Infant Baptism Asserted and Vindicated, Part · Chapter 4
CHAP. IV. Wherein he labours to prove Believers the only Subjects of Baptiſme, from the Spiritual ends of the Ordinance; where he gives us an Induction of the particular ends of Baptiſme, as follows.
1. THe firſt end of Baptiſme (ſaith he) is, that the Baptized might have that repreſented in a Sign or Figure, and Preached to his Eye, in the Ordinance, which had been Preacht to his Ear and Heart by the word and Spirit; reſpecting the whole Myſtery of the Goſpel, and his duty and obligation therein. A Sign being (as Paraeus obſerveth) ſome outward thing appearing to the ſence, through which ſome inward thing is at the ſame time apprehended by the underſtanding.
Repl. I.
I deny this to be the primary end of Baptiſm. For not to inſiſt upon that which hath given too great advantage to Antipaedobaptiſts, That the firſt end of Baptiſme is to give a ſolemn entrance or admiſſion into the Church, I conceive it to be more true to affirm, That the firſt and chief end of Baptiſme is to be the Initiatory ſign or ſeal of Gods Covenant and favour to us in Chriſt. For as Dr. Ames obſerves in his Bellarminus enervatus, Tom. 2. lib. 2. unleſs perſons are to be reputed Members of the Church,Niſi habendi tales eſſent (viz. fidelium infantes) pro membris eccleſiae, non deberent Baptizari: Baptiſmus enìm ſuâ naturâ eſt ſigillum inſitionis jam factae in Chriſtum, at que adeò in Eccleſiam. Act. 10.47, 48. they ought not to be Baptized; for Baptiſm in its own nature is the ſeal of our being already ingrafted into Chriſt, and ſo conſequently into the Church, Acts 10.47, 48. He ſpeaks concerning the Baptiſm of the Children of Believers, and affirms they ought not to be Baptized but under this conſideration, that they are members of the Church, which we ſhall hereafter make good in its proper place.
2. I acknowledge that to Adult perſons Baptiſme reprefents (in a ſign) that to the eye which is Preacht to the eare, reſpecting the Myſteries of the Goſpel, &c. Although I ſee not how it can be ſo in the way of Dipping, for how can perſons under water ſee, apprehend, or hear any thing during that time, when, and whereby the Sences and Underſtandings of men are ſo confounded, that they have no power to exerciſe their faith, or reaſon as they ſhould; and ſince plunging over head and ears puts people into ſuch an amazing condition, not without frights (eſpecially in the more tender Sex) ſome being neer throtled or drown'd, it is to be ſuſſpected to be none of Chriſts appointments; for one would think, that at ſuch a juncture of time, eſpecially, when an Ordinance is celebrated, repreſenting ſo many Goſpel Myſteries, it is requiſite the mind ſhould be in a more ompoſed poſture then theirs are like to be in, whoſe heads are under Water. We grant Baptiſm to be a ſign of ſpiritual Myſteries repreſented to the eye of ſuch as are grown up, and rightly Baptized. As Circumciſion was a ſign of the ſame import to Abraham, and it is of preſent and immediate uſe to the aged, Rom. 4. Abraham reeived the ſign of Circumciſion, as the Seal of the righteouſneſs of Faith, and we acknowledge alſo both the Sacraments are of immediate and preſent uſe to the aged, and in this ſence we are to underſtand Paraeus, ſpeaking of Sacramental Signes: but let it be conſidered that the children of Abraham received the ſign of Circumciſion as well as Abrabam, and yet they were void of underſtanding and judgment, and knew no more of the ſpiritual Myſteries repreſented therein, then our Infants do in the Ordinance of Baptiſm. Circumciſion repreſented the ſame Myſteries that Baptiſm doth, and yet thoſe poor Iſraelitiſh Babes that were Circumciſed, knew not that the cutting-off the fore-skin, ſhadowed out the corruption of nature, and the nature of Mortification, the blood ſhed in the act alſo held out the myſtery of Redemption by Chriſts blood, of all which Baptiſme is as proper a ſign, when given to our Infants, as Circumciſion was to theirs.
3. What though Infants are uncapable of underſtanding Goſpel Myſteries figured in Baptiſm, as they were heretofore of the ſame ſhadowed forth in Circumciſion, yet their Baptiſme is a Signe of what God will do for the future (to as many of them as belong to his Election,) if they ſhall arrive to years of diſcretion.
4. Though it be no Teaching ſign at the preſent, yet if the Infant live, and be inſtructed in the uſe and ends of his Baptiſme, it may prove as Operative and Beneficial to him, as if it had been delayed till he came to full age.
Thus David, who though Circumciſed in Infancy, yet ſtrengthned his faith by it, when he came to years of diſcretion, 1 Samuel 17.26.
