Infant Baptism Asserted and Vindicated, Part · Chapter 6
CHAP. VI.
Containing his ſixth Argument, That Believers Baptiſm is the only true Baptiſm, from the conſtitution of the Primitive Churches, which were not (ſaith he) formed of ignorant Babes, but profeſſing men and women, with an anſwer thereunto.
LEſt we ſhould contend in the dark, it is neceſſary we agree upon the terms. By [Conſtitution] muſt be meant the eſſential nature of the primitive Church, and in this I ſuppoſe we are one; and whereas he ſaith theſe Churches were not formed of ignorant Babes, that is, of thoſe alone; for ſo we muſt underſtand him, in regard of the Antitheſis which follows, viz. [but of Men and Women] it is very true, the primitive Churches were not of this make, that is, formed only of ignorant Babes; for if they had, they would have been but ſorry Churches. But whatever ſence his words may bear, we know his meaning is, that Children are not included as Church-Members in the Conſtitution of the New Teſtament-Churches, theſe being formed (as he imagines) altogether of profeſſing men and women; which he attempts to prove by Chriſts Commiſſion, where Teaching goes before Baptizing: By the practice of the Apoſtles in planting Churches, and by the Dedications and Contents of the Epiſtles, &c. To which I reply.
1. That we muſt mind the Author with what is before ſaid in the firſt chapter, namely, That the import of Chriſts Commiſſion to his Apoſtles was, de Eccleſia colligendâ, to direct them how, and in what manner they ſhould gather Churches; they being at firſt ſent out to preach only to ſuch as were Aliens in reſpect of the New Adminiſtration: And we acknowledge all perſons under ſuch a Circumſtance, are to be Taught before they are to be Baptized, or admitted into the Church. But in Eccleſia collectâ, a Church actually gathered, wherein there are Infants, the Caſe alters; for ſuch are to be eſteemed as Portions of their Parents, as being one with them in a moral account, and belonging to the Church, of which their Parents are Members. And to avoid repetition, the ſame anſwer may ſerve for what is urged from the example and practice of the Apoſtles, in planting the New Teſtament-Churches at Jeruſalem, Acts 2.41. Samaria, Act. 8.12. Caeſarea, Act. 10.47, 48. Philippi, Acts. 16.14. and elſewhere. But I muſt follow him, having to deal with a ſort of people, who take all of theirs, which is not particularly anſwered, for unanſwerable.
By which Scriptures (ſaith he) it manifeſtly appears, that the New Teſtament-Churches were formed only of Baptized Believers, wherein we neither find one ignorant Babe, &c.
But what demonſtration doth he bring to make this good? The Argument (if he had us'd any) muſt have run in form thus, viz.
If we have no examples of any other that were Members of Churches, under the New Teſtament-Diſpenſation, but profeſſing believers, then no others are to be accounted Church-Members but ſuch: But we have no examples of any other, &c. Ergo.
The conſequence of the Major propoſition is unſound, and the Minor propoſition is falſe.
1. The conſequence is not ſound; for, ſuppoſe it be granted under the Goſpel, the Scripture makes no mention of any childrens being Church-Members: Yet to conclude from thence there were none, is no good argumentation. Becauſe mention is made of the Apoſtles taking in profeſſing men and women into the Church, Act. 8.12. to argue thence that therefore the children of ſuch belonged not to the Church, is childiſh arguing. But this is a more Maſculine, or Logical way of argumentation, namely, The children of the faithful were Members of the Church before Moſes time, before the law, and why not after Moſes, now under the Goſpel? God took them into his Covenant with their Parents, and for the ſpace of 2000 years, from Abraham to Chriſt, they were Church-Members, and ſince Chriſt is come in the fleſh, we find not this gracious Ordinance repealed. There is not the leaſt hint of any ſuch thing in the New Teſtament, therefore it is not repealed, and the children of Believers continue Members ſtill.
2. The Minor alſo is falſe; for we have intimation given us, that the children of Believers are Church-Members, and the Apoſtle writes to them as ſuch, as appears Eph. 6.1, 2, 3. Col. 3.20.
