INFANT
BAPTISM AND THE COVENANT OF GRACE
by
John Flavel
John Flavel (1628-1691) was a Presbyterian minister at
Dartmouth
in
Devon,
England, whose teaching is still
highly valued as most helpful and strengthening. The son of a minister who died
in prison for his noncomformity, John Flavel knew what it was to suffer
hardship, and in his life he showed the evangelical graces of a strong man
of God. Under his influence, a union of the Presbyterian and Congregational
(Independent) churches in his area was accomplished.
Thesis 1. It hath pleased God, in all ages
of the world, since man was created, to deal with his church and people by way
of covenant, and in the same way he will still deal with them unto the end of
the world.
God
might have dealt with us in a supreme way of mere sovereignty and dominion,
commanding what duties he pleased, and establishing his commands by what
penalties he pleased, and never have brought himself under the tie and
obligation of a covenant to his own creatures: but he chuses to deal
familiarly with his people by way of covenanting, being a familiar way, 2 Sam.
vii. 19. Is this the manner of men, O Lord God, or, (as Junius renders it) and
that after the manner of men, O Lord God! it is a way full of
condescending grace and goodness: he is willing hereby his people should know
what they may certainly expect from their God, as well as what their God
requires of them. Hereby also he will furnish them with mighty pleas and
arguments in prayer, succour their faith against temptations, strengthen their
hands in duties of obedience, sweeten their obedience to them, and
discriminate his own people from the world.
As
soon therefore as man was created and placed in paradise, being made upright
and thoroughly furnished with abilities perfectly and completely to obey all
the commands of his Maker, the Lord immediately entered into the covenant of
works with him, and all his natural posterity in him: And in this covenant his
standing or falling was according to the perfection and constancy of his
personal obedience, Gen. ii. 17. Gal. iii. 10. But in this first covenant of
works no provision at all was made for his recovery (in case of the least
failure) by his repentance or better obedience; but the curse immediately
seized both soul and body: and sin, by the fall entering into man’s nature,
totally disabled him to the perfect performance of any one duty, as that
covenant required it to be done, Rom. viii. 3. nor would God accept any
repentance or after-endeavours in lieu of that perfect obedience due by law.
So that from the fall of Adam to the end of the world this covenant ceaseth as
a covenant of life, or a covenant able to give righteousness and life unto all
mankind for evermore, Rom. iii. 20. “Therefore by the deeds of the law there
shall no flesh be justified in his sight.” Gal. iii. 11. “But that no man
is justified by the law in the sight of God, is evident.” And it being so
evident, that righteousness and life being for ever impossible to be obtained
upon the terms of Adam’s covenant, it must therefore be a self-evident
truth, That since the fall God never
did, and to the end of the world he never will open that way or door to life
(thus blocked up by an absolute impossibility) for the justification and
salvation of any man.
Thesis 2. Soon after the violation and
cessation of this first covenant, as a covenant of life, it pleased the Lord
to open and publish the second covenant of grace by Jesus Christ, the first
dawning whereof we find in Gen. iii. 15. where the seed is
promised which shall bruise the serpent’s head. And though this be but a
very short, and somewhat obscure discovery of man’s remedy and salvation by
Christ; yet was it a joyful sound to the ears of God’s people, it was even
life from the dead to the believers of those times. For we may rationally
conclude, That that space of time betwixt the breaking of the first and making
1 of the second covenant was the most dismal period of time that
ever the world did or shall see. This covenant of grace now took place of the
covenant of works, and comprehended all believers in the bosom of it. The
covenant of works took place from the time it was made until the fall of Adam,
and then was abolished as a life-giving covenant. The second covenant took
place from the time it was made soon after the fall, and is to continue to the
end of the world. And these only are the two covenants God hath made with men;
the latter succeeding the former, and commencing from its expiration; but both
cannot possibly be in force together at the same time, and upon the same
persons, as co-ordinate covenants of life and salvation. For in co-ordination
they expel and destroy each other, Gal. v. 4. “Whosoever of you are
justified by the law, ye are fallen from grace.” The first covenant was a
covenant without a mediator; the second is a covenant with a mediator. Place a
believer under both at once, or put these two covenants in co-ordination, and
that which results will be a pure contradiction, viz. That a man is saved
without a mediator, and yet by a mediator. Moreover, if there be a way to life
without a mediator, there was no need to make a covenant in and with a
mediator; nor can these words of Christ be true, John iv. 6. “I am the way,
the truth, and the life; no man cometh to the Father but by me.”
The
righteousness of the first covenant was within man himself; the righteousness
of the second covenant is without man in Christ. Put these two in
co-ordination, and that which results is as pure a contradiction as the
former, viz. That a man is justified by a righteousness within him, and yet is
justified by a righteousness without him, expressly contrary to the
apostle’s conclusion, Rom. iii. 20. “Therefore by the deeds of the law
there shall no flesh be justified in his sight.” It is therefore an
intolerable absurdity to place believers under both these covenants at the
same time; under the curse of the first, and blessing of the second. For
whensoever the state of any person is changed by justification, his covenant
is changed with his state, Col. i. 13. It is as unimaginable that a believer
should thus stand under both covenants, as it is to imagine a man may be born
of two mothers, Gal. iv. 22, 23, 24, 25. or a woman lawfully married to two
husbands, Rom. vii. 1, 2, 3, 4. and more absurd (if it be possible any thing
can be more absurd) to attribute the most glorious privilege of the covenant
of grace, (viz. “I will be a God to thee, and to thy seed after thee,”
Gen. xvii. 7.) to the impotent and abolished covenant of works; both which
absurdities are asserted in defence of Antipćdo-baptism.
