Anti-Paedobaptism Part 3, Section 9
SECT. IX. Infants are not proved by Mr. Church, to be of the visible Church Christian.
HIs second Argument is, Infants of Christians are rightly judged to be of the Church with Christians of riper years, therefore they may be baptized.
To which I say, His words are ambiguous, it being uncertain whether he means the Antecedent of the visible or invisible Church, of all infants of Christians, or some; but conceiving it meant of all, and of the visible Church of Christians, I deny the Antecedent. And for his ten Arguments, not one proveth it.
The Medium of the first is the Antecedent of the former Argument, to which I have answered before, denying that all the infants of Christians are rightly judged to be in the promise of propriety in God, expressed Gen. 17.7. in those words, I will be thy God, and the God of thy seed.
But I deny the consequence also, that if it were true, that all the infants of Christians are rightly judged in the Promise of Propriety in God, therefore they are rightly judged to be of the visible Church: nor is it proved by that which he allegeth, (For they onelyonly are aliens from the Common-wealth of Israel, which are strangers from the covenant, Ephes. 2.12.) For if it did prove, that all that are strangers from the covenant of Promise are aliens from the visible Church of Christians, yet it proves not, that all who are in the covenant are in the visible Church; but the very truth is, neither the one nor the other is proved from that place; for this only is asserted there, that the Ephesians who were Gentiles in the flesh, who are called uncircumcision, by that which is called the circumcision in the flesh made with hands, no Proselytes were in the time of their infidelity & Idol-service, then without the policy of Israel and the covenants of Promise: but it doth not follow that every one that was then uncircumcised in the flesh, and out of the policy of Israel, meaning the outward policy, was stranger from the Promise of Propriety in God, meaning of it of saving Propriety; for Cornelius, Acts 10. was a stranger from the policy of Israel, being no citizen, but unclean, as being a Gentile, uncircumcised, yet then he feared God, God heard his prayers, accepted his alms, &c. much less now that every one that is rightly judged to be in the Promise of Propriety in God is of the visible Church, or every one that is rightly judged of the visible Church, is rightly judged to have the Promise of Propriety in God.
His next Argument is, Infants of Christians are rightly called the Lords children, for his manner hath been to call the children of his people his children. In the old world some were called the sons of God, as children of his people, Gen. 6.2, 3. And the infants of the Israelites were called by him, his children born to him, Ezek. 16.20, 21. and their lawfull seed, a seed of God. And the Jews were accounted to him great and small in every age untill the breaking off; and the same was prophesied of the Gentiles, when they shall be converted, and of the Jews when they shall be grafted in again: and the Psalmist calls himself the Lords servant, as he was the son of his handmaid: therefore such infants are rightly judged to be of the Church, which is the House of God.
Answ. Not one of these Texts proves the Church-membership of Christians infants. The term Sons of God, Gen. 6.2, 3. is attributed to persons before the Floud, and those not infants, but such as took them wives of all that they chose, which could not be said of infants; nor are they said to be Sons of God, because children of believers, but because they professed the true worship of God, Dei filios professione Christ. Cartwright Eborac. Annot. in locum, Such as descending from Seth and Enoch professed the true worship of the true God, New Annot. I omit the opinions of Josephus, Aquila, and many of the Ancients, recited by Mr. Gataker against Pfochenius, cap. 13. and the other of the Chaldee Paraphrase, R. Solomon, Symmachus, that they are called Sons of God, because Sons of Potentates or Judges, of which Mr. Cartwright ubi supra, and that of others Sons of God, that is, eminent men, because I think the other is more right: however they are not called Sons of God, that is, visible Church-members by their descent, but by their profession, which is not to be said of infants.
It is true Ezek. 16.28, 21. the children of Israel are said to be born to God, that is, of right as their Land was the Lords Land, Hos. 9.3. and this did aggravate their sin, that those that were of right his were sacrificed to Idols: now this was by reason of that peculiar interest which God had in that people, vers. 8. But that what is said of the sons of the Jews is true of all the infants of believers, or that this is enough to entitle the infants of Christians to visible Church-membership, and the initial seal, as they call it, is yet to be proved.
Of Mal. 2.14, 15. I have spoken sufficiently in the first part of this Review, Sect. 13.26. of the Ample Disquisition: to which I add that in the second Edition of the New Annot. these words are added suitable to my Exposition of a legitimate seed; All other seed is spurious, not a lawfull seed; nor such fathers are lawfull fathers, who so pervert the order and Ordinance of Matrimony, God puts his mark of infamy upon the seed it self, Deut. 23.2. which shews that with Calvin that Authour understood, by a Seed of God, a legitimate seed.
