command. 2. He commandeth it to be used to this end, to engage himself
that he means God seals remission of sins to believers only, but to others he seals the conditional promise. But this will not salve the matter in my opinion. For, 1. Mr. Baxter telleth us roundly, that the promise is to others besides believers, and so is the seal; and that this will I be evident, if it be once understood, that it is only the conditional promise which God sealeth by the sacraments. What can be made of this, but that it is the same thing that God seals to believers, and to others besides them? 2. Understand it only of others, besides believers; is not remission of sin comprehended in that promise which he says the sacraments seal? Sure I am the scriptures make it one main part of the salvation promised, Matth. 1:21. "Thou shalt call his name Jesus; for he shall save his people from their sins." 3. How can baptism be appointed to seal remission of sins to believers, and only the conditional covenant to others, when, as Mr. Baxter himself teacheth us, "That in relations, such as sacraments are, the end entereth the definition?" Therefore (if not through any natural incapacity of the subject, (which I dare say Mr. Baxter will not plead in this case), but God's mere institution), baptism have ends so exceeding different in (infants and the aged, says he there, let me change it into) believers and others, then you must have several definitions of baptism, and so several baptisms; but the apostle saith, there is but one baptism.* Much more he has to the same purpose in that place. Let them who can reconcile these things, do it, it is altogether beyond my reach; it may be because I am not well acquainted with his doctrine. But I will weigh what the learned man says in confutation of the above-mentioned proposition, and to prove that the sacrament rightly administered to a hypocrite is God's actual sealing. His arguments are two.
I. "If the sacrament rightly administered to an hypocrite have all in it that is essential to God's actual sealing, then it is an actual sealing: but the sacrament—therefore it is his actual sealing. A seal is an engaging or obliging sign, or at least a testifying. He that actually useth a seal to such an end, doth actually seal. Now, I. God useth this sign; II. and to this end. 1. He useth the sign while his ministers use it in his name at his command. 2. He commandeth it to be used to this end, to engage himself to make good his promises. For, 1. to what other end should God command them? 2. Else he should command them to be used to one end to one, and to another end to another. 3. If the promise be to others
besides believers, then so is the seal, (for to whom God promiseth, to them he engageth himself to perform); but the promise is to others: therefore, &c. It is only the conditional promise, &c. ut supra."
ANSWER. I deny the minor of this argument, together with the proof of it, that God useth the seal to this end to hypocrites. The reason is because hypocrites have no possession of, interest in, or right to those things whereof God hath appointed the sacrament to be a seal. What a minister may do de facto, is not the question: but I deny, that ministers do use the sacrament at God's command, or de jure, towards any but as they are visible saints; and if they should use it in his name towards any that are not so, they should go beyond the bounds of their commission, Matt, 28:19. as it is above improven, with help from Mr. Baxter himself. That God commandeth the seal to be used to this end, to engage himself to make good his promises, is true in respect of them that are in Christ, in whom the promises are Yea and Amen; but in respect of hypocrites, it is false. But to what other end should God command I them? I answer, that God hath commanded the seals as seals to be used towards believers only; and he hath commanded ministers to look on them as visible believers that have a probable profession. And if it be said, that he has commanded ministers to use them towards all visible believers, but some of them are hypocrites and so he commands them to be used to hypocrites; I answer, he commands the seals materially considered, that is, sprinkling with water, and bread and wine, to be given and administered to all visible believers; but considered formally as seals, he commands them only to be administered to those that are real saints. So that in this sense the sacrament cannot be administered as a seal to any but on supposition that the party is in Christ, seeing none other have a right before God thereto: yet it is a right act of the administrator when he administereth the sign to one that is a close hypocrite, in regard he is a visible believer. And in asserting that the administrator is not bound to know certainly and infallibly, that the party whom he baptizeth hath a right to baptism before the Lord, Mr. Baxter himself will bear me out: for he saith expressly,* "Ministers have right to baptize those that before God have no right to baptism; for they must judge of men's right by a probable profession." Now, let Mr. Baxter ask, to what other end than to seal actually, doth God command the seals to be administered to a hypocrite?
