Chapter XI (5)

The case stands thus. God saith in his covenant, He that believeth shall be saved, and ought to be baptized, to profess that belief, and be invested in the benefits of the covenant; and he that professeth to believe, (whether he do or not,) is by the church to be taken for a visible believer, and by baptism to be received into the visible church. Here God calleth none but true believers (and their seed) to be baptized, nor maketh an actual promise or covenant with any other; and so I say that none other have right _in foro cœli_. But yet the church knoweth not men's hearts, and must take a serious profession for a credible sign of the faith professed, and for that outward title upon which it is a duty of the pastor to baptize the claimer.[275] So that the most malignant, scornful hypocrite, that maketh a seemingly serious profession, hath right _coram ecclesia_, but not _coram Deo_, save in this sense, that God would have the minister baptize him. But this I have largelier opened in my "Disputations of Right to Sacraments."

7. I think therefore that all the children of true christians, do by baptism receive a public investiture by God's appointment into a state of remission, adoption, and right to salvation at the present; though I dare not say that I am undoubtedly certain of it, as knowing how much is said against it. But I say as the synod of Dort, art. 1. That believing parents have no cause to doubt of the salvation of their children that die in infancy, before they commit actual sin; that is, not to trouble themselves with fears about it.

The reasons that move me to be of this judgment (though not without doubting and hesitancy) are these; 1. Because whoever hath right to the present investiture, delivery, and possession of the first and great benefits of God's covenant made with man in baptism, hath right to pardon, and adoption, and everlasting life: but the infants of true christians have right to the present investiture, delivery and possession of the first and great benefits of God's covenant made with man in baptism; therefore they have right to pardon and everlasting life.

Either infants are in the same covenant (that is, are subjects of the same promise of God) with their believing parents, or in some other covenant, or in no covenant. If they be under no covenant, (or promise,) or under some other promise or covenant only, and not the same, they are not to be baptized. For baptism is a mutual covenanting; where the minister by Christ's commission in his name acteth his part, and the believer his own and his infant's part: and God hath but one covenant, which is to be made, sealed, and delivered in baptism. Baptism is not an equivocal word, so as to signify divers covenants of God.

_Object._ But the same covenant of God hath divers sorts of benefits; the special God giveth to the sincere, and the common to the common and hypocritical receiver.

_Answ._ 1. God indeed requireth the minister to take profession for the visible church title; and so it being the minister's duty so far to believe a liar, and to receive dissemblers who had no right to lay that claim, you may say that God indirectly and improperly giveth them church privileges: but properly, that is, by his promise or covenant deed or gift, he giveth them nothing at all; for his covenant is one and undivided in its action, though it give several benefits, and though providence may give one and not another, yet the covenant giveth all or none. God saith that godliness hath the promise of this life and of that to come; but he never said (that I know of) to the hypocrite or unsound believer, I promise or give right to common mercies.[276]

2. But suppose it were otherwise, yet either the children of true believers have the true condition of right to the special blessings of the covenant, or they have not the condition of any at all. For there can no more be required of an infant, as to any special blessings of the covenant, than that he be the child of believing parents, and by them dedicated to God. Either this condition entitleth them to all the covenant promises which the adult believer is entitled to, (as far as their natures are capable,) or it entitleth them to none at all; nor are they to be baptized; for God hath in Scripture instituted but one baptism, (to profess one faith,) and that one is ever for the remission of sins:[277] "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved," Mark xvi. 16.

3. Or if all the rest were granted you, yet it would follow that all infants in the world, even of true believers, are left out of God's covenant of grace, that is, the covenant or promise of pardon and life; and are only taken into the covenant of church privileges. And so, 1. You will make two covenants, (which you denied,) and not only two sorts of benefits of one covenant. 2. And two species of baptism; while all infants in the world are only under a covenant of outward privileges, and have no baptism, but the seal of that covenant, while believers have the covenant, promise, and seal of pardon and life.

2. And this is my second reason; because then we have no promise or certainty, or ground of faith, for the pardon and salvation of any individual infants in the world. And so parents are left to little comfort for their children. And if there be no promise there is no faith of it, nor any baptism to seal it; and so we still make antipædobaptism unavoidable. For who dare set God's seal to such as have no promise? or pretend to invest any in a near and saving relation to God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, (which is the very nature of baptism,) when God hath given no such commission?

_Object._ Yes: baptism and the covenant of special promises are for all the elect, though we know not who they are.

_Answ._ 1. I deny not God's eternal, antecedent election; but I deny that the Scripture ever mentioneth his pardoning or glorifying any, upon the account of election only, without certain spiritual conditions, which may be given as the reason of the difference in judgment. God may freely give the gospel to whom he will, and also faith or the first grace by the gospel, without any previous condition in man, but according to his free election only: but he giveth pardon and heaven as a rector by his equal laws and judgment; and always rendereth a reason of the difference, from the qualifications of man.

