Infant Baptism Asserted and Vindicated, Part · Chapter 5
CHAP. V.
Containing his fifth Argument; That Believers Baptiſm is the only Baptiſm, from the New Teſtament-diſpenſation, ſo differing from that of the old.
THe Argument is taken from the New-Teſtament-Diſpenſation, ſo different from the Old. The Old Teſtament-Church (ſaith the Author was National, conſiſting of the Natural and Fleſhly ſeed of Abraham, therefore were Infants by Circumciſion added thereto; but the new Teſtament-Church was by Chriſts appointment to be a ſeparated people out of all Nations, conſiſting only of the ſpiritual ſeed of Abraham, and therefore Believers upon profeſſion of Faith by the Ordinance of Baptiſm were added thereto.
Repl. 1.
What of all this? If there any ground from hence that Believers Baptiſm is the only true Baptiſm? 'Tis true, the Church Diſpenſation is altered,Mr. Baxters plain proof for Infants Church-Memberſhip and Baptiſm. but the Covenant of Grace is not altered. The Diſpenſation differs under the new Teſtament, only in regard of Ceremonial accidents, as Temple, Prieſthood, Sacrifice; but the Eſſentials of the Covenant ſtill remain, viz. I will be thy God, and the God of thy ſeed, and this is the grand Charter of Church-Memberſhip, which takes in the Child with the Parent, and conſequently entitles it to Baptiſm, as ſhall be hereafter ſhewn; for if their Church relation can be made good, their Baptiſm will follow upon it. If therefore the Author could have proved that the covenant had been altered as to its eſſentials, he had ſaid ſomething worth a hearing.
2. Whereas he ſays the old Teſtament Church was National, it is a Truth; and yet the Nation of the Jews was not the Church of God, as they deſcended from the Loyns of Abraham by Natural Generation, according to the Fleſh, but only with reference to Gods gracious Covenant, made with Abraham and his ſeed, (which I wiſh the Oppoſers of Infant-Baptiſme would conſider:) and as this Covenant was made with Abraham and his ſeed after the fleſh, ſo likewiſe is it ſtill the ſame with Believers, and their natural ſeed under the Goſpel-Diſpenſation, by virtue of the ſame gracious covenant made to them and their ſeed, Act. 2.39. For the promiſe is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off: [the Gentiles.]
3. Antipaedobaptiſts may do well to conſider yet farther, what Mr. Baxter makes good in his plain proof, viz. That Infant Church-Memberſhip did take place as an Ordainance of God, before Cirſcumciſion was enjoyned, or the Ceremonial law Inſtituted, and why then it ſhould ceaſe with it, is more then ever yet could be ſhewn. He makes it appear it was no part of the Typical Adminiſtration of the old Teſtament; but a moral Inſtitution of God, even from the beginning of the World. God ever made a diſtinction between the ſeed of the faithful, and the ſeed of the wicked, as viſibly belonging to two ſeveral Kingdoms, the Kingdom of God, and the Kingdom of Sathan, Mal. 2.15. therefore are they called a Holy Seed, and a Holy Seed are Members of the Church, and ſo conſequently the Subjects of Baptiſm, the Seal of Admiſſion thereunto.
4. Notwithſtanding the Dictates of H. D. that the Baptiſm of Believers is the only true Baptiſm; we ſhall retain our practice in Baptizing our children, and thankfully own and acknowledge it as a Goſpel-priviledge, till the oppoſers thereof can produce ſome clear proof out of Scripture, that the Old Ordinance of the Church-Memberſhip of Believers is repealed. We ſee how imperiouſly another ſort of people do impoſe their conceits, and how confidently they call for our ſubſcription to their Light as they term it, as if it were a duty to deliver up our Reaſon captive to their abſurd imaginations. We reſpect Antipaedobaptiſts as a more ſober people, yet ſtrangely over-grown with ſelf-conceitedneſs, as if the word of God came out from them, and it came to them only in regard of the true knowledge of the ſpirits mind in it.— Let them produce but one plain Scripture that. God hath made void the Antient Charter and Grant, and we will readily yield up the cauſe. But we have Scripture and reaſon, as well as they, and are the more confirmed in what we hold by obſerving how weakly they diſpute againſt it.
All the Reaſon the Author brings to make good his Aſſertion is,— Becauſe under the New Teſtament diſpenſation, Chriſt hath appointed the Church to be a ſeparated people out of the Nations, conſiſting only of the ſpiritual ſeed of Abraham, and therefore believers only upon profeſſion of faith are to be admitted to Baptiſm, and ſo added to the Church.
