Anti-Paedobaptism Part 3, Section 49
SECT. XLIX. The 4th▪ Ch. of Mr. Baxters, Part 1. of Plain Scripture-proof, &c. is examined, his conceits about Infants visible Church membership and their admission considered; and sundry Animadversions made on that Chapter.
MR. B. part 1. ch. 4. of his Plain Scripture-proof, &c. writes thus. My 2d. argument, and the chief I shall make use of is this. All that ought to be admitted visible Church-members, ordinarily ought to be baptized: But some Infants ought to be admitted visibl… Church-members; therefore some Infants ordinarily ought to be baptized. Mr. T. hath gone over and over the terms of this Argument; so oft▪ as if he could not possibly find out my meaning in them: when they are as plain as I well know how to express my self. A great while he fain would have denied the major Proposition; but at last he is content to deny onelyonly the minor: And indeed that is the very heart of the controversie. The question between us is no… so mu…h Whether infants may be baptized? as Whether they are in the number of Christians, and to be added as members to the visible Church? If Mr. T. did grant the minor, and not deny our children Christianity, and to be members of the Church, I should for my part, think his errour (though foul) yet of less consequence in denying of Baptism. But it is their Churchmembership that he denieth, and yeeldeth that all that ought to be admi…ted members should be baptized.
Answ. That I did often in the dispu…e at Bewdly go over and over the terms of this argument, need not seem st…a…ge, when Mr. Thomas Hooker having the book he was to examine before him in Print, in a like point, saith thus, survey of the summe of Church Discipline, Part 1. ch. 12. When I had read over Mr. Rutherford once and again, I was at a stand in mine own thoughts, to determine certainly what was his proper intendment by the catholick and visible Church. I might well doubt what he meant by the visible Church, how he defined i…, (wherein his notion is different from what others have, as is shewed before in the 2d. part of this Review, sect. 17.) whether he meant the visible Church catholick, or particular; and if particular, whether Jewish, or Christian. And for the admission, what he meant by it, how, and by whom it ought to be, was doubtfull. I perceived in the very entrance of the dispute, by his preface, and his propounding the question about our baptizing, representing it as odious, as if it were murder and adultery; and after by his denying liberty of repeating to mee, refusing to explain his own terms, scoffingly putting if off as if it were catechizing of him, when I desired him to open some terms to me which he used; and when I told him that it was needfull the people should understand us, he replyed, he came to dispute with me, not to instruct them: nor would clear them, except I could by distinction force him to it. I deprehended that he was, as I found him, bent to catch advantages to insult over me, and carry away the same of a victory, and not in a brotherly candid way to discuss the point, that truth might appear to all the hearers, which I hoped from a man so seemingly godly. Upon which reasons I confess I was hesitant, both about the answering of this, and other arguments all along the dispute, finding that Mr. B. had studied arguments in unusual expressions, that he might the more easily entangle me, having no time to weigh his words, but being required presently to give answer. For which reason I was also necessitated sometimes to vary my answers as I deprehended his meaning to be. Now presuming I shall better understand Mr. B. then I could do before, I shall give a more determinante answer to his argument. Which that I may do, I conceive it necessary, that in the entrance I do enquire into his opinion concerning the visible Church, and admissi…n into it, and the meaning of his expression [ought to be admitted visible Church-members.]
1. Mr. B supposeth that the reason of the appellation given to the visible body, is its seeming (to the judgement of man) to be the same with the mystical. Praefestin: Morator sect. 11.
2. That to be a member of the Church visible, is but to be one that in seeming, or appearance, or to the judgement of man doth belong to the invisible Church or the Kingdome of Heaven, if a man be known (or any sort of men) to belong to the Church invisible, then they visibly belong to it; and then they are visible members of the Church. Plain Script. proof, &c. part 1. ch. 31. pag 105. ch. 27. pag. 73. He saith, to be member of the visible Church, or of the Church as visible, or a visible member of the Church are all one, and is no more but to seem to be a true member of the Church of Christ, (commonly called invisible) or of the true mystical body of Christ. Answ. to my Valedict. Orat. pag. 176. You say you dispute them not out of the invisible Church. Answ. 1. But will you yeeld that they are so much as seeming probable members of the invisible Church? If you do, then they are members of the visible, which you deny: For to be a visible member of the Church, or a member of the visible Church as such, is no more th…n to be a seeming member of the invisible Church, or one that we ought to take in probability to be of the invisible Church. Wherein how Mr. B. is mistaken, is shewed in the 2d. Part of this Review, sect. 17. pag. 229, &c.