5. Though Baptiſme be not for the preſent a Teaching ſign to Infants, neverthelſes it is a diſtinguiſhing fign to diſtinguiſh thoſe that are Within, from thoſe that are Without, as the Apoſtle phraſeth it, 1 Cor. 5.12, 13. And it is even to Infants a ſign of Gods Covenant as before is hinted (as Circumciſion was to Infants under the Law, and for this reaſon it is by a Metonimy called by the name of the Covenant, and did diſtinguiſh the Jewiſh Infants from Gentile ones, that were without the Covenant, or ſtrangers to the ſame, Gen. 17.20. Act. 7.8.
5. It is alſo an Engaging ſign (as Circumciſion was to the Jewiſh Infants, though they undertood it not when they were the Subjects of that Ordinance) whereby our children are obliged to the Profeſſion of Chriſt, into whoſe name they have been Baptized. I ſhall ſhut up this with thoſe weighty words which I find in Mr. Baxters Scripture proof for Infants Church-Memberſhip and Baptiſm. pag. 112. Tell me (ſaith he) what operation Circumciſion had on all the Infants of Church-Members formerly. It was a ſign of the Seal of the Righteouſneſs of Faith, &c. and yet they had no more Faith, nor Knowledge of the Significancy, than ours have now—Chriſt himſelf was circumciſed in Infancy, when by the courſe of nature he was uncapable of underſtanding it's Ends and Uſes. Not (ſaith he) that I am now arguing for Baptiſm from Circumciſion; but this fully anſwereth their Objection [that Infants ſhould not be baptized, becauſe they are not capable of underſtanding its Uſe, and ſo being wrought on by it.] They are as capable of Baptiſm, as they were of Circumciſion, and its Ends: They therefore that will yet ſay, It were better let it alone till they are more capable, do but exalt their own reaſon againſt Scripture, and ſpeak as men that would teach God.
The Second End, hinted by the Author, is, That the party baptized might thereby witneſs his Repentanee, Matth. 3.11. called therefore the baptiſm of Repentance, Mark. 1.
Repl. 1.
It cannot be proved from theſe places, that all thoſe whom John Baptized, did manifeſt their Repentance; and we do not find thoſe Phariſees and Sadduces that are branded with the name of Vipers, gave the leaſt indications thereof, which if they had the Baptiſts would not have ſpoken ſo harſhly of them, and yet theſe (for ought we can learn to the contrary from the Text,) were baptized.
2. Grotius in his Annotations upon the nineteenth of Matthew 14. Speaketh well to this, whoſe Words are theſe— Neither ought that to be any hinderance to the Baptiſm of Infants,Neque obſtare debet quod non omnia quae itidem per baptiſmum ſignificari ſolent, in iſtam aetatem propriè congruerint, &c. that all things which in like manner are fignified by Baptiſm cannot agree properly to that Age; for Repentance alſo (which we know is ſignified by Baptiſm, &c.) had no place at all in Chriſt, when John baptized him; who as Tertullian notes, was not baptized as a Debtor to Repentance, becauſe he never ſinned.
3. The End of Baptiſm nominated by the Author, is, to evidence preſent Regeneration, whereof Baptiſm is a Sign, Titus 3.4. John 3.
Repl.
If this Argument were good, it would have overthrown the Circumciſion of Infants; for that alſo was a lively Sign, or Symbole of Regeneration, and it might have been objected (according to our Antagoniſts phanfie,) Infants are not regenerated, or ſhew no ſigns thereof; and (Regeneration being the end of Circumciſion) therefore They ought not to be circumciſed.
2. According to ſuch arguing, none ought to be admitted to Baptiſm; for none know by a judgment of certainty and infallibility, who are regenerated; for Simon Magus made a great ſhew, and yet was in the Gall of bitterneſs and no doubt many come up out of the water as rotten hypocrites as they went in.
Thirdly, Mr. Tombes himſelf grants that Infants may be regenerated (as John was in the Womb;) and faith,Pet. Martyr. loc. commun. cl. 4. c. 8. pag. 821, 823. Non excludimus eos (Infantes) ab eccle ſiâ, Sed ut ejus partes amplectimur, benè Sperantes, quòd ut ſunt ſecundùm carnem ſemen ſanctorum, ità etiam ſint Electionis divinae participes & ſpiritum ſanctum habent. Ne que audiendi ſunt qui hâc de re movent ſcrupulum, ac dicunt, quid ſi Miniſter fallatur? quia idem cavillus eſſe poterit de adultis. that if he knew ſuch or ſuch an Infant were regenerated, he would not ſcruple to Baptize it, according to which arguing, he muſt alſo forbear Baptizing grown perſons upon profeſſion, for he knows not that they are regenerated.
