A Christian Directory, Part 3: Christian Ecclesiastics

3. As the actual sin imputed to infants was Adam's, and their parents' only by act, and not their own, it is no wonder if upon their parents' faith and repentance, Christ wash and justify them from that guilt which arose only from another's act.

4. And then the inherent pravity was the effect of that act of their ancestors, which is forgiven them. And this pravity or inherent, original sin may two ways be said to be mortified radically, or virtually, or inceptively before any inherent change in them: 1. In that it is mortified in their parents from whom they derived it, who have the power of choosing for them; and, 2. In that they are by covenant ingrafted into Christ, and so related to the cause of their future sanctification; yea, 3. In that also they are by covenant and their parents' promise, engaged to use those means which Christ hath appointed for sanctification.286

5. And it must be remembered that as this is but an inceptive, preparatory change, so the very pardon of the inherent vitiosity is not perfect, (as I have elsewhere largely proved,) however some papists and protestants deny it. While sin remaineth, sin and corruption is still indwelling, besides all the unremoved penalties of it, the very being of it proveth it to be so far unpardoned, in that it is not yet abolished, and the continuance of it being not its smallest punishment, as permitted, and the Spirit not given so far as to cure it. Imperfect pardon may consist with a present right both to further sanctification by the Spirit, and so to heaven.

Object. Christ's body hath no unholy members.

Answ. 1. 1 Cor. vii. 14, "Now are your children holy." They are not wholly unholy who have all the fore-described holiness. 2. As infants in nature want memory and actual reason, and yet initially are men; so, as Christ's members, they may want actual and habitual faith and love, and yet initially be sanctified, by their union with him and his Spirit, and their parents' dedication, and be in the way for more, as they grow fit; and be christians and saints in fieri, or initially only, as they are men.

Quest. XLIII. Is the right of the baptized (infants or adult) to the sanctifying operations of the Holy Ghost, now absolute, or suspended on further conditions? And are the parents' further duties for their children such conditions of their children's reception of the actual assistances of the Spirit? Or are children's own actions such conditions? And may apostate parents forfeit the covenant benefits to their baptized infants or not?

Answ. The question is great and difficult, and few dare meddle with it. And almost all infant cases are to us obscure.

I. 1. It is certain that it is the parents' great duty to bring up their children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord.

2. It is certain that God hath appointed this to be the means of their actual knowledge, faith, and holiness.287

3. And God doth not appoint such means unnecessarily or in vain: nor may we ordinarily expect his grace but in the use of the means of grace, which he hath appointed us to use.

4. It is certain that God's receiving the children of the faithful, is an act of God's love to the parents as well as the children, and promised as a part of his blessing on themselves.

5. It is certain that these parents hold their own mercies upon the condition of their own continued fidelity: and (let their apostasy be on other reasons never so impossible, or not future, yet) the promise of continuance and consummation of the personal felicity of the greatest saint on earth, is still conditional, upon the condition of his persevering fidelity.

6. Even before children are capable of instruction, there are certain duties imposed by God on the parents for their sanctification; viz. 1. That the parents pray earnestly and believingly for them. 2. That they themselves so live towards God as may invite him still to bless their children for their sakes, as he did Abraham's, and usually did to the faithful's seed.288

7. It is certain that the church ever required parents, not only to enter their children into the covenant, and so to leave them, but to do their after duty for their good, and to pray for them, and educate them according to their covenant.

8. It is plain that if there were none to promise so to educate them, the church would not baptize them. And God himself, who allowed the Israelites, and still alloweth us to bring our children into his covenant, doth it on this supposition, that we promise also to go on to do our duty for them, and that we actually do it.

