6. Lastly, It sounds exceedingly harsh, to say, that God is the God of a
None are Abraham's real seed spiritually but real believers; Ergo, none are his visible seed but visible believers. The Scripture plainly holds forth, that none are really Abraham's seed but true believers, Gal. 3. ult. "And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise." The apostle is there speaking to such as in the judgment of charity were Abraham's seed; but because men may be Abraham's seed that way, yet none of his in the judgment of God, he tells them who they are that are the true seed of Abraham, even they that are Christ's by real union with him through faith; not by a bare profession, or by baptism without true godliness: for there were none of them but were baptized, and professed Christ, but that was not enough to make them heirs according to the promise, and consequently not enough to make them sons either. Gal. 3:7. "They which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham." ver. 9. "So then they which be of faith, are blessed with faithful Abraham."
4. Those only are thus visibly blessed for whom it appears Christ has died, and who are apparently redeemed by him from the curse of the law; and such are only visible believers and their seed: for the apostle plainly teacheth, that these go before the blessing of Abraham, as the procuring causes thereof, vers. 13. 14. "Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law—that the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith." Now, it is certain, that God's being Abraham's God, and the God of his seed, was the blessing of Abraham, comprehending all other particular blessings, which is now come on the Gentiles.
5. From the same Scripture we further argue thus: That blessing which comes on people only through Jesus Christ, and that promise of the Spirit (or promised Spirit) which is received only by faith, doth visibly belong to none but visible believers, such as appear to be in Christ and endued with faith; but such is the blessing of Abraham which comes on the Gentiles: Ergo, the proposition is plain: for where there is no visible evidence of a person's being in Christ, through whom alone the blessing comes; where there are no probable signs of faith through which it is received, that blessing is not, nor cannot be visibly come on them.
6. Lastly, It sounds exceedingly harsh, to say, that God is the God of a
visible unbeliever and his seed, in the sense of the great promise sealed by the sacraments; for in some sense he is the God of the whole creation, but surely it will not be denied, that this is something else, viz. that he is their God by way of covenant. Either, then, to have God for our God in the sense of this promise, is to have God for our God in the way of the covenant of works, or in the way of the covenant of grace. The first will not be pleaded: for the sacraments seal not the covenant of works; besides, God is the God of all out of Christ that way, of pagans as well as others. It is therefore meant of God's being our God in the way of the covenant of grace; and what greater blessing hath the most undoubted real believer? Consider then how this can be digested, that God is the God of an openly wicked person; one grossly ignorant of the principles of religion, necessary to salvation to be known; of one possessed with a dumb devil, that calls not on God in secret or in his family; that hath not so much as a form of godliness, but is a visible member of Satan's kingdom, and a visible enemy to the kingdom of Christ. That God is the God of such a one and his seed, and that we are to judge so of him and his seed, as of the most holy and exercised professor of religion, is what would need bands of iron and brass to tie a body to the belief of it. Wherefore I conclude, that seeing God cannot be judged to be the God of any and of their seed, but of visible saints and believers, none others' children have right to baptism: which must needs hold good, till such time as it be manifest, that others have right to baptism than they whose God the Lord is not, and have no interest in that privilege and blessing, to which circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of faith, and consequently baptism, was appended, Gen. 17:7–10. Let none say, he is their God by their profession, in so far as they were baptized in his name, and have not yet renounced it; for what sort of a profession is that which is visibly contradicted by their practice! Surely men would lay little weight on such a profession of service made to them by others. But God hath made faith, not profession, especially a profession visibly contradicted by their practice, to be the way of entering into covenant with him; and we look on a credible profession only as a probable sign of real faith, which we cannot discern but in its effects. Where then this credible profession is wanting, there appears no faith; and consequently there is no probable evidence of God's being the God of such persons, or of their seed.