4. If the whole Species of Infants be excluded from Regeneration, then are all Infants (ſo dying) certainly damned; for all Infants are born in Original ſin, and by nature unclean, and no unclean thing ſhall enter into the Kingdom of Heaven, But I ſuppoſe our oppoſites dare not exclude all Infants from Salvation: Well then, I conclude ſome Infants are elected, Regenerated, and in Covenant with God, or elſe they are ſaved without Election, Regeneration, Chriſt or Covenant; which is moſt abſurd.
5. And whereas nothing can be ſaid againſt us but this, de occultis non judicat Eccleſia, the Church cannot judge of ſecret things, but is to act according to appearance, and it is unknown whether ſuch particular Infants are regenerated, they cannot make any profeſſion, and Baptiſme is to be given upon that. I anſwer, we have as much reaſon if not more, to look upon the Infants of Believers to be ſanctified, then we have to eſteem grown Chriſtians to be ſuch; becauſe our owning of theſe, as ſuch depends upon their own teſtimony only in a viſible profeſſion, which may be counterfeit. But ſuch Infants are to be accounted Saints upon a Divine Teſtimony, for we have the word for it, 1 Cor. 7.14. elſe were your children unclean, but now foreign, they are Saints or holy, it being the ſame word the Apoſtle uſeth in his Dedications and directions of his Epiſtles to the Churches of Rome, Corinth, &c. where he ſtiles them Saints, and our Saviour tells us that of ſuch is the Kingdom of Heaven, and they are to be no other then Saints, and we are warranted by a Divine Teſtimony to look upon them as ſuch, which in their preſent Infant-ſtate they cannot be liable to any ſuſpicion of defeating by Hypocriſie, as grown perſons may.
The Author brings in Dr. Taylor (whom he looks upon as his dear friend, and he hath reaſon for it, having helpt him to a great part of his Book;) The ſaid Dr. (ſaith he) tells us very elegantly in his Lib. of Prophecy, pag. 242. That this is truly to be Baptized, whatſoever is leſs then this, is but the Symbole only, a meer Cere mony, an opus operatum, a dead Letter, an empty ſhadow, an Inſtrument without an Agent to manage, or force to actuate it.
Repl.
The Dr. wants not words, but this ſignifies nothing againſt Infant-Baptiſm, for all this may be as truly ſaid of thoſe that are Baptized when grown up, that have not truth of grace. But becauſe I obſerve with what Reverence this Doctor is mentioned (as if all were Canonical which he ſaith in their behalf, and I find the Authors Book to ſwell with his Seſquipedalia verba,) I ſhall (for prevention of deluſion) inform the Reader with ſome news which may be worth his hearing. Know therefore that the ſaid Doctor put forth a Book about 20. years ſince, entituled, The Lyberty of Prophecy, in which he pleads for a Toleration, as for others, ſo alſo for thoſe that diſſent from Infant-Baptiſme. There he perſonates an Anabaptiſt, and tells us he will draw up a Scheme or Plea for them, and (ſaith he) though they be deceived, yet they have ſo great excuſe of their ſide, that their Error is not impudent, lib. of Proph. p. 223. and therefore may be tolerated. Then doth he ſhew what they may ſay for themſelves — and concludes, Thus far the Anabaptiſts may argue, and they have been incouraged in their Error, more by the accidental Advantages we have given them by our weak arguings, then by any Truth of their cauſe, or excellency of their wit. The Doctor therefore having a mind (it ſeems) to ſhew the excellency of his own wit,A worthy Teſtimony to be brought againſt Infant-Baptiſme. hath ſaid more for them then ever they could before or ſince ſay for themſelves: ſo that his ſtrong arguings for them, hath eventually proved a greater encouragement to them then ever any of our weak arguings did before. And yet after all the goodly Harrangue he makes in their behalf, he at laſt ſhuts up with this, viz. The uſe I make of it (never dreaming what uſe H.D. would make of it) is, That ſince there is no direct impiety in their opinion, they are by all means Chriſtian, fair, and humane, to be convinced and inſtructed; but if they cannot be perſwaded, they muſt be left to God, (and I am of his mind.) And laſtly adds, for his own part he believes Infant-Baptiſm to be a truth; but becauſe ſome have thought the Doctor had ſpoke more in their behalf, then he himſelf could well anſwer (as Conjurers ſometimes raiſe ſpirits they cannot lay,) he hath ſince put forth an Excellent piece, ſtiled, A Conſideration of the practice of the Church in Baptizing Infants of Believing Parents, and the Practiſe juſtified:Printed by J. Eleſher, for R. Royſton, at the Angel in Ivy-lane, M. DC. L. II. in the Preface to which we have this account, That as for thoſe Arguments which in The Liberty of Prophecying, Sect. 18. are alleadged againſt Paedobaptiſme; and in the opinion of ſome, do ſeem to ſtand in need of anſwering, he had it once in thought to have anſwered them: but upon theſe conſiderations he forbore.
