The Ancient Christian Religion, Book 4 · Treatise 3
Christianismus Primitivus.
The Third TREATISE. THE PEDO-BAPTISTS APOLOGY FOR THE Baptized Churches.
THere is no Point of the Christian Faith, of greater importance, in order to the composure of Divisions among such as conscientiously profess the Name of Christ, than the Doctrine of Holy Baptism, in the Name of Jesus Christ for the Remission of Sins: Gal. 3. 27. Heb. 6. 2.For as many as have been baptized into Christ, have put on Christ. And where this Foundation-Truth hath been neglected, or essentially corrupted, there hath ensued great disorder in Religion, because the Being of the Church (as Visible) is so concern'd therein, that there can be no orderly proceeding in any Church Act, nor participation in any Church-Priviledg, where Sacred Baptism is not Antecedent.
And though Reformation (or rather the Restauration) of this Truth be hard to accomplish, yet must we not be discouraged, but still pursue all lawful and probable ways to effect it in this, as well as in other cases. And the way which I have chosen to help on this needful Work at this time, is to shew, that (notwithstanding the discord in Point of Practice, yet) there is a very great concord in Doctrine, touching the main Questions which concern this Heavenly Institution, between the Pedo-Baptists and the Baptized Churches. The Questions are these;
1. What are the Qualifications required of all such as are to be baptized?
2. What is the due Act or right Form to be observed and done in this solemn Rite of Baptism?
Touching the first, The Doctrine of the Baptized Churches is well known, namely, That Repentance towards God, and Faith towards our Lord Jesus Christ, are pre-requisites to the Baptism of every Sinner. And to this agrees the Holy Scripture, with full consent, saying, Acts 2. 38. Mark 1. 5. Acts 8. 12. & 18. 8.Repent and be baptized every one of you. They were all baptized, confessing their Sins. When they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the Kingdom of God, &c. they were baptized both Men and Women. Many of the Corinthians hearing, believed and were baptized. And hence this Holy Ordinance is well called the Rom. 6. 1.Laver of Regeneration; the Baptism of Repentance, for the Remission of Sins. Now let us hear the Doctrine of the Pedo-Baptists touching this Question.
1. The Church of England, both in her Articles and Vulgar Catechism, delivers her mind clearly to this purpose; That such Repentance whereby Sin is forsaken, and such Faith as by which the Promises of God are stedfastly believed, is required of Persons (meaning all Persons) which are to be baptized; and that in Baptism Faith is confirmed, &c.
2. Mr. Perkins (a Learned Son of the same Church) upon these words; Teach all Nations, baptizing them, &c. saith, I explain the words thus; Mark, first of all 'tis said, teach them; that is, make them my Disciples, by calling them to believe, and to repent. Here we are to consider the order which God observes, in making with Man the Covenant in Baptism: First of all he calls them by his Word, and commands them to believe and repent; then in the second place, God makes his Promise of Mercy and Forgiveness: and thirdly, he seals his Promise by Baptism. — They that know not, nor consider this Order which God used in Covenanting with them in Baptism, deal preposterously, overslipping the Commandment of Repenting and Believing. — This is the cause of so much prophaneness in the World: We see what is done in Baptism, the Covenant of Grace is solemniz'd between God and the Party baptized; and in this Covenant, some things belong to God, some to the Party baptized: The Actions of the Party baptized, are a certain Stipulation or Obligation, whereby he bindeth himself to give homage to the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. This Homage standeth in Faith, whereby all the Promises of God are believed, and in obedience to all his Commandments. The sign of this Obligation is, That the Party baptized, willingly yields himself to be washed with Water.
3. Diodate on the same Text, teacheth, That Baptism is a Sacrament of Grace, in remission and expiation of Sins, and regeneration to a new Life. And likewise for a Token that they are bound on their side (meaning such as are baptized) to consecrate themselves to God, and to give themselves over to the conduct of his Spirit, and to confess his Name perpetually.
Thus these three Witnesses do concur with the Truth, and therein do hold a concord with the Baptized Churches. And one would think there should now be no place for such a Conceit, as that Infants are fit Subjects for the Sacred Ordinance of Baptism, because wholly uncapable of these Qualifications. Now whereas divers things are pretended as grounds for Infant Baptism, we shall briefly recount the particulars which are chiefly insisted on, and then shew how the same are refelled, or made void, by some of the most learned Asserters of Pedo-baptism. The Grounds pretended are these.
1. The Covenant which God made with Abraham and his Seed, Gen. 17. who were to be Circumcised (to wit, the Males only) in their Infancy. This is thought to be a Type of Baptism, and hence it 'tis conceived, that Infants ought to be baptized.
2. Christ permitting Infants to be brought to him, as Persons to whom the Kingdom belongs.
3. They being tainted with Original Sin, must be cleansed from it; which is supposed to be done by Baptism.
4. Because it is said, Except a Man be born of Water, &c. he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God, John 3.
5. Because Infants do not ponere obicem, and so are more fit for Baptism than adult Persons, as 'tis thought.
6. Because without Baptism, Parents cannot hope the salvation of dying Infants (as some think.)
7. The Promise of the Holy Ghost, Acts 2. 39. is thought to belong to Infants, and so they ought to be baptized, because they are said to be holy.
8. Unless Infants be baptized, 'tis thought God is worse to Infants in the Gospel, than in the Law.
9. Infants are a part of all Nations, and the Command for baptizing is of extent to all Nations.
10. 'Tis thought the Apostles baptized Infants, because they baptized whole Housholds; and 'tis said, it hath descended to this very Age, as a Tradition Apostolical.
To all which, Doctor Jer. Taylor (and others) in behalf of the Baptized Churches; do give answer as followeth.
That this is a goodly Harangue, which upon strict examination will come to nothing; that it pretends fairly, and signifies little; that some of those Allegations are false, some impertinent, and all the rest insufficient.
Libert. Proph. pag. 228, to 246.For the argument from Circumcision, it is invalid (or of no weight) upon infinite considerations. Figures and Types prove nothing, unless a Commandment go along with them; or some express to signifie such to be their purpose: For the Deluge of Waters, and the Ark of Noah, were a figure of Baptism, said Peter: And if therefore the Circumstances of one should be drawn to the other, we should make Baptism a Prodigie, rather than a Rite. The Paschal Lamb was a Type of the Eucharist, which succeeds the other as Baptism doth Circumcision, but because there was in the manducation of the Paschal Lamb, no prescription of Sacramental Drink, shall we then conclude that the Eucharist is to be ministred but in one kind? And even in the very instance of this Argument, supposing a correspondence of analogie between Circumcision and Baptism, *Which yet the Baptists do not grant.yet there is no correspondence of Identity: For although it were granted, that both of them did consign the Covenant of Faith, yet there is nothing in Circumstance of Childrens being Circumcised that so concerns that Mystery, but that it might very well be given to Children, and yet Baptism to Men of Reason; because Circumcision left a Character in the Flesh, which being imprinted upon Infants, did its work to them when they came to Age: and such a Character was necessary, because there was no Word added to the Sign; but Baptism imprints nothing that remains on the Body, and if it leaves a Character at all it is upon the Soul, to which also the Word is added, which is as much a part of the Sacrament as the Sign it self is. *It is a saying of Augustine, Detrahe verbum, quid est aqua, &c. Take away the Word, and what is Water? Nothing but Water: Joyn the Word and the Element, and it is made a Sacrament. This consideration is very concluding against Pedo-baptism, for to the Infant the Word is as it were taken away from the Element, and consequently, according to Augustine, it can be no Sacrament to them at all.For both which Reasons, it is very requisite that the Persons baptized, should be capable of Reason, that they may be capable of both the Word of the Sacrament, and the impress made upon the Spirit. Since therefore the reason of this Parity does wholly fail, there is nothing left to infer a necessity, of complying in this Circumstance of Age, any more than in the other annexes of the Type; and the case is clear in the Bishops Question to Cyprian. For why should not Infants be baptized just upon the Eighth Day, as well as Circumcised? If the correspondence of the Rites be an Argument to infer one Circumstance, which is impertinent and accidental to the mysteriousness of the Rite, why should it not infer all? [Especially such a material thing as the time of Baptism, for if the Eighth Day be not determined, no Man is able to assign the Day of Baptism, which being delayed till the Tenth, or Twentieth Day, may by the same Reason, be deferred till the Child have passed through its Infancy, and become capable of Erudition.] And then also, Females must not be Baptized, because they were not Circumcised. But it were more proper if we would understand it aright, to prosecute the Analogie of the Type to the Antitype, by way of Letter and Spirit, and Signification; and as Circumcision signifies Baptism, so also the adjuncts of Circumcision, shall signifie something Spiritual in the adherences of Baptism. And therefore as Infants were Circumcised, so Spiritual-Infants shall he Baptized; which (according to some) is Spiritual-Circumcision. [Which yet is better expounded by St. Paul; Phil. 3. where he makes the Spiritual-Circumcision to be the Mind and Spirit renewed, and the putting off the body of the sins of the Flesh.] For therefore Babes had the Ministry of the Type, to signifie that we must when we give our Names to Christ, become foreign, Children in Malice. [For unless you become like one of these little ones, you cannot enter into the Kingdom of Heaven,] said our blessed Saviviour. And then the Tye is made compleat, and this seems to have been the sense of the Primitive-Church: for in the Ages next to the Apostles, they gave to all Baptized Persons, Milk and Honey, to represent to them their Duty; that though in Age and Understanding they were Men, yet they were Babes in Christ, and Children in Malice. But to infer the sense of the Pedo-Baptists, is so weak a manner of arguing, that Augustine, whose device it was (and Men use to be in love with their own fancies) at the most pretended it but as probable: Lo here the newness of the Argument, from Infant-Circumcision, to Infant-Baptism.
