Truth and Peace, Chapter 6
CHAP. VI. Anſwereth the Doctor's fourth Queſtion, Whether it be a Duty incumbent upon Chriſtian Parents to bring their Children to Baptiſm?
I Marvel why the Doctor puts not the term [Infant] into his Queſtion, he knows we are for bringing our Children to Baptiſm as ſoon as we can. But how does he prove that Chriſtian Parents are obliged to bring their Infants to Baptiſm? Why this he doth by repeating what he had ſaid under the 3d Queſtion: 1. About the Lawfulneſs or Allowableneſs. 2. About the requiſite Neceſſity of Infant-Baptiſm. And therefore I only refer my Reader to what has been anſwered to theſe things in the former Chapter.
And now when the Parents may very rationally expect ſome Command from God to bring their Infants to Baptiſm; The Doctor tells us, There is no Neceſſity of having a Command, or Example to juſtify it, but it is ſufficient that it is not forbidden.
But he refers them to the Orders of the Church, and quotes Heb. 13. 17. Obey them that have the Rule over You: But never ſhews at all, who gave ſuch Orders to the Church, that Parents and Proparents ſhould bring their Infants to Baptiſm. And therefore all that is here ſaid is meer Talk without any good Warrant.
He quotes Acts 16. 4. which ſhews that the Decrees which were ordained at Jeruſalem ought to be kept. And we allow it, but here's not a Word for to bring Infants to Baptiſm in theſe Decrees: but here is a Decree againſt the eating of Blood, which is little regarded by the Doctor, or however his Church does not regard it. Yet this Text of the Decrees, he would make ſerve for Infant-Baptiſm, and indeed, had the Apoſtles had Power to make ſuch a Decree, this was as fit a time and occaſion for it as could be, the Queſtion being about Infant-Circumciſion; and the Apoſtles diſannulling their Circumciſion, would certainly have given ſome Notice that they had or ought to have Baptiſm inſtead of it; but ſeeing they do not in the leaſt mention it, we may be ſure there was no Infant-Baptiſm in being at that time.
The Doctor will now ſhew us the Benefits of Infant-Baptiſm, and from thence infer for the Duty of Parents and Proparents to bring them to Baptiſm; and the firſt is their Conſecration to God. As if no Infants were conſecrated to God but thoſe who are baptized. Methinks our Saviour ſhould know how to conſecrate Infants to God as well as the Doctor, but he did it only by Prayer or Bleſſing, not by baptizing them. There is no doubt but ſuch as follow his Example in devoting Infants to God by Prayer, do act warrantably, but he that will do it by baptizing them, acts without a Guide, and deprives Children of the Baptiſm of Repentance, when they come to Years, and have need of it.
His ſecond Benefit is to make Infants Members of the myſtical Body of Chriſt. As if it were in Mans Power to make whom they pleaſe Members of that Body, and that when they are faſt aſleep too. Is not this the plain Conſequence of this Opinion, that all Infants unbaptized, being not of Chriſt's myſtical Body, muſt periſh? I know the Doctor does not hold this; but it's hard to avoid this Rock when Men are entangled in this Error, that they can make Infants Members of Chriſt's myſtical Body by ſprinkling or croſſing them with Water, and they think they can be made ſo by no other way.
Now I demand of any Man, whether the whole Number of the Saved ones be not all of Chriſts myſtical Body? not doubting but it will be granted. I deſire it may be conſidered, whether theſe unbapcized Infants whom Chriſt bleſſed, were of his myſtical Body? I ſuppoſe this will be granted too; and then conſider alſo whether all Infants of whom Chriſt ſaid, to them belongs the Kingdom of Heaven, are not of his myſtical Body, as it contains all ſaved ones? I believe none will deny this. The laſt Conſideration is, Whether Chriſt does ſpeak of Infants indefinitely, and as ſuch comprehends them all, and if not, how is it poſſible for any Man to know one ſort of theſe infants from another? all dying Infants then are of the myſtical Body, as it contains all that ſhall be ſaved.
The Doctor's third Benefit, That the baptized Infant by that Solemnity, may paſs from a State of Nature, wherein he was a Child of Wrath, to a State of Adoption of Grace, wherein he becomes a Child of God, p. 64.
