alike But before I explain this Argument I cannot but observe to you by that little I have seen in these Controversies that the naming of such an Argument will raise some Mens Wonder who being quicker to wrangle about Words than to weigh the Reason of Things will break out into Exclamations and say Prove Baptism of Infants from the Example of God! Did Christ ever baptize an Infant Is there one Syllable of such a Practice in all Sacred Writ This must be the Old Thred-bare Argument from the Analogy between Baptism and Circumcision Infants under the Law or before it were Circumcised Ergo they may be Baptized and what a Non-sequitur is this But Sir after all that Raillery and Disdain with which this Argument is treated which has indeed been often urged and as often laughed at yet I must confess I cannot despise it but am perswaded that there is great Force in it if it be stated well and set in a true Light I do not then insist that one was a Type of the other nor argue from a bare Analogy as to Jewish Church Member-ship or the like but my Argument is this Baptism is now the Seal of the Covenant which was once sealed by Circumcision Infants were by God's own Command admitted then Ergo Infants may be admitted now Or thus God did admit Infants into a Covenant of Grace and Salvation thro' Jesus Christ and upon the Conditions of Faith and Obedience in that Covenant made with Abraham and confirmed by the Seal of Circumcision Baptism of Infants does but admit them into the same Covenant upon the same Conditions and as a Seal confirms that Covenant to them Ergo in Baptizing Infants we act by God's own Authority and Example for we do no more in baptizing them than by God's own Ordinance was done in Circumcising them The Rite indeed is changed it was Circumcising it is now Baptism What then The Use of both these Rites is still the same the One is a Seal of the Covenant of God and so is the Other a Seal of the same Covenant And so after all the pretended Non-sequiturs in this Argument from Circumcision to Baptism when the Use or main Design of both these Rites or Sacraments shall appear to be the same the Argument will have Force and the Change of the external Ordinances cannot lessen it In the Prosecution therefore of this Argument I have Two Things which you will challenge me to prove 1. That Circumcision when enjoyned Abraham was ordained to be the Seal of that Covenant which God made with him 2. That the Covenant with Abraham was the same with ours that is a Covenant of Grace and Salvation through Jesus Christ and upon the Conditions of Faith and Obedience And if these Propositions be found true the Consequence I think will be so clear as to want no Proof First That Circumcision when enjoyned Abraham was ordained to be the Seal of that Covenant which God made with him And this I think is very plain both from the Original Institution of Circumcision in the Old Law and the Explanations of it in the New As to the Old Testament God having made some Trial of Abraham by calling him out of his own Country and having found him readily observant in all that he commanded him declares Gen. 17. 2. that he will now establish a Covenant with him I will make my Covenant between me and thee and thou shall be a Father of many Nations Ver. 4. And again Ver. 7. I will establish my Covenant between me and thee and thy Seed after thee in their Generations for an everlasting Covenant to be a God unto thee and to thy Seed after thee And as every Contract among Men must have its Sanction and Establishment so here God declares after what Manner this Covenant should be confirmed Ver. 10. This is my Covenant which ye shall keep between me and you and thy Seed after thee every Man-Child among you shall be Circumcised Which Words do not make Circumcision the Substance of the Covenant but only the Manner of Establishing and Confirming it as appears from the following Verse And ye shall circumcise the Flesh of your Fore-skin and it shall be a Token or Sign of Covenant between me and you And again Ver. 13. My Covenant shall be in your Flesh for an everlasting Covenant that is a Token or Pledge in your Flesh of an everlasting Covenant Bishop Patrick in 〈◊〉 For as a Reverend Father of our own says It was not a meer Mark whereby they should be known to be Abraham's Seed and distinguished from other Nations but they were hereby made the Children of the Covenant and intitled to the Blessings of it and Circumcision was the Seal of it And this is farther evident from the New Testament for St. Paul in his Controversie with the Jews about Justification instances in Abraham whom he declares to be justified not for his being circumcised but for the Faith he had before it Rom. 4. 11. He received the Sign of Circumcision a Seal or Pledge of the Righteousness of that Faith which he had yet being uncircumcised a Seal of that Covenant by which God receives him as Righteous for his Faith And thus St. Peter Acts 7. 