2. And if this were as you say, it would still overthrow infant baptism. For either we must baptize all indifferently, or none, or else know how to make a difference. All must not be baptized indifferently: and election is a secret thing to us, and by it no minister in the world can tell whom to baptize: therefore he must baptize none, if there be no other differencing note to know them by.

_Object._ God hath more elect ones among the infants of true believers than among others: and therefore they are all to be baptized.

_Answ._ 1. It will be hard to prove that much (that he hath more) if there be no promise to them all as such. 2. If he have more, yet no man knoweth how many, and whether the elect be one of ten, twenty, forty, or a hundred, in comparison of the non-elect; for Scripture tells it not. So that no minister of a church is sure that any one infant that he ever baptized is elect. 3. And God hath given no such rule for sealing and delivering his covenant with the benefits as to cast it hap hazard among all, because it is possible or probable it may belong to some.

_Object._ You have no certainty what adult professor is sincere, nor to which of them the special benefits belong; no, not of any one in a church. And yet because there is a probability that among many there are some sincere, you baptize them all. Take then the birth privilege but as equal to the profession of the adult.

_Answ._ This partly satisfied me sometimes: but I cannot forget that a visible, false, or hypocritical profession is not the condition of God's own covenant of grace, nor that which he requireth in us, to make us partakers of his covenant benefits; nay, he never at all commandeth it; but only commandeth that profession of consent, which followeth the real consent of the heart:[278] he that condemneth lying, maketh it neither the condition of our church membership, as his gift by promise, nor yet our duty.

And mark well, that it is a professed consent to the whole covenant that God requireth, as the condition of our true right to any part or benefit of it. He that shall only say, I consent to be a visible church member, doth thereby acquire no right to that membership; no, not _in foro ecclesiæ_, but he must also profess that he consenteth to have God for his God, and Christ for his Lord and Saviour, and the Holy Spirit for his Sanctifier. So that he must be a liar, or a sound believer, that maketh this profession.

But for an infant to be born of true believers, and sincerely by them dedicated in covenant to God, is all the condition that ever God required to an infant-title to his covenant; and it is not the failure of the true condition as a false profession is.

Indeed if the proposition were thus laid, it would hold good: As we know not who sincerely covenanteth for himself, and yet we must baptize all that soberly profess it; so we know not who doth sincerely covenant for his infant, and yet must baptize all whom the parents bring with such a profession, for themselves and them.

But if the sincere dedication of a sound believer, shall be accounted but equal to the lying profession of the adult, which is neither commanded, nor hath any promise, then infants are not in the covenant of grace, nor is the sincerest dedication to God either commanded or hath any promise.

If I were but sure that the profession of the adult for himself were sincere, I were sure that he were in a state of grace. And if I am not sure of the same concerning the parent's dedication of his infant, I must conclude that this is not a condition of the same covenant, and therefore that he is not in the same covenant (or conditional promise of God) unless there be some other condition required in him or for him; but there is no other that can be devised.

_Object._ Election is the condition.

_Answ._ Election is God's act and not man's; and therefore may be an antecedent, but no condition required of us. And man is not called to make profession that he is elected, as he is to make profession of his faith and consent to the covenant. And God only knoweth who are his by election, and therefore God only can baptize on this account.

And what is the probability which the objecters mean, that many of the infants of the faithful are elected? Either it is a promise, or but a prediction; if no promise, it is not to be sealed by baptism; if a promise, it is absolute or conditional. If any absolute promise, as, I will save many children of believers, 1. This terminateth not on any singular person, as baptism doth, and, 2. It is not the absolute promise that baptism is appointed by Christ to seal. This is apparent in Mark xvi. 16, and in the case of the adult. And it is not one covenant which is sealed to the adult by baptism, and another to infants. Else baptism also should not be the same. But if it be any conditional covenant, what is it, and what is the condition?

And what is it that baptism giveth to the seed of believers, if they be not justified by it from original sin? You will not say, that it conveyeth inherent sanctifying grace, no not into all the elect themselves, which many are many years after without. And you cannot say, that it sealeth to them any promise, so much as of visible church privileges; for God may suffer them presently to be made janizaries, and violently taken from their parents, and become strangers and despisers of church privileges, as is ordinary with the Greek's children among the Turks. Now God either promised such church privileges absolutely, or conditionally, or not at all. Not absolutely, for then they would possess them. If conditionally, what is the condition? If not at all, what promise then doth baptism seal to such, and what benefit doth it secure? God hath instituted no baptism, which is a mere present delivery of possession of a church state, without sealing any promise at all. True baptism first sealeth the promise, and then delivereth possession of some benefits.

