An Apology for the Discipline of the Ancient Church, Part 3 · Section 6 · Excerpt 2
8. Or groundleſſe application of publick or private Baptiſme unto the infants of profane parents:Mr. Matthews. and if none but Chriſts faithful friends and followers were admitted to be fed or phyſick'd at his ſupper feaſt.
The Reply.
That this popular exception put in as a a bar of applying the Sacraments to infants of Chriſtians and other perſons may be removed, neceſſary it is that we fetch our principles farther then at the firſt view may ſeem requiſite; for we muſt look as farre as Abraham when God renewed his Covenant with man; the words are, I will eſtabliſh my Covenant betwixt me and thee, and thy ſeed after thee in their generations for an everlaſting Covenant, Gen. 17.7.to be a God to thee, and to thy ſeed after thee. That is, whereas other Nations have their ſeveral gods, yet I will be thy God, thou ſhalt have no other Gods but m…, and I will be a God unto thee; for I will reveal my will unto thee, according to which thou oughteſt to live, for I will write it in thy heart, Heb. 8.10, 11. Secondly, I will pardon thy tranſgreſſions, and be merciful to thy unrighteouſneſſe and ſinnes, ver. 12. Thirdly, I will give grace or ſtrength, which though it may not enable thee to live without ſinning, yet ſuch as is ſufficient to performe what is neceſſary under this Covenant, Rom. 10.8. Deut. 30.11, 14. This Covenant I make with thee, but not with thee only, but with thy ſeed. Now can we but know who was this ſeed, we might eaſily diſcern to whom this Covenant doth extend. In the primary ſenſe thereof it was Chriſt, Gen. 3.15. Gal. 3.16. For this Covenant was made in Chriſt, ſealed in his blood, and in him made Yea and Amen, verifyed and ratifyed. Secondly, thy ſeed takes in all men whether Jew or Gentile, as Saint Paul evidently proves, Rom. 4. For Abraham had two kind of ſonnes; ex carne, or ex fide, of the fleſh, and under the Law, as the Jews, Rom. 4.8, 9.of faith and under the regiment of the Spirit, as the Gentiles alſo. For is this bleſſing come on the circumciſion onelyonly, or the uncircumciſion alſo? For we ſay, that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteouſneſſe, and that it was reckoned ſo to him when he was in uncircumciſion, evident it is, that it belonged to the uncircumciſed, as the Apoſtle argues.
The Covenant we ſee, and with whom it is made, Abraham, and with his ſeed the Jew, and to all that are a farre off, even as many as the Lord our God ſhall call, as Saint Peter openeth the promiſe, Acts 2, 39. Now let us ſee upon what conditions this Covenant was made with Abraham; that is expreſſed alſo, Gen. 17.1. Walk before me and be thou perfect, which is alſo required of all his ſeed, if they mean to have benefit by the Covenant. They then are to walk before God in faith and obedience as Abraham did, and be perfect, not that either can be exact and perfect in this life; but it is required by this Covenant that we become new creatures, renewed in ſincere, honeſt, and faithful obedience to the whole Goſpel. In a word, the condition required of us is faith, hope, charity, ſelf-denial, repentance, a careful and induſtrious husbanding of Gods grace, daily prayer for daily encreaſe, and attending diligently to the means of grace.
To ſtrengthen the faith of Abraham and his ſeed in the aſſurance of what was promiſed, and for a memorial of what was to be performed, it pleaſed God to have a ſeal ſet in his fleſh, and in the fleſh of his ſeed for that time, which was circumciſion. To this ſeal all the males of the Jews had a right, and this ſeal was cut into them, yea, and as many Proſelytes alſo; who were content to become proſelytae foederis, Proſelytes of the Covenant. The other whom they call'd the Proſelytes of their gates, they entred them into the Covenant, and bound them to the obſervation of the ſeven Commandments of Noah by a kinde of purification by water, and the blood of oblation, in the ſame kinde as they admitted their women.
