Truth Defended, Postscript 3
POSTSCRIPT.
In Anſwer to Mr. Walker's Modeſt Plea, &c.
MR. Walker's Modeſt Plea for Infant Baptiſm coming to hand, whilſt thoſe Papers were delay'd at the Preſs, I thought fit to ſay ſomething to it; yet ſhall obſerve my wonted brevity: and the rather becauſe his Arguments (as he ſays, p. 425.) are moſtly thoſe that were uſed by Dr. Taylor, and Dr. Hammond, now fitted by him for vulgar capacity. As for Dr. Taylor, whether we reſpect the Authority of the Perſon, or the ſtrength of his Reaſoning, let his Liberty of Prophecy determine, whether he has not given Paedobaptiſm ſuch a wound, as neither he himſelf, nor any other of that perſwaſion, (no not Dr. Hammond himſelf) were, or ever will be, able to cure. So that whatever he urged againſt us afterwards, (which was but very faint too) is upon record ſubſtantially confuted by his own pen. As to Dr. Hammond's Arguments, they are largely and learnedly refelled by Mr. Tombs, in the later Sections of the ſecond and third part of his Review, which Mr. Walker ſhould have taken notice of; and to which the enquiring Reader is now referred.
As to the ſtile and manner of Mr. Walker's writing againſt us, I own it to be indeed, for the moſt part, modeſt and ſober, having not given himſelf the libert… of ſuch an unſavoury treatment, and unchriſtian Refl…ons, as is almoſt the common language of our other Antagoniſts; And … ground for his ſo fairly treating us, in the beginning … Preface, [viz. as lying under the ſtrongeſt prejud… … diſſenters from the Church of England, becauſe … ingly fair pleas, from Scripture, and Eccleſiaſt … few of our fellow diſſenters can paralli… … more favour and kindneſs to be treat … neſs and clearneſs ought our … candid and ingenuou… …
As to the matter of his Book, it is confeſs'd, his labour in quoting ſo many Greek and Latine Authorities, has not been ſmall; (And Mr. Danvers before him gave through every Century a collection of their real, as pretended Authorities:) And I confeſs freely, that he hath much more to pretend from Antiquity, then thoſe have who aſſert Infant Baptiſm from a faederal right, a Medium not to be found among the Fathers, nor in the world (as I can find) till about Zuinglius his time in the 16th. Century. For all the Fathers that held the Baptiſm of Infants, for theſe laſt 1200 years it has been in the world, have aſſerted it [and Voſſius himſelf ſays, that it was the mind of the Catholick Church, Magnus eſt (antiquitatis) conſenſus, quod — Infantes per baptiſmum vitae ac felicitatis aeternae participes fiant, p. 594.] from its neceſſity to ſalvation. Which diſmal opinion growing common, that none without baptiſm could be ſaved, from John 3.5. miſ-underſtood; and the Intereſt of their Childrens ſalvation, having ſo near an influence and impreſſion upon them, cauſed them to admit a concluſion of ſo great moment and concernment, upon very eaſie and infirm conſiderations. And hence came the pract…ce to give them, as Baptiſm, ſo the Lords Supper, for 600 years together, from its neceſſity alſo to ſalvation, as they inferred it (and indeed with as much reaſon as the other) from John 6.53.
By way of premiſe, and to prevent Repetition, I ſhall conſider how far the practice of Antiquity (ſo much lean'd upon by Mr. Walker and others) is obliging to us, and of what weight their Teſtimonies ought to be, in deciding this Controverſie. And I ſhall lay this down for a principle, which no man I preſume will deny, — That Proofs ought to be fetcht from ſuch things as are confeſs'd and acknowledged by our adverſary whom we endeavour to convince, otherwiſe we ſhall never be able to move him, or make him quit his former opinion. And therefore no proof from the Fathers, to prove a matter of right, is valid againſt us, becauſe we own …ot their Authority. To many indeed, that's a great argu… baptizing of Infants, but to us (as I ſaid) ſuch … are ſo far from being of the firſt magnitude, … collateral, being as often brought for the … as truth.
… as a Rule, or Standard to try … certain and undoubted, and muſt carry with it, a ſufficient authority to ſatisfie the underſtanding, which neither can, nor indeed ought to believe any thing in point of Religion, (as the excellent Daille at large evinces) but what it knows to be certainly true. It is certain that in the proof of an Hypotheſis, to begin with the Fathers and humane Authority, is to invert the natural order of things; we ought firſt to have recourſe to the Scriptures of truth, that we may be aſſured, that the thing is, or ought to be, before we make enquiry whether it hath been in the reſpective ages believed or not. For to what purpoſe is it to find that the Ancients believed it, unleſs we find withall in their writings, ſome reaſon of this their belief? and what harm is it to us to be ignorant, whether Antiquity believed it, or not, ſo long as we know that the thing is? Quod ſacris Scripturis traditum non eſt, non ſine peccato inquiritur, ſive periculo ignoratur, ſays Bull…nger.
The greateſt admirers of the Fathers confeſs, that though they erre little in matter of right, yet are often out, and have their failings in matter of fact, becauſe right is an univerſal thing, every way uniform, and all of one ſort, whereas matter of fact is a thing which is mixt, and as it were enchas'd with divers particular circumſtances, which may eaſily eſcape the obſervation and knowledge of (or at leaſt be not ſo rightly underſtood by) the moſt clear and piercing wits. Now the condition of the Churches belief in every particular age, is matter of fall, and not right, and a point of Hiſtory, not an Article of Faith. He that will not examine the Reaſons, as well as the Opinions of men, (though of never ſo venerable names) may be ſoon led into a labyrinth of error. How conſonant to Reaſon is it, that we ſhould alledge, not the Names of Books, but the Reaſons, and take notice not of the quality of their Authors, but of the ſolidity of their proofs, ſo to reduce the diſpute from perſons to things, according to that memorable ſaying of Jerom, Ep. 15. Non juxta Pytagorae Diſcipulos, praejudicata doctoris opinio, ſed doctrinae ratio ponderanda eſt.
What is urged here is to reduce Controverſies to be tried before the right bar, viz. the Scriptures, ſince that alone is of ſo ſacred and undoubted authority as to oblige our belief, to whatever is found there; and againſt which no objections lie, the Lord having by his gracious providence preſerved them in the Church from the injuries of time, ignorance, and fraud, from the beginning hitherto. They have been kept with much greater care, then any other Books, tranſlated into all Languages, retained both by Orthodox and Hereticks, diligently obſerving each other, ſo that there could not poſſibly happen any remarkable alteration in them, but that preſently the whole world would have exclaimed againſt it; whereas (as learned Daille truly ſays) much of the writings that go under the names of the Fathers, are not truly ſach, and that the Hereticks vented their conceits under thoſe eminent names, to gain them repute; And that their legitimate pieces are wonderfully corrupted and obſcure, (and ſuch are not proper for the deciſion of Controverſies) and incumbred with Rhetorical flouriſhes, and Legical ſubtilties; and that they have erred in divers points of Religion, and contradicted one another in matters of great importance. So that in this caſe we are to take the courſe that's obſerved in all Sciences whatſoever; we are to prove the truth we propoſe by ſuch maximes as are acknowledg'd and allow'd, making good that which is doubtfull, by that which is certain; and clearing that which is ob…ure, by that which is evident. The Word of God is our Common Book, let us ſearch into it, for that upon which we may ground our own belief, and by which we may overthrow error; — Regula eſt menſura ſui & obliqui. The Scripture ſufficiently delivers us the poſitive truth, which is enough; for as whatſoever rightly followeth thereupon, is true: ſo whatſoever claſheth with, or contradicteth the ſame, is falſe. No Science gives us any certain account of Negative Propoſitions, for as much as to go about to number them all, would be both an infinite, and alſo an unprofitable, uſeleſs piece of work: Therefore ſuch as go about to eſtabliſh an opinion, becauſe not expreſly forbidden in Scripture, (as Mr Walker ſeems to do. p. 218. whoſe words are, Never ſtand hunting for a Scripture for it, ſo long as there is no Scripture againſt it) do not conſider that they undermine the ſecureſt ground we ſtand upon, againſt the invaders of Religion: For by that argument (as Dr Owen well ſays) ten thouſand things may it made lawfull, there being no expreſs Scripture ſorbidding the upſtart inventions, and impoſtures of Seducers by name and circumſtance. And what a croud of ſuch corruptions have crept into the worſhip of God, under this pretext, in times of Superſtition, under the Antichriſtian ſervitude!
