An Abstract of Baxters Plain Scripture Proof for Infants Baptism, Part 2
After this brief Reply to your Antiqueries, Some Queries out of Mr. Baxters Plain Scripture-Proof for Infant-Baptiſm.I would propound to you theſe following Queries out of Mr. B's firſt defence, or plain Scripture-proof, &c. deſiring your ſerious thoughts upon them. If you ſay, they are anſwered already in Mr. Ts writings, then it will be more eaſie for you to return an Anſwer, which if clear and ſuccinct, may more befriend your cauſe than greater volumes.
Preparatory Enquiries.
1. Is not the Scripture more ſparing v. p. 3.in ſuch caſes as theſe?
1. In ſpeaking of thoſe to whom it ſpeaks not, as concerning the Heathen, and concerning Infants? 2. In leſſer points? 3. In points not then queſtioned? 4. Does not the New-Teſtament ſpeak more ſparingly of that which is more fully diſcovered in the v. p. 4.old? And is not this the very caſe here? The main Queſtion not being [By what ſign Members are to be admitted into the Church,] or [whether by a ſign, or without?] but [At what age they are to be admitted Members?] which is as fully determined in the old Teſtament, as moſt things in the Bible; and therefore what need any more?
2. Will the difficulty of a point, that it is not ſo eaſie or clear as we would have it, prove, that it is not Truth? The Apoſtle Peter tells us many things v. p. 5.are hard to be underſtood, even in Pauls Epiſtles; yet are they not truths for all that? Are there not many weighty Controverſies more difficult than this? (And ſhould it not be conſidered, whether the contrary hath not far leſs evidence and likelihood of Truth?)
3. If never ſo clear evidence of Truth be produced, will it not ſtill be dark to them that are uncapable of diſcerning it? And is not this the caſe of many, even of the godly, that are v. p. 6.but children in knowledge?
4. When the caſe is ſo difficult that we cannot attain to a clearneſs and certainty, muſt we not follow the more probable way? And though there ſhould be far more ſaid againſt Infant-Baptiſm than hath been ſaid; v. p. 125.yet if far more may be ſaid againſt your way of Baptiſm, ſhould not this ſtop you?
5. And is it not a ſpirit of raſhneſs and headineſs, that runs men preſently v. p. 2.upon new untried ways, upon every doubting about the old? would not tender Conſciences, who know errors to be dangerous, wait, and pray, and v. p. 6.enquire of thoſe that are likely to inform them, &c. before they venture?
6. Is the overthrow of a mans former weak grounds, the overthrow of the Truth which he held? Or is the v. p. 7.overthrow of other mens weak arguments a weakning of the Truth which they maintain?
7. Is not one found Argument enough to prove any thing true? what if all the Texts that are brought were put by, ſave one, is not that enough?
8. Should not the former and preſent cuſtoms of the holieſt Saints and Churches, be of great weight with humble moderate Chriſtians in caſes controverted, and beyond their reach?
9. Are not evident conſequences, or v. p. 8.Arguments drawn by reaſon from Scripture, as true proof, as the very expreſs words of a Text? If it be proved, [that all Church-Members muſt be admitted by Baptiſm.] And then proved, [That Infants are Church-Members:] is not this as much, as to prove, They muſt be Baptized? Will you allow of ſuch an Argument for Infant-Baptiſm as Chriſt brought for the Reſurrection? (Mat. 22. 31, 32.) or will you call that weak arguing, which is like his?
10. Is this Controverſie in it ſelf v. p. 9, 10.conſidered, of ſo great moment, as ſome make it? Is it a fundamental point, and duty, of abſolute neceſſity to ſalvation, (why then was not Baptiſm in the Creed called the Apoſtles?] Mark. 16. 16. ſaith only, He that believeth v. p. 244. v. p. 11.not is condemned; not, He that is not Baptiſed. Doth not the Apoſtle ſpeak of Baptizing, as a ſmall part of his work, in compariſon of Preaching, 1 Cor. 1. 14, 17. Though all Chriſts commands, both great and ſmall, muſt be obeyed, ſo far as we know them; yet if Chriſtians make that which is comparatively ſo ſmall a point, a chief part of their ſtudy and conference, and lay out at leaſt one half of their zeal about it, are not ſuch deluded? And if they were in the Truth here, yet is not that Truth a ſnare to them?
11. Tho the point of Infant-Baptiſm v. p. 12.be comparatively of leſs moment; yet whether the grounds on which it ſtands and which are uſually denied with it, be not of great moment?
