menu_book Chapter 31

CHAPTER XVI. PART II. 12. Under the appellation of children, the difference they observe is this, that the children of Abraham, under the old dispensation, were those who derived their origin from his seed. but the appellation is now given to those who imitate his faith, and therefore that carnal infancy, which was engrafted into fellowship of the covenant by circumcision,

typified the spiritual children of the new covenant, who are regenerated by the word of God to immortal life. In these words we indeed discover a small spark of truth, but these giddy spirits err grievously in this, that laying hold of whatever comes first to their hand,

when they ought to proceed farther, and compare many things together, they obstinately fasten upon one single word. Hence it cannot but happen that they are every now and then deluded,

because they do not exert themselves to obtain a full knowledge of any subject. We certainly admit that the carnal seed of Abraham, for a time, held the place of the spiritual seed, which is engrafted into him by faith galatians four twenty eight romans four twelve for we are called his sons though we have no natural relationship with him

but if they mean as they not obscurely show that the spiritual promise was never made to the carnal seed of abraham they are greatly mistaken we must therefore take a better aim one to which we are directed by the infallible guidance of scripture the lord therefore promises to abraham that he shall have a seed in whom all the nations of the earth will be blessed and at the same time assures him that he will be a god both to him and to his seed all who in faith receive christ as the author of the blessing are the heirs of this promise and accordingly are called the children of abraham thirteen although after the resurrection of christ the boundaries of the kingdom began to be extended far and wide into all nations indiscriminately so that according to the declaration of christ believers were collected from all quarters to sit down with abraham isaac and jacob in the kingdom of heaven matthew

still for many ages before the jews had enjoyed this great mercy and as he had selected them while passing by all other nations to be for a time the depositories of his favour he designated them as his peculiar purchased people exodus nineteen five in attestation of this kindness he appointed circumcision by which symbol the jews were taught that god watched over their safety and they were thereby raised to the hope of eternal life for what can ever be wanting to him who god has once taken under his protection wherefore the apostle to prove that the gentiles as well as the jews were the children of abraham speaks in this way faith was reckoned to abraham for righteousness how was it then reckoned when he was in circumcision or in uncircumcision not in circumcision but in uncircumcision and he received the sign of circumcision a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised that he might be the father of all them that believe though they be not circumcised

that righteousness might be imputed to them also and the father of circumcision to them who were not of the circumcision only but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father abraham which he had yet being uncircumcised romans four nine to twelve do we not see that both are made equal in dignity for to the time appointed by the divine decree he was the father of circumcision but when as the apostle elsewhere writes ephesians two fourteen the wall of petition which separated the gentiles from the jews was broken down to them also access was given to the kingdom of god and he became their father and that without the sign of circumcision its place being supplied by baptism in saying expressly that abraham was not the father of those who were of the circumcision only his object was to repress the superciliousness of some who laying aside all regard to godliness plumed themselves on mere ceremonies

in like manner we may in the present day refute the vanity of those who in baptism seek nothing but water fourteen but in opposition to this is produced a passage from the epistle to the romans in which the apostle says that those who are of the flesh are not the children of abraham but that those only who are the children of promise are considered as the seed romans nine seven for he seems to insinuate that carnal relationship to abraham which we think of some consequence is nothing but we must attend carefully to the subject which the apostle is there treating his object being to show to the jews that the goodness of god was not restricted to the seed of abraham nay that of itself it contributes nothing produces in proof of the fact the cases of ishmael and esau these being rejected just as if they had been strangers although according to the flesh they were the genuine offspring of abraham the blessing resides in isaac and jacob

this proves what he afterwards affirms namely that salvation depends on the mercy which god bestows on whomsoever he pleases but that the jews have no ground to glory or plume themselves on the name of the covenant unless they keep the law of the covenant that is obey the word on the other hand after casting down their vain confidence in their origin because he was aware that the covenant which had been made with the posterity of abraham could not properly prove fruitless he declares that due honour should still be paid to carnal relationship to abraham in consequence of which the jews were the primary and native heirs of the gospel unless in so far as they were for their ingratitude rejected as unworthy and yet rejected so as not to leave their nation utterly destitute of the heavenly blessing for this reason though they were consummacious breakers of the covenant he styles them holy such respect as he paid to the holy generation which god had honoured with his sacred covenant

while we in comparison to them are termed posthumous or abortive children of abraham and that not by nature but by adoption just as if a twig were broken from its own tree and engrafted on another stock therefore that they might not be defrauded of their privilege it was necessary that the gospel should first be preached to them for they are as it were the first-born in the family of god the honour due on this account must therefore be paid them until they have rejected the offer and by their ingratitude caused it to be transferred to the gentiles Nor, however great the contumacy with which they persist in warring against the gospel, are we therefore to despise them. We must consider that in respect of the promise, the blessing of God still resides among them,

