Anti-Paedobaptism Part 2, Section 11
SECT. XI.
Mr. Cottons allegations in his Dialogue, the first chapter, to prove infants Disciples, are shewed to be insufficient.
AGainst this Mr. John Cotton in his Dialogue, intituled, The Grounds and Ends of Baptism, &c. chapter 1. disputes thus.
That all the children of the faithful (or which is all one, all the children of the Church, for the Church is a congregation of the faithfull) that they are all of them disciples, may appear by the testimony of the Prophet Esay, who speaking of the times of the Church in the New Testament▪ All thy children (saith he) shall be taught of God, Esa. 54. 13. and if they be taught of God then are they disciples, for that is the meaning of the word disciples. Disciples are taught or learnt of God.
Answ. 1. It is supposed but not proved that the tossed v. 11. is meant of the Church of the N. T. and not of the people of the Jews after the Captivity.
2. The phrase of [children of the Church] is not a Scripturephrase, nor that I know is the Church made a mother, though Jerusalem, which is above be called the Mother of us all, Gal. 4. 26. which seems to be meant of the Evangelical Covenant.
3. It is supposed that to be children of the Church, and to be children of the faithful, are one, yet Mr. Cobbet in his Just Vindic. makes them only the Church seed, who are children of persons inchurched, otherwise, though the parents be faithful, yet they are not the Church seed. Besides to be [children of the Church] is not all one with to be natural children of believers. For the Church doth not beget or bring forth by natural seed, but by spiritual, to wit, the word of God, 1 Peter 1. 23. and children are begotten in the womb of the Church by the Spirit, and therefore said to be born after the Spirit, Gal. 4. 29. by the promise or covenant of the free woman, v. 30. And indeed the New Annotations on Isaiah 54. 13. hath thus, And thy Children shall be taught of the Lord] By the outward Ministery of the word, and inward co-operation of the Spirit, Jerem. 31. 34. John 6. 45. 2 Cor. 13. 3. 1 Cor. 2. 10. 1 John 2. 20, 27. Calvin Instit. lib. 3. cap. 2. s. 6. Deni que non frustrà Deus apud Iesaiam hâ… not â disoernit filios Ecclesiae ab extraneis, quod omnes erudiet [verbo] ut sint ab ipso edocti.
4. It is supposed that the Church whose children those are is the visible church as such.
Whereas 1. in Scripture no Church is called the Mother but Hierusalem above, Gal. 4. 26. which is the mother of us all, and that is either the Evangelical covenant, or the invisible Church. The Churches children are Christs seed, and they are those whom his Father hath given him, Heb. 2. 13. made disciples by his Word and Spirit. Our Lord Christ where he cites this passage of the Prophet, John 6. 45. applies it to those that are drawn of the Father, and whom he will raise up at the last day, ver. 44. who are only the children of the invisible Church. Diodati annot. on John 6. 45. all not all and every particular person, as it appears by ver. 44. & 65 but all the elect and children of God. No… is Mr. C… shift, rather than answer, of any moment, when he saith, For look what promises are made to the invisible Church, they are for their sakes offered to all the members of the visible Churches, whereof the lively members are the chief.
For 1. He doth alter the term in the objection, which was [made] not [offered] wherein both he, and Mr. George Philips before him, deal not rightly, so speaking as that it may be taken, that to be in covenant; to have the covenant made, is all one with to have it offered: Whereas it is offered not only to the children of the visible Church, but to many professed unbelievers, as Acts 13. 46. Now this answering is a way to delude Readers, when the objection is, that the promise is made only to the children of the invisible Church, to answer the promises are also offered to the members of the visible, and when it is expected that it should be proved the promise is made to conclude that it is offered.
2. Mr. Cotton dare not say that promise to be made to any but those that are children of the invisible Church, and therefore it can be meant of no other, and so no other taught of the Lord and disciples, which will not reach to the natural children of visible in churched believers.
3. [Thy children] is not all one with [thy infants] Mr. Cotton denies not, that the meaning in part may be of men of years, and if so no necessity to understand it of infants, and then his argument falls, which is to prove infants to be disciples.