I answer, he commandeth them not at all to be administered to them: for whatsoever is given them, or administered to them, is not God's seal; for forma dat esse rei. And the water in baptism administered to a hypocrite, is no more God's seal to him, than a soul and a body without union are a man. And if I should say, the sacrament is no sacrament to him, it is no more than what we heard before was roundly said by a far wiser head. And truly I think it deserves to be considered, how the definition of a sacrament agrees to that which is administered to a hypocrite. "A sacrament is an holy ordinance, instituted by Christ; wherein, by sensible signs, Christ, and the benefits of the new covenant, are represented, sealed, and applied to believers." But I pass this. If we consider other cases wherein ministers are commanded to dispense other ordinances, besides this of baptism, it may give light to what is now under consideration. When a brother hath fallen into any scandalous sin, and he appears penitent, the church officers look on themselves as commanded to absolve him, and to loose his sin; and this they do in the Lord's name and at his command, not only loosing him from church censure, but declaring his sin to be pardoned before God; yet this is on supposition that he really be before the Lord that he appears to be before the church. Yet, notwithstanding of all this, if he be hypocritical in his repentance, he is not loosed in heaven; but what they do herein, they do in God's name and at his command. And you may prosecute this the same way, to prove God's loosing the hypocrite in heaven, as Mr. Baxter doth the present argument. In admitting of close hypocrites to the sacrament of the Lord's supper, the church dare not debar them, which argues a sense of God's command in the case; yet the church dare not admit them but as they appear to be real believers. The act of admission is a right act in those that admit them; but God in his word declares they have no right to it, ministers doctrinally debar them as such to whom the seals belong not. Only men know not their hearts; and in their lives they are visible believers, but in their hearts enemies to God, whom he will severely examine for coming to this gospel feast without a wedding-garment; for stretching out their hands, being profane dogs, to snatch up the children's bread. Strange! if notwithstanding of all this, the administration be God's actual sealing. The short is, the command to the administrators is not an absolute, but a qualified command. His second reason to prove that God useth the seals for actual sealing to hypocrites, falls with the first. It
follows indeed on his doctrine, as was observed before, that the sacraments are used for one end to one, and another end to another, which with him (as it was above explained) I account an absurdity; but it no way follows upon our doctrine. As to the third reason, that the promise is to others, and therefore so is the seal; I cannot but observe another piece of inconsistency (as it appears to me) of this man with himself. He saith, the promise, meaning that, "If thou believe," &c. is to others besides believers, and therefore infers that so is the seal; no doubt he means it belongs to them really and in foro Dei: and yet elsewhere he flatly denies, that the seal belongs to any but true believers, and such as have true solid faith, in foro Dei, though it may belong to them in foro ecclcsiœ. But I deny, that the promise which the sacrament seals is that promise he speaks of, and have given my reason before. But the former observe brings to mind an argument against it; which is this: if it be that conditional promise which baptism sealeth, or God sealeth by baptism, then whosoever have a right before the Lord to that promise, have a right before the Lord to baptism; but that is absurd: Ergo, the consequence is evident: for whoso have a right to the thing sealed, have a right to the seal; and deny it who will, it cannot be denied by any making use of his argument. The minor I prove thus: if those that have a right to that promise before the Lord, have therefore a right to baptism before the Lord, then Jews, Turks, and pagans, to whom the offer of the gospel is made, though they be still in their infidelity, have a right to baptism, even coram Deo; but that is most absurd: Ergo, the sequel is plain. For whosoever they be that have the gospel offered to them, have right in foro poli to the conditional promise of salvation; so that if they should believe, God could not but save them by virtue of that promise. The appendix to his "Aphorisms," in which he saith he hath fully proven this position of his, my poor library doth not afford me; neither think I myself at any great loss thereby, for I look on it as most uncomfortable doctrine, That it is only the conditional promise which God sealeth by the sacraments. If they seal no more, sadly have many godly souls, been deluded in their enjoyments at sacraments. But, however, it falleth under the next question, he says; and so we may expect to hear that sad doctrine confirmed. If I really believed he could confirm and prove it convincingly, I would hear it as my doom and sentence of death. Wo to poor saints if the sacraments confirm and seal no more to them.
Now, that which Mr. Baxter in the next question sets himself to prove, is, that the absolute promise (or covenant) of the first grace* is not it that is sealed in baptism and the Lord's supper. And for proof hereof he gives six arguments. But this seems to me strange arguing, as from the mill to the moon. What consequence is this, it is not the absolute promise of the first grace that baptism seals; Ergo, it is only the conditional promise, "If thou believe, thou shalt be saved?" What though it be not the absolute promise of the first grace, must it therefore be that conditional promise? are there no other promises in the covenant but these two? I think, if there were any shadow of a consequence here, it behoved to be thus: It is not the absolute promise of the first grace; Ergo, it is the conditional promise of the first grace; which should be Pelagianism in grain, and put much respect on the Jesuits' maxim, Facienti quod in se est, Deus non denegabit ulteriorem gratiam. And so we might leave him to his dispute with Mr. Tombes. But I cannot think that ever Mr. Tombes would assert, that it was only the absolute promise of the first grace that baptism is a seal of. His words as Mr. Baxter sets them down, are,* "That the covenant, whereof baptism is the seal, is the absolute covenant of grace, made only to the elect." It is certain many famous divines do hold, that the covenant of grace is absolute, and that baptism is a seal of the covenant of grace; and therefore it must needs be, according to them, a seal of the absolute covenant. But that which Mr. Baxter aims at, seems to be, that baptism doth not at all seal the promise of the first grace. Whatever be of this, if I were obliged to believe it, I would require more convincing arguments than Mr. Baxter offers for it; which I will briefly consider, to the end I may win to some light in it.
ARGUMENT 1. "That which is sealed to by the sacraments is a proper covenant, having a restipulation on our parts, as well as a promise on God's part; but the absolute promise is not a proper covenant, with such a mutual engagement: therefore." ANSWER. Those that hold the covenant of grace to be absolute, will tell him, that in respect of us it is a mere promissory covenant. But if I deny the major with them, I see nothing to prove it, but somewhat from Mr. Baxter, who holds it to be that promise, "If thou believe," &c. to disprove it. For, says he, "The very definition of a proper covenant sheweth as much, that it must be a mutual engagement. Now, in that absolute promise there is no such matter—but only God
telleth what he will do." I say the same, mutatis mutandis, of the conditional promise, there is no mutual engagement there; but only God telleth what he will do, if we will do so and so. Where it is plain, there is no engagement at all upon the party to whom this promise is made by virtue of it, unless it be an engagement, by way of gratitude, to accept of such a precious offer; but the promise is to him, whether he fulfil the condition or not, or any way engage with the promiser, ay and until he that made the promise declare he will no longer stand to these terms. I am confident, that neither Grotius de jure belli, nor other lawyers (of whom he speaks here), will ever say, that a bare conditional promise is a proper covenant, where there is a mutual engagement. Many times both in peace and war, such conditional promises are made, which not being accepted, there is no covenant made. So that by this argument neither Mr. Tombes nor Mr. Baxter are right.
