Anti-Paedobaptism Part 3, Section 10
SECT. X. Infants capacity of some respects different from discipleship, entitles them not to Baptism.
IN the third Argument is not much more than was said before, and is answered. Jews infants were meet for circumcision, because of the command to them; ours not meet for Baptism, because we have no command or example: it is true Matth. 18.22. A little childe is made a Pattern to those that are saved, in respect of humility or freedom from ambition: but it doth not thence follow that this meer negation of ambition doth qualifie them for Baptism, unto which, actual Discipleship or Profession is ordinarily necessary. Christ admittted to him, and blessed little children, Mark 10.13. but did not appoint to baptize them, which it is likely he would, if he had judged them meet for it. If Parents may enter into covenant for their children, and dedicate them by solemn vow, as Hannah did, (of which there is cause of doubt whether now it is to be done as then) yet it follows not they are to be baptized, sith Baptism is to be the persons own engagement, not anothers for him: yea if this reason be good each Parent may baptize its own childe, though a woman, sith Hannah could dedicate her childe by vow to God: If Israel be holiness to the Lord, Jer. 2.3. yet it follows not believing Gentiles infants are meet for Baptism, Joel 2.16. the children that suck the breast are required to fast: if this prove them meet for Baptism, by like reason should the Ninivites children and cattle be meet too, Jonah 3.5, 7, 8. The Psalmist was cast on God from his mothers belly, Psal. 22.10. not by dedication to God, but by special providence, as vers. 9. shews. Infants of Christians, it is rightly judged may have in them the principal things signified by Baptism, but not that they have them till they shew it. If Mr. Church could make it good that God undertakes for what is wanting in the infants of his people through infancy, as he doth for what is wanting in his people through infirmity, he should say somewhat to purpose: but I am out of hope to finde any good proofs from him, but trifling dictates and impertinent allegations, Psalm 119.122. is a Prayer, wherein the Psalmist prays God, to be surety for him for good, that is, says the New Annot. to put himself between him and his enemies, as if he were his Pledg: it is no undertaking he will, and if it be, it is nothing for his infants, surely not to supply what is wanting in them by reason of infancy for Baptism; He will circumcise the hearts of his peoples children, Deut. 30.6. but this is meant of their elect children onelyonly, and not necessarily to be performed in infancy. Christs promise Matth. 18.19. is upon condition of agreement by two or three to ask in his Name, nor is it said for them and theirs, however not without subordination to his secret purpose, and other limitations.
That of Isai 22.24, is rightly expounded in the New Annot. by learned Mr. Gataker, All his kindred and allies with their issue as well small as great shall partake of Eliakims honour, in one imployment or other: so that this with the other Texts, might as well prove a man in the Moon, as that which Mr. Church infers, Therefore such infants are judged meet for Baptism.
His next, that Christians infants have righteousness by imputation, Rom. 5.19. as they have guilt by imputation, is true onelyonly of the elect, but makes them not meet for Baptism till they are called. What he says, Shews of grace are not necessary to the judging infants of Christians meet for Baptism, is said without proof; the contrary is proved before. All his Reasons he brings to prove it, serve as well to prove them not necessary that a person be judged meet for the Lords Supper.
Infants may be rightly judged to have original sin in them without shews, because the Scripture says so, but tells us of none meet for Baptism, but disciples and believers. The Israelites infants did as much eat the Lords Supper, as were baptized, 1 Cor. 10.1, 2, 3, 4. If the Text proves the one, it proves the other.
Baptism is called Baptism unto repentance, Matth. 3.11. as well as Baptism of repentance, It is well it is confessed that Johns Baptism was called the Baptism of repentance; but it is true also that it is often so called Mark 1.4. Luke 3.3. Acts 13.24. & 19.4. and but once unto repentance: and it might have been observed which Beza notes on Matth. 3.11. that it might be there read (at repentance, or when they repent) as foreign, Matth. 12.41. is rendered, (at the preaching of Jonah) however if it be read (unto repentance) the meaning is to the same effect, that when he baptized them they professed repentance for the present, and for the future.
In answer to the Objection, infants by like reason should have the Lords Supper, he tells us, that the ceremonies are different, in the one the person is to be active, in the other passive: but the Scripture says not so, but requires Baptism as a duty, and thereto profession of faith as a prerequisite. He saith, Baptism is the Sacrament of entrance into the church, the other of progress; but this proves the rather that infants should have the Lords Supper, sith they are to grow and make progress after their entrance. What he saith, it cannot be given to infants, is false: for they can take Bread and Wine, and it was given them six hundred years together, as many both Protestants and Papists confess.
What he saith Argument 4. pag. 30. Sealing the covenant by an initial Sacrament to infants of Gods people aforetime was not peculiar to that church-state, is manifestly false: for that sealing was no other than circumcision, which if it were not proper to the Jewish Church-state, nothing was.
It is frivolous which Mr. Church says, The commission to baptize must be expounded by the command to circumcise.
What is said about the antiquity of infant-baptism is elsewhere answered, Exam. part. 1. Apol. Sect. 15, 16. Praecursor Sect. 3. Dionysius Areopagita is a spurious Authour, as whole Juries of Protestants and Papists confess. Salmasius saith in his Letter to Colvius, pag. 179. that he is no elder than the fith age, pag. 441. it is certain that he wrote about the fith age. There's plainer proof for Episcopacy being in use nearer the Apostles days than for Paedobaptism: it is no intolerable presumption but a certain truth in them that assert, that infant-baptism is not so ancient as is pretended, as now taught is a late innovation.
In his fifth Arg. he undertakes to shew, Infants have great profit by Baptism, but either asserts a meer Title, or a Profit which they have not by their Baptism, or that which they may have without it. It is not true, that there is the like profit to infants by baptism as by circumcision; for the one is appointed and not the other, and there is no penalty for omitting infant-baptism as for neglecting infant-circumcision, nor any promise or privilege assigned to infant-baptism as to infant-circumcision.