All the uſe we can make of Antiquity is, either in matter of fact, (viz. whether ſuch an opinion was in being in their time) or matter of right, (viz. whether it ought to be ſo;) For this later, no ſober perſon will take any of the Antients to be competent Judges, for that were to ſlight the Word of God, and beſtow the prerogative that belongs to it upon frail man, which the Fathers themſelves durſt not uſurp. Therefore it reſts that we can make no further uſe of them, then to witneſs matter of fact. And though we find them avouch a matter of fact, yet that proves not that the thing is lawfull. As for inſtance; we find Cyprian, the earlieſt pretended Patron of Paedobaptiſm in the 3d. Century, (if that Epiſtle to Fidus be a legitimate piece of his) make mention of Infant Baptiſm; and if that proves the lawfulneſs of that practice, it will alſo prove the lawfulneſs of Infants receiving the Lords Supper, becauſe the ſame Cyprian aſſerts it to be neceſſary for them in order to their Salvation, lib. 3. teſt. ad Qui. c. 25. And Maldonate affirms, in Joan. 6. num. 116. that this opinion of Auguſtine's and Innocent the firſt's prevail'd in the Church about 6…0 years; — que (ſcil. ſententia Auguſtini & Innocentii primi) ſexcentos circiter annos viguit in Eccleſia, Euchariſtiam etiam Infantibus fuiſſe neceſſariam. Therefore that practice of Infant Commanion being as gray-headed as their Baptiſm, deſerves equal veneration with it.
It appears by this, that it is worth enquiry upon what grounds thoſe alledged Patrons of Paedobaptiſm went, for if they have erred in the Reaſon of the foundation, it will be eaſily believed they did alſo in the building.
Cyprian held Baptiſm ſimply neceſſary to ſalvation, lib. 3. Ep. 8. ad Fidum. So Jerom contra Pelag. and Auſtin l. 1. de peccat mor. & remiſſ. Si ergo (ait) ut tot, & tanta divina teſtimonia concinunt, nec ſalus, nec vita aeterna, ſine baptiſmo, & corpore & ſanguine Domini cuiquam ſpectanda, fruſtra ſine his promittitur parvulis. That is, Therefore if ſo many, and ſo conſiderable divine teſtimonies agree, that none muſt expect ſalvation, nor life everlaſting, without Baptiſm and the body and bloud of the Lord, without theſe it (ſalvation) is vainly promiſed to little ones. This was the Univerſal ground and motive of the Fathers that aſſert Infant Baptiſm for many hundred years. And as for their warrant, 'tis certain they built their practice upon Tradition not written, being no more able then other men to find a word of Inſtituio for it in Scripture, where it is not. 'Tis true, that word (Tradition) is general, ſignifying all Doctrines written or unwritten, 2 Theſſ. 2.15. But 'twas by the Fathers, as 'tis now, accommodated to ſignifie a Doctrine not written, yet ſuppoſed to be Apoſtolical, which, if allowed to every pretender, would bring miſerable confuſion into Religion, and ſoon metamorphoſe it into an adulterated Form of humane Invention, Mat. 15.9. & 10.16. Act. 5.19. Gal. 1.9.
Now all thoſe Fathers that practiſed Paedobaptiſm as an Apoſtolical practice not written, as moſt have indeed done, that being their beſt plea, are juſtly to be reputed ours, and of our ſide, for they judge it not from Scripture, therefore fetch its riſe from Tradition, which becauſe it cannot bear the weight of an Inſtitution, the whole building is to fall; for by flying for refuge to Tradition, they do with us affirm, that there is no better ground for Infant Baptiſm then humane Tradition, which is indeed none at all. And thus all the Teſtimony and Authority of theſe Fathers becomes ours. There hath been (we own) ſuch a thing as the Traditions of Chriſt and the Apoſtles, which are of the higheſt and greateſt authority, but they were ſuch things as afterwards were committed to writing by the Evangeliſts and Apoſtles; other Traditions we avow none, but eſteem them Apocryphal. So that it follows (as I ſaid) that ſuch as avouch Infant Baptiſm from Tradition, acknowledge in ſo doing, that there is no better authority for it, and ſo conclude with us that it hath not the Scripture for its foundation. And ſo thoſe that give it to Infants as ſimply neceſſary to Salvation, will be of no authority againſt us, nor of any credit to their cauſe, becauſe the building muſt be levell'd according to the foundation, and that being falſe, they are neceſſitated to the miſtake of their building. And if there were any force in theſe authorities for Infant Baptiſm, why ſhould it not regulate our practice in the other Sacrament, which was as anciently given to Infants as the other, (and ſays Dr. Taylor p 231. they were honeſt that underſtood the obligation to be parallel) and in ſome places to this day, as Brerewood in his learned Enquiries affirms; viz. by the Jacobites, Chriſtians ſo called in great numbers in Syria, Cyprus, Meſopotamia, Babylon, Paleſtine, ſo by the Habaſſines inhabiting Ethiopia, and the Armenians, &c. ſo that if Antiquity be our guide, it will lead us to adminiſter the Supper as well as Baptiſm to Infants, and if it fail in the one, 'tis to be ſuſpected in the other. I ſee not why the Supper ſhould be a greater myſtery then the other, or the ceremony more ſignificant, or that the Duty of examining ſhould need more of the uſe of Reaſon, then believing, repenting, and confeſſing our ſins; 'tis as natural and proper to Infancy to be nouriſh'd, as to be born, therefore as capable of the ceremony of their nouriſhment, as of their birth, and ſo of one as well as the other Sacrament.
I am the longer upon this point, becauſe it will much ſhorten what follows, and to ſhew how unreaſonable the immoderate veneration of Antiquity is, which hath well nigh undone the world, and juſtled the ſimple and primitive purity of Religion almoſt out of doors; and to reduce men to the teſtimony of the Word of God alone, in the deciſion of Controverſies. The uſe we make of Antiquity is, not from any force we apprehend in ſuch Reaſonings to eſtabliſh the truth we contend for; but barely by way of Illuſtration, and as an argumentum ad hominem only, as the Apoſtle Paul cited the Cretan Poet Epimenides to Tit. 1.12. foreign; to prove what a cenſure their own Poets paſs'd upon the Cretans: And to ſhew that our Adverſaries have no ſuch advantage over us in the matter of Antiquity, as they vainly fancy; it being unanſwerably made out by Mr. Danvers, Mr. Tombs, and others, that the Antiquity of the three firſt Centuries, as well as the Scripture text, is expreſly for us. And of all Antiquity, we are moſt eſpecially to regard thoſe firſt Centuries, it being the ordinary courſe of things to contract corruptions more or leſs, according as they are more or leſs removed from their firſt Inſtitutions. And more then ſo, that the truth we own has been eminently witneſſed unto by ſome People and Churches all along, yea by the very mouths of our adverſaries; for whilſt by Canons and Curſes they labour to eſtabliſh Infant Baptiſm, to warrant which if they had conceiv'd there were any Scripture ground, that would be needleſs; for as Mr. Wille well ſays, Inf. Bapt. p 106. That which prevails by force of a greater, needs not be aſſiſted by a weaker Authority. Therefore they (having no Scripture to bottom it upon) employed both their Authority and ableſt Pens to perſwade the world that it was abſolutely neceſſary, that ſo it might the eaſil…er be received. And thereby they declare, that it was from time to time witneſſed againſt, otherwiſe their labour was idly ſpent, in making ſuch a doe to eſtabliſh a practice that non eoppoſed. So that as Mr. Danvers well notes, Rep. p. 70. theſe Canons being made upon occaſion of thoſe that deny'd Infant Baptiſm, we have our witneſſes through all ages to teſtifie that our practice is no novelty. And if Tertullian's oppoſing Infant Baptiſm, be brought as an evidence that it was then in the world, (as Mr. Walker ſays, p. 281.) then certainly we ought to have the like freedom of concluding, that if thoſe Councils produced againſt us, bent their Authority to eſtabliſh Infant Baptiſm, it is an evident proof that it was oppoſed all along, and ſo had no quiet being in the world.
Certainly the teſtimonies of Strabo (who lived about 837 years ago) and Vives, that no other but adult baptiſm was practiſed of old, as cited by Voſſius, Theſ. Theol p. 429. are not to be ſlighted, however Strabo, or the Scribe, miſtook the year of Auguſtine's age. And in the midſt of Papal darkneſs, about 400 or 500 years ago we find Bernard complaining thus, of the Puritans (ſo called) of his time; Irrident nos quod baptizamus Infantes, quod oramus pro mortuis, quod Sanctorum ſuſtragta poſtulamus, &c. They deride us becauſe we baptize Infants, and pray for the Dead, and deſire the interceſſion of Saints. Serm. 66. in Cantic. And Voſſius tells us; that Tertullian and Nazianzen were of the judgment of Strabo, and would have Infant Baptiſm deferred, (niſi pe…iculum (mort…s) urgeat,) and pray what ſhould cauſe thoſe great Doctors to oppoſe the Baptiſm of ſuch Infants as were likely to live, if the Univerſal Church were of a contrary mind? Indeed Voſſius ſays it was only their private opinion, but that's more then he is able to demonſtrate from any of their Contemporaries; therefore his word for it, is but an ipſe dixit, which muſt not ſtand againſt his plain demonſtration of the other.