Now to the Queſtion, [whether ſome Infants ought not to be Baptized?]
(1.) Ought not all Chriſts Diſciples v. p. 15.ordinarily to be Baptized? (Mat. 28. 19. foreign, make ye Diſciples, Baptizing them,) And are not ſome Infants Chriſts Diſciples? May not the word [Diſciple] be taken in a larger v. p. 14.ſenſe, Relatively; for one that is of the number of thoſe that belong to Chriſt, as Maſter and King of the Church, and devoted to his overſight and rule, and teaching for the future: as well as in a narrower ſenſe, for thoſe who are actual Learners? And
(1.) Doth not the Holy Ghoſt call v. p. 15them Diſciples? Acts 15. 10. Is it not evident, that thoſe on whoſe necks the falſe Teachers would have laid the yoke, were Diſciples? If you ſay, not All, but ſome of them are here called Diſciples, v. p. 16.that is, only them at Age; then will it not follow, that it is but ſome only, whoſe Circumciſion the Apoſtle and the Synod doth conclude againſt, that is, thoſe of age? Then for any thing the Apoſtle ſaith, or this Synod, all Infants might be circumciſed ſtill: and is not this abſurd?
2. If no Infants are Diſciples, what v. p. 18.is the cauſe? Is it becauſe they are not capable? or becauſe God will not ſhew them ſuch mercy? Can you find out a third cauſe, which is not reducible to one of theſe? And 1. If Infants are capable of being ſervants of God, how can they be thought incapable of being Diſciples? If you will make a difference, is not more required to a Servant, than to a Diſciple? v. p. 19.Yet is it not plain, that Infants are capable of being Gods Servants? Lev. 25. 41, 42. If God call Infants his Servants, though they are uncapable at preſent of doing him Service, what forbids, but that we may call them Diſciples, tho at preſent they are uncapable of learning? Were not the Jews and their Infants called Gods ſervants in a ſenſe peculiar, as choſen v. p. 20.and ſeparated from all others; that the Gentiles at age were not ſo Gods ſervants, as the Jews Infants were? Otherwiſe how could it be a reaſon for releaſing them in the year of Jubilee, any more than for releaſing any other?
2. Are not Infants capable of being v. p. 21.Subjects of Chriſts Kingdom? And is not Chriſts Church both his Kingdom and his School, and every Member of it under him, both as King and Prophet? Are not all Subjects of Chriſt in his viſible Kingdom or (Church) Chriſtians? And are not Diſciples and Chriſtians all one in the Language of the Holy Ghoſt, Act. 11. 26.
Again, can it be, that Infants are not Diſciples, becauſe God will not ſhew them ſuch Mercy? Were not Infants in the Jewiſh Church Servants and Diſciples of Chriſt, (tho not ſo fully, v. p. 22.and explicitly as now?) was not Chriſt then the King of the Church, as Mediator, upon undertaking to pay our debt? And if Infants in the Jews Church were Servants, and Diſciples, doth not God ſhew as great and greater mercy to his Church now under the Goſpel?
And to your common objection, that Infants cannot learn. (1.) Yet can they not partake of the protection and proviſion of their Maſter, and enjoy the Priviledges of the Family and School, v. p. 23.and be under Chriſts charge and Dominion? (2.) And be devoted to Learning, if they live, and conſecrated to him as their Maſter? (3.) And why ſhould any be more vigorous with Chriſt in this caſe, than with Men? Is it not common to call the whole Nation of the Turks, both old and young, by the name of Mahometans, or Diſciples of Mahomet? And what if Infants cannot at firſt learn to know Chriſt? Is that the firſt Leſſon? Is it not ſomewhat, if they can be taught any of the duty of a rational creature? And doth not Scripture require to teach Children the trade of their life in the time of their youth; (as early, no doubt, as they are able to underſtand) and to bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord? And does not this nurture belong to them, as Schollars of Chriſt?
(2.) Ought not all ordinarily to be Baptized, that ought to be admitted viſible Church-Members? Since Baptiſm was inſtituted, have we any Precept v. p. 24.or Example of admitting viſible Members any other way? Will you not grant, that all viſible Church-Members v. p. 26.muſt be admitted by Baptiſm? Now what plentiful proof may be brought, that ſome Infants ought to be admitted viſible Church-Members? And does there need any more to prove, that they ought to be Baptized?
(1.) Whether were not ſome Infants once to be admitted Members of the viſible Church, by the merciful gift and appointment of God, not yet repealed?