8. He gave him the Covenant of Circumcision that is he gave him the Covenant which he sealed and confirmed by Circumcision which is both a usual and very intelligible way of speaking So also St. Paul Gal. 3. 15. Brethren I speak after the Manner of Men if it be but a Man's Covenant yet if it be confirmed no Man disannulleth or addeth thereto And again Ver. 17. he speaks of the Covenant that was confirmed before of God in Christ plainly alluding to this Covenant with Abraham which was Sealed and had its Confirmation by Circumcision 2. The Second Observation was that this Covenant with Abraham of which Circumcision was the Seal is the same Covenant with that which we Christians are now admitted into with God by Christ Mr. Keach I remember disowns this and contrary to what I now maintain offers this Argument p. 47. That Covenant that was made to separate the natural Seed of Abraham from all other Nations of the World and made sure unto them the Earthly Promise of the Land of Canaan could not be a Covenant of Grace which concerns the Infant-Seed of Believers under the Gospel He who often finds Fault with other Peoples Logic should take special Care of his own Here was one little but material Word omitted in this first Proposition It should have run thus That Covenant which was made only to separate c. The want of that only spoils the Consequence It might be made thus to separate Abraham's Seed and it might be made to other Ends too And so it might be a Covenant of Grace notwithstanding God intended by it that Distinction of his People also To prove then that the Covenant besides the Promises it contained of a Land of Canaan and
Disciples by Instruction and Believing Does in so doing exclude all that cannot be taught and believe I answer In this Commission Christ had a more peculiar Regard to the Persons to whom the Apostles were first and more immediately sent who were indeed Men and Women and therefore he mentions such Qualifications antecedent to Baptism as in Reason and the Nature of Things were indispensably necessary considering the State of the World at that time Men were almost universally revolted into Idolatry Ignorance Superstition Profaneness and other great Iniquities And with these Qualifications it was not fit they should be admitted into a Covenant of Grace and Reconciliation with God These were therefore first to be Converted and Reclaimed and then Baptized And this was the great Work to which the Apostles are here Commissioned Now if from hence you argue that none ought to be baptized but those only who are thus taught and made Disciples by actual Belief I must beg leave to ask how you reconcile your Belief of Infants Salvation with these Texts For they as much exclude Infants from Salvation as from Baptism I do not ask how Infants shall be saved for in answer to that you will say Secret Things belong to God But I ask how you who do believe and confess that Infants may and shall be saved do reconcile that Opinion with these Texts and particularly with that of St. Mark which does by the same Consequence prove that Infants cannot be saved as that Infants ought not to be baptized For observe the Argument Christ says Matt. 28. 19. Go make Disciples of all Nations and baptize them And Mark 16. 15 16. Preach the Gospel to every Creature he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved and he that believeth not shall be damned From whence you argue thus None are to be baptized but those who are first made Disciples by believing but Infants are not capable of believing therefore they ought not to be Baptized Now in the very same Manner one may argue thus That Infants shall not be saved He that believeth not shall be damned Infants are not capable of Believing Ergo Infants must all be damned This is just the same Way of Arguing without any Difference at all How will you answer this Will you set up for this Peice of Cruelty that all Infants are damned If not you must say here as we do concerning Baptism That these Texts are improperly and impertinently alledged in the Case of Infants because they were never intended to extend to them Otherwise they will as certainly conclude against the Salvation of Infants as against the Baptism of them in that Faiâ—h and Repentance are as necessary to the one as to the other The Matter then in short is this Men and Women were first of all to be made Disciples by a Saving Faith the Case of Children was a distinct Case to be considered afterwards when their Parents had been first converted And tho' believing was necessary in the Parents to be before their Baptism yet this does not prove that their Infants were to be excluded from the Sacrament because they could not actually believe But you 'll reply is not Faith then necessarily required of Persons to be baptized I answer Where the Apostles found Infidelity and Iniquity they were necessarily to preach Faith and Repentance before they baptized But the Scripture intimates that the Innocence of harmless Babes whose original Guilt is done away by Christ and who never offended him by any actual Transgression is as pleasing to God and as agreeable a Qualification for the Admission into a Covenant of Grace and Mercy and sealing that Covenant by the Sacrament of Baptism as either the Faith of the actual Believer or the Repentance of the Penitent Christ has said of us all That unless we become as little Children Mat. 18. 