ARGUMENT 2. "If it were the absolute promise of the first grace that is sealed by the sacraments, then the sacraments must be given to no man, or to all men. But, &c. The consequent is manifest, because that absolute promise or prophecy is only of the elect, and that before regeneration: now, no man hath any sign given him, so much as probable, by which to judge of the unregenerate elect." ANSWER. I deny the consequence, here called the consequent, either by a typographical error, though not marked among the rest, or that Aquila non captat muscas. And what is alleged for proof thereof, is false taken universally. Though we have no probable sign given us whereby we may judge of the election of the seed of openly wicked parents, till such time as they evidence some good thing in them by their personal walk; yet as for the seed of believers, we have God's promise, "I will be thy God, and the God of thy seed." As for infants especially this holds good. And as for those children of godly parents, who when they are come to years of discretion, yet savour nothing of piety, that says indeed we cannot judge them probably to be regenerated: but yet it says not that we may not probably judge them elected. But this brings into my mind an argument against baptism its being a seal of the absolute promise of the first grace, which possibly may deserve consideration. It is this.
If baptism be a seal of the absolute promise of the first grace, then some
openly wicked adult persons have a right coram ecclesia to baptism; but that is false, as we have before proved: Ergo, I prove the consequence. They to whom the thing sealed doth visibly belong, have a visible right to the seal of the covenant; but if baptism be a seal of the absolute promise of the first grace, the thing sealed by baptism doth visibly belong to some adult persons openly wicked: Ergo, if baptism, &c. The proposition is plain. The reason of the assumption is, because the promise of the first grace belongs visibly to those that are visible elect ones, or such as we may probably judge elected; and the seed of the righteous we must probably judge to be elected, because of the promise, "I will be thy God, and the God of thy seed;" yet nothing is more plain, than that there are many of the adult seed of the righteous that are openly wicked: Ergo, but I pass this.
ARGUMENT III. "It may be known to whom that covenant belongs which is sealed by the sacraments, but it cannot be known (before the fulfilling, no not at all) to whom (particularly) that absolute promise doth belong: therefore, &c." ANSWER. I distinguish the major. It may be known (without extraordinary revelation) probably to whom that covenant which is sealed by the sacraments belongs particularly, I grant; and in this sense the minor is false. It may be known infallibly, I deny. Bat, as Mr. Bowles saith,* "Baptism is to be administered according to the judgment of charity, seeing it can by no certain signs be determined who they are that are actually in covenant." Now, if this argument could have any weight, it behoved to be proven, that we may, without extraordinary revelation, know infallibly to whom in particular the covenant sealed in baptism doth belong; which the learned man doth not attempt.
ARGUMENT IV. "If that absolute promise must be fulfilled to a man before he be capable of receiving the sacraments, which are seals of the covenant of grace, then it is not that absolute promise which is the covenant of grace sealed to by the sacraments; but that absolute promise must be fulfilled, &c.: therefore it is not that absolute promise which is the covenant so sealed to." ANSWER. This is a manifest ignoratio elenchi. This is neither what Mr. Baxter undertook to prove, nor what Mr. Tombes denied, so far as we can learn by his words cited by Mr. Baxter. Mr. Tombes indeed saith, that the covenant whereof baptism is the seal, is the
absolute covenant of grace, as several divines of better note say as well as he, but not that the absolute promise of the first grace is the covenant of grace; it is according to their opinion a part of it, but a part is not the whole. Does Mr. Baxter think, that his adversaries in this point leave out of the covenant of grace all grace but the first? and if Mr. Baxter would have concluded his own thesis, he should have inferred, Ergo, it is not the absolute promise of the first grace that is sealed to. But let us hear the proof of the consequence; which is this: "The mercy promised in the covenant which is sealed, is not given before the first sealing; but the mercy promised in that absolute promise is (according to Mr. Tombes, and in part the truth) given before the first sealing of the covenant of grace: therefore, &c." I wish Mr. Baxter had set down his conclusion. However, we will get some conclusion in the premises. But behold! how he wavers again. The conclusion of this argument is plainly this: Therefore the mercy promised in that absolute promise, is not the mercy promised in the covenant which is sealed. And this conclusion we have instead of the major proposition of his argument, which ought to have been the conclusion of his proof. Such wavering would tempt a man to distrust the cause he is defending. But as to the premises, the major taken universally is manifestly false: and unless you will maintain that there is only one single mercy of the covenant which is sealed, which is the covenant of grace no doubt, you must either take it so, or it is an argument ex puris particularibus, as is manifest. So then the major is, no mercy promised in the covenant which is sealed, or in the covenant of grace, is given before the first sealing. But most of our divines, that ever I read, against the Papists and Lutherans, their baptismal regeneration, will tell him, that some mercies promised in the covenant which is sealed, are given before the first sealing; yea more, unless that some of these mercies be given before baptism, such as the saving indwelling of the Spirit, regeneration, union with Christ, remission, &c. they can have no right, before God, to the first seal; and unless they appear to us probably to be given them, they have no right before the church to it And if Mr. Baxter hath not said as much, as that some mercies promised are, yea, and must be given before the first sealing, or the parties have no right to baptism before the Lord, let what is said before manifest. I need not stand to prove the falsity of Mr. Baxter's major proposition last named, it hath been sufficiently done before. But at length we come to something that is