Mr. Walker in his Preface reckons 19 particular Reaſons why in ancient times adult B. ptiſm, and 4 why Infant Baptiſm was deferred, therefore concludes that becauſe thoſe Reaſons are diſterent from ours, our plea from Antiquity cannot ſerve our Hypotheſis
Anſw. I might here with greater equity retort this conſideration upon Paedobaptiſm, as held by many Proteſtants, and ſay, that whereas we find the Antiquity that held up that practice, did it from ſuch rotten, anti-evangelical, and exploded notions, (viz. the conceit of its abſolute neceſſity to ſalvation, &c.) as moſt of our Proteſtants durſt not own, (though I fear ſuch writers as Mr. Walker border too near upon them) but do hold up the practice from another pretence, viz. that imaginary Covenant they dream, to have been made with believers and their carnal ſeed; therefore our preſent Paedobaptiſts retaining only the practice, not the ground of Antiquity, cannot without a manifeſt breach of modeſty claim Antiquity for their Hypotheſis, or againſt ours. But,
2. We are not much concern'd to … and time in diſproof of this matter, ſince every rational man will allow, that (though we ſhould take all this for granted, yet) the erroneous apprehenſions of ſome perſons, and their practices conſequent thereto, and that too no higher then the 4th. Century, is no ſufficient argument to prove that the generality of thoſe primitive Chriſtians, that lived in the precedent Centuries, which we challenge to be for our practice, delay'd their own, or their Childrens Baptiſm, from thoſe particulars enumerated and no other; for all that delay'd their own or Childrens Baptiſm, upon the true and proper ground, viz. the want of Faith and Repentance, came not juſtly under reproof; (and that I preſume is the reaſon, why they have had none) therefore there is a ſtronger probability that the writers of thoſe times, judged that ground of delay (viz. if in a ſtate of unbelief) legitimate, and ſo had no occaſion to mention it.
3. 'Tis no ſtrange thing, even in our day, that perſons out of ſuch undue and unwarrantable grounds as mentioned, delay their ſubmiſſion to the way and Ordinances of Chriſt, and I am perſwaded that a great many, that are throughly enlightned, do yet at this time of light ſtifle Conſcience, and for the Reaſons mentioned in Mr. Walker's 2, 3, 6, 14, and 19th. particulars, ſlight and neglect the pure worſhip of God, and ſatisfie themſelves in a poſture of worſhip quite foreign from what the Lord has preſcribed. For where a mode of Religion is eſtabliſh'd by a Law, and where profits, preferments, ſafety, &c. are the baits of its profeſſors, no wonder that men (carnally minded) follow it, and neglect that Saviour whoſe kingdom is not of this world. Do…s it therefore follow by any rational way of deduction, that be cauſe a great many do ſo, therefore none do the contrary that becauſe many deferred their Baptiſm for love of the world, therefore none deferred it becauſe unqualified ſubjects, viz. unbelievers? — therefore how can this enumeration hurt us?
4 Beſides, of Mr. Walker's witneſſes Tertullian is the eldeſt, who lived in the 3d Century; Nazianzen and Baſil flouriſhed in the 4th. and Chryſoſtom in the 5th. Century. Of theſe Tertullian being the earlieſt, and therefore worth more then all the reſt, expreſly oppoſ…s Infant Baptiſm from the ſame ground we do; — Let them come (ſays he) while they learn; — let them be made Chriſtians (that is, baptized) when they can know Chriſt; — veniant dum diſcunt; — fiant Chriſtiani quum Chriſtum noſſe potuerint, Tert. de bapt. p. 264. So that this witneſs is expreſly for us, (though Mr. Walker was pleaſed to forget this ground of delay (in the right latitude) in his large ind…ction, though from ſo conſiderable a witneſs) the reſt we regard not. We grant that in the following Centuries, Infant Baptiſm as well as Infant Communion, and other corruptions, gr…w to be more generally practiſed, which about the …d. Century were obſcurely creeping in, therefore the witneſſes produced againſt us, of thoſe times, if to prove a matter of fact, viz. that Infant Baptiſm was then in the world, are very needleſs, for we confeſs it; viz. firſt as being only practiſed in peril of death, to ſave their dying ſouls, as other ſick and dying perſons; afterwards upon all Infants, as enjoyn'd by the Councils, to take away Original ſin, Regenerate and ſave them: If to prove de jure that it ought to be ſo, we reject their authority, as unfit Judges to determine our Controverſies, being frail men, lyable to error and corruption.
As to thoſe 4 particulars concerning the delay of Infant B…ptiſm, for which he ſays Nazianzen reproves the deferrers, if it were ſo, it does not hinder but that there might be other Reaſons for their delay; for Nazianzen himſelf was againſt the Baptiſm of Infants till they could Anſwer for themſelves, except in caſe of urgent …vil of death, foreign. Orat. …0 p 658 the good man being infected with that ſuperſtitious conceit, that Baptiſm was ſimply neceſſary to ſalvation. So that this witneſs contributes nothing of diſſervice to our Hypotheſis, nor of advantage to our …dverſaries.
The Text whereon Mr. Walker grounds his diſcourſe is Luke 18.16. Suffer little children to come unto me, &c. from whence he infers, that little children are to be ſuffered to come unto Chriſt, and ought not to be forbidden coming unto him; which I confeſs is a ſound concluſion. And be it noted by the way, that Dr. Hammond ſays the Arguments from this Text are imperfect ways of probation, ſect. 23. of his Reſol. to 6 Queries about Infant Bapt. whoſe word ſhould do much with Mr. Walker. He that would evince that this Text is a ſufficient foundation for the fabrick of Paedobptiſm, ſhould have proved, that there is no other way of coming unto Chriſt but by Baptiſm; or that Chriſt, or his Diſciples, actually baptized theſe children; or that the bleſſing in the Text is baptizing. 'Tis true, we have an ipſe dixit from Mr. W. p. 19. that there can be no other way of their coming to Chriſt, but by Baptiſm; but he cannot blame us if we rely not upon his authority in ſo material a point.
Now if thoſe things be not clearly demonſtrated, no certain conſequence will flow from this Text, that Infants ought to be baptized; and if it will not certainly follow, what rational man dares build his belief upon a foundation ſo uncertain, and that in oppoſition both to that plain precept and example we have for adult baptiſm. But this is ſo far from certainty, that there is not the leaſt ſhew of probability that our Saviour did (or intended to) baptize them. That Chriſt hath no other way to bring Infants to himſelf, but by Baptiſm, is a ſpeech too harſh, if not bordering upon blaſphemy; therefore Mr. Walker ſhould recall what he ſays that is liable to ſuch an Interpretation: for if it were ſo, then doubtleſs our Saviour would have ordered thoſe children to be baptized, for whoſe approach unto him he was pleaſed to expreſs ſo much willingneſs. So that as Dr. Taylor notes very pertinently, p. 230. Lib. Proph. we may ſay, that from the action of Chriſts bleſſing Infants, to infer that they were baptized, proves nothing ſo much, as that there is a want of better arguments; for the Concluſion would with more probability be derived thus: Chriſt bleſſed children, and ſo diſmiſſed them, but baptized them not; therefore Infants are not to be baptized. That Chriſt did not baptize them, is an argument ſufficient, that he hath other ways of bringing them to Heaven then by Baptiſm. Many thouſand ways there are by which God can bring any reaſonable ſoul to him, but nothing is more unreaſonable, then becauſe he hath tyed all men of years and diſcretion to this way, therefore we of our own heads, ſhall carry Infants to him that way without his direction: the conceit is poor and low, and the action conſequent to it, bold and venturous; let him do what he pleaſes with Infants, we muſt not.
'Tis a moſt rational conjecture, that if it had been the practice of that time to baptize Infants, as well as the adult, and that they had … true, lawfull, and wonted ſubjects of Bapti…, the … could not be ſo ignorant of, and contra…nry to the…r own known cuſtom, as to forbid them, or … their …wardneſs, but would have rather encouraged …. m. But this circumſtance diſcovers that Paeaobaptiſm was … none of the Diſciples employment; the ground of whoſe rebuke to thoſe that brought the children (doubtleſs) was their unwillingneſs to have Chriſt too much preſt, and ſo they reproved others when they throng'd ſo faſt upon him, that they had no leaſure ſo much as to eat bread.
Beſides, in the 15th. verſe we have the end noted, for which theſe children were brought to Chriſt, viz. that he would touch them, (and what doubtleſs) in order to their cure from bodily infirmities, which are as incident to Infants as Men; which is very probable, if you compare this paſſage as it is in Mat. 19.14. with the 2d. verſe, where 'tis ſaid, that he healed great multitudes. And Luke ſays, that they brought little children alſo, which term [alſo] ſhews that others were brought too, becauſe they heard that vertue went out of him, and that as many as touched him, were perfect…y made whole, Mat. 14.36.