4. Besides, our Lord Christ, where he cites John 6. 45. the prophet, leaves out the word [children] and applies the teaching of God onelyonly to true believers. Omnes, saith Grotius, quibus sermo Evangelii annuntiatur.
5. Were it granted Mr. Cotton that all believers infants were taught of God by secret indiscernable teaching, yet this being such, cannot be applyed to the disciples meant Mat. 28. 19. who are disciples by preaching the Gospel, and known to be such by their profession.
But Mr. Cotton tells us, The infants or children of the faithful are not to be excluded from the number of the children of the Church. For the same Prophet speaking of the same Church, fetcheth in infants among the blessed ones of the Church, and blessed with such spiritual light and life from Christ, as if they had lived an hundred years in the Church Esa. 65. 20. There shall be no more (saith he) then… forth an infant of daies, nor an old man that hath not filled his daies. For the chi… shall dy an hundred years old, but the sinner being an hundred years old shall be accursed. How shall the child dy as at an hundred years old, but that he is so well instructed, and inlightned by Christ, and thereby as capable of enterance into heavenly glory, as a grown disciple of an hundred years old?
Ans. 1. Were M. Cottons paraphrase granted, yet the conclusion followes not thence, that therefore infants are disciples to be baptized according to Mat. 28. 19. or as he speaks, children of the Church. For to be so well instructed, and enlightned by Christ, and thereby as capable of entrance into heavenly glory as a grown disciple of an hundred years old, may agree by extraordinary inspiration to one that is only of the invisible Church, and not of the visible Church as disciples meant Mat. 28. 19.
2. Mr. Cotton, when he saith, [how shall the child by as at an hundred years old] doth sl…ly intimate as if [as] were in the text: whereas it is not so, but foreign the child or boy shall dy an hundred years old, or the son of an hundred years. Which without any allegory hath a plain sense as the New Annotations expresse it, He that is now a child shall attain to those years ere he dy. Which was accomplished in the return from the captivity according to the prophecy of Zechariah ch. 8. Vide Grotius 4. and therefore we need not run to any allego▪ annot in Ze…. rical interpretation, nor refer it to the times of 8. 4. the Messiah, either after the resurrection or afore, of which Hieronym in Locum.
3. Were an allegory allowed, yet not only in Hierom, but also in Calvin, Piscator, and others, there are va…iety of senses different from Mr. Cotton, so that in alleging these texts he trifled more than became so grave a man. But he goes on thus.
The Apostle Peter reckoneth infants of the Church for disciples Acts 15. 10. If the infants of the Church had not been disciples, the false Apostles could have pretended no power to have …ut that ordinance upon them.
Answ. 1. [infants of the Church] is a phrase the Scripture useth not, and i… serves only to possess the unwary reader with this conceit, as if the children of believers inchurched, as they speak, were children of the Church; whereas none is a child of the Church till taught the Gospel and made a believer.
2. It is untruly suggested, as if the false Apostles pretended power to circumcise infants of Christian disciples from this chat the infants were disciples: But ver. 1. 5. shew plainly that they alleged that the Gentile disciples were tied to observe the law of Moses, and so to be circumcised, both they and their children.
But, saith he, Peter acknowlegeth them disciples, but the yoke of circumcision was too heavy for them, as drawing upon them the yoke of the Ceremonial Law.
Answ. There is not a word of Peter acknowledging the infants disciples, but the believing parents; nor is the yoke of circumcision said to be too heavy for them now▪ as if it were not so …, but it … such as neither the Apostles, nor their Fathers Were able to bear, much less Gentiles.
But … Christ Mark 10. 14. Luke 18. 16. …) is the Kingdome of God, which argueth that even little children are members of the Church here.
Answ. It is proved in my Postscript …. 20. that Matth. 19. 14. the Kingdom of heaven, in Mark 10. 14. Luke 18. 16. the Kingdom of God, is meant of the Kingdom of Glory: But it follows not that therefore infants are members of the Church here, many belonging to the invisible Church, which belong not to the visible, and vice versâ, as abortives, still born infants, converts at the point of death, &c. are of the Kingdom of Glory, who are never members of the visible Church here.
