Truth and Peace, Chapter 5
CHAP. V. Anſwereth the Doctor's third, Queſtion, Whether it be lawful to ſeparate from a Church which appointeth Infants to be baptized?
THat the Church or People of God ought to be a People ſeparated from them that live in Wickedneſs, and are profeſſed Adverſaries to the Truths of the Goſpel in things eſſential to Church-Communion, will not be denied, I ſuppoſe by any Chriſtian.
Now there are two Cauſes, beſides that of the want of true Baptiſm, which does warrant the preſent Separation maintained by the preſent baptized Believers, from the Parochial Church-Communion. The firſt is that great Impiety and ungodly living which is every where to be ſeen in ſuch Churches: for the worſt of Men to be ſure will croud into thoſe Churches as their Sanctuaries; let the moſt vigilant Magiſtrates, and the well-minded Perſons in National Churches do what they can, (in their preſent Conſtitution) for there will they be, yea and in places of Preferment too.
Secondly, The many Innovations and continual Alterations in Religion, not to be avoided in National Church-Conſtitutions, by reaſon of the Influence of Intereſt, and of the Revolutions which National Government has always upon them, does neceſſarily enforce; at leaſt ſome Diſtinction in Communion, between ſuch Churches, and thoſe whoſe profeſſed Principles are conſtantly to adhere to Apoſtolical Inſtitutions only, in all things eſſential to the Conſtitution and Government of the Church of God; which muſt ever be the ſame, (or ſhould be) however the Government of Nations do alter or ſuffer Revolutions.
And to this agrees that excellent Sentence of a Divine of the Church of England, in his Sermon before the Court of Aldermen, Aug. 23. 1674. We have an Obligation to the Laws of God antecedent to thoſe of any Church whatſoever: nor are we bound to obey thoſe, any further than they are agreeable with theſe—Separation from a Church is lawful, 1. When ſhe requires of us, as a Condition of her Communion, an Acknowledgment and Profeſſion of that for a Truth, which we know to be an Error. 2. When ſhe requires of us, as a Condition of her Communion, the joyning with her in ſome Practices, which we know to be againſt the Law of God. In theſe two caſes, to withdraw our Obedience to the Church, is ſo far from being a Sin, that it is a neceſſary Duty. Now this being our very caſe in the point of Baptiſm, it would juſtify that Diſtinction which we hold needful, between the Church of England, and thoſe of the baptized Believers; but much more when there are ſome other things as preſſing perhaps as this. But now let us hear the Doctor.
Conſidering (ſaith he) what I have ſaid upon the former Queſtions: this Queſtion muſt be anſwered in the negative, whether we conſider Infant-Baptiſm, as a thing lawful or allowable only, or as a thing highly requiſite and neceſſary to be done. And as a Foundation on which to build Infant-Baptiſm as a thing at leaſt lawful and allowable, he directly denies this Principle, That nothing is to be appointed in Religious matters, but what is warranted by Precept and Example in the Word of God, accounting this Rule an Abſurdity, and inconſiſtent with the free and manly Nature of the Chriſtian. Religion—and that it is an impracticable Principle, &c. p. 49, 50.
But that this great Principle, well underſtood, ſhould be ſpoken againſt by a Proteſtant, is ſomething ſtrange, and eſpecially, that he does not ſuffer it to take place in that which is eſſential in a Churchſtate, as who are and who are not to be baptized, is ſuch a caſe: but he will have Infant-Baptiſm to be admitted, as lawful and allowable, tho it be not warranted by Precept nor Example.
To free this Principle from Abuſe, as here ſuggeſted againſt it, we will explain it, as we hold and maintain it. 1. Then we do not ſay that every thing, which is naturally or meerly accidental and circumſtantial in the Worſhip of God, muſt have Precept and Example in the Word of God. 2. Nor do we hold that things which are meerly indifferent (if not impoſed as Boundaries of Communion) are therefore to be eſteemed ſinful, becauſe not expreſly warranted by Precept or Example in the Word. 3. But we apply this Rule always, and ſo in our preſent Queſtion, to ſuch things as are eſſential to Churchmemberſhip, and Church-Government, as true Baptiſm is to the firſt; and cannot be admitted only as a thing indifferent, and as ſuch allowable or lawful only; for it's either neceſſary in the Conſtitution of a Church, or it's nothing: and who are of Right, and who are not to be baptized, is of the Eſſence of Baptiſm, and can admit of no lower a Conſideration.