3. Ch. 20. He imag…nes an universal visible Church existent, not dissolved; which is all one as to say, there is or was an universal visible Church, consisting of indivi…ual members immortal, or perpetually visible: Which mistake of his will come under consideration in that which follows.
4. Ch. 5. & ch. 20. he imagines having infants to have been of the essentials of the Jewish Church. But therein he is mistaken: For though they may be termed substantial parts, yet not essential, (the Jewish Church had ben a visible Church though there had been no infant in it) but integral.
5. Ch. 20. that the nature of the Jews Church was not repealed, that the Jews Church was not repealed, ch. 5. that the Law or Covenant on which the species or essential form of their Church (and many of its accidents) was grounded, is not changed or repealed. Though the Jews are cast off, yet the law and nature of Churches is still the same ▪ Which speeches, with other more of the like kind, shall be (God willing) examin…d in that which follows, and the non-sence and vanity of them shewed.
6. Ch. 23. that infants visible church-membership did not begin at the institution of circumcision, but rather with the first infant of faithfull Adam, though he after fell off.
7. That this is grounded on a Law and Covenant of God, which is made higher then that, Gen. 17.7. even that Gen. 3.15. Ch. 23. Yea, he makes it to antecede the fall of Adam. Ch. 19. it is said to be of the Law of nature to have infants to be a part of a Kingdome: And ch. 13. therefore infants to be church-members. Pag. 60. That infants must be church-members, is partly natural, and partly grounded on the Law of grace and faith: as if Church constitution were natural, and not by meer institution.
8. Animadv. on Mr. Bedfords treatise of Baptismal regeneration. Plain Script. proof pag. 3…6. pag. 15. and elsewhere he makes the condition of the infants church membership and justification to be wholly without him in the faith of the parent. The falsity of which conceit is shewed by me in the 2d. part of this Review, sect. 10, 17. and elsewhere.
9. That this visible church-membership, notwithstanding the continuance of the parents Faith the imagined Law and Covenant, yet endures not but til they, when they come to years, do themselves make profession. So Plain Scrip. proof, part 2. ch. 6.pag. 119. He is not to be taken for a Christian, who will not visibly by himself when he comes to age (as he did by his parents in infancy) publickly profess both his assent to to the fundamental Articles of Faith, and his consent that the Lord onelyonly shall be his God, and Christ onelyonly his Redeemer, and so his Saviour and Lord, and promise in heart and life to be true to him accordingly: And I deliver the Sacrament to none that will not thus profess and promise. And pag. 335. He saith, He will not contradict this proposition of Davenant, Those who in Baptism were truly justified, regenerated, and adopted suitable to their infant state; when they come to the use of reason, are not justified, regenerated, and adopted suitable to the special state of the aged, unless by repenting, believing, and abrenunciation, they fulfil their vow made in Baptism.
10. That there is no other way of admitting visible members now into the Church, but by Baptism, pag. 24.108. But they are visible members afore Baptism according to his tenet, pag. 24. We and infants are Church-members before Baptism.
11. I presume that when he saith, All that ought to be admmitted visible church members, ordinarily ought to be baptized, he means this of Christian Churches, church members, and admitting into them, not the Jewish: For though I find him speak as if the Jews Church were not repealed, (as in his non-sence he speaks, ch. 20.) that is, as I imagine, in the nature or essence the Jewish Church visible and the Christian were the same, and so they that were admitted into the Jewish, are to be admitted into the Christian; which caused me to suspect at the Dispute an ambiguity in that expression [ought to be admitted visible church-members.] Yet I do not imagine that he holds the proposition in this sense, All that ought heretofore to be admitted visible church members in the Jewish Church distinct from the Christian, ordinarily ought then to be baptized afore Christs coming▪ while the Jewish Church stood: if he should, I should deny it.