And to make this yet more evident, I ſhall produce an Argument or two. The firſt ſhall be that of Mr. Baxter, in his plain Scripture-proof of Infant Church-Memberſhip, and Baptiſm, viz. If God have repealed the ordinance, and revoked this merciful gift of Infants Church-Memberſhip, then it is either in mercy or in juſtice, either for their good, or for their hurt. But he hath neither repealed it in mercy for their good, nor in juſtice for their hurt, Therefore he hath not at all repealed it.
The ſufficiency of the enumeration in the major Propoſition, even Mr. Tombs himſelf could not deny in that famous diſpute at Kederminſter; for it muſt needs be for the good or hurt of Infants that they are put out; and ſo muſt needs be in mercy, or juſtice; for God maketh not ſuch great alterations in his Church and Laws to no end, and of no moment, but in meer indifferency.
The minor, Mr. Baxter proves in both parts: 1. That God hath not repealed this to their hurt in juſtice: for, if God never revoke his Mercies, nor repeal his Ordinances in juſtice to the parties hurt, till they firſt break Covenant with him, and ſo procure it by their own deſert; then he hath not in juſtice revoked his mercy, to the hurt of thoſe that never broke Covenant with him. But it is certain God never revoketh a mercy in juſtice to the hurt of any that never broke Covenant with him: Therefore to ſuch he hath not revoked it.
1. That Church-Memberſhip is a mercy, and of the Covenant, is plain: Deut. 29.10, 11, 12.
2. That God doth not in juſtice revoke ſuch to any, but Covenant-breakers, may be proved. 1. From the merciful nature, and conſtant dealing of God, who never caſteth off thoſe that caſt not off him. 2. From his truth and faithfulneſs, for elſe we ſhould make God the Covenant-breaker, and not man, which is horrid blaſphemy. 3. His Immutability and Conſtancy, his gifts and calling being without repentance. Now this is alſo certain that many Jews did believe and not forſake the Covenant of God, even moſt of the Apoſtles themſelves, and many thouſands more: and how then can theſe or their Infants be put out of the Church in juſtice to their hurt, who did not firſt break Covenant with God. Mr. Tombs was hard put to it, how to extricate himſelf from the difficulties of this Argument, although a man of great Dexterity, and a very Oedipus in the controverſy, yet it is ſaid he was near to a nè plus ultrà, but at length took Sanctuary in this Anſwer; and mark it well, Reader, viz. [That the Ordinance was in mercy repealed for their good.] To which Mr. Baxter gives a neat reply — It can be no mercy, to take away a mercy, except it be to give a greater inſtead of it: But here is no greater mercy given to Infants inſtead of Church-memberſhip: Therefore it can be no mercy to them that it is revoked.
Other Arguments beſides this, that are invincible, may be drawn from that place, Rom. 11.17. A Scripture, which I perceive was too hot for the Authors fingers to meddle with, and therefore he gives not one touch upon it, throughout all this Treatiſe of Baptiſm; whereas he knows very well, that this is the principal Text that gives clear evidence that Children are yet Church-members with their parents; and if they have a Church-relation, they muſt not be denyed Baptiſm: becauſe the ſame thing which qualifies any perſons for Church-memberſhip, qualifies them alſo for Baptiſm. But to the Text before us.
There are three things which the words do plainly hold forth.
1. That though the Collective body of the Jews or the generality of that people were broken off from the Church through unbelief, yet all of them were not broken off; for it is ſaid, [If ſome of them were broken off] not all of them: for as was ſaid before, moſt of the Apoſtles and thouſands of Jews believed.
2. The Believing Gentiles are ingrafted in their place — foreign, in amongſt them, ſo Grotius hath it, poſitus es inter ramos illius arboris, thou art ſet amongſt the branches of the Tree, referring to thoſe words, if ſome be broken off. implying that ſome remained ſtill, and the believing Gentiles were inoculated amongſt them, or foreign according to Beza and Piſcator, pro ipſis, inſtead of them, or in their place and room, in ramorum defractorum locum, into the place of the branches broken off.
