3. Let us view those Scriptures that directly hold forth the nature, ends,
how then can he have right to the ordinance sealing the same? Some possibly may say it seals the conditional covenant of grace to such a one. But, not to examine the conditionality of the covenant of grace, denied by many godly and learned divines, 1. This is inconsistent with the common doctrine of orthodox divines, teaching, That the efficacy of baptism is not tied to the moment of time wherein it is administered: for if it seal the conditional covenant to such, it is certain its efficacy is tied to that moment; for we know no other efficacy of it but effectual obsignation. 2. Baptism either seals that conditional covenant as merely offered and not accepted, or as both offered and accepted. If the first be said, then, 1. It seals no engagement on our part; which is not only contrary to the orthodox doctrine of divines about baptism, but is inconsistent with what the Scriptures say of the baptized, their being "buried with Christ in baptism, baptized into Christ, into one body," &c. 2. How then can any deny baptism unto those to whom the conditional covenant is held forth, whether they consent to be disciples of Christ or not? If the second be said, the case is altered, yea the cause is yielded: for such as accept of the covenant are in Christ, seeing there can be no entering now into covenant with God but through the Mediator. It will not help the cause to allege, that it seals the conditional covenant, as accepted externally by profession: for God doth propose faith, and not profession, as the terms of the conditional covenant of grace; and therefore whoso come not up to the terms defined by God himself in his word, they are not accounted before the Lord to have accepted of the covenant, though before men they may be so accounted of; in regard not faith in itself, but the profession of it, vocal or real, appeareth to them. If any shall say, that baptism seals visible church membership to those that have no saving interest in Christ, his righteousness, &c. I would demand a proof of that, that baptism is appointed to seal visible church membership, and no other benefit of the covenant; or where it can be found, that God sealeth the benefits of the covenant by halves. As Mr. Baxter observes, the end of a sacrament must enter the definition thereof; and it is certain it is appointed of God to seal the righteousness of faith, remission of sins, &c. to some. If then it be appointed to seal only visible church membership to others, there must be two baptisms, though the apostle tells us there is but one, Eph. 4:5.
3. Let us view those Scriptures that directly hold forth the nature, ends,
and uses of baptism. Math. 3:11. "I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance," eis metanoian. So it is called the baptism of repentance, Acts 19:4. John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance: not in respect of repentance to come after, but going before; for John baptized none but those that confessed their sins, Matth. 3:6. and he required of them a profession of their faith in him that was to come,* Acts 19:4. It is called the baptism of repentance, for remission of sin, Mark 1:4. Peter calls those pricked at the heart to repent and be baptized for the remission of sin; where it can be no otherwise understood, but in testimony and confirmation of remission of sins, as our divines shew against the Papists. Rom. 4:11. He received circumcision, a seal of the righteousness which he had before. Gal. 3:27. "For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ, have put on Christ;" where baptism is made a seal of our union with Christ, which is one of the ends of baptism. This end, says a learned man,* none but the faithful do obtain; for, as the apostle says in the same place, "Ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus." So baptism is called the laver of regeneration, and we are said to be baptized into Christ's death, and into one body; all which are to be understood of baptism, as sealing those things done already. From which it appears, that none but such as have an interest in Christ have right to baptism before the Lord. Which will be further clear by the arguments to be adduced for proof of the next conclusion.
Many testimonies might be adduced which are given by orthodox divines, unto this truth, whereof some afterwards shall be touched. But Mr. Fulwood flies in the face of it, in his discourse of the visible church. "The word of God" says he "Gen. 17:23. acknowledged, that one may have a right to the first seal of the covenant, and that coram Deo, that hath no saving grace. Ishmael was thirteen years old, ver. 25. when he was circumcised, and therefore of age to answer for himself; yet Ishmael had no saving grace, neither was he within the covenant of Isaac—the covenant of absolute and certain salvation, from which he was excluded, ver. 19. Yet Ishmael hath a right to the first seal of the covenant coram Deo, as is most evident from the immediate command of God, that he that was born in Abraham's house, must needs be circumcised, ver. 12. and accordingly Abraham understood it. He proceeds upon the command of God to circumcise Ishmael first of all. Now what is it that giveth one
right to any ordinance but the command, or at least more evidently than the command of God himself? And that right which we have from God's command, is doubtless a right coram Deo, and in his sight."