and, as the Apostle testifies, will never entirely depart from them, seeing that the gifts and calling of God are without repentance. Romans 11.29. 15. Such is the value. of the promise given to the posterity of abraham such the balance in which it is to be weighed hence though we have no doubt that in distinguishing the children of god from bastards and foreigners that the election of god reigns freely we at the same time perceive that he was pleased specially to embrace the seed of abraham with his mercy and for the better attestation of it to seal it by circumcision

the case of the christian church is entirely of the same description for as paul there declares that the jews are sanctified by their parents so he elsewhere says that the children of christians derive sanctification from their parents hence it is inferred that those who are chargeable with impurity are justly separated from others now who can have any doubt as to the falsehood of their subsequent averment namely that the infants who were formerly circumcised only typify the spiritual infancy which is produced by the regeneration of the word of god when the apostle says that jesus christ was a minister of the circumcision for the truth of god to confirm the promises made unto the fathers on quote romans fifteen eight he does not philosophize subtly as if he had said since the covenant made with abraham has respect unto his seed christ in order to perform and discharge the promise made by the father came for the salvation of the jewish nation do you see how he considers that after the resurrection of christ the promise is to be fulfilled to the seed of abraham not allegorically but literally as the words express

to the same effect as the declaration of peter to the jews the promises unto you and to your children and in the next chapter he calls them the children of the covenant i e heirs not widely different from this is the other passage of the apostle above quoted in which he regards and describes circumcision performed on infants as an attestation to the communion which they have with christ and indeed if we listen to the absurdities of those men what will become of the promise by which the lord in the second commandment of his law engages to be gracious to the seed of his servants for a thousand generations shall we here have recourse to allegory this with the merest quibble shall we say that it has been abrogated in this way we should do away with the law which christ came not to destroy but to fulfil inasmuch as it turns to our everlasting good therefore let it be without controversy that god is so good and liberal to his people that he is pleased as a mark of his favour to extend their privileges to the children born to them

sixteen the distinctions which these men attempt to draw between baptism and circumcision are not only ridiculous and void of all semblance of reason but at variance with each other for when they affirm that baptism refers to the first day of spiritual contest and circumcision to the eighth day mortification being already accomplished they immediately forget the distinction and change their song representing circumcision as typifying the mortification of the flesh and baptism as a burial which is given to none but those who are already dead what are these giddy contradictions but frenzied dreams according to the former view baptism ought to precede circumcision according to the latter it should come after it it is not the first time we have seen the minds of men wander to and fro when they substitute their dreams for the infallible word of god we hold therefore that their former distinction is mere imagination were we disposed to make an allegory of the eighth day theirs would not be the proper mode of it

it were much better with the early christians to refer the number eight to the resurrection which took place on the eighth day and on which we know that newness of life depends or to the whole course of the present life during which mortification ought to be in progress only terminating when life itself terminates although it would seem that god intended to provide for the tenderness of infancy by deferring circumcision to the eighth day as the wound would have been more dangerous if inflicted immediately after birth how much more rational is the declaration of scripture that we when already dead are buried by baptism romans six four since it distinctly states that we are buried into death that we may thoroughly die and thenceforth aim at that mortification equally ingenious is their cavil that women should not be baptised if baptism is to be made conformable to circumcision for if it is most certain that the sanctification of the seed of israel was attested by the sign of circumcision it cannot be doubted that it was appointed alike for the sanctification of males and females

but though the rite could only be performed on males yet the females were through them partners and associates in circumcision wherefore disregarding all such quibbling distinctions let us fix on the very complete resemblance between baptism and circumcision as seen in the internal office the promise the use and the effect 17. They seem to think that they produce their strongest reason for denying baptism to children, when they allege that they are as yet unfit from knowledge to understand the mystery which is there sealed, namely, spiritual regeneration, which is not applicable to earliest infancy.

Hence they infer that children are only to be regarded as sons of Adam until they have attained an age fit for the reception of the second birth. But all this is directly opposed to the truth of God, for if they are to be accounted sons of Adam, they are left in death, since in Adam we can do nothing but die.