3. The Jews ſhall be reſtored again to the Church at the latter end of the world, they ſhall be in ſtatu quo priùs, become the Church and people of God again, as formerly, but in a more glorious manner. From all which iſſueth three unanſwerable Arguments for the Church-memberſhip of believers Infants ſtill continued.
The firſt we have already inſiſted upon, namely, That the ſame Jewiſh children which were viſibly of the Church immediately before their Parents became Chriſtians at the firſt, continued to be ſo after. And the reaſon is, becauſe they were not under the diſ-churching Cauſe of as many of the Jews as were diſcharged, and that was unbelief, of which they could not be guilty by any Act of their own,More of this may be ſeen in a late Book called A Perſwaſive to Peace and Ʋnity among Chriſtians. Sold at the Three Pigeons in Cornhil. or of their Parents, as imputed to them. Becauſe of Ʋnbelief, ſaith S. Paul, they were broken off. If it be ſaid (ſaith the Author of that ingenious and pious piece, intituled A Perſwaſive to Peace and Ʋnity) they were diſ-church'd in the diſſolution of the Jewiſh Church-State in general: it is but an evaſion which will not help them: for the fore-cited Text is flatly againſt them. For all that were not broken off by unbelief, did continue unbroken off; that is, they ſtill kept their place and ſtanding in the Church of God. And therefore to aſſign any other cauſe of diſ-churching any, than the Scripture hath aſſigned; or at leaſt, any other without this here aſſigned, and determined by the Apoſtle, is too great preſumption, and ſuch as will not ſatisfie an impartial mind; and, as Mr. Baxter enforceth the Argument very ſtrongly, They who kept their Station, kept alſo their priviledges for themſelves, and their children, if they were not broken off, their children were not broken off; for, as the Infants came in with their Parents, ſo they are not caſt out whilſt their Parents continue, except when they are grown up they caſt out themſelves by their own perſonal unbelief. It is not to be conceived, that God ſhould caſt out the child that came in for his fathers ſake, while the Parents remain in the ſame Church.
2. Thoſe Jews who were broken off from the Church, their children alſo being before Members, were likewiſe broken off; therefore it follows, Believing Gentiles and their children are ingrafted in: for the ingrafting muſt be proportionable to the breaking off; they ſucceeding in the place of the former, muſt enjoy the priviledge they loſt.
3. If after the fulneſs of the Gentiles be come in, the Jews ſhall be grafted in again, not with a diminution, but addition to their glory, and one part of their glory was, that they and their ſeed were Gods viſible Church, then ſo ſhall it be with them when they are called. This we have ver. 26. All Iſrael ſhall be ſaved. Which cannot be underſtood but from their broken off State, they ſhall be grafted into the Church again as before; for as Mr. Marſhall notes in his Defence of Infant Baptiſm, pag. 134. At their firſt grafting in, they and their children were grafted in: at their caſting out, they and their children were broken off; and when they ſhall be taken in again, they and their children ſhall be taken in. This Mr. Tombs himſelf grants, that the Jews and their ſeed were rejected together, yea, and that they ſhall be taken in together, pag. 66. of his anſwer.
Thus then we argue, if it muſt be ſo with them, it muſt be ſo with believing Gentiles now, or elſe there will be a Schiſme between Jew and Gentile in point of priviledges; elſe there will be too diſtinct eſtates in the Chriſtian Churches; one of the Jews, holy Fathers and children; another of the Gentiles, who have only perſonal priviledges, none for their ſeed, which is an abſurd conceit (as Mr. Geree ſpeaks) and would ſet up or keep up a partition-wall ſtill, contrary to that, Eph. 2. I ſhall ſay nothing of other abſurdities, which are very numerous, which come from the denying the Church-Memberſhip of the Infant ſeed of believers.
The Author adds; It is incongruous to reaſon and ſenſe to imagine, that little Children are any way concerned as Church Members, either in the Dedications of the Epiſtles ſent to the Churches, or the Epiſtles themſelves, for they were dedicated to thoſe who were called to be Saints, &c.