ARGUMENT VII. If the children of openly wicked parents, though baptized, have a visible right to the seal of the covenant, then the church is bound to admit them to baptism, and actually to baptize them? but that practice of baptizing the infants of openly wicked persons, or such as are not visible believers, as deriving their right from their parents, (in which sense the proposition is to be understood,) is unwarrantable; Ergo, the sequel is plain: for it is a wrong to deny any the possession of that to which they have a visible right, when there is no impediment laid in the way by the party who is to have possession; as it is in the case of infants. Yea, it is a wrong not to put infants in the possession of those privileges whereof they are capable, and have a visible right to, seeing they are such as cannot move in their own business. Thus Moses was injurious to his son, in not circumcising him at the time appointed of God; for which cause God sought to kill him, Exod. 4:24. I prove the minor: the action is lusory, even according to the principles of those that differ, if the church hath no probable grounds to expect the religious education of those children that are baptized, or that they shall be brought up for the service of him in whose name they are baptized; but, in the case we speak of, they have no probable grounds to expect the same: Ergo, the action is lusory, and consequently unwarrantable. How can openly wicked persons, whether grossly ignorant of the fundamentals of religion, or profane in their lives, having knowledge, be trusted for the bringing up of a child for Christ? Is it probable, that they who are visible slaves to the devil themselves, will bring up their children in and to the service of God? We know not but they may formally renounce their baptism, and carry away their children with them to idolatry, &c. who have so far gone on in a practical renunciation of the same. Such persons are not fit to be trusted in such a weighty concern. If any shall say, that the baptizing of the children of such parents is to be suspended till their parents reform, or they themselves come to ripe years, and evidence their piety by a visibly holy walk; we agree in the thing, though not in the name; for by this means the infant's visible right is plainly made to depend on the visible state of the parent; which is indeed not to suspend, but utterly to deny the thing, and all right thereto, unto such infants, till such time as one of these two things before mentioned does appear. But how the suspending of the child's baptism for shorter or longer time, upon the parent's account, can be pleaded, according to the principles of those that differ, I
see not; seeing that were contrary to what they urge in the main point, that the son shall not bear the iniquity of the father.
But this is thought to be salved by bringing in of sponsors for such children; that their openly wicked parents are not to be admitted to make faith for them, but some other fit person. If such a fit person be found, then the child is to be baptized; if not, then indeed the action is lusory, say they. To this I answer, That either the child hath its right to the ordinance from the sponsor, or the parent. If from the sponsor, then not from the parent; which is the very thing we plead: if from the parent, then how comes the child to be denied that which it hath a visible right to, in any case, while, poor soul, it can do nothing to lay an impediment in the way of its possession of the privilege it hath right to? must it so far bear the iniquity of the father? It follows then still, that such an infant must be baptized in the right of the immediate parent; and that, on the same account, the infant cannot be kept back from baptism, nothing being on its part to hinder the actual possession. It is in vain to say, that the infant hath from the parent jus ad rem, and from the sponsor jus in re: for unless there were a jus sub termino fixed by the Lord in his word, as it was in the case of circumcision, when the child had no actual right in that ordinance till the eighth day, which cannot be alleged here, the infant hath a most immediate right by birth privilege, if it have any at all; so that the actual possession of that privilege may be immediately claimed in favours of such a child. And therefore that distinction is not applicable to the matter in hand. Neither do we need the help of it, in such a case, where godly parents are both dead before the child be baptized: for such a child being by birth privilege within the covenant visibly, and so having a visible right to baptism, in whose favours the actual possession of the seal may immediately be claimed, the church is bound to be tutor to it, and see to the education of it in the ways of God, and baptize it according to its right. Even as in the case of a temporal inheritance, where the heir is left an infant; the magistrate is bound to see to the bringing up of such a one, and that it be not defrauded of its heritage. So the church, in this case, gives it not any right to the ordinance that it had not before, but doth her duty in putting it in actual possession of that which it had all right to, antecedently to their meddling with it, and takes care of its education. And this they were obliged to do upon this formal
consideration, that such a one was a child of the covenant.
