The Doctrine of Baptisms, Chapter 4
CHAP. IIII.
Containing the Arguments for Infants Baptism, with Answers to them.
THe first Argument for Infant-Baptism, is drawn from Circumcision. Infants were circumcised: therefore Infants ought to be Baptiz'd.
Answ. It doth not follow, because Children were Circumcis'd, therefore Infants should be Baptiz'd. The reason is, because Circumcision was expresly commanded to Children, both as to Subject, Time, Age and Sex, which was the Male Children at eight daies old, with a severe penalty of the Parents Disobedience, Gen. 17. 10, 12, 14. But there is not one Syllable of Command for Baptizing of Infants in all the New Testament.
The Gospel is as express both for Subject, time, &c. viz. Men and Women of grown age, when they Believe, and this as plain as Circumcising of Infants at eight days old under the Law. Besides, we have the Qualifications of Baptism, clearly laid down, as Faith, Repentance, but nothing requir'd before Circumcision; Gospel-Ordinances being administred upon more pure and spiritual terms than the Legal were. And for Jesus Christ not to be as express in all his Institutions, as Moses was in his, is to argue Jesus Christ, the Son, in his House, lesse faithful than Moses, the Servant, in his House; and the Gospel and its administrations, not so clear and plain as the Law, contrary to Heb. 1. begin. and 3. beginning.
That Baptism came in the room of Circumcision, is not prov'd; at least, that Circumcision was a Type of Baptism, cannot be; because they were both outward signs, Rom. 4. 1…. and both in force together, as all the time of our Saviour's life; and Circumcision by no man held to be abolished till the death of Christ. Now as shadows fly away when the substance comes: so ought Circumcision to have ceas'd when Baptism came in force, had it been a Type of Baptism.
Besides, Baptism in Infancy would be a very insignificant thing to what Circumcision was; for no man now is undoubtedly assured of his Baptism in his Infancy, but Circumcision left its mark and Character behind.
Thus much shall serve by way of answer to their first and chief Argument for the Baptism of Infants, drawn from Circumcision.
A poor shift to prove a New Testament Ordinance from an Old Testament Rice and Ceremony.
The second Argument for Baptizing of Infants, is drawn from the Baptizing of whole Housholds.
Answ. First in general, Its not certain whether there were any Infants in those houses, yea, or no. Now what a sleight foundation is Probability, May, or May not be, to build so great an Ordinance upon, as Baptism is. And yet, to speak truth, this is the best Argument they have in all the New Testament. But suppose there were Children, 'tis usual in Scripture to call the greater part of the House, the House; This is a known figure, a part for the whole. See that instance 1 Sam. 1. 21, 22, 23. the Text saith expresly ver. 21. That all the House went up to offer unto the Lord the yearly sacrifice, &c. yet ver. 22, 23. 'tis as expresly said, that Hannah and her child Samuel went not up: yet, all the House. So Joshuah 24. 15. As for me and my House, we will serve the Lord. There are none so unreasonable or absurd, to believe that Joshua meant his Infants, if he had any. We might instance in many others: this remains a usual phrase with us to this day, to call the greater part of the house, the house: so its well known, we call the greater part of the Parliament, the House. From this uncertainty it is, that Doctor Hammond grants, That no concluding Argument can be deduc'd from the Baptizing of whole Housholds, to Baptize Children; and therefore in his Judgment, Arguments drawn from hence, are better wav'd than made use of, by the Patrons and Defenders of this Cause of Infant-Baptism; And certainly the Doctor judges but rationally herein; because a clear word of Institution, ought to be the ground of the practice of all Gospel Ordinances.
Secondly, A more particular Answer to this Argument. The New Testament speaks of four Housholds being Baptiz'd. We will consider them all, in Order.
First, The Houshold of Lydia, Acts 16. 14, 15.
