where am I then? by his ground, I muſt beleeve the bare word of man in ſtead of the Word of God in a matter alike fundamentall according to his account.
Fourthly, in matter of fact, I judge Faith of ſuch a nature as we have now in hand, is to goe upon humane teſtimony (if I. S. will have it ſo called) and that ſuch teſtimony is of divine authority and every way ſatisfactory to be reſted in; for at the mouth of two or three witneſſes every truth ſtands ratified. In matter of fact, I Matth. 18. 16.make it appear thus:
That ſuch a people are Chriſts Church; a Church being a fundamentall thing, mens witneſſes muſt carry it and give ſatisfaction, eſpecially in regard of the firſt beginning of a Church, which ſome much ſtand upon.
Again, that ſuch a perſon is the lawfull Miniſter of Chriſt and his Church lawfully choſen and ordained, what way is there of ſatisfaction but the word of man to any but onelyonly to thoſe that were at the acting of it?
Excommunication is an ordinance alike fundamentall with Baptiſme, it is to be done in faith; the practike part of it is to be built upon the teſtimony of men, at the mouth of two or three witneſſes; ſo as here expreſly the word, the bare word of man carrieth the ſame.
So as I conclude, as this reaſon is a fooliſh fancy, ſo it premiſeth wholly upon untruth, and raiſeth unprofitable doubts, and hath the ſame force againſt other Ordinances of Chriſt as it hath againſt Baptiſme of Infants, that it can by no means reach ſo high, as to hinder Infants Baptiſme, all which I leave to the judgement of the Reader.
Reaſon 7 To baptize Infants, makes the Ordinance of God a lying ſigne, becauſe none of thoſe things can be expected in an Infant, which the ſaid Ordinance holds forth or ſignifieth in the adminiſtration of it; which is the parties regeneration, and ſpirituall new birth, a dying and buriall with Chriſt, in reſpect of ſin, and riſing with him in a new life to God, and a confirmation of faith in the death and reſurection of Chriſt, and free remiſſion of ſins by the ſame, as Rom. 6. 3, 4. none of all which can be expected in an Infant.
Anſw. This is a lying accuſation, of a malignant ſpirit, againſt a holy practiſe of an Ordinance of Gods own appointment, for might not any one as truly have ſaid thus of Circumciſion of Infants of old, aſwell as of the Baptiſme of Infants now; for what could be expected of an Infant then, that cannot be now. Did not Circumciſion call for, and lead unto then, as much as Baptiſme doth now? did not Circumciſion call for Circumciſion of heart? Circumciſion Rom. 2. 29.being, as the Apoſtle ſpeaketh of the heart, not of the letter, the praiſe whereof is of God, not of men, did it not alſo call for regeneration, and newneſſe of life? were not the Infants of it ſpirituall above the reach of the creature, eſpecially children, yet it was then no lying ſigne, as I. S. in the caſe of Baptiſme lyingly affirmeth?
Secondly, I ſay, our Lord was baptized, and this Ordinance was no lying ſigne, as it was acted on him; yet thoſe things were not in him, nor could be, which I. S. ſaith, the Ordinance holdeth forth or ſignifieth, namely, Regeneration, a ſpirituall new life, dying to ſin, burying with Chriſt, riſing with him in newneſſe of life, confirmation of faith, and free remiſſion of ſins by the ſame.
What will J. S. ſay now, will he ſay it was a living ſigne, or will he confeſſe his lying accuſation, to be, as indeed it is, lying and falſe, for none of thoſe things which he is pleaſed to ſet downe, as held forth in Baptiſme, or elſe it is a lying ſigne, could be expected, much leſſe be, in Chriſt: And yet he fulfilled righteouſneſſe, in being D. Sclaterbaptized, as is righteouſneſſe fulfilled in Infants Baptiſme, even as it was in their Circumciſion of old.
For we may know, that there are other ends in Baptiſme, as there was in Circumciſion of old, beſides thoſe ſpecified by J. S. as namely, the ſubjecting the creature, and dedicating of him to God outwardly in a way of ſervice. The marking of him for God by ſuch a Character. The differencing of him from the reſt of the World, and inſtructing in inward ſanctification by the outward waſhing.
