The Grounds and Ends of the Baptism of the Children of the Faithful, Chapter 4 – Chapter 5
CHAP. IV.
VVHat may bee your firſt Argument againſt the Baptiſme of Infants?Silvanus.
The firſt that I have met withall is that (whereto you have already ſpoken in part) becauſe there is neither command,Silveſter. nor example in all the New Teſtament for the baptizing of Infants. And yet the Order and Government of the New Teſtament in the adminiſtration thereof, is no way inferiour to the Old. But in the Old Teſtament there was an expreſſe Rule, by Commandement from God, what Communicants were to bee admitted to Circumciſion, 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 bee practiſed.
To this Argument you have received an Anſwer already:Silvanus. when in the beginning of our conference, I gave you three grounds for the Baptiſme of Infants: the two former from the Commandement of Chriſt, and of his Apoſtle in the New Teſtament: the third from the Old and New Teſtament together, gathered from the Analogy of Circumciſion and Baptiſme. The Commandement of Chriſt was cleared from Matth. 28.19, 20. The Commandement of the Apoſtle was opened from Acts 2.39. The Analogy of Circumciſion and Baptiſme, was urged from Gen. 17. with Col. 2.11, 12.
Silveſter.I have already acquainted you with the ſumme of thoſe exceptions, which I have met withall, againſt all the Arguments which you have alledged for the grounding of the Baptiſme of Infants upon any word of Commandement or Inſtitution from Chriſt and his Apoſtles. OnelyOnly one exception further commeth to my minde againſt your third Argument, taken from the Analogy of Circumciſion and Baptiſme.
Suppoſe that the Covenant of God with Abraham, wherein hee promiſeth to bee a God to him and his ſeed doe continue to beleevers and our ſeed now in the dayes of the New Teſtament: Suppoſe alſo that Baptiſme doe ſucceed Circumciſion: yet as it was not the promiſe of God to Abraham that was a ſufficient ground of Circumciſion, but Gods word of Commandement, (or elſe it would have been ſin to Abraham, to have circumciſed his ſeed:) ſo neither is it the promiſe and Covenant of God to beleevers, to bee a God to us, and our ſeed, that can bee a ſufficient ground to us of baptizing our Infants.
Silvanus.I did make account, this exception had been prevented above, as well as the reſt. For wee doe not ground the Baptiſme of Infants meerly upon the promiſe of grace, that God is a God to us and our ſeed: but upon the Commandement of God, that they to whom God is a God, by Covenant, they ſhould receive the ſeale of the Covenant. Which Commandement was (as you know) expreſſely given to Abraham: and thereupon hee circumciſed himſelf and his ſeed, Gen. 17.10, 11. If then the ſame Covenant bee now given to the faithfull and our ſeed, and if Baptiſme bee given to us in ſtead of Circumciſion, then the ſame Commandement which required Abraham to bee circumciſed and his ſeed, requireth us to bee baptized and our ſeed. And indeed upon this very ground the Apoſtle Peter urgeth every one of them who repented, to bee baptized, they and their ſeed, becauſe the promiſe was given to them and their ſeed. The ſtrength of which Commandement of his, lay in the Commandement of God to faithfull Abraham, to bee circumciſed and his ſeed, and the ſubſtitution of Baptiſme now in the room of Circumciſion. And verely there is the ſame morall equity, and reaſon of the Commandement, both to faithfull Iſraelites, and faithfull Chriſtians. For as the Circumciſion of Abraham and his ſeed, confirmed the faith of Abraham, that God would bee a God to him and his ſeed: And alſo engaged Abraham, both himſelf to walk in the obedience of Gods will, and to traine up his children to walke accordingly; ſo the faithfull of the new Teſtament ſtand in the like need to have their faith confirmed, that God will bee a God to us and our ſeed: And we are in like ſort engaged both to walke in Gods wayes our ſelves, and to bring up our children in the like holy inſtruction and information of the Lord.
But let it be examined a little,Silveſter. how the authority of the commandement of Circumciſion can beare out the authority of baptizing infants. Circumciſion it doth not; for all agree that wee are now to baptize, not to circumciſe. The Miniſter circumciſing it doth not; then the Maſter of the family was to circumciſe, now one ordained by Chriſt in the Church to baptize. The ſame part of the body it doth not; that circumciſed the foreskin, Baptiſme the whole man. The age it doth not; that the eighth day, this any day. The ſubject it doth not; that a male onelyonly, this both male and female. Now in that it doth not enjoyne any of all theſe: wherein then can the authority of that commandement conſiſt now in Baptiſme, ſo as to enjoyne Infants to be baptized? And whereas men cry out from that command, that Infants, Infants, Infants muſt be baptized, as they were commanded to bee circumciſed: Why, this commandement, if it ſhould be ſo, ſerves for none but onelyonly males. So that if they will have the females to be baptized, they muſt looke out another commandement for them, and ſo there muſt be two commandements in one Ordinance.