If we paſs by without any oppoſition what Mr. Walker ſays in the 1, 2, 3 Chapters, it cannot hurt the cauſe we maintain; for we are willing to bring our children to Chriſt, as far as we are able, and he hath preſcribed; to reſig… them up to him, and dedicate them to his ſervice, to pray for them, inſtruct them in the Faith, and in a word to bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord; we cannot bring them unto Chriſt, who is now in Heaven, by way of perſonal approach, (as the Infants in the Text were brought) therefore we know no other way to bring them unto him, but by teaching them as ſoon as they are able to learn, what it is to fear him, love him, believe in him, and obey his Laws. So that we agree with Mr. Walker, that we ought not to forbid our children to come unto Chriſt, but to contribute our endeavours to their early converſion, they having, in common with the reſt of mankind, gracious Invitations to come to his Mercy ſeat, Mat. 11.28. Rev. 22.17. Iſa. 55.1. &c. But to prove that Chriſt appointed the manner of their coming to him to be by Baptiſm, in any part of his word, (hic labor, hoc opus) is the foreign of this diſpute.
P. 13. Mr. Walker tells us, the phraſe may be taken figuratively, ſo notes a becoming or being made a Diſciple unto Chriſt, Mat. 11.28, 29. This is granted, but then the great doubt remains ſtill, whether Infant Baptiſm ſingly conſidered, (I mean without the qualifications requiſite in the baptized, which are Faith and Repentance, as the Church Catechiſm informs us) be of ſuch efficacy as to make one a Diſciple? Mr. Walker p. 17. holds the affirmative, his words are, Our children are made Diſciples to Chriſt, by being baptized in the name and with the baptiſm of Chriſt. And p. 19 where either of theſe is, (viz. baptizing or teaching) there a perſon may become, or be made a Diſciple, though not ſo compleat and perfect, as where there is both.
Anſw. To affirm (as Mr. Walker does) that Baptiſm makes one a Diſciple, is to contradict all the experience in the world; For, if we reſpect the ſignification of the word in its proper and genuine notion, (it being foreign, diſcipulus, of foreign, diſco, and that of the root foreign didicit) it ſignifies a Scholar, or one that learns of another, which neceſſarily implys a juſt ripeneſs and activity of Organs, inward and outward, which all Infants want; therefore, what can they learn by Baptiſm, who want the exerciſes of underſtanding, and in whom Reaſon is (as it were an embrio) not yet come to a capacity of acting? And if we uſe the word according to the conſtant Scripture acceptation of it, 'tis certain, that though diſcipling, and baptizing, go together in the adult, the term is no where apply'd to Infants, but always to ſuch as learnt the Doctrine of Chriſt, who ſays, Mat. 11.29. foreign, learn of me, &c. And Luk. 6.40. we have the term (foreign) which is a Relation, in the ſame propoſition with its correlate (foreign, a Doctor, or Teacher.) And Reaſon teacheth us, that where there is Diſcipleſhip, there muſt of neceſſity be Maſterſhip or Doctorſhip, according to that Rule in Logick, Relata ſunt ſimul naturâ, (nempe quatenus relata) that is, Relations (as they are ſuch) are together in Nature; for though the Father be before the Child, yet he is not a Father till he has a Child; nor can one be a Maſter, or Doctor, before he teaches, nor a Scholar or Diſciple, before he learns. So that Baptiſm having no ſuch efficacy in it ſelf, nor any ſuch vertue conferr'd upon it by any word of God, as to make one a Scholar or Diſciple of Chriſt by the bare action, we may ſafely conclude that Diſciples are made ſo by teaching, not by baptizing; which is further evidenced from John 4.1: foreign, &c Jeſus made and baptized more Diſciples, &c. where note that it is not ſaid, made or baptized, for then the Greek ſhould be, foreign, but 'tis a Conjunction copulative, (foreign) denoting two diſtinct actions, viz. diſcipling, and baptizing. And hence it will undeniably follow, that it was the method of our Lord Jeſus, to make Diſciples firſt by teaching, and then baptize them. And certainly there can be no error in following ſo bleſſed a pattern.
And what warrant Mr. Walker has to wreſt this word out of the ſignification the Holy Ghoſt conſtantly puts upon it, to countenance ſuch a Diſcipleſhip as is no better then a meer conceit, (or ens rationis) is more then I can imagine. Theſe Scriptures John 6.45. 1 Cor. 4.6. Phil. 4.11. John 7.15. deſerve conſideration. So that I cannot ſee any ground to conclude, that this Text is ſuch a clear Scripture ground for Infant Baptiſm, as Mr. Walker conceits it is p. 23.
He ſays p. 24. That a Conſequence from Scripture rightly made, is a ground good enough to bear any weight that can be fairly laid upon it, and as valid to all intents and purpoſes as if it were expreſs Scripture it ſelf, that being eminently contained in the Scripture, whatever it be that may be fairly drawn from it.
Anſw. Here I ſhall take occaſion to conſider, how far it may be ſafe to build upon Conſequences in matters of Religion And firſt, it is moſt certain, that the All-wiſe God (judging it meet to give us that great and gracious gift of his Word, to be a lamp unto our feet, and a light unto our path, Pſal. 119.105.) would not give us an imperfect or obſcure Rule of Faith. The Lord is ſo far from leaving us at a loſs, that as, in other caſes, when objects or things to be believed are in their nature very ſpiritual and much remote from external ſenſe, and the common road or ordinary walks of the Reaſons or Underſtandings of men, (the eye of Faith being dim, wherewith they are to be apprehended) he is graciouſly pleaſed to relieve the defect of that viſive faculty, in cloathing thoſe ſpiritual objects with as much external ſenſibility as well may be, ſo accommodating and attempering the ſpirituality of them unto this eye, that it is enabled to behold them more ſteadily; thus is the Death, Burial, and Reſurrection of Chriſt, our Union and Communion with him, Sanctification and Forgiveneſs of ſins, brought down in the Sacramental Ordinances of the Goſpel, and accommodated to us as near as their ſpiritual and ſublime natures would permit, by opportunity whereof Faith is much refreſhed and encouraged, to converſe more frequently with them, and to meditate with leſs diſtraction, and more compoſedneſs; as the Vail on Moſes's face qualified its dazling brightneſs, and reduced the diſproportion of the object to the children of Iſraels weak ſenſes, Deut. 34.33. Is it not therefore irrational to imagine, that the Lord, who is ſo ready to accommodate his bleſſed Myſteries by apt reſemblances to our underſtandings, ſhould yet deliver us his Divine Oracles in ſuch a Dialect, as is not to be underſtood without the ſubtilties of Logick, and the Criticiſms of the Schools? or that ſuch things as are neceſſary to be believed and practiſed, are left to the Inferences and Conſequential deductions of men, which are as different, as paſſion, prejudice, opinion, or Intereſt influences them? Certainly ſuch an overſight is not to be chargable upon the eternal wiſdom of God, who has in a ſtile full of gravity, ſimplicity and plainneſs, without fraudulent ornaments, accommodated whatſoever is to be believed or practiced to the underſtanding and capacities of men, and that in expreſs and intelligible terms, which is indeed the foreign, or meet accommodation of words into things. Non movent, non perſuadent ſacr…e literae (ſays Picus Mirandula ad Hermol. Barbar.) ſed cogunt, agitant, vim inferunt, legis rudia verba, & agreſtia, ſed viva, ſed animata, flammea, aculeata, ad imum ſpiritum penetrantia. He that with a diſcurſive underſtanding conſiders, that the Scriptures in ſetting forth ſpiritual things aboundeth with Metaphors, Parables, and Similitudes borrowed from Earthly things, and often calling them by the very names that material or earthly things are called, cannot but arrive at this concluſion, that it is rather to accommodate thoſe ſpiritual matters to our capacities and underſtandings, then to hide and obſcure them from us; God conveying the knowledge of heavenly things to us, by preaching them by their reſpective parallels of earthly things; for as Burgerſdicius well notes in his Logick, l. 1. c. 24. Oratio Metaphorica eſt perſpicua ſenſibus, & ad animum aſſectuſque movendos aptiſſima; A Metaphorical ſpeech is perſpicuous to ſenſe, and to work upon the mind and affections moſt proper.
