Anti-Paedobaptism, Section 6
SECT. VI.
That the breaking off Rom. 11. 17. was not by repeal of an ordinance concerning Infants visible Church-membership as Mr. B. conceives.
MR. Richard Baxter in his Book intituled Plain Scripture-proof of infants Baptism and Church-membership, part 1. ch. 7. begins thus. I come now to my second argument to prove [that the mercifull gift and ordinance that some infants should be Church-members is not repealed] and it is (from Rom. 11. 17. And if some branches be broken off, &c.) Whence I argue thus: if it be onelyonly some that were broken off from the Church, then to the rest that are still in it, the mercifull gift of Church-membership to them and their children is not revoked: but it is onelyonly some that were broken off from the Church: therefore to the rest that remained in, the gift was not repealed. The Antecedent is the plain words of the text, the strength of the Consequence lieth here, 1. For the parties not broken off; the breaking off from the Church is an unavoidable consequence of the revoking of the gift of Church-membership, and the repealing of the ordinance: therefore where there is no breaking off from the Church, there is no such revoking or repealing. This is most evident, and yet Mr. T. denied this consequence.
Answer. The Church is either invisible, and the breaking off from it is by non-election or hardening: or visible, either Christian or Iewish, and the breaking off from it is either by non-admission, non-circumcising, non-baptizing, or by drawing up the fore-skin, or excommunicating or such like act. Mr. B. saies in this chapter, that The Apostle saies it of the Jewish Church that some were broken off from the Church. The merciful gift and ordinance Mr. B. means is onelyonly this, That the Infants as well as the Parents should be accounted visible Church-members and have the initial seal. This merciful gift and ordinance I find no where, nor hath Mr. B. yet shewed it any where but in the institution of Circumcision, Gen. 17. The some that were broken off, Rom. 11. 17. were some of the Iewish Nation, and the rest remaining in must be understood of the same pepole. What else can be the meaning of Mr. Bs. conclusion but this, to the believing Jews who by believing continued in the olive-tree the visible Church of the Jews, the gift that they and their infant-children should be accounted visible Church-members, and Circumcised according to the institution Gen. 17. is not repealed, but to unbelieving Jews, who are broken off by not believing it is repealed? If any say the gift and ordinance is not meant of that particular institution, but of a visible Church-membership of infants perpetual in all ages, and of an indefinite initial seal, not of that particular initial seal of Circumcision, I reply, such a gift and ordinance is a meer figment like an Idea Platonica: all institutions of meer positives, are of such a rite in particular, and an initiall seal is meerly positive as signs that are not naturall, but by the will of the appointer, and therefore there is no initial seal indefinite. Now if this be Mr. Bs. meaning, I take his Conclusion to be the assertion of a man that dotes: in any other sense it is yet untelligible to me. As for the argument: The antecedent (though he use the Apostles words) is in his sense palpably false. For he conceives the some that were broken off were the unbelieving Iews, and that they were broken off from the visible Iewish Church, as he saith after. But that is palpably false: For they continued in the visible Iewish Church, and the believing Iews were broken off from that Church, and the Gentiles were not to be graffed into the visible Church of the Iews, but were to be broken off from them And for the Consequence, though Mr. B. thinks it strange that I denied it, yet I am so far from revoking that denial, that I now conceive the Consequence is rather good to the contrary, that if some were broken off, then the ordinance of infants visible Church-membership is revoked. For the some broken off being the people of the Iews, and the policy of the Iewish Church thereby dissolved, the ordinance of Circumcision and the visible Church-membership depending thereon, are dissolved or revoked to all, even them that did believe, as Gal. 4. 1. &c. is determined. And as for that which Mr. B. saith, the st…ength of his Consequence lies, it hath no strength in it. The breaking off in that text is so farre from being an unavoidable consequence of the revoking of that ordinance, that if that ordinance in Mr. B…. sense had been repealed, yet the Iews might have been still Gods visible Church: For what connexion is there between these, The ordinance that parent and child should be visible Church-members together is repealed, Ergo, the people of the Iews must necessarily be broken off from being Gods visible Church? I conceive of such a consequence so farre from being unavoidable, that it rather seems to me to be à baculo ad ang…lam. But the breaking off is in the text, v. 7. 