3. that is for their lovely Innocence we shall in no wise enter into the Kingdom of God I do not argue whether he spake this with a particular Respect to the Baptism of Infants or no. I urge not that But I speak of the Qualifications that recommend us to God's Favour and Mercy And Christ does here declare That their Innocence is as grateful to him as any Man's Faith and Repentance And for this Reason they ought not to be excluded The Truth of what I now maintain I think is sufficiently prov'd from the very Nature of this Sacrament Baptism as I understand it is a Seal for the Confirmation of that Covenant which God has made with Mankind in Jesus Christ and that Covenant is on God's Part a free Promise and Engagement to grant Mercy and Salvation through the Blood of Christ to All whose actual Sins do not render them incapable of and exclude them from it From whence I argue thus Those that are not in a State of actual Sin are capable of being admitted into this Covenant and thereby entitled to the Promises for nothing but Sin made us at first obnoxious to Death and nothing but the Guilt of Sin can exclude us from eternal Life And those that are capable of being admitted into the Covenant and entitled to the Promises are capable of that Sacrament which is the Seal of it This I think is a good Conclusion Infants therefore tho' by Nature born in Sin yet being reconcil'd to God I don't say by Baptism but by the Blood of Jesus Christ are capable of Admission into the Covenant by Baptism which is the Seal of it tho' they do not actually believe For this Reason it is that the Church of England has so judiciously declar'd That Infants baptized and dying before they commit any actual Transgression are undoubtedly saved For dying in a State of Reconciliation and having the Promises of God confirmed by this Seal They are safe having not by any actual Violation of the Covenant forfeited the Claim This cannot but think a reasonable Way of Arguing from the Nature of this Sacrament and Covenant And if it be these Texts do not exclude Infants either directly or by Consequence And methinks it savours of Rashness and Inconsideration to think that because God has required Faith and Repentance of Men in a State of Sin and under the Power of abominable Lusts and consequently altogether unfit to be admitted into Covenant till they abjure their Idolatry and abandon their Vices That therefore innocent Babes who never offended shall not be admitted through want of the same Qualifications The different Circumstances and Conditions of the Persons is a sufficient Proof that the same Qualifications are not necessarily required in both But I foresee some Objections which I will briefly consider and then proceed 1. It is pleaded that Capacity gives no Right you may have a mapacity to be a Justice of Peace but must have a Commission before you ought to act as such And tho' the Innocence of Babes be thus acceptable to God and he does for Christ's sake save them yet this will not at
all countenance their being baptized because it is no where commanded I answer That if this be all then the Case is changed and the Objection is not that Infants are excluded but that their Baptism is no where commanded I was only now to prove that nothing in the Nature of this Sacrament does necessarily exclude them Infants being in a State of Reconciliation and Favour does I think sufficiently prove that How far a particular Command is necessary to be added to this Capacity is another Question that shall be consider'd in its place 2. I may possibly be asked how I reconcile this Doctrine to our Church-Catechism which teaches that Faith and Repentance are required of Persons to be Baptized Indeed I think the Answer is easie for the Catechism speaks first indefinitely without any respect to Adults or Infants as Christ has done in Matt. 28. and declares what in general are the Conditions of the Covenant and consequently not of this Sacrament only but of our Salvation also And these are Faith and Repentance which every one that enters into this Covenant when they come to Age are obliged to But it no where declares that actual Faith and actual Repentance are universally necessary to all Persons whatever that shall be admitted to this Sacrament No it declares the Contrary that tho' Infants by reason of their tender Age cannot perform these Conditions yet they are baptized not upon their Sureties Faith or believing by Proxy But upon the Expectation grounded on their Engagement that the Children shall be taught and exhorted to perform them afterwards And this I think is agreeable to what I have here maintained 3. It may possibly