indeed to the point, which immediately follows the conclusion of the last syllogism; and it is this: "God doth not promise and seal to a man that hath a new heart, to give him a new heart; or to a man that is a believer, that he will give him to be a believer; except we speak of the continuance or increase of faith and newness, which is not the thing in question." But I answer, there is another use of a seal besides that of engaging and obliging to the performance of anything; it is also of use to testify and represent, as a demonstrative sign. This is plain not only from the common nature of seals appended to contracts, but from that plain Scripture, Rom. 4:11. "And Abraham received circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of faith which he had before." And Mr. Baxter himself acknowledged it;* "A seal" says he "is an engaging or obliging sign, or at least a testifying." So then, although God doth not seal the promise of giving a new heart to him that hath a new heart, by way of engagement and obligation to perform the promise, yet he may seal to him that hath a new heart the promise of giving a new heart; he may seal it, I say, by way of testimony, that such a promise hath been made to, or concerning that person that hath the new heart. This is not done in vain: for the promise contains a grant of the mercy; it is the foundation of our right thereto, and the tenor of our free-holding, or holding of free grace; which it is very reasonable we should be put in mind of, the rather that some learned men do very much to darken the glory of grace. Suppose a king should write a promise of a vast sum of current money, to be given freely to one that had been a traitor to him, or rather is a traitor, and should actually pay it him before the writ be sealed; and, upon the payment thereof, the man sees his folly, in that he should have been so undutiful to such a gracious prince, and so becomes a loyal subject: what solecism in conduct would it be, either in the subject to desire of him, (even after he hath got the money), that he would please to seal this his promise and grant; or in the king, to seal his own writ? Maybe the man hath no great skill to discern betwixt true and counterfeit money; the rather should the promise be sealed. The application is easy. God made promise to Abraham, saying, "I will be thy God," seals it with circumcision; yet before circumcision the promise was made out to Abraham; God was the God of Abraham before he was circumcised, yet was not the seal used in vain. But Mr. Baxter will say, that he sealed the continuance of that mercy of being his God. Let it be so; yet ipso facto that God sealed by way of
engagement and obligation the continuance of that mercy to Abraham, he also sealed, by way of testimony, the beginning of that mercy, or that mercy given at first, and consequently the promise thereof; for God seals no mercy to us but as it is comprehended in a promise. If any will say, that the sacraments seal any mercy but what the word promiseth, let them prove it. For my part I think it contrary both to Scripture and reason.
ARGUMENT V. "The benefits of the covenant of grace, which is sealed by the sacraments, are (by those of age) to be received by faith; but the benefits of the absolute promise of the first grace are not to be received by faith: therefore this is not the covenant of grace so sealed. The major is evident. Mr. Tombes saith, only believers must be baptized as disciples. The minor is proved before. Faith is part of the thing promised; and we do not by faith receive our first faith, or our power to believe." ANSWER. To pass this, that the conclusion of this argument is indeed, Therefore the benefits of the absolute promise of the first grace are not the benefits of the covenant of grace, which is sealed by the sacraments; the conclusion, as it is formed by the learned man, labours under the former disease, quod non concludit negatum. He had need of quicker eyes than I can pretend to, that can discern a contradiction between these two; The absolute promise of the first grace is not the covenant of grace, which is sealed by the sacraments; and that, The covenant whereof baptism is the seal, is the absolute covenant of grace, made only to the elect; which is the proposition Mr. Baxter undertakes to confute. But I deny the major, universally taken. When Mr. Baxter speaks of receiving the benefits of the covenant by faith, either he means receiving things themselves, or receiving a right to them; and in both senses the proposition is false. If he mean it of receiving the things themselves, as contradistinct from receiving a right thereto, then I would fain know, 1. Whether the resurrection of our bodies, and glorification, be benefits of the covenant of grace? and then, 2. How these benefits in this sense are received by faith? If he mean it of receiving a right thereto, contradistinct from receiving the things themselves, then I would desire to understand, whether justification, adoption, and such relative benefits, be benefits of the covenant of grace; and then, how a man can receive a right to relative benefits, as contradistinguished in re from the things themselves; or if a
man can have a right to a relation, and not ipso facto be so related. I speak not of jus sub termino; but an immediate present right, as the matter with faith in respect of justification, &c. Whoever may quarrel this, it cannot be contradicted by Mr. Baxter's principles, "As to the relative benefits," says he,* "right to them, and right in them, are inseparable," &c. As to the proof of the proposition, I confess I see not how it toucheth the point. Mr. Tombes saith very right, and according to the scriptures, when he saith, Only believers must be baptized as disciples, meaning it of those that have right thereto before the Lord; and many others say, and that on good grounds, that only the regenerate, justified, &c. must be baptized as disciples; and yet it will not hence follow, that the benefits of the covenant of grace, sealed by the sacraments, must be received by regeneration, justification, &c.
ARGUMENT VI. "The covenant sealed to by the sacraments is a plainly propounded, unquestionable covenant; but this absolute promise of the first grace is not such," &c. ANSWER. This conclusion is like some others before, that hit not the scope of the dispute. But no doubt the covenant is plainly propounded, and ought not to be questioned. But who can help the questioning that nice wits will needs make about truths plainly propounded? And this argument might have been left out, while it is seen plainly and unquestionably, that many that have eyes in their head as well as this learned man, cannot agree with him, as to what it is that the sacraments do seal. But it is time now to come to his second argument for God's actual sealing to hypocrites.
