Baptism, Part 2 · Chapter 1
CHAP. I. Wherein the Scriptures total ſilence about Infants Baptiſm is obſerved, with the neceſſity of Scripture-warranty to authorize every Ordinance, and that by the confeſſion of Parties themſelves.
IF Infants Baptiſm had been any Appointment or Ordinance of Jeſus Chriſt,No Scripture for Baptiſing Infants. there would have been ſome Precept, Command, or Example in the Scripture to warrant the ſame; but in as much as the Scripture is ſo wholly ſilent therein, there being not one ſyllable to be found in all the New Teſtament about any ſuch practice, it may well be concluded to be no Ordinance of Jeſus Chriſt; for where the Scripture hath no tongue, we ought to have no ear according to that known Maxime, To practiſe any thing in the Worſhip of God, as an Ordinance of his, without an Inſtitution, ought to be eſteemed Will-worſhip and Idolatry.
And that there is neither Precept or Example for any ſuch thing as Infants Baptiſm in the Scripture,The Parties themſelves owning it. we have the ingenuous confeſſion of Parties themſelves, viz.
Magdib.The Magdiburgenſes, in Cent. 1. L. 2. p. 496. do ſay, That concerning the baptiſing of the Adult, both Jews and Gentiles, we have ſufficient proof from Acts 2.8.10.16. chapters; but as to the baptiſing of Infants, they can meet with no Example in the Scriptures.
Luther.Luther in P…ſtill. ſaith, Young Children hear not, nor underſtand the Word of God, out of which Faith cometh, and therefore if the Commandment be followed, Children ought not to le baptized. And again;
In his Epiſtle of Anabaptiſm, ſaith, We cannot prove, by any place of Scripture, that Children do believe; neither do the Scriptures clearly, and plainly, with theſe or the like words, ſay, Baptize your Children, for they believe; wherefore we muſt needs yeeld to thoſe that drive us to the Letter, becauſe we find it no where written.
Eraſmus Eraſmus.in his Book of the Union of the Church, ſaith, It is no where expreſſed in the Apoſtolical Writings, that they baptized Children.
And again, upon Rom. 6. Baptiſing of young Infants was not in uſe, ſaith he, in St. Paul's time. And again;
In his 4th Book, De Ratione Concio. ſaith, That they are not to be condemned that doubt whether Childrens Baptiſm was ordained by the Apoſtles.
Calvin, Calvin.in his 4th Book of Inſtitutes, Chap. 16. confeſſeth, That it is no where expreſly mentioned by the Evangeliſts, that any one Child was by the Apoſtl's hands baptized.
Bucer Bucer.upon Mat. ſaith, That Chriſt no where commanded to baptize Infants.
Staphilus Staphilusin Epitome ſaith, That young Children ſhould be baptized, is not expreſſed in the holy Scriptures.
Choelens, Choelens.De Bapt. Parvulorum, ſaith, That Jeſus took a Child, and placed him in the midſt of them; what Child was it? I think it was not a young or new-born Child, and that the ſame was not baptized.
For Infants were not in thoſe dayes baptized, but ſuch as being come to their full growth, confeſſed their ſins.
Melancthon, Melanct.in his Treatiſe concerning the Doctrine of Anabaptiſts, writeth, That there is no plain Commandment in the holy Scriptures, that Children ſhould be baptized.
Zwinglius, Zwing.In his Book of the Movers of Sedition, ſpeaking of baptizing of Children, So it is, ſaith he, That there is no plain words of the Scripture, whereby the ſame is commanded.
Theſe latter Quotations from the Germane Doctors, you have in an old Dutch Author, called, A very plain and well-grounded Treatiſe concerning Baptiſme. Engliſhed 1618.
Mr. Daniel Rogers, Mr. Rogers.in his Treatiſe about Baptiſm, Part 29, confeſſeth himſelf to be unconvinced by demonſtration of Scripture for it.
Mr. Baxter Mr. Baxter.himſelf, that wrote that Book called, Plain Scripture-proof for Infants Church-Memberſhip and Baptiſm; yet in contradiction thereto, in the ſame Book, p. 3. confeſſeth, That Infants Baptiſm is not plainly determined in the Scriptures.
And again, in the Defence of the Principles of Love, in the Epiſtle, ſaith, That he having had more invitation to ſtudy the Point throughly, and to treat of it largly, than moſt that are offended herein, that they muſt give him leave to ſay, that he knoweth it to be a very difficult Point.
Dr. Taylor, Dr. Taylor.Lib. Proph. p. 239, ſaith, It is againſt the perpetual Analogy of Chriſt's Doctrine to baptize Infants; for beſides that, Chriſt never gave any Precept to baptize them; nor ever himſelf, nor his Apoſtles (that appears) did baptize any of them: All that either he or his Apoſtles ſaid concerning it, requires ſuch previous diſpoſitions to Baptiſm, of which Infants are not capable, and thoſe are Faith and Repentance. And not to inſtance in thoſe innumerable places that require Faith before Baptiſm, there needs no more but this one of our Bleſſed Saviour. He that believes, and is baptized, ſhall be ſaved; but he that believeth not, ſhall be condemned. Plainly thus, Faith and Baptiſm will bring a man to Heaven; but if he hath no Faith, Baptiſm ſhall do him no good; ſo that if Baptiſm be neceſſary, ſo is Faith much more, for the want of Faith dawns abſolutely; it is not ſaid ſo of the want of Baptiſm.