be objected That if this Doctrine be true it will from hence follow that the Infant-Children of Turks Jews and Pagans may be as capable of Baptism as the Children of Believers because they are innocent as well as others and have their original Guilt as well expiated by the Blood of Christ I answer Infants as to Covenants and Privileges are reputed in the same Estate and Right with their Parents and that because being under their Tuition its presumed they will have the same Principles and Persuasion And therefore as the Children of Unbelievers on this account may in some Sense be said to be Partakers of their Parents Infidelity as they are like to be brought up in it For this Reason they are denied Baptism Otherwise they are capable and may be admitted wherever there is sufficient Satisfaction given to the Church that they shall be educated in the Christian Religion And the Reason why they are not admitted now is only on this Account because it would be preposterous to admit Children into a Religion which they were never likely to be instructed and educated in afterwards But I say could the Church be assur'd that they would be instructed and educated in that Faith they also might be baptized and nothing in our Saviour's Commission necessarily excludes them 4. and Lastly If it be objected That this Doctrine makes the Baptism of Infants unnecessary in that if they were in a State of Reconciliation and Favour before Baptism they can profit nothing by being baptized I answer I did not undertake to prove that the Baptism of Infants was absolutely necessary to their Salvation but that it is lawful and not at all disagreeable to Christ's Institution and therefore no just Cause of the Separation from the Communion of our Church which is all that I now contend for CHAP. III. THE Third Objection is That it is an Unwarrantable and Unlawful Practice to baptize Infants because there is you say no Precept nor Command nor Autority for it in all the Word of God And this is the Sheet-Anchor on which you lay the greatest Stress For when we can demonstrate by God's own Autority and Example that the natural Incapacity of Infants is no necessary Bar to exclude them from the Seal of the Covenant you reply all this is nothing because there was an express and positive Command for Circumcising Infants but there is none at all for Baptizing them and when we argue that Faith and Repentance are made as necessary to Salvation as they are to Baptism and consequently do no more exclude Infants from this Sacrament than from Salvation you plead that tho' they are capable and within the Covenant of Grace yet they ought not to be Baptized because it is not Commanded In Christianity nothing is to be done without the express Autority of God's Word And here you load us with heavy Charges of pretending to take the Word of God for our only Rule of Faith and Manners and yet to keep Unscriptural Ordinances and do that which the whole Word of God speaks not one Word of from the Beginning to the End So that we of the Church of England are guilty of adding to the Divine Laws of God in the most weighty Matters of Christianity without his Autority Teaching for Doctrine the Commandments of Men. This is a severe Charge of which if we were indeed guilty it must needs be heavy upon us at the last Great Day And that we may be the better prepared then let it be considered fairly what we have to alledge in our Defence now First This Argument may easily be turned upon you the Baptism of Infants you say is no Gospel-Ordinance 't is not Commanded and therefore it is unlawful I reply 't is no where forbidden and therefore it is not unlawful And this Argument of no Prohibition is of more than ordinary Force here in that God all along in both the former Covenants of Abraham and Moses having commanded Infants to be admitted and sealed by the Sacrament which was ordained for the Confirmation thereof When he changed the Ordinance and instituted Baptism to be the Seal of his Covenant it was then proper to have declared if Infants that were fit Subjects to receive the Seal of it before should now be excluded For his having given no express Prohibition goes a great way to vindicate the Lawfulness of this Paactice in that it seems to show his Pleasure that they should be continued to have the Seal of the Covenant as they had had before For if ever Prohibition was to be expected to declare a Thing unlawful it was to the Abolishing a Practice that had been so long established and received I mean the admitting Infants into Covenant with him 2. But Secondly We have the Autority of God for this Practice in two Respects 1. The Autority of his own Example 2. Of his Command in his revealed Word and Laws 1. We have the Autority of God's Example for our Warrant in this Practice and as Mr. Keach I remember confesses Page 35 36 that an Apostolical Practice or a Gospel-Precedent is of equal Authority with a Gospel-Precept So I hope it will be allowed that a Divine Precedent from the Example of God is of the same Autority also when the Nature of Things and the Circumstances are