Yea, indeed outward church privileges are such uncertain blessings of the promise, that as they are but secondary, so they are but secondarily given and sealed, so that no man should ever be baptized, if these were all that were in the promise.[279] The holiest person may be cast into a wilderness, and deprived of all visible church communion; and doth God then break his promise with him? Certainly no. It is therefore our saving relations to God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, which the promise giveth, and baptism sealeth; and other things but subordinately and uncertainly as they are means to these. So then it is plain, that believers' infants have a promise of salvation, or no promise at all, which baptism was instituted to seal.

I have said so much more of this in my Appendix to the "Treatise of Infant Baptism," to Mr. Bedford, in defence of Dr. Davenant's judgment, as that I must refer the reader thither.

8. I think it very probable that this ascertaining promise belongeth not only to the natural seed of believers, but to all whom they have a true power and right to dedicate in covenant to God; which seemeth to be all that are properly their own, whether adopted or bought; but there is more darkness and doubt about this than the former, because the Scripture hath said less of it.

9. I am not able to prove, nor see any probable reason for it, that any but sound believers have such a promise for their children, nor that any hypocrite shall certainly save his child, if he do but dedicate him to God in baptism. For, 1. I find no promise in Scripture made to such. 2. He that doth not sincerely believe himself, nor consent to God's covenant, cannot sincerely believe for his child, nor consent for him. 3. And that faith which will not save the owner, as being not the condition of the promise, cannot save another. Much more might be said of this. I confess that the church is to receive the children of hypocrites as well as themselves; and their baptism is valid _in foro externo ecclesiæ_, and is not to be reiterated. But it goeth no further for his child, than for himself.

10. Therefore I think that all that are rightfully baptized by the minister, that is, baptized so as that it is well done of him, are not certainly saved by baptism, unless they be also rightfully baptized, in regard of their right to claim and receive it. Let them that are able to prove more do it, for I am not able.

11. Whereas some misinterpret the words of the old rubric of confirmation in the English liturgy, as if it spake of all that are baptized, whether they had right or not, the words themselves may serve to rectify that mistake, "And that no man shall think any detriment shall come to children by deferring of their confirmation, he shall know for truth, that it is certain by God's word, that children being baptized have all things necessary for their salvation, and be undoubtedly saved." Where it is plain that they mean, they have all things necessary _ex parte ecclesiæ_, or all God's applying ordinances necessary, though they should die unconfirmed, supposing that they have all things necessary to just baptism on their own part. Which is but what the ancients were wont to say of the baptized adult; but they never meant that the infidel, and hypocrite, and impenitent person was in a state of life, because he was baptized; but that all that truly consent to the covenant, and signify this by being baptized, are saved. So the church of England saith, that they receive no detriment by delaying confirmation; but it never said, that they receive no detriment by their parents' or sponsors' infidelity and hypocrisy, or by their want of true right _coram Deo_ to be baptized.

12. But yet before these questions (either of them) be taken as resolved by me, I must first take in some other questions which are concerned in the same cause; as,

[274] Since the writing of this, there is come forth an excellent book for Infant Baptism by Mr. Joseph Whiston, in which the grounds of my present solutions are notably cleared.

[275] Mark xvi. 16; Acts ii. 37, 38; xxii. 16; 1 Cor. vi. 11; Tit. iii. 3, 5, 6; Heb. x. 22; Eph. v. 26; Rom. vi. 1, 4; Col. ii. 12; 1 Pet. iii. 21, 22; Eph. iv. 5; Acts viii. 12, 13, 16, 36, 38; ix. 18; xvi. 15, 33; xix. 5; Gal. iii. 27.

[276] Acts ii. 39; Gal. iii. 22, 29; 1 Tim. iv. 8; Eph. ii. 12; 2 Tim. i. 1; Heb. iv. 1; vi. 17; ix. 15; x. 36; viii. 6; 2 Pet i. 4, 5.

[277] Acts ii. 38; xxvi. 18; Luke xxiv. 47.

[278] Rom. x. 9; Acts viii. 37.

[279] Matt. vi. 33; Rom. viii. 28, 32, &c.

Quest. XXXVI. _What is meant by this speech, that believers and their seed are in the covenant of God; which giveth them right to baptism?_

_Answ._ Though this was opened on thee by before I add, 1. The meaning is not that they are in that absolute promise of the first and all following grace, supposed ordinarily to be made of the elect, (as such unknown,) viz. I will give them faith, repentance, conversion, justification, and salvation, and all the conditions of the conditional promise, without any condition on their part, which many take to be the meaning of, I will take the hard heart out of them, &c. For, 1. This promise is not now to be first performed to the adult who repent and believe already; and no other are to be baptized at age. If that absolute promise be sealed by baptism, either it must be so sealed as a promise before it be performed, or after; if before, either to all, because some are elect, or only to some that are elect. Not to all; for it is not common to infidels. Not to some as elect; for, 1. They are unknown. 2. If they were known, they are yet supposed to be infidels. Not after performance, for then it is too late.