As for the Catholicks, they hold it an absurd thing to argue as the Protestants do, from the Covenant made with Abraham, and his Seed, Gen. 17. 7. Thus they speak: Ex man. controv. Under the probation of divers of their Doctors, Professors and Students in Theologie, p. 372, to 377.That Promise concerns literally peculiar Protection, and worldly Felicity, not the Remission of Sins, and everlasting Life; neither can we be Sons of Abraham by Carnal Generation, or by our Carnal Parents (we are not Jews but Gentiles) but only by Spiritual Generation, (to wit, Baptism) by which we are born to God, and made the Brothers of Christ, the Sons of Abraham. Those (saith St. Paul) are the Sons of Abraham, not who are the Sons of the Flesh, but of Faith, Rom. 4. 12, 13.
Again, S. N. Antid.They deny the Argument drawn from Infants being Circumcised in order to their being Baptized, calling it a cunning Argument, by which it will follow, that Females are not to be Baptized, &c.
And as ill success will they have with the other Arguments, as with this; For from the Action of Christ's blessing Infants, to infer that they are to be Baptized, proves nothing so much, as that there is a great want of better Arguments. The Conclusion would be with more probability, derived thus: Christ blessed Children, and so dismissed them, but Baptized them not; therefore Infants are not to be Baptized. But let this be as weak as its Enemy, yet that Christ did not baptize them, is an argument sufficient, that Christ hath other ways of bringing them to Heaven. He passed his Act of Grace upon them by Benediction, and Imposition of Hands.
And therefore though neither Infants, nor any Man in puris naturaralibus, can attain to a supernatural end without the addition of some Instrument, or means of God's appointing ordinarily, yet where God hath not appointed a Rule nor an Order, as in the case of Infants, we contend he hath not, this Argument is invalid. And as we are sure that God hath not commanded Infants to be Baptized, so we are sure God will do them no Injustice, nor Damn them for what they cannot help.
And therefore let them be pressed with all the Inconveniences which are consequent to Original Sin, yet either it will not be laid to their charge, so as to be sufficient to Condemn them; or if it could, yet the Mercy and absolute Goodness of God will secure them, if he take them away before they can glorifie him by a free Obedience. Quid ergo▪ festinatis▪ innocentes ad remissionem peccatorum? Was the Question of Turtullian (lib. de Bapt.) He knew no such danger from their Original Guilt, as to drive them to a Laver, of which in that age of Innocence they had no need, as he conceived, and therefore there is no necessity of flying to the help of others for Tongue, for Heart, for Faith, and predispositions to Baptism; For what need of all this stir? As Infants without their own consent, without any Act of their own, and without any exteriour solemnity, contracted the guilt of Adam's Sin, and are liable to all the punishment which can with Justice descend upon his Posterity who are personally innocent; so Infants shall be restored without any solemnity, or act of their own, or any other for them, by the Second Adam, by the Redemption of Jesus Christ, by his Righteousness and Mercies, applied either immediately, or how, or when he pleases to appoint. [And to this agrees that saying of the Apostle, As in Adam all die, so in Christ shall all be made alive; and as by the disobedience of one many were made Sinners, so by the obedience of one, shall many be made Righteous.] And so Austine's argument will come to nothing, without any need of God-Fathers, or the Faith of any Body else. And it is too narrow a conception of God Almighty, because he hath tied us to the observation of Ceremonies of his own Institution, that therefore he hath tied himself to it. Many thousand Ways there are, by which God can bring any reasonable soul to himself: But nothing is more unreasonable, than because he hath tied 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, is too bold and ventrous; Mysterium est mihi & filiis domus meae. Let him do what he please to Infants, we must not.
Only this is certain, that God hath as great care of Infants as of others; and because they have no capacity of doing such Acts, as may be in order to acquiring Salvation, God will by his own immediate Mercy bring them thither, where he hath intended them: but to say that therefore he will do it by an external Act and Ministry, and that confin'd to a particular, viz. this Rite and no other, is no good Argument, unless God could not do it without such means, or that he had said he would not. And why cannot God as well do his Mercies to Infants now immediately, as he did before the Institution, either of Circumcision or Baptism? [This Query is worthy of serious consideration] however there is no danger that Infants should perish for want of this external Ministry, much less for prevaricating Christ's Precept, nisi quis renatus fuerit, &c. For first the Water and Spirit in this place [according to some learned Expositors] signifie the same thing: And by Water is meant the Effect of the Spirit cleansing and purifying the Soul; as appears in its parallel place, of Christ's baptizing with the Holy Ghost and Fire: — But to let pass this advantage, and to suppose it to be meant of External Baptism, [as that is the most likely sense] yet this no more infers a necessity of Infants Baptism, than the other words of Christ infer a necessity to give them the Holy Communion, Nisi comederitis Carnem Filii Hominis, & biberitis Sanguinem, non introibitis in Regnum Coelorum; and yet we do not think these words sufficient Argument to communicate them: If Men therefore will do us justice, either let them give both Sacraments to Infants, as some Ages of the Church did, or neither; for the wit of Man is not able to shew a disparity in the Sanction, or in the energy of its Expression; and therefore they were hottest, that understood the Obligation to be parallel, and performed it accordingly; and yet because we say they were deceived in one Instance, and yet the Obligation (all the World cannot reasonably say but) is the same; they are as honest and as reasonable that do neither. And since the Ancient Church did with an equal opinion of necessity give them Communion, and yet Men now adays do not; why shall Men be more burthened with a prejudice and name of Obloquy, for not giving the Infants one Sacrament, more than they are disliked for not affording them the other? If Anabaptist shall be a Name of disgrace, why shall not some other Name be invented for them that deny to communicate Infants, which shall be equally disgraceful; or else both the Opinions signified by such Names, be accounted no disparagement, but receive their estimate according to their Truth?
Of which Truth since we are now taking account from pretences of Scripture, it is considerable the discourse of St. Peter, which is pretended for the Intitling Infants to the Promise of the Holy Ghost, and by consequence to Baptism, which is supposed to be its Instrument of conveyance: 'tis wholly a Fancy, and hath nothing in it of certainty or demonstration, and not much probability. For besides that the thing it self is unreasonable, and the Holy Ghost works by the heightning and improving our natural Faculties; and therefore is a Promise that so concerns them, as they are reasonable Creatures, and may have a Title to it, in proportion to their Nature, but no possession or reception of it, till their Faculties come into act; besides this, I say, the words mentioned in St. Peter's Sermon (which are the only Record of the Promise) are interpreted upon a weak mistake; the Promise belongs to you and to your Children, therefore Infants are actually receptive of it in that capacity, that's the Argument: but the reason of it is not yet discovered, nor never will, [For indeed it is without reason] To you and your Children; it's you and your Posterity, to you and your Children, when they are of the same capacity in which you are effectually receptive of the Promise. See Diodat. in Act. 2.[Beside the Promise of the Spirit in this place is referr'd to the Gifts of the Holy Ghost, and is therefore made to those who had already received it in the quickning or illuminating operation of it, and is the portion of Believers as such, and is consequent to Baptism, Acts 2. 38, 39. and is therefore wrongfully made an Argument for the baptizing of Infants, who (what-ever they may have of the Graces of the *A thing wholly unknown that they have any such receit of the Spirit.Spirit, yet) have neither need of, nor any capacity to use the Gifts of the Spirit, and therefore evident it is, that this Promise of the Spirit belongs not to Infants at all.]
And for the Allegation of St. Paul, that Infants are Holy if their Parents be Faithful; it signifies nothing but that they are Holy by designation: — Or, according to Erasmus, Eras. Paraph. in 1 Cor. 7.[They (to wit, Infants born of such Parents, as the one being a Christian, the other not) are Holy legitimately; for the conversion of either Wife or Husband, doth not dissolve the Marriage which was made when both were in unbelief. And however it is true, that Austin was a great stickler for Pedo-Baptism, yet he denies that any such thing can be deduced from the Text in hand; his words are these, Lib. 3. de peccator. Remis. It is to be held without doubting, whatsoever that Sanctification was, it was not of Power to make Christians and remit Sins. He might well say so, considering that the Holiness of the Child is derived from the Sanctity of the Unbeliever, as the word else being rightly referr'd doth evince, 1 Cor. 7. 14.]