A VINDICATION OF Infant Baptism From the FOUR Chief OBJECTIONS Brought Against it Viz I. From the Natural Incapacity of Infants II. From their not actually Believing III. From the Want of an express Command to Baptize them IV. From the Want of Scripture-Precedents for it In a LETTER to Mr. **** By JOHN TVRNER A. M. LECTURER of CHRIST-CHURCH LONDON LONDON Printed for JOHN WYAT at the Rose in St. Paul's Church-yard M DC XCIX A VINDICATION OF Infant Baptism c. SIR IT is now some considerable Time since you and I occasionally reviving some former Discourse that had pass'd between us about the Difference in our Persuasions You desir'd to see my Arguments and to consider them at your Leisure I have now comply'd with that Request but saw it necessary before I could do so to enlarge and illustrate them a little that they might come closer to many of those Scruples which I found sometimes alledged in these Controversies If I give this as one Reason of my not complying sooner with your Desire though I had other Reasons for this Delay yet you are sensible how just an Excuse I have in the few Minutes I can spare from the constant Engagement of my daily Business You 'll perhaps ask why I now send you this in Print which I once seem'd to be averse to But when I found you called in Mr. A to answer my Argument from the 1 Cor. 7. 14. I apprehended the Debate might not continue between you and me alone and therefore thought it better to submit to the Censure of the World than to part with my Papers into private Hands where the Design of them might be mistaken I have carefully avoided all undue Reflections upon either Persons or Parties hoping thereby that I should make no Man my Enemy by a candid Defence of what I firmly believe to be agreeable to the Laws of God and Christ and being desirous whatever Difference there may be in our Persuasions to observe strictly all Rules of Christian Charity Love and Friendship I 'll detain you no longer in the Way of Preface but beg you fairly to consider the following Arguments CHAP. I. THE most considerable Objections that I have yet met with against the Baptism of Infants are these Four I. It is pleaded that it is an unreasonable Practice in that Infants are not capable of knowing any Thing of the Covenant into which they are admitted by it II. That it is contrary to the Institution of our Saviour which you say requiring Persons to be first Instructed before Baptized thereby excludes Infants as incapable of that Antecedent Instruction III. That it is an unwarrantable and unlawful Practice in that there is no Precept nor Command nor Autority for it in all the Word of GOD. IV. and Lastly That there is no mention at all made of such Practice in all the NEW TESTAMENT Now if it be made appear that none of these Objections have any just Force in them this I think will be sufficient to vindicate the Church of England in retaining this Ancient and Pious Practice 1. The First Objection is That it is an unreasonable Practice in that Infants are not capable of knowing any Thing of the Covenant The Want of which Knowledge and the Incapacity thereupon is thought to make their Baptism unreasonable and absurd But if all other Objections have no more Force than this they will admit of a very quick Dispatch 1. In that it is not at all disagreeable to the Reason of Mankind for Infants to be bound in Covenants to the future Performance of Conditions which they at present know nothing at all of nor can be capable of performing till they come to Age. This is common among Men and practised almost every Day Every Will and every Conditional Settlement of an Estate on Heirs is a Covenant And every Contract that a Guardian makes for a Minor is made in that Infant 's Name and he is bound by it and really enjoyns the Benefits of it in Expectation of a future Performance of the Conditions by him And Baptism is only the Seal of a Covenant or Contract between God and Man Why then should it be thought strange or incredible that God should thus deal with us in a Dispensation of Grace and Mercy 2. If the Incapacity of Infants were in the Nature of Things a necessary Bar it must be an Universal and Indispensable One and must exclude Infants from all Covenants with God whatever whether of Works or of Grace whether by the Law or by the Gospel For what arises absolutely from the Nature of Things must needs be Universal and Perpetual and must have always the same Influence But that the Incapacity of Infants is not an Universal and Perpetual Bar to all Covenants our Adversaries themselves I hope will grant in that Infants were admitted into a Covenant with God under the Law If then God admits Infants into a Covenant under the Law he may do so under the Gospel too if he pleases And if God may do so it can be neither Improper nor Unreasonable nor in the Nature of Things Absurd The Difference in the Conditions or Substance of the Covenant