1. Becauſe thoſe Arguments are not good in themſelves, or to the queſtion preciſely conſidered, but only by relation to the preceeding Arguments there brought for Paedobaptiſme, they may ſeem good one againſt another, but thoſe in the Plea for the Anabaptiſts, have no ſtrength but what is accidental (as he conceives.)
2. Becauſe in this Diſcourſe (for Infant-Baptiſme) he hath really laid ſuch grounds and proved them, that upon their ſuppoſition, all thoſe arguments in the Liberty of Prophecy, and all other which he ever heard of, will fall of themſelves.
3. Becauſe thoſe Arguments to his ſenſe are ſo weak, and ſo relying upon failing and deceitful Principles, that he was loath to do them ſo much reputation as to account them worthy the anſwering,
4. Becauſe he hath underſtood that his very worthy friend Dr. Hammond, Dr. Hammonds Letter of Reſolution to 6 Quaeties, Printed by J. Eleſher for R. Royſton at the Angel in Ivy-lane, 1653.hath in his Charity and Humility deſcended to anſwer that Collection. I have tranſcribed all this, that the Reader may mind this Information when ever he meets with any thing quoted out of Dr. Taylor, as he ſhall at leaſt eighteen times, and ſometimes very largely whole pages, nay two pages and more at a time by our Antagoniſt in his Treatiſe of Baptiſme. And truly a man would wonder at his weakneſs, that ſince the Doctor in his Lib. of Proph. doth profeſs himſelf for Infant-Baptiſme, notwithſtanding all that he ſays againſt it, perſonating an Anabaptiſt as he confeſſeth, and ſince he doth ſo villifie them for their error and weakneſs, the Author ſhould undervalue his cauſe ſo much as to make uſe of ſuch fallacious reaſonings, as the Dr. himſelf calls them.
Next, we have him again at Mr. Baxter, wronging both him and his Reader in what he citeth out of his Diſputation with Mr. Blake as formerly; Mr. Baxter (ſaith the Author) in his [10 Argument, pag. 117, 118. ſpeaks to the ſame purpoſe, viz. Chriſt hath inſtituted no Baptiſme, but what is to be a ſign of preſent Regeneration, &c. Here he curtailes Mr. Baxters words on purpoſe to blind the Reader, for Mr. Baxter adds [at leaſt to men of age.]
The 4. End is ſignally to repreſent the Covenant and promiſe that the Believer enters into hereby, viz. to dye to ſin, and live to Chriſt, for which he cites Mr. Perkins, Baxter, and Dr. Taylor; the two former we have ſpoken enough of, in the firſt Chapter, where we find them moſt profeſſedly for Infant-Baptiſme, and have condemned the Author for wreſting their ſence, they ſpeaking of Adult perſons or Aliens, and not in oppoſition to the Baptiſme of Believers children, and for that of Dr. Taylor, That Baptiſme is called the anſwer of a good conſcience towards God, 1 Pet, 3.21. which ſaith he, can by no means be applyed to the Infant, ſince they are not capable thereof, till they know to refuſe the evil, and chooſe the good.
Repl. I.
To this Dr. Hammond anſwers, namely, This is as true of that Baptiſme which belongs to children as to any other, only the duty of it is not required till they come to years and ability to perform it, and then if they keep not a good conſcience it will be little available. And if this be of any force againſt Baptizing Infants, it will be of the ſame force againſt Circumciſing them, ſince S. Paul, Rom. 2.28. doth as much invalidate the external part of Circumciſion, as St. Peter here doth that of Baptiſme.
2. 'Tis therefore a meer Parologiſme ſo to argue; for the Apoſtle Peter ſpeaks of the Adult that could give a reaſon of their faith, and not of Infants; for the Apoſtle had then to deal with ſuch, who upon their being Baptized were to make profeſtion of a good Conſcience. And this (as we ſhall hereafter ſhew out of the Magdeburgenſes) was the practice of the Primitive Church in this Caſe; for having to deal with Infidels, they firſt Catechiſed and Taught them the firſt Elements and Principles of the Chriſtian Religion, whereupon they were called Catechumeni (i.e. perſons that were to be Catechiſed;) that being done, and they brought to ſome competency of knowledge, they then openly declared and teſtified their Repentance and Faith, before the Congregation where they were to be baptized: And this they did by anſwering to ſome queſtions propoſed by the Miniſter. To this the Apoſtle ſeems to allude when he calls Baptiſm, foreign, i.e. The anſwer of a good Conſcience towards God, ſo our Tranſlation renders it, though (as Beza notes upon the place) not ſo fully expreſſing the force of the word, foreign, which properly ſignifies an Interrogation or queſtioning; ſo the vulgar Latin renders it, Interrogatio bonae conſcientiae, The Interrogation of a good Conſcience. Beza tranſlates it, Stipulatio bonae conſcientiae, The Stipulation of a good Conſcience. Now Stipulation is properly an Anſwer to a Queſtion, when one being demanded concerning a thing, he returns Anſwer, and by his anſwer engageth himſelf to do ſomewhat that is required. Now this practice of giving an account of ones faith, by way of anſwering to queſtions (as Beza notes upon this place of Peter) was drawn from the Primitive uſe in after ages, out of a foreign,Beza Annotat. in 2. Pet. 3.21. a perverſe imitation, and applyed to the Baptiſme of Infants, not ſo fitly (as he conceives,) they being not able to anſwer for themſelves.