There is no inconvenience for two commandements to meet in one Ordinance. Circumciſion was more then once commanded,Silvanus. (Gen. 17. Lev. 12.) So was the Paſſeover, Exod. 12 Numb. 9. Levit. 23.5. Neither is it another commandement that wee alledge for the baptizing of females, but onelyonly an example, Acts 8.12. which yet being precedentiall, is of like force as a commandement; look wherin wee vary in the adminiſtration of Baptiſme from the Rite and manner of Circumciſion, wee have juſt warrant for it in the New Teſtament. Elſe we ſhould no more have varyed from it, then did the Proſelytes of the Old Teſtament. The rite of Circumciſing, and of the foreskin, is expreſly aboliſhed, Gal. 5.2. And we are ſaid now to be circumciſed in being baptized, Col. 2.11, 12. The Miniſter of Circumciſion, if it were not removed in the Old Teſtament from the family to the Synagogue, from the father of the family to the Levite; yet ſurely removed it was by Chriſt, to the Miniſters of the Goſpel, Mat. 28.19. The age had ſomething in it ceremoniall, as hath been ſhewed above. The ſex (or ſubject, as you call it) was enlarged by the example of Philip, Acts 8.12. So that we vary in nothing from the Commandement of circumciſion, but by the like warrant whereby Circumciſion was at firſt commanded. Shew us the like warrant for the rejecting of infants from Baptiſme, as we ſhew you for the changing of all the reſt, and reaſon will require we ſhould hearken to you.
Tell us not, that Iohn Baptiſt baptized ſuch as profeſſed their faith and repentance; and Philip baptized the Eunuch upon the profeſſion of his faith.
For we doe alſo now require the like from Proſelytes or converts of grown yeares, whether Jewes or Pagans. But ſhew us any ground from Scripture (either out of the Old or New Teſtament) whereby infants are excluded either from the Covenant, or from the ſeale of the Covenant, and then we ſhall plead no longer for the Baptiſme of infants from the Analogie of Circumciſion.
Silveſter.I will not preſſe againe, that which hath been alledged before. But there is ſomething further that ſticks with me, which may anſwer your demand, and give you a ground for the excluſion of Infants, alledged out of Gal. 4.22, 23, 24, 25. Where the two Mothers, Hagar, and Sarah type out the two Teſtaments; and their two ſonnes, Iſhm…el, and Iſaac, type out the ſubjects of the ſame; the one by the bond-woman, born after the fleſh; but hee of the free-woman was by promiſe, v. 23. Now as Hagar the mother, ſignified the old ſtate in generall; ſo Iſhmael her ſonne, ſignified the children of the ſame ſtate, borne after the fleſh, as hee was. For though hee was the child of Abraham, yet hee was no child of promiſe. Now for Sarah ſhe was the lawfull wife of Abraham, and ſo a free-woman, with whom the Apoſtle compareth the eſtate of the Church of the New Teſtament, the true Spouſe and wife of Chriſt, who is free from all ſervitude and bondage, and ſtands onelyonly in ſubjection to Chriſt her husband, as Sarah did to Abraham; and Iſaac her ſonne, ſignifying the true, holy, and bleſſed ſeed. Of this holy ſtock, according to the Spirit, and ſo as Iſaac was true heire according to promiſe. For the Goſpel approveth of none, as true heires of the bleſſing, and ſo the right ſeed, and truly in the Covenant, but onelyonly ſuch as the promiſe produceth and brings forth, as it did Iſaac. For Iſaac came not by ordinary courſe of nature, but by vertue of the promiſe of God, and faith in the ſame, which raiſed nature above it ſelfe, to bring him forth. By this the wiſdome of God holds forth as in a figure, who are Abrahams ſeed approved of in the Goſpel, and they are ſuch as are brought forth by a power above nature, which is by the promiſe of God, and faith in the ſame, as Iſaac was, &c.
Your whole gloſſe upon this text ſtandeth like the Temple of Dag…n, upon two maine pillars, which being overthrowne,Silvanus. the whole fabrick will fall (like Dagon himſelfe) before the Arke of the Covenant.
1. You conceive that Hagar and Sarah ſignifie the ſeverall eſtate of the Churches of the Old and New Teſtament, Hagar the old ſtate of the Church in the Old Teſtament: and Sar… the ſtate of the Church of the New Teſtament.