To which I anſwer, Firſt, That under the New Teſtament-Diſpenſation, Chriſt hath appointed the Church to be a ſeparated people out of the Nations, is a certain truth; but that this Church conſiſts only of the ſpiritual ſeed of Abraham is falſe. Qui benè diſtinguit, benè docet, He that diſtinguiſheth well, teacheth well. What our Antagoniſt ſays is true, in regard of the Inviſible Myſtical Church of Chriſt, which is a company of real Saints, that have ſpiritual Union and Communion with Chriſt, and with one another, but not ſo with reſpect to the outward viſible Church, which is the Society of thoſe that profeſs true faith, for the exerciſe of Churchunion and Communion among themſelves, and many of theſe are Hypocrits and ſhall periſh. Dr. Ames (an excellent perſon that underſtood what the New Teſtament-Church was, a little better then our Author) Med. lib. 1. c. 32. art. 9. tells us the ſame. And ſuch, ſaith he, was the Church of Corinth and Epheſus, wherein all held not Communion for life, and of ſuch Chriſt ſpèaks, Joh. 15.2. Every branch in me that beareth not fruit. And hath theſe words in Oppoſition to what Bellarmine falſely chargeth on Proteſtants, viz. Falſum eſt internas virtutes recuiri a nobis ut aliquis ſit in Eccleſia, quoad viſibilem ejus ſtatum; It is falſe that inward vertues [Grace] are required of us to put a man into the Church, according to the viſible ſtate of it. The Lord Dupleſſ is in his Excellent Treatiſe of the Church diſtinguiſheth aright — The Inviſible Church, containeth none but good [or in the Authors Dialect, the Spiritual ſeed of Abraham] The Viſible both good and bad; that only the Elect, this all thoſe indifferently that are brought into her by the Preaching of the Goſpel. By all which it is evident that the Author ſtragles out of the Road of Proteſtant Divines, and is fallen upon the confines of Thomas Colliers General Epiſtles. or the wild Notion of Mr. Dell, who in his Book intituled, The way of Peace, pag. 6. gives this definition of the Church, viz. The New Teſtament-Church is a ſpiritual Inviſible Fellowſhip gathered up into the Unity of Faith, Hope, and Love, and ſaith, it is no outward viſible ſociety gathered together into the conſent and uſe of outward Forms and Worſhip. Now although both are out, yet I acknowledge the Author is more ſober then Dell, for he is for an External Viſible Church under the New Teſtament-Diſpenſation; for he tells us, Believers upon the profeſſion of faith are to be Baptized, and added thereunto, and yet take him in his own ſence he cannot be excuſed from error and confuſion, for by Believers, he means the Spiritual ſeed before mentioned, not ſuch as are Believers Equivocally, or Analogically, by profeſſion only, but in reality, or truth, as appears by the following words [upon Profeſſion of Faith, by the Ordinance of Baptiſm were added to the Church] As if when mention is made in the Acts of ſo many thouſands that believed, it did imply they were all of the Spiritual Seed Regenerated perſons, Annanias, Saphira, Symon magus, [who is ſaid to believe;] whereas it denotes no more then a viſible profeſſion of faith, which is all that the Apoſtles and Primitive Churches had cognizance of, and this is ſeen in Hypocrits who are not the Spiritual Seed of Abraham. And this H. D. might have learnt as well as other things from Mr. Tombes, who in his Examen, pag 159. tells us, Profeſſion of Faith and holyneſs is a ſufficient warrant to Baptiſm. And in good earneſt one would think (by obſerving the lives and converſations of ſome of their Proſelytes) they took them in upon eaſier terms.
2.Sydenhams Exercitaon, c.3.p.25. We further argue, That if none but the ſpiritual ſeed of Abraham be the ſubjects of Baptiſm, then viſible believers, or ſuch as make a profeſſion of Faith are not the Subjects of Baptiſm; for they may not be more the ſpiritual ſeed; i.e. Godly, then infants.
3. Nay according to this Reaſoning none muſt be Baptized at all, for who can tell who are the ſpiritual ſeed, who belong to Chriſt according to Election and ſaving Faith. Nor will that evaſion ſerve their turn, we have charitable ground to believe they are ſuch, becauſe of their profeſſion, which is enough to ſatisfie the Church; for if according to the Author the New Teſtament-Church is made up only of a ſpiritual ſeed, it is neceſſary the Church ſhould not only have a judgement of charity, but infallibility to determine who are the ſpiritual ſeed.