Answ. Its uncertain whether there were any Infants in the House, as before. Its far more probable she was a Maid, or a Widdow at this time, than a married Woman, because there is not one word mentioning her Husband; Nay, she is reckon'd the Head of the Family. [Her] Houshold, ver. 15. which would not have been, if at this time she had had a Husband. Grant she were a Widdow, she might have no Children; if any, they might be grown up, and to such Children we deny not Baptism upon Profession of Faith. Besides she was at this time from her own proper dwelling, and that many miles distant; for she was [of] the City of Thyatira, ver. 14. but was now [at] the City of Philippi, ver. 12. where she was merchandizing. Grant she had little Children, how unlikely a matter is it, that she should carry them about with her, in her trading, so many miles distant.
So then if you set probability against probability, how little ground is there hence for Baptizing Infants?
But to put the matter out of doubt, the last verse of this Chap. calls them of the House of Lydia, Brethren. They entred into the house of Lydia, and when they had seen the [Brethren] they comforted them and departed. And therefore certainly Children cannot be here meant, whom the Apostles call Brethren, and returned to comfort with Lydia.
Thus much by way of Answer to the first Houshold.
The second Houshold is that of the Jaylors in the 33. verse of this same Chapter. The Jaylor and all His were Baptiz'd.
Answ. Whether he had any Children, is uncertain, as before. The word His may as well relate to his Wife; Servants, and Domestick friends, and relation, as to his Children. [So Rom. 16. 10, 11. Houshold in the Text, Friends in the Margin.] But whether he had, or had not, its all one in this Case, for in verse 32. 'tis said expresly, that Paul and Silas spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house. Now this could not be, to little Children. And in verse 34. 'tis said, that He rejoyced believing in God with all his House. But this, Infants are not capable to do. So then the House that was Baptiz'd, was such as heard the Word of the Lord, and rejoyc'd, believing in God; and there can be no reason given why [His] verse 33. should be larger then [All His House] ver. 32. 34.
These two verses being a Key to the 33. verse, and This Houshold, a Key to all the other three.
The like expression we meet withall John 4. 53. where that certain Noble man himself believed, and all his House. And Acts 10. 2. Cornelius fear'd God withall his House, with many other expressions of like import. Now none understand Children here, therefore, why in these places before us now in consideration?
A third Houshold, is that of Crispus, Acts 18. 8. which yet is not so plain in the Text, that his Houshold was Baptiz'd; yet if it was, the Text more plainly saith, He believ'd on the Lord with all his House. And that such as believe, are fit Subjects o… Baptism, we deny not; But then how Infants could be here meant, we understand not.
The fourth and last Houshold, is that of Stephanas, 1 Cor. 1. 16. I Baptized (saith Paul) the Houshold of Stephanas.
Answ. In the same Epistle Chap. 16. 15. The Apostle saith, That the House of Stephanas was the first fruits of Achaia, and that they had addicted themselves to the Ministry of the Saints. But this, Infants and little Children could not be, nor could not do.
Thus much in answet to the four Housholds; A second Argument brought in the defence of Infant-Baptism.
A third Argument brought for this Cause of Infant-Baptism, is, from Mat. 28. 19. The Institution of Baptism. Go Teach all Nations, Baptizing them, &c. Hence some gather, that they are to Baptize all Nations; But Children are of all Nations: therefore Children are the Subjects of Baptism.
Answ. First this Argument is no waies good, for then it would follow, that all of all Nations should be Baptiz'd; But this is against the Judgement, and contrary to the practice of these men themselves, That the Children of Heathens, Infidels, and Pagans, should be Baptiz'd; nay, many of them deny it to the Children of such, as in a general way profess the same Faith with them; and therefore nothing can be drawn from these words all Nations, as a sufficient warrant to Baptize Children, unlesse they will Baptize all Children, which they themselves deny.
Secondly, The Institution here, is, to Baptize only such of all Nations, as are first taught, or made Disciples, as the Word signifies. Go Teach all Nations Baptizing them, That is such who by your Preaching among the Nations, are converted to the Faith. And that grown persons are here meant in this Commission is clear by the parallel place with this, Mark 16. 16. And our late Annotators upon this place, confesse in Latine, that 'tis spoken, de adultis, which is in plain English, of grown persons.
