Baptism, Part 2 · Chapter 6
CHAP. VI. Wherein the nullity and utter inſignificancy of Infants Baptiſme is made appear.
THat it is no way ſafe for any to reſt contented with that Baptiſme which they received in their Infancy, may appear, becauſe ſuch their Baptiſme is a meer nullity, an inſignificant nothing, in reſpect to the New Teſtament Ordinance of Baptiſme; and the reaſon is plain, becauſe there is that wanting in it which is ſo eſſential to true Baptiſme.
For firſt,Neither right matter nor form. there is as the right Subject of Baptiſme wanting, ſo the true External form is wanting alſo, as practiſed with us: For the External form as before ſhewed is not ſprinkling, or pouring a little Water upon the Head or Face, but a dipping the whole perſon under Water, and raiſing him up again, to figure out death, burial and Reſurrection, as before.
If then matter and form be wanting; which is Eſſential to its being, it muſt needs be a nullity, for what is more eſſential to the being of a thing then matter and form, and how is it poſſible to define Baptiſme, or any thing elſe, where they are wanting; and which is ſuch a difficiency in that or any thing elſe that makes it a non-entity, or a meer nullity.
Object. But 'tis ſaid there was the right words of Baptiſme, it was done in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
Anſw. So there was alſo in baptizing of Bells and Churches, which in your judgment is ſo far from making it a right Ordinance, the true Subject being wanting, that it is no leſs then a prophanation thereof, and a miſerable taking of the name of God in vain.
And farther to demonſtrate and illuſtrate this point, you know it is generally owned, that Baptiſme is no other then our myſtical Marriage, as being the ſolemnization of a mutual conſent and ſtriking of a Covenant (the eſſentials of Marriage) betwixt Chriſt …d a believer,Mr. Bax. as Mr. Baxter …ly owns and acknowledges in his 9. Argument to Mr. Blake, ſaying, I conclude, Chriſt hath appointed no Baptiſme, but what is for a viſible Marriage of the Soul to himſelf, (as Proteſtants ſaith he ordinarily confeſs) therefore he hath appointed no Baptiſme, but for thoſe that profeſs to take Jeſus Chriſt …o be their Husband, and to give up themſelves to him as his Spouſe.
Now mutual conſent in Marriage is ſo eſſential an Ingredient, that without it there is no Marriage, being as Beza ſaith, the formal cauſe thereof, becauſe only Conſent makes the Marriage, as ſaith the Lawyers; ſo that if there ſhould be only the conſent of one Party, it is but like a bargain wherein only one ſide is agreed; for as well known there is no Covenant, where no Conſent.
And juſt ſo it is in the Caſe of Infants Baptiſme; for if you dip an Infant without Conſent or Ʋnderſtanding, (that indeed is capable of neither) it no more makes Baptiſme then a bargain, a bargain, though one ſide only be agreed, or if made with an Infant, or an Idiot, or then a forc'd bed is lawfull Matrimony; for as Mr. Baxter before … ingeniouſly confeſſeth, That for perſons to be baptized without ſuch a profeſt Contract, is a Baptiſme not of Chriſts appointment, and that being done without Repentance and Faith, i… an impious prophanation, yea ridiculous ſaith Mr. Calvin, as before.
And in Confirmation of this weighty point of nullity, we are yet farther beholding to Mr. Baxter, who is pleaſed in his Chriſtian Directory amongſt the many Caſes of Conſcience to give … the diſcuſſion of this, and which in P. 817. you'l find managed after this ſort, viz.
Q. 41. Are they really baptized, who are baptized according to the Engliſh Liturgy, and Canons, where the Parent ſeemeth excluded, and thoſe to conſent for the Infant which have …o power to do it?
Anſw. I find (ſaith he) ſome puzled with this doubt, whether all our Infants Baptiſme be a meer nullity; for ſay they, the outward waſhing without Covenanting with God, is no more Baptiſme then the Body of Corps is a Man, the Covenant i… the chiefe eſſential part in Baptiſme: And he that was never entred into Covenant with God, was never Baptized. But Infants according to the Liturgy are not entred into Covenant with God, which they would prove thus. They that neither ever Covenanted by themſelves, or any authorized perſon for them were never entred into Covenant with God; (for that is no act of theirs which is done by a ſtranger that hath no power to do it) but &c.— That they did it not themſelves, is undeniable: That they did it not by any perſon impowred by God to do it for them, we prove; firſt becauſe God fathers are the perſons [by whom] the Infant is ſaid to promiſe; but God-fathers have no Power from God, 1. Not by Nature, 2. Not by Scripture. Secondly, becauſe the Parents are not only included as Covenanters, but proſitively excluded, 1. In that the whole Office of Covenanting for the Child from firſt to laſt is laid on others; 2. In that the 29. Canon ſaith, [No Parent ſhall be urged to be preſent nor admitted to anſwer … God-father for his own Child] by …ch the Parent is excluded: Therefore our Children are all unbaptized, to which he is pleaſed to anſwer to this purpoſe.
Mr. Bax. Anſwer.That though the Parents be abſent, who yet may if he pleaſe be ſilently preſent, yet his conſent is ſuppoſed, becauſe he chooſeth the Sponſors, and gives the Miniſter notice before hand; and though my judgment be, that they ſhould be the principal Covenanters for the Child expreſly, yet the want of that expreſneſs will not make us unbaptized perſons.
Now whether Mr. Baxter herein hath not moſt amply confirmed, and not at all anſwered the Scruple, let all men judge.
For firſt, if it be ſo as ſcrupled, and by him not denyed; 1. That the entring Covenant with God, it ſo the Eſſential part of Baptiſme, that without it, it is not.
2. That Children cannot.
3. That the Sureties (either by the Law of God or Nature ought not.
4. That the Parent by the Canon Law muſt not.
How then is it poſſible, (which our learned Caſuiſt would impoſe upon us) that a Parents …ppoſed Conſent can create a power in another to do a thing, which neither the Law of God nor Nature enjoy us, for approves.
And therefore have we not good and ſubſtantial ground from this Argument to conclude, That for as much as Children by the Liturgy are baptized without any covenanting with God, either by themſelves or others, (authorized by God thereto) therefore their Baptiſme, is a meer nullity.
And as to his ſaying, [Dictator and Oracle like] that a Parent hath a Covenanting Power for his Child inherent in him, and which he may confer upon another: It is but begging the Queſtion in both parts, and no leſs then oppoſing the Canon, but eſpecially a contradicting the whole Current of Scripture.
As to the Humane invention of Goſſips or Sureties for Children and Bells, &c. you have before at large treated of, both as to their Original and Uſe; and alſo how ſinfull and ridiculous by the Biſhop of Downe, P. 91, 92.
Which Chapter therefore I ſhall conclude with the words of Mr. L. a perſon of great learning and moderation, as generally eſteemed in his book of Baptiſme, upon this Point, P. 359. And the Patrons of Baptiſme I hope will pardon me; If what Chamier affirms of Baptiſme, not given by a right Miniſter, I with more Equity and Reaſon affirm here. That it is not a Sacrament, but a raſh mockery or deceiving, by no …ans to be endured in the Church.