Were not Infants part of them that entered into Covenant with the Lord, that he might ſtabliſh them for a people to himſelf, and might be to them a God? Deut. 29. 10, 11, 12, 13. And v. p. 27.were not Infants engaged to God by the Seal of his Covenant, [Circumciſion?] If you ſay, That this merciful gift of God to Infants, and ordinance for their Church-Memberſhip is repealed, does it not lie on you to prove it? yet how will you fail herein; whereas it is eaſie to prove the contrary?
(1.) If this Ordinance and merciful Gift be repealed and revoked, whether v. p. 38.is it in Mercy, or in Juſtice? whether is it for their good, or for their hurt?
Dare you ſay, that God hath repealed Infants Church-Memberſhip to their hurt, in juſtice? Did he ever revoke his Mercies in Juſtice to the parties hurt, till they firſt brake Covenant with him, and ſo procured it by their own deſert? Now, were there not many Jews that believed, and did not forſake the Covenant of God? How then could theſe or their Infants, be put out of the Church in juſtice to their hurt?
Or can you ſay, that it is in Mercy for their good? How can it be a mercy to take away a mercy, except it be to give a greater mercy inſtead of it? Now, is there any greater mercy given to Infants than Church-Memberſhip? Thoſe Infants which were in the Church v. p. 99.before Chriſt, had they not God engaged in Covenant to be their God, and to take them for his peculiar people, Deut. 29. 10, 11, 12. And thoſe that were aliens to the Common-wealth of v. p. 40.Iſrael, were they not ſtrangers to the covenant of Promiſe, and without hope, and without God in the World, Eph. 2. 12. And is there any Scripture that ſpeaketh of delivering any from this ſad eſtate, but Church-Members? And when God addeth to the Church ſuch as ſhall be ſaved, can it be any known way of mercy, to be caſt, or put out of the Church? Did Chriſt come in tho fleſh to put Infants out of his Church in mercy? Will you ſay, he could more fitly ſave them out of his Church, than in it? And if it be no benefit to the Catholick Church to have Infants v. p. 42.kept out of Heaven, nor any hurt to the Church to ſee them there; why ſhould it be a benefit to the whole Church to have them kept out on Earth? or any hurt to the Church to ſee them Members here? And whatſoever it may be to ſtrangers, yet how can it ſeem ſuch a mercy to Parents, to have their Children put out of the Church? why then hath God made ſuch promiſes to Parents for their Seed; as if much of the Parents comfort lay in their Childrens Welfare? And hath God no mercy for Infants? or can he not ſhew mercy to the whole Church (v. epiſtle to Bewdly, p. 7.)in an eaſier way, than by caſting out all their Infants? What great comfort would follow this concluſion, That all your Infants are out of Chriſts viſible Church? Can you prove, that Chriſt will ſave thoſe that are no Chriſtians? not ſo much as viſibly or ſeemingly Subjects of his Kingdom? If ſome priviledges v. p. 43.were taken away, as the Releaſe of the Jews ſervants, &c. yet are there not far greater given in their ſtead?
(2.) Is it not evident from Rom. 11. 17. That only ſome of the Branches were broken off from the Church: Therefore to the reſt that remained in, the gift was not repealed. Doth not the Apoſtle ſay it of that Church, whereof Infants v. p. 44.were Members with their Parents, that but ſome were broken off from this Church? (and how far is the whole Church from being diſſolved?) And who can imagine, that God ſhould caſt out the Infant, (that came in for the Parents ſake) while the Parents remain in the ſame Church?
3. Is it not evident from Rom. 11. 20. That none of the Jews were broken off but for unbelief? And conſequently, that Believers and their ſeed were not broken off? Will you ſay, that the Apoſtle ſpeaketh there of the Inviſible Church? Doth he not ſpeak of that v. p. 45.Church, whereof the Jews were natural Branches, (v. 24.) and was not that the Viſible Church? And if the breaking off was viſible, (ſuch wherein v. p. 46.Gods ſeverity was to be beheld by the Gentiles, as v. 22.) was it not from the Viſible Church directly? Could there be a viſible breaking off, or removal from an inviſible term?
(4.) If it be into their own Olive, v. p. 48.(which they were broke off from, and of which they were natural branches) that the Jews ſhall be re-ingraffed at their recovery; (as Rom. 11. 24.) then how is Gods Ordinance for their Infant Church-Memberſhip repealed? Is not their own Olive their own Church? v. p. 49.And did not their own Church ever contain Infants, as Members? As it will, when it is but part of the Catholick Church; tho they be not reſtored to the Moſaical Law, or Covenant of peculiarity: but taken into the Catholick Church.