3. Nevertheleſs though children cannot perſonally and actually anſwer for themſelves, I ſee no reaſon to the contrary why they may not be ſaid to Stipulate paſſively in and by their parents who accept the Covenant, not only for themſelves, but for their little ones. The people of Iſrael did by Gods appointment enter their children into Covenant with God, as appears from Deut. 20.10, 11, 12. and doubtleſs the intereſt of Believing Parents in their Children,Dr. Taylorr conſideration of the Church in Baptizing Infants. is as great now as then, and God as gracious to accept ſuch covenanting under the Goſpel, as he was under the Law.
4. In Civil Contracts it is uſual with Parents to Covenant and engage for and in behalf of their Children, and they are obliged to the performance of the Agreement when they come to years of diſcretion, though they did not give their actual conſent whilſt in their Minority, when the Agreement was made. The very law of Nature teacheth Parents to Covenant for their Children, when 'tis for their good.Mr. Eaxter.
5. Let Dr. Taylor in his latter diſcourſe, wherein he juſtifies the practiſe of Baptizing Infants of Believing Parents, confute what himſelf ſays in his Liberty of Prophecy. He ſpeaks his judgement concerning the point, page 53, 54. thus. It were well ſaith he, ſpeaking of the engagement or promiſe made for Infants in Baptiſm,) if men would rather humbly and modeſtly obſerve that conſtitution of the Church, then like ſcorners deride it, in which they ſhew their own folly, as well as immodeſty; for what undecency or incongruity is it, that our Parents ſhould ſtipulate for us when 'tis agreeable to the practiſe of all the Laws and Tranſactions of the World, an effect of the Communion of Saints, and of Chriſtian Oeconomy: For why may not Infants Stipulate as well as we? All were included in the Stipulation made with Adam, he made a loſing bargain for himſelf, and we ſmarted for his folly: And if the faults of Parents, and Kings and Relatives, do bring evil upon their Children, and Subjects, and Correlatives, it is but equal that our children may have benefit alſo by our Charity and Piety.
But concerning making of an agreement for them, we find that God was confident concerning Abraham, that he would teach his Children. Further Joſhua did expreſly undertake for his houſhold, I and my houſe will ſerve the Lord. And for children we may the better do it, becauſe till they be of perfect choice, no Government in the world is ſo great as that of Parents over their children, in that which concerns the parts of this Queſtion. And it is a rare art of the Spirit to engage Parents to bring them up in the Nurture and Admonition of the Lord; They are perſons obliged by a ſuperinduced bond, they are to give them inſtructions, and holy Principles as they give them meat, &c.
The 5 End of Baptiſme, is to be a Sign of the Covenant of Gods part of waſhing away a Believers ſin, by the Blood of Chriſt, and to give ſpiritual Life and Salvation, Act. 2.38, 39. Act. 22.16. 1 Pet. 3.21.
This alſo is as true of that Baptiſm which belongs to the Children of Believers, as that which is given to Believers themſelves. Repent and be Baptized every one of you, for the Remiſſion of ſins, for the promiſe is to you and to your ſeed, &c. And Baptiſm (even to Infants) is a ſeal of Gods pardoning grace in doing away the guilt of Original ſin, in regard of thoſe that belong to Gods Election (if not alſo actual, which afterward ſhall be committed if they live to age.)
The 6. End mentioned by the Author is, That it might be a ſignal Repreſentation of a Believers Ʋ nion with Chriſt, called therefore, a being Baptized into Chriſt, and a putting on of Chriſt; for which we have Dr. Taylor quoted, Which cannot be, (ſays he) of thoſe who remain in their incapacities, &c. Which he ſaith, is the caſe of Children. But we ſhall ſee by and by the ſaid Dr. confuting himſelf in his latter diſcourſe of Baptiſm.