I anſwer, Firſt, that this is a meer Paralogiſm; for what if we confeſs the Apoſtle directed his Epiſtles to ſuch as were profeſt Believers and Saints by calling, were none other but thoſe, or ſuch like them, concern'd in the Epiſtles? What ſhall we think of carnal perſons and unbelievers, are they unconcerned in them? This minds me with a paſſage in Mr. Paul's ſerious Reflections, ſuch another rigid Antipaedobaptiſt as our Antagoniſt. He tells us pag. 9. That the Epiſtles were writ to particular Churches, and that it will be difficult to prove they were alſo directed to particular Saints; but ſaith Bunian, a more moderate man (although an Antipaedobaptiſt) If this be true, there is vertue indeed, and more then ever I dreamed of in partaking of Water-Baptiſme. For if that ſhall take away the Epiſtles, and conſequently the whole Bible, from all that are not Baptized (he means, after their mode of dipping, being grown Chriſtians) then are the other Churches and alſo particular Saints in a very deplorable condition. Would to God (ſaith he of his Brethren) they had learnt more modeſty then thus to take from all others,Nè autem exiſtiment Corinthii, hanc Epiſtolam, ita ipſis propriam eſſe, ut ad alios non pertineat; addit, Cumomnibus qui invocant nomen Domini noſtri Jeſus Chriſti in quovis loco tum ipſorum tum noſtri. Piſcator in locum. and appropriate to themſelves, and that for obſerving a circumſtance, &c. But he better inſtructs Mr. Paul, and turns him to St. Paul, Rom. 16.5. and to the firſt Epiſtle written to Corinth, and ſhews that the firſt Epiſtle of John was wrote to ſome who at that time were out of Fellowſhip, that they might have fellowſhip with the Church, Joh. 1.1, 2, 3, 4.
Secondly, we grant the Epiſtles were directed (ſome of them) to profeſſing Believers joyn'd in Fellowſhip, directly and immediately, and to their children (if they had any) and the children of all Believers in ſucceeding ages, remotely; and the contents of the Epiſtles concern both the Parents at preſent, and the children when come to years of diſcretion. A Father that hath ſeveral children, ſome grown up to underſtanding, others Minors or Babes, may direct a Book or Epiſtle to them all. Whatſoever was writ, was written as much for our inſtruction as the Primitive Chriſtians, We know Moſes and the Prophets directed what they writ to the Church under that Adminiſtration, whereof their Children were a part, and yet they were ignorant Babes, and could not underſtand any thing or perform any duties. But let it be conſidered, that though they underſtood nothing of thoſe divine Exhortations, yet being within Gods Nurſery and School, they were in a nearer capacity to be taught their duty, than Aliens; and their Parents were injoyned to teach them the Ordinances of God, and God gave this Teſtimony concerning Abraham, that he knew he would teach his children: and in the New Teſtament it was the commendation of Lois, that ſhe had inſtructed Timothy foreign, ab Infantia, when he was an Infant or little Child.
3. Whereas the Epiſtles are inſcribed with thoſe Titles [To the Saints, Saints by calling, ſanctified in Chriſt Jeſus, choſen, adopted] which cannot (ſaith our Author) be ſpoken of Infants. To this it may be thus replyed,
1. Some of thoſe titles may be predicated of children, ſome not.
2. The Apoſtle calls the Churches Saints, either as looking upon them all as ſuch. i.e. truely regenerate; for this is the famoſius ſignificatum of the word Saint: but this could not be, for he pointed at ſome that were ſad Saints in the Church of Corinth and Galatia, or elſe he calls them Saints Synechdochically, becauſe he judged the moſt of them to be ſuch, and ſo the whole Communion were judged Saints à Potiori, from the better part.
