Anti-Paedobaptism Part 3, Section 41
SECT. XLI. Sect. 41. Animadversions on the sixth sect. of the same ch: shewing that Christ is not head of any unsound members, no… parents profession of faith unites children to Christ so as to entitle them to baptism.
SEct. sixthly he sets down this conclusion, That Christ is in Scripture considered as head of the visible Church in which are many members of Christ the …ead in that respect, which prove unsound, as well as in other respects he is considered as head of the visible Church, wherein are none but elect ones.
Concerning which I say, that part of the invisible Church which is on earth professing faith, being both visible and invisible, visible in respect of their profession, invisible in respect of their sincere believing▪ …t must needs follow that Christ is head of the visible, being head of the invisible Church in respect of those persons which are of both. And I grant that Christs headship being a Metaphor and nothing, sundry things as Superiority, Goverment, direction, union, participation… of the same life, sense, motion &c. In respect of some of these Christ may be said to be head of that part which is only visible, as in giving them officers, outward order, direction, help against persecutors &c. But that in Scripture Christ is made head to any unsound members I find not. Mr. C. urgeth Gal. 3.16. that to Abraham and his seed were the promises made; that is to Christ, yet not to Christ personally, for the promise of pardon of sin did not belong to him, and to Christ personall were not the promises made, but in him confirmed, Gal. 3.7. with 16. But rather of Christ collectively head and members, Gentiles and Iewes, v. 14.28. as Gen. 3.15. The seed of Eve is Christ, with his members in and with him.
Answer. I stick not to grant Gal. 3.16, by [Christ] to be meant not onelyonly Christ personally considered, but also collectively, as Beza, …iseator, & others conceive; yet I do not think the Arguments brought by them so cogent for that sense, but that it may be understood of Christ personall as a common person receiving promises for all his members. For the scope of the Apostle to prove Gen…iles and Jewes to have one manner of justification, is obtained by understanding the promises made to his person as a common person in behalf of all as well as to them as in him, and eternal life is promised to all the members of Christ if it be promised to Christ as a common person standing in their stead as the second Adam. As for Mr C. his reasons, the former is against his own opinion. For if by Christ be meant Christ collectively, that is, Christ and his Church, then the promises be made to Christs person with his Church; for what is Christ collectively but Christs person with his Church. And if the pardon of sin be a promise, then it must be made known to Christs person included in Christ collective: Therfore either it must be said, that the promises were made to Christ collective respectively, to wit, some to his person, as that he would uphold him, raise him from the dead, give him glory, others to his Church, to pardon their sins, renew their nature, &c. or that Christs person had the promise of pardon of sin made to himself as a common person, but not for himself as needing it, but for his Church or in their stead, as 2 Cor. 5.21. The promises might be said to be given to Christs person as a common person, Gal. 3.16 and yet confirmed in Christ as a surety of them, v 17. yet in this place the term [Head] is not used, and therefore not apposite to Mr. C. his purpose.
But Mr C. propounds a question, Whether this in Gal. 3. & 1 Cor. 12.12, 13. be spoken of the visible or invisible Church, and answers it, that it seems the places admit of the consideration of the Church as visible. First, in that the Apostle speaketh of all the Galatian Church-members as well as others as one in Christ, Gal. 3.28. Now were all these members elected will any say? I suppose not yet all are one in Christ their head.