And
thought it be true, that after the first edition of the covenant of grace, the
matter of the first covenant was represented to the Israelites in the moral
law; yet that representation was intended and designed to be subservient, and
added to the promise, Gal. iii. 19. and so (as an acute and learned divine 2
speaks) the very decalogue or moral law
itself pertained to the covenant of grace; yea, in some sort flowed out of
this covenant, as it was promulged by the counsel of God to be serviceable to
it; both antecedently to lead men by the conviction of sin, fear of wrath, and
self-despair, to the covenant of grace; and also consequently as it is a
pattern of obedience and rule of holiness. For had it been published as a
covenant designed intentionally to its primitive use and end, it had totally
frustrated the covenant of grace.
Thesis 3. Though the primordial light or
first glimmerings of this covenant of grace, were comparatively weak and
obscure; yet from the first publication of it to Adam, God in all ages hath
been amplifying the privileges, and heightening the glory of this second
covenant in all the after expressures and editions of it unto this day, and
will more and more amplify and illustrate it to the end of the world.
That
first promise, Gen. iii. 15. is like the first small spring or head of a great
river, which the farther it runs, the bigger it grows by the accession of more
waters to it. Or like the sun in the heavens, which the higher it mounts, the
more bright and glorious the day still grows.
In
that period of time, betwixt Adam and Abraham, we find no token of God’s
covenant ordered therein to be applied to the infant seed of believers. But in
that second edition of the covenant to Abraham, the privileges of the covenant
were amplified, and his infant-seed not only taken into the covenant (as they
were before) but also added to the visible church, by receiving the token of
the covenant, which then was circumcision; and so here is a great addition
made to the visible church, even the whole infant off-spring of adult
believers.
From
that period, until the coming of the Messiah in the flesh, the Jewish church,
and their infant-seed, except only some few proselytes out of the Gentile
nations, made up the visible church of God, and the poor Gentiles were without
Christ, being aliens from the common-wealth of Israel, and strangers from the
covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world, Eph. ii.
12. but in this glorious third period the covenant again enlarges itself more
than before, and the privileges of it are no longer limited, and restrained to
the Jewish believers, and their infant-seed; but the Gentiles also are taken
into the covenant, and the door of faith was opened unto them, Acts xiv. 27.
the partition-wall was now broken down, which separated the church from the
Gentile world, Eph. ii. 14. This was a glorious enlargement of the covenant,
and many glorious prophecies and promises were fulfilled in it; such as those,
Isa. xi. 10. and xlii. 1, 6. xlix. 22. liv. 3. lx. 3, 5, 11, 16. lxii. 2,
&c.
And
though the covenant, as to its external part, seems to have lost ground in the
breaking off of the Jewish nation from the church; yet, like the sea, what it
loses in one place, it gains with advantage upon another: The addition of many
Gentile nations to the church, more than recompenses for the present breaking
off of that one nation of the Jews. And indeed they are broken off but for a
time, for God shall graff them in again,
Rom.
xi.
23. This therefore being the design of God, and steady course of his covenant
of grace, more and more to enlarge itself in all ages; nothing can be more
opposite to the nature of this covenant, than to narrow and contract its
privileges in its farther progress, and cut off a whole species from it, which
it formerly took in.
Thesis 4. It is past all doubt and contradiction, that the
infant-seed of Abraham, under the second edition of the covenant of grace,
were taken with their believing parents into God’s gracious covenant, had
the seal of that covenant applied to them, and were thereby added to the
visible church, Gen. xvii. 7, 8, 9, 10, 11. which was a gracious privilege of
the covenant superadded to all the former, and such as sweeps away all the
frivolous and groundless cavils and exceptions of those that object the
incapacity of infants to enter into covenant with God, or receive benefit from
the external privileges of the visible church. Nor can the subtlest enemy to
infant-baptism give us a convincing reason why the infants of Gentile
believers are not equally capable of the same benefits that the infants of
Jewish believers were, if they still stand under the same covenant that the
former stood under; and God hath no where repealed the gracious grant formerly
made to the infant-seed of his covenant-people.
Thesis 5. It is to me clear, beyond all contradiction, from Rom.
xi. 17. “If some of the branches be broken off, and thou being a wild
olive-tree, wert grafted in amongst them, and with them partakest of the root
and fatness of the olive-tree:” I say I can scarce desire a clearer
scripture-light than this text gives, to satisfy my understanding in this
case, that when God brake off the unbelieving Jews from the church, both
parents and children together, the believing Gentiles, which are as truly
Abraham’s seed as they were, Gal. iii. 29. yea, the more excellent seed of
Abraham, were implanted or ingrafted in their room, and do as amply enjoy the
privileges of that covenant, both internal and external, for themselves and
for their infant-seed, as ever any members of the Jewish church did or could
do.