But is the Doctor ſure that Infants are now Children of Wrath, that is, liable to Condemnation? Sure whatever their ſtate was in the firſt Adam, yet they are acquitted from Damnation by the Mercy of God in the ſecond Adam: for the Lamb which was ſlain from the the Foundation of the World, has taken away the Sin of the World from innocent Babes, ſo that they are not the Objects of God's Wrath, but they are Objects of his Grace and Mercy: ſee Jonah 4. 11.
Who would think that ſo wiſe a Man ſhould believe that the Adoption of Grace is regulated by Water-Baptiſm? or that it muſt needs wait on him when he ſprinkles an Infant? for ſaith he, By that Solemnity they may paſs from a State of Nature, &c. Now we teach and believe thus, that the Adoption of Grace goes before Water Baptiſm. And ſo taught the Apoſtle Paul, Gal. 3. 26, 27. We are all the Sons of God by Faith in Chriſt Jeſus. And then it follows, As many as have been baptized into Chriſt, have put on Chriſt. But I think the Doctor comes very near the Papiſts opus operatum, in what he here aſſerts concerning Infant-Baptiſm.
His fourth Benefit, That Infants have Baptiſm for a Sign and Seal that their Sins are pardoned, and to confer the Right of Inheritance unto everlaſting-Life: That Baptiſm waſhes Infants clean from Original Sin, and ſeals the Pardon of it, and the Aſſurance of God's Mercy unto them; and being cleanſed by the Waſhing of Regeneration, from the Guilt of that natural Vitioſity which they derived from Adam, and which made them obnoxious to the Diſpleaſure of God, they become reconcil'd to him, and acquire as certain a right to Eternal Life upon their Juſtification, as any Believer in the World.
Now had the Doctor proved all this daintily out of the Book of God, I ſhould have thought him the fineſt Man that ever wrote about Infant Baptiſm, but when he puts me off with Origen, Irenaeus, &c. I am diſpleaſed, and muſt only take him for a very Bold Man, but no certain Oracle. However he is pleaſed to add, (which was very needful for him in this place) That he cannot deny but Infants may be ſaved without Baptiſm, by the extraordinary and uncovenanted Mercies of God. Well, here is ſome comfort for unbaptized Infants: But who can think that the Covenant of Grace ſhould not reach poor Infants in the caſe of Salvation, without Baptiſm? but if any of them that are not baptized be ſaved, it muſt be by extraordinary and uncovenanted▪ Mercy. Theſe are new and ſtrange Doctrines, and ſo let them be. The Covenant of Grace was made with whole Adam, Gen. 3. 15. And therefore as Infants, without their own conſent, or any act of their own, and without any exterior Solemnity, contracted the Guilt of Adam's Sin, and ſo 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 Men for them, by the SECOND ADAM, by the Redemption of Jeſus Chriſt, by his Righteouſneſs and Merits, applied either immediately, or how or when he pleaſeth to appoint. Dr. Taylor.
His fifth Benefit, That Infants are by Baptiſm admitted into Covenant, and ingrafted into Chriſt's Body, to acquire a preſent Right to all Promiſes of the Goſpel, and particularly unto the Promiſes of the Spirit, which is ſo ready to aſſiſt initiated Perſons. This the Primitive Chriſtians (he durſt not ſay Infants) found true by Experience, &c. He quotes no Scripture for all this, but Heb. 6. 4. which how well it agrees to Infants, let the Reader conſider. I am perſwaded the Doctor was ſo ſenſible of the Unapplicableneſs of theſe things to Infants, that he durſt not name them, but Perſons all along: but ſeeing he muſt mean Infants, the very recital of his Sayings, is the Confutation of them. For can he give ſo much as one Inſtance of an Infant that received the Holy Spirit upon its being baptized? And why then does he preſume to ſpeak what neither he nor any Man elſe can ever prove to be true? Nay he tells us in this very page, (for he is too wiſe a Man I hope to face out a Fable) he confeſſes that the Holy Ghoſt cannot be actually conferred ûpon Infants in Baptiſm, by reaſon of their natural Incapacity. And yet being loth to let the Cudgles fall, it's notorious how faintly he goes on in this and the next Page, (66, 67.) at laſt concludes in a kind of an Angry Huff, ſaying, No Perſon of common Ingenuity, who hath any ſenſe of Honour, or any tollerable Degree of Conſcience within him, can without Shame and Horror break theſe ſacred Bands aſunder, by which he was bound to God in Infancy.