But, saith he, Whosoever shall not receive the Kingdom of God, as a little child (to wit, as a little child receiveth it, for so much the Grammer construction requireth) he shall in no wise enter therein.
Answ. It is untrue, that the Grammar construction requireth, that it should be understood thus, that a little child receiveth the Kingdom of God, but only this is meant, that none shall enter into the Kingdom of God, but such as have such an humble mind, free from ambition, as a little child hath, as our Lord himself expounds it, Mat. 18. 3, 4.
But, saith he, Christs testimony of them and his carriage towards them, shew that little children born in the Church are accounted disciples of Christ, and therefore commanded to be baptized with their believing parents.
Answ. Mr. Cotton himself confesseth, that it doth not appear that their Fathers, who brought them, were baptized themselves; how are they then said to be children born in the Church, or to be baptized according to rule? wherefore his own words shew it to be uncertainly, and therefore insufficiently alleged to prove that the infants of believers are among the blessed ones of Christ, such as of whom his Church and and Kingdom consisteth, and so come under the fellowship of his disciples, whom Christ commandeth to be baptized. And in very truth in that there is nothing apparent, whether the parents brought them or others, whether the parents were disciples or not: nor is any thing at all ascribed to the parents but to Christs indulgence in this action, and it appears Christ did not command them to be baptized, nor spake any thing as intituling them to discipleship and baptism, though he said, Of such is the Kingdom of God, this text is not only impertinently brought to prove the discipleship and baptizability of believers infants, but also makes to the contrary, that infants are not disciples nor baptizable, sith if they had been so Christ would have so declared on this occasion, which was opportune for it.
But there is yet another argument in that chapter of Mr. Cottons, and it is to this effect, That the Commission Mat. 28. 19. appoints believing parents to be baptized, and would infer, that in Gods account, and in Scripture phrase, parents themselves are not reputed of God to be baptized, if their children remain unbaptized.
Answ. But will any man believe Mr. Cotton in this, that in Scripture phrase parents are not reputed of God to be baptized if their children remain unbaptized? Scripture speaks of thousands baptized, and mentions not the baptizing of any of their children under that relation as their children, shall we believe Mr. Cotton that those phrases of Scripture, that say they were baptized, speak false? and that they were not reputed of God to be baptized, because there is no mention of their childrens baptism? many believers were baptized their children being infidels, Mat. 10. 35. were not the parents reputed in Gods account baptized because the children were against it? But let us hear Mr. Cottons goodly proof in his own words.
Surely, saith he, in the old Testament a man was accounted of God as uncircumcised himself, if his children were uncircumcised: for so it is written in Exod. 12. 48. that if a man will come and keep the Passeover, all the males in his house must be circumcised: and the reason given, is, for no uncircumcised person shall eat thereof, which plainly argueth, that a man is uncircumcised himself, and (as an uncircumcised person) is to be debarred from the Passeover, until all his males be circumcised. If then our Lords Supper come in the room of the Passeover, and our baptism in the room of circumcision, look as he that had not circumcised his males was accounted as one uncircumcised himself, and so to be debarred from the Passeover, so he who hath not baptized his children is accounted of God as not baptized himself, and so to be debarred from the Lords Supper.
Answ. That baptism and the Lords Supper come in the room of Circumcision, and the Passeover, is often said, but never proved. But if it were granted (though I still deny it) yet Mr. Cottons inference is not good, till it be also yielded, that every rule of Circumcision, and the Passeover is a rule to us about Baptism and the Lords Supper, which me thinks he should not maintain. Nor do I think he can give any reason why in this the rule should bind more than in others. Yea did he consider it, he might have perceived, that if the proportion be stretched according to this rule, no parent must be counted baptized, nor to eat the Lords Supper, except he had not only all his children baptized; but also all his Servants. For the males to be circumcised were not only children, but servants also, and so those must be baptized who are out of covenant, and a national church must be fo…med like to the Jews, which I think were hated of him as the blind and the lame were of Davids soul. And methinks it should follow, that if it happen (as it may happen many waies, especially in new England, where many baptized persons may not have their children baptized, because the parents are not Church-members) the infants be unbaptized the parent is to be baptized again, because counted of God, and according to Scripture phrase, if Mr. Cottons dictates hold, unbaptized.