And here it may be obſerved, that at length J. S. quoteth a Scripture or two, but to little purpoſe ſurely; it is about dipping, for that is new, and pleaſeth him; and ſo in his ſeventh Reaſon at length he commeth out with it. So he concludeth, None of all which can be expected in an Infant: And why not, but only becauſe he ſaith ſo; but his words are no Oracles: for thoſe, or ſome of thoſe may be found in Infants, notwithſtanding what he ſaith. God that works thoſe in an elder, can work them in a Infant, he hath done it as in the caſe of Jeremy, John Baptiſt, he hath promiſed to do it, Deut. 30. 6. And all Gods promiſes are yea & Amen in Chriſt, 1 Cor. 1. 10. Which when J. S. hath conſidered of, he may repent of his error and lying accuſation, as indeed he hath great cauſe for to do.
I ſuppoſe the indifferent Reader will be able to ſee how falſe and unworthy an accuſation this is, which makes Chriſt himſelf an unlawfull ſubject, and Baptiſme a lying ſigne to him; if J. S. his accuſation were true, in as much as thoſe things could not be expected, or be at all in Chriſt, which he ſpecifies as neceſſary, or elſe it is ſo.
Reaſon 8 Becauſe the ſubject of Baptiſme is to be paſſive; but a Infant is no way paſſive, as that Ordinance requires, I mean a paſſive ſubject in a threefold way. Firſt, a thing uncapable, and ſo is a ſtone. Secondly, a thing forced, and thus is a Infant that oppoſeth it Baptiſme what it can, ſo far is it from being paſſive in the ſame. Thirdly, a thing is paſſive by a ſubjecting power producing the ſame in the ſubject, by bringing of it into a free and voluntary ſubjection, and thus is the true ſubject of Baptiſme, none can be capable to receive grace but by grace, becauſe it conſiſts of ſelf-denyall.
Anſw. Firſt, it is marvelous to ſee how contrary and different, theſe men are in their Tenents. A. R. in his Treatiſe of Childiſh Baptiſme, maketh Children to be uncapable Subjects, becauſe they are meer paſſive, as he is pleaſed to ſay: whereas the right ſubjects of Baptiſme (he ſaies) ought to be more then paſſive: J. S. he maketh them uncapable, becauſe they are not paſſive at all; as contrary as theſe men are one to another, even ſo contrary is their opinion to the truth. Namely, their denying Baptiſme to Infants: as untrue alſo is that which he further addeth, that an Infant is no way paſſive, as that Ordinance requires. What that Ordinance requires in a paſſive way, that is not, or cannot be in an Infant in a paſſive way; ſure J. S. cannot ſhew. Infants were paſſive in Circumciſion of old, ſo were perſons of years; and there was no reall difference in paſſiveneſſe, or being patients in that Ordinance of Circumciſion, as there is none now in Baptiſme, betwixt Infants and men of years, though J. S. would by a fooliſh diſtinction of the divers kindes of paſſiveneſſe, ſeek to make it appear otherwiſe. He firſt ſpeaketh of a ſtones being paſſive, but this he ſaith is uncapable; of what is it uncapable? not of totall dipping, no not in a paſſive way. J. S. may pleaſe to remember, what is written of ſuch like ſubjects, namely, The baptizing of cups and pots, &c. which ſure he Mark. 7. 4.forgot, elſe he would not have diſtinguiſhed ſo; Secondly for an Infant, which he ſaith oppoſeth its Baptiſme what it can; I ſay it oppoſeth its Baptiſme no more then it did in Circumciſion of old. But how knoweth he they oppoſe their Baptiſme, becauſe happily they ſhrine and cry; a waighty reaſon ſure: did not Infants, nay, did not perſons of years in Circumciſion do the like: yea more, do not perſons of years ſhrinke and ſhew an unwillingneſſe to be totally dipped in J. S. his way.