In answer to this, I deny that Ishmael had a right to circumcision coram Deo; and the contrary is very far from being most evident from the immediate command of God, ver. 12. The command of God layeth an obligation on such as it is directed unto, to make use of such an ordinance as the command relateth unto; but it giveth not a right to any ordinance. If the ordinance which the command respects be not a sealing ordinance, then indeed the command pre-supposeth the person's right thereto, and evidenceth it; the ordinance being such as requires no special qualification in the party to found his right thereto: As it is in the hearing of the word, the command to hear pre-supposeth a right to hear, otherwise ministers should, at the command of God, preach to them that have no right to hear; for the command to hear obligeth not but when there is something spoken that may be heard. But if the ordinance be a sealing ordinance, as that we now speak of is, then the receiving of it comes under a twofold notion; first, of a duty; and, secondly, of a special privilege; the confounding whereof, or not distinguishing of the same, seems to be the ground of this mistake. It is a duty, because commanded; it is a special privilege, because allowed only to a certain sort of persons. Now, in such a case there is some special qualification in the party required to found his right to the sealing ordinance. I think this learned man will not say but it was necessary, that the party having right to circumcision, should be one in covenant with God, whatever that covenant he said to be; and that a person no way in covenant with God, could have no right thereto coram Deo: so that the right to that ordinance turned on the hinge of personal qualifications undeniably; and the command of God did not give a right to it, but obliged to the qualification (whatever it was), and to the usemaking of the ordinance, and that conjunctly; but did not so much as evidence a right thereto, either before God or the church. And what is said of circumcision, agrees to all sealing ordinances: so that what is alleged by the learned man concerning the right to a sealing ordinance, from God's command obliging to receive, it is de subjecto non supponente, in my opinion. And the thing he had to prove, was, that the command of God in such a case gives a right to the
ordinance; which cannot be received without proof, and upon a bare assertion. When Peter, in the name of the Lord, commands every one of those to whom he spoke to be baptized, Acts 2:38. it did indeed oblige them to submit to that holy ordinance, but in the meantime to go about it in God's own way, and to be persons duly qualified for baptism. But this command did not evidence their right thereto, either coram Deo or cram ecclesiœ, while they continued impenitent murderers of the Lord of glory; nay nor at all; for it was upon their gladly receiving the word that the apostle proceeded to admit them. Here then I would ask, 1. Whether or not those persons to whom the apostle said, "Be baptized every one of you," were obliged to submit to this ordinance? That they were, is manifest, if the command of God, by the mouth of his servant, could oblige them. 2. Whether or not, while they continued impenitent mockers of religion, enemies to Christ, neither sorrowing for their sins, nor professing sorrow for them, not believing nor repenting, nor appearing so to do, might the apostles have baptized them? or could they lawfully have received baptism? Whoso will say they might, would pour contempt on Christ's holy ordinance. Sure I am, had they baptized them in such a case, they had gone beyond the bounds of their commission, obliging them first to disciple, then to baptize. From all which it appears, that persons may be obliged to the receiving of baptism by virtue of the command of God, and yet have no right thereto, either before God or the church. Again, the command of Christ, "Do this in remembrance of me," obligeth all that hear the gospel to partake of the sacrament of the Lord's supper, as God giveth opportunity; yet it neither gives all a right thereto before God or the church: nay nor does it evidence the same; for there are many that may not lawfully partake, and many that may not lawfully be admitted thereto by church officers, notwithstanding that the command of God obligeth them to do this. If it be their sin not to partake, which it must needs be, Christ revealing his will to them, whereof this is a part; then it is their duty to receive it: yet they may not lawfully receive it, while continuing in their open wickedness. All that hear the gospel have not a right to it, either before God or the church, as I think none will deny. All indeed ought to eat; but, according to the apostle, they must first examine themselves, and then eat.* Ursin upon that question, "Who ought to come to the supper?" tells us, "The sacraments are appointed for the faithful and converted only, to seal the promise of the gospel to them, and
confirm their faith." And that the wicked and hypocrites ought not to come; not that they are not obliged to come, that is not his meaning; but that they cannot lawfully come as is manifest from what he says afterwards, that such not coming peccatum peccato cumulant, "heap sin on sin." But hear the objection against this doctrine, and his answer to it. "OBJECTION. 'God commands all to make use of the sacraments.' ANSWER. He commands to all the use of the sacraments; yet the lawful use, which is not without faith and repentance. He commands that all be baptized, and make use of the supper; but he also commands that all believe and repent, Acts 2:38." Let us suppose, a master commands his servant to sow his ground; doth this give a right to him to go immediately and cast in the seed, before that ever he break the ground with the plough, and make it fit for the receiving of the seed? Should he go thus to work, he were a disobedient servant. Neither could it excuse that he had his master's immediate command to sow his ground. Even so in the present case. Ishmael being by the command of God obliged to receive the seal of the righteousness of faith, was eo ipso obliged to receive the righteousness of faith; and till then he had no right to the seal before the Lord.