9. All this set together maketh it plain, 1. That God never promiseth the adult in baptism, though true believers, that he will work in them all graces further by his sanctifying Spirit, let them never so much neglect or resist him; or that he will absolutely see that they never shall resist him: nor that the Spirit shall still help them, though they neglect all his means; or that he will keep them from neglecting the means (election may secure this to the elect as such; but the baptismal covenant as such, secureth it not to the baptized, nor to believers as such). 2. And consequently that infants are in covenant with the Holy Ghost still conditionally as their parents are; and that the meaning of it is that the Holy Ghost as your Sanctifier will afford you all necessary help, in the use of those means which he hath appointed you to receive his help in.289

Object. Infants have no means to use.

Answ. While infants stand on their parents' account, or wills, the parents have means to use for the continuance of their grace, as well as for the beginning of it.

10. Therefore I cannot see but that if a believer should apostatize, (whether any do so is not the question) and his infant not to be made another's child, he forfeiteth the benefits of the covenant to his infant. But if the propriety in the infant be transferred to another, it may alter the case.

11. And how dangerously parents may make partial forfeitures of the Spirit's assistance to their children, and operations on them, by their own sinful lives, and neglect of prayer, and of prudent and holy education, even in particular acts, I fear many believing parents never well considered.

12. Yet is not this forfeiture such as obligeth God to deny his Spirit; for he may do with his own, as a free benefactor, as he list; and may have mercy freely, beyond his promise, (though not against his word,) on whom he will have mercy. But I say that he that considereth the woeful unfaithfulness and neglect of most parents, even the religious, in the great work of holy educating their children, may take the blame of their ungodliness on themselves, and not lay it on Christ or the Spirit who was in covenant with them as their Sanctifier, seeing he promised but conditionally to give them the sanctifying heavenly influences of his life, light, and love, in their just use of his appointed means, according to their abilities.290

13. Also as soon as children come to a little use of reason, they stand conjunctly on their parents' wills and on their own. As their parents are bound to teach and rule them, so they are bound to learn of them and be ruled by them for their good. And though every sin of a parent or a child be not a total forfeiture of grace, yet both their notable actual sins may justly be punished, with a denial of some further help of the Spirit which they grieve and quench.

II. And now I may seasonably answer the former question, whether infants' baptismal saving grace may be lost, of which I must for the most that is to be said refer the reader to Davenant (in Mr. Bedford's book) on this subject, and to Dr. Samuel Ward joined with it, (though Mr. Gataker's answers are very learned and considerable,) and to my small book called "My Judgment of Perseverance."

Augustine, who first rose up for the doctrine of perseverance, against its adversaries, carried it no higher than to all the elect as such, and not at all to all the sanctified; but oft affirmeth that some that were justified, sanctified, and love God, and are in a state of salvation, are not elect, and fall away; but since the reformation, great reasons have been brought to carry it further to all the truly sanctified; of which cause Zanchius was one of the first learned and zealous patrons, that with great diligence in long disputations maintained it. All that I have now to say is, that I had rather with Davenant believe that the fore-described infant state of salvation, which came by the parents, may be lost by the parents and the children, (though such a sanctified, renewed nature in holy habits of love as the adult have be never lost,) than believe that no infants are in the covenant of grace and to be baptized.

Object. But the child once in possession shall not be punished for the parents' sin.

Answ. 1. This point is not commonly well understood. I have by me a large disputation proving from the current of Scripture, a secondary original sin, besides that from Adam, and a secondary punishment ordinarily inflicted on children for their parents' sins, besides the common punishment of the world for the first sin. 2. But the thing in question is but a loss of that benefit which they received and hold only by another. It is not so properly called a punishment for another's sin, as a non-deliverance, or a non-continuance of their deliverance, which they were to receive on the condition of another's duty.

Object. But the church retaineth them as her members, and so their right is not lost by the fault or apostasy of the parents.

Answ. 1. Lost it is one way or other, with multitudes of true christians' children, who never show any signs of grace, and prove sometimes the worst of men. And God breaketh not his covenant.

2. How doth the church keep the Greeks' children that are made janizaries?

3. No man stayeth in the church without title. If the church or any christians take them as their own, that is another matter. I will not now stay to discuss the question, whether apostates' baptized infants be still church members? But what I have said of their right before God, seemeth plain.