12. That this admission which infants are to have is, as he often speaks, into the visible Church: But what this admission into the visible Church is, by whom, and unto whom it ought to be, according to Mr. Bs. judgment, is yet to me uncertain. Admission is, according to the common use of i…, the taking in of a person into an Office, Army, or Family, or the like, to perform the work, enjoy the benefit, profit, &c. of such an Officer, Member, &c. And it is usually done by some Officer to whom that business is committed; and the person upon his admission, and by vertue of it, takes his place, work, benefit, or what else he is admitted to, as his right and due. But I know no such thing in the baptizing of infants. Indeed by Baptism regularly, a man is admitted to the Communion of the Church in prayer, hearing, receiving the Lords Supper, and such other acts of Christian Communion as belong to visible Church-members. But an infant by Baptism is not admitted to these Prayer and hearing are in some sort allowed to unbaptized persons, and they are admitted to them who are infidels, when infants baptized are sent away as uncapable of them, and disturbers by their crying and playing. The Lords Supper they are not admitted to by their Baptism, till they themselves profess, as Mr. B. and other Paedobaptists agree; The being, name, repute of Chur…h-members is antecedent to Baptism, and therefore they are not admitted to it by Baptism. I must confess therefore I do not well know what this admission of infants i… which is by Baptism, and I think the proposition in Mr. Bs. argument to be void of truth or sense, if it be not thus construed: All that ought to be admitted visible church-members are baptized, or, which is all one, ordinarily ought to be baptized afore they are admitted, unless the admission and baptism be one and the same, and then the speech is an inept tautologie, as if he had said: All visible church members that ought to be baptized, ordinarily ought to be baptized. So that now Mr. B. may see some reason of my demur about his major proposition, which though it were as plain as he well knew how to express himself, yet there is so much ambiguity in it, that in the sense which the words in any good construction will bear, it is to be denied: But if he understand it in the later sense, the Syllogism is nugatory, the minor and the conclusion being the same. Nevertheless, as in the Dispute I let the major pass, so I shall do in this answer, onelyonly taking notice of some things in his proof of it, and insist upon my denial of the minor.
The first argument of Mr. B. to prove admission into the visible Church is to be by Baptism, I approve, and thence conclude against infant Baptism thus. If we have neither precept nor example in Scripture since Christ ordained Baptism, of admitting any by Baptism as visible members but believer… by profession, then all that must be admitted visible members ordinarily by Baptism, must be believ…rs by profession. But since Baptism was instituted (or established) we have no precept or example in Scri…ture of admitting any a… visible members by Baptism, but believers by profession. Ergo, all that must be admitted visible members must be believers by profession. I know not what in shew of reason can be said to this. For what man (yet Mr. B. and Paedobaptists dare) dare go in a way which hath neither precept nor example to warrant it, from a way that hath full current of both? yet they that will admit infants into the visible Church by Baptism do so. If he say there's precept before, I answer, his own major requires precept or example since Christ ordained Baptism, and therefore that shift avoids not the retortion of his argument. To what he replies to this argument in his Praefestin. morator, sect. 16. besides what I have said in the 2d. part of this Review, sect. 4. pag. 66.67. there is enough in the same book, sect. 10, 11, 12 &c. to manifest, that infants are not in any Scripture disciples appointed to be baptized, Matth. 28.19. Nevertheless, I find Alstedius in his Supplement to Chamier de natura Ecclesiae, cap. 7. §. 4. thus writing. Baptismus admittit in Ecclesiam particularem: sed in Ecclesiam catholicam potest aliquis admitti sine baptismo; quia hanc ad rem sufficit vera fides. And whereas Mr. Ball in his reply to the answer of the New-Ergland Elders about the nine positions, pag. 60. had said, Baptism is the seal of our admission into the congregation or flock of Christ; but not evermore of our receiving into this or that particular society as set members thereof: Mr. Allin rejoyns in his Defence, pag. 163. Baptism doth not admit actually into the Church, and your own expression secrety implieth as much, when you say, Baptism is a seal of our admission into the Church or flock of Christ: If baptism be the seal of our admission, then there is admission thereunto before baptism: but who doth admit, and where and when is any admitted to the Church, but in particular congregations? …an any be admitted into a Charch, that whole Church being ignorant thereof? Fulwood serm. of the Church, &c. p▪ 14. The children of believers, born in the Church are not (though virtual) actual members of the visible Church before Baptism. This I produce, to shew the uncertainty among Paedobaptists about admission into the Church by baptism, and membership before Baptism.
