An Abstract of Baxters Plain Scripture Proof for Infants Baptism, Part 3
Now to the Common Objections.
(1.) If theſe Texts be objected, Rom. v. p. 110.9. 8. They that are the Children of the fleſh, theſe are not the Children of God, but the Children of the Promiſe are accounted for the Seed, Eph. 2. 3. We are by Nature the Children of Wrath.] To the firſt Text, what is it the Apoſtle mainly drives at, but that Men are not therefore ſaved, becauſe they are Abraham's carnal ſeed, (and conſequently, not becauſe they are the carnal ſeed of any other?) And is it their certain Salvation, or their Church-Memberſhip, that we diſpute for (in regard of Individuals?) And further, doth the Apoſtle ſpeak one word againſt the priviledge of thoſe Infants, whoſe Parents violated not Gods Covenant, nor fell away? If a man ſhould affirm, That all the Infants of the faithful (ſo dying) are certainly ſaved, is there a ſyllable in the Text againſt him? Were they not aged unbelievers that the Apoſtle excludeth here?
And to Eph. 2. 3. What though we are by nature the children of wrath; Doth it follow, that we may not be otherwiſe by grace? Again, may not v. p. III.children be viſible Church-members, and yet perhaps children of wrath too? Were not all the children of Church-members among both Jews and Proſelites Church-members? And yet were they not children of wrath by nature, as we are?
2. If you object, that Infants are not capable of the ends of Baptiſm: To this, though Infants are not capable of v. Preface. p. 2, 3.every benefit by Baptiſm, as the Aged are; yet are they not capable of the principal ends? May it not be a liſting ſign to enter them Church-members, and ſolemnize their Dedication to Chriſt, and engage them to be his people, and to take him for their Lord and Saviour, and ſo to confer on them remiſſion of ſin, and what Chriſt by the Covenant promiſeth to the Baptiſed; (though yet themſelves underſtand not this; even as we put the names of Infants in Bonds and Leaſes, which they can neither read nor know of?)
And may it not be operative by its v. p. III.ſignification as ſoon as the Child comes to the uſe of Reaſon, (which will not be ſo long as you uſe to defer Baptiſm?) And in the mean time, as his intereſt is upon the …dition of the Parents faith, and as he is received as it were a v. p. 112.Member of them, ſo may not the Parents have the preſent actual comfort of it, (as the Parent hath the actual comfort of a Leaſe that aſſureth an Eſtate to his Child?) And was not Chriſt himſelf Baptized, when yet he was not capable of many of the great ends of Baptiſm? Was Baptiſm to Chriſt a ſign of the waſhing away of ſin, or of purifying his Soul, (which was perfect before,) or of being buried with Chriſt, &c. And how uncapable were the Infants that Chriſt laid his hands on, and took up in his Armes, of underſtanding the meaning of what he did? Shall we therefore ſay, that Chriſt ſhould have let it alone till afterwards? And will you tell us, what operation Circumciſion had on the Infants of Church-members formerly? Was it not a Seal of the righteouſneſs of Faith? And yet, had they any more Faith or knowledge of the ſignificancy, than ours have now? Was it not an engaging ſign? And yet, were not they as uncapable of underſtanding either the ſignificancy, or engagement, as ours are? So,
(3.) If you object, How can an Infant Covenant with God, or be engaged by this Sign? And where doth God require the Parent to engage his children, &c. To this, if only the Aged v. p. 253.are capable of engagement, may you not thence ſtraitway conclude, that no Infant was ever circumciſed? But may not that be the Childs Action Morally, and in Law-ſence, which is v. p. 178, 179.onelyonly the Fathers Action Phyſically? When a man puts his Childs name in a Leaſe, and binds himſelf and his heirs, is not the Child thus entred into Covenant and Bond? And does not the Law take it as his Act? And is it not a plain v. p. 113.natural duty of Parents to covenant for their children, when it is for their good? And doth not the Scripture fully ſhew, that all the people of Iſrael did (by Gods appointment) enter their children into the Covenant of God? Were they not to circumciſe them, which God calleth [his Covenant] and [the ſign of the Covenant?] And is it not as plainly ſpoken, as the mouth of man can ſpeak it, in Deut. 29. 10, 11, 12, 13. Did not the Parents there v. p. 250.enter their children into the Covenant, and not the Infants themſelves? And doth not that ſhew, God hath given Parents their intereſt and authority?