The neceſſity of Scripture Authority to warrant every Ordinance.Thus you have it acknowledged by Adverſaries themſelves, that there is neither Precept, Preſident, or Example in Scripture for baptiſing of Infants.
And in the next place you have it further owned, That there is a neceſſity for Scripture-Authority to warrant every Ordinance and Practice in Divine Worſhip, viz.
Luther Luther.upon Gal. 1.9. ſaith, There ought no other Doctrine to be delivered, or heard, in the Church, beſides the pure Word of God, that is, the holy Scriptures; let other Teachers and Hearers, with their Doctrines, be accurſed.
Calvin, Calvin.Lib 4. Inſt. Cap. 8. Serm. 8. Let this be a firm Axiom, ſaith he, That nothing is to be accounted the Word and Will of God, to which place ſhould be given in the Church; but that which is firſt contained in the Law and the Prophets, and after in the Apoſtolical Writings.
Baſil, Baſil.in his Sermon de Fide, ſaith, That it would be an Argument of Infidelity, and a moſt certain ſign of pride, if any man ſhould reject things written, and ſhould introduce things not written.
Auſtin Auſtin.himſelf ſaith, Detrabe Verbum, quid eſt Aqua niſi Aqua? Take away the Word, what is the Water but pl…n Water? If the Word of Inſtituti… be wanting, what doth the Element of Water ſignifie?
Theophilact, TheophilLib. 2. Paſchal. It is, ſaith he the part of a Diabolical Spirit, to think any thing Divine, without the Authority of the holy Scrip…ures.
Tertul. Tertu.Contra Hermog. I do adore, ſaith he, the fulneſs of the Scripture; Let Hermogines ſhew that it is written, if it be not written, Let him fear the wee deſtined to thoſe who add or detract.
And Mr. Ball, Mr. Ball.very excellently to to this purpoſe, in his Anſwer to the New-England Elders, p. 38, 39. ſaying, We muſt for every Ordinance look to the Inſtitution, and neither ſtretch it wider, nor draw it narrower than the Lord hath made it; for he is the Inſtitutor of the Sacraments, according to his own good pleaſure, and it is our parts to learn of him, both to whom, how, and for what end the Sacraments are to be adminiſtred, in all which we muſt affirm nothing but what God hath taught us, and as he hath taught us.
The ſixth Article of the Churh of EnglandThe ſixth Article of the Church of England, ſaith very fully to this Point, That the Holy Scriptures do contain all things neceſſary to Salvation, ſo that whatſoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required by any man that it ſhould be believed as an Article of Faith, or be thought requiſite and neceſſary to Salvation.
We ſhall conclude this Chapter with that notable Obſervation that Bellarmine makes in the Caſe, upon the Anabaptiſts calling for plain Scripture-proof for the Baptiſing of Infants, from them who ſo exactly require it from others, and will not in any other caſe admit the omiſſion thereof; in his Book De Bapt. Lib. 1.Bellarm. c. 8. where he ſaith, That though the Argument of the Anabaptiſts, from defect of Command or Example, have great force againſt the Lutherans, foraſmuch as they uſe that Principle every where, viz. That the Rite which is not in Scripture, having no Command or Example there, is to be rejected. Yet is it of no force againſt Catholicks, who conclude that Apoſtolical Tradition is of no leſs Authority with us than the Scripture, for the Apoſtl's ſpeak with the ſame Spirit, with which they did write. But that this of baptiſing of Infants is an Apoſtolical Tradition, we know whence we know the Apoſtolick Scripture to be the Apoſtolick Scripture, viz. from the Teſtimonies of the Antient Church.
Objection The Objection that is uſually brought under this Head is, That there is no expreſs Command or Example for Womens receiving the Lord's Supper; yet who doubts of a good ground from conſequential Scripture for their ſo doing.
Anſwer. In Anſwer whereto, you'l find there is both Example and Command for the Practice, viz.
1. From Example, Acts 1.14. where we read that Mary and other Women were gathered together, and that theſe Women, together with the reſt of the Diſciples, were all together in one place, and continued ſtedfaſtly in the Apoſtl's Doctrine and Fellowſhip, and breaking of Bread and Prayers, Chap. 2.42 44. it being expreſly ſaid, That all that believed were together.
2. It appears from command, 1 Cor. 11.28. Let a man examine himſelf, and ſo let him eat; the Greek word ſignifieth a Man or a Woman, the word is foreign, a word of the Common Gender, as appears 1 Tim. 2.4, 5. There is one Mediator betwixt God, and Man, and Woman; there is the ſame word uſed Gal. 3.28. There is neither Male nor Fem…le, but ye are all one in Chriſt: Let but as good proof appear for Infants Baptiſm and it ſhall ſuffice.