Answer. Mr. C. a little before said, The promise Gal …3.16, could not be made to Christs person, because the promise of the pardon of sin is not made to Christ personall, which goes upon this supposition, that the pardon of sin is promised to the seed, Gal. 3.16. But sure this promise is made onelyonly to the elect, not to all Galatian visible Church-members: Yea the very scope and coherence of what goes before and after, shew that the promises v. 16. were of the spirit, v. 1…. of the inheritance, v. 18. of life, v. 21. which are proper to the elect. And therefore to apply the speech, Gal. 3.16. to the unfound members of the visible Church, sheweth meer oscitancy. Nor is it necessary that because it is said, Gal. 3.28. Ye are all one in Christ Iesus, that this must be understood of every Galatian Church-member, but of all those of whom he had said, v. 26. That they were all the sons of God by faith in Christ Jesus. And after, v. 29. that they were heirs according to the promise, which is true onelyonly of the elect of them. And for what he adds, Secondly in that he speaks of them all as sacramentally one with Christ in baptism, Gal. 3.27, 28. compared, so 1 Cor. 12, 13, as if because he saith, they were all baptized, he meant it of all that are baptized, it is refuted from the very words [by one spirit made to drink into one spirit, put on Christ] which, if there were no more, do shew that these speeches though indefinite, yet pro subjecta materia, must be limited to those visible baptized persons, who were sincere believers, and united to Christ by his Spirit, and so those words, Ephes. 1.23 & 4.6. Col. 3.11. and many more are to be understood. And to the other reasons, That Christ hath headlike influences into the Officers and Members, many whereof are not savingly joyned to him, and that it is the Church wherein he hath set diversity of Officers, which is the visible Church, not the invisible.
I answer, Christ as a Superior, and in some other respects, may have headlike influences of command, governing, &c. on some not savingly joyned to him, but not the influence of union by his Spirit, which is that which makes any members of Christ, of his flesh and of his bones, Ephes. 4.4. & 5.30. Nor is it true, that Christ doth not set Officers in the invisible Church, though it be true that he sets no Officers in the Church that is onelyonly invisible, but indeed he sets Officers in the Church invisible, and chiefly to and for them, while they are visible. And therfore the Apostle, 2 Tim. 2.10. said, He endured all things for the elects sake. Hence, saith Mr. C. Profession of Faith unites a man to Christ as head of the visible Church without sincerity. But the Scripture saith not so, that any is united to Christ as head without the inhabitation of the Spirit. Mr. C. adds.
Hence also a pa…ent, making profession of Faith in the covenant of grace as invested with Church-covenant in reference to his children, it doth unite them also to Christ as head of the visible Church so far as to give right to solemn initiation of them into the fellowship of the church in circumcision as of old, or baptism, as now. Parents acts in this case being in the face of the visible church, their childrens acts; …s the places quoted, Deut. 26.17, 18, & 29.10, 11, 12, 13, 14, & 16, 16, 17, declared.
Answer. Mr. C. tells us, Hence, &c. and this is the consectary he would infer from his fifth Conclusion, and minding discourse about it: But how from any thing said before [That Christ is the head of the visible Church, that visible Professors, though not sincere, are united to Christ as visible head] this follows, That Parents profession unites the child to Christ, so as to give him right to baptism, is a riddle to me. If it were formed into an Argument thus, If the visible professors confession of faith unites him to Christ as visible head, Then it unites the child so far as to give him right to baptism: But the visible professors, &c. Ergo. I should deny the consequence of the Major, and expect it to be proved ad Graecas Calendas, nor is there any proof in that which follows: For were it granted that the parents act were the childs act, yet it follows not that it is the childs act to give a right or title to baptism without an institution. None of the texts produced, no nor any other do shew, that the parents act of professing faith, did entitle the child to circumcision, much less to baptism. Cornelius his child was not entitled to circumcision, though he and his house feared God, was a devout man, gave much alms to the poor, and prayed to God alway, Acts. 10.2. Even in circumcisi on the use of it had its rule onelyonly from the command, as I have often poved. Not one of Mr. C. his Texts mentions the parents acts as entitling the child to fellowship of the church, but obliging to duty, Deut. 16.16, 17, theres an injunction, That all the Males should thrice a year appear before God; but this was enjoyned not to parents onelyonly, but also to children married or unmarried.