CONCLUSION II. Visible believers, and such as have a profession of religion, probably signifying their having a saving interest in Christ, have a right to baptism before the church, so that they may be admitted thereto, though indeed they have no saving grace, yea or never shall have it. This may be allowed without a scrupulous inquiry into their state before God; and men in this case ought to take the first probable profession as the ground of admission. All this is clear from the examples of baptism recorded in the Scriptures, particularly from the practise of John the Baptist, Matt. 3:6: and of Philip baptizing the Samaritans, and amongst them Simon the Magician; and his baptizing the eunuch, Acts 8. And truly, if an apparently serious profession did not warrant the church to give the seals to such persons as have it, they could administer them to none without a revelation from God as to the person's state before the Lord. But this is so plain, that it were in vain to stand upon further proof thereof. And therefore we proceed to
CONCLUSION III. None but visible believers, or such as appear to have a
saving interest in Christ, have right to baptism before the church. Whatever people do profess, in words, as to their faith in Christ, &c. if their profession be openly and visibly contradicted and belied by their practice; if they be habitually profane in their walk, or grossly ignorant of the fundamental points of the Christian religion, they ought not to be baptized, though they offer themselves to baptism.
ARGUMENT I. "That which is holy is not to be given to dogs, neither are pearls to be cast before swine," Matth, 7:6. But the sacrament of baptism is a holy thing, and those that are not visible saints, are visible dogs and swine: Prov. 26:11, "As a dog returned to his vomit, so a fool to his folly." 2 Pet. 2:18, 20. Who is the fool, but he that understandeth not, and doth not seek after God, who is altogether corrupt and filthy? Psal. 14. Our Lord himself tells us, that "it is not meet to take the children's bread, and cast it to dogs," Matth. 15:26. "And therefore," as Zanchy* saith, "to admit unto the sacrament of baptism the impenitent and unbelievers, what else is it but to trample under foot, the blood of Christ, and expose it to mockery?" It were frivolous to say, that if this prove aught, it would prove that no unregenerate man ought to be baptized; for they are those fools; for indeed, as was said before, none of these have a right to the ordinance before the Lord. But be what they will as to their state before God, unless they appear to us to be fools, dogs, and swine, we are not to hold them as such, but to esteem them risible saints, as they are indeed supposed to be.
