I.
THE question
is not whether professing believers, Jews or Gentiles, not baptized in their
infancy, ought to be baptized; for this is by all confessed.
II. Neither is it whether, in such persons, the
profession of saving faith and repentance ought not to go before baptism.
This we plead for beyond what is the common practice of those who oppose us.
Wherefore, testimonies produced
out of authors, ancient or modern, to confirm these things, which consist
with the doctrine of infant baptism, are mere tergiversations, that belong
not to this cause at all; and so are all arguments produced unto that end
out of the Scriptures.
III. The question is not whether all infants are to be
baptized or not; for, according to the will of God, some are not to be
baptized, even such whose parents are strangers from the covenant. But hence
it will follow that some are to be baptized, seeing an exception confirms
both rule and right.
IV. The question is only concerning the children or
infant seed of professing believers who are themselves baptized. And, –
First, They by whom
this is denied can produce no testimony of Scripture wherein their negation
is formally or in terms included, nor any one asserting what is inconsistent
with that of their seed. But this is to be required of them who oppose
infant baptism, that they produce such a testimony.
Secondly, No instance
can be given from the Old or New Testament since the days of Abraham, none
from the approved practice of the primitive church, of any person or persons
born of professing, believing parents, who were themselves made partakers of
the initial seal of the covenant, being then in infancy and designed to be
brought up in the knowledge of God, who were not made partakers with them of
the same sign and seal of the covenant.
Thirdly, A spiritual
privilege once granted by God unto any cannot be changed, disannulled, or
abrogated, without an especial divine revocation of it, or the substitution
of a greater privilege and mercy in the room of it; for, –
1. Who shall disannul
what God hath granted? What he hath put together who shall put asunder? To
abolish or take away any grant of privilege made by him to the church,
without his own express revocation of it, is to deny his sovereign
authority.
2. To say a privilege
so granted may be revoked, even by God himself, without the substitution of
a greater privilege and mercy in the room of it, is contrary to the goodness
of God, his love and care unto his church, [and] contrary to his constant
course of proceeding with it from the foundation of the world, wherein he
went on in the enlargement and increase of its privileges until the coming
of Christ. And to suppose it under the gospel is contrary to all his
promises, the honour of Christ, and a multitude of express testimonies of
Scripture.
Thus was it with the
privileges of the temple and the worship of it granted to the Jews; they
were not, they could not be, taken away without an express revocation, and
the substitution of a more glorious spiritual temple and worship in their
room.
But now the spiritual
privilege of a right unto and a participation of the initial seal of the
covenant was granted by God unto the infant seed of Abraham, Gen. xvii. 10,
12.
This grant,
therefore, must stand firm for ever, unless men can prove or produce, –
1. An express
revocation of it by God himself; which none can do either directly or
indirectly, in terms or any pretence of consequence.
2. An instance of a
greater privilege or mercy granted unto them in the room of it; which they
do not once pretend unto, but leave the seed of believers, whilst in their
infant state, in the same condition with those of pagans and infidels;
expressly contrary to God’s covenant.
All this contest,
therefore, is to deprive the children of believers of a privilege once
granted to them by God, never revoked, as to the substance of it, assigning
nothing in its room; which is contrary to the goodness, love, and covenant
of God, especially derogatory to the honour of Jesus Christ and the gospel.
Fourthly, They that
have the thing signified have right unto the sign of it, or those who are
partakers of the grace of baptism have a right to the administration of it:
so Acts x. 47.
But the children of
believers are all of them capable of the grace signified in baptism, and
some of them are certainly partakers of it, namely, such as die in their
infancy (which is all that can be said of professors): therefore they may
and ought to be baptized. For, –
1. Infants are made
for and are capable of eternal glory or misery, and must fall, dying
infants, into one of these estates for ever.
2. All infants are
born in a state of sin, wherein they are spiritually dead and under the
curse.
3. Unless they are
regenerated or born again, they must all perish inevitably, John iii. 3.