2. The meaning is not only that the conditional covenant of grace is made and offered to them; for so it may be said of heathens and infidels, and all the world that hear the gospel.

But, 1. The covenant meant is indeed this conditional covenant only, Mark xvi. 16, "He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved."

2. To be in this covenant is, to be a consenting believer, and so to be one that hath by inward heart consent the true conditions of right to the benefits of the covenant, and is thereby prepared solemnly by baptism to profess this consent, and to receive an investiture and seal of God's part, by his minister given in his name.

3. Infants are thus in covenant with their parents, because reputatively their parents' wills are theirs, to dispose of them for their good. And therefore they consent by their parents, who consent for them.

Quest. XXXVII. _Are believers' children certainly in covenant before their baptism, and thereby in a state of salvation? or not till they are baptized?_

_Answ._ Distinguish between, 1. Heart-covenanting and mouth covenanting. 2. Between being in covenant before God, and visibly before the church.

1. No person is to be baptized at age, whose inward heart consent before professed, giveth him not right to baptism. Therefore all the adult must be in covenant, that is, consent on their part to the covenant, before they are baptized.

2. Therefore it is so with the seed of the faithful, who must consent by their parents, before they have right; otherwise all should have right, and their baptism be essentially another baptism, as sealing some other covenant, or none.

3. If there be no promise made to the seed of the faithful more than to others, they have no right more than others to baptism or salvation. But if there be a promise made to them as the seed of believers, then are they as such within that promise, that is, performers of its conditions by their parents, and have right to the benefit.

4. If the heart consent or faith of the adult, do put themselves into a state of salvation, before their baptism, then it doth so by their children; but, &c.--

5. But this right to salvation in parents and children upon heart consent before baptism, is only before God. For the church taketh no cognizance of secret heart transactions; but a man then only consenteth in the judgment of the church, when he openly professeth it, and desireth to signify it by being baptized.

6. And even before God, there is a _necessitas præcepti_ obliging us to open baptism after heart consent; and he that heartily consenteth, cannot refuse God's way of uttering it, unless either through ignorance he know it not to be his duty, (for himself and his child,) or through want of ability or opportunity cannot have it. So that while a man is unbaptized, somewhat is wanting to the completeness of his right to the benefits of the covenant, viz. A reception of investiture and possession in God's appointed way; though it be not such a want, as shall frustrate the salvation of those that did truly consent in heart.

7. I take it therefore for certain, that the children of true believers consent to the covenant by their parents, and are as certainly saved if they die before baptism, as after; though those that despise baptism, when they know it to be a duty, cannot be thought indeed to believe or consent for their children or themselves.

Quest. XXXVIII. _Is infants' title to baptism and the covenant benefits given them by God in his promise, upon any proper moral condition, or only upon the condition of their natural relation, that they be the seed of the faithful?_

_Answ._ That which is called a mere natural condition is properly in law sense no condition at all; nor doth make a contract or promise to be called conditional in a moral sense. But it is matters of morality, and not of physics only, that we are treating of; and therefore we must take the terms in a moral sense. For a physical condition is either past, or present, or future, or not future; if it be past or present, the proposition may indeed be hypothetical, but it is no such conditional promise as we are speaking of; for instance, if you say, If thou wast born in such a city, or if thy name be John, I will give thee so much. These are the words of an uncertain promiser; but the promise is already either equivalent to an absolute gift, or null. So if the physical condition be _de futuro_, e. g. If thou be alive to-morrow, I will give thee this or that; or if the sun shine to-morrow, &c. This indeed suspendeth the gift or event; but not upon any moral being which is in the power of the receiver, but upon a natural contingency or uncertainty. And God hath no such conditional covenants or promises to be sealed by baptism. He saith not, If thou be the child of such or such a man, thou shalt be saved, as his natural offspring only. If the papists that accuse us for holding that the mere natural progeny of believers are saved as such, did well understand our doctrine, they would perceive that in this we differ not from the understanding sort among them, or at least, that their accusations run upon a mistake.

I told you before that there are three things distinctly to be considered in the title of infants to baptism and salvation. 1. By what right the parent covenanteth for his child. 2. What right the child hath to baptism. 3. What right he hath to the benefits of the covenant sealed and delivered in baptism?

To the first, two things concur to the title of the parent to covenant in the name of his child. One is his natural interest in him; the child being his own is at his disposal. The other is God's gracious will and consent that it shall be so; that the parent's will shall be as the child's for his good, till he come at age to have a will of his own.

To the second, the child's right to baptism is not merely his natural or his birth relation from such parents, but it is in two degrees, as followeth: 1. He hath a virtual right, on condition of his parent's faith: the reason is, because that a believer's consent and self-dedication to God doth virtually contain in it a dedication with himself of all that is his: and it is a contradiction to say that a man truly dedicateth himself to God, and not all that he hath, and that he truly consenteth to the covenant for himself and not for his child, if he understand that God will accept it. 2. His actual title condition is his parent's (or owner's) actual consent to enter him into God's covenant, and his actual mental dedication of his child to God, which is his title before God, and the profession of it is his title before the church. So that it is not a mere physical but a moral title condition, which an infant hath to baptism, that is, his parent's consent to dedicate him to God.