Like also what Mr. B. saith in his 2d. arg. To be above ordinances is to be above obedience to God, and so Gods: And when he saith in his 3d. The nature and end of baptism, is to be Christs listing, engaging sign; it is a good argument to prove that infant baptism hath not the nature and end of baptism, …ith it is not Christs (that is, according to his appointment) listing, engaging sign, the infant neither lists nor engageth himself by it as Christ appointed: And when he saith, If it be the use of baptism to engraff and enter us into the body or Church, 1 Cor. 12.13. and into Christ, as Rom. 6.3. then sure it must be used at our engraffing and entrance, it rather follows, it is before, sith the means is to be before the end in execution. To what he saith about Church-members, Disciples, Christians, enough hath been said in the 2d. part of this Review, sect. 10. &c.
In his 6th. argument, having formed an argument from Ephes. 5.26. he saith of me. Mr. T. in his Exercit. objecteth, 1. That then the thief on the cross, &c. were no church members. Answ. It followes not from [he that is baptized shall be saved] that therefore he that is not baptized shall not be saved: so here, for the former speaks but ad debitum, and the later de eventu; it will follow, that it is a duty to baptize all members where it may be done; but not that it shall certainly come to pass.
Refut. What I said Exercit. pag. 21. of that text, Ephes. 5.27. was not an objection against what Mr. B. would evince from the text, but in answer to an argument urged for infant baptism from that text by a London Minister, in a conference anno 1643. Which argument being drawn from an act or end of Christ, which was not onelyonly duty▪ but his performance: it was urged, that if infants were not baptized, and to be baptized, they belonged not to the Church: To which I answered, foreign, by an answerable illation, by the same reason the thief on the cross should not belong to the Church because not baptized. That which Mr. B. answers is not true, that Mark 16.16. the former part speaks but ad debitum, and the later de eventu. For though a duty may be gathered from the subject of the proposition, it being clear, that salvation being promised to the believer baptized, Faith and Baptism are required duties to that end; yet the former part of the proposition doth as fully speak of an event as the later part doth. And though Ephes. 5.26. it is proved a duty to baptize, as a…so to preach the word, because it is Christs way (in which we are to concur with him) of clensing his Church: yet the clensing of the Church with or in the washing of water by the word, doth not note a duty, but an end intended, and event to follow by Christs action. Mr. B. proceeds.
2. He objecteth, that therefore it must be understood of the more famous part of the Church, or that purification is to be understood of that which is for the most part. Answ. The Apostle speaks plainly of the whole Church; and to take it for part, is to cross the Text, except you shew a necessity for it. 2. It speaks of all quoad debitum, in regard of the means of it, which they are capable of. 3. And usually quoad eventum of the said means too.
Refut. 1. It cannot be understood of the whole visible Church, in which are many reprobates; for it is that Church which Christ loved with that peculiar love which is the Husbands pattern to love his Wife by, for whom he gave himself, that he might sanctifie it, that he might present it to himself glorious, and a Church not having spot or wrinkle, or any of such things; but that it might be holy, and without blemish: which are true onelyonly of that part of the visible, which is also of the invisible Church of the elect. 2. Whomsoever it speaks of, [that he might purifie it in or with the washing of water by the word] it speaks of the intention of Christ; which being supposed that it is not frustrated, it follows, that those who are said to be purified in or with the washing of water by the word, are all in the event converted by preaching, and baptized with water. Which sith it cannot be said of all elect infants, for they are not purified by the word, it must be understood as I say, either by a synocdoche of the whole for the more famous or apparent part; or else the act is meant of that which is usually done, or for the most part, not what is universally and perpetually. 3. It is granted, that we may gather thence the duty of preaching the word, and baptizing with water, and that they who are sanctified by preaching are to be purified by baptism, and that this was usual in the event, a known use in the primitive times: But expresly it notes onelyonly Christs act, not the Ministers duty, which is onelyonly implied, and follows from this, that Christ doth it by them; and it supposeth, that they who are capable of the one, to wit… baptism, are capable of the other, the hearing of the word▪ for these two are conjunctively put, not dis-junctively either the one or the other, as if some were purified in the washing of water onelyonly, others by the word; but the same who are purified by the one, are purified by the other. Mr. B. adds.