(5.) Is it not the ſame Olive, or v. p. 50.Church, which the Jews were broken off from, that we Gentiles are graffed into, as Rom. 11. 17, 19, 24? And if their Church admitted Infant-Members, and ours be the ſame, muſt not ours admit of Infant-Members alſo? Is it not plain from the Text, that the Olive, or Church it ſelf remained ſtill, only ſome Branches were broken off, and others of the Gentiles ingraffed in their ſtead? Then how is it taken down any further than as to ceremonial accidentals?
(6.) Would not Chriſt have gathered v. p. 51.Jeruſalem, (which is uſually put for all Judea, and the Jewiſh Nation?) Mat. 23. 37, 38, 39. And is it likely that he would have unchurched all their Infants, when he would have gathered to him whole Jeruſalem, or the whole Nation?
(7.) Can ye ſuppoſe the believing v. p. 52.Jews children (and ſo the Parents in point of comfort) to be in a worſe condition ſince Chriſt, than they were before? Did Chriſt come to make Believers or their children miſerable, or bring them into a worſe condition? And is it not a far worſe condition to v. p. 53.be out of the viſible Church, than in it? Hath not Chriſt made larger promiſes to his Church Viſible, than to any in the world that are not of the Church? what promiſe is there to others, except the conditional upon their coming in?
8. If the Church of Chriſt be not in v. p. 55.a worſe ſtate now (in regard of the Childrens happineſs, and the Parents comfort) than it was before Chriſts coming, then will it not follow, that our children ought to be admitted Church-Members, and conſequently that Ordinance and merciful Gift is not repealed?
(9.) If the Children of Believers now be put out of the Church, then are v. p. 56.they not in a worſe condition than the very children of the Gentiles were before the coming of Chriſt? Is it not the expreſs Letter of Gods Law, that any ſtranger that would come in, might bring his children, and all be Circumciſed, and admitted Members of the Jews Church?
(10.) Was not the Covenant, Deur. v. p. 57.29. 10, 11, 12. (which all the Jews, with all their little ones, were enter'd into with God) a Covenant of Grace, (as diſtinct from the Laws which was repealed?) How then is it, or their Church-Memberſhip grounded on it repealed? Is not that a Covenant of Grace, wherein God taketh them to v. p. 251.be his people, and engageth to be their God? Hath God entred into ſuch a Covenant with any ſince the Fall, but in Chriſt, and upon terms of Grace? Is not that a Covenant of Grace, wherein the Lord promiſeth to Circumciſe their hearts, and the hearts of their Seed, &c. See Heb. 10. 16, 17. And doth not the Apoſtle Paul cite thoſe words of faith, Rom. 10. 5, 6, 7, 8. out of this very Covenant? Compare Deut. 30. 11, 12, 13, 14. with the Text laſt cited.
(11.) If Infants then were entred v. p. 58.and engaged Church-Members, by that Circumciſion, which was a Seal of the Rightcouſneſs of Faith, and was not given on Legal grounds, (as Rom. 4. 11.) how comes that Church-Memberſhip of Infants to be repealed? Is it any other than a ſhift, to ſay, that it was only ſuch a Seal of Abrahams righteouſneſs of Faith? Is not the nature, end, and uſe of Sacraments, or holy v. p. 59.engaging Signs and Seals, the ſame to all, though the fruit be not alway the ſame?
(12.) If the Law of Infants Church-Memberſhip was no part of the Ceremonial, or meerly Judicial Law, nor yet of the Law of Works, (as ſuch) how can you ſay, that it is repealed, ſeeing no other Laws are repealed? Will you ſay, it was part of the Law of Works, which knows no mercy to thoſe who have once offended? Was not Church-memberſhip a mercy? And if it was part of the Ceremonial Law, what was it a type of? What is the Antitype that hath ſucceeded it? And how could this be part of the meerly Judicial Law, ſeeing Infants were Church-members long before the time of Moſes, when the Jews were formed into a Common-wealth, and the Judicial Laws given them? And can you ſay, that this was proper to the Jews? Was v. p. 60.it given to them only; that is, only to Iſaac and his Seed, on whom the Jewiſh priviledges were entailed? Were not many hundreds circumciſed as Church-members (and among them many Infants) in Abrahams family before Iſaac was born; and ſo all the Proſelites (with their Infants) afterwards that would come in?