The Principle thus explained, is clearly juſtified by the Word of God; and if Proteſtants part with this Principle, they will loſe themſelves. Now thus ſaith the Lord, Ye ſhall not add to the Word which I command you, neither ſhall you diminiſh ought from it, that you may keep the Commandments of the Lord your God, Deut. 4. 2. What thing ſoever I command you, obſerve to do it, thou ſhalt not add thereto, nor diminiſh ought from it, Deut. 12. 32. Every Word of God is pure—add thou not unto his Words, leſt he reporve thee, and thou be found a Liar, Prov. 30. 6. And it is obſervable that our Lord, as he was ſent to be a Miniſter of the Goſpel, claims no Authority to ſpeak of himſelf, John 12. 5. Whatſoever I ſpeak therefore, even as the Father ſaid unto me, ſo I ſpeak. How ought this to put an awe upon all that ſpeak in the Name of the Lord about Religion? Neither does the holy Spirit it ſelf [as ſent to ſupply the perſonal Abſence of Chriſt] take upon himſelf to give or abrogate Laws, but to bring things to the Apoſtles Remembrance, John 14. 26. Howbeit when the Spirit of Truth is come, he will guide you into all Truth; FOR he ſhall not ſpeak of himſelf, but whatſoever he ſhall hear, that ſhall he ſpeak: And this is the Rule alſo by which the Spirit of Truth is known, namely by his advancing the Things delivered by Chriſt and his Apoſtles, He ſhall take of mine, and ſhew it unto you, he ſhall glorify me. 1 Tim. 6. 3, 4. If any Man teach otherwiſe, and conſent not to wholeſome Words, even the Words of our Lord Jeſus Christ, he is proud, knowing nothing. 1 John 4. 6. He that knoweth God, heareth us; he that is not of God, heareth not us: hereby know we the Spirit of Truth, and the Spirit of Error. Rev. 22. 18. If any Man ſhall add to theſe things, God ſhall add the Plagues which are written in this Book; and if any ſhall take away from the Words of the Prophecy of this Book, God ſhall take away his Part out of the Book of Life. And that this Text does eſtabliſh as unalterable the whole New Teſtament our Adverſaries do acknowledg: See Diodate on the Place. And Calvin upon Deut. 12. 32: Sith they (ſaith he) cannot deny that this was ſpoken to the Church, what do they elſe but report the Stubbornneſs of the Church, which they boaſt to have been ſo bold as after ſuch Prohibitions, nevertheleſs to add and mingle of her Own with the Doctrine of God. And Luther doth aver, that no Doctrine ought to be taught or heard in the Church beſides the pure Word of God. Beza upon Levit. 10. 3. ſpeaking in the Perſon of God, I will puniſh them that ſerve me otherwiſe than I have commanded, not ſparing the chief, that the People may fear and praiſe my Judgments.
Mr. Borroughs in his Goſpel-Worſhip, p. 8. All things in God's Worſhip muſt have a Warrant out of God's Word, muſt be commanded; It is not enough that it is not forbidden, and what hurt is there in it? but it muſt be commanded.
In a Book called, A brief Account of the Riſe of the Name Proteſtant, p. 12. printed 1688, we read thus, Proteſtantiſm doth mainly or rather only conſiſt in aſſerting the Holy Scriptures to be the Rule, the only Rule, by which all Chriſtians are to govern and manage themſelves in all Matters of Religion; ſo that no Doctrine is to be owned as an Article of Faith, on any account, but what hath very plain Warrant and ſound Evidence from the Scriptures: Nor no Inſtance of Religious Worſhip to be owned or ſubmitted to, as neceſſary, nor any thing to be determined as a part of Religion, but what the Scriptures do appoint and warrant.