Their regeneration is the grace whereof baptism is a sign or token.
Wherever this is, there baptism ought to be administered.
Fifthly, God having
appointed baptism as the sign and seal of regeneration, unto whom he denies
it, he denies the grace signified by it. Why is it the will of God that
unbelievers and impenitent sinners should not be baptized? It is because,
not granting them the grace, he will not grant them the sign. If, therefore,
God denies the sign unto the infant seed of believers, it must be because he
denies them the grace of it; and then all the children of believing parents
dying in their infancy must, without hope, be eternally damned. I do not say
that all must be so who are not baptized, but all must be so whom God would
not have baptized.
But this is contrary
to the goodness and law [love?] of God, the nature and promises of the
covenant, the testimony of Christ reckoning them to the
kingdom
of
God, the
faith of godly parents, and the belief of the church in all ages.
It follows hence
unavoidably that infants who die in their infancy have the grace of
regeneration, and consequently as good a right unto baptism as believers
themselves.
Sixthly, All children
in their infancy are reckoned unto the covenant of their parents, by virtue
of the law of their creation.
For they are all made
capable of eternal rewards and punishments, as hath been declared.
But in their own
persons they are not capable of doing good or evil.
It is therefore
contrary to the justice of God, and the law of the creation of human kind,
wherein many die before they can discern between their right hand and their
left, to deal with infants any otherwise but in and according to the
covenant of their parents; and that he doth so, see
Rom.
v.
14.
Hence I argue, –
Those who, by God’s
appointment, and by virtue of the law of their creation, are, and must of
necessity be, included in the covenant of their parents, have the same right
with them unto the privileges of that covenant, no express exception being
put in against them. This right it is in the power of none to deprive them
of, unless they can change the law of their creation.
Thus it is with the
children of believers with respect unto the covenant of their parents,
whence alone they are said to be holy, 1 Cor. vii. 14.
Seventhly, Christ is
“the messenger of the covenant,” Mal. iii. 1, – that is, of the
covenant of God made with Abraham; and he was the “minister of the
circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made unto the
fathers,” Rom. xv. 8. This covenant was, that he would be “a God unto
Abraham and to his seed.”
Now if this be not so
under the new testament, then was not Christ a faithful messenger, nor did
confirm the truth of God in his promises.
This argument alone
will bear the weight of the whole cause against all objections; for, –
1. Children are still
in the same covenant with their parents, or the truth of the promises of God
to the fathers was not confirmed by Christ.
2. The right unto the
covenant, and interest in its promises, wherever it be, gives right unto the
administration of its initial seal, that is, to baptism, as Peter expressly
declares, Acts ii. 38, 39. Wherefore, –
The right of the
infant seed of believers unto baptism, as the initial seal of the covenant,
stands on the foundation of the faithfulness of Christ as the messenger of
the covenant, and minister of God for the confirmation of the truth of his
promises.
In brief, a
participation of the seal of the covenant is a spiritual blessing. This the
seed of believers was once solemnly invested in by God himself. This
privilege he hath nowhere revoked, though he hath changed the outward sign;
nor hath he granted unto our children any privilege or mercy in lieu of it
now under the gospel, when all grace and privilege are enlarged to the
utmost. His covenant promises concerning them, which are multiplied, were
confirmed by Christ as a true messenger and minister; he gives the grace of
baptism unto many of them, especially those that die in their infancy, owns
children to belong unto his kingdom, esteems them disciples, appoints
households to be baptized without exception. And who shall now rise up, and
withhold water from them?
This argument may be
thus further cleared and improved: –
Christ is “the
messenger of the covenant,” Mal. iii. 1, – that is, the covenant of God
with Abraham, Gen. xvii. 7; for, –
1. That covenant was
with and unto Christ mystical, Gal. iii. 16; and he was the messenger of no
covenant but that which was made with himself and his members.