And as the Promise appertains not (for ought appears) to Infants in that capacity and consistence, — yet Baptism is not the means of conveying the Holy Ghost; for that which Peter says, Be baptized, and ye shall receive the Holy Ghost; signifies no more than this, first be baptized, and then by imposition of the Apostles Hands, (which was another Mystery and Rite) ye shall receive the Promise of the Father; and this is nothing but an insinuation of the Rite of Confirmation, as to this sense expounded by divers Ancient Authors; and in ordinary Ministry, the effect of it is not bestowed upon any unbaptized Persons, for it is in order next after Baptism: and upon this ground Peter's Argument in the case of Cornelius was concluding enough, a majori ad minus: thus the Holy Ghost was bestowed upon him and his Family; which Gift by ordinary Ministry was consequent to Baptism, not as the Effect is to the Cause, or to the proper Instrument, but as a Consequent is to an Antecedent, in a Chain of Causes accidentally, and by positive Institution depending upon each other; God by that Miracle did give Testimony that the Persons of the Men were in great dispositions towards Heaven, and therefore were to be admitted to these Rites which are the ordinary Inlets into the Kingdom of Heaven. But then from hence to argue, that where-ever there is a capacity of receiving the same Grace, there also the same sign is to be administred: And from hence to infer Pedo-Baptism, is an Argument very fallacious upon several grounds: 1. Because Baptism is not the sign of the Holy Ghost, but by another Mystery, it was conveyed ordinarily, and extraordinarily, it was convey'd independently from any Mystery, and so the Argument goes upon a wrong Supposition. 2. If the Supposition were true, yet the Proposition built upon it is false: for they that are capable of the same Grace, are not always capable of the same Sign; for Women under the Law of Moses, though they were capable of the Righteousness of Faith, yet they were not capable of the Sign of Circumcision; for God does not always convey his Graces in the same manner, but to some mediately, to some immediately; and there is no better instance in the World of it, than the Gift of the Holy Ghost, (which is the thing now instanc'd in, in this Contestation.)
And after all this, lest these Argments should not ascertain their Cause, they fall on complaining against God; and will not be content with God, unless they may baptize their Children, but take exceptions that God did more for the Children of the Jews. But why so? Because God made a Covenant with their Children actually as Infants, and consign'd it by Circumcision. Well, so he did with our Children too in their Proportion. He made a Covenant of Spiritual Promises on his part, and Spiritual and real Services on ours; and this pertains to Children when capable, but made with them as soon as they are alive. And yet not so as with the Jew's Babes; for as their Rite consign'd them actually, so it was a National and Temporal Blessing and Covenant, and a separation of them from the Portion of the Nations, a marking them for a peculiar People: and therefore while they were in the Wilderness, and separate from the commixture of all People, they were not at all Circumcised, but as that Rite did seal the Righteousness of Faith. [Which whether it did any such thing to any, save to Abraham only, is much doubted.] So by virtue of its adherency and remanency in their Flesh, it did that Work when the Children came to Age. But in Christian Infants the case is otherwise; for the New Covenant being established upon better Promises, is not only to better purposes, but also in a distinct manner to be understood, when their Spirits are as receptive of a Spiritual Act or Impress, as the Bodies of Jewish Children were of the sign of Circumcision, then it is to be consign'd. But the business is quickly at an end, by saying, That God hath done no less for ours, than for their Children; for he will do the Mercies of a Father and Creator to them, and he did no more to the other; but he hath done more to ours, for he hath made a Covenant with them, and built it upon Promises of the greatest concernment. — [And note further, we have as much ground of comfort concerning our dying Infants, as the Faithful had for the first two thousand years, during all which time the Covenant of Grace reached to Infants, though there was no external Ceremony to consign it to Infants.] — For the insinuation of the Precept of Baptizing all Nations, of which Children are a part, does as little advantage as any of the rest, because other parallel Expressions of the Scripture do determine and expound themselves to a sense that includes not all Persons absolutely, but of a capable condition, as adorate eum omnes gentes, & per psallite Deo omnes Nationes Terrae. [And Nation shall rise against Nation, where Infants are excluded] and divers more. [But Erasmus hath well expounded this Text, Eras. Paraph. on Mat. 28.Where he restrains the baptizing to such as are repentant of their former Life.]
As for the Conjecture concerning the Family of Stephanus; at the best it is but a Conjecture, and besides that, it is not prov'd that there were Children in the Family: yet if that were granted, it follows not that they were baptized, because by [whole Families] in Scripture, is meant, all Persons of Reason and Age within the Family; for it is said of the Ruler at Capernaum, that he believed, and all his House. Now you may also suppose that in his House were little Babes, that is like enough, and you may suppose that they did believe too, before they could understand, but that's not so likely; and then the Argument from baptizing Stephen's Family may be allowed just as probable: But this is unmanlike to build upon such sleight and airy Conjectures.
But Tradition by all means must supply the place of Scripture, and there is pretended a Tradition Apostolical, that Infants were baptized: But at this we are not much moved, for we who rely upon the written Word of God, as sufficient to establish all true Religion, do not value the Allegations of Traditions; and however the World goes, none of the Reformed Churches can pretend this Argument against this Opinion, because they who reject Tradition when 'tis against them, must not pretend it at all for them. But if we should allow the Topick to be good, yet how will it be verified? For so far as it can yet appear, it relies wholly upon the Testimony of Origen, for from him Austin had it. Now a Tradition Apostolical, if it be not consign'd with a fuller Testimony than of one Person, whom all after-Ages have condemn'd of many Errors, will obtain so little reputation among those that know that thing, have upon greater Authority pretended to derive from the Apostles, and yet falsly, that it will be a great Argument that he is credulous and weak, that shall be determined by so weak probation, in Matters of so great Concernment. And the truth of the business is, as there was no command of Scripture to oblige Children to the susception of it; so necessity of Pedo-baptism was not determined in the Church till the eighth Age after Christ: but in the Year 418 in the Mileritan Council (a Principal of Africa) there was a Canon made for Pedo-Baptism, never till then; I grant it was practised in Africa before that time, and they or some of them thought well of it; and though that be no Argument for us to think so, yet none of them did ever before, pretend it to be necessary, none to have been a Precept of the Gospel. St. Austin was the first that ever preach'd it to be absolutely necessary; and it was in his heat and anger against Pelagius, who had warm'd and chafed him so in that Question, that it made him innovate in other Doctrines, possibly of greater concernment than this: And that although this was practised anciently in Africa, yet that it was without an Opinion of necessity; and not often there, nor at all in other places, Ludovicus Vives.we have the testimony of a learned Pedo-Baptist, Ludovicus Vives, who in his Annotations upon Augustin de Civit. Dei. l. 1. c. 27. affirms; Neminem nisi adultum antiquitus solere baptizari.
And because this Testimony is of great import, I will set down the very words of Augustin and Ludovicus Vives, as I find them in the English Edition of the said Book of the City of God, cap. 26. where Augustin puts forth this Question; What is the reason then that we do spend so much time in our Exhortations, endeavouring to animate those whom we have baptized, either unto Virginity, or chast Widow hood, or honest and honourable Marriage. Now upon these words, [Those whom we have baptized.] Vives comments thus; Lest any Man should mistake this place, understand that in times of old, no Man was brought unto Baptism, but he was of sufficient years to know what that Mystical Water means, and to require his Baptism, and that sundry times. — I hear that in some Cities of Italy, they do for the most part observe the Ancient Custom as yet. And it is to be observed, that in the Margent are two Notes; The first is, That this is the old manner of baptizing. The second, That all this is left out in the Paris Edition. Whence we may note how the Writings of the Ancients are abused, and how ingenuously it is confessed, Pedo-Baptism is nor the old manner of baptizing.
And here we will insert some other Testimonies from the learned Pedo-Baptists, touching the novelty of Infant-Baptism. Fabian.The first is out of Robertus Fabianus his Chron. 4th part, Fol. 107. where he brings in Augustin the Monk speaking thus to the British Bishops; Since ye will not assent to my Hests generally, assent ye to me specially in three things; the first is, That ye keep Easter-day in due form and time as it is ordained. The second, THAT YE GIVE CHRISTENDOM TO CHILDREN, &c. But THEY WOULD NOT THEREOF. This was about the fifth Age after Christ; whence it's remarkable that Infant-Baptism was then opposed by the joint consent of the British Bishops, which were sent to the Assembly to consult the Affairs of Religion at that time. Hugo GrotiusOur next Testimony is from the learned Casuist Hugo Grotius, who tells us, To defer Baptism till ripe years, was in old time left at liberty, now the observation is otherwise. Plainly giving the case, that Pedo-Baptism is not the old way, but a new Observation. But here we will again give place to Dr. Taylor, who saith;
That besides that the Tradition cannot be proved to be Apostolical, we have very good evidence from Antiquity, that it was the Opinion of the Primitive Church, that INFANTS OUGHT NOT TO BE BAPTIZED. And this is clear in the sixth Canon of the Council of Neocaesarea. Anno 315. Con. Neocaes.The words have this sense; A Woman with Child may be baptized when she please, for her Baptism concerns not the Child. The reason of the connexion of the parts of that Canon is in the following words; Because every one in that Confession, is to give a demonstration of his own Choice and Election. Meaning plainly, That if the Baptism of the Mother did pass upon the Child, it were not fit for a pregnant Woman to receive Baptism, because in that Sacrament there being a Confession of Faith; which Confession supposes Understanding, and free Choice; it is not reasonable the Child should be consign'd with such a Mystery, since it cannot do any Act of Choice or Understanding. The Canon speaks reason, and intimites a practice which was absolutely Universal in the Church of Interrogating the Catechumens concerning the Articles of the Creed: which is one Argument, that either they did not admit Infants to Baptism, or that they did prevaricate egregiously, in asking questions of them, who themselves knew were not capable of giving answer.