Thus our Adverſaries themſelves do ſay as much for this Principle which the Doctor condemns as abſurd, as we do. And indeed where this Principle is neglected, many Innovations are introduced, and many Truths are neglected, under as fair ſhews of Antiquity as can be pretended for Infant-Baptiſm. The Doctor then had little reaſon to call this a ſlaviſh Principle, which is indeed the Principle which delivers us from Slavery, to Jewiſh Fables, Mens Inventions and Traditions.
Pag. 53, 54. the Doctor, to ſupport Infant-Baptiſm, tells us, how he builds many Points of Faith and Practice, nor upon certain Evidences of the Scripture, otherwiſe than as interpreted ſo or ſo, by the Catholick Church▪ as 1. That Chriſt is of one Subſtance with the Father. 2. That there are three Perſons in the Trinity. 3. That it is neceſſary for Chriſtians to aſſemble on the Lord's Day. 4. That the Church be governed by Biſhops. 5. That Women have the Lord's Supper. 6. That Infants are to be baptized. And theſe things he makes neceſſary, no otherwiſe, but as the Catholick Church has interpreted divers Scriptures to juſtify them to be ſo. Sure this is ſtrange Doctrine for a Proteſtant.
But were a Man diſpoſed to trace him in all theſe Particulars, it might appear that the Churches in moſt Ages have been divided in all, or the moſt of theſe Points; that ſo that he makes the Catholick Church (as it is commonly taken) ſo great a Foundation of his Faith, as he here pretends to make her, will meet with many Difficulties to diſcourage and take off his Confidence. And particularly if I deſire him to reſolve me but this one, What ſort of Chriſtians are this Catholick Church? But he adds,
We can prove Infant-Baptiſm from the Scope and Tenor of the Goſpel, and from many Paſſages of it, as they are interpreted according to the Practice of the ancient Primitive Church. But this is a vain Boaſt, and I demand what Church, or what Apoſtle did interpret any part of the Doctrine of Chriſt, or of the Goſpel to ſuch a ſenſe? The Doctor replies, It is unreaſonable to preſume that the Goſpel would not extend the Subject of Baptiſm, as far as the Jewiſh Church extended the Subject both of Circumciſion and Baptiſm. But I anſwer, if this be granted, yet the Doctor gains nothing; for, 1. The Jewiſh Church had no Baptiſm at all of Divine Inſtitution, and therefore could not extend▪ that ſhe had not. 2. Her Circumciſion was limited to Abraham's Family, and perhaps not extended to much above a third part of that Family neither, ſeeing all Females, and all Males that died before the eighth Day were debarred of it: Whereas the Goſpel extends holy Baptiſm to all Nations, to the End of the World, to both Male and Female, as they are qualified for it: Thus for his Argument from the Scope. Let us now ſee his particular Paſſages to prove Infant-Baptiſm.
P. 55. The Doctor gives us theſe Texts (as interpreted by the Catholick Church) for Infant-Baptiſm, John 3. 5. Mark▪ 10. 14. 1 Cor. 1. 16. Acts 16. 15, 33. 1 Cor. 7. 14. 1 Cor. 10. 2. Good Reader look upon theſe Scriptures, and thou wilt not find one word of Precept or Example for Infant-Baptiſm in them all. The firſt Place ſhews that none can be Church-members lawfully under the Goſpel, except they be regenerate, and have the waſhing of Regeneration by Water; but Infant-Regeneration is a Secret, no Man can know it, God will fit them for Heaven if they die in Infancy: this David knew, for his Child which was begot in Adultery, and died without Circumciſion, yet he nothing doubted its Salvation. The ſecond Text, our Saviour pronounceth unbaptized (yea I ſay, unbaptized)▪ Infants to belong to Heaven, how unwiſe then was the Doctor to bring it for Infant-Baptiſm? If theſe very Infants which were brought to Chriſt's own Perſon, yet were not by him appointed to be baptized, it can never prove that other Infants are to be baptized. And ſeeing our Saviour declares that unbaptized Infants belong to Heaven, therefore that Place John 3. 5. cannot by any means be underſtood of Infants.