The Covenant is the ſelf-ſame under the Goſpel that then God made with Abraham, on the ſame conditions, of the ſame extent; only it hath another ſeal; theirs was circumciſion, and ours baptiſme; the cutting of the fleſh gave entrance to them, the waſhing by water gives an entrance and admiſſion to us. And about this the queſtion is, whether it be to be with-held from the children of any who bear the name of Chriſtians? And it is obſervable how this queſtion fi…ſt grew, and what progreſſe it had. At firſt ſome good-minded men ſet it on foot, being occaſioned by the children of profeſſed Pahiſts living among them whom they conceived to be Idolatrous, and conſequently out of Covenant; this cauſed Farel to write to Calvin about it:Calvin Ep. 149. whoſe anſwer to him is this, but not ſound; Where both the parents are Popiſh, we think it an abſurd thing for us to baptize them which are not members of our body; and ſith Papiſts children are ſuch, we ſee not how it ſhould be lawful for us to adminiſter Baptiſme unto them. But ſounder by much is that anſwer of the Eccleſiaſtical Colledge of Geneva unto Knox, who ſcrupled at the ſame and grew more rigid, and wrote to them that he held it not only unlawful to baptize the children of Idolaters, but even Baſtards,Ep. 283. and excommunicate perſons till reconciled to the Church. To whom they returned this ſentence, that whereſoever the profeſſion of Chriſtianity hath not utterly periſhed and been extinct,Ep. 285. infants are beguiled of their right, if the common ſeal be denied them, which concluſion as I will by and by prove, is ſound. But I go on, for the miſtake ſtaid not here; for when it came to Mr. Cartwright: Anvil, he beat it broader; for he aſſerted that none might receive the Sacrament of Baptiſme but they whoſe Parents, at leaſt the one of them, are by the ſoundneſſe of their Religion, and by their vertuous demeanours known to be men of God;Hook. lib. 5. pag. 155. and by this rule the children of thoſe they called Hereticks, Misbelievers, and Profane livers alſo came to be excluded. Next the Browniſt took it up, and conveyed it over to you of the Combinational Church, both imparting Baptiſme to very few infants,Burtons vindication pag. 62. viz. to thoſe alone, whoſe immediate Parents are members of their Congregation. Out of you ariſe the Anabaptiſts, and they peremptorily deny the Baptiſme of all infants, born to the members of the Combination or to any other, till they are able to give an accompt of their faith, and enter into a Church Covenant for themſelves. At laſt the Shaker comes upon the Stage, and gives out of his Cup of trembling a vomit to all Ordinances; theſe are outward Rites; Baptiſme, the Euchariſt, needleſſe ſeals to any, old or young, ſince he and his company are inwardly ſealed by the Spirit.
This was the ſtratageme of that old Serpent; for had he preſented this bewitching poſition to the world at fi…ſt in the laſt ugly ſhape it now appears, he knew that all men would have with honour heard it, therefore he inſinuated it, and cauſed it to be taken down by certain gulps, ſteps and degrees, that the potion might be ſwallowed, and the poyſon not at all perceived.