And if it prove any thing like what Mr. C. would, it proves rather the males act to stand for the females, than the parents for the children. More likely in this the younger males did appear insteed of the aged weak, & so the childs act went for the parents. However here's nothing of the parents act giving right to initiation into fellowship of the Church, there was nothing required to that in the national Church of Israel but their descent. Deut. 26.17, 18. there's no mention of a parents act for his child intitling him to solemn initiation into fellowship of the Church. What is said [Thou hast avouched this day the Lord to be thy God] is not said to be done by the parents for the children, nor to be done to entitle them to solemn initiation into the fellowship of the Church. Deut. 29.10, 11, 12, 13, 14. whose act soever is mentioned whether of the parents, or Captains, Elders, Officers, or men of Israel. It was an act done in behalf of the nation both those born already and those to be born after, not to entitle them to initiation into fellowship of the Church, but to bind them the more firmly to their duty, and therefore none of these instances are to the point of parents acts in the face of the visible Church taken as the Childrens acts for solemn initiation in Church fellowship. Yet if they had, that this had been enough for baptism and Church-membership in the Christian Gentile Churches will not be proved, till the rule about Circumcision, and the constitution of the Jewish Church be a rule to us about baptism, and the Church-membership of the Christian Church, which neither agrees with Christs or his Apostles appointment or the practise in the N. T. nor with the new english principles of Church constitution & Goverment, but Judiazing notions opposi…e to the Gospel. What he saith the parents omission to circumcise his child is counted the childs act of breaking Gods Conant Gen. 17.14. depends on this that the parents omission of circumcision is the childs act of breaking Covenant. but many Protestant Divines and others understand it of persons of years as Piscat. Schol. in locum. Diodati, new Annot. Grotius &c. And though Chamier counted it to be understood of the Infant Tom 4 Paustrat: Cath. l. 3. c. 2. Sect. 20. &c. Yet he expounds the verse passively thus, the male, the flesh of whose foreskin is not circumcised that soul shall be cut off from his people: my Covenant is broken. Either way expounded it is inpertinent to Mr. Cs. purpose. they that expound it (as Aben Ezrae, apud Christoph. Cartwright on the place) of the parent understand both the fault and the punishment to be his. It is true Iohn. 4.50, 51. Matth. 15.22, to 29. Mark. 9.12, to 18. parents believing is accepted for the cure of children, and so Mark. 2.5. the faith of the bringers of the palsy man was accepted, but this doth not prove a title to baptism by the parents confession any more than by the Midwives or Gossips bringing to the Fo… ▪ nor was it the confession of faith, but reality; though not known to men, which Christ lookd on, so that if this be a good reason▪ the Fathers praying in Secret though not in the face of the visible Church should give Title to Baptism.
After many dictates without proof he tels us, As the Covenant laid hold on by the lively faith of gratious parents as made with respect to their elect children hath mighty force to effect very gratious things in the elect feed, yea albeit dying young, as sundry of those elect ones of Abrahams race did Rom. 9.6. yea so as to make their outward washings to become effectual in Christ to an inward cleansing Ephes. 5.25.26. yea so as to bring in and bring home many of such covenant-children. Whence those revolters beloved for their covenant-fathers sake as such, Rom. 11.28. and hence made as a ground of their return▪ v. 15, 16. so is there such validity in the covenant invested with church covenant, albeit but unworthily oft-times held forth by the parents, which doth beget upon the children an externall filiall relation unto God and to his Spouse the visible church, whence that respect of children of God and his church, by vertue of that espousall covenant, Ezek. 16.8. Even in the children of idolatrous members, v. 20:21 23. Great is the force of this way of the covenant so cloathed. Albeit many unworthy members are gi…t up in it, to hold them and theirs in externall communion, Jer. 13.11. untill either the church be divorced from God, or the particular members be disfranchised by some church-censure of such a covenant-privilege.