4. Another common objection is, if Infants muſt be Baptized, why may they not as well receive the Lords v. p. 115.Supper? To which, may not the very external nature of the ſeveral Sacraments ſatisfie you? Hath not Chriſt appointed the firſt to be ſuch, as Infants are capable of? May not they be waſhed as well as the Aged? But is not the other ſuch as they are, naturally incapable of in their firſt Infancy? And is not the former inſtituted plainly for all diſciples? But what Scripture ſaith, that all Diſciples as ſuch, ſhould preſently receive the Lords Supper? Is it not reſtrained to thoſe, that can firſt examine themſelves, and can diſcern the Lords Body, and keep in remembrance v. p. 243.his Death? And if every Burgeſs at Age, as ſuch, hath power to Trade, &c. in the City; will it therefore follow, that every Infant may do ſo, that is born a Burgeſs?
(5.) It hath been objected, that if it be the Will of Chriſt that Infants v. p. 115.ſhould be Baptized, it is ſtrange, that he hath left it ſo dark. To which, will you not grant, that all Church-members muſt be admitted by Baptiſm? Is this dark or doubtful? And how many Scriptures are there that prove Infants muſt be admitted Church-members? Can we ſay, the Scripture is dark, or ſparing in that? Again, The Scripture ſpeaks moſt fully in the Controverſies, which in thoſe times were agitated: but was it any Controverſie then, whether Infants were to be Members of the viſible Church? Did not the Jews take it for unqueſtionable, all v. p. 116.their Infants having actual poſſeſſion, and that upon Gods own grant and Ordination? Now, if Chriſt would have diſpoſſeſſed them, ſhould he not ſomewhere have diſcovered it? And would it not have occaſioned great diſputes and debates? [v. Epiſtle to Bewdley, p. 5, 6.]
Further, what if it were more obſcure than it is? Is not the New Teſtament as ſilent about Chriſtian Kings, or any Chriſtian Magiſtrates, or about an Oath before a Magiſtrate, and about War, and about the prohibited degrees of Marriage, and about the Sabbath, &c. Will you therefore ſay, theſe are not revealed? It it not enough that they are revealed in the Old Teſtament? And was not Infants Church-memberſhip revealed clearly there?
(6.) Another objection is, The evil v. p. 117.conſequences of Infant-Baptiſm, as groſs Ignorance much occaſioned by it, &c. To which, 1. Is not the Lord Jeſus himſelf the occaſion of the ruine and damnation of multitudes, (Luk. 2. 34.) Had it been better therefore, the World had been without him? And is not the Goſpel to many, The Savour of Death unto Death, and to the Jews a ſtumbling-block, and to the Gentiles fooliſhneſs? And muſt the Goſpel be blamed for this? What is it that Wicked men will not take hurt by, and make an occaſion of their deſtruction? And have not many ſaid ſo about the religious Education of children, that it is but the way to make them Hypocrites? point-blank againſt the Will and Word of God, Deut. 6. 7. Prov. 22. 6. And do not many make v. p. 117, 118.their belief of the Scripture, and believing that Chriſt died and roſe again, and that he is the Saviour of the World, and the profeſſion of his Name, to be the ground of their hopes of Salvation, and thouſands more, than that truſt to their meer Baptiſm? And what if many amongſt you think to be ſaved, becauſe they are Baptized again? 2. Can you ſhew (any of you) what there is in the nature of the thing, that v. p. 118.ſhould be hurtful to any? If a Child that cannot read, be entred into the School, that he may learn to read, is there any thing in this that tends to deluſion? If a Childs name be put into a Leaſe, is there any thing in this to do him hurt? 3. Was that the reaſon of the deluſion, and groſs ignorance of the Jews, that they did not ſtay till they were at Age? Shall we thus make God the deluder, and blinder of the Jews, and accuſe his Sacred Laws and Inſtitutions of Errour? If it was an high favour to them to be entred in Infancy into the Church and Covenant, how comes it to be an hurt or wrong to us now? 4. Was the caſe of the Proſelites among the Jews (being entred at age) ſo much better than the caſe of their own children, and of all the Jews and their children? And had the Jews, Gods own people, leſs mercy v. p. 119.than thoſe that were thus adjoyned to them? 5. If all ſhould profeſs their Faith in Chriſt before they were entred, how quickly might the multitude learn ſuch a profeſſion, as none of you could reject upon any Scripture-ground? And might it not become cuſtomary, formal, and conſiſtent with great ignorance? And they that will make no conſcience of the ſolemn Promiſe which their Parents made in their names, is it likely that they will make ever the more Conſcience of it, if they had made it firſt in their own names; ſeeing the violation of either will alike forfeit their Salvation? 6. Do not Miniſters indeavour to take men off from ſuch formality and ſelf-deluſions? And let them know, that their meer Baptiſm (whether in Infancy, or at Age) is not ſufficient? 7. What if this were done, that when children come to Age, they muſt all ſolemnly, in the face of the Congregation perſonally own, and renew their Covenant? Why may not this engage them, as well as if they were Baptized then? Was every man that was Baptized at Age in the Apoſtles v. p. 124.times, neceſſarily to profeſs, that he believed in Chriſt with all his heart, (which indeed containeth the ſum of the Covenant) yet may we not be bound to theſe disjunctively, (who by Gods Law are to be Baptized in Infancy) that each duty ſhould be performed, as we are capable of it? 8. Would your way of Baptizing be likely to engage men half ſo ſolemnly, as ſuch a courſe; it being ordinarily in a manner private, and done in ſuch manner, that perſons of modeſty will be ſo taken up with ſhame, that they will be leſs ſerious in the buſineſs.