3. And to the third, his title condition to the benefits of baptism hath two degrees: 1. That he be really dedicated to God by the heart consent of his parent as aforesaid. And, 2. That his parent express this by the solemn engaging him to God in baptism; the first being necessary as a means _sine qua non_, and the second being necessary as a duty without which he sinneth, (when it is possible,) and as a means _coram ecclesia_ to the privileges of the visible church.

The sum of all is, that our mere natural interest in our children is not their title condition to baptism or to salvation, but only that presupposed state which enableth us by God's consent to covenant for them; but their title condition to baptism and salvation, is our covenanting for them, or voluntary dedicating them to God; which we do, 1. Virtually, when we dedicate ourselves, and all that we have or shall have. 2. Actually, when our hearts consent particularly for them, and actually devote them to God, before baptism. 3. Sacramentally, when we express this in our solemn baptismal covenanting and dedication.

Consider exactly of this again; and if you loathe distinguishing, confess ingenuously that you loathe the truth, or the necessary means of knowing it.

Quest. XXXIX. _What is the true meaning of sponsors,_ patrimi, _or godfathers as we call them? And is it lawful to make use of them?_

_Answ._ I. To the first question; all men have not the same thoughts either of their original, or of their present use.

1. Some think that they were sponsors or sureties for the parents rather than the child at first; and that when many in times of persecution, heresy, and apostasy, did baptize their children this month or year, and the next month or year apostatize and deny Christ themselves, that the sponsors were only credible christians witnessing that they believed that the parents were credible, firm believers, and not like to apostatize. 2. Others think that they were undertakers, that if the parents did apostatize or die, they would see to the christian education of the child themselves. 3. Others think that they did both these together; (which is my opinion;) viz. that they witnessed the probability of the parents' fidelity; but promised that if they should either apostatize or die, they would see that the children were piously educated. 4. Others think that they were absolute undertakers that the children should be piously educated, whether the parents died or apostatized or not; so that they went joint undertakers with the parents in their lifetime. 5. And I have lately met with some that maintain that the godfathers and godmothers become proprietors, and adopt the child, and take him for their own, and that this is the sense of the church of England. But I believe them not for these reasons.

1. There is no such word in the liturgy, doctrine, or canons of the church of England: and that is not to be feigned and fathered on them, which they never said.

2. It would be against the law of nature to force all parents to give the sole propriety, or joint propriety, in their children to others. Nature hath given the propriety to themselves, and we cannot rob them of it.

3. It would be heinously injurious to the children of noble and learned persons, if they must be forced to give them up to the propriety and education of others, even of such as perhaps are lower and more unfit for it than themselves.

4. It would be more heinously injurious to all godfathers and godmothers, who must all make other men's children their own, and therefore must use them as their own.

5. It would keep most children unbaptized; because if it were once understood that they must take them as their own, few would be sponsors to the children of the poor, for fear of keeping them; and few but the ignorant that know not what they do, would be sponsors for any, because of the greatness of the charge, and their averseness to adopt the children of others.

6. It would make great confusion in the state, while all men were bound to exchange children with another.

7. I never knew one man or woman that was a godfather or godmother on such terms, nor that took the child to be their own: and if such a one should be found among ten thousand, that is no rule to discern the judgment of the church by.

8. And in confirmation the godfather and godmother is expressly said to be for this use, to be witnesses that the party is confirmed.

9. And in the priest's speech to the adult that come for baptism, in the office of baptism of those of riper years, it is the persons themselves that are to promise and covenant for themselves, and the godfathers and godmothers are only called "these your witnesses." And if they be but witnesses to the adult, it is like they are not adopters of infants.

II. Those that doubt of the lawfulness of using sponsors for their children, do it on these two accounts: 1. As supposing it unlawful to make so promiscuous an adoption of children, or of choosing another to be a covenanter for the child instead of the parent, to whom it belongeth; or to commit their children to another's either propriety, or education, or formal promise of that which belongeth to education, when they never mean to perform it, nor can do. 2. Because they take it for an adding to the ordinance of God, a thing which Scripture never mentioneth. To which I answer,

1. I grant it unlawful to suppose another to be the parent or proprietor that is not; or to suppose him to have that power and interest in your child which he hath not; or to desire him to undertake what he cannot perform, and which neither he nor you intend he shall perform; I grant that you are not bound to alienate the propriety of your children, nor to take in another to be joint proprietors; nor to put out your children to the godfather's education. So that if you will misunderstand the use of sponsors, then indeed you will make them unlawful to be so used.