II. "If God do no more in his actual sealing to believers, than he doth when the sacrament is rightly applied to hypocrites, then he actually sealeth to hypocrites; but God doth no more, &c. The major is proved by the enumeration of the several acts. 1. God maketh the promise. 2. He commandeth ministers to publish it. 3. He hath instituted the sacraments as mutual engaging signs or seals. 4. He commandeth ministers to deliver or apply them to those that profess their consent and desire to enter or renew the covenant—now, what act more than these doth God perform to the elect or believers?" ANSWER. The proof of the major I will take for the proof of the minor, which is denied. And to his question, I say, God doth more than all those things enumerated while he actually seals to
believers, or else he should not actually seal to them at all. The Westminster Assembly, in their Shorter Catechism, tells us, what God doth more, in answer to that question, "How do the sacraments become effectual means of salvation?" The answer is, "The sacraments become effectual—by the blessing of Christ, and the working of his Spirit in them that by faith receive them." So then God blesseth them to believers, which he doth not when administered to hypocrites; God works by his Spirit in the one, not in the other; and thus he gives them efficacy to believers, not to others. God ratifies in heaven what ministers do on earth, when the sacraments are administered to them who are fit for receiving them; which is not done in the case of others. What if a Jew or a Mahommedan should undertake to put a mock on the Christians and their God; and, in pursuance thereof, should feign repentance, and faith in Jesus Christ, so as no minister should know but he were serious, and so be baptized? might not this be a right act of the administrator? But doth God no more in his actual sealing to believers, than he doth when such a one is baptized? Believe it who will, I cannot obtain it of myself to give credit to it. Put the case, that two visible church members fall into some scandalous sin, and are censured: both give sufficient evidences of their repentance to the church, yet the one is hypocritical, the other sincere: God maketh the promise, commandeth his ministers to publish it, he hath instituted church discipline for the gaining of offenders, he commandeth that such as appear penitent be absolved. But doth God no more towards the one than towards the other? Surely he doth, as in the former case.
ARGUMENT II. If the parents of such infants concerning whom our question is, have no right to the table of the Lord, then the infants have no right before the church to the ordinance of baptism: but the former is true: Ergo, and hence it hath been a piece of difficulty to me, to reconcile the practice of admitting men's children to baptism, and in the meantime debarring themselves from the sacrament of the Lord's supper, and that constantly. The minor is least to be doubted; for the church, in debarring openly wicked persons from the table of the Lord, declareth that they are looked on as persons that have no right thereto. I apprehend it will be said, that such persons have jus ad rem, but not in re; and that the former is sufficient to entitle their children to baptism in foro eoclesiœ. This I
willingly grant, as to some that are debarred from the sacrament of the Lord's supper: even as in the case of the Israelites with respect to the passover, where some had a remote right to that ordinance; but when they were unclean, they could not rightfully claim the possession of it. But I would distinguish of scandalous Christians, or baptized persons. Some are habitually and constantly scandalous, who never gave any probable signs of their sincerity; others there are that have sometimes given such probable signs, but afterwards fall into some scandalous sin or sins. That the latter sort have jus ad rem, or a remote right to the sacrament of the Lord's supper, I will not deny. Yea, it will not be grievous to me to grant, that the children of such persons, while as yet they have not evidenced their repentance, have nevertheless a right coram ecclesiœ to baptism. And my reason is, because the church still looks on such a person as a living, though not a lively member of Christ, as one savingly in covenant with God, evidenced by his former walk, before the hour of temptation; and the child's visible right to baptism, depends not on the parent's visible frame, but his visible state as in covenant with God; for so runs the promise, "I will be thy God, and the God of thy seed:" so that the church looking on the parent as having God for his God, in the sense of the promise, must needs look on his seed as enjoying the same privilege, and consequently a right to baptism. But as for those who are habitually profane, who never appeared to walk in any tolerable measure becoming the gospel, as there are too, too many baptized persons, they have not so much as a remote right to the sacrament of the Lord's supper: for it is appointed of God for believers, and them only: for the living, to make them grow; not for the dead, to give them life, else why are any debarred from it? So that none have a right, no not a remote right thereto, before God, but real believers; and none have a remote right thereto, before the church, but visible believers. Whatever some are pleased to plead for the right of all baptized persons to the Lord's table, it will not much move me, nor do I think will it move many (but to indignation,) when they sist their consciences before the tribunal of a holy God; therefore I will not digress from my purpose, to consider the weak arguings wherewith some endeavour to support that cause. We say then, that as none have a remote right to this sacrament in foro poli, but such as are right as to their state; and none a proximate right thereto, but such as are in a frame, in some measure, suitable to that venerable ordinance: so none have jus ad rem in
foro poli, but visible believers; and none jus in re, but the same persons being free of public scandal. I proceed to prove the consequence. The child hath no visible right to that ordinance to which the parent hath none. This proposition hath been proven before. But if the parents have not so much as a remote right to the table of the Lord, they have no right to baptism: Ergo, if the parent have not so much as a remote right to the table of the Lord, the child hath no visible right to baptism. The minor is clear; for I think it will be denied by none, that all that have right to baptism have a remote right to the table of the Lord, et vice versa. None need to think it strange, that we speak of persons actually baptized having right to baptism, no more than to question the right that a man hath to an estate he has long enjoyed; for it is certain here, that possession may be where there is no rightful possession, or right and title to what is possessed. If any say, that children are not baptized in their parents' right, but in their own right, they may freely for me enjoy their liberty to express it so: for it is certain the child has a right, and that right is not the parent's right; but all the evidence that we can have of a child's right to baptism, is from the parents; therefore said I, the child can have no visible right, &c. I doubt not, but as the child of a most profane parent may have the Spirit; so in that case it hath a most undoubted right, before the Lord, to the seal of the covenant: but the parent being an openly wicked person, there is no probable evidence of this; nor can there be in that case, till the child do manifest the same by its personal carriage. In the meantime, as to us de non apparentibus et non existentibus eadem est ratio.