2. You conceive that their two ſons type out the different ſubjects of the ſame. But neither of both theſe will ſtand with the Apoſtles words, nor ſcope. His ſcope is to diſpute not againſt infants to exclude them from being ſubjects of the Church: but to exclude legall Juſticiaries (ſuch as deſired to be under the law) from being children of the Covenant of grace. The words of the Apoſtle are theſe: The two Mothers, are the two Covenants, v. 24. not the old ſtate of the Church in the Old Teſtament, and the new ſtate of the Church in the New Teſtament; Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia, (ſaith he) and anſwereth (or ſtandeth in the ſame rank, as the word ſignifieth) to Hieruſalem that now is, v. 25. Marke that I pray you, hee ſaith, not to Hieruſalem in her old eſtate, in the dayes of the godly Kings, and holy Prieſts, and Prophets, and people (the Saints of the Lord who looked to bee ſaved by the grace of Chriſt, as well as we, Acts 15.11.) but to Hieruſalem that now is, under the corrupt and degenerate Prieſts and Rulers, Scribes, Phariſees, and Sadduces, who renounced Chriſt, and the righteouſneſſe of faith in him, and ſeek to eſtabliſh their owne righteouſneſſe which is by the law. And though ſome of them received Chriſt, (as did the falſe Teachers in the Churches of Galatia) and did alſo acknowledge their freedome from the ſacrifices and burnt offerings, and from many other Leviticall Ceremonies of the Law, yet ſo long as they looked to be juſtified by the works of the moral law, and retained circumciſion as ſtill neceſſary by the law, they ſtill pertained to Hieruſalem that now is (as the Apoſtle calleth it) and all of them were children of the bond-woman, that is, of the Covenant of the Law given on Mount Sinai. It is therefore a groſſe error, and withall a notorious injury to the godly Saints that lived in the dayes of the Old Teſtament, to account them the children of Hagar, and to make it a part of their bondage, that their Infants were received into the fellowſhip of the Church with themſelves. No, no, whilſt themſelves believed in the promiſed ſeed for righteouſneſſe and ſalvation, and their children were circumciſed into the grace of the Covenant (the righteouſneſſe of faith) they and their ſeed were accounted the children of the Covenant of grace, (the free-woman) till any of them rejected that grace, as Iſhmael and Eſau did.
By this which hath been ſaid, may eaſily bee underſtood, what is meant by Sarah: not the ſtate of the Church of the New Teſtament, (as you confine it, rather then define it) but the Covenant of Grace, by which God (of his Grace) gave himſelfe to bee a God to beleevers and to their ſeed, both in the Old and New Teſtament, till any of them ſhould afterwards grow up to renounce him, and the Grace of his Covenant, which if they doe, then their Circumciſion is made uncircumciſion: and they renouncing the Covenant of Grace, fall under the Covenant of the Law, and come to bee accurſed by the Law.
But for the children of this Covenant (of whom Iſaac was a type) they are not onelyonly ſuch as are Regenerate, above the ordinary courſe of Nature, by vertue of the Covenant of Grace, and ſo doe beleeve in the promiſe of Grace for righteouſneſſe and ſalvation; but alſo the children of ſuch beleeving Parents, whom their Parents doe beget in the Faith of the Covenant and Promiſe of Grace to themſelves and their ſeed. For Iſaac himſelf when he was an Infant born, hee was not as then born anew of the promiſe and ſpirit of Grace, but his Father begot him in the Faith of the Promiſe. And his Mother Sarah by Faith received ſtrength to conceive ſeed, becauſe ſhee judged him faithfull who had promiſed, Heb. 11.11.
The ſecond main pillar upon which your gloſſe on this Text, is held up, is, that the two ſons, Iſhmael and Iſaac, type out the different ſubjects of theſe two ſtates of Churches: Iſhmael being a type of the eſtate in generall of the Church of the old Teſtament, and Iſaac being a type of the ſtate of the Churches of the New Teſtament.