On the contrary, Christ bids them be brought to him. Why so? Because he is life. Therefore, that he may quicken them, he makes them partners with himself. whereas these men would drive them away from christ and adjudge them to death for if they pretend that infants do not perish when they are accounted the sons of adam the error is more than sufficiently confuted by the testimony of scripture one corinthians fifteen twenty two for seeing it declares that in adam all die it follows that no hope of life remains unless in christ therefore that we may become heirs of life we must communicate with him

again seeing it is elsewhere written that we are all by nature the children of wrath ephesians two three and conceived in sin some fifty one verse five of which condemnation is the inseparable attendant we must part with our own nature before we have any access to the kingdom of god and what can be clearer than the expression flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of god one corinthians fifteen fifty therefore let everything that is our own be abolished this cannot be without regeneration and then we shall perceive this possession of the kingdom in fine if christ speaks truly when he declares that he is life we must necessarily be engrafted into him by whom we are delivered from the bondage of death

but how they ask are infants regenerated when not possessing knowledge of either good or evil we answer infants who are to be saved and that some are saved at this age is certain must without question be previously regenerated by the lord for if they bring innate corruption with them from their mother's womb they must be purified before they can be admitted into the kingdom of god into which shall not enter anything that defileth revelations twenty one twenty seven if they are born sinners as david and paul affirm they must either remain unaccepted and hated by god or be justified and why do we ask more when the judge himself publicly declares that except a man be born again he cannot see the kingdom of god un quote john three three but to silence this class of objectors god gave in the case of john the baptist whom he sanctified from his mother's womb luke one fifteen a proof of what he might do in others they gain nothing by the quiple to which they here resort namely that this was only once done and therefore it does not forthwith follow that the lord always acts thus with infants

that is not the mode in which we reason our only object is to show that they unjustly and malignantly confine the power of god within limits within which it cannot be confined as little weight is due to another subterfuge they allege that by the usual phraseology of scripture from the womb has the same meaning as from childhood but it is easy to see that the angel had a different meaning when he announced to zacharias that the child not yet born would be filled with the holy spirit instead of attempting to give a law to god let us hold that he sanctifies whom he pleases in the way in which he sanctified john seeing that his power is not impaired eighteen and indeed christ was sanctified from earliest infancy that he might sanctify his elect in himself at any age without distinction

for as he in order to wipe away the guilt of disobedience which had been committed in our flesh assumed that very flesh that in it he might on our account and in our stead perform a perfect obedience so he was conceived by the holy spirit that completely pervaded with his holiness in the flesh which he had assumed he might transfuse it into us if in christ we have a perfect pattern of all the graces which god bestows on all his children in this instance we have a proof that the age of infancy is not incapable of receiving sanctification this at least we set down as incontrovertible that none of the elect is called away from the present life without being previously sanctified and regenerated by the spirit of god as to their objection that in scripture the spirit acknowledges no sanctification save that from incorruptible seed i e the word of god

they erroneously interpret peter's words in which he comprehends only believers who had been taught by the preaching of the gospel one one twenty three we confess indeed that the word of the lord is the only seed of spiritual regeneration but we deny the inference that therefore the power of god cannot regenerate infants this is as possible and easy for him as it is wondrous and incomprehensible to us it were dangerous to deny that the lord is able to furnish them with the knowledge of himself in any way he pleases nineteen but faith they say cometh by hearing the use of which infants have not yet obtained nor can they be fit to know god being as moses declares without the knowledge of good and evil deuteronomy one thirty nine but they observe not that where the apostle makes hearing the beginning of faith he is only describing the usual economy and dispensation which the lord is wont to employ in calling his people and not laying down an invariable rule for which no other method can be substituted

many he certainly has called and endued with a true knowledge of himself by internal means by the illumination of the spirit without the intervention of preaching but since they deem it very absurd to attribute any knowledge of god to infants whom moses makes void of the knowledge of good and evil let them tell me where the danger lies if they are said now to receive some part of that grace of which they are to have the full measure shortly after for if fulness of life consists in the perfect knowledge of god since some of those whom death hurries away in the first moments of infancy pass into life eternal they are certainly admitted to behold the immediate presence of god those therefore whom the lord is to illumine with the full brightness of his light why may he not if he so pleases irradiate at present with some small beam especially if he does not remove their ignorance before he delivers them from the prison of the flesh i would not rashly affirm that they are endued with the same faith which we experience in ourselves or have any knowledge at all resembling faith this i would rather leave undecided

but i would somewhat curb the stolid arrogance of those men who as with inflated cheeks affirm or deny whatever suits them twenty in order to gain a stronger footing here they add that baptism is a sacrament of penitence and faith and as neither of these is applicable to tender infancy we must beware of rendering its meaning empty and vain by admitting infants to the communion of baptism but these darts are directed more against god than against us since the fact that circumcision was a sign of repentance is completely established by many passages of scripture jeremiah four four thus paul terms it a seal of the righteousness of faith romans four eleven let god then be demanded why he ordered circumcision to be performed on the bodies of infants for baptism and circumcision being here in the same case they cannot give anything to the latter without conceding it to the former if they recur to the usual evasion that by the age of infancy spiritual infants were then figured we have already closed this means of escape against them we say then that since god imparted circumcision