Look well alſo upon 1 Cor. 1. 16. and compare it with 1 Cor. 16. 15, 16. and thou wilt find, tho the Catholick Church ſay nothing, that the Houſhold of Stephanus were ſuch as had been converted, and were the firſt Fruits in Achaia, and had addicted themſelves to the Work of the Miniſtry, and then theſe could be no Infants.
As for the two Houſholds, Acts 16. it's admirable that wiſe Men ſhould bring them to prove what they do ſufficiently confute. For Lydia had no Husband we read of. And there is no Infant found in her Houſe; but the Perſons of her Family received Inſtruction from Paul and Silas, Acts 16. ult. therefore no Infants.
And of the Jaylor's Houſhold, it is expreſly ſaid, that Paul ſpake the Word to all that were in his Houſe; and that he rejoiced, believing in God with all his Houſe. And they went out about Midnight to be baptized. All which being well weighed, no Man, no Church can honeſtly interpret this Text for Infant-Baptiſm.
And for that Place 1 Cor. 7. 14. the Doctor does injure it, as he did before, in thruſting in the word common. And it is ill done to make any diſtinction of common and unclean, from holy, which God has not made, but rather taken away, as we proved from Acts 10. 15. No Man (as ſuch) is now to be called common or unclean, and therefore no Infant is to be called common or unclean, but being born according to God's Ordinance, they are (as ſuch) a holy Seed, or a Seed of God. See the learned Diodate upon the Place, Mal. 2. 14. Marriage ought to be of one with one; and two in the ſame Fleſh. God's chief End in this Proceeding was, that the Poſterity might be ſanctified▪ being born in chaſte Wedlock, according to his Appointment; whereas it is defiled by all manner of unlawful Conjunction. And to concude, I wiſh that my ſelf, and the Doctor, my Oppoſ… in this caſe, be found at laſt as holy as a dying Infant of a Jew, or poor Indian, and we ſhall be ſure to go to Hea-Heaven; for I could never find that it is the Will of our Heavenly Father, that one of theſe little ones ſhould periſh.
We come now to his laſt Text, 1 Cor. 10. 2. where we find, and the Doctor does ingenuouſly acknowledg, that the Baptiſm here meant was but an Ʋmbrage or Shadow of Baptiſm, not a real Baptiſm. Nor does the Text ſpeak of Infants being baptized in this umbratical Baptiſm, it ſeems as clearly reſtrained to the Fathers in the caſe of Baptiſm, as the eating and drinking ſpiritually of Chriſt is reſtrained to them, ver. 3. So that nothing can be urged from this Text for Infant-Baptiſm, which will not with equal Truth and Reaſon conclude for their coming to the Lord's Table. Read Mr. Diodate upon this place, he was for Infant-Baptiſm, yet does not infer Infant-Baptiſm from this Text, as indeed there is no reaſon ſo to do. For it is certain, that all that paſſed through the Sea, were not baptized to Moſes, ſeeing there was a Multitude of Strangers did go with the Iſraelites; and they are diſtinguiſhed from the Children of Iſrael, Exod. 12. 38. Numb. 11. 4. But S. Paul appropriates Baptiſm in the Cloud and in the Sea, to the Fathers [all our Fathers, &c.] Now for any to add. [and all their Infants] is a Preſumption not to be juſtified. It is not ſaid, that Iſrael, or all Iſrael were baptized, which had it been ſo expreſs'd, would have more favoured the Notion▪ And yet we know that the words [Iſrael, and all Iſrael] do not include Infants in many places; for example, Exod. 14. 31. & 15. 1. Deut. 13. 11. Joſh. 7. 25. much leſs can they be here called Fathers, and ſuch Fathers too, as did feed upon Chriſt in Manna, &c. as well as were baptized unto Moſes in the Cloud, &c. It muſt needs be very dangerous to inſiſt upon this Miracle at the Red Sea, as a Rule to us to baptize Infants; the Cauſe is weak which needs ſuch Arguments to defend it.