3. He calls them Saints by calling, i.e. by the preaching of the word, and ſo we acknowledge Infants are not, and yet the ſame Apoſtle calls the Infants of Believers Saints. 1. Cor. 7.14. Elſe were your Children unclean, but now foreign they are Saints, or holy: and 'tis the ſame word the Apoſtle uſeth in his inſcriptions of the Epiſtles to the Churches [foreign] [to the Saints:] and being he maketh uſe of the ſame word applying it to the children of believers, it hints thus much to us, that in Saint Pauls account (who was guided by the Spirit of God in what he ſpeaks) the Infant ſeed of Believers are as much Saints as any who are ſuch by calling. Nor are they only foederally holy, but they may be alſo inherently ſanctified, ſaith Mr. Tombs in his Examen. They may receive the new birth, and we ſay more, they muſt receive it, if ſaved, Job. 3.5. It is much controverted concerning the Text, whether it intends grown perſons, or any perſons of whatſoever age or ſex; but the Original, if heeded, would put an end to it. foreign, Except one be born, including all ages, all ſexes. Children are ſo polluted in their firſt birth, that they can never get to Heaven by that, and therefore what the firſt birth cannot, a ſecond muſt, ſaith Dr. Taylor. And if it be objected, that to the new birth is required diſpoſitions of our own, which are to be wrought by, and in them that have the uſe of Reaſon: beſides that this (as the Learned Doctor ſpeaks) is wholly againſt the Analogy of à New-birth, in which the perſon to be born is wholly paſſive, and hath put into him the Principle that in time will produce its proper Actions. It is certain that they can receive the new birth, and are capable of it. The effect of it is ſalvation, if infants can receive this effect, then alſo the newbirth, without which they cannot receive the effect; and he illuſtrates the point by a Similitude thus.
As the reaſonable ſoul and all its faculties are in children, Will and Ʋnderſtanding, Paſſions and Powers of Attraction and Propulaſion, yet theſe faculties do not operate, or come abroad, till time and art, obſervation and experience have drawn them forth into action. So may the ſpirit of grace, the principle of Chriſtian life be infuſed, and yet lie without action, till in its own day it is drawn forth — and then he goes on — Who is he that underſtands the Spirit ſo well as to know how or when it is infuſed, and how it operates in all its periods, and what it is in its Being and proper Nature, or how, or to what purpoſe God in all varieties does diſpenſe it?
Then again, if Nature, ſaith he, hath in Infants an evil principle, which operates when the child can chooſe, but is all the while within the ſoul; Why cannot Infants have a good principle through Grace, though it works not till its own ſeaſon, as well as an evill principle?
4. Though Infants are uncapable of performing ſuch duties as are incumbent upon profeſſing men and women, yet this hinders not but that they may be Church-Members. Pray tell us what duties could thoſe Iſraelitiſh Babes perform, who notwithſtanding their incapacity, were, asis before, Members of the Church with their Parents. And though they anſwer not all the Characters Chriſt gives his Adult Diſciples (which the Author objects againſt them) yet they are capable of union to the Church, and Fellowſhip in the priviledges thereof. They are capable of her prayers and other pious offices, and for whom the Church hath a more ſpecial care and obligation of tenderneſs for their ſouls, than for others that are Without; and why ſhould this ſeem ſtrange? ſince they are Members of the Common-wealth, and of the family, and are capable of union with both eſtates, and the priviledges thereof, and yet cannot perform obedience to the State and Orders of either. In like ſort, Infants are admitted Tenants, but the Fealty or Homage is reſpited till they are of age.
5. Laſtly, Chriſt himſelf (as Mr. Baxter notes) was head of the Church, according to his humane nature in his infancy, and this proves that the nonage of Infants makes them not uncapable of being Members. And let any judge whether it be his will that no Infants ſhould be Members. For my part, ſaith he, when I conſider that Infant State of Chriſt our head, and the honour done to him therein, it ſtrongly perſwades me that they know not his will, who ſay they will not have Infants to be viſible Members.
He farther Objects the Church of England, who in their 19th. Artiele do acknowledge that the viſible Church is a number of Chriſtians by profeſſion.
This is down right Mr. Tombs's Examen, part. 3. pag. 41. only Tombes hath more charity for the Infants of Believers, though not without ſome contradiction. For he there acknowledgeth that in facie Eccleſiae viſibilis, Infants of believers are to be accounted Gods, to belong to his Family and Church, and not the Devils; And what do any of us ſay more? But mark Reader how Mr. Tombs doth eſteem them ſuch; why, ſaith he, it is ſo, as being in a near poſſibility of being Members of the Church of God, by an act of opinion grounded on probable hopes for the future. But to make them actual members of the viſible Church is to overthrow the definitions of the viſible Church, that Proteſtant writers give, particularly the Church of England, Art. 19. To which Mr. Marſhall anſwers, If overthrows it not at all for they all include the Infants of ſuch Profeſſors; as Infants Male and Female too (leaſt you ſay that Circumciſion made them Members:) I add alſo ſaith he, Baptiſme now (as well as Circumciſion of old) is a real, though implicite profeſſion of the Chriſtian Faith.