I ſhall readily own, (that the Lord having endued us with Reaſon, that being a diſcurſive faculty, which from apt and proper premiſſes infers their natural Conſequences) we are not to flight that bleſſing, but to make uſe of it in its proper place, viz. in Reſolving principles by fit Mediums into their Concluſions. But to be too buſie in matters of Gods poſitive worſhip, (which is as much out of the reach of our Reaſon to define, as it is beyond the power of a blind man to judge of colours, that depending meerly upon Gods Inſtitution, and for which we have his plain preſcriptiors before us) and boldly obtruding ſuch Conſequences in reference thereto, as our dim faculty of ratiocination ſhall ſuggeſt, is to offer ſtrange fire at his Altar, and ſhew our ſelves rather bold Interpreters, then obeyers of his Law. Ratio eſt potentia Diſcurſiva à principiis ad Concluſiones, ſed non habet in ſe principia iliarum rerum quae ſide apprehenduntur; impudenter itaque Concluſiones aedificat ſuper arenam opinionum ſuarum, cum ſua principia quae ſunt vera in ordint Naturae, opponit principtis Theologicis, quae ſunt longe ſupra Naturam. God has layn down the Rules of worſhip plainly and operly; And as Wollebius ſays, p. 7. Comp. Theol. E…i quibuſdam locis obſcurior ſit, aliis tamen ſe explicat, & primarios Religianis articulos perſpicuè tradit; Though in ſome places it may be (ſeemingly) obſcure, yet in other places it expounds it ſelf, delivering the prime Articles of Faith very evidently and clearly, 2 Pet. 1.19, 20, 21. 2 Tim. 3.15, 16. And Auguſt. de doctr. Chriſt. l. 3. c. 26. tells us, that one place of Scripture muſt be expounded by another; locum unum ſacrae Scripturae per alium ejuſdem Scripturae clariorem facere eſt optima interpretatio. So that if the prime Articles of Faith, and practical Duties be evidently and perſpicuouſly laid down and delivered in the Scriptures, (as indeed they are) what neceſſity is there to have recourſe to ſuch far fetch'd and extorted conſequences, as are uſually calculated to countenance ſome beloved error, for the ſake of which, the Text is ſo tormented and rackt by the Critical Wits of our age, that there is ſcarce any Sect but pretend patronage from it, though the Concluſions they ſqueeze are no more to be found in the premiſſes, (unleſs by that wretched art of Sophiſtry) then a Dolphin in the Woods.
It is to be bewail'd what conviction proof men are, even in ſo plain a caſe; has not common (and wofull) experience taught us, that when ſuch a liberty of allowing Articles of Faith, and Opinions from pretended Conſequences, was moſt encouraged, that Religion was then moſt incumbred (yea ſtifled) with the products of ſuch wanton wits as play'd the Sophiſters with Scripture, and obtruded ſuch Brats of their own begetting, as legitimate off-ſprings of the Word, upon the too much abuſed and credulous Vulgar, to the miſleading of their Souls, and foſtering, as well as propagating, Diviſion and Confuſion in the Church? whereas of right, no products of an humane ſpirit, ſhould be receivable in Evangelical Religion. Therefore in my opinion 'tis the ſafeſt way to be ſober in a matter of ſuch high concernment, and admit of no conſequence in point of faith or practice, that are obſcure, doubtfull, or uncertain, but only ſuch as are plain, and to be eaſily ſeen by any eye to be the natural and undoubted reſult of the premiſſes, and conſonant to the general nature and tenour of the Goſpel. And Mr. Wills his demand, who ſhall be Judge to determine which conſequences are plain, and which not? is a captious queſtion, propounded only to make a noiſe; for the ſame interrogation lies againſt all conſequences, viz. who ſhall Judge, what conſequences are rightly deduced, and what not? which, (when he reſolves it for himſelf) reſolves the other alſo for us. 'Tis certain, that every mans Reaſon and diſcretive Judgment, muſt in that caſe be his Judge, no other being inveſted into that Supremacy. 'Tis true, that appears plain to one; which appears not ſo to another, therefore we are to pray for a diſcerning and clear underſtanding, Jam. 1.17. that we might be eſtabliſh'd in Evangelical Truths, without being beholden to the niceties of the Schoolmen, and their idle ſpeculations.
I have inſiſted the longer upon this point, becauſe we are generally charged to deny all Conſequences from Scripture, which is falſe; for we grant that after the example of our Lord Jeſus and his Apoſtle, Mat. 22.31, 32 Act. 13.33, 34. we may from plain and lawfull premiſſes, infer their neceſſary Concluſion. The thing we deny is, that ſuch Sophiſtical, pretended Conſequences, (not at all countenanced in Scripture Text) as our adverſaries uſe in the management of this Controverſie of Infant Baptiſm againſt us, are of any validity or credit, and ſhould not therefore be uſed.
It may be well called the Naked Truth, that (a late excellent Pen hath ſo feelingly expreſt) There is nothing has prov'd a greater plague to Chriſtianity, then School-Divinity; where new queſtions, nice diſtinctions, and raſh concluſions, are toſs'd up and down like Tennis-balls, whence proceed cruel bickerings and dangerous Hereſies. The firſt Divinity School we read of, was ſet up at Alexandria by Pantenus, whence ſprung the Arrian Hereſie, which ſoon overran all Chriſtendom. In the ſubtilty of thoſe Schools Hereſie grew refined, and with their diſtinctions and evaſions quite baffled the plain and ſimple profeſſors of the Goſpel. There is no giving way to rational Deductions and humane Argumentations, againſt Faith and Scripture. The Primitive Doctors converted from Heatheniſm and well skill'd in Philoſophy, Antiquity, Hiſtory, and Logick or Sophiſtry, tranſlated thoſe Sciences (falſly ſo called) into Chriſtianity, to illuſtrate by their indiſcreet zeal, and imbelliſh Chriſtian knowledge by Artificial forms and figures, but rather deſaced it, Col. 2.8. That the Greeks fond of niceties, tranſplanted their beloved Rhetorical flowers into Chriſtian Gardens, which prov'd indeed Weeds. Haec ille.
So that the concluſion I ſhall in this particular come to, is, That we are not under the notion of Conſequence to admit any thing in point of Religion, but what is of ſuch clear and undoubted Scripture demonſtration, as might ſatisfie the Conſcience that it is the Will of God; And that we are to uſe all endeavours to reſcue Chriſtianity from thoſe incumbrances of humane inventions and Traditions, which the wanton and licentious Schoolmen have mixt with it; and ſo reduce it to its primitive purity and ſimplicity, by adhering cloſe to the Word of God, and rejecting all thoſe corrupt gloſſes, that under the title of explaining, render it indeed more obſcure, unintelligible and confounding.
As to Mr. Walker's Arguments from the benefits of Infant Baptiſm, which he ſays are an early Conſecration — being brought thereby into Covenant — under a Vow — and others care — united to Chriſt — made thereby Children of God — heirs of Heaven — partakers of Grace — conſigned to a Reſurrection — are ſaved by it — freed from Original ſin, &c. they are all, in the notion Mr. Walker holds them, Popiſh, and exploded (for the moſt part) by our learned Proteſtants, as vain and idle conceits. Inſomuch that 'tis needleſs for me to ſpend time in diſproof of that which is ſo fully done already. For what tendency has this kind of arguing, but to aſcribe that vertue to the bare application of an Ordinance, which the Lord never gave to it, and ſo ſet up an Opus Operatum, which the Proteſtant Churches vehemently diſclaim?
Dr. Owen in his Theologomena, lib. 6. c. 5. p. 477, &c. has excellently refelled this poſition, viz. Regeneration by Baptiſm ex opere operato, concluding with this verdict of it; Neque ſanè dogma pernicioſius, aut quod peccatorum animis praeſentius venenum propinaret, facilè excogitaret ipſe mendaciorum pater. — That the very Father of lyes could not eaſily invent a more pernicious opinion, or which might inſtill a more deadly poiſon into the hearts of ſinners. And then very amply diſcovers, how all are born in ſin, being children of wrath by nature; and that Regeneration is effected by the Spirit, through the Word in the hearts of believers according to the New Covenant, and not by theſe Popiſh Inventions.