9. If God would have Infants to be Church-members, and ſo entred by Baptiſm, are not all theſe objections againſt God, and a carping at his way?
Now (having enquired about the grounds and proofs, and defence of the v. p. 125.Church-memberſhip, and Baptiſm of Infants,) next let us ſee, whether your practice of delaying Baptiſm have as much warrant in Gods word.
(1.) Where do you find one word of Precept or Example in all the Bible for deferring the Baptiſm of the Child of any one Chriſtian till years of diſcretion? Should not you bring ſome Scripture v. p. 126.for your way, who require ſuch expreſs proof from us? Now can you ſhew one word of command or example here? If you cannot, how can you ſay that yours is the Scripture-way?
(2.) Is not your way inconſiſtent with obedience to the Rule? Is it not Chriſts Rule, that perſons ſhall be Baptiſed without delay, when they are firſt made Diſciples? Doth not this appear in the Commiſſion, Mat. 28. 19, 20. where Chriſt adjoyneth Baptizing immediately to Diſcipling? And from conſtant example in Scripture, explaining the Commiſſion? Where do we find mention of any one perſon, that was Baptized long after being diſcipled? And from the end and uſe of Baptiſm? v. p. 127.Is not this the uſe of Baptiſm, to be the ſign of their firſt Covenant with Chriſt, and ſolemn admiſſion into the Church? Then is it not to be uſed at their firſt Admiſſion? (If any reaſon of neceſſity or convenience, cauſe it to be put off a few days; yet this is not delaying it months and years, (as you do) though indeed there is no warrant in Scripture for any delay at all, but as neceſſity may excuſe it.) Now, though you yield the uſe of the ſign to v. p. 341.them when they come to Age, yet what is it but an empty ſign, quite beſide Chriſts Inſtitution, and void of the true end of Baptiſm? for how can it then be the initiating ſign to thoſe that have been long in the Church before? I the children of Chriſtians are diſciples v. p. 128.in their Infancy, then how can you that Baptiſe them not till they come to Age, (in ſo doing) Baptiſe them when they are firſt Diſciples? And further, ſuppoſe this were not proved, that Infants are Diſciples, yet if you cannot know when ſuch children are firſt diſcipled (except it be in their Infancy) how can you Baptiſe them when they are firſt diſcipled? Taking diſcipleſhip at preſent in your own ſenſe, and ſetting aſide the conſideration of meer Relative Infant-diſcipleſhip, how can you know it, ſince God uſeth to work ſuch as are born and brought up of Chriſtian Parents to the acknowledgment of Chriſt by ſuch inſenſible degrees, that the beginning of their true acknowledgment is ordinarily unperceivable? Again, ſeeing ſuch do not uſually know themſelves when they were firſt diſciples (in this ſenſe) how much leſs can others know it?
(3.) Would not this practice (of v. p. 130.yours) neceſſarily fill the Church with perpetual contentions, as being about a matter, that cannot be determined by any known Rule? And can that be according to the mind and will of Chriſt? If the Goſpel occaſioneth contentions, doth it any more than occaſion them? But would not this naturally, and neceſſarily produce them? And that in the Churches, and amongſt v. p. 131.the beſt Miniſters and Chriſtians? When would the Churches or Miniſters ever agree upon it, when their underſtanding, or ſeeming ſeriouſneſs is arrived at that degree, which muſt ſatisfie? Whereas it is eaſily known to all, and can be no controverſie, when a man begins to profeſs himſelf v. p. 132.a Diſciple, who was before a Pagan; yet when one is born in the Boſome of the Church, and brought up in the profeſſion of Chriſtianity, and ſo comes to it by inſenſible degrees, is not the caſe far different?