Object. But some may say, that [by the word] is here added, which infants are not capable of▪ Answ. 1. Infants are sanctified by the word of promise and precept to parents to dedicate them to God, though not by the word preached to infants. 2. The means is to each member as they are capable. Washing by water to those that are capable of that, and by the word to those that are capable of that, which blind and deaf men are not any more then infants.
Ref. There is no word of precept to parents to dedicate infants to God by baptism, though there be to pray for them; nor do I think M. …. would allow every parent to dedicate his or her infant to God by baptism, which they must do if there were a precept to them to do it. That there is no such word of promise as entitles every infant of a believer, or any definitely to baptism, much less that appoints parents to dedicate their infants to God by baptism, is amply shewed in this book before. Nor can the meaning be, Ephes. 5 26. of such a sanctification. For 1. no word of promise, and precept to parents to dedicate them to God, is that which Christ doth sanctifie or clense them by, partly because there is none such, partly because the word of precept to parents (if there were such) to dedicate them to God, would not clense or sanctifie the infants, it hath no effect on them, nor notes their duty: nor doth the precept sanctifie or clense, but the observing of it; nor was the parents dedication ever made by God a means to clense or sanctifie the child, as there is meant. Nor, were there such a word of promise to a parent, would that of it self sanctifie and clense. 2. The word there meant, is the word of the Gospei preached to those who are said to be clensed by Christ. For 1. all along the N. T. and particularly in that Epistle, by [the word] is meant the word of the Gospel, as it is preached or published. Acts 10.22, 36, 37. Rom. 10.8, 9, 17. Ephes. 6.17, Heb. 6.5. 1 Pet. 1.25. Luke 3.2. John 3.34. & 6.63, 68. & 8.47· & 12.47, 48. & 15.7. & 17.8. Acts 5.32. Matth 13.20, 21, 22, 23. Mark 2.2. & 4.14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 20. & 16.20. Luke 1.2. & 5.1. & 8.11, 12, 13, 15; 21. & 10.39. & 11.28. John 5.24, 38. & 8.31, 43, 52. & 14.23, 24. & 17 6, 14, 17, 20. Acts 4.4, 29 31. & 6.2, 4, 7. & 8.4, 14, 25. & 11.1, 19. & 12.24. & 13.5, 7, 26, 44, 46, 48, 49. & 14.25. & 15.7, 35, 36. & 16.6, 32. & 17.11, 13. & 18.11. & 19.10. 1 Cor. 2.4. & 14.36. & 15.2. 2 Cor. 2.17. & 4.2. & 5.19. Gal. 6.6. Ephes. 1.13. Phillip. 1.14. & 2.16. Col. 1.5, 25. & 3.16. & 4.3. 1 Thes. 1.6, 8. & 2.13. 2 Thes. 3.1. 1 Tim. 5.17. 2 Tim. 2.9, 15. & 4.2. Tit. 1.3, 9 & 2.5. Heb. 13.7. Jam. 1.21, 22, 23. 1 Pet. 2.8. & 3.1. Revel 1.9. & 6.9. & 12.11. & 20.4.2. It is the word of the Gospel preached or published, by which persons are said to be purified, converted, regenerate, sanctified, John 15.3. & 17.17. Acts 20.32. &. 26.18. Rom. 10.17. Gal. 3.5. Ephes. 1.13. Jam. 1.18. 1 Pet 1.23. not any where by the word of promise barely as made by God, but as it was fulfilled and preached, is Christ said to sanctifie or clense his Church. And by this, all said to be purified, Ephes. 5.26. are clensed, and therefore no infants, who are not at all capable of understanding it, and therefore not so capable of being clensed by it as the blind and deaf. Mr. B. yet adds.
Object. But it is the invisible Church that Christ is said thus to clense, Answ. 1. Certainly those that are washed with water, or hearing the word, or either, are all visible members. 2. The visible Church hath the outward priviledges and titles of the invisible, because as to us they must in prohability be judged to belong to both. Therefore Paul freq…ently calls them all saints and sons of God by faith, &c.
Ref. Though they be of the visible who are so washed, yet the Church Ephes. 5.25, 26, 27. cannot be meant of the meerly visible; but onelyonly of them who are so of the visible, that they are also of the invisible, as is proved before from the things said of the Church, which agree to none other. And thus Mr. B. hath my answer to that Ch. and my apprehension of his major; let's now view his minor, and try his Achilles which he is so confident of.