Anti-Paedobaptism Part 3, Section 6
SECT. VI. The Arguments of Master Josias Church in his Divine warrant for Infant-baptism, from their being judged in the promise, is answered.
THere is another writing of Master Josiah Church, intituled, The Divine warrant of Infant-baptism, of which I passed a censure in the first part of this Review Sect. 21. and I might let it pass, being as the commanders of it say, Dogmatical rather then Polemical, and leave it to those that affect such superficial writings. Yet because Master Roberts and Master Geree have commended it, and Master Baxter pag. 6. of his Plain Scripture proof, puts it among the chief books, of which he saith, If any of the men of Bewdly have taken up the union of Antipaedobaptism, and have not read and studied him with others, and been able to confute them, he hath discovered a seared conscience (which is a most unreasonable and uncharitable censure) to shew the folly and vanity of Master Baxters and others conceit, I shall give the Reader some taste of his overly handling the point.
His first Argument is thus, The Infants of Christians are righty judged in the promise of propriety in God, therefore they may be Baptized.
To it I answer, 1. The antecedent is ambiguous, not expressing what propriety in God he means, whether of justification, regeneration, and salvation, or of outward protection & prosperity among men or Ecclesiastical privilege, nor where that promise is which he calls promise of propriety in God, nor whether he means it of all Infants of Christians, or some, and if of some of which he means it, and of which not; nor of what sort of Christians, whether such as are Christians onelyonly by profession, or really such in Gods account; nor with what judgement he means, whether of charity or verity, probably or certainty; nor upon what evidence they are with any of these sorts of judgement rightly judged in the promise of propriety in God. So that I finde nothing but Sophistry in this dispensation, the antecedent being perhaps true in some sense, in some false: and therefore it is but wast labour to refute it, or answer his proofs, till that he distinctly set down what he asserts, and how his proofs suite with his assertion. Yet I shall cast away some animadversions on this writing, least my silence be disadvantage to the cause I maintain.
That which I conceive he means, is this, All the Infants of Christians by visible profession, are rightly judged by a judgement of charity, though not of certainty to be included in the promise of propriety in God, in regard of eternal adoption and priviledge expressed in those words ▪ Gen. 17.7. I will be thy God, and the God of thy seed, therefore they may be Baptized. Of which Argument, I deny both the antecedent and the consequence. The antecedent he takes upon him to prove by ten Arguments.
1. The Infants of the Jews (so long as they continued visible professors) were rightly judged to be in the promise of propriety in God, for it was sealed to them by the initial Sacrament no less then to actual professors, Gen. 17.7, 12. Ergo
Answ. Did not Master Church affect new phrasifying, which serves onelyonly to puzzle in plain words, he had said, To the Jews Infants· the promise was made of being God to them, therefore the Infants of Christians are rightly to be in that promise: Of which, neither is the antecedent true universally taken, but contradicted by Paul, Rom. 9.7, 8. where he expresly denies the promise (I will be the God of thy seed) to be true of Abrahams natural seed universally taken: Nor if it had been true, doth it follow that what was promised to Abrahams seed, is true of every true Believers, muchless of the seed of every meer visible professor of Christian faith, who are neithet themselves, nor their children in any Scripture sense Abrahams seed: nor is the proof of any weight, That the promise of propriety in God was sealed to the Jews Infants by the initial Sacrament, no less then to actual professors, therefore the Jews Infant were rightly judged to be in the promise of propriety in God.
For this reason in plain terms is no more then this, the Jews Infants were to be circumcised, Ergo they were rightly judged to be in the promise of propriety in God, that is that God would be their God, which rests upon these false suppositions, that God had promised to be God to those whom he commanded to be circumcised, and that the promise of being their God was the formal reason of their being circumcised, that when God promised to be a God of to Gentiles, he meant it of external adoption and priviledges.