But neither will this gloſſe ſtand with the Apoſtles words. For the Apoſtle maketh theſe two ſons to bee the children engendred (or bred) of theſe two Mothers. Now children as they are engendred or bred of their Mothers, they are not properly the ſubjects of their Mothers (though they bee ſubject to them) but their effects. The Mothers therefore being not the twofold ſtate of the Churches of the Old and New Teſtament, but the two Covenants of the Law and of Grace, Iſhmael the ſon of Hagar the bond-woman, is the type of all thoſe Members in the Church, whether of the Old or New Teſtament, as who look for righteouſneſſe and ſalvation by the works of the Law, and doe therefore lye under the bondage, and curſe of the Law, ſuch were thoſe in Micah 6. who thought God would be pleaſed and appeaſed with thouſands of Lambs and ten thouſand Rivers of oyle, v. 6, 7. Such alſo at that time was the whole body generally of the Prieſts and Rulers, and People of Hieruſalem in the Apoſtles dayes, which hee calleth the Hieruſalem that now is. And ſuch were all the falſe Apoſtles and falſe Teachers, and their Diſciples in the Churches of Galatia, Phil…ppi, and Coloſſe, who refuſed the righteouſneſſe of God by faith in Chriſt Jeſus, and ſought to eſtabliſh their owne righteouſneſſe by the works of the law; on the other ſide, Iſaac being the ſonne of Sarah the free-woman, and Sarah repreſenting the Covenant of Grace, he is the type of all thoſe members in the Church, whether before Chriſt in the Old Teſtament, or ſince Chriſt in the New, as are begotten and bred of the promiſe and Covenant of grace, wherby by God giveth himſelfe to bee a God to the believer and his ſeed: who therefore looke for all their righteouſneſſe and ſalvation to themſelves and their ſeed, not from the workes of the Law, nor from all their outward priviledges, but from the grace and righteouſneſſe of God in Chriſt Jeſus. OnelyOnly thus much further I will not ſtick to grant you, That as the two Covenants are the two mothers that are repreſented by Hagar and Sarah; ſo thoſe Churches that are begotten and bred of either of theſe Covenants, (and ſo are themſelves the children of the one, or of the other of theſe Covenants) they may be ſaid to bee the mothers of thoſe particular members, which by their Miniſtery are engendred and bred; whether of the carnall ſeed of the Covenant of the Law, or of the ſpiritual ſeed of the Covenant of Grace. For in the Hebrew language, any whole Society is called a mother, and the particular members thereof are called children, ſons or daughters. And this may ſomewhat further help to cleare the words and meaning of the Apoſtle in this place. For the Apoſtle here maketh the Covenant of the Law to anſwer to Hieruſalem that now is, v. 25. as if ſo bee the Covenant of the law, and the Church of the preſent Hieruſalem, which ſtood for the Covenant of the law, were both foreign, of one rank, and either of them might be called an Hagar, a mother ingendering their children unto bondage. And indeed the Church engendereth and breedeth her children, by diſpenſing and adminiſtring the ſeed of that Covenant, of which themſelves are begotten. In like manner the Apoſtle maketh the other mother Sarah, the Covenant of grace to be all one with the true Church of Chriſt, which he calleth the Hieruſalem which is above, and maketh her the mother of us all, v. 26. Becauſe though ſhee bee her ſelfe begotten and bred of the Covenant of grace, yet ſhee diſpenſing and adminiſtring the ſame ſpirituall ſeed, begetteth children like her ſelf, partakers of the lib…rty of the ſons of God.
And yet to adde a word more (which may tend further to clear the words and meaning of the Apoſtle) as this ſeed of the Covenant of Grace, diſpenſed and adminiſtred by true and pure Churches, is rightly called ſpirituall ſeed, in which the Spirit of grace delighteth to breath and worke; and therefore they that are begotten of it, are ſaid to be borne after the Spirit: So the ſeed of the Covenant of the Law, is rightly called ſeed, as that which leaveth men that are begotten of it more carnall then they were before. For it either puffeth them up to a carnall confidence of their owne ſtrength and righteouſneſſe, or elſe ſinketh them into an horrible pit of diffidence and deſperation. And therefore they that are begotten of it, are rightly and fitly ſaid to be borne after the fleſh. And that is the very true meaning of the Apoſtles words, Gal 4.29. As it was then, ſo is it now: He that was borne after the fleſh, perſecuted him that was borne after the Spirit. Where by ſuch as are "borne after the fleſh, the Apoſtle doth not mean (as you underſtand him) ſuch as are born by an ordinary courſe of nature, in a way of a naturall generation; but ſuch as are bred and begotten of the carnall ſeed of the Covenant of the law; which as it begot in Iſhmael a carnall confidence of his own ſtrength (or elſe he would never have ſleighted and mocked the promiſed ſeed:) ſo it begot in Cain, and Saul, and Judas, an utter deſpaire of grace and ſalvation.