Thirdly, The word [Them] Baptizing [Them] hath no reference unto all Nations, as is to be seen in the Grammar of the Text, foreign Them, being of the Masculine Gender, but foreign, all Nations, of the Nenter. This Them then must have reference to Disciples, to such as are first taught. But of this, before.
Fourthly, Such as are here to be Baptiz'd, are to be taught again, after their Baptism. ver. 20. Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you, viz. Such as are first Taught and then Baptiz'd, verse, 19. are here verse 20. to be taught again, in the further observance of all Christ's Commands. But this we suppose all men grant Infants are not capable of.
Thus we have done with their third Argument also.
A fourth Argument for this cause, is brought from Acts 2. 39. The Promise is unto you, and to your Children. This Promise, say some, is Baptism, and this is made to Children: therefore Children are to be Baptiz'd.
Answ. In Answer to this Argument, we shall consider what is here meant; first, by Promise; secondly, by Children.
First, What this Promise is? Whatsoever this Promise is, it is not Baptism, but indeed a Promise made unto Baptism. Verse 38. Repent and be Baptiz'd; for the Promise is unto you, ver. 39. So that this Promise, is the Baptism of the Spirit, made unto their Obedience in their Baptism in water, as is plain in the Text. Repent and be Baptiz'd every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the Remission of Sins, and ye shall receive the Gift of the Holy Spirit; For the Promise &c. to wit, this Promise of the Gift of the Holy Spirit, which has reference unto that extraordinary Gift of the Spirit, in the beginning of this Chapter. But of this, more hereafter.
So then the Baptism of Water, is the Duty; the Baptism of the Spirit, the Promise to this Duty.
Secondly, What is meant here by Children?
First, By Children is not meant their Infants, but the Posterity of the Jews, as Doctor Hammond grants; and therefore confesses this place; a very unconcluding Argument for Infants-Baptism. And that the Posterity of the Jews is here meant, is clear by the opposition of the Gentiles to the Jews, in the following words, And to all that are a [far off] By which Phrase is evidently meant the Gentiles; compar'd with Eph. 2. 13. Ye who sometimes were [far off] are made nigh by the blood of Christ. And that the Gentiles are here meant, all do grant.
Secondly, Though by Children here be meant, the Posterity of the Jews, yet not the natural or carnal …eed, but the spiritual, as appears by the last words in this verse. The Promise is unto you, and to your Children, (viz. to your Posterity, meaning the Jews) and to all that are a far off (here also the Gentiles are taken in) even as many as the Lord our God shall call, viz. both Jews and Gentiles, as shall appear to be called ones. See Rom. 4. 12. 16. To the end the Promise may be sure to all the seed, not to that only which is of the Law but to that also which is of the Faith of Abraham, who is the Father of us all. And Chap. 9. 6, 7, 8. They are not all Israel, which are of Israel: neither because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all [Children] but in Isaac shall thy seed be called; That is, they which are the Children of the flesh, these are not the Children of God, but the Children of the Promise are counted for the seed. So Gal. 3. 7. Know ye therefore, that they which are of Faith, the same are the Children of Abraham.
And, whereas some object, that if we deny Baptism to Infants, their Priviledges are lesse under the Gospel, then they were under the Law.
We briefly answer, That Birth-Priviledges give no right to Gospel-Dispensations. 'Twas a vain Plea, We have Abraham to our Father. Mat. 3. 9.
Thirdly that Children cannot be meant little Infants: because ver. 38. before Baptism they are requir'd to Repent; And ver. 41. they are said gladly to receive the Word: neither of which can Infants do.
Thus we have done with the fourth Argument.
A fifth Argument is from 1 Cor. 7. 14. from the Holiness of Children there spoken of, Else were your Children unclean, but now are they Holy.