(4.) When you pretend to ground your practice on Mat. 28. 19, 20. from whence you would infer, that none are to be Baptiſed, but thoſe that are firſt made Diſciples by teaching, (though the truth is, that indirectly, and remotely, the diſcipling of the Parent, is a diſcipling of his ſeed alſo) would not your Doctrine turn Baptiſm, (for the moſt part) out of the Churches of the Saints? According to you, only they that are made diſciples by Miniſterial teaching directly, ſhould by this Rule be Baptized, and in a well-ordered godly Church would not theſe be few, or none? Taking [Diſciple] in your ſenſe for a Profeſſor of Chriſtianity, hath not God appointed another primary, more ordinary way of making Diſciples of the children of the Godly, viz. godly education? Hath not God commanded the uſe of this means to all Parents, that they teach them the Law of God, and bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord from their childhood? And may we not conclude, that God appoints no means to be uſed, from which he will ordinarily withdraw his Grace, or to which he will deny his Bleſſing, if it be uſed aright? (though the Word convert many that have neglected their v. p. 290.Parents, or have been neglected by them.) And further, doth not experience confirm it, that God frequently v. p. 133.bleſſeth this means? Now, according to you, how many thouſands are there that ſhould never be Baptized, becauſe they were not firſt made Diſciples by Teaching, according to the ſenſe of Mat. 28. 19. which is Miniſterial Teaching?
(5) Your ordinary practice of Baptizing v. p. 134.by Dipping over head in cold water, (which you uſe as neceſſary) is it not a breach of the Sixt Commandment, Thou ſhalt not kill. Being ordinarily and generally uſed, doth it not tend directly to overthrow peoples health and lives? How vain is it to ſay, that many are appointed the uſe of Bathing, as a Remedy againſt Diſeaſes? Is it an Univerſal Remedy? yea, how few Diſeaſes have cold Baths appointed them? And how many that have been tenderly brought up, and take but little of the cold Air, that dipping in cold weather in cold water in the courſe of nature would kill, either preſently, or by caſting them into ſome Chronical Diſeaſe? Will you ſay, if it be Gods way, he will prevent the v. p. 136.danger, how great ſoever? But hath God appointed any Ordinance contradictory to his great Moral Commands? Hath he appointed any Ordinance in his Church, which will deſtroy men, except they be preſerved by Miracle? Will you ſay, he hath tied himſelf to a conſtant working of Miracles, (which he hath not done, except duplicate page duplicate page the Doctrine of Tranſubſtantiation be true?) May we tempt God? And have you duly conſidered what our Saviour ſaith, Mat. 12. 7. If you had learned what this meaneth, I will have Mercy, and not Sacrifice, ye would not have condemned the guiltleſs?—If in caſe of v. p. 135.danger, you ſhould have, and allow of a warm Bath, ſhould not you that are wont to call for expreſs Scripture for Infant-Baptiſm, be required to bring expreſs Scripture for this warm Bath?—If you ſay, they may ſtay till the heat of Summer, where have you any Scripture for that?
Farther, is it yet proved by any of you, that Dipping was conſtantly uſed in the Scripture-times. Is it plain, or ſo much as probable, that the Jaylor was dipt over head, who was Baptized in the night in his houſe? And does not the Greek word ſignifie to Waſh, as well as to Dip? Is it not ſo taken, when applied to other things, as Mar. 7. 4, 8, &c. And is not the thing ſignified ſet forth by the phraſe of Waſhing or Sprinkling? and need the Sign exceed the thing ſignified? (See Iſa. 44. 3. Ezek. 36. 25. Joel 2. 28. 1 Cor. 6. 11. Tit. 3. 5. Heb. 10. 22. and 12. 24. 1 Pet. 1. 2.) And if it was otherwiſe, might it not be only occaſional, from a Reaſon proper to thoſe hot Countries? Where hath Chriſt appointed the meaſure of water, or the manner of waſhing, any more than he hath appointed in the Lords Supper what quantity of Bread and Wine each muſt take? May not a little ſignifie as well as much; as a clod of Earth doth in giving poſſeſſion of much Lands, &c.