Of the ſame Judgment with Dr. Owen herein, were our firſt impugners of Popery the Waldenſes, in their Treatiſe of Antichriſt, writ (as is ſaid) by Peter Bruys Anno 1120. P. Perin. l. 3. p. 267. So was the famous Wickliff, as Mr. Danvers demonſtrates at large, p. 121. &c. of 2 Reply. And Dr. Uſher in his State and ſucceſſion of the Church, Dr. Taylor Lib. Proph. p. 242, 243, &c. and in a word the whole ſtream of modern Doctors. Calvin's words are memorable in inveighing againſt the miſchiefs of this opinion, Inſtit. l. 4. c. 15. ſect. 20. Quantum damni invexerit dogma illud male expoſitum, baptiſma eſſe de neceſſitate ſalutis, pauci animadvertunt. Ideoque minus ſibi cavent, nam ubi invaluit opinio, perditos eſſe omnes, quibus aquâ cingi non contingit, noſtra conditio deterior eſt quam vtteru populi, quaſi reſtrictior eſſet Dei gratia quam ſub lege, veniſſe enim Chriſtus cenſebitur non ad implendas promiſſiones ſed abolendas, quando promiſſio quae tunc ante octavam diem, ſaluti conſerendae per ſe erat ſatis efficax, nunc abſque ſigni adminiculo rata non eſſet. And ſect. 32. ſaith, Non arceri à regno Coelorum Infantes quibus à praeſenti vita migrare contingit, antequam aqua mergi datum fuerit; atqui jam viſum eſt fieri non levem injuriam Dei faederi, niſi in eo acquieſcimus, ac ſi per ſe infirmum eſet, quum ejus effectas neque à baptiſmo, neque ab ullis acceſſionibus pendeot, &c. So Rogers in his Analyſis of the 39 Articles, p 167, 168. tells us in behalf of the Church of England, We condemn the Opinion of the Ruſſe is, that there is ſuch a neceſſity of Baptiſm, that all that dye without it, are damned. Reverend Mr. Perkins on Gal 2. Vol. 2. Edit. 1617. p. 191, &c. tells us, That the outward waſhing doth not make any man a member of Chriſt, — that Baptiſm is not of abſolute neceſſity, — that Adoption and Life, begin not in Baptiſm, but before, — that a Sacrament hath not the grace of God tyed to it, or ſhut up in it, — but is an Inſtrument to which grace is preſent in the right uſe thereof; — that this Doctrine (viz. that a Sacrament confers grace by the work done) is a fiction of the brain of man, 1 Pet. 3 21. — that Regeneration is a work of Creation, therefore it is of God immediately, and not immediately from the Sacrament. And much more to this effect, but 'tis too tedious to tranſcribe it, therefore I refer to the Book it ſelf, which notably confutes this conceit.
Yet to add ex abundanti, I ſhall cite one more as a witneſs againſt the abſolute neceſſity of Baptiſm; it is Mr. Wills, p. 150. Infant Bapt. who to give him his due, ſpeaks notably to it; If Baptiſm (ſays he) be of abſolute neceſſity to ſalvation, and that Regeneration is affixt to it, and none can be ſaved without it, then it is in mans power to ſave and to deſtroy; If they will baptize their children, they may ſave them; if they neglect it, damn them, which is horrible abſurdity to conceive. And in the next page makes out very well, that Baptiſm is not at all concerned in John 13.5. but Regeneration; and in ſo doing proves himſelf to be more Orthodox in that particular, then all his Antiquity for Paedobaptiſm, who all of them expounded that Text of external baptiſm, though very abſurdly. But what need I particularize a few, when the whole ſtream of the Reformed Writers exclaim with one conſent againſt this Doctrine, and bend much of their labours to refell it.
Mr. Walker indeed ſays, as p. 113. That it hath not any Phyſical vertue in it ſelf, in the way of a Natural cauſe to effect Salvation: But the very Papiſts ſay ſo much, for no man will be ſo ridiculous as to aſſert it a Natural cauſe of ſalvation, and I am certain the Papiſts ſay no more, then Mr. Walker, when he tells us, that Baptiſm ſaves Infants, as p. 108. That it muſt needs make our Hell the more hot to find our unbaptized children there, p. 147. That the baptized are reſcued wholly, or in a great meaſure, from Original ſin, p. 150. No Baptiſm, then no Son of God, and then no Heir of his, p. 153. No Baptiſm, no entrance even for Infants into the Kingdom of Heaven, that is, ordinarily, &c. p 154. None were ſaved without the Ark; ſo none, that we are ſure of, are ſaved without Baptiſm; — What need Infants have of Salvation, the ſame they have of Baptiſm for their Salvation, p. 156. calls an Unbaptized ſtate a damnable ſtate, p. 142. with much more to that effect. And pray what's all this but an Opus Operatum? or a tying the Grace of God to the Sacrament? I know not that the Papiſts ſay any more then Mr. Walker, p. 113. viz. that it hath a ſaving efficacy for ſuch end communicated by God to it, &c. but I would fain learn of Mr. Walker, who made him acquainted with that part of Gods counſel; for I could never yet find it in the Bible, that Baptiſm was dignified with ſo tranſcendent an energy, as (in disjunction from Faith, and ſo 'tis in all Infants) to effect Salvation.
'Tis true, to a qualified ſubject, viz. a penitent Believer, the Lord has made it an Inſtrument, through which he conveys the ſaving communications of his Grace; and to ſuch it is neceſſary (not abſolutè, but) neceſſitate praecepti, becauſe God commanded it. Yet the want of it, where it may not be had, damus not; though the contempt of it, is a horrible affront to the Divine Majeſty, and conſequently a dangerous ſin. But 'tis not neceſſary, neceſſitate medii, ſince ſalvation, which is the end, may be had without it; as in the eaſe of the Thief upon the Croſs, &c. But to Infants it is no way neceſſary; (1) tis not ſo neceſſitate praecepti, becauſe Chriſt no where commanded ſuch to be baptized; nor (2) neceſſitate medii, becauſe Chriſt no where appointed it to be the means of their ſalvation. We have ſeveral paſſages in Scripture, that give us encouragement of the ſalvation of dying Infants, through the rich grace and tender mercy of him, who is (we hope) their Redeemer as well as ours. But I have in my Anſwer to Mr. Baxter, p. 16. touched upon this point.
Next Mr. Walker in 5 Chapters labours to ſhew, that children are not incapable of Baptiſm; but his Reaſons are not convincing to me, nor do I believe they can be ſo to any, that with an unprejudiced mind, reads our Books; wherein is amply made out, that Infants are not capable ſubjects of Baptiſm, no more then of other Church Ordinances, becauſe they want Faith and Repentance, as the Church Catechiſm informs us; and which the ſame Book tells us, is required of perſons to be baptized. Neither will the Sureties profeſſion for the Child ſerve the turn, for we find no ſuch practice allow'd of, or ſo much as mentioned in Scripture. Neither by any Law of God or man, is ſuch a diſpenſation granted, that a ſubſtitution of another's Faith, ſhould ſupply the deſect of the perſon to be baptized: Nor does the Child give them any Commiſſion to believe for him, nor can they perform, what they promiſe, which is no leſs then the performance of the great and principal graces of the New Covenant, viz. Faith and Repentance, which are the peculiar gifts of God. But I ſhall diſmiſs this particular, referring Mr. Walker to Mr. Tombs his Juſt Reply, p. 105. Printed 1675. where by way of Animadverſion on that part of the Common-Prayer-Book, he confutes this practice unanſwerably; And Mr. Danvers his Treat. p. 83, 84. and 218, 219, 220. where it is alſo refelled by ſubſtantial, and yet unanſwered, Reaſons.
It is an inconſiderate expreſſion of Mr. Walker to ſay, p. 203 That in this argument of twiſt…d hairs (viz from the order of the words Mat. 28.19.) the greateſt ſtrength of theſe Sampſons lyes: For we do not infiſt upon the order of the words only, but upon the order of the things alſo, as conſtantly practiſed. And I challenge any man to produce, that the order of the things ever differed from the order of the words, or was by any Apoſtolical practice inverted; or that any perſon was baptized by them that was not firſt taught. So that having the order of words and things alſo for us, and that from a mouth that never ſpoke an incongruous word, we conceive we deſerve no blame in adhering to ſo plain a rule.
But Mr. Walker ſays, the order of words is for them, becauſe here is teaching after baptizing; and Mar. 1.4, 5. John baptized and preach'd, and foreign ſigniſying, not teach, but to make another a Diſciple; and ſo reads a Grammatical Lecture, ending in this, that unleſs it be underſtood, make diſciples by baptizing them, and by teaching them, there is a Tautology in the phraſe, — as Teach all Nations, &c. — Teaching them, &c.
Anſw. That Mr. Walker hath made choice of a wrong Interpretation, yea ſuch as will be guilty of a ſignal abſurdity, will be eaſily apparent. And 1. I confeſs the verb foreign, ſignifies diſcipulate, or ma…e diſciples. And if the phraſe be admitted to bear that ſenſe Mr. Walker would have, viz. to make Diſciples by baptizing and teaching, yet Infants will be excluded; becauſe to the making of Diſciples theſe two actions are required, viz. baptizing and teaching; and Infants are uncapable of the later till they come to years, therefore cannot be diſcipled. But, that (making Diſciples) and (baptizing) are (as hinted already above) two diſtinct actions, is clear in John 4.1. foreign, &c. he maketh and baptizeth more diſciples, &c. you ſee foreign, by the conjunction copulative [foreign] is ſet down as a diſtinct work from (foreign) therefore he did not make them Diſciples by Baptiſm, but by ſomething acted towards them before. And if this be not underſtood ſo, and that foreign and foreign are Synonima's, here will be a manifeſt Tautology, for then the words will run, Jeſus baptized, and baptized more Diſciples then John.