4. And mark, that on whomsoever you build an infant's right, you may as well say, that he may suffer for other men's default; for if you build it on the magistrate, the minister, the church, the godfathers, any of them may fail; they may deny him baptism itself; they may fail in his education; shall he suffer then for want of baptism or good education when it is their faults? Whoever a child or a man is to receive a benefit by, the failing of that person may deprive him of that benefit. More objections I must pretermit, to avoid prolixity.

Quest. XLIV. Doth baptism always oblige us at the present, and give grace at the present? And is the grace which is not given till long after, given by baptism: or an effect of baptism?

Answ. I add this case for two reasons: 1. To open their pernicious error who think that a covenant or promise made by us to God, only for a future, distant duty, (as to repent and believe before we die,) is all that is essential to our baptismal covenanting. 2. To open the ordinary saying of many divines, who say, that baptism worketh not always at the present, but sometimes only long afterward. The truth I think may be thus expressed.

1. It is not baptism, if there be not the profession of a present belief, a present consent, and a present dedition, or resignation, or dedication of the person to God, by the adult for themselves, and by parents for their infants. He that only saith, I promise to believe, repent, and obey only at twenty or thirty years of age, is not morally baptized; for it is another covenant of his own which he would make, which God accepteth not.

2. It is not only a future, but a present relation to God, as his own, his subjects, his children by redemption, to which the baptized person doth consent.

3. It is a present correlation, and not a future only, to which God consenteth on his part, to be their Father, Saviour, and Sanctifier, their Owner peculiarly, their Ruler graciously, and their chief Benefactor, and Felicity, and End.

4. It is not only a future but a present remission of sin, and adoption and right to temporal and eternal mercies, which God giveth to true consenters by his covenant and baptism.

5. But those mercies which we are not at that present capable of, are not to be given at the present, but afterward when we are capable; as the particular assistances of the Spirit, necessary upon all future particular occasions, &c.; the pardon of future sins; actual glorification, &c.291

6. And the duties which are to be performed only for the future, we must promise at present to perform only for the future, in their season, to our lives' end. Therefore we cannot promise that infants shall believe, obey, or love God, till they are naturally capable of doing it.

7. If any hypocrite do not indeed repent, believe, or consent when he is baptized, or baptizeth his child, he so far faileth in the covenant professed; and so much of baptism is undone; and God doth not enter into the present covenant relations to him, as being incapable thereof.292

8. If this person afterwards repent and believe, it is a doing of the same thing which was omitted in baptism, and a making of the same covenant; but not as a part of his baptism itself, which is long past.

9. Nor is he hereupon to be re-baptized; because the external part was done before, and is not to be twice done; but the internal part which was omitted, is now to be done, not as a part of baptism, (old or new,) but as a part of penitence, for his omission.

Object. If covenanting be a part of baptism, then this person, whose covenant is never a part of his baptism, doth live and die unbaptized.

Answ. As baptism signifieth only the external ordinance, heart covenanting is no part of it, but the profession of it is; and if there was no profession of faith made, by word or sign, the person is unbaptized. But as baptism signifieth the internal part with the external, so he will be no baptized person while he liveth; that is, one that in baptism did truly consent, and receive the spiritual relations to God; but he will have the same thing in another way of God's appointment.

10. When this person is after sanctified, it is by God's performance of the same covenant in specie, which baptism is made to seal, that God doth pardon, justify, and adopt him; but this is not by his past baptism as a cause, but by after grace and absolution. The same covenant doth it, but not baptism; because indeed the covenant or promise saith, Whenever thou believest and repentest, I will forgive thee; but baptism saith, Because thou now believest, I do forgive thee, and wash away thy sin; and maketh present application.