4. And ſince the Author and thoſe of his way diſclaim all pretence to Infallibility, and are contented with the judgment of charity, to diſtinguiſh of the ſpiritual ſeed, knowing nothing to the contrary, Hanc veniam petimus, pray give us leave to act a like charity towards the children of Believers. For firſt, they may be capable ſubjects of Election, Jacob was ſuch a one in his Mothers Womb, Rom. 9, 11, Neither was it his ſingular priviledge, but what is common to all that are Objects of Election, which is free without reſpect to any thing wrought or to be wrought. 2. They may be capable of ſanctification; Chriſt himſelf whilſt in the Womb is termed [The Holy thing] which proves the nonage of Infants makes them not incapable of grace, ſuppoſing Gods will, and it ſhews God would have it ſo, that ſome of them ſhould be ſanctified becauſe Chriſt paſſed through each age to ſanctifie it to us.Ideo per omnem venit aetatem, & infantibus infans factus ſanctificans Infantes, in parvulis parvulus ſanctificans hanc ipſam habentes aetatem, ſimnl & exemplum illis pieatis effectus, & juſtitiae, & ſ bjectionis. As Irenaeus that lives neer the Apoſtles, ſpeaks; John was filled with the Holy Ghoſt, and what is that but the graces of the ſpirit, although he was no more enabled to exert or put forth any act of Grace, then he was able to put forth an act of reaſon, nevertheleſs his ſoul wanted not the faculty of reaſon, from his Mothers Womb; and what though we may not ſay all Infants of Believers are a like filled with the Holy Ghoſt, as John was, yet may we truly ſay that are all as capable thereof as John. 3. They are alſo capable of Glory, of Salvation, or elſe it would be ſad, but Chriſt hath told us of ſuch is the Kingdom of Heaven; that is, Specifically as you ſhall ſee proved hereafter. 4. God calls them holy, 1 Cor. 7.14. and ſo may we. By what hath been ſaid I ſuppoſe it is evident to the impartial Reader, that the Infants of Believers are as much the ſpiritual ſeed of Abraham, as viſible profeſſing believers, and we have as much ground if not more, to look upon them as ſuch, as we have for grown Chriſtians, untill they manifeſt the contrary; for as for the former we own them as Godly, and admit them into the Church upon their own Teſtimony only in a viſible profeſſion, which may be deceitful; but the Infants of Believers are taken into Covenant with their Parents, and are viſible Church-Members, and hereby come to have right to Baptiſm.
For the two former, we have an expreſs Divine Teſtimony, and that they were once accounted ſuch, and the Covenant being the ſame as to the eſſential ſpiritual priviledges of it, none of which can be made appear to be repealed; It will follow that Believers Children muſt not be denyed the ſign and ſeal of the Covenant, they having altogether as warrantable a Right thereunto as grown Chriſtians or Believers. This is Bucers arguing on Mat. 19.13, 14.Si jam ad Eccleſiam pertinent, &c. Cur eis ſignum Baptiſmi, quo in Eccleſiam Chriſti, qui ad eam pertinent, recipi ſolent, negaremus? Bucer an Mat. 19.13, 14.
Let us now hear what is ſaid to the contrary, in what follows. He conceives the ſeed of Believers have no right to Baptiſm; Why?
Becauſe, (ſaith he) Though the Jews had right to circumciſion, as Abrahams natural ſeed under the old Teſtament, yet this would not ſerve the turn under the new, Mat. 3.9. John Baptiſt diſchargeth them of that priviledge (of Abrahams Natural Seed) that admitted into the Old Church, from any ſuch right in the new. Think not to ſay that ye have Abraham to your Father, that ye are the Children of a Godly Parent, That which ſerv'd their turn under Moſes, would not avail under Chriſt. Nothing now but the fruits of Repentance give right to the Bapiſme of repentance, &c.