But if you take them but as the ancient churches did, for such as do attest the parents' fidelity, (in their persuasion,) and do promise first to mind you of your duty, and next to take care of the children's pious education if you die, I know no reason you have to scruple this much.

Yea more, it is in your own power to agree with the godfathers, that they shall represent your own persons, and speak and promise what they do, as your deputies only, in your names. And what have you against this? Suppose you were sick, lame, imprisoned, or banished, would you not have your child baptized? And how should that be done, but by your deputing another to represent you in entering him into covenant with God?

_Object._ But when the churchmen mean another thing, this is but to juggle with the world.

_Answ._ How can you prove that the authority that made or imposed the liturgy, meant any other thing? And other individuals are not the masters of your sense. Yea, and if the imposers had meant ill, in a thing that may be done well, you may discharge your conscience by doing it well, and making a sufficient profession of your better sense.

2. And then it will be no sinful addition to God's ordinance, to determine of a lawful circumstance, which he hath left to human prudence: as to choose a meet deputy, witness, or sponsor, who promiseth nothing but what is meet.

Quest. XL. _On whose account or right is it that the infant hath title to baptism and its benefits? Is it on the parents', ancestors', sponsors', the church's, the minister's, the magistrate's, or his own?_

_Answ._ The titles are very various that are pretended; let us examine them all.

I. I cannot think that a magistrate's command to baptize an infant, giveth him right, 1. Because there is no proof of the validity of such a title. 2. Because the magistrate can command no such thing if it be against God's word, as this is, which would level the case of the seed of heathens and believers. And I know but few of that opinion.

II. I do not think that the minister as such giveth title to the infant: for, 1. He is no proprietor. 2. He can show no such power or grant from God. 3. He must baptize none but those that antecedently have right. 4. Else he also might level all, and take in heathen's children with believers'. 5. Nor is this pretended to by many, that I know of.

III. I cannot think that it is a particular church that must give this right, or perform the condition of it. For, 1. Baptism (as is aforesaid) as such, doth only make a christian, and a member of the universal church, and not of any particular church. And, 2. The church is not the proprietor of the child. 3. No Scripture commission can be showed for such a power. Where hath God said, All that any particular church will receive, shall have right to baptism? 4. By what act must the church give this right? If by baptizing him; the question is of his antecedent right. If by willing that he be baptized; (1.) If they will that one be baptized that hath no right to it, their will is sinful, and therefore unfit to give him right. (2.) And the baptizing minister hath more power than a thousand or ten thousand private men, to judge who is to be baptized. 5. Else a church might save all heathen children that they can but baptize, and so level infidels' and christians' seed. 6. It is not the church in general, but some one person, that must educate the child: therefore the church cannot so much as promise for its education: the church hath nothing to do with those that are without, but only with her own; and heathen's children are not her own, nor exposed to her occupation.

IV. I believe not that it is the universal church that giveth the infant title to baptism: for, 1. He that giveth title to the covenant and baptism, doth it as a performer of the moral condition of that title. But God hath no where made the church's faith to be the condition of baptism or salvation, either to infidels or their seed. 2. Because the universal church is a body that cannot be consulted with to give their vote and consent: nor have they any deputies to do it by. For there is no universal, visible governor: and if you will pretend every priest to be commissioned to act and judge in the name of the universal church, you will want proof, and that is before confuted. 3. If all have right that the universal church offereth up to God, or any minister or bishop be counted its deputy or agent to that end, it is in the power of that minister (as is said) to level all, and to baptize and save all; which is contrary to the word of God.

V. I believe that godfathers as such, being no adopters or proprietors, are not the performers of the condition of salvation for the infant, nor give him right to be baptized. 1. Because he is not their own, and therefore their will or act cannot go for his; because there is no word of God for it that all shall be baptized or saved that any christians will be sponsors for. God's church blessings are not tied to such inventions, that were not in being when God's laws were made. Where there is no promise or word, there is no faith. 3. No sponsors are so much as lawful (as is showed before) who are not owners or their deputies, or mere secondary subservient parties, who suppose the principal covenanting party. 4. And as to the infant's salvation, the sponsors may (too oft) be ignorant infidels and hypocrites themselves, that have no true faith for themselves; and therefore not enough to save another. 5. And it were strange if God should make no promise to a wicked parent for his own child, and yet should promise to save by baptism all that some wicked and hypocrite godfathers will offer him. And that thus the seed of heathens and christians should be levelled, and yet an ignorant, bold undertaker to carry away the privilege of saving persons from them both. All this is but men's unproved imaginations. He that never commandeth godfathers, but forbiddeth the usurping sort, and only alloweth human prudence to use the lawful sort, did never put the souls of all children, christians and heathens, into their hands (any more than into the hands of the priest that baptizeth them).