But good Sir conſider, we do not ſpurn againſt the good Intentions of our Parents in deſigning us to the Service of God, tho we juſtly diſallow the irregular Methods which they fell into in ſo doing. Your Predeceſſors had their Conſecration in Infancy by Spittle, Salt, Candles, Exufflations, &c. You do not think that they were bound to ratify theſe Follies when they came to Years: And truly ſo neither can we ratify your Sprinklings, Croſſings, Goſſips, &c. in your Conſecrations, though ſo far as you mean well, we may not deſpiſe but commond; and alſo do now that part of God's Will which our Parents miſtake would have prevented. A due Regard to Ʋzzah's caſe, and David's Reformation thereupon, obliges us to this. But now we are to hear from the Doctor what Profit Infant-Baptiſm brings to the Church of God.
The firſt, he ſays, it prevents thoſe Scandals and ſhameful Delays of Baptiſm, which otherwiſe grown Perſons would be apt to make, &c.
To this I muſt needs ſay, If any thing without the Word of God, would induce me to baptize Children, this Conſideration of the Doctor would as ſoon prevail as any thing; for God knows this Duty is ſhamefully neglected by many whoſe Duty it is to haſten to it. But we muſt not do Evil that Good may come; We may not do what God does not command, becauſe Men will not do what he does command. And tho it be true that Men will need as many Exhortations to be baptized (and perhaps more) than to come to the Lord's Supper, yet all this muſt not diſcourage us, nor force us to innovate Methods of our own, and leave what God has preſcribed. If the faithful Miniſter labour in vain ſome times, yet his Work is with the Lord, Iſai. 49. 4. But I cannot, as the Doctor does, applaud the Wiſdom of thoſe who to prevent Mens Delay of Baptiſm, ran into another Extream, by which the Church, however ſhe may be more numerous, yet by this means the Grace of Baptiſm is deſtroyed, or made unneceſſary to Baptiſm, becauſe as the learned Boſſuit confeſſes, it is ſeparated from Baptiſm in little Infants.
Were good Schools for catechiſing the Youth provided, and a painful Miniſtery to keep ſuch Schools, this might be a better way to prevent the Delays of Baptiſm than to baptize Infants; for in truth, that proving no Baptiſm at all, proves the greateſt Delay of all. Now for the uſe of ſuch Schools, both the Scripture and Antiquity would ſtand by us.
For when all is ſaid that can be ſaid, Baptiſm being the waſhing of Regeneration, a myſtical and ſpiritual Burial with Chriſt, the Church ought to have pious care, that none be admitted to Baptiſm, but ſuch as give ſome competent account of the Work of Faith with Power in their Souls. And hereunto agrees the Scriptures with full conſent; What hinders that I may not be baptized, ſaith the Eunuch? If thou believeſt with all thy Heart, thou mayeſt, ſaith Philip. Acts 8. 46. Acts 16. 14. Acts 2. 38. Acts 8. 12. Acts 2. 41. Acts 18. 8. Mark 16. 16.They that gladly received the Word, were baptized. Lidea's Heart being opened to attend to the Word, ſhe was baptized. When the Samaritans believed, they were baptized, & ſo were the Corinthians. The Galatians were Sons of God by Faith, and ſo baptized. The Romans were dead to Sin, and ſo baptized; and ſo were the Coloſſians: and ſo did our Saviour order it, that he that believeth, ſhould be baptized: we find none elſe by him appointed to it. In vain do Men ſtrive againſt ſuch clear Evidence of the Divine Will and Authority of Heaven, and reſt upon, and ſoar very high upon the Wing of humane Authorities: What is the Chaff to the Wheat, ſaith the Lord?
Wherefore the Doctor's Flouriſh about his high Preſumption, that the Apoſtles authorized the Practice of Infant-Baptiſm, and that it is moſt agreeable to Chriſt's Intention, p. 70, 71. are but Mans Breath: Chriſt's Intention is not known in this matter, but by his Word, or the Teſtimony of his Witneſſes, from whence no ſuch meaning can with Fairneſs be gathered. And for his Talk here again of Chriſt's not repealing the Jewiſh Cuſtom of baptizing is but vain: nor does Dr. Lightfoot's Teſtimony and his own, that there was ſuch a Baptiſm, ſignify ſo much, but that the Teſt of the learned Sir Norton Knatchbul, and that learned Jew Dr. Duveil, may ſerve to ballance them.