The Doctor ſets down many other Texts in his Margin,Rom. 5. Pſal. 51. 5. Rom. 3. 23, 24. 1 Cor. 1. 15, 21, 22. 2 Cor. 5. 14; 15. Job 14. 4. which I have alſo put down in mine; that the Reader may peruſe them, and ſee if he can find any footing for Infant-Baptiſm in any of them; the moſt likely in the Doctor's own Judgment, is Pſal. 51. 5. and yet we know, that David's Infant which was born in Adultery, was ſaved without Circumciſion or Baptiſm.
And the Doctor▪ confeſſes that the Requiſite Neceſſity of Infant-Baptiſm cannot be demonſtrated from theſe Texts, without the Tradition of the ancient Church. And there is no ſuch authentick Tradition to be found, (whatever is pretended) for he brings none from the firſt Churches at all. And that there is no ſuch Tradition, Dr. Jer. Taylor is a great witneſs, who in his Diſſwaſive from Popery, and in his Rule of Conſcience, informs us, There is no prime or Apoſtolical Tradition for Infant-Baptiſm. That it was not practiſed till about the 3d Century, and judged neceſſary about the 4th. That Children of Chriſtian Parents were not baptized till they came to Ʋnderſtanding in the firſt Ages. That Dipping, and not Sprinkling, was the Ʋſage of Chriſt and his Apoſtles; and the conſtant Doctrine and Practice of the Ancients for many hundred Years. See alſo Mr. Tombes, 3d part of Review.
But after all this the Doctor is pleaſed to allow Salvation to Infants which die unbaptized; Becauſe (ſaith he) we ought not to tie God to the ſame means to which he hath tied us. It ſeems then God hath not tied Infants to any Neceſſity of Baptiſm, nor can he prove that he hath tied us to baptize them. But now he will try another way to enforce his Arguments.
Suppoſe (ſaith he) that Scripture and Tradition ſtood againſt Infant-Baptiſm, in the ſame Poſture as now it ſtands for it, it would not be unjuſtifiable for any ſort of Men to ſeparate from the Church for not baptizing Infants. Let us ſuppoſe that Chriſt had ſaid, I ſuffer not little Children to come to me, for the Kingdom of God is not of ſuch,—and that we had been aſſured by the Writers of the two next Ages to the Apoſtles, that then there was no baptizing Infants, I appeal unto them whether it would not be highly unreaſonable to ſeparate from all the Churches in the World for not allowing Infant-Baptiſm againſt the concurrence of ſuch a Text to the contrary, and the Senſe and Practice of the Catholick Church?
The meaning of the Doctor I take to be this, that as it is highly unreaſonable to ſeparate from a Church, who upon a doubtful or probable ground only, does give Baptiſm to Children: ſo it would be highly unreaſonable to ſeparate from a Church, who upon a like doubtful or probable ground only, ſhould refuſe to baptize Infants. I confeſs this is an odd way of diſputing; for here the Churches ſuppoſed to err on either ſide, are yet ſuppoſed themſelves to be true Churches, and only erring about ſuch a doubtful Practice as this, on the one ſide, or on the other. But alas the caſe is far different between the Church of England and us. For ſhe is wholly made up of Perſons thus doubtfully baptized, nay perhaps not baptized at all, whatever ſhe pretends: and by this doubtful Baptiſm ſhe is diſclaiming all other Baptiſm in reſpect of all her Members for ſome hundreds of Years. Otherwiſe I muſt confeſs, had I lived in the Church in the beginning of the third Century, when Infant-Baptiſm was creeping in, there was then a Church truly baptized, diſtinct from the Infants who here and there might perhaps be baptized, upon ſuch ſuppoſed Grounds as are mentioned by the Doctor; here (I ſay) a Separation would in my Judgment have been unwarrantable, it being but an ill Principle to ſeparate from a true Church, tho incumbred with ſome Error.
But ſhould I have lived till this doubtful Baptiſm was forced on with Anathema's, till it had overtopped and quite deſtroyed in ſuch a Church all Practice of baptizing Believers in reſpect of her Members, and that the whole Church were now become doubtful to me, whether ſhe had any Baptiſm at all: And therewith that ſhe had apparently left the due form of Baptiſm, which ſhe had formerly obſerved. Then I think no Man could blame me, if I left this Communion, to ſit down with thoſe who did yet retain the ancient, and only undoubted Baptiſm, both for Subject and manner of Adminiſtration; and this is our very caſe.