Thus then you ſee (I hope) at the length a true and juſt anſwer unto your firſt argument againſt the Baptiſme of Infants, taken from the ſuppoſed want of command or example of the baptizing of Infants in all the New Teſtament. By that which you have heard, it appeareth to the contrary, that the Baptiſme of Infants hath not wanted a commandement from Chriſt in the inſtitution of Baptiſme, Mat. 28. nor a commandement from the Apoſtle (joyned with an example) in the firſt ſolemne adminiſtration of Baptiſme, Acts 2. nor a commandement and example from the Lord God in the inſtitution of a proportionall ſeale of the ſame Covenant, in the dayes of Abraham, Gen. 17. which though you ſeem to undervalue, becauſe it is fetched out of the Old Teſtament; yet be not you deceived by the equivocation of the name. For the Old and New Teſtament is ſometimes put for the Covenants of the Law, and of grace, (as Gal. 4.24, 25.) ſometimes for the Books of the Old and New Teſtament, as 2 Cor. 3.14. Now true it is, that the inſtitution of the Covenant of grace, and of the ſeale of the Covenant of grace, Gen. 17. is found indeed in the bookes of the Old Teſtament; but the ſubſtance of the New Teſtament, and the circumſtances of that Ordinance, which are changed in the books of the New Teſtament, they are not changed by way of abrogation or diminution, but by way of accompliſhment and enlargement. The Covenant is inlarged from the ſtock of Abraham to all Nations; the ſeal of the Covenant, Circumciſion, is tranſlated to another more eaſie and acceptable; the time is inlarged in reſpect of the day; the Miniſter is inlarged in reſpect of his publike place; the ſubject is inlarged in reſpect of the ſex; and ſurely not diminiſhed, nor ſtraitned in reſpect of the age. It is therefore a needleſſe pretence to plead, That ſurely the New Teſtament, and the Order, Government, and Adminiſtration thereof, are no way inferiour to the old Teſtament, where all things are directed by expreſſe rule.
For a great part of the New Teſtament, or Covenant is expreſly delivered in the bookes of the Old Teſtament. Paul profeſſeth publickly, he taught nothing but what Moſes and the Prophets did ſay ſhould come, Acts 26.22. And the greateſt part of the bookes of the Old Teſtament hold forth the Doctrine, Worſhip, Order and Government of the New Teſtament, to ſuch who have not a vaile laid over their hearts in the reading of the Old Teſtament, 2 Cor. 3.14. Let us therefore proceed to your other arguments, againſt the baptiſm of Infants, and conſider if there bee any greater weight on ſtrength in them.
CHAP. V.
Silveſter.I Have met with this as a ſecond argument againſt the Baptiſme of Infants, That in the Baptiſme of infants there is an high contempt and injury offered to Chriſt, as hee is the husband of the Church, (his holy Spouſe) to force upon him a naturall wife, himſelfe being ſpirituall, and deſireth the like aſſociate; whereas ſuch a Church is founded upon the natural bith, namely Infants; becauſe commonly to one that is born of the ſpirit, there is twenty born of the fleſh.
Silvanus.Chriſt did not take it as ſuch an high contempt or injury offered to him by Abraham, Iſaac, and Jacob, and the whole houſe of Iſrael, that the infants of his people, and of the Proſelytes that joyned to them, were received into Covenant with him, and admitted to the ſeale thereof; when as yet himſelfe was as ſpirituall then as now he is. You doe herein apparently charge Chriſt himſelf with folly, and with indignity offered to himſelfe; that he ſhould ſo much forget himſelfe, that he being ſpirituall, ſhould take ſo many thouſand Infants into the Covenant with him, who for the moſt part are naturall, and (as you ſay) for one that is born of the Spirit, there were twenty born of the fleſh.
But againe, let me tell you, that though Chriſt in taking a company to be a Church unto himſelfe, doth enter into marriage Covenant with them, both in the Old Teſtament, Jer. 31.32. and in the New, 2 Cor. 11.2. yet not into a marriage Covenant with each member at firſt. Chriſt entred into a marriage Covenant with the Congregation of Iſrael in the wilderneſſe, Ezek. 16.8. yet the children of this Congregation he calleth them not his Spouſes, but his children, v. 20, 21.
Furthermore, you ſhall doe well to obſerve, what Spirit breaths in ſuch a ſpeech, when you ſay, That ſuch a Church as receiveth infants of beleeving parents into the fellowſhip of the Covenant, and ſeale thereof, that ſuch a Church is founded upon the naturall birth. For the Lord himſelfe ſpeaketh of ſuch a Church of Iſrael, as founded upon his Covenant, Ezek. 16.8. And the Apoſtle ſaith, We are built upon the ſame foundation of the Prophets and Apoſtles, Jeſus Chriſt himſelfe being the chiefe corner ſtone, Eph…. 2.19, 20, 21. See what a vaſt difference there is betweene the Spirit of your language, and the language of the Spirit of Chriſt.