And to supply their incapacity by the answer of a God-father, is but the same unreasonableness acted with a worse Circumstance; and there is no sensible account can be given of it, for that which some imperfectly murmur, concerning stipulations civil, performed by Tutors in the name of their Pupils, is an absolute vanity; Tertul. lib. de Bap. cap. 18.For what if by positive Constitutions of the Romans such Solemnities of Law are required in all stipulations, and by indulgence are permitted in the case of a notable benefit accruing to Minors? Must God be tied, and Christian Religion transact her Mysteries by proportion and compliance with the Law of the Romans? I know God might, if he would, have appointed God-fathers to give answer in behalf of Children, and to be Fide jussors for them; but we cannot find any authority or ground that he hath; and if he had, then it is to be supposed he would have given them commission to have transacted the Solemnity with better Circumstances, and given answers with more truth. And if the God-fathers answer in the name of the Child, [I do believe] it is notorious, they speak false and ridiculously: for the Infant is not capable of believing, and if he were, he were also capable of dissenting, and how then do they know his Mind? And therefore Tertullian gives advice, Tertul. lib. de Bap. cap. 18.that the Baptism of Infants should be deferred till they could give an account of their Faith. And the same also is the counsel of *Orat. to quest. in St. Baptisma.Gregrory Bishop of Nazianzen, although he allows them to hasten it in case of necessity; for although his reason taught him what was fit, [namely, That none should be baptized till they were of understanding] yet he was overborn with the Practice and Opinion of this Age, which began to bear too violently upon him; and yet in another place he makes mention of some to whom Baptism was not administred, foreign, by reason of Infancy.
To which if we add, That the Parents of St. Austin, St. Jerom, and St. Ambrose, although they were Christians, yet did not baptize their Children before they were thirty years of Age; it will be very considerable in the Example, and of great efficacy for destroying the supposed necessity or derivation from the Apostles.
[And for further evidence, we may well alledg in this place, that of Theodosius the Emperor born in Spain, his Parents being both Christians, and he from his youth educated in the Christian Faith, who falling sick at Thessalonica, was baptized, and recovered of his Sickness.]
But however it is against the perpetual Analogy of Christ's Doctrine to baptize Infants; for besides, that Christ never gave any Precept to baptize them, nor never himself nor his Apostles (that appears) did baptize any of them; all that either he or his Apostles said concerning Baptism, requires such previous dispositions to it, of which Infants are not capable, and these are Faith and Repentance. And not to instance in those innumerable Places that require Faith before Baptism, there needs no more but this one Saying, Mark 6.He that believeth, and is baptized, shall be saved; but he that believeth not, shall be damned. Perseverance in Faith must here be understood, with the fruits of Faith also.Plainly thus, Faith and Baptism in conjunction will bring a Man to Heaven, but if he has not Faith, Baptism shall do him no good. So that if Baptism be necessary, then so is Faith, and much more; for want of Faith damns absolutely, it is not said so of the want of Baptism.
Now if this decretory Sense be to be understood of Persons of age, and if Children by such an Answer (which indeed is reasonable enough) be excused from the necessity of Faith, the want of which regularly does damn; then it is sottish to say, the same Incapacity of Reason and Faith shall not excuse them from the actual susception of Baptism, which as less necessary, and to which Faith and many other Acts are necessary predispositions, when it is reasonably and humanely received. The Conclusion is, that Baptism is also to be deferred till the time of Faith; and whether Infants have Faith, or no, is a Question to be disputed by Persons that care not how much they say, nor how little they prove.
1. Personal and actual Faith they have none, for they have no acts of Understanding; and besides how can any Man understand that they have, since he never saw any sign of it, neither was he told so by any one that could tell?
2. Some say they have imputative Faith: but then so let the Sacrament be too; that is, if they have the Parents Faith, or the Churches, then so let Baptism be imputed by derivation from them also. — For since Faith is necessary to the susception of Baptism, (and they themselves confess it by striving to find out new kinds of Faith to daub the matter up) such as the Faith is, such must be the Sacrament; for there is no proportion between an Actual Sacrament, and an Imputative Faith. This being in immediate and necessary Order to that, and whatsoever can be said to take off from the necessity of Actual Faith; all that, and much more may be said to excuse from the actual susception of Baptism.
3. The first of these Devices was that of Luther, and his Scholars, the second of Calvin and his; and yet there is a third Device which the Church of Rome teaches, and that is, That Infants have habitual Faith. But who told them so? How can they prove it? What Revelation, or Reason teaches such a thing? Are they by this habit, so much as disposed to an actual belief without a new Master? Can an Infant sent into a Mahumetan Province, be more confident for Christianity when he comes to be a Man, than if he had not been Baptized? Are there any Acts precedent, concomitant, or consequent to this pretended habit? This strange Invention is absolutely without Art, without Scripture, Reason, or Authority. [But if there were such a thing as this habitual Faith, then either all Infants have it, or some only: If all, Why do they deny Baptism to the Infants which are born of unbelievers? Must the Child bear the unbelief of the Parents? *For they do not only deny such Infants the Act, but the right to Baptism, because the Children of Unbelievers.If some only have it, how know they these from the rest, sith when they come to years, there is found a like barrenness of this Grace, till means be used to beget it? But thirdly, Where doth the Scripture make an habitual Faith, that which entitles any Person to Baptism? Surely according to these conceits, no Man can ever tell to whom, or when to dispense Baptism.] But the Men are to be excused, unless there were better grounds. But for all these Stratagems, the Argument now alledged against Infant Baptism, is demonstrable and unanswerable.
To which also this Consideration may be added, That if Baptism be necessary to the Salvation of Infants, upon whom is the Imposition laid? To whom is the Command given? To Parents, or to the Children? Not to the Children, for they are not capable of a Law; not to the Parents, for then God hath put the Salvation of innocent Babes into the power of others, and Infants may then be damn'd for their Parents carelessness, or malice. It follows that it is not necessary at all to be done to them, to whom it cannot be prescribed by a Law, and in whose behalf it cannot be reasonably intrusted to others with the appendant necessity; and if it be not necessary, it is certain it is not reasonable, and most certain it is no where in terms prescribed, and therefore it is to be presumed, that it ought to be understood and administred according as other Precepts are, with reference to the capacity of the Subject, and the reasonableness of the thing.
For I consider, That the Baptizing of Infants does rush upon such inconveniencies, which in other Questions we avoid like Rocks which will appear if we discourse thus.
Either Baptism produces Spiritual Effects, or it produces them not: If it produces not any, why is such contention about it? — But if (as without all peradventure all the Pedo-Baptists will say) Baptism does a work upon the Soul, producing Spiritual Benefits and Advantages: These Advantages are produced by the external work of the Sacrament alone, or by that as it is helped by the Co-operation and Predispositions of the Suscipient.
If by the external work of the Sacrament alone, how does this differ from the opus operatum of the Papists, save that it is worse? For they say the Sacrament does not produce its effect, but in a suscipient disposed by all requisites and due preparatives of Piety, Faith, and Repentance, though in a subject so disposed, they say, the Sacrament by its own virtue does it: but this opinion says, it does it of it self without the help, or so much as the coexistence of any condition but meer Reception.
But if the Sacrament does not do its work alone, but per modum recipientis, according to the predispositions of the suscipient; then because Infants can neither hinder it, nor do any thing to further it, it does them no benefit at all. And if any Man runs for succour to that, exploded foreign, that Infants have Faith, or any other inspired habit of I know not what or how, we desire no more advantage in the World, than that they are constrain'd to an answer without Revelation, against Reason, common Sense, and all Experience in the World.
The Sum of the Argument in short, is this, though under another representment. Either Baptism is a meer Ceremony, or it implys a Duty on our part. If it be a Ceremony only, how does it sanctifie us, or make the Comers thereunto perfect? If it implys a Duty on our part, how then can Children receive it who cannot do Duty at all?
And indeed, This way of Ministration makes Baptism to be wholly an outward Duty, a work of the Law, a Carnal Ordinance, it makes us adhere to the Letter, without regard of the Spirit, to be satisfied with the shadows, to return to Bondage. To relinquish the Mysteriousness, the Substance and Spirituality of the Gospel, which Argument is of so much the more consequence, because under the Spiritual Covenant, or the Gospel of Grace; if the Mystery goes not before the Symbol, (which it does when the Symbols are Seals and Consignations of the Grace, as it is said the Sacraments are) yet it always accompanies it, but never follows in order of time; and this is clear in the perpetual Analogy of holy Scripture.
For Baptism is never propounded, mentioned, or enjoyned as a means of Remission of Sins, or of Eternal Life, but something of Duty, Choice, or Sanctity is joyned with it, in order to the production of the end so mentioned: Rom. 6. 3.Know ye not, that so many as are Baptized into Christ Jesus, are Baptized into his Death? There is the mystery and the Symbol together, and declared to be perpetually united foreign. All of us who were Baptized into one, were Baptized into the other; not only in the Name of Christ, but into his Death also. But the meaning of this, as it is explained in the following words of St. Paul, makes much for our purpose. For to be Baptized into his Death, signifies, Ver. 6. 4.to be buried with him in Baptism; that as Christ rose from the Dead, we also should walk in newness of Life. That's the full Mystery of Baptism; for being baptized into his Death, or which is all one in the next words, foreign, into the likeness of his Death, cannot go alone; if we be so planted into Christ, we shall be partakers of his Resurrection; and that is not here instanced in precise Reward, but in exact Duty, for all this is nothing but crucifixion of the Old Man, a destroying the body of Sin, that we may no longer serve sin.