Now ſeeing it is impoſſible for us, or any Body elſe, to hold ample Communion with all ſorts of Chriſtians (and there are ſome good folk amongſt them all) why ſhould any one of theſe Parties, whether Papiſts, Prelatiſts, Presbyterians, &c. expect that all ſhould come to them? or why ſhould the Doctor think we ought to joyn Communion with his Party, more than others, unleſs they could not err as well as the reſt? But ſeeing that is not to be pretended, we muſt all ſatisfy our own Souls as well as we can, where to communicate, and where to forbear, for with all we cannot have Communion; let us not then grudg one againſt another about this neceſſary Chriſtian Liberty.
Page 60. The Doctor attempts to prove his Tradition, not doubtful, but certain in the caſe of Infant-Baptiſm; to which purpoſe he inſiſts on that Rule given by Vincentius Lyrinenſis, viz. Ʋniverſality, Antiquity, and Conſent. But I have ſhewed already, that all theſe being truly taken, are all wanting in the caſe of Infant-Baptiſm; becauſe (as for other reaſons, ſo for theſe in particular) 1. The Churches in the Apoſtles days baptized no Infants. And 2. The Greek Churches to this day do retain the Cuſtom of delaying Baptiſm (which yet is no delay) to Children, till they make Profeſſion of their Faith: and the Doctor confeſſes a few of the Fathers were againſt it. And there might be more for ought he knows, though not counted among ſuch Fathers that might deſerve as well as any. And it is known that many very learned and good Men have ſeen cauſe in this and former Ages to reject this Tradition, though it has coſt them the loſs of all that this World could afford them. And the Authorities here brought by the Doctor are not ſo ancient (ſome of them) as is pretended even by his own Confeſſion, and they have been ſcan'd and anſwered by the learned Pens of Den, Tombes, Blackwood, Fiſher, Danvers, Delaun, Duveil, and others.
Laſtly, The Doctor ſays, The Anabaptiſts themſelves cannot defend the baptizing of ſuch grown Perſons as were born and bred in the Church from Scripture, without Tradition and Practice of the Church.
As if our Saviour's Authority to teach and baptize all Nations, or to preach to every Creature, and to baptize all that believe to the end of the World, were not a ſufficient Rule to us to teach our Children, and to baptize them, Matth. 28. 19. Mark 16. 16. We ſee evidently that Jeſus Chriſt has given but one Rule to us and to our Poſterity, and therefore it was unadviſedly ſpoken, to ſay that we cannot produce one Precept for teaching and baptizing our Children, when they are grown up, being bred and born of Chriſtians, as I ſuppoſe that is his meaning, by being bred and born in the Church. Had the Doctor conſidered that Exhortation of the Apoſtle to all Chriſtians, Epheſ. 6. Teaching Parents to bring up their Children in the Nurture and Admonition of the Lord, and to Children to obey their Parents in the Lord: And therewith the Example of the Children of the elect Lady, 2 Ep. John, Who are found walking in the Truth, as the Apoſtle and the Lady her ſelf had received Commandment from the Father, it might have paſſed for a better Precedent in this caſe, than Mans Tradition without Scripture can poſſibly be, for Infant-Baptiſm.
I conclude then, that ſeeing Chriſt's Command is as clear for teaching and baptizing our Children, as any other Mens Poſterity; and that it is the expreſs Duty of Chriſtian Parents to bring up their Children in the Admonition of the Lord (that is, as Chryſoſtom expounds the place) to make them Chriſtians; and this Advice he gave in oppoſition to the training up Children in prophane Literature. And the Precedent of this vertuous Lady, whoſe Children, whilſt under her Care and Tuition, obeyed the Truth, and walked therein according to God's Commandment, and not as Men received Tradition from their Fathers, but as the Apoſtle had received Commandment from the Father; and ſo he exhorts them to continue, and to beware of other Doctrine, and to have no Fellowſhip with ſuch as ſhould bring any other Doctrine than that which had been delivered by the Holy Apoſtles. This may ſuffice to anſwer the Objection.