Answ. First there is not one word more or lesse, in all this Chapter, spoken of Baptism, but all along of Marriage.
Secondly, for answer to this Argument, we shall consider, 1. What is here meant by Holiness. And 2. what right this Holiness gives Children unto Baptism.
First, By Holiness here cannot be meant regenerative Holiness; For the unbelieving Husband, and the unbelieving Wife, have the same Holiness attributed to them as the Children, and yet unbelievers; therefore it cannot be meant of Holiness to inward sanctification. For the unbelieving Husband is [Sanctified] by the Wife and the unbelieving Wife is [Sanctified] by the Husband, else were your Children unclean, but now are they Holy.
The scope of this place is no other, but to answer a Quaere of the Believers newly converted, Whether or no they ought not to put away their unbelieving Wives, and to depart from their unbelieving Husbands as you may see verse 10. &c. In answer to which Quaere, the Apostle advises them to abide in their married estate; By this Argument among others, in ver. 14. Because the unbelieving Husband is Sanctified by the Wife, &c. That is, that as their Marriage was at first lawful, so they might lawfully live and cohabit together, and might lawfully make use of one another in that relation: and so were to account their Children legitimately born. Such a Holiness as the Apostle speaks of the Creatures of God, 1 Tim. 4. 5. That they might be lawfully us'd: Or possibly such a Sanctification, as is else-where spoken of in opposition to Fornication, to wit, the Holiness of Chastity, 1 Thessal. 4. 3, 4, 5.
Secondly, But what is all this to Baptism? For whatever Holiness is here spoken of, what right does this give Children unto Baptism? If right to Baptism, why not unto the Lords Supper also? If right to one Ordinance, why not unto another? We find no such parting of the Ordinances in the New Testament; but they that had right unto Baptism, had immediatly thereupon right unto the Supper.
And hence it was that in former times, as Grotius gives the account, with many other Testimonies I cannot now remember, That Infants did as well receive the Lords Supper, as Baptism, and truly I think with as good Authority, one as the other. And we may as well divide the Bread and the Wine as the Papists do; as divide one Ordinance from another.
To conclude, we cannot but wonder, that any knowing man should deduce an Argument from hence, for Infants-Baptism, there being not the least word to conntenance such a thing in the whole Chapter.
A sixth Argument is brought from Matthew 19. Mark. 10. Luke 18. where 'tis said, that Christ took little Children in his arms and blessed them and said Of such is the Kingdom of Heaven. From whence they gather, that these little Children were Baptiz'd.
Answ. First, the whole Text speaks not one word of Baptism, though as you see, recorded by three Evangelists.
Secondly, Whereas 'tis said, He blessed them. And hence they would infer, He Baptiz'd them; the answer is ready, The Text saith expresly that Jesus Christ never Baptiz'd at all. John 4. 2. Jesus himself Baptiz'd not.
Thirdly, For that passage of such is the Kingdom of Heaven, we answer, First, that the Kingdom of Heaven belongs to little Children, we do not in the least doubt, because the Text so plainly speaks it. But how it follows hence, that therefore they are to be Baptiz'd, we know not; no more then that they have right to the Supper of the Lord, as before.
But secondly, whereas the Text says, of Such, that is, of such like, as the Word, foreign signifies, to wit, such as are by the Gospel, made like to little Children, and do resemble them in Innocenty, Humility, Harmlessness, and the like, To them also belongs the Kingdom of Heaven, as the word foreign signifies, it being a note of similitude and resemblance.
Fourthly, For that word foreign, it doth not alwaies signifie a little Child or Infant as you may see 2 Tim. 3. 15. where the same word is us'd of Timothy, that from a child he knew the Holy Scriptures. Now such Children as they Baptize, are not capable of knowing the Holy Scriptures. And the Text it self seems fairly to admit of such an Interpretation; for as it is said, They were brought to Christ, it speaks also of their comming to him.
Dr. Hammond calls this place also an imperfect way of proof for Infants-Baptism.
