Anti-Paedobaptism Part 3, Section 8
SECT. VIII. Acts 2.38, 39. proves that interest in the promise intitles not to baptism without repentance.
MR. Church brings in a Second objection, which is in effect what I allege Exam. pag. 62. a right to Evangelical promises is not the adequat reason of baptism, for the Jews were in the promise Acts 2.38, 39. yet not baptized without preceeding repentance. To which he answers thus, A visible right to the promise either by shews of grace (as in those of riper years) or by the meaning a species in the promise without restriction, of which the parties to be baptized are individuals (as the Infants of visible professors are) is a sufficient reason for baptism.
To which I reply. If visible right ro the promise by shews of grace be a sufficient reason for baptism, then the rule I set down for admitting to baptism is yeilded to be aright. But for the new made rule of Mr. Church it is but an humane ivention without Scripture warrans. He supposeth the Infants of visible professors to be in the promise without restruction, and the promise I conceive he means is (I will be thy God and the God of thy seed Gen. 17.7.) But it is most false that that promise is made to any meer visible professors, but to Abraham, not to any true believers natural seed, much less to any meer visible professors natural seed, but onelyonly to A…rahams seed, who are onelyonly elect and true believers of the Gentils according to the spiritual part of it, as is proved before. Yet were it granted that not onelyonly the Species, but also the individuals were named expressly in the Covenant, I should deny they were to be baptized according to ordinary rule till they were known Disciples and believers. The Jewish people are in covenant Rom. 11.24, 25, 26, 27, 28. and yet not to be baptized till they believe, and Peter Acts 2.38, 39. requires repentance for baptism, of whom he sayth, the promise is to you. But he tels me, The learned and rational of the Anabaptists confess that if it could appear to them that an Infant is in the Covenant they would not doubt of the baptism of it, I answer, whatever others do, yet I disclaim that confession. I have granted sundry times as Examen part. Sect 15. part. 3. Sect. 3. that regenerate, justified, adopted persons born into the world who have the inward grace are not to be debarred baptism, if it be known by special revelation, for they are then known Disciples and believers. But I never said this of an Infant in Covenant. For an Infant may be in Covenant even then when he is unregenerate (being in covenant) nothing no more then having the promise made to him, which may be afore he is born, and therefore I should not yeld that of being in covenant, which I would do of actual regeneration.
But Mr. Church makes some shew of answering the argument from Acts 2.38, 39. He tels us those Jews rejecting and crucifying Christ and Atheistically mocking …at Gospel truths, ceased to have a visible right to the promise, untill they regained it by repentance.
Answer Mr. Church pag. 18. saith being in the promise is the reason rendred by the appostle for the receiving of baptism Acts 2.38, 39. therefore they that are rightly judged in it may be baptized. pag. 20. Being in the promise is the onelyonly reason mentioned by the Apostle for baptism. Doth not thus plainly assert that the Jews then were righly judged by Peter to be in the promise, and their right thereby to batism? How then is it true which here he saith they ceased to have a visible right to the promise till they raigned repentance? But it is not once onelyonly that this Author is off and on, saying and unsaying at a little distance. Here he requires a visible right in the promise regained by repentance, a little before he saith the species being named without restriction in the promise as a sufficient reason of baptism. However I take his confession that notwithstanding what he said pag. 5.6, 7. from Acts 2.38.39. of the promise to them and their children, and thence inferring their Infants tittle to baptism, as being the children of visible professors, to whom God had promised to be a God and to their seed, yet here he saith they ceased to have a visible right to the promise until they regained it by repentance, which the Apostle supposeth they then had not, even then when he said, The promise is to you and your children: For he exhorteth to it as a thing to be done.
But Mr. Church flutters like a bird in a net, seeking some evation from this objection, though all in vain. He tels us they were a mixt company to whom the Apostles spake Acts 2.8, 11. and not all Jews, for they were of divers languages; and that they were adulti.
But what is this to the avoyding the objection, that notwithstanding it is said the promise is to you, yet they were not intitled to baptism without repentance.
He then discourseth, that repentance was in them onelyonly in fieri before their baptism▪ and that the Apostle accepted of probabilities of it and baptized them; For in that distance from his preaching, and their baptizing, so many could not have repentance visible by its fruits and discernable, and thence would gather, if such hainous sinners were baptized upon probability of repentance, therefore Infants of Christians guilty of no actual sin may be baptized unto repentance.
To which I reply, 1. It is expressly said ver. 41. they that gladly received the word were baptized, therefore there were visible fruits of repentance and faith discerned by the Apostles and other Disciples, who were many and could confer with them in that space of time, and baptize them in that day, though their conversion was easily discernable without distinct conference with each.
2. His argument is not worth a rush, notwithstanding Cyprians words to back it, to prove Infant-baptism. For it goes upon this frivolous supposition, that Infants because they have no actual sin may be baptized, though they shew no repentance, much rather then hainous and great transgressors upon probability of repentance. As if lesser sinners might be baptized upon no testimony of repentance, because greater sinners are baptized upon probability of repentance, which if true, the more civil and orderly persons, though pharisaically minded, as if they needed no repentance, have much more right to baptism, then publicans confessing their sins because but probably penitent. 3. All this is nothing to answer the objection, but to strengthen it, that notwithstanding the promise was to them, yet they were not to be baptized till their repentance, either in facto esse, or in fieri, either visible in fruits or at least probably conceived, of which neither is to be said of Infants. Yet Mr. Church is not ashamed to conclude thus.
Being in the promise is the onelyonly reason mentioned by the Appostle for baptism, (whereas repentance is undeniably prerequired) and that if any disable the reason he imputes not a little weakness to the Apostles and their converts; wheras he that disables the inference from being rightly judged in the promise to right of baptism, doth vindicate the Apostle from weakness, which paedobaptists do by their exposition and inference thence blemish him with, and cast the blame of weakness onelyonly on Mr. Church and such inconsiderate expounders and disputers as he is. I had not thought to have said so much of so poor a piece as that book is; yet lest any say it is not answered I add.