11. So if an infant or adult person live without grace, and at age be ungodly, his baptismal covenant is violated; and his after conversion (or faith and repentance) is neither the fulfilling of God's covenant, nor of his baptism neither. The reason is, because though pardon and adoption be given by that conditional covenant of grace which baptism sealeth, yet so is not that first grace of faith and repentance which is the condition of pardon and adoption, and the title to baptism itself. Else infidels should have right to baptism, and thereby to faith and repentance. But these are only the free gifts of God to the elect, and the fulfilling of some absolute predictions concerning the calling of the elect, and the fulfilling of God's will or covenant to Christ the Mediator, that "He shall see the travail of his soul and be satisfied," and possess those that are given him by the Father.

12. But when the condition of the covenant is at first performed by the parent for the infant, and this covenant never broken on this child's behalf, (notwithstanding sins of infirmity,) in this case the first actual faith and repentance of children as they grow up, is from God's fulfilling of his baptismal covenant with them. The reason is, because that God in that covenant did give them a right of relation to the Holy Spirit in Christ their Head, as their Sanctifier, to operate on them as they are capable. But if they first prove apostates and be after converted, God is disobliged (yea, to hypocrites never was obliged) as to the engagement made by him in baptism; and doth now, 1. Freely give them faith and repentance as a benefactor to his elect, and then, 2. As a covenanter give them pardon and adoption, &c.

13. So to the adult, that truly made the baptismal covenant and never apostatized from it, all the grace that God giveth them through their lives, is his fulfilling of his promises made to them, and sealed by baptism, and a fruit of their baptism. But to hypocrites and apostates it is otherwise, as is before explained.

Quest. XLV. What is a proper violation of our baptismal covenant?

Answ. Note well, that there is a wide difference between these questions, 1. When doth a man miss of, or lose, his present part in the covenant or promise of God in the gospel?293 (This is as long as he is impenitent, an unbeliever and refuser.) 2. When doth a man totally lose his part and hope in that promise or covenant of God, so as to be liable to all the penalty of it? (That is only by final impenitence, unbelief and refusal, when life is ended.) 3. And when doth a man violate his own covenant or promise made to God in baptism? Which is our present question. To which I answer,

1. This promise hath parts essential and parts integral: we promise not both these parts alike, nor on the same terms; though both be promised. The essential parts, are our essential duties of christianity, (faith, love, repentance in the essential parts,) &c. The integrals are the integral duties of Christianity.294

2. He that performeth not the essential duties is an apostate, or hypocrite.

3. He that performeth not the integral duties is a sinner, not only against the law of nature, and Christ's precepts, but his own promise; (and in this sense we all confess our breach of covenant with Christ;) but he is no apostate, hypocrite, or out of covenant.

Quest. XLVI. May not baptism in some cases be repeated? And when?

Answ. 1. You must distinguish between baptism, taken morally, or only physically. 2. Between baptism morally, as it is a church or visible covenant, and as a heart covenant. 3. Between real baptism, and seeming baptism, which is a nullity. 4. Between certain reception of baptism, and that which is uncertain or justly doubted of. And so I answer,

1. Real and certain baptism as a visible church ordinance may not be repeated; though the heart covenant was wanting; and though it wanted not only decent modes, but integral parts.

2. But in these cases baptism may be used where it seemed to have been received before.

1. When the person made no profession of the christian faith (nor his parents for him, if an infant). 2. If that profession notoriously wanted an essential part; as if he only professed to believe in God the Father, and not in the Son, or the Holy Ghost. 3. If the minister only baptized him into the name of the Father, or Son, or left out any essential part. 4. If the person or ministry only contracted for a distant futurity, (as, I will be a christian when I am old, &c.) and not for the present; which is not to be christened, but only to promise to be christened hereafter. 5. If all application of water (or any watery element) was omitted, which is the external sign. 6. Of the baptizer's power I shall speak anon. 7. If the church or the person himself have just cause of doubting, whether he was truly baptized or not, to do it again, with hypothetical expressions, If thou art not baptized, I baptize thee; yea, or simply while that is understood, is lawful, and fit. And it is not to be twice baptized morally, but only physically, as I have fully opened in the question of re-ordination, to which I must refer the reader.