ARGUMENT III. A cursed seed hath no right to a sealing ordinance; but the children of the openly wicked, or such as make no credible profession, are a cursed seed: Ergo, there can be no doubt of the assumption, the Scripture is express for it, Deut. 28:18. "Cursed shall be the fruit of thy body." The proposition I prove thus. If a visibly cursed seed, (for so I understand the cursed seed I speak of in the argument, taking it for granted, they are visibly cursed whom God has declared in his word to be cursed, which I think none can deny with any colour of reason); if a visibly cursed seed have a visible right to a sealing ordinance, then a visibly cursed seed are a visibly blessed seed; but that is absurd: Ergo, the consequence is plain: for they that have right to the seal of the covenant
of grace, are a visibly blessed seed; they are surely visibly blessed who appear to be in covenant with God, and members of Christ, as those do who have a visible right to baptism. The assumption is no less plain: for blessing and cursing are inconsistent; whom God visibly curseth, he cannot at the same time visibly bless, else they should be visibly happy and miserable at one and the same time; even so happy as God's blessing makes, and so miserable as God's curse makes a person. It is in vain to say, they are blessed and cursed in sundry respects; so that however in some other respects they are cursed, yet, in respect of a right to the first seal of the covenant, they are a blessed seed: for there is no distinction, nor ground for such distinction, in the text. But in what other respects can they be visibly cursed, when they are visibly blessed in this respect? Were they in the most miserable case that ever any was in the world in other respects, while they have a visible right to baptism, God is their God, and who will dare say, that those who are thus visibly privileged are visibly cursed? As the blessing of God puts a person in a blessed state, so his curse puts him in a cursed state, in whatever particular the blessing or the curse do chiefly appear; for God's blessing and cursing are formally forensic actions, and so the different states resulting therefrom are inconsistent utterly, as justification and condemnation. Yea, I add, that the executive blessing and cursing are also inconsistent; for these flow from, and do necessarily pre-suppose the formal acts of blessing and cursing: so that although a person in a cursed state may receive good things from God, that are in themselves, and unto others blessings indeed, yet they are cursed to him, Mal. 2:2: even as afflictions, which are curses to the wicked, are nevertheless blessings to them that are in Christ. What though the seed of the wicked by sovereign grace may be blessed; yet, while this blessing is latent, we are to look on them as God in his word hath denounced the seed of the wicked to be: for the word is the rule of the church's judgment, not the secret will of God; "Secret things belong to the Lord, but unto us those things that are revealed." When they do by their personal carriage declare themselves to be blessed ones, the church is to deal with them as such then, but not till then. As God hath declared the seed of the wicked to be cursed, so he hath also declared the seed of the righteous to be I blessed, Psal. 37:26, "His seed is blessed;" and 112:2. "The generation of the upright shall be blessed." What a vast difference doth the Lord in his word make between the seed
of the righteous and the ungodly! the one is blessed, the other cursed: it seems reasonable then the church should make some difference betwixt them also in the matter of church privileges, as was argued before. Can we suppose, that God hath given no more ground of comfort to the godly as to their seed, than he has given to the wicked, if they be but baptized? or can we restrain this ground of comfort merely to temporal good things? In this readily the children of the faithful have least share. I think it is a pitiful straitening of the many promises that are made to the godly and to their seed, to allow them no more ground of comfort as to their children's souls, than wicked baptized persons may have as to theirs, notwithstanding of the curses denounced upon them. Allow both an equal right to the seal of the covenant of grace, and so to all the benefits thereof, and then sure all odds are made even. For my part, I am indeed of opinion, that, but prejudice to the sovereignty of God, who hath neither in the curse nor in the blessing set a law for himself, to bind up the hands of free grace from bringing forth elect vessels out of the loins of wicked parents; nor the hands of absolute dominion, in reprobating some of the seed of the godly; that the main thing aimed at, both in the curse and in the blessing, is what concerns the eternal state of their seed, viz. that God will deny his grace to the children of the wicked, and so damn them for their sins; and give his grace to the seed of the godly, and so save them eternally. So judicious Calvin* understands the threatening and the promise in the second command. And it is highly reasonable, that the holy oracles of God should be always understood in the most comprehensive sense, where there is nothing to restrain the same, as it is in this case. And what else can we make of the grand promise of the covenant, "I will be thy God, and the God of thy seed?" This answers the scope and design of the declaration of the mind of God most fully, both in the declaration of the curse, and of the blessing. This makes them most pungent incentives to true piety. And thus God himself hath visibly explained the same. How often do we see the children follow the footsteps of their parents, graceless parents with children no better than themselves, when the children of the godly are blessed? It is true, the wickedness of some of the children of the godly is much noticed, and ready to be talked of, when the impiety of the children of the wicked is not: but this plainly confirms what we say; for no better is expected of the seed of the wicked, when better things are looked for in the children of
the godly. Seldom it is but the godly have some good; seldom the wicked have any. Of some stock of people God never wants some, even to the view of the world; and of others he hath none, in all appearance. And if the curse and blessing be thus understood, it doth mightily strengthen the argument, as I apprehend; for baptism is de jure conferred on children, only as they are apparently such as belong to God in a saying manner, as was before pleaded. This argument then I will conclude, with Balaam's words inverted, "How shall we bless whom God hath cursed?"
