Selected quad for the lemma: nature_n
Text snippets containing the quad
|
ID |
Title |
Author |
Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) |
STC |
Words |
Pages |
|
A63924
|
A vindication of infant baptism from the four chief objections brought against it ... : in a letter to Mr. **** / by John Turner ...
|
Turner, John, b. 1649 or 50.
|
1699
(1699)
|
Wing T3321; ESTC R1870
|
31,861
|
38
|
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
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