Anti-Paedobaptism Part 3, Section 40
SECT. XL. Animadversions on Sect. 5. of the same Chapter, shewing that Mr. C. his supposed visible interest in Gods covenant is not the rule in baptizing.
SEct. 5, Mr. C. sets down this conclusion, That the Church in dispensing an enjoyned initiatory seal of the covenant of grace, looketh unto visibility of interest in the covenant, to guide her in the application thereof. Nor is the saving interest of persons in view, which is her rule by which she is therin to proceed.
Concerning which I say, that I grant it if the terms be altered into plainer expressions as thus: The baptizer in the admitting a person to baptism, is not bound to stay baptism till he know a person hath saving interest in Gods covenant of grace; but it is sufficient, if he be a visible disciple or believer to admit him to baptism. And that M. C. may cease his wonder, he who confessed that it's not to be denied that God would hav… infants of believers in some sense to be counted his, to belong to his Church and Family, & not to the Divels as true in facie Ecclesiae visibilis, &c. doth not oppose his fourth Conclusion reduced to the plain terms I have set it down …. Yet there are sundry things in which I oppose him. 1. That he makes it the Churches business to dispense the initiatory seale (as he calls it) of the covenant of grace, which I …ake to belong to him that is sent or used to make disciples by preaching the Gospel, not to the Church.
2. That he maketh the rule of baptizing to be visible interest in the covenant, which according to the institution is visible discipleship, or faith.
3. That he takes that person to have visible interest in the covenant of grace, so as to have right therby to baptism, who neither by extraordinary revelation from God, nor by any act of his own, but barely by his parents profession hath a pretended visible interest in the covenant. But let's examine what he saith, because he seems to be the selected man in New England to plead for Infant-baptism.
Whether John the Baptist did admit to baptism those which he knew would prove false and frothy, is doubtfull. Mr Norton Mr Cs. Colleague. Resp. ad▪ Appollon. c. Prop▪ 1. seems to hold the negative, and cites to that purpose, Paraus and Aretius. I agree with Mr. C. in his position, That person… may be bapti…ed upon visible profession without knowledge of the saving state of the party, yet I do not think Ananias and Sapphira, or Simon Magus were known hypo…ites when …hey were b…ptized, nor do I think the Texts Mr C. allegeth, Acts 21.20, &c, or 22, 20, &c. or 23, 12, 13, prove, that any of those baptized, Acts 2.41, or 4.1, 2.3; 4. were of the number of them that opposed Paul, or proved false. If Christ did say to Iudas that his body was broken or given f…r him, and his blood shed, it will be hard to avoid thence the proof of universall redemption. I think it the safest and most likely tenent that Judas went out afore the Lords Supper. For the Passover it was not administred to Judas by Christ, nor do I know what warrant we have to make it a seal of the covenant, or to belong to a Minister of the seals, as they speak. It was a rite instituted to remember the delivery out of Egypt, ond appointed to be used by each family without any other administration than the providing, slaying, dressing and bringing to the Table: If the Prist did any thing in it, it was at the Temple not at the Table, each person was to take himself according to his eating, Abraeham and Isaac did circumcise Ishmael & Esau rightly according to Gods command, which is the rule in administring ordinances, not covenant-in…erest. But that they did circumcise as Prophets or Priests at that time, to the Church in their families, it is said without proof. The business of circumcising was not the work of a person as a Prophet or Priest to his family, but did belong to the parent or some other in his stead, though no Prophet nor Priest. Chamier Paustr. cath. tom. 4 l 5 c. 14. sect 9, 10, saith, We read of no certain Minister of Circumcision either in the institution or elswhere, so that there's no obstacle but that Zipporah, and the woman in the second of Maccabees, c. 6. might circumcise. So there is nothing read by which the immolation of the Paschal Lamb was wont to be done in each family, is prohibited, though no Priests were used. Ishmael and Esau, and Iudas, were not visibly interessed in the covenant; being discovered by God and Christ to be such as had no interest in it. That a Minister cannot of himself admit to baptism, or reject from it regularly, but by and with the Churches consent, is dictated without proof. I grant that if particular persons saving interest in Gods covenant and promise of grace, were the Rule to baptize by, administrators could not observe the rule in faith, but doubtingly. But that such visible interest in the Covenant as Mr C. means, is therefore the rule to baptize by, follows not. What or where A. R. suggests to the contrary I find not, nor doth Mr C. tell us. What he adds, I say visibility of the parties interest in the covenant, I say not meer visibility of faith and repentance, is quite besides the Scripture, which never appoints persons to be baptized because of their visible interest in the covenant, but their visible faith and repentance.
He tells us, The initiatory seal is not primarily and properly the seal of mens faith and repentance, or obedience, but of Gods covenant rather; the seal is to the covenant, even Abrahams circumcision, was not primarily a seal to his faith, of righteousness, but to the righteousness of faith exhibited and offered in the covenant: yea to the covenant it self, or promise which he had believed unto righteousness. Hence the covenant of grace is called the righteousness of faith, Rom. 10.6, 7, 8. The righteousness of faith speaketh on this wise, v. 8. and the word of faith. Hence albeit Abraham must walk before God, who is now about to enlarge the covenant to his as well as to make it to him in a Church-reference, Gen. 17.1, &c. yet the initiatory seal in his as as well as their flesh, is Gods covenant, v. 13. or a sacramentall sign firstly and expresly of Gods covenant, v. 11. & 7. compared; albeit it implicitly oblige him and them to other duties formerly mentioned. Hence Acts 2.38, 39, the seal of baptism is put to the promise as the choice matter and foundation in view, and as that was a ground of repentance it self; repent and be baptized for the promise is to you, not, for you have repented as if that were the thing to be firstly sealed by baptism, but the promise rather.