1. To this I reply in the words of Wendeline, Wendelin Chriſt. Theo. lib. 1. c. 12. p. 166.upon the Text, viz. Apoſtolus loquitur tantùm de Baptizatis fidelibus tùm enim Adulti, ex Judaiſmo; & Gentiliſmo recèns converſi baptizabantur; i.e. The Apoſtle ſpeaks this of Believers that were Baptized; for then Adult perſons, newly converted from Judaiſm and Paganiſme were Baptized.
2. Though children cannot put on Chriſt by an external Act, yet they may be an infuſed ſeed of grace, and we have good ground to believe all elect Infants dying, have in their infant-State, done ſo. And farther, if Adams ſin be imputed to them for ſin, why may not Chriſts Righteouſneſs be alſo imputed to them for Righteouſneſs? Surely it muſt be ſo, or elſe there is no way how Infants can be ſaved.
3. Dr. Taylor in his laſt diſcourſe of Baptiſm, gives a good Rule for the underſtanding Scriptures of this ſort, which if attended to, would bring us and Antipaedobaptiſts a little neerer together: which is this, viz. That when the Scripture ſpeaks of the effects of, or diſpoſitions to Baptiſme, it ſpeaks in general expreſſions, as being moſt apt to ſignifie a common duty, or general effect, or a more Univerſal event, or the proper order of things: but thoſe general expreſſions do not ſupponere univerſalitèr; that is, they are not to be underſtood excluſively to all ſuſcipients, or of all the ſubjects of the propoſition. And he makes it clear by divers paſſages of Scripture. There are many Synecdoches in the word, where many only are to be underſtood, when it ſpeaks of all. The ſecret effects of Election, and of the ſpirit are in Scripture attributed to all that are of the outward Communion.1 Pet. 1.2. So Peter calls all the Chriſtian ſtrangers of the Eaſtern diſperſion, Elect, according to the fore-knowledge of God the Father. And Paul ſaith of all the Roman Chriſtians, and the ſame of the Theſſalonians, that their Faith was ſpoken of in all the world, and yet among them it is not to be ſuppoſed, that all the Profeſſors had an unreproveable faith, or that every one of the Church of Theſſalonica was an excellent and charitable perſon; and yet, ſaith he,2 Theſ. 1.2. your faith groweth exceedingly, and the charity of every one of you all towards each other aboundeth. So to the queſtion before us. As many of you as are baptized into Chriſt, have put on Chriſt. That is, ſo it is regularly, and this is the deſigned event: but from hence we cannot conclude of every perſon, and in every period of time, This man hath been baptized, therefore, now he is clothed with Chriſt, he hath put on Chriſt; nor thus, This perſon cannot in a ſpiritual ſenſe, as yet put on Chriſt, therefore he hath not been baptized; that is, he hath not put him on in a Sacramental ſenſe.
To conclude, We cannot underſtand the Apoſtle in thoſe words of putting on Chriſt, to intend a ſaving union to Chriſt, or a putting on of Chriſt ſpiritually and effectually, in regard of all that are Baptized; for all theſe Galathians did not ſo put him on, and innumerable perſons that are Hypocrites (when baptized at age,) do not ſo put him on. Wherefore the words are to be underſtood Sacramentally, as 1 Cor. 10.4, 5. Heb. 10.29. And thus Infants put on Chriſt as well as grown perſons.
7th. End of Baptiſm (ſaith he) is, that the Baptized perſon may orderly thereby have an entrance into the viſible Church, &c. For as Circumciſion heretofore was the viſible door of entrance into the old Teſtament-Church— So alſo was Baptiſme ſuch a door, and viſible entrance into the New Teſtament-Church, &c. Act. 2.41, 42. They who gladly received the word were baptized, and the ſame day there was added to them about 3000. ſouls; and they continued ſtedfaſtly in the Apoſtles doctrine and fellowſhip, and in breaking of Bread, and in Prayers. So that after baptiſme, not before, the believers were ſaid to partake of all the Church-priviledges.