Now this errour, that I call it no worſe, in ſome hath been nouriſhed, in that they have not fully weighed the purport of this diſtinction of the myſtical and viſible body of Chriſt. This is but one, and we uſually call it the Church, which contains in it two ſorts of people, either outward Profeſſours, or true inward believers. Theſe laſt belong to the myſtical body of Chriſt, which therefore is called myſtical, becauſe the myſtery of their conjunction is altogether removed from ſenſe; in theſe their love is ſound and ſincere, and comes from a pure heart and a good conſcience, and faith unfeigned, and they (no doubt) do and ſhall obtain whatſoever was made over by the ſecond Covenant. Thoſe outward profeſſours, who either before Chriſts coming, or ſince his appearing in the fleſh, have been called by the name of Chriſtians; we call the viſible body, becauſe being Jews or Gentiles they are incorporated into one body; have but one Lord, whoſe ſervants they profeſſe themſelves to be; have one faith, which they all acknowledge; one Baptiſme, by which they are all initiated. For although we know the Chriſtian Faith, and allow it, we are then but entring; entred we are not into this viſible Church, till our admittance by the dore of Baptiſme: and who they are that enter that way, is very well known even to the eye, whence we uſually call theſe the viſible Church, which is not ſo to be underſtood, as if thoſe of the inviſible Church, were not viſible Chriſtians alſo. For both moleties, whether myſtical or viſible, as touching their profeſſion, are the object of the eye: eaſie it is for any man to ſay, this man is a Chriſtian, that man a Heathen: But this diſtinction ariſeth from the ſincerity or unſincerity of the profeſſours, becauſe we are never able to ſee and diſcern who they are that ſincerely profeſſe the Truth, therefore we call theſe inviſible; but becauſe we are eaſily able to judge of the men who enter by Baptiſme, therefore the whole is called a viſible Church. In whomſoever therefore is found the profeſſion of one Lord, one Faith, one Baptiſme, thoſe the Church doth acknowledge for her children; and all thoſe none of hers in whom they are not found: as Jews, Turks, Heathens, &c. Others for their external profeſſion are Chriſtians, and are of the viſible Church of Chriſt. And among theſe there are ſome who profeſſe the Truth, but not wholly and entirely, and theſe are Hereticks; ſome that profeſſe the whole ſaving Truth, but not in unity, and theſe are Schiſmaticks; ſome that profeſſe the whole ſaving Truth in unity, but not in ſincerity and ſanctity, and theſe are hypocrites and profane perſons; others that profeſſe the whole ſaving Truth in unity and ſincerity of a good and ſanctifyed life, and theſe are true beleevers and good Chriſtians.
Yet Chriſtians by external profeſſion thoſe all are; who carry that external mark I now named, yea, although they be impious Idolaters, wicked Hereticks, Schiſmaticks, Hypocrites, profane perſons, and excommunicable, yea, and caſt out for notorious improbity. For they are but ſo caſt out, that they may be taken again upon their repentance, and that without the ſetting the ſeal anew; which might not be done, if they had been utterly caſt off. There is but one way onelyonly, after a man is entred by Baptiſme, that can make him forfeit his whole eſtate in Church ſociety, and that is a general revolt and Apoſtacy from his Chriſtian profeſſion, as turning Turk, Jew or Infidel.
All theſe, except the ſincere profeſſours, we deny not, may be the Imps and Limbs of Satan, even as long as they continue ſuch; is it then poſſible for the ſelf-ſame men to be the Synagogue of Satan, and to be the Church of Jeſus Chriſt? unto that Church which is his myſtical body, it is not poſſible, becauſe that body conſiſteth of none but true Iſraelites, true ſonnes of Abraham, true ſervants and Saints of God. Howbeit that they be true and real, and not equivocal Members of the outward viſible body, it is very poſſible, notwithſtanding the unſincerity of their profeſſion, and the wickedneſſe of their converſation, which is worthily both hateful in the eyes of God himſelf, and in the eyes of the ſounder part of the viſible Church moſt execrable.
If you doubt of the truth of this, remember the Parables of the Corne Field, the Net, the ten Virgins, the Barn-floor, the houſe in which were veſſels of honour and diſhonour. And if theſe ſatisfie not, then look upon thoſe two plain Texts, 1 Cor. 5.11, 12. There are ſcandalous perſons enumerated, a Fornicatour, Covetous, a Drunkard, yet within, that is, within the Church and Covenant, yet a brother of the viſible ſociety for all that; and indeed except he be looked upon as a brother, and as within, how could he be caſt out by excommunication? for what have we to do to judge thoſe who are without? The other place, is 2 Theſſ. 3.15. Among whom there was a diſorderly perſon, yet he was not to be counted as an enemy, not to be eſteemed as one out of the Church, an Unbeliever, an Heathen, but to be admoniſhed as a brother.