Answer. Though this reasoning contain nothing but dictates unproved, and incoherent, yet sith it carries some shew of an Argument à comparatis, I shal say somwhat to it. 1. There's not aword in the texts alleged, that shews what Mr C. here asserts, that the covenant laid hold upon by the lively faith of gracious parents as made with respect to their children, hath mighty force to effect very gracious things in the elect seed: Nor is there a word in those Texts to prove such a covnnant made to any gracious parent concerning his naturall children. It is true, Rom. 9.6 it is said, the word took effect; and this I deny not to be the word of promise to Abraham, I will be thy God, and the God of thy seed. But then it is expresly said, v. 7, 8. that this seed of Abraham is not his children by natural generation, but the speciall choice seed whether they were his seed according to nature, or ingraffed: there's not a word of the efficacy of this covenant by the lively faith of the parents, but by vertue of Gods election, v. 11. The Text, Ephes. 5.26. seems to me to contain not onelyonly the word of promise, as sanctifying or purifying the Church, but also the word of narration contained in the Gospel, as Luke 1.2 Acts 8.4. & 10.36.44. Joh. 17.8.17. Rom. 10.8. preached and believed, not by the parents but the parties purified, Acts 15.9. who as they hear the word and believe, so are baptized upon their believing. It is true that the Jewes hereafter to be ingraffed again, are said, according to the election to be beloved for the Fathers, Rom. 11.28. But this is meant of the Jewes onelyonly, and it is not at all meant of the immediate parents of those Jewes reingraffed (for they doubtless will be Infidels) but of the ancient Fathers, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, out of the remembrance of their following God, and Gods covenant to them, which were both singular, and therefore cannot be verrified of every believers natural children as it is there meant and shall be verified of them. 2. There's not a proof for the other part of the comparison, that there is any such validity in the Covenant invested with Church-Covenant albeit unworthyly oftentimes held forth by the parents to beget upon the children an external filial relation unto God and to his spouse the Church visible. For Ezek. 16 8. mentions Gods covenant which he swear, not their's, by which they became his, and those whose sons and daughters were born to him v. 20. are said to sacrafice them to be devoured, had caused them to be slain, and deliverd them to pass through the fire for them. Mr. C. confesseth they were Idolatrous members, and the text mentions their Idolatry to be of the highest kind, even the sacraficing their children, and if these were in the Covenant of grace and in Church-covenanant, and did thereby beget an external filial relation to God, and to his spouse the visible Church, then may the worst of men even open Idolatrers that offer their children to Moloch and sacrafice them to the Devil be in the Covenant of grace, and in Church-covenant, and therby in those whom God hates and who go a whoring after Idols, yea the Devils in a most horrid manner, there may be validity in this horrid estate to beget an external filial relation unto God & to his spouse, the visible Church for their children. Horrendum dictu! The meaning of the text, and the impertinency of its allegation by the Assembly, by Mr. C. and others hath been often shewed. Jerem. 13.11. makes nothing to the purpose. God in the wilderness had made the whole house of Israel to cleave to him in the Covenant at mount Sinai, and by his special deliverances and providences for them. What is this to prove that the Idolatrous posterity of that people are by the Covenant clothed with Church-covenant held to God they and theirs in external Church-communion until either that church be devorced from God, o… the particular members disfranchised by some Church censure of a Church covenant privilege? 3. were the first part of the comparison proved, that the Covenant laid hold on … the lively faith of the parents as made with respect to their elect children hath mighty force to effect very gratious things in the elect seed, yet there is not any liklyhood that the other part should be true, that a bare dissembled profession should make such an external relation to God and his Church, as if because Peters faith and confession obtains from God a special privilege, Judas his profession must obtain something of God for his children though he were a Devil. If there be strength in these dictates of Mr. C. their's weakness is nothing. The answers to the objections of I. S. proceed upon a conceit of a relative grace, and implicit calling, and of in-being in Christ without either Christs spirit, or faith, or profession of faith, which are things that have no Scripture grounds. The absurdity objected against his opinion that it entails grace to generation, that it upholds a national Church, …e puts off only thus, He knowes we in N. E. which hold the one, yet do not maintain the other in the usual sence of a national Church. But this shewes not how he will acquit his doctrine from maintaining that by consequence, which is disavowed by those of N. E. For if there be such a covenant and Church covenant now as there was Deut. 29.10, 11, 12. and Ezek 16.20.21.22. of validity to beget an external filial relation to God and to his visible spouse the Church, it cannot be denied, but that the worst Idolaters even Papists are visible Church-members, and by consequent the whole nation elder and …onger are in the Church. Which what it makes less than such a national Church as was of the Jews I understand not.