A seventh Argument is brought from Matt. 18. 6. from whence they gather, that little Children may be believers, and so have right to Baptism. Who so shall offend one of these littli ones that believe in me, &c.
Answ. First, We grant that Believers are fit Subjects for Baptism; 'tis that we plead for all along: neither do we deny that the persons here spoken of, were not fitly qualified for this Ordinance.
But secondly, the little ones here spoken of, are grown persons, and are called little ones only by way of similitude (as before) in respect of their Humility, as you may clearly see, ver. 1, 2, 3, 4. Whosoever shall humble himself as this little child, and except you be converted and become as little Children, &c.
Besides, These little ones cannot be meant of natural little Children, but to be taken in a spiritual sense, because the Text saith, He that offends one of these little ones that believe in me, 'twere better that a Milstone were hanged about his neck &c, A very heavy doom for offending little Children; which they will be; if we take away their play things, or give them but due correction when they deserve it.
Thus much shall serve for answer to this Argument also.
An eighth Argument for the Baptism of Infants, is brought from their Church-membership.
That Children are Church-members under the Gospel, they endeavour thus to prove, They that were once Church-members, and never repeal'd, are so still: But they were once Church-members, and never repeal'd: Therefore &c.
Answ. Children under the Law, as Children, were not Church-members, but as Circumciz'd, they were not Circumciz'd because Church-members, but became Church-members, because Circumciz'd. In like manner under the Gospel, such as are rightly Baptiz'd are Church-members, and not till then: they are not Baptiz'd, because Church-members, but become Members of the Church by Baptism. 1 Cor. 1. 12. 13. So Act. 2. 41, 42. Then they that gladly received his word, were Baptiz'd, and the same day there were [added unto them] about 3000. souls, viz. to the Church, as you may see, ver. 47. And the Lord added to the Church, &c.
Hence the Common-Prayer-Book saith, That Children are made Members of the Church by Baptism.
The Principle is right, though falsly applyed by them to wrong Subjects; and all agree in this, that I have met with, That Baptism is the initiating Ordinance into the Church. And hence it was, they set their Font at the lower end of the Church, having this Notion right, that Baptism made them Members of the Church.
I shall conclude this particular with an Argument of Mr. Baxter's.
If there be neither Precept, nor Example, of admitting Church members, in all the New Testament, but by Baptism, then all that are now admitted, ought to come in by Baptism; But there is neither Precept, nor example, of admitting Church-members, in all the New Testament but by Baptism: therefore they ought to come in the same way now.
Thus you see, that Baptism is the door of entrance into the visible Church, and that the right of membership comes in, by vertue of their Baptism, and not that persons are to be Baptiz'd, because already Church-members.
Besides, grant that Children were Church-members under the Law, yet now the whole Jewish Church-state as National, being abrogated by the comingin of the Gospel, which hath erected a Church upon purer, and more spiritual principles; it follows then that Children lost this Priviledge, with the Jewish state; and when the National Church was abtogated, then were the Children cast out. Thus, if ever they were Church-members, which no Scripture says, yet we have shewn a Repeal.
And so much for this Argument also.
A ninth Argument, that Children ought to be Baptiz'd, is, because Children are Disciples.
Answ. That Disciples are to be Baptiz'd, we grant; but that Children are Disciples, we deny.
That Children are Disciples they endeavour to prove, from Acts 15. 10. in which place, some say, Children are call'd Disciples.
Answ. The Disciples here spoken of, upon whose neck the yoke of Circumcision was laid, were not the Children, but the Fathers, who having now receiv'd the Gospel, did count it a yoke, to have their Children brought under the Bondage of Circumcision again, and other Ceremonies of the Law.
Beside, who are Christs Disciples, the Gospel is plain, Matt. 16. 24. and in many other places might be shewn at large, but that we study brevity.