This indeed is truly to be baptized both in the Symbol and the Mystery; what is less than this is but the Symbol only, a meer Ceremony, an Opus operatum, a dead Letter, an empty Shadow, an Instrument without an Agent to manage, or Force to actuate it.
Plainer yet, Whosoever are baptized into Christ, have put on Christ; have put on the new Man. But to put on the new Man is to be formed in Righteousness, Holiness and Truth. This whole Argument is the very words of St. Paul. The major Proposition is dogmatically determined Gal. 3. 27. The minor in Ephes. 4. 24. The Conclusion then is obvious That they who are not formed anew in Righteousness, Holiness, and Truth; they who remaining in the present incapacities, cannot walk in newness of Life, they have not been baptized into Christ, and then they have but one member of the Distinction used by St. Peter, they have that Baptism which is a putting away the filth of the Flesh, [if yet an human Institute may be so called] but they have not that Baptism, which is the Answer of a good Conscience towards God, which is the only Baptism which saveth us, and this is the case of Children. And then the Case is thus:
As Infants by the force of Nature cannot put themselves into a supernatural condition, (and therefore say the Pedobaptists, they need Baptism to put them into it [as if the bare Ceremony, of which only they are capable, could put them into a supernatural Condition] so if they be baptized before the use of Reason, or before the work of the Spirit, before the Operations of Grace, before they can throw off the Works of darkness; and live in Righteousness and newness of Life, they are never the nearer; from the pains of Hell they shall be saved by the Mercy of God and their own Innocence, though they die in puris naturalibus. And Baptism will carry them no further: for that Baptism that saves us, is not the only washing with Water, of which only Infants are capable, but the answer of a good Conscience towards God; of which they are not capable till the use of Reason, till they know to chuse the Good and refuse the Evil.
And from thence I consider anew, That all Vows made by Persons under others Names, Stipulations made by Minors, are not valid, till they by a supervening Act, after they are of sufficient Age, do ratifie the same: Why then may not Infants as well make the Vow de novo, as de novo ratifie that which was made for them ab antiquo, when they come to years of choice? If the Infant's Vow be invalid till the manly confirmation, why were it not as good they staid to make it till that time, before which if they do make it, it is to no purpose? This would be considered.
And in conclusion, our way is the surer way. For not to baptize Children till they can give an account of their Faith, is the most proportionable to an Act of Reason and Humanity, and it can have no danger in it: for to say that Infants may be damn'd for want of Baptism, (a thing which is not in their Power to acquire, they being yet Persons not capable of a Law) is to affirm that of God, which we dare not say of any wise and good Man. Certainly it is very much derogatory to God's Justice, and a plain defiance to the infinite reputation of his Goodness.
And therefore who-ever will pertinaciously persist in this Opinion of the Pedo-Baptists, and practise it accordingly, they pollute the Blood of the Everlasting Testament. They dishonour and make a pageantry of the Sacrament. They ineffectually represent a sepulture into the death of Christ, and please themselves in a sign without effect, making Baptism like the Fig-tree full of Leaves, but no Fruit, &c.
Thus far the Anabaptists may argue: and Men have disputed against them with so much weakness and confidence, that they have been encouraged in their Error, [alias, in the Truth] more by accidental [alias, real] Advantages we have given them by our weak Arguings, than by any Truth of their Cause, or Excellency of their Wit, [So the Doctor is pleased to say, but the Evidences of our side speak otherwise]: But the use I make of it, as to our present Question (saith the Doctor) is this, That since there is no direct impiety in the Opinion, nor any that is apparently consequent to it; and they which with so much probability, do or may pretend to true Perswasion, they are with all means, Christian, fair, and humane, to be redargued or instructed: but if they cannot be perswaded, they must be left to God, who knows every degree of every Man's Understanding, all his weaknesses and strengths, what impress each Argument makes upon his Spirit, and how unresistible every Reason is, and he alone judges his innocency and sincerity. And for the Question, I think there is so much to be pretended [he might say really urged] against that which I believe to be Truth, that there is much more Truth than Evidence on our side, [a strange saying of so wise a Man! as if the Truth in this case doth not wholly depend upon Evidence, sith its a positive, and no moral precept]; and therefore we may be confident as for our own Particulars, but not too forward peremtorily to prescribe to others, much less damn, or kill, or to persecute them that only in this particular disagree. Thus far Dr. Taylor for our Apology.
To whom to add any more Witnesses (though more might be brought) would be superfluous. I therefore proceed to the next Question, viz.
What is the due Act, or outward Form to be used in this solemn Rite of Holy Baptism?
It may well be the admiration of every wise and good Man, how it should come into the mind of such as pretend to be followers of Christ, That Holy Baptism should be performed by Aspersion, or casting a few Drops of Water upon the Subject, by the Fingers of the Administator. The Scriptures every-where teaching us, That the Original Form was by immersion in Rivers, or Places of much Water, Mark 1. John 3. Christ himself, who surely would do nothing superfluous or in vain, was baptized in the River, by John the first Baptist, who had his direction from Heaven, and his approbation from on high in that very action, Mat. 3. and those who were under the immediate Direction of the Holy Spirit, the leader into all. Truth, found it necessary for the Administrator and Subject to go both into the Water for the due performance of this Holy Ordinance. Add thereunto, that the proper signification of the word foreign, when used to express the Action done in this Service, is to Dip or Immerge the Party in the Element, as is confessed by the learned Pedo-Baptists themselves, as we shall see in the sequel.
And here we will still prefer the Church of England, who teacheth us, Liturgy.That the outward Sign or Form in Baptism, is Water, wherein the Party baptized is dipped, &c. And though she add, [or sprinkled with it] yet that her Conscience tells her, that is not the right way, appeareth, in that she only assigns that by indulgence to such Infants as are in danger of death, &c.
The Church of Rome also confesseth, by a learned Pen, Marquess of Worcest. Cert. Relig.that she changed dipping the Party baptized over the Head and Ears, to a little sprinkling upon the Face.
Erasmus paraphrasing on the words, baptizing them, Mat. 28. saith thus, If they believe that which you teach them, and begin to be repentant of their former Life, &c. then dip them in Water, &c. Walfridus Strabo, de rebus Eccles. 26. tells us, That we must know at the first, Believers were baptized simply in Floods and Fountains.
The learned Grotius tells us, in his Judgment on Infant Baptism, That the word foreign, signifies, to dip over the Head and Ears.
To whom we will joyn Tilenus, whose Testimony is in these words; *Secundum Fisher.Baptism is the first Sacrament of the New Testament instituted by Christ, in which, with a most pat and exact Analogy between the Sign and the thing signified, those that are in Covenant, are by the Minister washed in Water. The outward Rite in Baptism is three-fold, Immersion into the Water, abiding under the Water, and resurrection out of the Water. The form of Baptism, to wit, Internal and Essential, is no other than that Analogical Proportion, which the signs keep with the things signified thereby; for as the Properties of the Water, in washing away the Defilements of the Body, do in a most suitable similitude set forth the efficacy of Christ's Blood in blotting out of sins, so dipping into the Water, doth in a most lively similitude set forth the Mortification of the Old Man, and rising out of the Water the Vivification of the New. — That same plunging into the Water, holds forth to us that horrible gulf of Divine Justice, in which Christ for our sins sake, which he took upon him, was for a while in a manner swallowed up. Abode under the Water how little a while soever, denotes his descent into Hell, even the very deepest degree of lifelesness: Whilst lying in the sealed and guarded Sepulchre, he was accounted as one truly dead. Rising out of the Water, holds out to us a lively similitude of that Conquest which this dead Man got over Death, which he vanquished in his own Den, as it were, that is the Grave. In like manner therefore it is meet, that we being baptized into his Death, and buried with him, should rise also with him, and so go on in a new Life, Rom. 6. 3, 4. Col. 2. 12. Thus far Tilenus.
Bishop Jewel in his Defence, Apol. c. 5. p. 308. brings the Council of Worms determining the manner of Baptism, thus: In aquas demersio in Infernum est, & rursus ab Aquis emersio Resurrectio est; The dipping into the Water is the going down into Hell, [i. e. the Grave] the coming out from off the Water is the Resurrection.
From all which Testimonies (and many more that might be brought) it is evident, beyond all doubt, (our Opposers being Judges) that whether we respect the signification of the Word Baptize, or the signification of the Ordinance it self, or the consent of the Primitive Churches in their practice of Holy Baptism, dipping the Subject (or Party baptized) in the Element of Water, is the due form of Baptism: and therefore sprinkling or crossing the Face, is an humane innovation. Or,
Upon the whole matter these ten particulars are very apparent.
1. That Infant-Baptism was innovated, after the Holy Scriptures were written, which appeareth both from the deep silence of the Scripture in that case, and the confession of learned Pedo-Baptists themselves.
2. That it came in stealing, (as it were) being for a considerable time left at liberty, (a sign it was not from Heaven) *For God's ways are not to be left to mans will; he commands, and 'tis mans duty to obey.and was disliked by the Ancients, who therefore disswaded from it.
3. That which gave it its great advantage for a more general reception, was this false Opinion, That without Baptism none could be saved. This saith Mr. Perkins doth St. Augustin every-where affirm.