2. He was sent, or
was God’s messenger, to perform and accomplish the covenant and oath made
with Abraham, Luke i. 72, 73.
3. The end of his
message and of his coming was, that those to whom he was sent might be
“blessed with faithful Abraham,” or that “the blessing of Abraham,”
promised in the covenant, “might come upon them,” Gal. iii. 9, 14.
To deny this,
overthrows the whole relation between the old testament and the new, the
veracity of God in his promises, and all the properties of the covenant of
grace, mentioned 2 Sam. xxiii. 5.
It was not the
covenant of works, neither originally nor essentially, nor the covenant in
its legal administration; for he confirmed and sealed that covenant whereof
he was the messenger, but these he abolished.
Let it be named what
covenant he was the messenger of, if not of this. Occasional additions of
temporal promises do not in the least alter the nature of the covenant.
Herein he was the
“minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the
promises made unto the fathers,” Rom. xv. 8; that is, undeniably, the
covenant made with Abraham, enlarged and explained by following promises.
This covenant was, that God would be “a God unto Abraham and to his
seed;” which God himself explains to be his infant seed, Gen. xvii. 12,
– that is, the infant seed of
every one of his posterity who should lay hold on and avouch that covenant
as Abraham did, and not else. This the whole church did solemnly for
themselves and their posterity; whereon the covenant was confirmed and
sealed to them all, Exod. xxiv. 7, 8. And every one was bound to do the same
in his own person; which if he did not, he was to be cut off from the
congregation, whereby he forfeited all privileges unto himself and his seed.
The covenant,
therefore, was not granted in its administrations unto the carnal seed of
Abraham as such, but unto his covenanted seed, those who entered into it and
professedly stood to its terms.
And the promises made
unto the fathers were, that their infant seed, their buds and offspring,
should have an equal share in the covenant with them, Isa. xxii. 24, xliv.
3, lxi. 9. “They are the seed of the blessed of the LORD, and their offspring with them,” chap. lxv, 23. Not only
themselves, who are the believing, professing seed of those who were blessed
of the Lord, by a participation of the covenant, Gal. iii. 9, but their
offspring also, their buds, their tender little ones, are in the same
covenant with them.
To deny, therefore,
that the children of believing, professing parents, who have avouched
God’s covenant, as the church of Israel did, Exod. xxiv. 7, 8, have the
same right and interest with their parents in the covenant, is plainly to
deny the fidelity of Christ in the discharge of his office.
It may be it will be
said, that although children have a right to the covenant, or do belong unto
it, yet they have no right to the initial seal of it. This will not suffice;
for, –
1. If they have any
interest in it, it is either in its grace or in its administration. If they
have the former, they have the latter also, as shall be proved at any time.
If they have neither, they have no interest in it; – then the truth of the
promises of God made unto the fathers was not confirmed by Christ.
2. That unto whom the
covenant or promise doth belong, to them belongs the administration of the
initial seal of it, is expressly declared by the apostle, Acts ii. 38, 39,
be they who they will.
3. The truth of
God’s promises is not confirmed if the sign and seal of them be denied;
for that whereon they believed that God was a God unto their seed as well as
unto themselves was this, that he granted the token of the covenant unto
their seed as well as unto themselves. If this be taken away by Christ,
their faith is overthrown, and the promise itself is not confirmed but
weakened, as to the virtue it hath to beget faith and obedience.
Eighthly, Particular
testimonies may be pleaded and vindicated, if need be, and the practice of
the primitive church.1
1See
also Dr Owen on the Hebrews, vol. i. Exercitation the sixth, and vol. ii. p.
256; in which place he gives further light into this truth of infant
baptism. [This note is appended by the editors of the folio edition of
Owen’s Sermons and Tracts, published in 1721. The second passage referred
to occurs in the exposition of chap. iv. ver. 9. – Ed.]
Reference
The
Works
of John Owen, Vol. 16, Banner
of Truth 1991. pp 258-263.