The consequence he would prove by four Argument. 2. The promise of propriety in God was not a specialty, therefore the Infaints of Christians being certainly no less in the promise then were the Infants of Jews aforetime, they are rightly judged to be in it as they were. Where the conclusion is altered, which was to be proved (therefore if the Infants of the Jews were rightly judged to be in the promise of propriety in God, then the Infants of Christians are rightly judged to be in that promise) and instead thereof, that which should have been the antecedent (the Infants of Christians are certainly no less in the promise then were the Jews Infants aforetime) is made the chief part of the conclusion, and in stead of the right antecedent, this ambiguous antecedent is put (that promise of proriety in God was not a specialty) which he says he would prove by seven arguments, but sets not down which branch of the promise was not a specialty, whether that (I will be thy God) or that (I will be the God of thy seed) nor in what sense it was not a specialty, nor doth his speech (that it was not a specialty) appear equipollent to that he should have proved (The Infants of Christians are certainly no less in the promise then were the Jews dnfants aforetime) but he dictates so ambiguously and indistinctly, that more labour will be necessary to understand him then to refute him. He tells us, the promise of propriety in God, was not peculiar to Abraham, and visible professors, and Abrahams natural seed; where he supposeth, that the promise (I will he thy God, and the God of thy seed) was true of meer visible professors, and Abrahams natural seed; which is most false and contrary to Rom. 9.6, 7, 8. Luk. 20.36, 37, 38. He brings the words Exod. 12.48, 49 the stranger was as our home-born, and there was one law for both (which are spoken meerly of allowance for them to eat the Passeover with them) to prove a like propriety of the Infants of visible professors of the Gentiles in the promise of propriety in God, Gen. 17.7. He brings Gal. 4.28. which was spoken onelyonly of true Believers born after the Spirit, to prove visible professors and their Infants to be judged in the promise of propriety in God. He saith, Isaac was in the promise as an Infant of Believing parent, whereas Paul saith no, for then Ishmael and Esau had been in the promise, but by special calling or election, Rom. 9.6, 7, 8, 9. He applies those texts Gal. 3.14. Rom. 11.17. Rom. 15.8, 9. Gen. 17▪ 5, 7. to prove a promise to every Gentile visible professour of faith and their Infants, which are onelyonly verified in the sense the Apostle useth them, of true Believers as Abraham was, who are justified as he was. He allegeth that which the Apostle Rom. 11.28. saith, The children are beloved for the Fathers, as it were meant of Infants of every Gentile visible professor, which is spoken onelyonly of the elect Israelites, and the ancient Patriarchs Abraham, &c. That which is said, Psal. 138. 1, 3. of children of him that fears God, sitting round about his table like Olive plants▪ to prove visible professors and their partaking in the promise of propriety in God.
He saith, The former part of that promise (I will be a God to thee, Gen. 17.7. is undeniably common to all Believers, which in truth is undeniably proper t Abraham, not simply as a Believer, but either as a natural Father, or Father o Believers according to the spiritual part of the promise.
He saith, Christians are in this dispensation as Jews were in the former, they are called as they were, an holy Nation, a peculiar people, a royal priesthood, 1 Pet. 2 9. Tit, 2.14. And every Nation receiving the faith as the Nation of the Jews did, and in which there is a national agreement in doctrine, worship, and discipline, as was in the Nation of the Jews, is to be accounted to the Lord in every age, Psal. 22.30. even Egypt and Assyria with Israel, Isa. 19.21. and many call Abraham Father (who obtained the Fatherhood of many Nations, Gen. 17.5.) and may be accounted a national Church no less hen that Nation was, whereby those speeches 1 Pet. 2.9. Tit 2.14. Gen. 17.5. as expounded, Rom. 4.17. which are meant onelyonly of the elect and true Believers of every Nation are applied to a national Church like the Jews consisting of a great part of either ignorant persons that know little or nothing of Christianity, or persecutors of godliness, profanely despising the word, and hating the godly.
He applies that Mat. 18.10. little ones, who are said vers. 6. to believe in Christ, and the offending of whom hath so great a penalty, to little one in age. He applies Jer. 30.20. which is spoken of the Jews upon their return from captivity, as appears vers. 18.21. concerning their prosperity in Canaan to the restitution of their Infants to an initial seal at the calling of them to the Christian faith whereas if it were so meant, the Prophet should foretell that the Jews children at their calling to Christ should be as a foretime, that is, should be circumcised as they were before the Prophets time, not ba…tized. More things there are liable to exception in his arguments whereof what pertains to the text, Act. 2.39. Rom. 11.17. 1. Cor. 7.14. is sufficiently discussed in …y Ample dsquisition of those texts. That which concerns the reasons that God promiseth mercy to thousands, and such like arguments, being urged more fully by Master B. I shall answer when I meet with them in his book.
His arguments pag. 18. to prove his Consequence, The Infants of Chaistians are rightly judged in the promise of propriety in God, therefore they are to be baptized, are insufficient. The first is from circumcision of Infants, to which hath been often answered, That was done by vertue of the Command, not by vertue of the promise and therefore without the like Command the like promise (if it were granted) would not prove the like, practice. What is said of John Baptists, and the Apostles, not denying baptism to any whom they judged to be in the promise, seems to intimate, that they baptized men because they judged them to be in the promise: But there is not a word thereof in any of the Evangelists, but their comming to John confessing their sins, glorifying God in embracing his Counsel, professing faith, as the reason of their admission to baptism.
To his second reason, Being in the promise, is the reason rendered by the Apostles for the receiving of baptism, Acts 2.38, 39. Therefore they that are rightly judged in it may be baptized, I answer 1. He says not truely, that being in the promise is the onelyonly reason mentioned by the Apostle for baptism; for repentance is put as a prerequisite. 2. The Apostle doth not speak of the promise as Master Church means that he judged that they and their children were rightly judged as visible professors in the promise of propriety in God, for they were not then such: But that the promise of raising up Christ was fulfilled for them upon their repentance and baptism, or their calling, and this is made not the reason of right to receive, or warrant to the Minister to baptize them, but as a motive to their duty of repenting and being baptized, and encouragement to hope for remission notwithstanding their crucifying Christ and imprecation on themselvs, and theirs, Matth. 27.25.