ARGUMENT IV. If it be necessarily pre-required to infants' right to baptism coram ecclesia that their parents appear penitent, and lovers, not haters of God; then none but the infants of visible believers have a visible right to the ordinance of baptism: the former is true; Ergo, the latter also. The consequence is plain: for visible penitents, lovers, and not haters of God, are visible believers, and none other; the one cannot be necessary, but the other ipso facto is also necessary; and those whom we cannot look upon as visible penitents, and lovers of God, we must needs look upon as visibly impenitent persons, and haters of God, and so as visible unbelievers, wanting that which is necessary to evidence their infants' right to baptism. The assumption is proven before from Acts 2:38. Exod. 20:5, 6. From the former of these, it plainly appears, that repentance was pre-required of those pricked at the heart, antecedently to their own, or their children's visible right to baptism. And what though parents now are ordinarily possessed of that privilege in their infancy, when they were admitted as visible saints, seeing afterwards they have nothing of that visible saintship? ought they not to be pressed to repentance, in order to a visible right to their seed for this ordinance, having now lost that visible right thereto themselves, which they possibly had in their infancy? Those in the text were circumcised, whether jure or injuria we shall not determine; and circumcision was a seal of the same covenant whereof baptism also is; it was a seal of the righteousness of faith, as well as baptism: yet notwithstanding, they behoved to evidence their repentance before their children's right to baptism could be acknowledged; as was proven before. It seems then no less reasonable, that baptized parents should be obliged to do the like, ere their children's right to baptism be acknowledged by the church. From the latter of these Scriptures, it hath been evinced, that the children of wicked parents are, by the threatening,
denied a right to the seal of the covenant; and that it is given, by the promise, only to the children of those that love God; which doth plainly restrain the same to the seed of visible believers coram ecclesia. Hereunto add that testimony of the apostle, 1 Cor, 7:14. "For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife:—else were your children unclean; but now they are holy:" from whence it doth inevitably follow, that one of the parents must needs be a visible believer, else the children cannot be reckoned holy; and hence it is ordinary to prove the right of the infants of the faithful unto baptism.
EXCEPTION 1. By the haters of God in the second commandment are meant idolaters only; and so by lovers of God, those that cleave to the true worship of God: and therefore the threatening cannot be extended to the children of those that do not turn aside to idolatry, or renounce Christianity. ANSWER. Many things may be returned to this exception; as 1. Then all baptized persons' children have not a right to baptism; for they may be baptized, and yet be idolaters, though they have not renounced their baptism. 2. Then the children of Papists have no right to baptism; for they are manifest idolaters, as all Protestant divines do hold; and yet those that differ will not allow this. But, 3. Though the contempt of this command is no doubt aimed against in the threatening, and the promise hath respect to the keeping of it; yet to restrain either the threat or the promise to this command, is to do violence to the words; for the words are express for God's commands in the plural number, both in Exod. 20:6. and Deut. 27:10; so that at least they belong to all the commands of the first table. "If you consider duly," says Calvin,* "the promise which we have now explained, is not peculiarly annexed to one command, but is common to the whole first table of the law." Zanchius carries it further. "The true interpretation," says he, "is that this (viz. the fifth command) is the first command with a promise, to wit, not pertaining universally to all the commands." And a little after: "God doth so much esteem the keeping of this command, that he hath added to it only, and so to none other, a peculiar promise." 4. That by haters of God are meant idolaters only, &c. is gratis dictum. It seems strange, to restrain that odious character to those only, seeing the hatred of God is common to all unregenerate persons, who are "enmity against God," Rom. 8:7; and the hatred of God is most vigorous amongst those where
idolatry is banished, and the pure word of God is preached, levelling pithily against the sins of the wicked. And no less strange is it, that those should be accounted lovers of God who outwardly cleave to pure ordinances, while they are openly wicked in their lives: surely Christ accounts those his enemies, who shall be brought forth, and slain before his eyes, and that with a double death. Wherefore we understand the haters of God to be all the wicked, and the lovers of God the truly godly, who obey out of love, as the other disobey out of hatred to God; as Calvin judiciously teacheth.* Those that love me. "The fountain and origin of true righteousness is expressed. The transgressors of the law are called enemies and haters of God. For seeing he cannot be separated from his justice, the contempt of the law argueth this hatred; because it cannot be, but he that will not suffer God to be his lawgiver and judge, desires also to rob him of his governments" 5. Lastly, Though it should be yielded, that the threatening and promise belong only to this command, yet what reason is there that they should be restrained to one sin and one duty only? I should think at least, that such as do not observe the ordinances of God, as prayer, &c. should be also here included.
EXCEPTION 2. The apostle (1 Cor. 7:14.) means not real believers, in opposition to openly wicked Christians; but believers, in opposition to pagans, accounting all believers who had given up their name to Christ in baptism. ANSWER. The apostle means visible believers, amongst whom some were sincere, others hypocrites; even as he means visible holiness, when he saith, their children were holy. To suppose that there were any in the church of Corinth that were not visible Christian believers, is what I cannot grant without proof; and I am of opinion, it cannot be proven from the Scriptures. There is, as I said before, a vast difference betwixt one that sometimes, by his personal carriage, gave probable evidence of his saintship, and one that never did so. There were certainly many grievous enormities amongst that people, or in that church; yet the former of these appears to be their case. The reason is, because, as the history of the acts of the apostles shew, none in those days were baptized, but such as gave probable signs of their sincerity, together with their children; and of the Corinthians particularly Luke testifies, that "many of them hearing, believed, and were baptized," Acts 18:8; and the Lord told Paul in a vision, that "he had much people in that city, and so he abode a
year and six months with them," vers. 9, 10; and though he himself baptized few of them, yet it cannot be thought but that people were baptized by his direction, and that therein he did as the rest of the apostles, requiring them to evidence their repentance before baptism; and when he was gone, Apollos, a faithful brother, was with them for a time, Acts 19:1. That others than visible believers were baptized among them, we cannot without proof grant, especially seeing all of them whose baptism is recorded in the Scripture, were visible believers, and therefore baptized. Wherefore, although that by means of their own corruptions, and hypocrisy, no doubt in some of them, and by means of false teachers, some were led aside into erroneous principles and disorderly practices, they could not lose their visible saintship, till such time as they proved utterly irreclaimable: but how they took with the apostle's reproofs, the apostle himself plainly tells, 2 Cor. 7:8. &c. And indeed, for all the faults that were among them, the apostle acknowledgeth them still as visible believers; writing to them, as few ministers amongst us, I suppose, durst write to his congregation of baptized ones: 1 Cor. 1:2. "Unto the church of God that is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called" (our translation adds, but without reason,) "to be saints" ver. 3. "Grace be unto you, and peace from God our Father," ver. 7. "Waiting for the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ." ver. 8. "Who shall also confirm you unto the end, that ye may be blameless in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ." See ver. 9. chap. 6:16, 19, 20. But in our case the persons we speak of, are such as never, gave probable evidence of their sincerity, else there would not be so much difficulty about the matter.