(13.) Is it not clear, that there is an Univerſal Church viſible? And that v. p. 61.every one that is a Member of a particular Church, is alſo a Member of the Univerſal? And that the Jews Infants were Members of the Univerſal? And that this Univerſal Church is not diſſolved? Now, muſt not he that will affirm, the whole ſpecies of Infants are caſt out of the Univerſal viſible Church, prove it well? And ſince we find that they were once in it, what need we any more proof, that they remain in, till it can be ſhewn where it is revoked? And is it any good conſequence, that is fetcht from the removal of a particular Church, or of the Jews particular Church to breaking off from the Univerſal? If a Jew had been forced into a ſtrange Country, yet had not both he and his children there been Members of the Univerſal Church?
(14.) Is not that falſe Doctrine, which makes the children of the Faithful v. p. 70.to be in as bad, or a worſe condition, than the Curſe [Deut. 28. 32, 41.] doth make the children of Covenant-breakers to be in? Is it not ſaid, (v. 4.) that thoſe that keep the Covenant are bleſſed in the fruit of their Body? And of Covenant-breakers, (v. 18. 32, 41.) Curſed ſhalt thou be in the Fruit of thy Body: Thy Sons and thy Daughters ſhall be given to another people: They ſhall go into Captivity?] Now, is it not a ſorer curſe to be put out of the whole Viſible Church of Chriſt, than to go into Captivity? To be in Captivity is but a Bodily judgment directly, but is it not directly a Spiritual judgment to be out of the Church?
(15.) Doth not the Doctrine, which v. p. 71.puts Infants out of the viſible Church of Chriſt, leave them in the viſible Kingdom of the Devil? Doth not the World and the Church contain all mankind, according to the ordinary Scripture-diſtribution? If you ſay, Infants v. p. 72.may be of the inviſible Church, is not the viſible Church wider than the inviſible; That ordinarily we may not judg any to be of the inviſible Church, who are not of the viſible?
(16.) And will you leave us no ſound grounded hope of the juſtification, or ſalvation of any dying Infants in the world? Can we have any true ground v. p. 74.of Chriſtian hope that they ſhall be ſaved, who are not ſo much as ſeemingly (or viſibly) in a ſtate of Salvation, and ſo die? To judge a thing to be what it doth not any way ſeem, or appear to be, is it not likely actually, but alway virtually, and interpretatively, a falſe judgment. And if they that are not of the true Church are not in a ſtate of Salvation, then will it not follow, that they that ſeem not to be of that Church, do not ſo much as ſeem to be in a ſtate of Salvation?
(17.) What a full plain Text is that, v. p. 82.1 Cor. 7. 14. Are the children of Believers holy in ſtate? then ought they not to be admitted viſible Church-members? Are not all Divines agreed in the definition of the Church, That it is a Society of perſons ſeparated from the world to God? Will not this Text prove children holy, by a ſtated ſeparation to God? Is not the conſtant ſenſe of the word [holy] a ſeparation to God? And were not the Infants of the faithful v. p. 83.Church-members, and ſo holy, before Chriſts time? And is it not moſt probable that the Apoſtle ſpeaks of the ſame kind of holineſs, which was the ordinary priviledge of the faithful before? But utterly improbable that he ſhould ſpeak of no other holineſs here but legitimation, (which is common to the children of Pagans?) And if to be holy in the Apoſtles ſenſe here, be no v. p. 84.more than to be lawfully begotten, then may we not call all perſons holy, that are not Baſtards? Then is not almoſt all the world holy? Becauſe Baſtards are called clean, will it therefore follow, that the legitimate may be called holy? The Beaſts that chewed the Cud, and had cloven feet, were clean, will you therefore ſay, they were holy?
(18.) When it is ſaid, Mark. 10. 14. v. p. 105.Of ſuch is the Kingdom of God,] whether this be not more, than they may be viſible Church-Members? And whether v. p. 106.theſe which Chriſt took up in his Armes, and Bleſſed, were not Members of his viſible Church? Are any viſibly Bleſt without the viſible Church? And is it not conſiderable, that all the three former Evangeliſts make full mention of theſe paſſages of Chriſt? Is it not evident, that they were taken for Doctrines of moment for the Churches information? And whether thoſe words of Chriſt ſo plain, and earneſt, [ſuffer little Children to come unto me, and forbid them not] be not a better Plea at Judgment for our admitting Infants, than any that ever yet you have brought for refuſing them? Turn over your Bible, and ſee if you can find Epiſtle to Bewdleywhere Chriſt or his Apoſtles have ſaid as much againſt our admitting Infants Church-members, and then conſider, pag. 7.which way is ſafeſt.