And I appeal to Mr. Walker's Conſcience, whether what is expreſs'd Mat. 28.19. by the Participle foreign, may not without any violation of the ſenſe be read imperatively by the Verb foreign, thus, Diſciple all Nations, and baptize them; and if ſo, whether foreign and foreign would be terms equipollent, and ſo (by conſequence) Tantology, viz. go baptize all Nations, and baptize them, a gemination elegant in the Hebrew, but ſupper… fluous in the Greek Tongu…? But to clear our own Interpretation, as well as I demonſtrate the abſurdity of theirs, it is neceſſary to know, that there is a general teaching to acquaint perſons with the Goſpel, which who… once they believe and are baptized, there is a ſecond teaching to bring them on towards perfection. You know what a ſhort Conſeſſion was required of the Eunuch, Act 8.37. If thou believeſt with all thy heart (ſays Philip) thou mayſt. The profeſſion of which ſhort Creed, qualified him (being by that a Diſciple fit) for Baptiſm. But was there no need (think you) of any further teaching? Yes doubtleſs, he had need of Inſtruction in the practical Duties of Chriſtianity afterwards. So that the words are thus eaſily vindicated from Tautology, for they run Paraphraſtically thus: As if Chriſt had ſaid, Go diſciple the Nations, that is (as Mark 16.15. more plainly delivered) preach the Goſpel to every Creature, and baptize ſuch as are ſo diſcipled by your preaching, and when they are admitted into Church Communion, teach them to obſerve all my Commands. See here (as plain, as if writ with the Sun beams) that the firſt teaching is, what they ſhould believe, and the next teaching is, what they ſhould doe; Faith being neceſſary to admit them into the Church, and a holy Converſation neceſſary to keep them there. And that this is the genuine meaning and Interpretation, we need no other proof then the Apoſtles practice purſuant to it, who preach'd firſt, then baptized, and then taught too. Firſt they gathered Churches by preaching and baptizing, and then preach'd to them ſo gathered; the firſt preaching for Converſion, the other for Confirmation and further Inſtruction; a teaching à priori in order to Diſcipleſhip and Baptiſm, and a teaching à poſteriori in order to Perfection. Baptiſm is to be by precept immediately after the firſt, and the other by precept ſo immediately after Baptiſm, which is walled in on both ſides by teaching, that Infants are univerſally excluded, till they be capable of being taught.
As for Mark 1.4. in the verſe before preaching is before baptizing, — The voice of one crying in the wilderneſs, Prepare ye the way of the Lord. — And 'tis abſurd to imagine that a man can be baptized before he be preach'd unto; for then he ſhould be baptized, into he knows not what.
Mr. Walker's urging the Cuſtom of the Catholick Church to baptize Infants, and the Conſtitution of the Church of England in juſtification of that practice, ſerves to little more purpoſe then to fill up his paper; for neither the one, nor the other, will prove that it ought to be ſo; for the Univerſality of an error renders it not authentick. Therefore though I could produce ſeveral exceptions againſt Mr. Walker's claim to ſome of thoſe Authorities he produces, yet I ſhall only glance upon what he ſays about the 3 firſt Centuries. And truly if we enquire into the quality of the Witneſſes produced for theſe times, it will be found that Paedobaptiſm leans upon a broken reed. For the earlieſt they pretend to, is Juſtin Martyr's Responſes, which is a ſpurious piece, as is evidently and unanſwerably made out by Mr. Danvers, Treat. p. 140. inſomuch that Mr. Walker in his poſtſcript makes no defence to it, ſave to ſay, that it is acknowledged a very ancient piece. But by his leave, it is not ſo ancient neither, for 'tis certain it was forged after the 3d Century, (probably a very conſiderable time) for mention is made Queſt. 127. of the Manichees, who ſprung not up till about 130 years after Juſtine, who wrote his … Apolog. 150 years after Chriſt, and ſo this Witneſs is caſhiered. There are many Reaſons to be ſeen in Scultetus in Annal. Juſtin cap. 11. to detect this forgery; and the learned Daille, V…ſſius, Rivet, Perkins, &c. reject it; therefore no argument from ſuch a cheat is valid againſt us.
As for the Conſtitutions aſcribed to Clemens Romanus, and Dionyſius the Areop. Eccleſ. Hierar. I wonder Mr. Walker would fill up ſo many pages from ſuch a Rhapſody of forgery, after all the unanſwered arguments given againſt them by Mr. Danvers, Treat. p. 140. 1 Rep p. 80, 81, &c. which were ſo much to Mr. Wills's conviction, that he confeſſes them to be a cheating Tribe, p. 127. Inf. Bapt. And they are not only diſown'd by us, but by learned Paedobaptiſts alſo, as by Voffius Theſ. Theol. p. 432. Edit. 1628. who though he took great pains to prove the Antiquity of Paedobaptiſm, yet ſlights Juſtine's Responſes, the Eccl. Hier. and theſe Conſtitutions, as ſuppoſitious; — Mitto (…os) ne… …rim libri iſti corum ſunt, quibus tribuuntur vulgò; — I make no account of them, (ſays he) for the Books commonly aſcri…ed to them are none of theirs. So the learned Daille, and many other Paedobaptiſts, whoſe teſtimonies are not to be ſlighted, becauſe againſt their own practice; for the witneſſes of enemies are ever moſt convictive.
The pretended teſtimonies of Irenaeus, Cyprian, and Ori…en, are largely diſcovered to be invalid by Mr. Danvers, Treat. p. 134, to 150. Reply p. 84, to 97. and Rejoynd. p. 16. to 21. and by Mr. Tombs, 3 Review, ſect. 89, 90, 91, 98, &c. ſo that it is indeed labour loſt to add any thing thereto. Yet,
1. 'Tis a great doubt whether Irenaeus his ſpeech (if it were his own) be at all of Infant Baptiſm; the moſt that can be ſaid is, that perhaps it was ſo; and fortè ita, ſolvitur per fortè non. All that's produced from him is, that Chriſt came to ſave (omnes qui per eum renaſcuntur, Infantes, Paeros, Juvenes, Seniores) all that are born again through him, Infants, noys, Young men, Old men; which proves not that Infant Baptiſm was at that time in the world: For 'tis more probable that the right deduction from thence is, that in the opinion of Irenaeus, Infants are capable of the New birth, or Salvation, as well as elder perſons. For to be born again, and to be baptized, are not terms Synonimous, or Convertible; for many are regenerated and ſaved, that are not baptized; and many baptized, that are not regenerated and ſaved Beſides if this paſſage mean Infants to be baptized by Chriſt, it contradicts John 4.2. where 'tis ſaid that Chriſt baptized not. See Mr. Tombs 3 Review p. 79. and Mr. Danvers 1 Rep'y p 82.
'Tis (certainly) ill done to take ſuch a Gloſs after that impudent Monk Fevardontius, who as Rivet tells us, Crit. Secr. l. 2. c. 26. was a man of villainous audacity, and of no Faith, who moſt filthily and with impious and lying Annotations …oexupted the …arks of Irenaeus; hamo project and acae, & nuliius fidei, ſoedè in multis corrupit [opera Irenaei] & annotationibus impius & mendacious conſpureavit.
As for Tertullian, he is (as before) expreſly for us, and V…lius, Daille, Mr. Baxter, Mr. Wills, yea and Mr. Walker, confeſs ſo much Nor do thoſe paſſages Mr. Walker quotes, ſo much as mention I…ſant Baptiſm as approving it, nor any thing directly tending thereto; for then Tertullian ſhould have contradicted himſelf. Daille ſays in his Right uſe of the Fathers, l. 2. p. 72. that Tertullian was ſo far from preſſing men to baptize their children, while they are young, that he allows, and indeed perſwades the contrary, &c. and his opinion herein, is not much diſſerent from that of the Anabaptiſts of our time.
If Cyprians Epiſtle be genuine and uncorrupted, (as is doubted too, his Works falling into ill hands) 'tis rather a ſhame then a credit to Paedobaptiſm, to infiſt upon ſuch a ridiculous piece, that aſſerts Infants Baptiſm from ſuch corrupt grounds as are there inſiſted upon.
Voſſius lays no ſtreſs upon the witneſs of Origen, becauſe we have no original of it. And it is unqueſtionable that what we find in him about Infant Baptiſm to waſh away Original ſin, (quia eſſent in omnibus genuinae ſordes peccati, quae per aquam & ſpiritum ablui deberent) was foiſted in; For Origen (as Dr. Owen truly ſays) was a great Pelagian, which Sect, as is well known, denied Original ſin. Mr. D. Rep. p. 88. made this Objection, but Mr. W. gives no anſwer to it, as I can find, nor indeed can he.
Theſe are all the Antiquities pretended from the firſt 3…0 years. And let the judicious and impartial Reader conſider, whether that cauſe be not in a forlorn and languiſhing caſe, that has no better, then ſuch a rotten, baſis to reſt upon.