ARGUMENT II. None ought to be baptized but visible disciples of Christ; for in baptism there is an open acknowledging of the party for a disciple of Christ. He ought to be looked on as a servant of the great Master, before he get on his badge, and wear his livery. The commission for baptizing runs so, first to make disciples, then to baptize, Matt, 28:19. And this is the very native order of these things. But none but visible believers can be acknowledged for Christ's disciples. Ergo, The assumption I prove. 1. None can be esteemed Christ's disciples, but those that appear to have "learned of the Father," and so also have come to Christ, being drawn effectually by the Father, John 6:44, 45; and none but visible believers are such. Though that the Lord may have begun to teach others, and they are beginning to learn of him, yet till this appear to us, we can never reckon them disciples of Christ. Let it be remembered,
that we do acknowledge infants to be disciples of Christ, as well as adult persons; and whatever is, or may be said on this head, must be understood de subjecto capaci, and without prejudice to the holy seed, the infants of the faithful. 2. We must judge of people's discipleship by their fruit, Matt. 7:20, "By their fruit ye shall know them;" viz. whether they be Christ's disciples, or the devil's. This our Lord plainly teacheth, John 15:8, "Herein is my Father glorified, that ye bring forth much fruit; so shall ye be" (i. e. appear, yea further appear, to be) "my disciples." The same is taught, John 8:31, "If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed." Hence it plainly follows, that none but visible saints are visible disciples of Christ, and that such whose practice belies their profession are excluded. 3. Such as are worse than infidels, cannot be reckoned disciples of Christ; such as have denied the faith, are worse than infidels;* and those whose practice openly contradicts their profession, have denied the faith; for though they "profess to know God, yet in works they deny him," Tit. 1:16; and it is horrid indeed to think on sealing them with the seal of the covenant that in their works deny God, unto whom "nothing is pure, who are abominable, disobedient, and to every good work reprobate." 4. We are plainly instructed what it is without which none can be Christ's disciples. Luke 14:26, 27, "If any man hate not his father and mother;—and whosoever doth not bear his cross, and come after me, cannot be my disciple." Will Christ acknowledge men as his disciples, on no other terms? then, without the appearance of these things, we ought not to reckon persons his disciples. Neither are ever any called disciples of Christ in the Scriptures, but such as were visible believers. We read indeed, John 6:66, "that many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him," and so some visible believers apostatize: not that they are visible disciples of Christ when they fall into a total and final apostacy; but they that now are apostates, were visible disciples of Christ before. When we say an apostate disciple, or a disciple gone back, the term disciple is affected with alienation, as philosophers speak; as when we say, a dead man, the meaning is, he who was a man while living, is now dead. Hence it appears, that the argument taken by Fulwood* from this Scripture, to prove that the visible church may be considered to be truly a church of Christ without respect to saving grace, is of no use to his purpose. "Now, let it be supposed," says he, "that they now ceased to be disciples, (and truly I think it may not only be supposed,
but fully concluded they now ceased to be disciples), yet this only evidenceth, for the time past, that they never had any true grace, howbeit they were then disciples. Unless they had gone on, they could not have gone back; and so long as they went on, they were disciples. Not those that seemed, but those that were disciples, went back." It is true indeed, that the apostacy of these persons evidenced, for the time past, that they never had any true grace; but it did not evidence that they never had any evidence, before men, of true grace, or that they never had any appearance of true grace, which, unless his argument prove it, cannot reach his conclusion: yea, it evidenceth the quite contrary, that they had some time an appearance of saving grace, in so far as they were accounted disciples of Christ, and to have walked with him. But I deny that their apostacy only evidenced they had no true grace; it evidenced also, that they were never the true disciples whom Christ sent his disciples to make and baptize, and so no church members before God: for, as Mr. Baxter saith, "When Christ saith, Make me disciples of all nations baptizing them, he means sincere disciples, though we cannot ever know them to be sincere." It is a weak criticism, to remark, that it was not those that seemed, but those that were disciples, that went back; for were is no more in the text than seemed. And what if I say, they were seeming disciples, and not real. But they were indeed visible disciples before their visible apostacy; they were as really visible disciples, as Peter and John were; but when they apostatized, they ceased to be visible disciples.
ARGUMENT III. All the examples of baptism recorded in the Scripture, hold forth none to have been baptized, but those that before baptism appeared to have a saving interest in Christ. Those whom John the Baptist admitted, were such as "confessed their sins," Matth. 3:6. So those baptized by Peter, Acts 2:41. "Then they that gladly received his word were baptized." The Samaritans believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jeans Christ, and then were baptized, Acts 8:12. "Simon himself believed also, and was baptized," ver. 13. "The eunuch said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, and then was baptized," vers. 37, 38, Paul is first converted, and then baptized, Acts 9:18. The centurion, and those with him, received the Holy Ghost; and therefore none could forbid water.* So Lydia, Acts 16:14,