Answ. The inititory seal is a late devised term not found in Scripture and it is used upon an erroneous conceit as if the nature of Sacraments were to be seals of the Covenant, and baptism were the initiatory seal. But the term [initiatory seal] is chosen rather than the word [baptism] (though it be the Scripture term) by Mr. C. and others, that they may shuffle what they say in and out under the term of ininitiatory seal, sometimes understanding by it Circumcision sometimes baptism as if they were the same and what is said of the one were meant of the other, which is meer fallacious arguing. But setting aside Mr. C's lately devised term, the end of Christian baptism is in the first place, that thereby the party baptiz…d may testifie his repentance, faith and hope in Christ, love to the people of God, and resolution to follow Christ to the death. And this is proved in my Exercit: in the twelfth reason of my doubting about Pedobaptism pag. 33. in the 2 part of this Review Sect. 5. from these Scriptures Rom. 6.3▪ 4.5. 1 Cor. 12.13. Gal. 3.26, 27. Ephe. 4.5. Col. 2 12. 1 Pet. 3.20. where the phrase of the answer of a good conscience, as Beza rightly observes in his Annot. on that place, alludes to the manner of the primitive baptizing after the answer to the questions propounded concerning the parties repentance, faith and obedience: which were held so necessary to baptism in the first ages of the Christian Church that none was baptized without it; yea and when infant baptism came up even till our dayes, and in some places according to the Common prayer Book even to the infants the same questions are propounded, yea the Lutherans confesse that without faith in infants it is in vain to baptize them. The continuance of which questions, as Lud: Vives Comment: in Augustin: de civit: Dei l. 1. c. 27. rightly saith, proves the original use of baptism to be of those only that could answer those questions. In respect of which Basil and others call baptism the seal of faith, Tertullian of repen…ance, the sealing of faith, Chamier: Paustr: Cath. tom. 4. l. 2. c. 8. cites the treatise of the spirit under the name of Bazil ch. 12. saying, Confession goes before bringing to salvation, baptism followes sealing our consent. whence he infers thus manifestly salvation is ascribed to confession, but baptism is the seal of confession. No where that ever I could find among the Ancients is baptism termed the seal of the Covenant. Bucer on Acts. 2.38. To be baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ▪ is by the sign of baptism to testifie that were the believers in Christ for remission of sins. Grot: Annot: on Mark. 16.16. [And is baptized] he that believeth, and by baptism maketh profession of his faith. So that the profession of faith by it is the primary end and use of baptism nor is there any place of Scripture that I know which doth make the end of baptism to be the sealing of Gods Covenant to us▪ And here by the way it is to be noted what shifting is used in this matter by Pedobaptist. They say the seal follows the Covenant and the parties interest in it, and this Covenant they make the righteousness of faith as Mr. C. here, but when they are pressed that then in vain are infants non-elect and non-believers baptized, who are not in that Covenant, they fly to an imaginary external Covenant, and visible interest in that as sealed by it, and there by a right to be baptized; which yet by their own confession is not the Covenant of grace, nor by sealing that interest is the Covenant of grace sealed, for that is Gods Covenant of righteousness by faith, not the baptized persons Covenant, or his right. As for Mr. C's. observations here they are false and slighty. For neither is it true that it is hence (because baptism is not primarily the seal of mans faith and repentance, but of Gods Covenant rather) Abrahams circumcision was called a seal of the righteousness of faith: but the contrary rather is true. For if it were a seal of the righteousness of faith which he had yet being uncircumcised, it sealed rather his own faith, and the righteousness by it already obtained, than Gods covenant to him of something to come. And if circumcision be called Gods Covenant, yet it follows not that baptism is rather a seal of Gods covenant, than of mans faith and repentance. That which he saith of Acts. 2.38.39. is as vain: For the promise is not alledged there as sealed in baptism, or giving any right to baptism, but meerly as a motive to them to repent and to be baptized in the sense I give Antipaedobapt. part. 1. Sect. 5. In this part of the Review Sect. 5.8.21, 22, 23▪ wherein Mr· C's frivolous interpretation is examined. And though the Apostle do not bid them be baptized because they had repented, yet he bids them first to repent and then be baptized.
Infants have no visible title to baptism because they make no visible personal profession. Parental faith in the Covenant made to them and their children is but a delusion. What ever may be said of the texts Deuteronomy. 26.17. Deuteronomy. 29.10, 11, 12. &c. Concerning taking it of children (of which in the examining of Mr. B's remainder) there is no visibility of infants Church-membership in the Christian churches mentioned in Scripture. I know not how the believing Gods testimony is the assent of charity. I still say there is no judgment of charity concerning infants who do nothing which may be interpreted to the better or the worse. Mr. C. if he had recited my words fully in my Examen Pag. 41. might have found my words to yeeld him no help for his fourth Conclusion. I pass on to the fifth.