Poſito uno abſurdo mille ſequuntur. Upon this falſe Hypotheſis do our Oppoſites build their dividing Practices. Wherefore we deny that Baptiſme doth give formality, or make a man a member of a Viſible-Church; it is not that which gives entrance into it, as the Author would have it: ſo, as if only by its Adminiſtration, and in their own way too, perſons muſt be Baptized, or elſe they are not to be reputed Church-Members, or to be admitted into the participation of Church-priviledges. But for this we have divers of our Divines quoted; as Ʋrſinus, The Aſſembly in their Catechiſme. And laſtly, Mr. Baxter, with whom he is again at Hocus Pocus. Mr. Baxter (ſaith he) in his plain Scripture proof, pag. 24. As a Soldier before liſting, and a King before Corwning, and taking his Oath, ſo are we Church-Members before Baptiſme. But as every one that muſt be admitted ſolemnly into the Army, muſt be admitted by liſting, as the ſolemn ingaging ſign; ſo every one that hath right to be ſolemnly admitted into the viſible Church, muſt ordinarily be admitted by Baptiſm. But mark (Reader) the Authors ingenuity. Baxters words are, So are we and Infants Church-Members; But being quite out of charity with thoſe Innocent Babes, this man leaves out Infants, and one would think by the partial Citation, that Mr. Baxter alſo did ſhut the Church-door againſt them. It cannot be denyed that Orthodox Divines have frequently termed Baptiſm, the Sacrament of our initiation into the Church, and have aſcribed our Admiſſion or entrance into it thereunto, and hereby have given the Antipaedobaptiſts ſome ſeeming ground for their rigidity. And yet I find that they are not agreed among themſelves about the point; for Mr. Paul a great Zealot againſt Communion with any that are not Baptized in their way, doth in his ſerious reflections diſown the Poſition, That Baptiſm is an initiating Ordinance, and tells us in that Diminitive Volume of his, p. 3. That he knows none that aſſerts it to be the in-let into praticular Churches, though it prepares them for Reception. Mr. Kiffin it ſeems is of the ſame judgement, for he beſtows an Epiſtle upon the piece. Of the ſame judgment is John Bunyan a more moderate Antipaedobaptiſt, that is, for Ʋnion and Communion with Saints, as Saints, and condemnes the Rigidity of his Brethren, and maintains in his Anſwer to the ſcurrilous (not ſerious) Reflections of Paul, That differences in judgement about Water-Baptiſme, ought to be no Bar to Communion, Printed for John Wilkins in Exchange Alley.which is the Title of his Book, and ſees no cauſe to repent after ſevere checks from his Brethren, to call them Babes and Carnal, that attempt to break the peace and communion of Churches, though upon better pretences than Water, and declares God never made Water-Baptiſm a Wall of Diviſion between us. And whereas Paul denies Baptiſme to be an initiating Ordinance, he retorts very rationally upon him, that if it be not that, but another, and if viſible Saints may enter into Fellowſhip by that other, and are no where forbidden ſo to do, becauſe they have not light into Water-Baptiſme, it is of weight to be conſidered by all unprejudiced perſons. Mr. Tull alſo, a moderate and very ingenious Antipaedobaptiſt, is of Mr. Bunyans judgment; But Mr. Henry Jeſſey (of precious Memory) hath publiſhed his judgment to the ſame purpoſe, grounding it upon Rom. 14. v. 1.3.7. ſuch as are weak in the faith, receive you, &c.
From whence he argues moſt ſtrongly and convincingly, that it was the duty not only of the then preſent Church at Rome, to whom the Epiſtle was writ, as alſo to all beloved of God, called to be Saints at that time, ver. 7. But alſo of all Churches and Saints, Beloved and called, throughout the world in ſucceeding ages, to receive into Church-communion and Fellowſhip, ſuch whom we have ground to believe God hath received into Communion with himſelf. For that's the Argument or Motive verſe 3. God hath received him, and ſaith he, if it be a good Argument to receive ſuch as are weak in any thing whom the Lord hath received; Then there can be no good Argument to reject for any thing for which the Lord will not reject them. The like argument we have chap. 15. ver. 7. of Chriſts Receiving, Receive you one another as Chriſt hath received us, &c.
Then that holy man breaks out into pathetical ſtrains, Oh! how is the heart of God the Father and the Son ſet upon this to have his children in one anothers hearts as they are in his, &c. and 'tis the work of the Devil (ſaith he) to divide them: Thus much to ſhew how they differ amongſt themſelves about this Poſition, that Baptiſm gives formality, or makes a member of a viſible Church, which the moderate party amongſt them utterly deny; now that it gives neither eſſence or being, either to a Church or Memberſhip, further appears by theſe Arguments.
1. If there be a Church, That dividing Principle, That Baptiſm formes a Church or makes Church-Members, refuted.and ſo Members before Baptiſm, then Baptiſm cannot give the formality or eſſence, becauſe forma is cauſal, and ſo is in nature before formatum.
But the Church conſidered as totum eſſentiale, is before Baptiſm, for Miniſters are before baptiſm. And there muſt be a Church of Believers to choſe a Miniſter lawfully; for none but a Church can give him a call, and without a call he cannot adminiſter, as Mr. Hooker argues in his ſurvey of the ſum of Church-diſcipline, cap. 5. part. 1. pag. 55. adding moreover, that if Baptiſm cannot be without a Miniſterial Church, nor that before a Church Congregational, which muſt make choice of a miniſtry, then ſuch a Church is much before Baptiſm. Beſides let it be ſuppoſed (ſaith he) that at the coming of ſome Godly Zealous Chriſtian and Scholar into the Country, and a company of Pagans (many) are converted to the Faith, I ask whether theſe may not joyn in Church-Fellowſhip, and chooſe that man Paſtor, and whether that choice was not lawful according to God? Therefore here is a Church before a Miniſter, and ſo before Baptiſm. The demand which Mr. Jeſſey makes upon the ſame arugments is ſomewhat like this; if Baptiſm (ſaith he) be the manner of forming Churches, how would it ſuit a Country, where many are converted and willing to be Baptized? but there being no Church to be baptized into, how ſhall ſuch a Church-State begin? The firſt muſt be baptized into no Church [that is particular] and the reſt into him as the Church, or the work ſtand ſtill for want of a Church.