And muſt we take all this for Goſpel? We ſhall upon examination find no weight in it, and nothing prejudicial to the Baptizing the children of Believers. For
1. Let it be conſidered, that theſe Jews to whom John ſpake were to come under a New Adminiſtration of the Covenant, and the firſt ſubjects of this Adminiſtration muſt be perſons able to give an account of their faith and repentance, and Chriſt the Meſſiah was now come who was the chief bleſſing of the Covenant, yea the ſubſtance of it; and therefore 'twas neceſſary that as theſe Jews relyed on the Covenant of Abraham, ſo they ſhould hold forth their relyance on Chriſt in whom the Covenant was confirmed to them and their ſeed.Cottons Dialogue of Childrens Baptiſm. p. 130. For as Mr. Cotton obſerves, The Axe was laid to the Root of the Tree, even to the ſtock of Abraham, and all the Branches that grew upon it, and were ingrafted into it, ſo that now if they brought not forth this good fruit, to believe in Chriſt who was then come (whom the Jews generally rejected as an Impoſtor) they and their children were cut off from the Covenant of Abraham, and muſt ſay no more, We have Abraham to our Father, but if they held forth Repentance and Faith in Chriſt, then the Covenant that was made to them and to their Children before, did ſtill continue to them and to their children; and thats the ground and meaning of Peters exhortation, Act. 2.38, 39. Repent and be Baptized every one of you in the Name of the Lord, for the promiſe is to you, &c. Now what prejudice can this be to the Baptiſme of Believers Infants, who are admitted in the right of their Parents, laying hold on the Covenant for themſelves and their ſeed, now under the new Adminiſtration, as Members of the Church of Chriſt and in Covenant with God.
2. Neither will we take the Authors word, for what follows, — Nothing now but fruit meet for Repentance gives right to Baptiſme, without ſome qualification. For firſt, I demand what fruit of Repentance John ſaw in that great multitude which he then Baptized, viz. Jeruſalem, Judea, and all the Regions round about Jordan, ver. 5. which could not be leſs then ſome thouſands of whom he could have no cognizance, as to their fruits of repentance. 2. I farther demand whether he could judge this great multitude which were ſtrangers to him to be all the Spiritual ſeed of Abraham? And ſince the Author obſerves from Johns words, they had no right to Baptiſm from being Abrahams natural ſeed, neither could he look upon them all as the ſpiritual ſeed; let him tell us on what account he baptized them? 3. It is like he will tell us they confeſſed their ſins, ver. 6. and ſo were Baptized. But will any man think they did all do ſo, or is it ſaid he baptized no other but ſuch? It will be hard for any man to prove that John did impoſe this upon them. We find, as Mr. Marſhal notes, that he Baptized them, foreign, to Repentance, not foreign, as ſtate in Actual Repentance, and his calling upon them for Repentance, and Preaching the Baptiſm of Repentance, ſhews, that this was the leſſon which they were all to learn, not that they all manifeſted it before he Baptized them. For ought we can find from the Text, the Phariſees and Sadduces were Baptized by him, and had they been ſuch Penitents, it had been great uncharitableneſs to call them Vipers.
We have the Author over-laſhing again in the next words, for he lies open every where. Nothing (ſaith he) ſhort of the ſpirits birth can orderly admit to Water-birth, and Spiritual ordinances.
But ſince you are not Infallible, let it be ſuppoſed you have been miſtaken in your judgment, and have baptized a perſon, which afterward appears to be unregenerate. Did you admit him orderly or no? you will ſay you did, becauſe he was Baptized under the apprehenſion of being regenerate: The Church lookt upon him as ſuch, and ſaw nothing to the contrary. Very good, now you are come about to what I would have; and indeed if the New Teſtament-Church did conſiſt only of the ſpiritual ſeed [real Godly ones] how abominably is the Ordinance prophaned, when it ſo happens (as it often doth) that any Hypocrites are Baptized, and when it appears that the Title which they had to Baptiſme was but ſeeming, will it not follow that all that was done in reference to them was a Male-Adminiſtration, and Null ab initio; Mr. Blakes Covenant ſealed.and as God looks upon them as unbaptized (though they have been dipt) ſo ought the Church to look upon them, and if theſe Hypocrits ſhall repent and be converted, are they not bound to offer themſelves a-freſh to Baptiſm, and can the Church refuſe them, and thus according to the Authors principle there will be need of a Multiplication of Baptiſms.