VI. I do not find that remote ancestors that are dead, or that are not proprietors of the children, are the performers of the condition by which they have right to baptism or salvation. 1. Because God hath put that power and work in the hands of others, even the parents, which they cannot nullify. 2. Because the promise of mercy to thousands is on supposition that the successors make no intercision. 3. Else the threatenings to the seed of the wicked would signify nothing, nor would any in the world be excluded from right, but all be levelled; because Noah was the common father of mankind: and if you lay it on dead ancestors, you have no rule where to stop till you come to Noah.

VII. I conclude therefore that it is, clearly, the immediate parents, (both or one,) and probably any true domestic owner of the child, who hath the power to choose or refuse for him, and so to enter him into covenant with God, and so by consent to perform the conditions of his right. For, 1. Abundance of promises are made to the faithful and their seed, of which I have spoken at large in my book "Of Infant Baptism." And besides the punishment of Adam's sin, there is scarce a parent infamous for sin in Scripture, but his posterity falleth under the punishment, as for a secondary, original sin or guilt. As the case of Cain, Ham, the Sodomites, the Amalekites, the Jews, Achan, Gehazi, &c. show. And 1 Cor. vii. 14, it is expressly said, "Else were your children unclean, but now are they holy" (of the sense of which I have spoke as aforecited).

_Object._ But if owners may serve, one may buy multitudes, and a king or lord of slaves, whose own the people are, may cause them all to be baptized and saved.

_Answ._ 1. Remember that I say, that the christian parent's right is clear, but I take the other as more dark; for it is principally grounded on Abraham and the Israelites circumcising their children born to them in the house or bought with money: and how far the parity of reason here will reach is hard to know. All that I say is, that I will not deny it, because _favores sunt ampliandi_. 2. If such a prince be a hypocrite, and not a sincere christian himself, his faith or consent cannot save others, that cannot save himself. 3. It is such a propriety as is conjunct with a divine concession only that giveth this power of consenting for an infant: now we find clear proof of God's concession to natural parents, and probable proof of his concession of it to domestic owners, but no further that I know of.[280] For, (1.) It is an act of God's love to the child for the parent's sake; and therefore to such children as we are supposed to have a special nearness to, and love for. (2.) And it is a consent and covenanting which he calls for, which obligeth the promiser to consequent pious education, which is a domestic act. (3.) They are comprised in the name of parents, which those that adopt them and educate them may be called. (4.) And the infants are their children, not their slaves. But now, if the emperor of Muscovy, Indostan, &c. had the propriety in all his people as slaves, this would not imitate paternal interest and love, but tyranny, nor could he be their domestic educater. Therefore I must limit it to a pro-parent, or domestic, educating proprietor.

[280] Deut. xxix. 10-13.

Quest. XLI. _Are they really baptized who are baptized according to the English liturgy and canons, where the parent seemeth excluded, and those to consent for the infant who have no power to do it?_

_Answ._ I find some puzzled with this doubt, Whether all our infants' baptism be not a mere nullity: for, say they, the outward washing without covenanting with God, is no more baptism, than the body or corpse is a man. The covenant is the chief essential part of baptism. And he that was never entered into covenant with God was never baptized. But infants according to the liturgy, are not entered into covenant with God, which they would prove thus: they that neither ever covenanted by themselves, or by any authorized person for them, were never entered into covenant with God (for that is no act of theirs which is done by a stranger that hath no power to do it); but, &c.--That they did it not themselves is undeniable: that they did it not by any person empowered by God to do it for them they prove, 1. Because godfathers are the persons by whom the infant is said to promise; but godfathers have no power from God, (1.) Not by nature. (2.) Not by Scripture. 2. Because the parents are not only not included as covenanters, but positively excluded, (1.) In that the whole office of covenanting for the child from first to last is laid on others. (2.) In that the twenty-ninth canon saith, "No parent shall be urged to be present; nor admitted to answer as godfather for his own child:" by which the parent that hath the power is excluded: therefore our children are all unbaptized.

To all this I answer, 1. That the parent's consent is supposed, though he be absent. 2. That the parent is not required to be absent, but only not to be urged to be present; but he may if he will. 3. That the reason of that canon seems to be their jealousy, lest any would exclude godfathers. 4. While the church hath no where declared what person the sponsors bear, nor any further what they are to do, than to speak the covenanting words, and promise to see to the pious education of the child, the parents may agree that the godfathers shall do all this as their deputies, primarily, and in their steads, and secondarily as friends that promise their assistance. 5. While parents really consent, it is not their silence that nullifieth the covenant. 6. All parents are supposed and required to be themselves the choosers of the sponsors or sureties, and also to give notice to the minister beforehand: by which it appeareth that their consent is presupposed. And though my own judgment be, that they should be the principal covenanters for the child expressly, yet the want of that expressness, will not make us unbaptized persons.