Our
adversaries in this controversy do pitifully and apparently shuffle here, and
invent many strange and unintelligible distinctions to be-cloud the light of
this famous text. What they are, and how they are baffled, the reader will
easily discern from what hath already past betwixt my antagonist and me, in p.
108, &c. of my Vindicić Legis et Fśderis.
It is plain that Abraham is the root; the olive-tree, the visible church; the
sap and fatness of the olive, are church-ordinances and covenant-privileges;
the Gentile believers, who are Abraham’s seed according to promise, are the
ingrafted branches standing in the place of the natural branches, and with
them, or in like manner as they did, partaking of the root and fatness of the
olive-tree, that is, as really and amply enjoying all the immunities,
benefits, and privileges of the church and covenant (among which the
initiating sign was one, and a chief one too) as ever the natural branches
that were broken off, that is, the Jewish parents and their children, did or
might have done. And to deny this, (as before was noted) is to straiten
covenant-privileges in their farther progress.
Thesis 6. Suitable hereunto we find, that no sooner was the
Christian church constituted, and the believing Gentiles by faith added to it,
but the children of such believing parents are declared to be fśderally holy,
1 Cor. vii. 14. and the unbelieving Jews, who were superstitiously fond of
circumcision, and prejudiced against baptism as an injurious innovation, are
by the apostle persuaded to submit themselves to it, Acts ii. 38, 39. assuring
them that the same promise, viz. I will
be a God to thee, and to thy seed after thee, is now as effectually sealed
to them and their children by baptism, as it was in the former age by
circumcision: And that the Gentiles, which are yet afar off, whenever God
shall call them, shall equally enjoy the same privilege, both for themselves
and for their children also.
We
also find a commission given by Christ to the disciples, Mat. xxviii. 19, 20.
To disciple all nations, baptizing them, &c. from which discipleship,
infants ought not to be excluded, Acts xv. 10. Yea, we find, that as at the
institution of circumcision, Abraham, the father and master of the family, was
first circumcised in his own person, and then his whole household, Gen. xvii.
23, 24. answerably, as soon as any person by conversion or public profession
of faith became a visible child of Abraham, that person was first baptized,
and the whole household with him or her, Acts xvi. 15, 33. It is unreasonable
to put us upon the proof, that there were infants in those houses; it being
more probable that in such frequent baptizing of households belonging to
believers, there were some infants; but if there were none, it is enough for
us to prove from their fśderal holiness, 1 Cor. vii. 14. and the extent of
God’s promise to them, Acts ii. 38, 39. if there had been never so many
infants in those households, they might and ought to have been baptized. How
the true sense and scope of the last two mentioned scriptures are maintained
and vindicated against Mr. Cary’s corrupt glosses and interpretations, see
my Vindicić Legis et Fśderis, p.
90, 91. We do not lay the stress of infant-baptism upon such strictures as the
baptizing of the household’s of believers, or Christ’s taking up in his
arms, and blessing the little ones that were brought to him. These and many
other such things found in the history of Christ, and Acts of the
apostles, have their use and service to fortify that doctrine. But if we
can produce no example of any believer’s infant baptized, the merit of the
cause lies not in the matter of fact, but covenant-right. For our adversaries
themselves, if we go to the matter of fact, will be hard put to it to produce
one instance out of the New Testament of any child of a believing Christian
whose baptism was deferred, or by Christ or his apostles ordered to be
deferred, until he attained the years of maturity, and made a personal
profession of faith himself.
Thesis 7. The change of the token and seal of the covenant from
circumcision to baptism, will by no means infer the change or diversity of the
covenants, especially when the latter comes into the place, and serves to the
same use and end with the former, as it is manifest baptism doth, from Col.
ii. 11, 12. as it hath been, I think,
sufficiently argued against Mr. Cary’s glosses and exceptions, p. 100, 101. of my Vindicia Legis et Fśderis. The covenant is still the same covenant
of grace, though the external
initiating sign be changed. For what is the substantial part of the covenant
of grace now, but the same it was to Abraham and his seed before? Is not this
our covenant of grace, Heb. viii. 10. “I will be to them a God, and
they shall be to me “a people?” And in what words was Abraham’s covenant
expressed, Gen. xvii. 7. “I will establish my covenant between me and thee,
and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to
be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee.” This makes Abraham’s
covenant, sealed to him and his seed, as truly and properly the covenant
of grace, as that which baptism now seals to believers and their seed. The
rash ignorance of those that affirm, God may become a people’s God in the
way of special interest, by virtue of the broken and abolished covenant
of works, rather deserves sharp reprehension and sad lamentation, than a
confutation; which, nevertheless out of respect to my friend Mr. Cary, I have
given it in its proper place in this rejoinder.
1
That is, the revelation. Editor.
2 Turretini Pars 2da loc. 12. p.
248.
Reference
The
Works
of John Flavel, Vol. 3, Banner
of Truth 1982. pp 541-547.
Vindiciarum
Vindex