makes nothing in the Case the one being Law the other Gospel the one of Works and the other of Grace is nothing to the Purpose because Infants are equally incapable of understanding both And where the whole Stress lies in the Incapacity of the Subject it must have as much Force in the One as in the Other If it be said God may admit them but does not This is running before-hand to a new Objection that shall be considered in its proper place The only Thing now in debate is whether the Natural Incapacity of Infancy be in it self a necessary Bar if it be this must be alledged as an universal Obstacle to all Covenants as well as to this we plainly see that it is not an universal Obstacle because God hath admitted them into Covenant with him and bound them to the Performance of Conditions by that Covenant Therefore this Objection is of no Force in that it does not necessarily conclude Mr. Keach p. 85. This indeed some of your Persuasion seem to grant If then the Incapacity of Infants is not in the Nature of Things a Necessary and Universal Bar to all Covenants in general I am to enquire whether there be any thing in the Christian Covenant peculiarly that excludes them from thence CHAP. II. THE Second Objection is That Infants as incapable of understanding the Covenant and believing and repenting are by our Saviour's Institution Prohibited and Excluded from Baptism for say you the Apostles were to make Disciples by Instruction before they were to Baptize them Matt. 28. 19. Go teach all Nations and then Baptize them And Mark 16. 15 16. He that beleiveth and is baptized shall be saved This say you is the great Charter of the Gospel which requiring Persons that are to be baptized to be first made
a numerous Seed was also a Covenant of Grace and Mercy and Salvation in Jesus Christ and consequently the same Covenant with ours Be pleased Sir to consider 1. That the Covenant was made on the same general Conditions 2. That it contained the same general Promises 3. That both were founded on the same Consideration and had regard to the same Mediator Jesus Christ. 1. That this Covenant which God made with Abraham was founded on the very same Conditions on which that is established which we Christians make with God in Christ the Sum of what the Gospel of Christ requires in order to the Salvation of our Souls is only a firm Faith and sincere Obedience And if this be so the Agreement in this respect is very exact God having required Faith and Obedience by the Covenant which he made with Abraham as strictly and as indispensably as he has done by Christ As to Faith the Case is so very plain and so universally acknowledged on all sides that I shall need to say but little upon it The Faith of Abraham was so eminently renown'd and so illustrious a Pattern to all succeeding Ages that to the everlasting Memory of it he is distinguished by that signal Character the Father of the Faithful and all Christians in the World are called his Children as we walk in the Steps of that Faith Rom. 4. 12. And that this Faith was the Condition of Abraham's being received into Covenant is evident not only from the Old Testament which says Gen. 15. 6. That he believed in the Lord and it was accounted to him for Righteousness but also from the New in which St. Paul convinces the Jewish Converts that the Works of the Law were not the Conditions of Justification and Salvation because Abraham himself was justified by Faith Rom. 4. 2 to 11. And that his Posterity were bound to this general Faith is plain in St. Paul's Vindication of his Orthodoxy on the very Account of his Believing all that is written in the Law and in the Prophets Acts 24. 14. And as Faith was one part of Abraham's Covenant so Obedience was another And this appears plainly by that Injunction which God gave him at the very same time that he was establishing his Covenant with him Gen. 17. 12. The Lord appear'd unto Abraham and said unto him I am the Almighty God walk before me and be thou perfect Which Words the Jews themselves look upon to be so much a Command of Universal Obedience as from thence to conclude that in Circumcision they all covenanted to have no other God but him See Bishop Patrick 2. As Abraham's Covenant is the same with ours in its Conditions so it is in its Promises too The Two great Blessings of the Gospel are Justification here and eternal Life hereafter As to the first of these that Abraham was Justified by his Faith and that consequently Justification is one of the great Benefits and Blessings of the Covenant God made with him is so plainly and expresly asserted in the Gospel that it is needless to go about to prove it And that eternal Life in the World to come was promised to Abraham and his Posterity by Christ as well as it is to us appears from hence that the Land of Canaan has always been looked on as a Type and Figure of Heaven and that not only by us in these latter Ages of the World but is so esteemed by St. Paul himself Heb. 3. 