Anti-Paedobaptism Part 2, Section 10
SECT. X.
That infants of believers are not disciples appointed to be baptized, Mat. 28. 19.
THe last exception against the minor in my Argument [that infants of believers are not disciples of Christ appointed to be baptized Mat. 28. 19.] is by denying it, and asserting on the contrary that they are disciples and appointed there to be baptized. But this is so sorry a shift, so contrary to the notation and use of the word in the New Testament in the text, to the Apostles practice which best expounds Christs commission, to their own or fellows confession elsewhere, that it looks like the putting a face on a thing when there is small hope to hold it.
Mr. Rutherford Divine right of Presbyteries page 268. See you doubt not of a warrant for baptizing children who are not disciples; For then the Apostles from this place had no warrant to baptize the infants of believers.
Nevertheless because such men as Mr. Cotton, and Mr. Baxter have put this text in the front to prove infant-baptism by it, I shall lay down sundry arguments against that abuse of the text, and then examine what they say about this. That our Lord Christ did not mean by [disciples to be baptized Matth. 28. 19.] infants either of believers or unbelievers, I prove.
1. from the notation of the word foreign a verbal noun, which comes from foreign hath learned. Mr. B. Plain Scrip. proof▪ &c. pag. 92. acknowledgeth it to have denomination from the act of learning. Mr. Blake Vindic. foederis pag. 205. They are still stiled in New Testament-Scriptures, Believers from the faith that they profess, Saints from the holiness to which they stand engaged, Disciples from the doctrine which they profess to learn, and Christians from him whose they are, whom they serve, and from whom they expect salvation.
Whence I argue. They are not disciples as Mat. 28. 19. who do not learn or profess the learning of Christs doctrine; But infants do not learn Christs doctrine; Ergo they are not disciples. The major is proved from the notation and use of the word before confessed, and intimated in that speech of the Apostle Eph. 4. 20▪ which shews, that to be a Disciple is to be one that learns Christ. The minor is manifest, from the want of capacity to learn, and from sense, to which it is apparent that they regard not, heed not, understand not any thing of Christ, as by other signs, so by the difficulty to teach them when they come to years.
To this what Mr. M. replies is answered before. Mr. B. part 1. chap. 2. saith You must understand that one may be called a disciple, 1. in a large sense relatively, as being of the number of those that belong to Christ as Master and King of the Church, and destinated or devoted to his oversight and rule, and teaching, for the future: thus believers infants are disciples, of which I shall give you proof anone.
2. Sometimes the word is taken in a narrower sense for those who are actually learners. But commonly applied to men at age it includeth both relation and subordination, and also actual learing, but the former principally: but applied to infants it intendeth the relation at present and actual learning, as one end of it intended for the future.
To which I reply, 1. I take it for granted that it is sometimes taken for those who are actually learners.
2. That the term [disciple] commonly applied to men of age includes actual learning.
3. That applyed to infants it intendeth the relation as present, and actual learning as one end of it intended for the future.
Wherein letting passe the uncouth expression that [the word in tendeth an end] and taking his meaning, I observe,
First, that he makes the term [disciples] to be meant in one manner, when it is said of men of age, and another when of infants. Which me thinks is as absurd as that he chargeth Mr. Bedford with pag. 300. that he made one end of baptism in the aged, another in infants, one covenant to parents, and another to infants, as if the aged were one sort of disciples meant Mat. 28. 19. and yet the same word includes another sort of disciples in a clean different sense. It would be known of which sort of disciples he understands it, for certainly there is but one sort of disciples there mentioned: and if he will stand to his words in that place▪ he must understand it of disciples upon instruction.
Secondly, That he sets down the sense of a word, and yet produceth no place for the present where the distinction is put, but refers us to another place, which his Reader must seek, and when he hath sought all his book he shall find but one text Acts 15. 10. and that miserably abused by him. Of which in its place.