Next we have Dr. Owen (whom he cites no leſs than four times in what follows in this Chapter) whoſe judgement is ſufficiently known to be againſt our Oppoſites. And notwithſtanding the miſinterpretation the Author puts upon ſome paſſages in the Doctors Catechiſme, we have a particular account of his judgment in Print, in a Book called, A Declaration of the Faith and Order owned and practiſed in the Congregational Churches agreed upon and conſented unto by their Elders and Meſſengers in their meeting at the Savoy, Octob. 12. 1658. where to my knowledge he was preſent, and the principal man of that Aſſembly, and concerning the point before us, we have it chap, 29. Art. 4. thus expreſt, viz. Not only thoſe that do actually profeſs Faith in and obedience unto Chriſt, but alſo the Infants of one or both believing Parents are to be Baptized, and thoſe only. And in complyance herewith, we have the judgment of the Synod of Elders Aſſembled at Boſton in New-England, appointed by the Court, 1662. who ſtrongly maintain by ſeveral Arguments in that printed piece, That the Inſant Seed of Believers are Church-Members, and that being according to Scripture, Members of the viſible Church, they are conſequently the Subjects of Baptiſm.
See alſo the Presbyterian judgement upon the point in the larger Catechiſme of the Aſſembly of Divines. Baptiſme, ſay they, is not to be adminiſtred to any that are out of the viſible Church, and ſo ſtrangers to the Covenant of promiſe, till they profeſs their Faith in Chriſt, and obdeience to him. But Infants deſcending from Parents, either both or but one of them profeſſing Faith in Chriſt and obedience to him, are in that reſpect within the Covenant, and to be Baptized. we ſee here who they take to be of the viſible Church, and within the Covenant, and to be baptized.
As for the Authority of particular Authors we have them on our ſide in great abundance. Piſcator hath it thus on the 28. of Matthew; Porrò ad Eccleſiam pertinent non ſolùm adulti, fidem profitentes, ſed etiam ipſorum liberi; Not only grown perſons who profeſs the Faith appertain to the Church, but alſo their Infants.
Theodore Beza in his Abſterſ, Cat. Heſhuii pag. 333. hath this paſſage — Meritò arbitramur Infantes fidelium in peculio domini cenſeri; We rightly judge the Infants of the faithful to be of the Lords Flock; and he ſpeaks of them there before Baptiſme. And in our Margent Bible we have this Note upon the firſt of Corinthians 7.14. They that are born of either of the Parents faithful, are alſo counted Members of Chriſts Church, becauſe of the Promiſe, Act. 2.39.
Peter Martyr. loc Commun. cl. 4. c. 8. p. 821, 823. Non excludimus eos [Infantes] ab Eccleſia, ſed ut ejus partes amplectimur, &c. We exclude not Infants from the Church, but imbrace them as parts.
John Calvin, (to whom we ſhould have given precedency) upon Acts 22.16. [Eos qui fide in Eccleſiam Dei ingreſſi ſunt videmus, cum ſua ſobole in Chriſti Membris, &c.]
The Epiſcopal Divines fall in with the reſt, I will name but one, inſtàr omnium, and that is the famous Doctor Ʋſher in his Body of Divinity, pag. 415. The outward Elements (ſaith he) are diſpenſed to all who make an outward profeſſion of the Goſpel; for Infants, their being born in the Church is inſtead of an outward profeſſion, &c.
Laſtly, the Author is at Mr. Baxter again, quoting ſomething out of his tenth Argument to Mr. Blake, as if he had intended thoſe words againſt Infants Church-Memberſhip, when he clears himſelf ſo fully in the point, as when he ſtated the Theſis in the ſaid Book of Diſputations, and hath written particularly a large piece whoſe Title is Plain Scripture-proof of Infants Church-Memberſhip and Baptiſm.