4. That the Lord's Supper was as eagerly pressed, to be necessary for Infants as Baptism, and they continued in use together about the space of six hundred years. This conceit was confirmed (saith Mr. Perkins) Ex Op. Perk. See the Scholast. discourse against Symbol. with Antichrist.by the Council of Toledo, Can. 11. And Augustin was so earnest for this also, that he boldly says, In vain do we promise Infants Salvation without it, Aug. Ep. 23. & Ep. 107. & cont. Ep. Pelag. l. 1. c. 22. & contra Jul. l. 7. c. 2. l. 3. c. 12.
5. That divers in the Greek Church have all along to this day refused Infant-Baptism. Grotius his words are these, (as Mr. Tombs quotes them) In every Age many of the Greeks unto this day keep the custom of deferring Baptism to little Ones, till they could themselves make a confession of their Faith. And the Armenians are confessed by Heylin, in his Macrocos. p. 575. To defer Baptism to their Children, till they be grown to years of knowledg.
6. Those foolish and sinful Adjuncts, which the Authors and Promoters of Infant-Baptism, were constrained to invent to make it look like Baptism, (for Example, their device of God-Fathers, &c.) do sufficiently declare it to be of an infirm and humane Original.
7. The grounds upon which Pedo-Baptism was at first urged, are now in a manner wholly declined, and new grounds daily invented whereon to build it; which are no sooner laid, but razed again by some of its own Favourites.
8. That the stoutest Assertors of Infant-Baptism, have ever met with as stout Opposers: Thus Augustine met with the Donatists and Pelagius, whose Arguments he could not avoid, but by running a into greater absurdity; and though they are blamed (and perhaps justly) for holding some Errors, so also is Augustine, and that not undeservedly.
9. That many of the Learned have much abused this Age, in telling them the Anabaptists (i. e. the Baptized Churches) are of a late Edition, a new Sect, &c. When from their own Writings, the clean contrary is so evident.
Tenthly and lastly; Observe how the Baptism of Repentance for remission of Sins, which is that one and only Baptism commanded in holy Scripture, hath been neglected, traduced, and its Assertors frequently abused; and that chiefly by this device of Pedo-Baptism, which now hath so lost its first Form, that it cannot with any shew of Truth, or good Sense, be called Baptism, and ought therefore to cease with its fellow Errors, viz. The giving the Lord's Supper to Infants, &c. That God may be justified in the submission of all Sinners to the Baptism of Repentance for remission of Sins, Luke 7. 39.
Brief Animadversions upon Dr. Stillingfleet's Digressions about the Baptizing of Infants.
SOlomon the Wise, hath told us, There are many devices in Man's heart.
The truth whereof is verified in the multitude of Devices old and new, which Men have found out to darken the Counsel of God, teaching the sacred Institution of the Baptism of Repentance for the remission of Sins. Nevertheless, the Counsel of God that shall stand, and therefore neither shall the devices of Dr. Stillingfleet prevail, nor be found so much as a rational account of the grounds of Infant-Baptism, albeit divers Persons, are perswaded that he hath out-done others, that have undertaken to defend that Innovation.
First, Therefore we shall consider the two Texts, John 3. 5. Acts 2. 38, 39. which he says, according to the interpretation of the Fathers, and the Ancient Church, and the Papists themselves, do evidently assert Infant-Baptism. It were answer sufficient to tell him, That what ever was the interpretation of the Fathers, &c. yet, according to the interpretation of the Protestants, the grounds of whose Religion he pretends to give an account of, these Texts do not hold forth such a necessity of Infant-Baptism, as by some of the Ancients was imagined, seeing the Protestants do not say, as the Papists and some before them, No Baptism, no Salvation; but they more truly teach, that this place is to be understood (even as some of the Fathers also expound it) of such as refuse, or contemn Baptism, and yet saying withal to your confutation, that it is not necessary by Water, John 3. 5. To understand the external Rite of Baptism. See Fulk. Answ. to the Rhemists Annot. John 3. So Dr. Willit Synops. Papis.
However, It is evident to them that will not shut their Eyes, that in John 3. 5. Christ is shewing the Way of Life, and the duties of Regeneration to such as came to him for Instruction, and speaks nothing there of the case of Infants, who (as one well observes) cannot overcome the World, by reason of their natural Incapacity to know either good or evil, and therefore are not obliged to the duties of the new Birth; to wit, Repentance, Faith, and Baptism: For whatsoever is born of God overcometh the World, and this is the Victory that overcometh the World, even our Faith. And hence it is evident, that John 3. 5. cannot be understood of Infants, who are wholly uncapable of the Duties of Regeneration.
And as evident it is, that Acts 2. 38, 39. intends not Infants, seeing the Persons there to be Baptized, even every one of them, are required first to repent, a Duty of which Infants are wholly uncapable; and the Promise there mentioned, is clearly meant of the Gifts of the Holy Ghost, or the Spirit of Promise in a special manner, according to the Prophecy of Joel; the extent of which Promise is only to the Called of the Lord, ver. 9. And this interpretation also is avouched by learned Protestants: See Diodate on the Text, and Erasmus on the same. Dr. Jer. Taylor, in his Book of Confirmation, doth fully expound this place of the Promise of the Spirit both to the Parents, and to the Children, as they are the Called of the Lord, and not to Infants in that capacity, Lib. Prophecy. So then, the pretended evidence of Infant-Baptism from this place, is taken away, because this truth is hence very evident, that Calling by the Word of the Gospel-Regeneration by Faith and Repentance, are the true Antecedents to the Baptism of every Sinner.
Secondly, Dr. Stillingfleet states the Question between the Baptists and the Pedo-Baptists, after this manner.
Whether our Blessed Saviour hath by a positive Precept, so determined the subject of Baptism, viz. Adult Persons professing the Faith, that the alteration of the subject in baptizing Infants be not a deviation from, and a perversion of the Institution of Christ in a substantial part of it? Or in short, Whether our Saviour hath so determined the subject of Baptism, as to exclude Infants? This done, he tells us, That taking in only the help of Scripture and Reason, it were no difficult matter to prove directly, that Infants are so far from being excluded Baptism by the Institution of Christ, that there are as many Grounds as are necessary to a matter of that nature, to prove that the Baptizing them is suitable to the Institution of Christ, and agreeable to the state of the Church under the Gospel. So then, Scripture and Reason only must now decide the Controversie: Let us hear therefore what Dr. Stillingfleet brings from thence. And thus he speaks:
If there were any ground to exclude them, it must be either the incapacity of the Subject, or some express Precept and Institution of our Saviour; but neither of them can be supposed to do it.
But I answer, For both these causes Infants are not to be Baptized. And sith their incapacity depends upon the nature of the Institution, these two Reasons are resolved into one. Now the Institution of Baptism, whether we consider it as delivered by God to his Servant John, and by him to us; or as it is established by Precept from Christ, for a perpetual Ministry in his Church, to the end of the World, we shall find it delivered by both in such sort, as is exclusive of Infants. For, in the first place it is delivered as the baptism of Repentance, for the remission of Sins, Mark 1. 4. and every Sinner who is said to be baptized by him, is said to be baptized confessing their Sins, ver. 5. which we know is not to be expected of Infants.
The Precept of our Saviour for the perpetuity of Baptism, so expresly requires the making every Subject a Disciple in order thereunto, and that by actual Teaching, or Preaching the Gospel to them, Mat. 28. 19. Mark 16. 15. according to Christ's own Example, who so made Disciples before they were baptized, that no Infant with any shew of Scripture or Reason, can possibly be brought within the reach of Baptism according to its Institution. In a word, Dr. Stillingfleet seems, in so many words, to grant in his first state of the Question, that to bring Infants to Baptism, is an alteration of the Subject, and therefore not agreeable to the Institution of Christ, in which to admit of alterations, is very dangerous.
But saith Dr. S. The rule and measure as to the capacity of Divine Institutions, must be fetched from the end of them, for this was the ground of the Circumcision of Proselytes under the Law.
Answer. That the ground of the Circumcision of Proselytes was fetched from the end of the Institution, is not true. And indeed, had it been left to that, Mens various Conceits about the ends of such Institutions, might have made as ill work, as we see yours do now; wherefore the Wisdom of God to prevent those Dangers, gave express Order in that Case, as appears Gen. 17. 13. compared with Exod. 12. 44, 48. And when a stranger shall sojourn with thee, and will keep the Passeover, let all his Males be Circumcised. And ver. 49. One Law shall be to him that is Home-born, and unto the Stranger that sojourneth among you.
Thus we see the Law is as express for the Circumcising Proselytes and their Males, as for Israel themselves. Diodate also expounds the first place by the second (The Servant that is born) meaning (saith he) The Proselyte, who of his own free will, shall add himself to the Church by the profession of God's true Worship.
But now, if we admit Dr. S. his rule, That the measure as to the capacity of Divine Institutions, must be fetched from the ends thereof, yet will he be so far from gaining, that he will quite lose his Cause. For, if by the ends of Baptism, he means the things signified in Baptism (as that he does, for he said, They who are capable of the thing signified, ought not to be denied the Sign) then we shall certainly gain one thing out of two, and either of them will serve our turn to shew his mistake, viz. Either Infants are not capable of Baptism, because not capable of all things signified thereby: Or else, that the Protestants do violate their own Rule, in denying Infants some other holy Signs, as general as Baptism, when yet they are capable of some of the things signified thereby; and this shall evidently appear by running the Parallel between us, as to the grounds upon which you deny Infants the priviledg of the Lord's Table, and we deny them Baptism. And first,
1. The things signified by the Lord's Table (as the ends of that Institution) is Christ Crucified for us, and to come again to receive us to himself: Of these Mercies Infants are capable, because they shall be saved by the Death and Coming of the Lord Jesus. Thus they have the thing signified, yet you deny them the Sign, because they understand not the thing represented by the Sign. Answerable to this, we say, By Baptism is signified the Death and Resurrection of Christ, and our Salvation thereby; of this Mercy signified in Baptism Infants are capable, but yet the Sign is not given to them, because they understand not the thing signified thereby.