Thirdly, That he acknowledgeth page 92▪ and here, that the denomination is from the disciples act of learning, yet will have it imagined that an infant may be a disciple without his own actual learning, onelyonly from his belonging to Christ by Gods covenant, and mens destination and devoting to learn hereafter. But it is to me unconceivable that the denomination which is from the act inherent in the person should be without the act inherent in the person from some acts of another, and those acts not putting the form denominating in actual being, yea when oftentimes the form denominating is never in act. For by Mr. Bs. doctrine, Gods covenant, and mans devoting make a disciple, and yet I think notwithstanding the covenant, and mans devoting, many thousands, yea the most part of infants whom he would have baptized never actually learn by reason of death or disaffection, yea many expresly renounce it. Were Gods covenant absolute to every true believers infant that he shall be a disciple, yet for the present it doth put nothing actually in the person to whom the promise is made, no more than election doth put actually any thing in the elected. Praedestinatio ni… ponit in praedestinato, Aq. p. 1. q. 23. art. 2. Gods purpose of a thing doth not put it in being, Mr. Bl. Vindic. foed. pag. 89. Most truly Mr. Cobbet Just Vindic. part. 2. cap. 2. Election doth neither make a man holy, but only in…e…ionally, nor give him actual Church right. And this may in like manner be said concerning Gods promise or covenant, by it self considered, it doth assure something for the future, but put nothing in present being. The covenant is to a person afore he is born, as to Isaac and Jacob, shall it be said, that afore they were born they were actually disciples, and had actual Church right? I confesse they might be called disciples or believers in possibility, but not actually. Gods election and promise denominate a man elected and a child of the promise (which are terms of the same extent, Rom. 9. 8.) but not justifyed, converted, regenerated, or actually a believer, disciple, or visible Church member. But this is yet more in consistent with Mr. Bs. bypotheses, who when he assigns the covenant which he will have to make an infant actually a disciple, makes it onelyonly the conditional covenant of grace (as I shall shew hereafter) and that covenant is upon condition of faith, and this he will have to belong to all men whether believers or unbelievers, and me thinks he should not say all men are actually disciples, visible Church members, though God hath made that covenant with them which he seals in baptism, which he often saies to be only the conditional covenant, and …eckons it my prime errour that misleads me in the point of baptism, that I make baptism seal the absolute covenant of grace. And yet he chargeth Mr. Bedford p. 300. 301. as with an absurdity following his tenet that baptism should seal one covenat to the Father, another to the son. If then the covenant make not others actually disciples, then neither insants. Idem quà idem semper facit idem. Again, a conditional covenant cannot make an actual disciple, till the condition which is actual faith be put. Conditionale nihil ponit in esse. Therfore the cōditional covenant sealed in baptism cannot make an actual disciple. Nor is it to be said, the parents faith is the condition of the covenant for the child.
For 1. it being not the condition of the covenant to the parent that another should believe for him, neither is it the condition for the child, except Mr. B. will fall into the absurdity he chargeth on Mr. Bedford, that one covenant should be to the Father, and another to the child, sealed in baptism.
2. A child, the father believing, shall be actually a disciple before it is born, for a conditional proposition, the condition being put, becomes absolute. Now it is his child, and he believing afore it is born; Ergo.
In like manner it may be said of anothers devoting or destinating an infant to be a disciple, that is no act of the person denominated, it can only make a disciple intentionally; a persons devoting is but his wish, or desire, or promise, and shall that make a child actually a disciple? yea destinating and devoting is before the child is conceived or born, as Hannah did devote Samuel, was Samuel therefore actually a disciple and visible Church-member afore he was born? many of those whom the parents destinate and devote to be actual learners in after time, yet never are such: yea many of them are express disclaimers and opposers of that doctrine; shall these be called actual disciples, from their parents wish, or hopes, or promise?