To conclude this, I cannot but pitty the Author, becauſe of that ſelf-conceited ſcornful Genius that appears in what follows, altogether unbecoming a Chriſtian; and I think all modeſt and ſober ſpirits, cannot but be extreamly ſcandalized to ſee a man (pretending to be for the truth of Chriſt) ſo proudly to trample upon all that differ from him. Surely he muſt needs be furniſht with more than an ordinary meaſure of ſelf-conceit, that doth ſo Magiſterially condemn not only the Ancients, but thoſe of the Proteſtant Reformation of latter days, ſparing none, neither Prelate, Presbyter, nor Independent. Have patience Reader, and thou ſhalt hear a little of it.
How childiſhly ridiculous it was in thoſe firſt Inventors of Baptiſm, for ſix hundred years, &c.
Have a care Sir, ſince you ſwell at this rate leaſt you burſt. Auſtin tells you Eccleſia ſemper habuit ſemper tenuit, The Church always had it, always held Infant Baptiſme. And Doctor Taylor, a perſon whom you ſeem to honour much, ſays there is no Record extant of any Church in the World, that from the Apoſtles days incluſively to this very day, ever refuſed to baptize children, excepting of late amongſt your ſelves.
So well to obſerve the Order, [viz. firſt to Baptize, and then to Communicate] and yet ſo miſerably to miſs it in the Subjects, applying the Spiritual Ordinances to ignorant Babes.
This of the ſix hundred years giving the Communion to Infants, he hath taken from Maſter Tombes his ſixth Argument againſt Infant-Baptiſme, Exercitation, pag. 29. for there it is, and Tombes as is conceived took it up from Maldonate the Jeſuite, who reports that the giving of the Communion to Infants continued ſix hundred years in the Church. But Maſter Geree well òbſerves, that is not, nor ought to be taken of the firſt ſix hundred years, for it appears. by Maldonate's expreſſion, calling it Sententiam, the opinion of Auguſtin and Pope Innocent, that it had, if not its riſe, yet its force to become common from them. Not only Proteſtants but Papiſts themſelves condemn that of communicating Infants as an errour, yea (as I remember) the Councel of Trent it ſelf. And yet Doctor Taylor doth profeſs in his diſcourſe of Baptizing the Infants of Believers; that, page 59. certainly there is infinitely more reaſon why Infants may be communicated then why they may not be Baptized.
The Proteſtant Reformers are more blind, and do worſe in his opinion then thoſe who gave Infants the Lords Supper —
And how much worſe, ſaith he, in the Proteſtant Reformers, that ſo lamentalby miſs it, both in the due Order and right Subjects alſo, which the Prelate and Presbyter doe in admitting children to Baptiſm and Memberſhip, but not to the Supper?
A little more modeſtly would do the Author no hurt, and let him know, that neither their Baptiſm or Church-Memberſhip, are inconſiſtent with the Word, but ſo is Infant-Communion , not only becauſe God requires a particular qualification to the Ordinance which Infants are not capable of, namely, the exerciſe of actual grace in examination, diſcerning the Lords Body, and remembring the death of Chriſt; but becauſe they are not capable in any certain way of the Elements uſed in that Sacrament, as to take and eat the Bread, and drink Wine.
Laſtly, this Hagio-Maſtix laſheth the Independents, which do worſe than all the reſt, and doth more groſly erre in point of Order, in admitting them to Baptiſm, but neither to Memberſhip nor the Supper.
But I find the Proverb is true, Bernardus non videt omnia, even that great Doctor called Saint Bernard, is ignorant of ſome things.
Wherefore I crave leave of the Author tó tell him he is ignorant of the grounds or principles by which the Independents walk. And for his better information I refer him to Doctor Nathaniel Holmes his Anſwer to Mr. Tombes his Exercitation and Examen, where he ſhall find the Independents Judgment jump with Maſter Jeſſeys, in his diſcourſe upon Romans 14.1. you have it reprinted at the end of Maſter Bunians laſt piece in anſwer to a Book entituled, Some ſerious Reflections on that part of Maſter Bunyans Confeſſion of Faith, touching Church-Communion with unbaptized Believers.