For lack of diligent obſerving this difference, firſt, betwixt the Church of God, myſtical and viſible; then betwixt the viſible ſound and corrupted, corrupted ſometimes more, ſometimes leſſe; Thirdly, in not taking notice of the latitude of the Covenant which belongs to the viſible Church, as a proprium quarto modo; i. e. as an eſſential mark, the overſights are not few nor light that have been committed. To paſſe by others, you, becauſe Chriſts true body is made up of none but ſincere profeſſours, preſently conclude, that none but ſincere profeſſours are of Chriſts body, which is true of the myſtical, but not of the viſible. Then you reſtraine the Covenant, as if it belonged to none but the Elect, whereas it belongs to all thoſe to whom God ſaid to Abraham, I will be to the a God, and thy ſeed after thee, whether ſonnes ex lege, or ex fide. Thirdly, whereas the Covenant was made with the Catholick viſible Church, you reſtrain it to your Combinational; ſo that they who are not Members of that, ſhall have no right to the ſeals; nor to it, not any other ſhall they claim any right at all, who are not regenerate, whereas this diſtinction obſerved, would ſet you right. We muſt diſtinguiſh betwixt the effectual benefits of Chriſt, held forth in the Ordinance, and a right to the external Ordinance. The former right and priviledge belongs only indeed to the regenerate; for they only effectually to life receive the ſeals. But the latter to all within the Church, to all Church Members, for a night they have to the external Ordinance. Or you may if you pleaſe conceive it thus. The Sacrament may be conſidered in ſenſu compoſito, that is, with the entire fruits and benefits of the Covenant, unto which truth of grace and faith is neceſſarily required, and ſo to the Reprobate the Sacrament belongs not; or elſe in ſenſu diviſo, preciſely in the Ordinance it ſelf, abſtracted from thoſe graces, and ſo it is Church-memberſhip alone, or external Covenant-relation, denominating men, ſubjects, ſonnes, Saints, believers, diſciples, brethren; Chriſtians, that gives men right unto the ſeal. Fifthly, You over-haſtily and uncharitably cenſure all Hereticks, Papiſts, wicked perſons, and excommunicable, or excommunicate to be without the Covenant; and that therefore if they be Parents of children, the applying of publick or private Baptiſme to their children is groundleſſe. Which miſtake of yours how great it is, I ſhall make it farther appear by theſe evident arguments.
1. That which is unjuſt may not be done; but to debarre a Chriſtians child from the ſeal of the Covenant is unjuſt; therefore it may not be done. Minor probatur.
It is unjuſt to puniſh the child for the fathers ſinne, Ezek. 18.20. But to debarre from the ſeal, it is to puniſh the child for the fathers ſinne; therefore to debarre a Chriſtians childe from the ſeale of the Covenant is unjuſt.
If to the Major it be anſwered that this is ſometimes done, and that the child ſuffers for the fathers offence, it may be admitted in a temporal puniſhment, but never in a ſpiritual, of which kind this is, and therefore may not be inflicted.
2. They who were not to be kept from the ſeal of the Covenant under the Law for their fathers iniquity, may not be kept from it for that cauſe under the Goſpel: But under the Law children were not kept from the ſeale for their fathers iniquity; therefore not to be kept from it under the Goſpel: and conſequently not to be hindred from Baptiſme.
The Major of this Syllogiſme is eaſily proved, becauſe the Covenant of the New Teſtament is ſaid to be better than the Old, Heb. 7.22. & 8.6. But to accompt this priviledge of the ſeal to belong onelyonly to ſome Chriſtians children, which was in common to the Jews, is to make it worſe in the New Teſtament than in the Old;Calvin inſtitut. lib. 4. cap. 16. Sect 6. which is injurious to do: Arbitrari Chriſtum adventu ſuo patris gratiam imminuiſſe, aut decurtaſſe, execrabili blaſphemia non vacat. Upon this ground then to keep a childe from Baptiſme is great injuſtice. Minor probatur. This was not done among the Jews; for make the Jewiſh Parents as bad as you will, a generation of unbelievers, who knew not God, that tempted him, and grieved his Holy Spirit in the Wilderneſſe, yet for this, the children were not to be deprived of the ſeal for their fathers ſinne; for Joſhua was commanded to circumciſe the children of theſe Rebels. So again, they came to be worſhippers of the golden Calf, adored the Brazen S rpent, bowed the knees to Baal, Joſhua 5.&c. howbeit they remained the ſheep of his flock in the depth of their diſobedience, and thoſe very children they offered unto Moloch, were his ſonnes and his daughters born to him. Jer. 13.11. Ezek. 16.20.Hic children, becauſe born within the Covenant, of which they yet retained the ſeal. Let it be ſhewed that ever the child of any wicked Jew was uncircumciſed, or therefore not admitted to be circumciſed, becauſe his father was wicked. And certainly there is ſo much ſtrength in the inſtance of circumciſion, Joſh. 5. for this large right of Ordinances from Covenant relation, that it will hold out againſt all that can be ſaid againſt it.