That which is said Psalm 22.30. A seed shall serve him, it shall be accounted to the Lord for a generation, hath no shew of any thing for infants visible Church-membership: it cannot be expounded of infants while such: for how can it be said, They shall serve the Lord? But it notes onelyonly a continuance of the Church promised in a people, who should when some decease, stand up after them to serve the Lord. The impertinency of that Jer. 30.20. is shewed before. As little to the purpose is that Psalm 116.16. He doth not say, he was the Lords Servant as he was the son of his handmaid; and it was to express his mean condition or humility, as Mary, Luke 1.48. not his privilege, and his subjection to God, not his right he could clame from God; yet if there were any privilege imported in this title (son of thine hand-maid) Mr. Church must prove it to be Church-membership, and that not proper to him as a Jew, but common to all Christians ere it will serve his turn, which he cannot do.
Enough is said before in the Ample Disquition, to prove that 1 Cor. 7.14. children are not denominated holy, because they appertain to the Church.
The remnant to be called holy, Isai 4.3. are either such Jews as in the captivity escaped alive, who should be holy in respect of their worship, not serving Idols, but the living God, or such converted believers in the Christian Church as should be written in the Book of Life, which makes nothing to infants Church-membership.
The Church is not called the circumcision, Rom. 3.30. & 15.8. but the Jewish people.
The Christians infants are not rightly judged to be of the Church Christian, because the Hebrews children were of the Church Jewish, God now not taking one whole Nation for his Church, but Disciples of Christ in all Nations.
Abraham is said, Rom. 4.11. to have received the sign of circumsion a seal of the righteousness of faith, which he had yet being uncircumcised; but that any other mans circumcision was so to him, much less that every infants circumcision was such to them, I reade not: sure the tenour of the words imports no more than this, that Abrahams circumcision in his own person was an assurance to all believers though themselves uncircumcised of righteousness by faith to be imputed to them also. What Divines though of never so great esteem thence infer of the nature of circumcision, that it is a seal of the righteousness of faith, of all Sacraments, that it is their nature to be seals of the covenant of grace, that to whom the covenant belongs to them the seal belongs, and consequently to infants, are but their mistakes, not the Doctrine of the Text.
Of Mark 10.14 enough is said before. Of infants may be the Kingdom of God, yet they not in the visible Church.
The speech (out of the Church is no salvation) is true of the invisible Church of the elect, and is so expounded by Dr. Morton Apol. Cath. and others; of the visible it is not true; Rahab had been saved though she had never been joyned to the visible Church of the Jews.
What I said, that it is uncertain whether the infants brought to Christ, Mark 10.14. were the infants of Christian disciples or believers, is true; for it is not said, their Parents brought them, and though it be probable they that brought them believed on Christ, yet it is uncertain whether they believed him to be the Christ, or some eminent Prophet, as Matth. 16.14. Luke 7.16.
The Daughter of the Syrophoenician was called a Dog, Matth. 15.26. not because she was not a believers childe, but because a Gentiles childe, not an Israelitess.
Though Di…t. 30.6. Isai 44.3. Circumcision of the heart and the spirit be promised to the seed of the godly, yet it is not promised to any but the elect, as the fuller promise, Isai. 54.13. is expounded by Christ himself, John 6.45. and therefore not as Mr. Church saith, to children, as they are the children of Gods People, if (as) be taken reduplicatively; for then all the children of Gods People should have the spirit promised. Nor is the spirit promised to them in their infancy, and yet if it were, till they shew it, we have no warrant to take them for visible Church-members, or to baptize them without special revelation.
It is largely proved above that Acts 15.10. no infant is called a Disciple.
There may be hope of infants salvation, they may be of the body of Christ, though they be not of the visible Church.
Our infants and our selves though believers are yet Heathens, that is, of the Nations by birth, and had been reputed Dogs as well as the Woman of Canaans childe, Matth. 15.26. if we had then lived: but in the sense as it is now used, and as it was a Title of infamy and rejection, Matth. 18.17 we are not to be called Heathens, that is, infidels, and whose society is to be shunned; nor our infants, who are neither infidels nor believers, they being not capable of faith in that state ordinarily: as in Logick they say, a Whelp till the ninth day is neither blinde nor seeing, there being a middle of abnegation of either extreme, by reason of the incapacity of the subjects, so we may say our infants are neither infidels nor believers.
What Mr. Church allegeth out of Rev. 22.15. serves onelyonly to beget hatred towards Antipaedobaptists: for (without) there is meant of being without the city or heavenly Jerusalem, vers. 14. and Dogs, there are ranked with Sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and such like; neither of which needs be said of infants; though we say, they are not visible members in the Christian Church, and that they are not yet believers.
Christ an infant was head of the Church, yet visibly he appeared not the head of the Church, till he was manifested to be so. Infants may be members of Christ the head invisibly, but not visibly till they shew faith.