Conſider ſaith Maſter Jeſſey, whether ſuch a practice hath a command, or example, that perſons muſt be joyned into Church-Fellowſhip by Water-Baptiſm; For John Baptized many, yet he did not Baptize ſome into one Church and ſome into another, nor all into one [particular] Church. And then afterward into what Church did Philip Baptize the Eunuch, or the Apoſtle, the Jaylor and his houſe? This he ſpeaks in oppoſition to thoſe who hold that a particular Church is conſtituted by Baptiſm, and formally united as Maſter K. did many years ſince in his anſwer to Doctor B. and is no changeling, as appears by his Epiſtle to Maſter Pauls ſorry Reflections, lately Printed. So Maſter Tombes of old in his ſixth Argument, Exercitat. where he inveighs againſt the Independents, as the Author doth here; and ſaith, That by Baptiſm a perſon is exhibited a Member of Chriſt and that Church. To which Doctor Holmes an Independent Paſtor makes this reply, — viz. But what Church doth Maſter Tombes mean? If he means of the Univerſal Church I yield, that he is exhibited a viſible Chriſtian. But if he means a Member of any particular rightly conſtituted Church, according to the platform of thoſe in the New Teſtament and ancient antiquity, I altogether deny it, for theſe reaſons.
1. Thoſe Baptized, Matthew 3. were in no particular Chriſtian Church, there being none gathered till a good while after that Chriſt had given the Holy Spirit to the Diſciples.
2. Cornelius his, and the Jaylors Families, after the gathering of Churches were not by that numbred to any particular Churches, or thereby made particular Churches that we read. Now that which exiſts afore, or after a thing without that thing, cannot be the form of that thing.
3. That which is common cannot be proper and peculiar: But Baptiſm is common, to make men only viſible Chriſtians in General; Therefore it is not proper and peculiar to make them of this or that particular Church, And then he farther adds, therefore though Godly men or Infants have been Baptized, yet the Churches think according to Scripture, there muſt be ſomewhat more expreſſed to make ſuch to own this or that Preaching Officer, to be their Paſtor or Teacher, Whom they muſt obey in the Lord, and have in ſingular reſpect for the works ſake, Heb. 13. And to cauſe the Miniſter to own them as his Flock, Acts 20. if he mean not to take upon him a power Apoſtolical for Latitude, to extend to all Baptized one.Doctor Homes's anſwer to Maſter Tombes. So page 193. The ſame Author ſaith, ſeveral Churches of us do hold, that we may Baptize them [the Infants of the Godly] though neither of their Parents be of our particular Churches, Baptiſm being but as we conceive an Admiſſion into the Univerſal viſible Church. We ſhall add for a concluſion, That as Baptiſm is no actual admiſſion into the Communion of a particular Church, as before appears in the examples of the Eunuch, Cornelius, &c. who were Baptized without any relation to a particular Church. 2. It is into Chriſt, and ſo into the priviledges of the Body of Chriſt in general. No mention being made in Baptiſm of any reſtraint to this or that particular Church. 3. One act of Communion in the Lords Supper, doth not ſtate a perſon admitted as a Member of that particular Church; no more doth Baptiſm, which is but one act of Communion.
4. By Baptiſm a perſon being exhibited a Member of Chriſt, and of the Church in general, and ſo conſequently to all the priviledges of Chriſt, whereof Church-Communion is one: it follows that when a Child is Baptized, he is thereby acknowledged or declared to have a right to Church Communion in particular, [that is, in breaking bread with a particular Church] when he becomes capable thereof. For, Omne Ʋniverſale continet particulare, Every general includes all the particulars. Nor can any particular Church deny it, when ſuch a one actually deſires admittance into her, and undertakes to walk in it in performance of all duties, as a Member thereof, provided he be free from ſcandal, and viſible crimes committed ſince his Baptiſm to the time of his deſired admittance: for whatſoever may be juſt ground to caſt out of Church-Fellowſhip and Communion, is alſo ſufficient to keep him out that was never in.