He concludes this Chapter with the ſayings of two Doctors as wide in judgement from each other as the two Poles, yet it ſeems he can make them meet to ſerve his purpoſe. The firſt is Dr. Owen who is much engaged for his Elogy, but nothing at all for wreſting his ſentences from his intention. 'Tis well known the learned Dr. (like to the reſt of his Brethren of the Congregational way) is a zealous Aſſertor of Infant-Baptiſm, and the import of what he ſays in his Catechiſme, is no more then what all Congregational men hold; namely, That the matter of the Church is a Society or Fellowſhip of viſible Saints, and this, according to the ſingular dexterity of this Antagoniſt, (who beats us ſtill with our own Weapons) is found to be point blank againſt Infant-Baptiſm. But we ſhall clear this point in the next Chapter, under which it falls properly to be ſpoken of. The other Gentleman is Dr. Taylor: we have ſaid enough of him before, how much he was for Infant-Baptiſm, notwithſtanding he plays the Orator, and tells us he will act the part of an Anabaptiſt, and ſhew what may be ſaid for them though they are in an Errour; but let us hear what he ſays, for according to the Author he doth rarely accomodate that which he thinks is truth, when as it is only by beſtowing a few complements upon an error; we ſhall ſeldom meet with ſuch a parcel of affected words, delivered in ſuch a ſtrain as did notably fuit with the Genius of the times when he writ them; that is, before the turn of times, when men were high flown, and above Ordinances. The Baptiſm of Children (ſaith he) is an outward duty, a work of the Law, a Carnal Ordinance; it makes us adhere to the Letter without regard to the ſpirit, to be ſatisfied with ſhadows, to return to Bondage, to relinquiſh the myſteriouſneſs, the ſubſtance, the ſpirituality of the Goſpel, &c. This is brave ſtuff indeed, high towring language; I never met with the like, unleſs it were in Mr. Saltmarſh his ſhadows flying away, and beams of Glory. And is not the Baptiſm of Believers think you bravely accomodated with theſe Rhetorical Flowers? Is there one grain of Logick or Reaſon in all he ſaith? And then at laſt the Doctor doth ſo well accommodate that which H.D. calls the truth, that he attempts to maintain it by two groſs errors delivered in one breath; for, ſaith he, if the Myſtery goes not before the Symbol, yet it always accompanies it, but never follows it in order of time. But firſt I would fain know who told the Doctor that Grace always accompanies Baptiſme? (for that I take to be the plain Engliſh of Myſtery and Symbol without the help of a Dictionary.) No doubt he learnt this good Doctrine from the Schoolmen, who maintain, that Baptiſm conferrs grace: We may know the mind of them all by that paſſage of Suarez, Suarez in tertiam partem Thom Tom. 3. queſt. 68. Diſp. 24. Art. 4. ſect. 2. pag. 250.Per Baptiſmum datur gratia, ſi aliquis eſt rectè diſpoſitus ad effectum Baptiſmi conſequendum, in inſtanti quo receperit Baptiſmum recipiet gratiam. By Baptiſme grace is given, if any man be rightly diſpoſed to receive the effect of Baptiſme, in the inſtant that he receives Baptiſm he ſhall receive grace. Theſe men ſpeak as if they were acquainted with the Cabinet Councel of Heaven. They can tell (if you will believe them) the Punctum temporis, the very moment when the ſpirit will breathe, and quicken a ſoul. And then again the Doctor is as peremptory in that which follows — Grace, (ſaith he) never follows Baptiſm, which at firſt found is enough to ſcare tender ſouls from medling with it; for if the Doctor ſays true, you that are for Dipping upon the profeſſion of Faith, look well to your ſelves: for, if you have not grace when you are baptized, you are never like to have it afterward; grace, ſaith he, never follows it, you are like to live and die graceleſs.
This we deny not but God may (if he pleaſe) make uſe of Baptiſm to confer grace; but look upon it as a Popiſh errour, that grace is in ſeparably annext to it, and a groſſer one that Baptiſme confers grace ex opere operato. The Ancients themſelves as highly as they ſpeak of it, did not hold that grace was an inſeperable companion of it. Auſtin lib. 4. contra Donatiſtas, hath this ſaying — Quid prodeſt Baptiſmum, &c. What profits Baptiſm to them that receive it, unleſs they be inwardly changed? And yet though it may not profit at the preſent, yet it may for the future, and not only the Adult, but Infants too may receive good by it.
To conclude this, I ſhall oppoſe to what the Doctor ſpeaks in derogation of Infant-Baptiſm, the judgement of a more Orthodox Divine, viz. Mr. Daniel Rogers, who ſpeaks more warily thus — I ſee no cauſe to deny that even in, and at, and by the Act of Baptiſme the Spirit may imprint grace on the ſoul of an Infant.