the sign of repentance and faith to infants it should not seem absurd that they are now made partakers of baptism unless men choose to clamour against an institution of god but as in all his acts so here also enough of wisdom and righteousness shines forth to repress the slanders of the ungodly for although infants at the moment when they were circumcised did not comprehend what the sign meant still they were truly circumcised for the mortification of their corrupt and polluted nature a mortification at which they afterwards aspired when adults in fine the objection is easily disposed of by the tact that children are baptised for future repentance and faith though these are not yet formed in them yet the seed of both lies hid in them by the secret operation of the spirit this answer at once overthrows all the objections which are twisted against us out of the meaning of baptism for instance the title by which paul distinguishes it when he terms it the washing of regeneration and renewing

titus three five hence they argue that it is not to be given to any but to those who are capable of such feelings but we on the other hand may object that neither ought circumcision which is designated regeneration to be conferred on any but the regenerate in this way we shall condemn a divine institution thus as we have already hinted all the arguments which tend to shake circumcision are of no force in assailing baptism nor can they escape by saying that everything which rests on the authority of god is absolutely fixed though there should be no reason for it but that this reverence is not due to pedo baptism nor other similar things which are not recommended to us by the express word of god they always remain caught in this dilemma the command of god to circumcise infants was either legitimate and exempt from cavil or deserved reprehension if there was nothing incompetent or absurd in it no absurdity can be shown to the observance of peter baptism twenty one the charge of absurdity with which they attempt to stigmatise it we thus dispose of if those on whom the lord has bestowed his election after receiving the sign of regeneration depart this life before they become adults he

by the incomprehensible energy of his spirit renews them in the way which he alone sees to be expedient should they reach an age when they can be instructed in the meaning of baptism they will thereby be animated to greater zeal for renovation the badge of which they will learn that they have received in earliest infancy in order that they might aspire to it during their whole lives to the same effect are the two passages in which paul teaches that we are buried with christ by baptism romans six four colossians two twelve for by this he means not that he who is to be initiated by baptism must have previously been buried with christ he simply declares the doctrine which is taught by baptism and that to those already baptised so that the most senseless cannot maintain from this passage that it ought to precede baptism in this way moses and the prophets reminded the people of the thing meant by circumcision which however infants received

to the same effect paul says to the galatians as many of you as have been baptised into christ have put on christ galatians three twenty seven why so that they might thereafter live to christ to whom previously they had not lived and though in adults the receiving of the sign ought to follow the understanding of its meaning yet as will shortly be explained a different rule must be followed with children no other conclusion can be drawn from a passage in peter on which they strongly found he says that baptism is not the putting away of the filth of the flesh but the answer of a good conscience toward god by the resurrection of jesus christ unquote one peter three twenty one from this they contend that nothing is left for peter baptism which becomes as mere empty smoke as being altogether at variance with the meaning of baptism but the delusion which misleads them is that they would always have the same thing to precede the sign in order of time for the truth of circumcision consists in the same answer of a good conscience

but if the truth must necessarily have proceeded infants would never have been circumcised by the command of god but he himself showing that the answer of a good conscience forms the truth of circumcision and at the same time commanding infants to be circumcised plainly intimates that in their case circumcision had reference to the future wherefore nothing more of present effect is to be required in peter baptism than to confirm and sanction the covenant which the lord has made with them the other part of the meaning of the sacrament will follow at the time which god himself has provided twenty two every one must i think clearly perceive that all the arguments of this stamp are mere perversions of scripture the other remaining arguments akin to these we shall cursorily examine they object that baptism is given for the remission of sins when this is conceded it strongly supports our view for seeing we are born sinners we stand in need of forgiveness and pardon from the very womb moreover since god does not preclude this age from the hope of mercy but rather gives assurance of it

why should we deprive it of the sign which is much inferior to the reality the arrow therefore which they aim at us we throw back upon themselves infants receive forgiveness of sins therefore they are not to be deprived of the sign they adduce the passage from the ephesians that christ gave himself for the church that he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word and quote ephesians five twenty six nothing could be quoted more appropriately than this to overthrow their error it furnishes us with an easy proof if by baptism christ intends to attest the ablution by which he cleanses the church it would seem not equitable to deny this attestation to infants who are justly deemed part of the church seeing they are called heirs of the heavenly kingdom for paul comprehends the whole church when he says that it was cleansed by the washing of water

in like manner from his expression in another place that by baptism we are engrafted into the body of christ one corinthians seven thirteen we infer that infants whom he enumerates among his members are to be baptized in order that they may not be dissevered from his body see the violent onset which they make with all their engines on the bulwarks of our faith end of section thirty one