(6.) Is it not a breach of the ſeventh v. p. 136.Commandment, [Thou ſhalt not commit Adultery] to Dip perſons naked, or next to naked? Doth not the ſeventh Commandment forbid all incitements to uncleanneſs, and all immodeſt actions? And is it not ſuch, to Baptize Women naked, or next to naked? v. p. 137.Can that practice be of God, which would turn Gods worſhip into contempt, and make it ridiculous, and bring a general reproach upon the Chriſtian profeſſion among all the Enemies of it, yea, among the moſt ſober and diſcreet, and that upon ſo probable grounds? And to Dip perſons cloathed, will it not overthrow v. p. 138.the Argument uſually brought for the neceſſity of waſhing the whole Body? Though the garment be waſhed, yet may it not hinder the waſhing of ſome parts of the Body?
(7.) (What fruit of theſe things?) How many of you, that inſtead of v. p. 144.labouring after the winning of Souls from ſin to God, make it the main ſcope of your endeavours in publick and private, to propagate your opinions? How many of you make a great v. p. 146.ſtir, till you have brought poor Souls (which is too eaſily done) to place their Religion, in being of your opinion here, and being re-baptized? How many of you are great hinderers of the Goſpel, and of the work of converting v. p. 144.Souls, making it your buſineſs to bring the Miniſters of the Goſpel into contempt? Whether may not this be one thing that greatly confirmeth men in their enmity to the Doctrine of the Goſpel, and the Preachers thereof, when they hear thoſe deſpiſe the Miniſtry, that once were conſtant hearors? yea, hear them perſwading people, that Miniſters are Seducers, falſe Prophets, &c. (As if the firſt thing they had to learn, was to ſco…n their Teachers.) What way could be found out more effectual to make people diſregard and deſpiſe the Goſpel, and ſo to ruin their own Souls, than thus to teach them to vilifie the Meſſengers of the Goſpel, and perſwade them that it is a vertue to reproach and forſake their Guides? And whether the moſt of you do well, that have made your Doctrine a ground of ſeparation? And that perſwade people, that it is a ſin to hear our pretended Miniſters, (as they have been called) becauſe they were never Baptized? If you can make them believe, that the Miniſters are Seducers, and that it is a Sin to v. p. 145.hear them, what good are they likely to receive by that Miniſtry? And what a caſe was the Land in, if all did believe, as ſome of you teach? And where the Goſpel before proſpered, v. p. 146.and Chriſtians ſpent their time and conference in the edifying of each others Souls, and in heavenly duties, and lived together in unity and love, (according to the great command of Chriſt) have not many of you (when you have come) turned this to vain janglings, and unprofitable diſputes, and turned their Unity into Factions and Diviſions, and their Amity into Jealouſies and Contentions? yea, how v. p. 149.many a diſtracted family is there in England (upon this account) where one will pray, and the other will not pray with him, becauſe he is unbaptized, who were wont to Worſhip God in unity?
And here I would have ended. Only there are two or three Queries more which offer themſelves, that I commend to your ſerious conſideration.
Q. 1. Whether it be at all credible v. p. 177.that Satan would be ſo charitable to Believers Infants, as to plead for their priviledges; or would be a propagater of Chriſts Kingdom, and forward to engage and bring in Subjects and Diſciples to him?
Q. 2. Whereas we tell ſinners of the v. p. 174.hainous aggravation of their ſins, as being committed after Baptiſm, and after their ſolemn Vow and Covenant made to God; whether you that make Infant-Baptiſm a nullity, dare undertake to bear the burthen of this Aggravation for them? And whether you may tell ſinners (that we do but ſerve them, as ſome ſerve fooliſh children, Fright them with Bug-bears) that there is no ſuch matter, they were never Baptized, and therefore never ſinned againſt their Baptiſm: they were never ſo engaged to God, and therefore never ſinned againſt that engagement? Will you warrant them, that they never need to repent for their ſinning againſt their Baptiſm, and the Covenant then made? Or will you bear the blame for them?
Q. 3. Whether it ſhould not lie heavy on any tender conſcience to add v. p. 160.to Gods Word, holding the repeal of the Ordinance of Infants Church-memberſhip, which no Scripture affirmeth; to be guilty of the Churches doleful Diviſions, and the great grief that hereby oppreſſeth the hearts of ſo many of Gods people; to cenſure (if not unchurch) all the Churches of Chriſt ſince the Apoſtles times, or almoſt all—? And all this in contending, that your own children are out of Chriſts viſible Church? How doleful v. p. 161.is it, that any Chriſtians ſhould be ſo zealous to diſpute their own children out of Chriſts Church; and to plead that they have no right to be admitted Members, that they are no Diſciples of Chriſt, no Chriſtians?
And whether they that are zealous v. p. 177.in ſolliciting men not to engage their Children in Covenant with God, may not have as many thanks from Chriſt, as the Diſciples had for keeping ſuch from him?
FINIS.