Which being absurd, I count his inference (If therefore you forbid baptism to children, you evacuate the baptism of their parents, and so make the Commandment of God, and the Commission of the Apostles, and the baptism of believers, of none effect, together with that other passage of his pag. 4. If godly parents do withdraw their children from the covenant, and the seal of the Covenant, they do make void (as much as in them lyeth) the Covenant, both to themselves, and to their children also. And then will the Lord cut off such souls from his people, Gen. 17. 14.) to be meer Mormoes or bugbears to fright children, though I am afraid they are used for a further evil end to incite Magistrates a gainst Antipaedo baptists, and to justify their hard dealing with then in new England.
That which Mr. Cotton addes, That if we gather no infant are disciples from Mark 16. 16. compared with Matth. 28. 1… ▪ because believer and disciple are terms of the same sense, and i… fants not believers, it would follow, that no infant were capable of salvation any more than baptism, I have answered in my Praecursor s. 6.
That which he speaks of the Gospel, That the promise of being God to believers and their seed is to be preached as Gospel according to Mark 16. 15. and if his allegations of Acts 16. 31. Luke 19. 9. Gal. 3▪ 16, 17. be right, and his words true p. 22. God hath promised salvation to believers, and their seed, and house also, is so palpably false, that Mr. Marshal and Mr. Geree do both disclaim It as contrary to Protestant doctrine, as I shew in my Apology s. 9.
That which he saith pag. 24. ('That the expounding baptizing into the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost Mat. 28. 19. thus, baptize them into the true and orderly profession of that which they have been taught and believed, is to assert that we are to be baptized into the name of Creatures for profession is an act of our own and so a creature, which he counteth an effect of Gods judgement taking men in their own wiliness, while they turn the glorious name of the blessed Trinity into the weak performance of a Christian duty, is a frivolous quillet unfit for so grave a man, James ch. 5. 14. To anoint with oyl in the name of the Lord, id est, saith Beza, invocato nomine Domini, the New Annot. by calling on the name of the Lord, which is a work of their own: Do they therein turn the name of the glorious God into a Creature? But enough of this childish chapter of Mr. Cotton, in which I find so little worth answering, that were it not for the esteem he had, and his acquainting me with this piece in his letter to me, I should have chosen to have let it passe as not worth the labour bestowed in answering it.
Mr. William Cook in his Font uncovered pag. 13. brings Acts 21. 4, 5. To prove that infants in their mothers arms were reckoned among disciples, and makes the enumeration there to answer Deut. 29. 10, 11, 12. Ezra 8. 21. And whereas it might be said that the children are distinguished from the disciples, he prevents this by retortion their wives are distinguished from disciples, yet might be disciples, so the children.
Answ. 1. The places are no way parralel in the matter, nor exactly in the enumeration made, in the former there is mention of servants, none here, all were of duty there to enter into covenant the whole nation together, not so here, in the later place no mention of wives, and the business was a solemn humiliation for them upon their return from captivity, but here only a courteous accompanying of Paul to the ship.
2. I grant the wives are not necessarily excluded from being disciples, nor children by the enumeration Acts 21. 5. nor are they necessary to be included: but how doth Mr. Cook prove the the children, babes carried in armes, or such little ones as had not abilities of understanding? More likely, this thing being done by common consent, the wives and children were of years to conceive what they did, whether already baptized disciples or persons catechized and expectants it is uncertain.
I shall now, finding nothing needing more answer in Mr. Cobbet part 2. ch. 3. s. 4. but what will fitly come in when I answer Mr. Baxter, pass on to the answering Mr. Baxters third chapter of the first part of his plain Scripture proof, &c. where he thus argues.