Lastly, For that Argument, drawn from the practice of our Fore-fathers, successively throughout so many generations, almost in all Nations, which is indeed the best and strongest proof, not onelyonly of the vulgar, but also of many others, whom we have expected should have been better taught; and otherwise learn'd in these daies of Light, we have only this to say, That it was not so, from the beginning, as we have already prov'd; we had well hoped before this time, this popular Argument of Possession, and Custome in Religion, had been wholly laid aside, considering that even in our daies, we have reform'd many things, that our Fore-fathers did: and why not in this also, if it be found too light for the ballance of the Sanctuary; especially when we remember, the solemn Oath and Covenant this whole Nation hath taken, to reform in all things, according to the Primitive Pattern, and the word of God.
Its not many years, since the Liturgy of this whole Nation, hath bin laid aside, & now almost forgotten, by all sober-minded persons in Religion, together with many other abuses crept in, both in Doctrine and Discipline, though for many Ages past establisht and confirm'd.
Besides in this matter, how easy were it to shew you, the Infancy of Infant-Baptism, were it not done sufficiently already. (The two first Centuries speak nothing of this matter.)
If we made not the word of God our sole Authority, we could fully make it appear, that Antiquity is on our side in this thing also.
But me thinks I hear some say, if our way be true, What then became of our Fore-fathers that were not Baptized, so, as we plead for?
Answer. The times of this ignorance God winked at. Besides, though we look upon Baptism as a very great Ordinance of the New Testament, yet we do not hold it so absolutely necessary, or essential to salvation, that the neglect thereof is damnable, till the Light of this Truth shining in so clearly to our Consciences and understandings, that then we reject it upon some carnal account or other; notwithstanding our Conviction. We question not, had our Fore-fathers received the Light of it, as we have, they would have been obedient to it, as we are.
But errors usually follow this practice.
All that we shall say to this, is, This is but the same thing, that hath been all along objected by the Papists against the Protestants,
Some there are from a vain conceit, of late taken up, that they are Baptiz'd with the Spirit, have therefore wholly laid aside, the Baptism of Water, as uselesse and insignificant to them.
To such we answer, First, That none are Baptiz'd with the Spirit at this day, we shall hereafter shew.
But secondly, Grant they were, yet that they ought to be Baptiz'd in Water, is clear, as appears, in that Peter commanded such to be Baptiz'd in Water, Acts 10. 44. to the end, While Peter spake, the Holy Spirit fell on all them which heard the Word; on the Gentiles also was powred out the gift of the Holy Spirit, for they heard them speak with Tongues, and magnifie God. Then answered Peter, Can any man forbid Water that these should not be Baptized, which have received the Holy Spirit as well as we.
To conclude this Chapter, In all Ordinances, Institution is chiefly to be looked at: We must not be wise above what is written, especially in matters of worship, God hath been very jealous of that in all Ages; therefore thou art to consider, how is't written, how readest thou? In this to change, add, or diminish, is to do it with a witness; therefore to the Law, and to the Testimony, if any man speak not according to this, 'tis because there is no Light in him. Take heed of setting thy Posts by Gods Posts.
Christ Jesus will shortly come to take an account, how we have kept his Ordinances, who hath commanded us, to keep them, as he hath commanded, until he come: and hath promised to be with us, in so doing, to the end of the World.
Some are so hard put to it, to find an Institution for Infant-Baptism, who with Luther confess, That Childrens Baptism, was never instituted by Christ, and yet a duty. Would not this fairly countenance all Will-worship? And what were this but to question the Wisdom of our Law-giver? And herein they think to salve the matter, in asking of us, Where we find an Institution for womens receiving of the Lords Supper? We desire such to consider, whether women be not to be reckoned among the number of Disciples? Acts 20. 7. Upon the first day of the week, when the Disciples came together to break bread. And ▪tis well known, that word 1 Cor. 11. 28. Let [a man] examine himself signifies both man & woman. Besides, among those that broke bread Acts 2. 42, 46. were some women, Acts 1. 14.
Thus we have done with the most considerable Arguments brought in the defence of Infant-Baptism, together with the Answers to them.