1. And from the Account which the New Testament gives of the Spiritual Meaning and Design of the Old when God declares to Abraham That he would be his God Gen. 17. 7. and to Isaac Gen. 26. 3. and to Jacob Gen. 28. 13 That he intended hereby to reward their Faith and Obedience with the Kingdom of Heaven is evident from the Words of Christ who from these Promises proves the Certainty of such a future State to the Jews among whom it was controverted Mat. 22. 31 32. And St. Paul tells us that Abraham and the Patriarchs expected such a Recompence to be couched under those Temporal Promises Heb. 11. 13. where he says These all died in Faith not having actually received the Promises that is the Blessings promised while they were on Earth but having seen them afar of and were perswaded of them and embraced them and confessed that they were Strangers and Pilgrims on Earth and desired or looked for a better Country that is to say an heavenly And what can be a better Proof that this was a Covenant of Grace than to find the chief Blessings of the Gospel here promised by God and believed and expected by the Patriarchs on the very Conditions of the Gospel But 3. Lastly Both these are founded on the same Consideration and equally have respect to the same Mediator Jesus Christ And for the Confirmation of this we all know that the Promises which God made to Abraham saying In thy Seed shall all the Nations of the Earth be blessed are truly and readily fulfilled only in Jesus Christ And as the Holy Spirit of God has taught us this so Christ tells us that Abraham himself understood it so For discoursing with the Jews about him he said John 8. 56. Your Father Abraham rejoyced and desired to see my Day and he saw it and was glad i. e. he was sollicitous more perfectly to understand the Substance of these Promises and he did understand them to be intended of me and was delighted in the Contemplation But whether all that succeeded this Patriarch had the same particular Communication of this great Mystery is not at all to our Purpose 'T is sufficient that the New Testament declares that what Blessings were thus graciously promised in this Covenant with Abraham were with Reference to and for the Sake of Jesus Christ that was to come And this St. Paul has expresly affirmed Gal. 3. 16 17. Now to Abraham and his Seed were the Promises made he said not to Seeds as of many but as of One and to thy Seed which is Christ So he goes on this I say that the Covenant which was confirmed before of God in Christ c. Affirming in short all that I have here been proving viz. that Circumcision was the Seal for the Confirmation of that very Covenant which God made with Abraham in Christ Four Hundred and Thirty Years before the Law was given So that Abraham had not only the same Covenant with us but the very same Gospel that is preached to us was preached to Abraham also Gal. 3. 8. The Scripture fore-seeing that God would justifie the Heathen through Faith preached before the Gospel unto Abraham What Gospel was it It was certainly the Gospel of Christ through whom alone it was said to Abraham In thee shall all the Nations of the Earth be blessed And it was certainly at the Time when he established that Covenant which was confirmed of God in Christ And all the Seed of Abraham that were circumcised were bound to worship
Parent for as the Children are said to be holy so it is said of the unbelieving Husband or Wife that he or she is sanctified or made holy and therefore as much ought to be baptized Answ But where 's the Force of this Conclusion You seem from hence to infer that there is the same Holiness in both But why so Are there not several Degrees or Kinds of Holiness or Religious Discrimination Are not all Christians holy by their Profession In which Sense St. Paul calls them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Saints or holy Ones by way of Distinction from other Men And are not all true Christians holy by a real Sanctification of God's Spirit And yet these are not the same Again Are not all that minister at the Altar holy in a third Sense by their Office There is then an internal and there is an external Holiness there is a real actual Holiness consisting in Faith and Obedience by the Sanctification of the Spirit and there is a relative Holiness consisting in Separation by Profession or Privilege or Office Here then are different Degrees of Holiness ascrib'd to different Persons according to their several Circumstances The Holiness of the Believer is of one Kind that of the Unbeliever of another that of their Children of a third And so this Objection can be of no Force in that it s founded on this gross Mistake That the Holiness is the same in all Object 2. It is objected That the Holiness or Sanctification of the unbelieving Parent is mentioned by the Apostle as The Cause of the Childrens Holiness Otherwise i. e. were it not that the Unbeliever was thus sanctified your Children were unclean but now are they holy Consequently say you there is a stronger Argument in