Thirdly, For paſſiveneſſe by a ſubjecting power, bringing a thing to a free and voluntary ſubjection; which is, as he ſaith, the true ſubject: It may be obſerved how he rubbeth upon the old ſore, there is ſomthing in Infants wanting, ſome Faith, ſome Repentance, ſome Freeneſſe, ſome willingneſſe of ſubmiſſion, which he is pleaſed to make paſſive qualifications, with little reaſon ſurely: for any man may ſee what the diſeaſe is, they bring nothing to Chriſt, therefore they muſt have no acceptance of him, nor grace from him. Indeed it is works and not grace that here lets: For certainly Infants are as capable of grace, and grace as free to them, as to perſons of years. As both old and young are meer paſſive, in regard of inward grace, and God giveth freely; ſo both are alſo alike paſſive, in regard of outward grace, to wit, that of the *Gen. 17.Covenant, and this in queſtion in particular, namely Baptiſme, the Seale of it: even as in Circumciſion of old. But he hath a kinde of reaſon, although no Scripture, to prove either his diſtinction, or that children are not paſſive; and that is, That none can be capable to receive grace but hy grace, becauſe it conſiſts of ſelf-denyall. Truly, this had need of ſome explaining, ſurely our being ſinners and miſerable, maketh us meet ſubjects for mercy: I reckon, that there is nothing in us, (as of our own) of grace, that can make us capable. I ſuppoſe he holdeth not with the Papiſts foreſeen works or any preparatives that maketh perſons capable of grace. If he mean thus, that none can be capable of the grace of Baptiſme, in an orderly way, but by being within the grace of the Covenant firſt, I ſhould agree with him, and do think, that nothing can be more clear, but that Infants, being within the Covenant, and intereſſed in the grace of God that way, they are capable of further grace, namely, to be ſealed with the Seale thereof, Baptiſme. But what he meaneth I I know not, becauſe he ſaith It conſiſts of ſelf-denyall; If he be able to apply it to the purpoſe now in hand, I ſhall be willing to acknowledge my want of judgement, for to me it is, as if he had ſpake of a man in the Moon: and how far this eight reaſon is from effecting any thing againſt the lawfulneſſe of Infants Baptiſme, I leave it to the Reader to judge.
Reaſon 9 This Doctrine of Infants Baptiſme oppoſeth directly the expreſſe Word of God, by teaching that Infants are in the Covenant of Grace; being borne of believing parents, and ſo a holy ſeed, by vertue of which they have right to Baptiſme, as a priviledge of grace. Againſt which the holy Ghoſt affirms, that all are conceived in ſin, and brought forth in iniquity, and ſo by nature the children of wrath, and under the curſe, and except they be horne againe, they cannoe ſee the Kingdome of God, Pſal. 51. 5. &c. Here man ſaith, that Infants are clear and holy from the wombe, and ſo are ſubjects of grace: But God ſaith, all Infants, as well one as other, are firſt in ſin, and unholy, and ſubjects of wrath, untill the ſecond birth makes the difference, John 3.
Anſw. At the length I. S. hath attayned to the full number of his Reaſons, which are far more by number then by weight, and ſurely this laſt is not in the leaſt behinde the other for ſhallowneſſe; for either he was very ignorant of what he ſet down, or elſe perverſeneſſe of ſpirit carryed him headlong to the multiplying of words without councell againſt the truth. For,
Firſt, I would ask of I. S. whether Iſaac and Jacob, and the Infants of Iſrael, were not in the Covenant of Grace? whether he and they were not a holy ſeed? by vertue of which they had right to Circumciſion, and priviledge of Grace, Rom. 2. 29. That the Covenant to Abraham was a Covenant of Grace, I ſuppoſe he denyeth not; that Circumciſion was a priviledge of Grace, the Seale of that Covenant the Apoſtle teſtifieth in the caſe of Abraham, He received it as the Seal of the righteouſneſſe of faith, Rom. 4. 11.
Secondly, I would know whether Iſaac, the particular Son of Promiſe, Heb. 11. 9.with Jacob fellow-heire, were not borne in ſin? and whether he or they in Infancy were under wrath; ſo as he could not be in the Covenant of Grace.
Thirdly, I would ask him, whether children, being out of the Covenant of Grace, and born in ſin, and ſo under wrath. according to his ſenſe, can poſſibly be converted, ſo as to ſee heaven, if they John 3. Rom. 10. 15.die in Infancy, ſeeing by outward means they cannot come to believe, till they be able to hear, and may not be judged within the Covenant nor baptized, till they manifeſt faith: ſure according to his opinion, to our notion they are all debarred Heaven at a blow.
But truly, as the opinion is, ſo is the conſequences that attend it, erroneous and falſe: but in as much as this ſtone is much ſtumbled at by ſome of that way, I ſhall indeavour to remove it, in ſhewing, that the Doctrine of Infants Baptiſme agreeth fully with the Word of God. The Infants of the faithfull being within the Covenant of grace externally, Gen. 17. 7. That this Covenant is to a thouſand Generations, Pſal. 105. 8. That God is not the God of the Jews only, but of the Gentiles, Rom. 4. 29. That the Gentiles are fellow heires of the ſame body, and partakers of the promiſe in Chriſt, Eph. 3. 6. That there is no Rom. 10. 12.difference, but that he that is Lord of all, is rich to all, Rom. 10. 12. His grace and mercy being not leſſened, but inlarged, All his promiſes of grace being to the Gentiles, yea and amen in Chriſt, 2 Cor. 1. 24.Act. 15. 18.
