Anti-Paedobaptism Part 3, Section 7
SECT. VII. Bare judgement of charity concerning a persons interest in the promise is not a warrant to baptize.
PAg. 19. Mr. Church brings in an objection thus, The judgement of charity that any are in promise is not a sufficient reason for administring baptism to them: there must be shews of grace for more certainty, To which he thus answers: shews of grace and actual profession are a reason for baptizing only as they are ground for the judgment of charity, that the parties to be baptized are in the promise; for else if the Devil should take a humane shape, and make a verbal profession (though he were known to be a Devil) he must be baptized.
I reply, Mr. Church here starts a question, by what judgment a Minister is to proceed in admitting a person to baptism. Concerning which I suppose it will not be denied. 1. That a Minister being but as an officer under Christ in baptizing, is to baptize according to his Lords will. For that is the property of a servant. 2. That the will of the Lord is most manifest in the institution or appointment of Christ; which is without question declared by the words of Christ, Matth. 28.19. Mark. 16.15, 16. explained by the Apostles and other approved Ministers thereof, command and practice mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles. 3. That true believers and disciples of Christ are appointed to be baptized, and that they have true right before God. 4. That such believers and disciples as are appointed to be baptized, are Disciples of all nations, not of Angelical but humane nature; and therefore we have no warrant to baptize either good Angels or Devils taking humane shape and making shews of repentance or faith if known to be Divils or Angels. All the difference is, with what judgment and upon what evidence a Minister is to baptize, I conceive 1. upon extraordinary revelation from God a Minister is to baptize an Infant declared to be a Disciple, as I say in my Examen p. 4. S. 3. 2. According to ordinary rule he ought to baptize none but Disciples by profession, which profession ought to be free, sober, serious and intelligent. For discerning of which he is to use ministerial prudence, though he be not able to search the heart, and after the use of ministeral prudence therein, he is prudently to judge of the truth of his faith and discipleship. Wherein he ought to judge according to the rule of charity 1 Cor. 3.17. which believeth all things, hopeth all things, and yet heed what Solomon saith Prov. 14.15. The simple believeth every word: but the prudent man looketh well to his going. And our Lord Christ Luke 12.43. having said as it was conceived of a Minister, Who then is that faithfull and wise steward, whom his Lord shall make ruler over his houshold, to give them their portion of meat in due season? it is requisite that the judgment of a Minister upon which he baptizeth should have both ingredients, prudents & charity, charity alone is not sufficient. For 1. If Charity be used without prudence, there may be a mockery of the Ordinance, and it profaned. 2. If the rule be a judgment of charity alone, then supposing the Minister be defective in his charity the person is to be debarred, who is otherwise fit to be baptized. But about this I conceive there is little or no difference between me and the paedobaptists. Mr. M. in one place, to wit, in his defence pag. 78. intimates that I am conceived to incline to the looser way of baptizing any that would make a profession of faith in Jesus Christ. And in another place pag. 233. he maks it all my pleading that because we cannot know that all Infants of believers have the inward grace, we may not therefore baptize them. From the former I vindicated my self in my Apology Sect. 17. and from the latter Sect. 10. But the difference is what qualification it is that may be evidence to a Minister, whereby to judge prudently a person to be capable of baptism. They that hold all Infants are to be baptized that are offered, they make no scruple, nor do they make much scruple that hold all Infants that are in a chosen nation, which I have refuted Exam. part. 3. Sect. 13. others baptize onelyonly the children of inchurched members, of which I shall speake in Examining Mr. Cobbets conclusions. There are, that from the Generality of promises and election running through the Loyns of believers, will have all the children of believers to be in Covenant and elect in the parcels though not in the lump, and M…. Church his opinion comes near it, that we have ground from a judgment of charity that the parties to be baptized are in the promise to baptize them. But against this I argue.
1. That is to be the rule of judging a persons baptizability which is made the condition of a person to be baptized in the holy Scripture. But no where in it is this made the condition of being baptized, that he be elect and in the Covenant. 2. The Scripture doth no where say that the election of God runs for the most part through the Loyns of believers. And though there are promise, of blessing to the righteous and their seed, yet these are indefinite both for the kinde of blessing, and the person, and these promises are made onelyonly to the truly righteous, and not to them, who are only such in appearance. Wherfore there can be no certainty for a judgment of prudence to rest upon, to determin of any whether they are elect or not, in the Covenant of grace or not, spiritually considering that God hath declared Rom. 9.6, 7, 8, 18, 24. That he ties not himself to believers children. Now all judgment is to be suspended of that which is not revealed, The secret things belong to the Lord our God, Deut. 29.29.
3. For Infants of believers there is no ground for a judgment of charity, because they do nothing to shew whether they are in the Covenant or no. And if it be revealed by God that they are all or some in Covenant then we know it by a judgment of faith believing Gods revelation, and so it is not a probable judgment of charity, but a certain judgment of verity, which directs in this. 4. If a probable judgment of charity that a person is elect and in covenant be the rule to direct in baptizing, then suppose a salvage in new England or elsewhere seeming to be affected in the the time of preaching should be judged in charity to an elect person in covenant he ought to be baptized by the Minister so judging afore he owns Christ by profession. It is promised that the Israelits shall be graffed in again, and all Israel saved, Rom. 11.24, 25, 26, 27, 28. and we may charitably judg it will be shortly, shall we baptize any of them or their Infants upon this charitable judgment of their election and being in Covenant afore profession? 5. If a charitable judgement of election and being in covenant had been the rule to baptize, then sure John the Baptist, and the baptizers appointed, had somewhere propounded that question, or made inquiry into that thing, but it was not so, they required repentance Acts 2.38. inquired into the faith of the baptized. 6. if this had been the direction (baptize those that are elect or in Covenant) had been a blind derection unfit for men to follow, and so our Lord should have imperfectly instructed his Apostls and others, or rather have mocked them, putting them to do a business not feasiable by them. But this is not to be said of Christ, especially the rule being so plain to baptize believers and Disciples by profession.
As for Mr. Chuch his conceit, that shews of grace and actual profession are a reason for baptizing onelyonly as they are a ground for the judgment of charity that the paties to be baptized are in the promise ▪ I deny it. For the rule is not (baptize persons in the Covenant) but (Disciples or believers of all nations.) To that of the Devils making a verbal profession, I have answered before. That which he saith that the judgment of charity (meaning that they were in Covenant) was the rule by which John Baptist and the Apostles walked in baptizing is not true, for they baptized upon their profession which they certainly knew. And though they had no infallable knowledge of the individuals election or being in Covenant, but baptized hypocrits not a few, yet they had an infallible knowledge of individuals confessing sins, brofessing repentancc and faith, for they heard them, and this was their rule, not the conjectural knowledg of a persons interest in the Covenant or election of grace.