2. A Church may be without Baptiſm, and yet as real a Church as the Iſraelites were ſo long in the Wilderneſs without Circumciſion, which without diſpute was the initiating Ordinance, according to Divine Inſtitution, Gen. 17.13.
3. One Argument I ſhall borrow more from Mr. Hooker, and that is, If Baptiſm give the form to viſible-memberſhip, then while that remains valid, the party is a viſible Member; for where the form is, the formatum muſt needs be, if the principles of reaſon may take place.
But there is true Baptiſm reſting in the party who hath no viſible Memberſhip: as in an Excommunicate, in him that renounceth the fellowſhip of the Church, or when the Church is utterly diſſolved, then all Church-Memberſhip ceaſeth; for Relata mutuò ſe ponunt & tellunt; And yet Baptiſm is valid. And as it is an undeniable poſition, That, that which gives the form or being to a Church, muſt ceaſe when the Church ceaſeth, or when a member ceaſeth to be a member, it muſt ceaſe with it; ſo it follows that that muſt be renewed, namely Baptiſm, as often as Memberſhip is renewed, ſo ſhall we have a multiplication of Baptiſms, as often as the perſon is caſt out of the Church and taken in again upon his repentance.
As for thoſe two Scriptures which the Author brings for his opinion, they will hardly be found to ſerve his turn.
1. The main place ſtood upon is, Act. 2.41, As many as received the word gladly, were baptized, and there was added that day about 3000. ſouls. Hence they conclude they were added by Baptiſm, and that they were only added this way.
Sol. 1. It is more then the Text affords for to conclude that they were added by Baptiſm, much leſs can it be argued from thence, that they were only added this way, the words ſay not, they were added by Baptiſm, but puts a full point or ſtop after that ſentence, As many as gladly received the word, were baptized. There that ſentence ends, as Mr. Sydenham notes upon the place: And the Apoſtle goes on a new account, and ſaith, There were added that day 3000. ſouls, but doth not at all ſhew the manner of their adding; ſo that theſe words are rather a recapitulation and ſumming up the number of Church-Members added that day, then any deſcription of the way of their taking into the Church, and the former reaſons prove it cannot be interpreted as our Author would have it.
The other place that he urgeth for his opinion is, 1 Cor. 12.13. We are all baptized into one body; hence 'tis concluded Baptiſm imbodies Members.
1. In anſwer to this, let it be conſidered what thoſe of their one party ſay, that are for Dipping. The Text (ſaith Mr. Bunyan, that treateth of our being baptized into one body) tells us expreſly it is done by the ſpirit. For by one Spirit we are all baptized into one body. Here is the Church preſented as under the …tion of a Body; here is Baptiſm mentioned, by which they are brought or initiated into this body; Now that this is the Baptiſme of Water, is utterly againſt the words of the Text; For by one Spirit are we all Baptized into one body. So Mr. Jeſſe, The Baptiſm intended in the Text is the Spirits-Baptiſm, and not Water-Baptiſm, and the Body the Text intends is not principally the Church of Corinth, but all believers, both Jews and Gentiles, being Baptized into one Myſtical Body, and the reaſon why it cannot be meant of Water-Baptiſm, is, becauſe all the Body of Chriſt, Jews and Gentiles, bond and free, partook not thereof. Thus here we ſee how they claſh amongſt themſelves as touching the ſenſe of the place.
2. We add, That, (as we conceive) the Apoſtle ſpeaks there primarily of the Baptiſm of the Spirit, not of Water; ſo by one ſpirit we are baptized into one body, is not ſo much of Baptiſm by Water; and yet ſuppoſing it to be meant of Baptiſm by Water. Yet (as Mr. Sydenham obſerves)it proves nothing that Baptiſm is the form of that body,Sydenhams Chriſtian Exercitation, cap. 20. pag. 168, 169. which hath its matter and form, holineſs and union before Baptiſm; baptized into one body, doth not here ſhew the eſſential conſtitution of a Church, but the confirmed union, and the argument is inſerted more to prevent Schiſm, then to expreſs the way of firſt imbodying or conſtitution of Churches, as the whole context demonſtrates.