ARGUMENT V. Those who cannot be probably judged to be within the covenant, have no visible right to baptism; but the children of openly wicked parents cannot be probably judged to be within the covenant: Ergo, the major is owned to be a truth by most divines that are orthodox. Wendelin is very express for it:* speaking of the subject recipient of baptism, he says, "It is all, and only those who are probably judged to be within the covenant of grace." So saith Oliver Bowles, who nevertheless allows the children of all baptized persons a right to baptism. "All infants," says he, "that in the judgment of charity are within the covenant, are to be baptized. I call that the judgment of charity, when we obtain all those things by which it is probable the party to be baptized is under the
covenant." It is evident, these learned men speak of a saving inbeing in the covenant, the probableness whereof they think is requisite in those that have right to baptism before the church; which is the very thing our proposition doth import. However, I shall prove it. None have right to that ordinance, before the Lord, that are not really and savingly in covenant with God, as hath been already cleared; Ergo, none have visible right to the ordinance, that are not visibly or probably within the covenant. The consequence is manifest; because the judgment of the church must be regulated by the judgment of God, so far as the same is revealed. Again, those who cannot be probably judged to have a real right to the thing sealed, or rather a real interest in the same, have no visible right to the seal; but those who cannot be probably judged to be within the covenant really and savingly, have no visible interest in the thing sealed, because it is the covenant of grace that is the thing sealed: Ergo, if therefore any will plead an external being in covenant with God, as a distinct thing from a visible being in covenant with him; and allege, that the seal may be given on the account of this external being in covenant, they speak unadvisedly; for it is no other covenant that is sealed by baptism but the covenant of grace, which is entered into, or accepted by faith; neither can any be said to be in it, but either really or apparently, which we call visibly. Now, I prove the minor. Openly wicked parents cannot be probably judged to be within the covenant; Ergo, neither their children. The antecedent must needs be yielded, unless we say, that openly wicked persons give probable signs of their piety and interest in Christ; that they are probably regenerated, justified, adopted, &c.; which is in effect to say, that openly wicked persons are not openly wicked, but visible saints. It is in vain to say, that they are within the conditional promise, in so far as they are baptized; for we speak now of a probable judgment of a particular person's being within the covenant. But if by this be meant, that they are within the compass of that promise, though they have not yet come up to the terms, then they have no more than what pagans have, whensoever the gospel-offer is made to them: if the meaning of it be, they are within it in so far as they have really believed, then we would fain learn, how a real believer comes to be an openly wicked man; and by what means, or probable signs, men do judge an openly wicked person to be a believer. The consequence is proved from hence, that children stand and fall before the church, with their
immediate parents; so that we cannot judge a man's seed probably to be in covenant with God, if he himself be not visibly in the covenant. I can apprehend no way how the force of this argument can be warded off, unless we make recourse to the remote godly parents: which to how many inconveniencies it is liable, we have heard before. Some indeed lay the whole stress on the baptism of the parents, one or both, and will have the judgment of charity to conclude all those to be within the covenant probably, whose parents sometime were baptized; which, in my opinion, is wonderfully wide charity, to say no more of it. How can a person's baptism be more useful to another, than to himself that personally received it? The baptism of some is followed with open wickedness; and that which we now speak of, is that right the children of openly wicked parents can have to baptism; and we have proven, that the openly wicked cannot be probably judged to be within the covenant; and yet a baptized person may be openly wicked; consequently the baptism of an openly wicked parent cannot be a ground whereon we may probably judge him within the covenant. Yet that this baptism, so useless to himself, should be so useful to his seed, is a thing that would need strong arguments to back it with, in order to its reception. One would expect, that such as go no further than the immediate parents for the church-state of the infants, should shew as much in the immediate parent as the child hath, seeing nothing can give more than it hath to itself. Moreover, if the judgment of charity must conclude all those children to be probably in covenant whose parents were once baptized, then, if Simon Magus had enjoyed a child, even after his discovering himself to have been still "in the gall of bitterness, and the bond of iniquity," and to "have neither part nor lot" with the people of God "in the gifts of the Holy Ghost," that child would have been probably judged to be within the covenant, and so to have had right to the seal of the covenant: but that could not be, in regard Simon himself had then no visible right to baptism; and had that discovery been made before, doubtless he had not been baptized. How many baptized persons do as really discover themselves to be still "in the gall of bitterness," as Simon did, by their open wickedness? But the unprofitableness of the baptism of openly wicked persons, while they continue so, has been largely discoursed on before.
ARGUMENT VI. If none be visibly privileged with having "God to be their