Quest. XLII. _But the great question is, How the Holy Ghost is given to infants in baptism? And whether all the children of true christians have inward sanctifying grace? or whether they can be said to be justified, and to be in a state of salvation, that are not inherently sanctified? And whether any fall from this infant state of salvation?_

_Answ._ Of all these great difficulties I have said what I know, in my "Appendix to Infant Baptism," to Mr. Bradford and Dr. Ward, and of Bishop Davenant's judgment. And I confess that my judgment agreeth more in this with Davenant's than any others, saving that he doth not so much appropriate the benefits of baptism to the children of sincere believers as I do. And though by a letter in pleading Davenant's cause, I was the occasion of good Mr. Gataker's printing of his answer to him, yet I am still most inclined to his judgment; not that all the baptized, but that all the baptized seed of true christians, are pardoned, justified, adopted, and have a title to the Spirit and salvation.

But the difficulties in this case are so great, as drive away most who do not equally perceive the greater inconveniences which we must choose, if this opinion be forsaken: that is, that all infants must be taken to be out of the covenant of God, and to have no promise of salvation. Whereas surely the law of grace as well as the covenant of works included all the seed in their capacity.

1. To the first of these questions, I answer, 1. As all true believers, so all their infants do receive initially by the promise, and by way of obsignation and sacramental investiture in baptism, a _jus relationis_, a right of peculiar relation to all the three persons in the blessed Trinity: as to God, as their reconciled, adopting Father; and to Jesus Christ, as their Redeemer and actual Head and Justifier; so also to the Holy Ghost, as their Regenerator and Sanctifier.[281] This right and relation adhereth to them, and is given them in order to future actual operation and communion: as a marriage covenant giveth the relation and right to one another, in order to the subsequent communion and duties of a married life; and as he that sweareth allegiance to a king, or is listed into an army, or is entered into a school, receiveth the right and relation, and is so correlated, as obligeth to the mutual subsequent offices of each, and giveth right to many particular benefits. By this right and relation, God is his own God and Father; Christ is his own Head and Saviour; and the Holy Spirit is his own Sanctifier, without asserting what operations are already wrought on his soul, but only to what future ends and uses these relations are. Now as these rights and relations are given immediately, so those benefits which are relative, and the infant immediately capable of them, are presently given by way of communion: he hath presently the pardon of original sin, by virtue of the sacrifice, merit, and intercession of Christ. He hath a state of adoption, and right to divine protection, provision, and church communion according to his natural capacity, and right to everlasting life.

2. It must be carefully noted, that the relative union between Christ the Mediator and the baptized persons, is that which in baptism is first given in order of nature, and that the rest do flow from this. The covenant and baptism deliver the covenanter, 1. From divine displicency by reconciliation with the Father: 2. From legal penalties by justification by the Son: 3. From sin itself by the operations of the Holy Ghost. But it is Christ as our Mediator-Head, that is first given us in relative union; and then, 1. The Father loveth us with complacency as in the Son, and for the sake of his first Beloved. 2. And the Spirit which is given us in relation is first the Spirit of Christ our Head, and not first inherent in us; so that by union with our Head, that Spirit is next united to us, both relatively, and as radically inherent in the human nature of our Lord, to whom we are united.[282] As the nerves and animal spirits which are to operate in all the body, are radically only in the head, from whence they flow into and operate on the members as there is need (though there may be obstructions); so the Spirit dwelleth in the human nature of our Head, and there it can never be lost; and it is not necessary that it dwell in us by way of radication, but by way of influence and operation.

These things are distinctly and clearly understood but by very few; and we are all much in the dark about them. But I think, (however doctrinally we may speak better,) that most christians are habituated to this perilous misapprehension, (which is partly against Christianity itself,) that the Spirit floweth immediately from the divine nature of the Father and the Son (as to the authoritative or potestative conveyance) unto our souls. And we forget that it is first given to Christ in his glorified humanity as our Head, and radicated in Him; and that it is the office of this glorified Head, to send or communicate to all his members from himself, that Spirit which must operate in them as they have need.

This is plain in many texts of Scripture. Rom. viii. 32, "He that spared not his own Son, but gave him up for us all, how shall he not also with him freely give us all things?" (when he giveth him particularly to us).

1 John v. 11, 12, "And this is the record that God hath given us eternal life, and this life is in his Son; he that hath the Son hath the life, and he that hath not the Son hath not the life."

Rom. viii. 9, "If any man have not the Spirit of Christ, the same is none of his."

Eph. i. 22, 23, "And gave him to be the Head over all things to the church, which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all."

John xv. 26, "The Advocate or Comforter whom I will send unto you from the Father," &c.

John xvi. 7, "If I depart, I will send him unto you."

John xiv. 26, "The Comforter, whom the Father will send in my name."

Gal. iv. 6, "And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying Abba, Father."

Gal. ii. 20, "I live: yet not I, but Christ liveth in me." (I know that is true of his living in us objectively and finally, but that seemeth not to be all.)