Touching inward Sanctity, and inward right in the Covenant, as it is Gods worke and intereſſing of whom it pleaſeth him, ſo it is only known to him, To whom all his works are known from the Mar. 22. 14.foundation of the World; A thing not within our Spheare; wee being to meddle with things revealed, and to proceed according to that.
Secondly, this Covenant of grace externally, of which we treat; it is extended more largely then according to J. S. his narrow Deu. 29. 29.minding of it, that ſeemeth as if he would thruſt himſelfe into the room of God, medling with things ſecret, and proceeding in his meaſuring of things that way, making the Covenant of grace externally to be with the inviſible Elect, and not with the called in Jeſus Mat. 22. 14.Chriſt, of whom many are called but few choſen; ſo as he is not able I am ſure as infallible to ſhew one perſon of that Covenant) whereas it is and may be known that the Covenant of grace is made with Chriſts Kingdome, his Church, and that conſiſts of Virgins, five wiſe, and five fooliſh; and Iſrael though as the ſand of the Mat. 25. 2.Sea, yet but a remnant ſhall be ſaved. If J. S. would but be pleaſed to Rom. 9. 27.take notice of the outwardneſſe of the Covenant of grace as before, as well as the inwardneſſe of it; the outwardneſſe of the matter to which the Covenant is made, as well as the inwardneſſe of the matter known only to God, he would ſurely be of another minde, and would not ſay, it croſſeth the Word of God to hold children within the Covenant of Grace, for truly if they be not neither inwardly nor outwardly in the ſame, they are in a ſad caſe, being wonderfull loſers by the comming of Chriſt into the world with grace and Joh. 1. 17.truth, by whom ſo many gaine: But it is evident by what before is declared, that they are in that Covenant, and ſo are to be ſealed as others, with the Seale of it, and that ſo doing is fully according to the Word of God.
But, ſaith he, the Holy Ghoſt affirmes, that all are conceived in ſinne, children of wrath, and under the curſe, ſo as they cannot ſee the Kingdome Groſſe ignorance.of God unleſſe born again.
To which I ſay, Iſaack and Jacob heires of the promiſe were borne in ſinne, and yet in the Covenant of grace, ſo ſoon and before they were born: J. S. is yet beſide the matter and much to ſeeke.
A little to unfold this matter ſo hidden to J. S. and thoſe of his way: There is a different conſideration to be had of this matter, even as there is of a perſon of yeeres, who may truly bee ſaid to be a Saint and alſo a ſinner in a different ſenſe. So the infants of the faithfull may be ſaid to be born in ſin and brought forth in iniquity, and ſo in that conſideration under wrath; and yet in another minding, born the holy ſeed of promiſe, even as Iſaack and the Iſraelites of old, as witneſſeth the Apoſtle, ye are the Children of the promiſe; and again, the promiſe is to you and your children; Act. 3. 25. Act. 2. 19.let it but be conſidered in the caſe of Iſaack in particular, who was in a ſpeciall manner the childe of promiſe, yet he was born in ſinne, &c. Let J. S. and thoſe of his way uſe their wit and reaſon; in ſtead of faith, to find out this matter ſome other way, and they ſhall but tire themſelves in vain: It will appeare a truth fully held forth in the holy Scriptures, that though all men ſince their fall in Adam (Chriſt the new or ſecond Adam excepted) have been, and are born in ſinne, and ſo under wrath that way; yet a number have obtained ſuch free grace, as that (though in another conſideration) they are and have been by generation the ſeed of promiſe, holy, and ſuch as God hath and doth owne for his children, even as hee did Iſaack and the ſeed of Iſrael of old, and the ſeed of the beleeving Gentiles, who are under merciemercy and grace by promiſe, as they are under ſinne and wrath the other way: And were and are high in the account of God, what ever meane account J. S. hath of them; of all which, and who, and what to beleeve, let the upright heart to God judge, as J. S. in the end of his Reaſon ſetteth down, thinking belike he had ſaid ſomething that had concluded all.
But alas, how farre theſe weak and inconſiderate reaſons are from effecting what the Author of them intendeth, any one that is not of a very childiſh underſtanding may be able to diſcerne: for ſure men muſt be childiſh indeed, that in a matter of ſuch weight and concernment as is their outward Chriſtianity, and relation to Chriſt that way, ſhall by ſuch reaſons be ſo ſwayed, as to renounce and reject the ſame.