A Forerunner to a Large Review of the Dispute Concerning Infant Baptism, Treatise · Section 6
SECT. VI. The chief points of Mr. Bs. Book are very briefly touched.
THe chief points in Mr. Bs. book he would have observed, in their places shall be (God willing) fully examined: For the present only thus much. My Confession that all should be admitted Church-members by baptisme, was meant of such as by their profession are visible, not of such as are visible in Mr. Bs. way without profession. The repeal of the Law or ordinance for infants visible Church-membership will be easily proved when the law or ordinance is shewed. As yet I can find no such law or ordinance save what is injoyned concerning circumcision; which if it stand in force, we must keep the whole law, Gal. 5. 3 His first challenge is answered by another challenge to shew what one church had infants visible Church-members besides the Jewes. His second is answered by shewing till Abrahams time there is nothing said about any church-frame; from Abrahams time till Christs the Jewish church-frame stood: In Christs time and the Apostles no other are reckoned to belong to the visible Church, then professors of faith. And so it continued till infants were admitted to baptism to save them, which out of the case of danger of present dying was disswaded by Tertullian and Gregory Nazianzen. Afterwards their baptisme was more frequent through Austins urging it so much against the Pelegians, as Strabo rightly observed long since, & together with it infant-communion was common, yet not without the continuance of the old form of putting the question to infants, after which at first profession was declared, & catechizing mostly afore they were baptized at certain seasons of the year till ignorance and confusion overspread the Churches. But when God began to stirre up any to reform other corruptions, there were that sought to reform this 500. years ago, according to truth, notwithstanding Mr. Bs. Mr. Ms. or Doctor Ushers allegations: of whom I perswade my self many may be met with in heaven notwithstanding M. Bs. confident expressions to the contrary. Yet were all Mr. B. sayes true, if I put Mr. B. to the like, as to shew me since the Apostles, one that questioned keeping of an Easter, Lent fast, Infant-communion, Monkish profession, &c. till the last age he will be hard put to it. His considerations depend upon the points in dispute: in examining of which it may appear how frivolous his questions are. Infants Church-membership I find no where but in the peculiar national policy of the Jewes, no universal law or ordinance, for it; the Jewish policy is taken away both de facto by the providence of God, and de jure of right by the declaration of Christ and his Apostles in the N. T. and by altering the way of Church-gathering and constitution. The Jewes were hainously offended at the taking away of circumcision, not because he took away Churchmembership of infants, but because of the taking away of the law of Moses, the Temple, Priesthood, &c in which they gloried, Acts 21. 20, 21. Acts 6. 13, 14. If it be true, that it was a known trueth, that infants were visihle Church-members, and to be admitted Disciples, and the Apostles did not admit them, Mat. 19. 13 (which Mr. B. supposeth) then the challenge is answered, Name me away from the creation till 200. years age, who did once question infants Church-membership? For after Mr. Bs. dictates the Apostles did so. Let men turne over their Bibles, they will finde enough in them against infants visible Churchmembership in the N. T. He askes, Why the speech, Marke 16. 16. which excludes infants from baptisme, should not also exclude them from salvation for want of believing? To which I answer, It is not doubted but that infants belong to the invisible Kingdome of the Elect Rom. 9. 11. Mat. 19. 14. but how they attain salvation is not so certain: If by a seed of faith or holinesse without actual exercise, the thing is more easie to conceive: if by actual exercise extraordinarily and immediately wrought by the Holy Spirit, then the speeches, He that believeth not, shall be damned, and the like, do exclude infants from salvation if not believing actually; if by vertue of election without any work on them, if by vertue of the Covenant their parents believing (which some assert, but I professe to know no such Covenant) then the speeches, He that believeth not, shall be damnned, with the like, must be understood with this limitation, He of those to whom the Gospel is preached that believeth not shall be damned. For my part, I do much in cline to that opinion, which conceives Marke 16. 16. John 3. 18. and such like, to be understood of belief & unbelief of those of years, who have the Gospel preached to them because the course of the context leads thereto. Which being premised, I answer to the question, That infants are excluded from baptisme from Mat. 28. 19. Marke 16. 15, 16. compared together, because these texts shew that according to Christs institution, they that are to be baptized are to be Disciples or known professed believers, and baptisme belongs onelyonly to whom Christ appoints it. Yet these texts do not exclude infants from salvation, because either it excludes professed unbelievers, not non-believers negatively from incapacity, or it excludes unbelievers that are in no sort believers, neither in the seed nor fruite, neither byordinary, nor by extraordinary operation; in one of which wayes infants are or may be believers, and so not excluded by that text, if belief and unbelief comprehend all these wayes in that place. To his question, What great comfort would follow this conclusion [that all your infants are out of Christs visible Church] that men should bend their wits so to prove it? I answer, The question might be retorted, What great comfort would follow this conclusion [that all our infants are by nature children of wrath] that men should bend their wits so to prove it? 2. The answer I suppose Mr. B. would give to the one will fit us, that whether it be matter of comfort or discomfort, we must maintain truth. To another passage of his supposing, That to be visibly in the Church is all one as (to our judgement) to belong to Christs Kingdome, I answer by denying it, and doubt not to shew how this mistake hath much misled Mr. B. when I examine the 27. chap. of the first part of his book. We can prove that Christ will save his elect though no Christians in appearance, nor disciples by profession, nor visibly subjects of his Kingdome. Mr. B. talkes vainly of the judgements of Gods Ministers and Churches in all ages of the world, when as their judgement is proved by my writings to have been, and to be at this day so various about infant-baptisme; I have little hope to conceive Mr. B. by my writings, which he sleights so much as to say, That the best part of my bookes is Ink and Paper. Men not inferiour to Mr. B. and one I am sure farre beyond Mr. B. in disputes, judged otherwise. Were not Mr. B. mounted to an height of disdainful pride, me thinks he might have spied the clearing of some Scriptures, and other things more worth then the Ink and Paper. It is his uncharitable conceit of me, if he imagine I write to have the last word: it is to shew his grosse a buse of Scripture, and his fallacies of reasoning. If he out-live this answer I now am making, any time he may have the last word if he will for me, who am weary with meddling with such a distemper'd writer. I blame not Mr. B. for printing: but for printing my answers afore I had fitted them to his arguments in writing, as Doctor Rainolds dealt with Hart, which (saith he in his preface to his conference with Hart) learned men have thought to be most fit for trial of truth, not by extemporal speaking, but writing with advise the question argued of, the arguments, the answers, the replies set down, and sifted of both sides till each had fully said; in fine, the whole published, that the Churches and the faithfull all may judge of it. Such a rule was followed also in the conference at the Hague, and in all other profitable Colloquies about points in controversie; to all which Mr. Bs. dealing with me hath bin altogether unlike. Nor is he excused by telling me he had a copy of my sermon, and had conference with me. For besides other exceptions this excuse takes not away, it is very apparent that neither in the dispute nor in that conference his judgement about infants Discipleship and Church-visibility, and other points in his book could be discerned so as to know determinately what to oppose. Which makes me glad of the publishing of his book however, though for the present I suffer much by it, nothing doubting but I shall be able to shew the wickednesse of his writing, so as that all that are willing may see, that whosoever leanes on his arguments to justifie their infant-baptisme, rests on a broken reed that will run into his hands.