20. expressedly made a consequent of their non-election and unbelief, and the whole chapter shews it: Now because these (some) were the most and chiefest part of the Iewish Church, and in a sort the body of that nation, therefore the national Church-frame of the Iews was dissolved, and therewith the infants visible Church-membership, which came by vertue of Legal descent from Abraham, or by associating themselves to the policy of Israel. Mr. B. pag. 101. confesseth, that if any say one part of the Ordinance Gen. 17. concerning Circumcising infants of infidels brought into Abrahams family was proper to the Jews, he hath somewhat to justifie it: I inferre that somewhat which justifieth so much, will justifie this also, that the taking the whole Nation and so the sort of infants of natives or others into the visible Church was proper to the Iews depending on the national Church-frame of the Iewish policy, and the command suitable thereto. Mr. B. addes. If any say that the some that were broken off were [all the infants among others] as the whole chapter will confute them, so specially consider, that the Apostle saith it of the Jewish Church, whereof the infants were members with their parents, that it was but some that were broken off from the church; so far is the whole church from being dissolved. An: To say the unbelieving Iews were broken off from the visible Church Iewish, is a palpable dotage of Mr. B. refuted before: The Church from which they were broken off, was the invisible Church of true believers of which Abraham was the root by exemplary believing: which being first in the Israelitish nation after Abraham, from whom it had a double descent natural and spiritual, is called their own olive, v. 24. they natural branches, the Gentile-believers the wild olive by nature, ingraffed by faith. Now from this I say not that all the infants were broken off: Breaking off is by non-election, which whether it reached to all or some I know not. The some that were broken off, were a great part of the Jewish Nation, and therewith was dissolved the Iewish Church visible with its peculiar national frame and policy, by reason of which the infants were accounted visible Church-members, and with it ceased to be so: yet infants might remain in the visible Church by election of grace. Mr. B. addes. Also consider that as the infants come in with their parents, so they are not cast out while their parents continue in: except when they are grown up they cast out themselves by their personall sins. Who can imagine that God should cast out the infant (that came in for the Fathers sake) while the parents remain in the same Church? Answ. The infants came into the visible Church of the Jews, not for their immediate parents fake by reason of their faith: though their parents were Idolaters, yet were they reckoned to the congregation of Israel, as the children of Ahab, Ahaz, &c. it was from the will of God in taking that Nation to be his people till Christ came to inherit all Nations. The infants of the Jews came into the invisible Church by election meerly of Gods grace, v. 5. and by reason of his Covenant first made to their fathers, by reason of which their posterity are yet beloved v. 28. and shall in some of the branches be re-ingraffed, v. 23, 24. In the whole chapter there's not the least hint of infants being visible Church-members by an initial seal. 'Tis true, in the Jewish policy they were reckoned to the congregation of Israel with their parents, and Circumcised by vertue of Gods command, and his good pleasure to take that Nation for his peculiar people till his Son came. He being come, takes to him disciples of all Nations, and breaks off the Jewish Nation through unbelief, and so dissolves their policy, and therewith the visible Church-membership of infants which depended thereon, though there were a remnant according to the election of grace among the Jews, yet there infants were not visible Church-members, not because God would punish them thereby, it was no punishment nor hurt to them (notwithstanding Mr. Bs. vain exclamations of I know not what loss by it) but because it seemed good to him now to gather his Church by his word and Spirit, not by legal descent. Mr. B. closeth the chapter thus. But the answer that is here given is, that this place speaketh of the invisible Church, which I shall reply to, when I have laid down my next argument, because it is from the same chapter. Answ. That is indeed the answer, and I shall attend to the reply.