Again, he makes the term [disciple] applied to an insant to note a relation present, actual learning as one end of it intended for the future. I confess that [disciple] notes a relation between the teacher and person taught, yet it seems to note a passion as its form or quiddity, so that if any should ask who is a disciple, I should say, one that hath learned, and what it is to be discipled, it is to be taught or learned, and so doth import a passion, and is to be put in that predicament, and the relation is as they say secundùm dici, not secundùm esse. But were it granted that the whole essence of a disciple did consist in relation, I would fain know what shall be the foundation of his relation. Logicians say, To relation there is requisite a foundation, as begetting, two terms, as Father and Son, and a respect arising between them from that foundation, as fatherhood It is an unheard-of thing that a relation should be without a foundation, a Father without begerting, an actual Father without actual begetting. It is true, a man may be p…lly a Father without actual begetting, but to make an actual F… without actual begetting, is oppositum in opposito. Mr. B. Saints everlasting; est, part 1. …. 8. sect. 2. To be the people of God without regeneration is as impossible as to be the natural children of men without generation. Now what should be the foundation of the relation of a Disciple of Christ but learning of Christ of an actual Disciple but actual learning, I know not. Future learning, being acording to Mr. B. the end intended, is not in being, perhaps will never be, and therefore it is in my apprehension a most illogical and absurd conceit which Mr. B. hath hatched, to obtrude upon us such a notion of a Disciple, as supposeth a relation without a foundation, and contrary to Grammar, to call a person a Disciple who hath learned nothing, no not so much as to know or own his Teacher. To say a person may be a Scholar afore he learns, serves not turn, to avoyd the force of this Reason: For the term [Scholar] coming from foreign, leasure or vacation from other exercise, may be without actual learning, but foreign is a Verbal Noun from foreign, hath learned, and Disciple à discendo, from Learning; and therefore as it is absurd to call one learned or a Learner, without Learning, so it is absurd to call one a Disciple without actual learning. But I rest not on the notation alone, but proceed to the use of the word foreign, a Disciple.
2. I argue thus. The word [Disciple] Matth. 28. 19. is to be understood as it is understood all along the New Testament; But all along the New Testament it is applied to those that addicted themselves to some as Teachers, followed them, learned of them, no where to an insant, who doth none of these. Ergo, Infants are not Disciples, meant Matth. 28. 19. The major is plain from the rule of understanding words, that it is to be according to the use of them. The minor is proved thus. The Disciples of Christ are understood as the Disciples of Iohn and the Pharisees, Luke 5. 33. as the Disciples of Moses, Iohn 9, 28. of the perverters, Acts 20. 30. But in all these places, and in all the rest, they are termed Disciples of John, the Pharisees, Moses, and the perverters who addicted themselves to them, followed them, learned of them, no where an infant, who doth none of these; Therefore the term [Disciples of Christ] notes onelyonly such, and no where an infant.
3. I argue thus. They that are not termed believers, are not Disciples; But infants of believers are not termed believers; Therefore they are not termed Disciples. The Major is proved from the equipollence of the term [Disciple] and [believers] in the New Testament. Calvin institut. lib. 3. cap. 2. sect. 6. Cur respondet quod passim Evangelistae sideles & discipulos ponunt tanqu im synonyma, ac-praesertim Lucas in Actis Apostolorum saepius, Acts 6. 1, 2, 7. & 9. 1, 10, 19, 25, 26, 38. & 11. 26, 29. & 13. 52. & 14. 20▪ 22, 28. Which thing is strongly dispured by Chamier, 2. Panst. Cath. tom. 3. l. 12 c. 9. s. 15. against the Papists implicite saith, that none are believers but disciples who learn and know. Which he confirms from Matth. 28. 19. in these words, Nimlrum disertum erat Christi mandatum, Matth. 18. foreign, Docete, sive discipulos facite omnes gentes. The minor needs not proof, believing being an act of the intellectual part, supposing the use of reason which infants ordinarily have not, at least in such things they cannot be sayd ordinarily to be behevers; nor is the term believer any where in Scripture applied to them. Rightly saith the same Chamier, Panstr. Cat. to…. 4. l. 12. c. 9. sect. 53. Infantes potentia tantùm sideles sunt, actu nemo nisi adultiv.
4. This is further confirmed by comparing Matth. 28 19. with Mark 16. 15, 16. where the same Commission is expressed, given at the same time, in somwhat different words, which therefore without all contradiction the one expound the other. Now what is sayd Matth. 28 19. [Make Disciple of all Nations] is in Mark 16 15. [Preach the Gospel to every creature] and what is sayd Matth. 28 19. [baptizing them] is Mark 16. 16. [Whosoever believeth and is baptized shall be saved] which apparently shews that [foreign them or Disciples] are the same with [believers] and consiquently not insants.