this Text for baptizing the unbelieving Parent than the Children Even as The Cause is more noble than the Effect Answ I answer If it had been said One Cause of the Childrens Holiness it had sounded better because the Cause looks as tho' it were the chief or only Cause in which Sense the Assertion is not true For the Logicians have justly taught us to distinguish that there is a principal Cause and a less principal Cause The Holiness of the unbelieving Parent is at most but a less principal Cause of the Holiness of the Children or a Cause sine quâ non otherwise were the Children unclean but now are they holy And if this be St. Paul's Meaning yet then in this Sense the Conclusion will fail For whereas it is alledged that on this Account the Words are a stronger Argument for Baptizing the unbelieving Parents than their Children even as the Cause is more noble than the Effect Here lies the Weakness of this Objection which is indeed a downright Fallacy for it is not the less principal but the Principal Cause only that is nobler than the Effect 'T is one of the Maxims of Logic that the less principal Cause Semper est deterior effectu suo is always less noble than the Effect There can then be no Force in this Conclusion unless Men will assert that the Holiness of the unbelieving Parent is the Principal Cause of the Holiness of the Children which is more than St. Paul ever said Object 3. It is objected That a Foederal Holiness cannot be intended here unless it be supposed that the unbelieving Husband or Wife is in the Covenant of Grace Answ But why so I have already shown that their Holiness is not the same the one therefore may be a Foederal Holiness and the other not and so this is a false Deduction Object 4. Another Objection is That if here he meant a Foederal Holiness whereby Infants are set apart from the rest of the World as Members of Christ's Church they ought to be admitted to the Lord's Supper also which Ordinance is no less a Duty and Privilege of every Member of Christ's Church than Baptism And therefore says Mr. A It is well known that among the Ancients Infants were for a time admitted to this Sacrament as well as to the former But seeing none now to the Latter why to the Former He who makes this Objection has furnish'd me with an Answer to it and says That Self-examination is urged as a Bar in this But if this be all I shall not thank him for the Invention There is another and I am perswaded a better Argument drawn from the different Nature and Design of these Two Sacraments For Baptism is a Sacrament of Initiation the other of Confirmation And tho' God may and does of his abundant Grace admit Infants into his Covenant yet the Renewing of this Covenant is founded on a Supposition of our Frailty who more or less do all transgress the Conditions of our Baptismal Vow and impair our Hope The Lord's Supper therefore was intended the stronger to oblige Men to actual Faith and Repentance after the Violation of their first Vow and to administer Comfort in our Penitential Sorrows in the Commemoration of our Saviour's Passion This Sacrament therefore in the very Nature of it always supposes actual Faith and Repentance which Baptism does not Actual Faith and Repentance are not universally necessary to Baptism as I have proved above but where Sin and Infidelity have gone before For he that has never sinn'd has nothing to repent of And the Innocence of the Person then is a sufficient Qualification for Baptism where there is a rational Hope that he shall afterwards believe and obey the Gospel But the Lord's Supper which was design'd for the Renewing and Confirmation of our Vow supposes both that Vow to have been broken and that Breach to have been repented of There is not therefore the same Reason for admitting Infants to the Lord's Supper as to Baptism because the different Nature and End of each Sacrament shows the One to be proper and the other not For which Cause that Custom is now left off I think then Mr. A 's Objections against my Interpretation of this Text appear to have very little or no Force I desire now that my Reasons against his Interpretation of the Place may be as fairly considered and as impartial a Judgment pass'd upon them Which is most agreeable to the Context and the Force of the Apostle's Argument and Design His Interpretation is this The Scope of the Apostle determines the Sanctification or Holiness of the unbelieving Husband or Wife to be no other than Matrimonial Holiness or Chastity in Opposition to Vncleanness or Fornication in which Sense it is taken 1 Thess 4. 3 4 7. and consequently by the Holiness of the Children flowing from it we may understand no other than Legitimacy in which Sense we read of a godly or holy Seed Mal. 2. 15. So that St. Paul here bring◠Two Arguments to prove the Marriage to be good 1. Because the Vnbeliever 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hath been sanctified not by but to or unto the Believer by being joyned in holy Matrimony and consequently a