2. The ends, or things signified by the Lord's Table on our part, are, the profession of our Faith, the manifestation of our Union with the Church, &c. Of these ends Infants are not capable, therefore you do not admit them to the Lord's Table.
Answerable to this, we say, The things signified in Baptism on our part, are the profession of our Faith, and manifestation of our Union with the Saints, &c. Of these ends Infants are not capable, therefore we admit them not to Baptism.
3. Our coming to the Lord's Table, holds forth Abstinence from the Leavened Bread of Malice and Wickedness, and our Feeding upon the Unleavened Bread of Sincerity and Truth. Of these ends (as they are Duties) Infants are not capable, therefore you admit them not to the Lord's Table.
Answerable to this, we say, Baptism holds forth our death to Sin, and the newness of Life from our Baptism to the end. Of these ends of Baptism Infants are not capable, and therefore we admit them not to Baptism: For the rule and measure as to the capacity of Divine Institutions, is to be fetched from the ends of them.
The same might be said concerning the Imposition of Hands, with prayer for the Spirit of Promise, seeing it was practised by the Apostles upon the newly Baptized indifferently; yet you admit no Infants to this Divine Institution, though you suppose them to be Baptized, although according to Protestant Doctrine, they are capable of the Promise, Acts 2. 38, 39. And the Benediction signified, and obtained thereby, by which your inconsistency with your own Rule is further manifested; and hence I infer (according to your own words) by a parity of reason built on equal grounds, you ought not to baptize Infants, because the rule and measure as to Divine Institutions, or the capacity of the Subjects thereof are to be fetched from the ends thereof.
Not from some ends only (and those too only which we please) as Dr. S. doth unadvisedly teach: For so there would be no Man, or but very few, but might be brought to Baptism, or other Ordinances, seeing they are capable of several things signified therein, as the Death of Christ for the Sins of the World, and his Resurrection by which all shall rise again; and whether they believe it or no, yet he is the Lord that bought them, and a Mediator between God and them, that his Long-suffering might lead them to Repentance.
Wherefore your instance of our Saviour's being baptized without Repentance avails you nothing, unless you were able to prove a special case to be a general rule for the practice of Ordinances, which yet you cannot but know is pernicious many ways: nor can you rationally believe that because Christ who was no Sinner, was baptized without Repentance, that therefore you must baptize Sinners without Repentance also; if otherwise, then why may not Persons be admitted to the Lord's Table without Self-examination, seeing Christ did partake of it without Selfexamination, having no need to do so? Certainly, though Christ did this, it shall never be demonstrated that the Members of His Church may do it without Self-examination; and yet thus went the Matter in Old Time, for hundreds of Years together. So true is the Maxim, Admit of one Absurdity, and more will follow.
But to make an end of this, it's evident: Christ in being baptized did his Duty to God, and had He not been baptized, He had not fulfilled all Righteousness. Let it now be shewed, that it is the duty of Infants to be baptized, or that they, or any body else, commit Sin in refusing Infant-Baptism, and then we shall stand upon no further capacity on their part, nor oppose this Instance as to the end for which it is brought; but till this be done, we justly reject such Argumentation.
Neither is it true, that what we say of the incapacity of Infants, &c. reflects upon the Wisdom of God in appointing Circumcision for Infants: for God's Command made them fit Subjects for it, together with the nature of the Covenant which He made with Abraham and his, according to the Flesh, which Covenant he also ordained to be in their Flesh by Circumcision, Gen. 17. 13. Now therefore, when it shall appear that the Covenant of the Gospel, (I mean it, as established by Christ in his Church) is made with any Man and his Seed according to the Flesh, and that God hath required the Gospel-Covenant should be in their Flesh by Baptism: And so every Infant born of them, or Servant bought with Money to be baptized, we should then grant, that to insist on the incapacity of Infants, would reflect upon the Wisdom of God; but sith this neither is, nor can be done, all these pretended reflections fall really upon Dr. S. for denying Infants the Lord's Supper, because of their incapacity, who yet were admitted to the Passeover, of which they were as uncapable as of the Lord's Table.
What the Doctor says further of the ends of Baptism to represent and exhibit the nature of the Grace of the Gospel, and to confirm the truth of the Covenant on God's part: We have considered before, and to what you here add, saying, It instates the partakers of it in the priviledges of the Church of God. I answer,
That though the Doctor speaks right according to the right Administration of Baptism, yet according to his way of Infant-baptism it is not so. Seeing we all know, Infants (while such) though Sprinkled, have no more priviledg in your Church, than those who are not Sprinkled. For the Priviledges next following Baptism, is to be taught to observe all things whatsoever Christ commanded, and to continue in Fellowship with the Church in breaking of Bread and Prayer, Acts 2. 42. Mat. 28. 20. Now to tell us that Infants are Instated in these things, and yet whilst Infants have nothing at all to do with them, is too gross a vanity. For,
If you say, They are instated in these Priviledges upon future Contingences, viz. Repentance, Faith, and Newness of Life, according to the Gospel. I answer, When this comes to pass they are no Infants, nor as Infants partake of these Priviledges, but as those that are now the Sons of God by Faith; and thus truly all Infants are instated in Church Priviledges as soon as born, seeing by the Death of Christ they have a right upon the conditions of the Gospel, when capable to perform them; thus you mislead the World with a specious pretence of instating their Infants in Church-Priviledges, when 'tis only an empty sound of words.
But the Jews Infants, as they were instated in the Priviledges of their Church by Circumcision, so they entred upon the enjoyment of their Priviledges in Infancy, appearing by God's Commandment three times a Year in the Temple, with the Offerings accustomed, and to partake of the Passeover, with the Congregation, or Family where it was eaten.
The Doctor saith, Nothing can seem wanting of the ends of Baptism (in respect of Infants) but that which seems most Ceremonial, which is the personal Restipulation, which yet may reasonably be supplied by Sponsors, &c.
That there is much wanting beside this Restipulation in your Infant-baptism, is shewed before; and it is unadvisedly said, that the Restipulation of the Person baptized, is the most Ceremonial thing in Baptism, seeing it is the Moral and substantial part, being indeed our Covenanting with God, and in truth the External Washing is far more Ceremonial, as appears 1 Pet. 3. 21. And for your saying, That the Personal Restipulation in Baptism, may be reasonably supplied by God-fathers, is very much below the reason of any Christian to affirm. But is it so, That Sponsors may supply the Personal Restipulation, which is the greater? then let them also supply the lesser, to wit, Sprinkling with Water, which they can better perform, than the Covenant they made for the Infant, and then the whole business will appear to have the same reasonableness in every part, viz. Wholly unreasonable.
Thus much touching the capacity of Infants, &c. Next the Doctor tells us, That in the Institution of Baptism, there is neither direct not consequential prohibition of Infants, to be Baptized; and that there is nothing of that nature pretended before the last Commission, Mat. 28. 19. But here is a mistake, and it's strange he never observed that it hath often been demonstrated, that as when Circumcision first appeared in the World, it clearly took in the Infants of those to whom it was first given; so, accordingly it was propagated. But when Baptism first appeared in the World, it as clearly left out the Infants of those to whom it was first ministred, and accordingly was propagated by the holy Apostles: Insomuch, that of the many Thousands, and famous Churches that were Baptized, all the World is not able to shew so much as one Infant to have been baptized in any one of them, nor one word of Precept for so doing; and if this be not so much as a consequential prohibition of Infant-Baptism, I shall never believe that the Doctor, or any else, can shew me so much as a consequential Prohibition of Infants receiving the Lord's Supper, the Imposition of Hands, &c.
And though the Doctor consider never so much what apprehensions the Apostles had, concerning the Church-state of such as were in External Covenant with God, yet he cannot rationally imagine that they should measure the state of the Gospel-Churches by the reason of the Covenant which God made with the Jews and their Seed, according to the Flesh. Seeing it is expresly said, from henceforth, to wit, from the vanishing of the Old Covenant, know we no Man after the flesh. — But now, If any Man be in Christ, he is a new Creature. And now Men are not to be accounted of the Church, because they are Abraham's Seed, but they are accounted Abraham's Seed by being in the Church of Christ. Gal. 3. 29. If ye be Christ's, then are you Abraham's Seed, and Heirs according to promise.
Neither is it true, That Christ commanded his Apostles to gather whole Nations into Churches, as the Doctor affirms: Neither did the Apostles gather any one whole Nation, or City, into a Church-state, that we read of. Therefore Churches consisting of whole Nations, Men, Women, and Infants, are not Apostolick. But this the Apostles did, They taught many Nations, i. e. Their sound went through many Nations. Not that they taught all manner of Persons in the Nations, for they taught no Infants: and the Persons by them gathered into the Church, were only such as received their Doctrine; as appears by those Families where their Gospel was received. The Husband sometimes opposite to the Wife, and otherwhiles the Wife to the Husband, Servants and Masters likewise differing in the same Family about Christianity, 1 Cor. 7. If then the Apostles did not gather whole Families into a Church-state, unless they did wholly believe, Acts 16. how should any Man imagine, they gathered whole Nations? The greatest part whereof, by all experience, are wicked Persons; yea, in those very Nations, which Men pretend to have made into Churches of Christ, of which, would God England were not so full an evidence as it is this Day.