3. Thoſe who have a right to the Covenant, have alſo a right to the ſeal. But Chriſtian children have a right to the Covenant; therefore a right to the ſeal.
The Major is manifeſt in reaſon; for it were a ſtrange thing to ſay a man had right to Land, and yet had no right to the evidences and the ſeals of the Writings by which that Land was conveyed over unto him. Minor probatur. But Chriſtian children have a right to the Covenant, be the Parents never ſo ungracious, Gen. 17.7. Iſhmael circumciſed, and Eſau. Acts 2.38. To you and to your ſeed, among whom were Ananias, Sapphyra, Simon Magus. But thus I prove it yet more clearly.
Thoſe who are holy have a right to the Covenant. 1 Cor. 7.14.This is granted. But children of Believing Parents are holy. Therefore, &c.
You can in this Minor except only at two terms, beleeving and holy, and I ſhall juſtifie both. For perhaps you may ſay Idolatours, profane perſons, are no beleevers; but you are miſtaken; for in the number of beleevers they are to be accompted, till they renounce their faith. The denomination of a beleever is as well derived from a right object beleeved, as from the holineſſe of the ſubject beleeving. And I have my ground for this out of the Apoſtle, 1 Cor. 7.14. Where the unbeleeving husband is ſaid to be ſanctifyed by the beleeving wife, where beleeving and unbeleeving and oppoſite terms; and therefore as by unbeleeving you are to underſtand a … by a beleeving wife you are to underſtand a Chriſtian, who might … guilty for ought you know of ſome of thoſe ſinnes for which Saint Paul … the Corinthians, and yet becauſe ſhe was a Profeſſour of Chriſtianity, and within the viſible Church, therefore he ſaith, your children are holy. 2. Holy, which is the other terme; which being not poſſibly to be underſtood of inherent holineſſe, becauſe the child of the beſt Saint, at his birth is no more holy than another, there being an equal guilt of original ſinne upon both: muſt be underſtood of a relative holineſſe, that is, as they who ſtand in relation to the Covenant, into which they are actually admitted by Baptiſme; And then again foreign unclean are in Saint Peters ſenſe, Acts 10.14. the Gentiles, ſuch who might not be received into the Church; and then foreign, holy, being ſuch as are oppoſed to it, muſt neceſſarily ſignifie thoſe children who may be admitted. Laſtly, if this were not the importance of that place, there were no priviledge imaginable, no ſanctity which could be attributed to the infants of Chriſtians, which could not belong to the infants of Heathens, which is affirmed of the one, and denyed of the other by the Apoſtle.
Laſtly, They who by their iniquity loſt not their right and priviledge in the Covenant, cannot be the occaſion that their children loſe it. But profane perſons loſe not their right, as I proved before, becauſe notwithſtanding their iniquity, they remain ſtill Members of the viſible Church; therefore there is no reaſon for their ſakes, their ſeed and children ſhould loſe their right. Divers other reaſons I could give you for this, did I not ſtudy brevity. Our application then of Baptiſme to the children of profane perſons, is not groundleſſe, but hath its foundation in that gracious Covenant that God made with Abraham and his ſeed, which was extended to the whole Church of Chriſt, whither inviſible or viſible, which laſt, becauſe it takes in all profeſſours as well as believers, their ſeed alſo no leſs then the other as they have a right to the Covenant, ſo alſo have they a right to the ſeals of the Covenant, may be baptized and admitted to the Lords Supper, whatever you think to the contrary. To Baptiſme you would have no children of profane perſons admitted, ſuppoſing they have loſt their priviledge, and to the Supper of the Lord, none but his faithful friends and followers. For thus you ſay,