5. Which is further confirmed by Philips answer to the Eunuch …ling him, that if he did believe, he might be baptized, Act … ▪ 7. which shews that Philip understood Christs Commission to be to baptize believers and none else; But infants are not such ordinarily; Therefore they are not ordinarily to be baptized. Mr. B. himself pag. 300. saith, Now for the aged a Disciple and believer are all o…e Mark 16. …6. what Mr. Blake speakes Vindic. foed: …ag 4, 3. of insants being Disciples as to the participat…n of Ordinances, and elsewhere of being believers virtually, though not formally, is without Scripture proof, which termes none Disciples … right to participate of ordinances, but from Learning, … believers who are not so formaly, nor do I know … w… infants may be called virtually believers, Then …ing is sayd to be virtually such, though not formally, when it hath, though not the quality in its kinde, yet hath it ability to produce it, as the sun they say is not hot in its self formally, yet it is hot virtually, because it can produce it in another; But I presume he will no say this of an insant that he is virtually a believer because he can produce it in another. If he mean it in another, sense, he should shew how an infant may be said to be virtually a believer, and prove that sense out of Scripture, and not abuse men with a nonsense distinction, if he mean to cleer truth. I shall need no better proof against him, to shew infants are not to be termed Disciples and believers, than his own words, Vindic. Foed. p. 205. All visible Professors that except the terms of the Covenent are believers, Saints, Disciples, Christians; so they are stiled in New Testament Scriptures, believers from the faith that they profess, Saints from the holiness to which they stand engaged, Disciples from the Doctrine which they profess to learn, and Christians from him whose they are, whom they serve, and from whom they expect salvation: of which terms according to his own explication none can be attributed to infants of believers.
6. That infants of believers are not Disciples appointed to be baptized, Matth 28. 19. is proved from the means of making Disciples, to wit, by preaching the Gospel to them, as appears by Mark 16. 15. For what is Matth. 28. 19. Make Disciples of all Nations, is Mark 16. 15. Preach the Gospel to every creature. Whence I argue, Those Disciples which Christ hath ordinarily appointed to be baptized, an such as are made such by preaching of the Gosepl to them. Rightly saith Mr. Collings Vindic▪ Vindic. pag. 145. How i… one made a disciple, but by conversion? and when is a man converted, but when he is brought to believe? But infants of believers are not made disciples by preaching of the Gospel, as is of it self manifest, and acknowledged by the adverse party, who make them Disciples by an imaginary Covenant, and their parents profession; Ergo, they are not Disciples appointed by Christ ordinarily to be baptized.
7. Those are appointed to be baptized, and no other, whom the Apostles did baptize, for the Apostles practice shews how they understood Christs Commission, and rightly saith Mr. Norton, respon. ad Apollon. c. 2. pag. 34. 35. Religio est nobis judicare Apostolos in baptizando observàsse regulam à Christo latam Matth. 28. 16. religion binds us to judge the Apostses to have observed in baptizing the rule made by Christ Matth. 28. 19. But they baptized no other than repenting and believing Disciples of Christ, no infants, Ergo.
To say that in Christs and the Apostles daies there were no infants which they might baptize, is neither true, nor consistent with their own allegations of Mat. 19. 13, 14. Acts 2. 39. & 16. 15. To say that at first gathering the Church they were not to do it, but after, is to make them faulty in not observing the commission of Christ, as they expound it, that even in the first planting of the Church they were to baptize disciples immediately and remotely such, as Mr. Baxter speaks; and to hold that the Apostles practice is not our pattern, and that the first Church was not best ordered, though it was indeed the purest reformed Church, and therefore the solemn covenant ties us to endeavour the establishing the worship of God according to it. To say, infants were baptized by them but not recorded, is without proof, or any likelyhood of truth, and tends to derogate from the fulness and perfection of the Scriptures.
Out of all which I conclude, that infants, even of believers, are not disciples appointed Matth. 28. 19. ordinarily to be baptized.