The Doctor grants, that the order of words, Mat. 28. 19. (Teach all Nations, Baptizing them) was necessary for those who were then to be proselyted to Christianity. And we say, They are as necessary for the Generations following, who have as much need of true Faith and Repentance, or the first Principles of Christianity, in order to their being Christians, as them that went before; and it is a pernitious alteration of the order of Christ's Commission, to out-run its Direction so, as to make Persons to be Christians, before they do, or can know, the least tittle of Christianity.
The case which the Doctor puts, about going to disciple the Indians, baptizing them, is not at all rational. But upon the presupposition, that the Person so doing, to have seen or known them, that gives him his authority to baptize Infants, and then indeed it's rational to suppose such a Person would not understand that the words, Disciple the Indians, Baptizing them, would exclude Infants. But yet I must also say, That his ground to believe so, could not arise from the words themselves, but from the Practice presupposed. Wherefore the Apostles having direction to teach all Nations, baptizing them, without the least knowledg of any Infants baptized, by any Baptists which were before them, or from whom they received their Authority; here is no place for the Doctor's suppositions at all.
As little cause hath he to think, that had any one said to Abraham, He that believeth and is circumcised, shall be saved; it ought so to have been interpreted, As that Infants ought to be circumcised. For if this had been all the rule given for Circumcision, it must of necessity have been limited to such as believe only; and unless the Doctor know how from good ground to satisfie his Conscience, that Infants are believers of that which is taught or preached, according to Mark 16. (which place he alludes unto) he must so limit the diversion for baptizing. But if indeed he takes Infants to be such Believers, then he is answered by Dr. Hammond, in his Let. of Resol. p. 296. who saith, As for the Question, Whether Infants have Faith? I profess my self to be none of those who are concerned in it? I freely confess to believe, Faith to be so necessarily founded in Understanding, that they that have not Understanding, cannot have Faith, whether Actual, or Habitual.
The Conclusion therefore is, sith in the Case you put the word (Believe) cannot concern Infants, and that they must be deemed capable of Salvation, though they believe not, it is every way safe to think them unconcern'd in the other Duty, that passage Mark 16. 16. or any other like unto it notwithstanding.
Finally, The Doctor proposes five Considerations about the suitableness of Infant-Baptism, to the Administration of things under the Gospel. And first he saith,
1. That if it had been Christ's intention to exclude Infants, there had been far greater reason for an express Prohibition, than for an express Command, if his intention were to admit them, because this was suitable to the general grounds of God's dispensation among them before.
Answer, Here is little said, but what hath been answered before, and may be answered by saying, Had it been Christ's intention that Infants should not be admitted to the Lord's Table, there had been more need of an express Prohibition, &c. than of an express Command, &c. because suitable to God's Dispensations among them before. Thus Argumentum ad hominem.
But I answer further, It is dangerous arguing to our present right to Sacraments, from God's Dispensation among the Jews; seeing the state of the Church, and the Dispensation is so much altered, as that the former was but carnal, in respect of the Spirituality of the other.
2. The Doctor saith, It is very hard to conceive, that the Apostles thought Infants excluded by Christ, when after Christ's Ascension, they looked upon themselves bound to observe the Jewish Customs, even when they had baptized many thousands.
Answer, It is ill said that the Apostles were bound to observe any such Jewish Customs, because of any suitableness between them and things under the Gospel (which is the Mark you ought to hit, or you say nothing) but the reason why they did observe such Customs for a time, was the weakness of the Jews; and we find the Apostles did as speedily put a period to such Customs as they could, Acts 15. 24, to 32. Acts 16. 4, 5. which clearly shew Jewish Customs were not suitable to things under the Gospel. And here Circumcision, one of the chief of the Jewish Rites, is clearly abolished among the rest, so that a Man would think Infant-Baptism should never have been built upon it.
3. The Doctor saith, If admission of Infants to Baptism were a meer relique of Judaism, it seems strange that none of the Judaizing Christians should be charged with it; who yet are charged with the observation of other Judaical Rites.
Answer, I find no Man saying that Infant-Baptism was a relique of Judaism, save Dr. Hammond, and some from him. And he indeed, would make Believers Baptism also a Jewish Relique, whilst he teaches, that the Jews baptizing Proselytes and their Children was the Original, and the Baptism of the Christian Church but the Copy. By which device he hath opened a gap to our late Notionists, to deprive the Church of sacred Baptism altogether; and hath done more to weaken the cause of Infant-Baptism than any other of its Favourites, in laying its foundation in Jewish Ceremonies, for which they had no clear command from God. But great is this truth of Believers Baptism, and will stand notwithstanding the injury done by Dr. Hammond. For it was no Jewish Rite, the Baptism of Repentance for the remission of Sins, was from Heaven, Mat. 21. 25. And the Pharisees, who were zealous enough for Jewish Rites, rejected holy Baptism, which Christ affirms to be the Counsel of God, Luke 7. 30. and testifies out of the Consciences of his Enemies, that he that teaches otherwise, denies John to be a Prophet. This then is the thing that truly seems strange, that no mention is made of Infant-Baptism, if indeed it was at all received in the Christian Church, either as a Jewish Rite, or otherwise; but not strange at all that none is charged with it, seeing none can be named that held it.
4. Since the Jewish Christians were so much offended (saith the Doctor) at the neglect of Circumcision, Acts 21. Can we in reason think they should quietly bear their Children being wholly thrown out of the Church, as they would have been, if neither admitted by Circumcision or Baptism.
Answer, Since the false Apostles were so earnest to have the Christians circumcise their Children, it's strange that none of the true Apostles could, or would quiet them, by saying, instead of Infant-Circumcision, you have Infant-Baptism, if indeed there had been any such thing practised. For, This way went the Apostle Paul to still them, when they would have brought the Believers themselves under Circumcision, Col. 2. 11, 12. Telling the Christians, They were circumcised with the Circumcision made without Hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the Flesh, by the Circumcision of Christ, buried with him in Baptism, wherein ye also are risen with him through the Faith, &c. And why might not the Jews as quietly take the non-admission of Infants to Baptism, as they so took the non-admission of them to the Lord's Supper, seeing they were formerly admitted to the Passeover: Nor is it necessary to say, That though they were not admitted to either of these, that therefore they are wholly thrown out of the Church. For,
If by Church be meant the whole number of the Saved, then are Infants of the Church: For Christ hath told us, the Kingdom of God belongs to Infants. And thus were Infants of the Church before Circumcision was, for some thousands of Years. But if by Church be meant, those only who are concerned in the actual profession of the Gospel, in this respect I grant, Infants are not of the Church; God having no where required this of Infants in his Gospel. Infants are now as well as before the Flood, within the Covenant of the Gospel, in respect of the Grace of Eternal Life, but are not under the Duties of the Covenant; to wit, Repentance, Faith, Baptism, Perseverance, &c.
Nor can my calling the whole number of the Saved, the Church, and thus making Infants a part thereof, offend a Protestant who is acquainted with Protestant Doctrines, seeing Mr. Rogers Cath. Doctrine, pag. 73. upon Art. 19. of the Church of England, doth affirm, There is an invisible Church, and takes all within the compass of this Church who are Elect, Triumphing, or that shall Triumph in Heaven. Dr. Field takes into his definition of the Church, all the Elect, of Men, or Angels, called, or not called, l. 1. c. 8. So that according to these definitions of the Church, Infants are not thrown out of the Church, though not of the number of the Called, and consequently not that cause for the Jews to complain, nor any other which the Doctor doth imagine; unless they be not acquainted with the extent of the Covenant of God's Grace in Christ Jesus our Lord.
Fifthly, The Doctor lastly tells us, That had it been contrary to Christ's Institution (to baptize Infants) we should not have had such evidence of its early Practice in the Church; and here I acknowledg the use of Apostolical Tradition, to manifest this to us.
Answer, This is altogether unlike a Protestant: What are the Sacraments so darkly laid down in the Scripture, that we know not when, and to whom they belong without Tradition? But when shall we see this Tradition Apostolical? I think Dr. Taylor expresly denies, there is any Tradition Apostolical, Lib. Proph. pag. 117, 120.
But the Doctor cannot but know, that there be Errors which crept into the Church, even in the Apostles Days, which also continued in some of them, notwithstanding all endeavours to purge them; such were Circumcision, and keeping the Law. Or if we list to reckon with Records of Antiquity, 'tis easie to shew some things held by Papists, and opposed by the Doctor, are better proved by Tradition than Infant-Baptism: For example, The Lent-Fast, and Prayer for the Dead, this is not denied by Mr. Perkins's Demonst. Prob. What then shall be gained to the Protestant Religion by such Traditional Arguments?
It is a notable saying of Irenaeus, (according to Dr. Fulk) When the Hereticks are reproved out of the Scriptures, they fall to accusing the Scriptures, as if all were not well in them, — and that the Truth cannot be found out of them that know not the Tradition. And saith Tertul. (according to Dr. Fulk) Take away those things from the Hereticks, which they hold with Ethnicks, that they may stay their Questions upon Scripture only.