To consider a little further of sponsors for the children of openly wicked parents: In the first place, the practice of many is to require those only in some more odious cases, as when the parent is guilty of fornication, adultery, or the like; but readily, if they be civilized, though they have not so much as a form of godliness, nor ever bow a knee to God in secret or in their family, which doth hold them out of the number of visible believers, and so ranks them amongst the openly wicked, no sponsors are required for their children other than themselves. Now, what, are those persons to be trusted in the religious education of a child? Either we must say, that mere civility is religion and Christianity; or else we must say, it is probable that these will bring up their children in the holy religion and for Christ, that have not so much as a form of godliness themselves; which is a strange sort of probability. And what reason truly is there why such a difference should be made, in this matter, betwixt civil men that have not so much as a form of godliness, and common drunkards, swearers, &c. that are baptized? Are they baptized? so are these we speak of. Are they civil persons, free of gross immoralities? so are some pagans as well as they. If the church be I satisfied with them on the account of their baptism, they must also be satisfied with the other sort: if on the account of their civility, then they must be so satisfied with pagans also; for quatenus ad omne valet consequentia: if on the account of their baptized civility, why not also with many of the other sort upon the account of their drunken prayers? Nothing but bad custom, I presume, hath authorised the want of a form of godliness, neglect of prayer, and the like, in a civil baptized person, to go with such a black character, in the face of the visible church, as drunkenness and the like are marked with. Further, what if the parents will not allow another person to be sponsor for their child, and will rather let it lie unbaptized than suffer any such thing; will the church force away their children from them, and baptize them whether they will or not, so that the child may not be defrauded of its pretended right? Finally, in order to the church's security for the education of such children, it seems to be of absolute necessity, that they be put wholly in the power of the sponsor; for how can a man be trusted with the upbringing of a child that hath it not wholly in his power? To promise otherwise is to promise impossibilities, or that which might be
rendered impossible by the parent. Surely no man will take it upon him to learn another man's son a trade, whereby he may gain his livelihood, unless such a one be put in his power, so that the father may not call him away when he pleaseth. If the child be still at the disposal of the wicked parent, the sponsor may promise, but the parent will perform as he seeth good. Now, if the child be put wholly in the power of the sponsor as to its education, it is plain, the formal reason for which the child is baptized, is not because he is born of baptized parents, but because he is as it were the adopted son of the sponsor; so that the child hath his visible right to baptism, not by the parent, but the sponsor. And so the cause is yielded, and the case and question quite altered. And the question will be, Whether or not an infant which is devoted unto Christ by a stranger, having it wholly in its power, at least as to its education, hath a visible right to baptism? which is resolved by Mr. Baxter in the affirmative, on Scripture grounds, even though they were the children of Turks and Jews. Against which I dare not as yet reclaim, providing these sponsors be visible believers, and so fit to be trusted in such a matter. Hence it appears, sponsors, 1. ought to be visible believers; 2. having the child for whom they engage, wholly in their power as to its education; 3. required in the case of all children that are not the seed of parents whereof one is a visible believer. If matters were brought to this pass, much, if not all the difficulty of this case, would be removed.
ARGUMENT VIII. No infants but those of visible church members have right to baptism coram ecclesia; and none but the infants of visible believers are the children of visible church members: Ergo, the major is evident: for if the children of those that are no visible church members have right to baptism, it is made a privilege common to the church with those of the rest of the world; which is absurd. I prove the minor: if none be true members of the church but the faithful or real believers, then none are visible church members but visible believers; the former is true, therefore the latter also: consequently none are the children of visible church members, but the children of visible believers. The reason of the consequence is this, that visible church members are none other but such as apparently are true members of the church of Christ; so that if none be true members but real believers, none can be visible members but such as appear to be true believers. Christ hath not two churches, one invisible,