What Mr. Walker urges from the lying Talmud, (as the learned Sir Norton Knatchbull calls it in his Animadverſions, p. 315) to evince that Baptiſm was uſed by the Jews in the initiation of Proſelytes, is of no force againſt us, who receive not their Cuſtom as Goſpel, nor durſt we practice Infant Rantiſm, which is no Baptiſm, from Jewiſh principles, it having been never appointed by Chriſt, or his Apoſtles, but corruptly aroſe with Infant Communion, from a conceit of neceſſity, as is already evident.
Mr. Walker proceeds to argue, p. 292. that Infant Baptiſm is an Apoſtolical practice, for which he urges the baptizing of houſholds; but what I have ſaid to Mr. Whiſton and Mr. Baxter about this, may alſo ſerve here. But I hope, if that ſatisfies not, Dr. Hammonds opinion in the matter will be convincing, he ſays, Reſol. p 471. ſect. 21. that to conclude Infants were baptized, becauſe houſholds were ſo mentioned to be, is unconvincing, and without demonſtration, it being ſo uncertain, whether there was any Child in the ſamilies.
But 1 Cor. 7.14. is the great Topick he inſiſts upon, viz. the unbelieving husband is ſanctified by (it ſhould be to) the wife, &c. which he ſays ſhould be rendred (hath been ſanctified, as Dr. Hammond formerly ſaid) it being foreign; And that the ſenſe of (hath been ſanctified) is, hath been baptized, the effect being put for the act, by a Metonymie.
Anſw. I have already ſpoke to this Text in my Anſwer to Mr. Baxter, p. 12 to which I ſhall add now, that Mr. Walker chuſes a very abſurd Interpretation; For according to his talk the words of the Text will run thus, The unbelieving husband hath been baptized by the believing wiſe, and the unbelieving wiſe by the husband, which is ridiculous; for if it ſhould be true, then a proſeſs'd unbeliever ſhould be a fit ſubject of Baptiſm, and a woman a fit adminiſtrator; [and the Papiſts are beholden to Mr. Walker, for helping them to a Scripture, to warrant their practice of womens baptizing in caſe of neceſſity.] And then what need the Apoſtles be ſent to baptize, or the Miniſters of the Church of England, to Monopolize that practice now, when all the men and women in the reſpective Nations, may baptize one another? This Interpretation deſerves indeed to be laughed at. Neither doth Mr. Walker p. 299. avoid the danger of the abſurdity that follows it, by his ſhifts there. Beſides he (being well skill'd in the uſe of Particles, having indeed excellently advanced that kind of learning) knows that the particle (foreign) ſhould be rendred (to) not (by) in this place, unleſs he will make the Apoſtle ſay, that the ſaith of the wife ſanctifies the unbelieving husband foederally, and is therefore capable of baptiſm by his wiſes ſaith, which is not to be affirm'd; for the faith of the one is not the (next and effectual) cauſe of the others Sa…ctification; for this Sanctification is contingent, that is, it may, or it may not be, as verſe 16. Thus its rendred Col. 1.23. — preacht foreign, to every creature. Rom. 1.24. God gave them up foreign, to uncleanneſs. 2 Cor. 8.1. the grace of God is beſtowed (or given) foreign, (rendred in Latine in the dative, Eccleſiis) to the Churches. 2 Pet. 1.5. adde to your faith, &c. foreign. Mat. 27.12. foreign, to him. Act. 7.44. tabernaculum teſtimonii ſuit patribus, foreign; the particle (foreign) being in theſe places, and many others, rendred (to) not (by) Beſides, foreign, and foreign, holy, and unclean, are immediate oppoſites… and therefore according to Logick Rules, look in what ſenſe the one is to be underſtood, in the directly contrary to that ſenſe, muſt the other oppoſite be underſtood. Thus if the term (holy) ſignifies a Non-admittance to Church Ordinances, the term (unclean) muſt ſignifie an excluſion from ſuch: — but that's untrue; for Infidels children upon their converſion, were admitted, and ſome children of believers were excluded from Church-Ordinances, and Priviledges, yea in the ſtate of Infancy, as the children got by ſtrange wives in Ezra's time, Ezr. 10.3, 5, 44. were put away, as well as the mothers; So this holineſs being underſtood of legitimation, the uncleanneſs muſt neceſſarily be underſtood of baſtardy, as the iſſues of the ſtrange bed were reputed of old. Which ſenſe is ſo appoſite and proper, that no other can be reaſonably aſcribed to this Text; and that a holy ſeed is legitimate, ſee Ezra 9.2.
The term (foreign, unclean) is uſed for whoredom frequently in Scripture, as Rom. 1… 24. & 6.19. Epheſ. 5.3. Col. 3.5. Rev. 17.4. What Nazianzen's foreign imports, is nothing to us, the expreſſion is a meer Catechreſis. And 'tis certain the term is no where in Scripture uſed in ſuch a ſenſe, viz. he was ſanctified, for he was baptized; foreign is, uſui ſacro deſtinari, as Paſor informs us, John 17.19. See 1 Tim. 4.5. Luk. 11.2. Jud. 1. So that this Text affords no colour of proof, that Paedobaptiſm was an Apoſtolical practice.
In that old Tranſlation of the Bible, (done by John Rogers the Martyr, as ſaith Holingſhed in his Chron, p. 1168.) we find in the Notes upon 1 Cor. 7.14. theſe words, viz. Not that children are clean and pure by nature, for that were againſt the Apoſtle himſelf, who proveth Rom. 5. that all are under Original ſin, and naturally the children of wrath, as Eph. 2. But his meaning is, that like as all things are clean to the clean, ſo that he may be converſant with her, and not …ſſend in ſo doing; and that the children of them are not to be reputed as unlawful and unclean.
His Dilemma p. 329. is nugatory, and will directly lye againſt themſelves in many points of Popery they reject. And his enumeration of things believed, yet not expreſly delivered in Scripture, is frivolous: for we deny not, but Infant Baptiſm may be right, if prov'd by good conſequence, (yet it is certain, that the only Rule in Sacraments is the Inſtitution, and practice) but we deny the conſequences produced for it, to be good. So that it is not conſequences, but pretended, abſurd, and illogical conſequences we deny, therefore his diſcourſe being be ſides our practice, is inſignificant. 'Tis a very bold, and dangerous practice, to ſet up any Invention of our own in Religion, under pretence of its being agreeable to Gods ſecret will, (as Mr. Walker talks) for who can tell whether it be ſo, or no? Methinks Nadab and Abibu's tragical end Lev. 10. ſhould teach ſuch, what they are to expect for preſumptions of that kind.
The Argument p. 338. is a weak one and will prove the Doctrine of Purgatory, and the Invocation of Saints, &c. to be no ſin, as well as Inſant Baptiſm. But that it is a ſin, becauſe a tranſgreſſion of a Law, may be thus demonſtrated; That which is done beſides (and without any warrant from) the Doctrine and practice of the Law-giver, is a tranſgreſſion of a Law: But Infant Baptiſm, is ſuch; therefore a tranſgreſſion of a Law, and conſequently a ſin. The major is apparent from that maxim received among Proteſtants, and by which they defend themſelves againſt Papiſts, viz. that in poſitive Worſhip whatſoever is not commanded, is forbidden. The minor is proved at large in our Writings.
The reſt of Mr. Walkers diſcourſe, as where he affirms, that Infant Baptiſm might be lawfull, though there were neither command for it, nor example of it, as p. 331. is not only againſt us, but againſt all the Reformers: for, if ſuch a Doctrine were believed, what a gap would it open for all Tradition-mongers, to break in, and impoſe what they pleaſe upon us? that pretence being as allowable in all other exploded points, as in this; therefore I believe all that make the Scriptures the Standard to try Doctrines by, will be of our ſide in this caſe, therefore at preſent I think it needleſs to ſay any thing more to it.
What Mr. Walker ſay, in Reply to the Anſwer made to the Objection from no expreſs Command or Example in Scripture of womens receiving the Lords Supper, is not ſatisfactory, nor does it prove that there is as good conſequence for Infant Baptiſm, as womens receiving the Supper; And he taking no notice of what Mr. Danvers ſo fully writ about that matter, to Mr. Blinman, p. 177. 1 Reply, it is enough to refer him thither; and to Mr. Tombs his Juſt Reply, p. 96. As to his defence p. 409. of thoſe ſpurious Books aſcribed to Juſtine Martyr, Dionyſius the Areopagite, &c. mentioned before, being all that's produced for that practice for the firſt 300 years, it is meerly inſignificant, he having not anſwered what Mr. Danvers urged with undeniable demonſtration to prove them fabulous, as Treat. p. 98, &c. and 136, &c. So that what I ſaid before, with this Reference, is enough as to that particular. And therefore at preſent I ſhall ſay no more but this, (with Mr. Tombs) That if any perſon be deceived by thoſe arguments urged for Infant Baptiſm, after ſo full a diſcovery of the futility of them for theſe 30 or 40 years paſt, we may conclude, that they are deceived, becauſe they are willing to be deceived.
FINIS.
End of the text · Thomas De Laune, Truth Defended (1677)