3. And I confess I make little doubt but that those in Acts xix. were re-baptized, notwithstanding the witty evasion invented by Phil. Marnixius Aldegondus, and Beza's improvement of it, and the now common reception of that interpretation.295

For, 1. A new and forced exposition which no reader dreameth of till it be put into his head, is usually to be suspected, lest art deceive us.

Whether it were re-baptizing.

2. The omission of the Holy Ghost is an essential defect, and maketh baptism specifically another thing; and he were now to be re-baptized who should be so baptized.

3. Whatever some say in heat against the papists, John's baptism and our christian baptism are so specifically distinct also, that he that had now but John's were to be yet baptized: the person of the Messiah himself being not determinately put into John's baptism as such. Nor can it be supposed that all the Jews that John baptized, were baptized into the profession of faith in this numerical person Jesus, but only to an unknown Saviour undetermined: however he pointed to Christ in the hearing of some of his disciples. We must not run from plain truth in peevishness or opposition to papists or any other men.

4. The fifth verse would not be true of John's baptism, as the history showeth, that "when John's hearers heard this, they were baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus." This is contrary to the text that recordeth it.

5. In the fourth verse, the words "that is, on Christ Jesus" are plainly Paul's expository words of John's, and not John's words. John baptized them "into the name of the Messiah that should come after him," which indeed, saith Paul, was Christ Jesus, though not then personally determined by John.

6. The connexion of the fourth, fifth, and sixth verses puts all out of doubt. 1. In the fourth verse the last words are Paul's, "that is, on Christ Jesus." 2. In the next words, verse 4, "When they heard this, they were baptized," &c. must refer to the last words, or to his that was speaking to them. 3. Verse 6, the pronoun "them," "when Paul had laid his hands on them," plainly referreth to them last spoken of, verse 5, which therefore were not John's hearers as such. 4. And the words, "they were baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus," are plainly distinctive from John's baptism. Saith Grotius, Sic accepere Latinus, Syrus, Arabs, et Veteres omnes ante Marnixium (ut verba Lucæ). Yet I say not so hardly of John's baptism, as Tertullian on this text, (de Baptis.) Adeo postea in Actis apostolorum invenimus, quoniam qui Johannis baptismum habebant, non accepissent Spiritum Sanctum, quem ne auditu quidam noverant: ergo non erat cœleste, quod cœlestia non exhibebat. See Dr. Hammond in loc.

Quest. XLVII. Is baptism by laymen or women lawful in cases of necessity? Or are they nullities, and the person to be re-baptized

Answ. I. I know some of the ancients allowed it in necessity. But I know no such necessity that can be: for, 1. God hath expressly made it a part of the ministerial office by commission, Matt. xxviii. 19, 20. 2. He hath no where given to any other either command to oblige them to do it or commission to authorize them, or promise to bless and accept them in it, or threatening if they omit it. 3. He oft severely punisheth such as invade the sacred function, or usurp any part of it. 4. Therefore it is a sin in the doer, and then there can be no necessity of it in such a case in the receiver. 5. He that is in covenant by open, professed consent, wants nothing necessary to his salvation, either necessitate medii vel præcepti, when it cannot be had in a lawful way.

II. As to the nullity, I will not determine so controverted a point any further than to say, 1. That if the layman had the counterfeit orders of a minister, and had possession of the place, and were taken for one, his deceit deprived not the receiver of his right, nor made it his sin, and I should not re-baptize him, if after discovered.

2. But if he were in no possession, or pretence of the office, I would be baptized again, if it were my case; because I should fear that what is done in Christ's name by one that notoriously had no authority from him to do it, is not owned by Christ as his deed, and so is a nullity. As if a deceiver go in my name to make bargains for me.

3. And if any that had after discovered a minister to be indeed no minister that baptized him, should doubt of the validity, and for certainty have it done again by an authorized minister, I would not discommend him: nor would I account it morally twice baptizing, but a physical repeating of that act which morally is but one (as I explained before of re-ordination).