Truth and Peace, Title page – Preface
TRUTH and PEACE: OR, The Laſt and moſt FRIENDLY DEBATE CONCERNING Infant-Baptiſm. Being a brief Anſwer to a late Book, intituled, The Caſe of Infant-Baptiſm; [Written by a Doctor of the Church of England.] In which Anſwer is ſhewed,
I. That the Covenant of Circumciſion (ſtrictly taken) was not the Covenant of Grace for the Salvation of Mankind, many being not bound to obſerve it.
II. That Circumciſion was no Goſpel-Ordinance, (as is affirmed by the Doctor) but a part of the Yoke of Bondage.
III. That the Jews had a Tradition to baptize Infants, is either a Fable, or deſtructive to the Chriſtian Baptiſm, if grounded thereon.
IV. The Doctor's five comprehenſive Queſtions particularly anſwered.
V. From the whole it is made evident, that the Reſtoration of Sacred Baptiſm, in reſpect of the true Subject, and due manner of Adminiſtration, is the only true method to revive the Ancient Chriſtian Religion in all Nations, where it has been corrupted by humane Innovation.
Whereunto is annexed, A brief Diſcourſe of the Sign of the Croſs in Baptiſm and of the uſe of the Ring, and bowing at the Altar, in the Solemnization of Marriages.
By THOMAS GRANTHAM.
The Cuſtom of baptizing Infants was brought in without the Commandment of Chriſt.
Curcelleus Diſſerta. of Orig. Sin, n. 56.
London, Printed for the Author, 1689.
The PREFACE.
THAT Prophecy of St. Paul, 2 Tim. 4. 4. That Men ſhall turn away their Ears from the Truth, and ſhall be turned unto Fables, had too much of its Verification in the early Times of Chriſtianity; and as in other reſpects, ſo in the caſe of ſacred Baptiſm, both in reſpect of the Time and Order in which it ſhould be performed. 1. From a Fear that Sin committed after Baptiſm ſhould hardly (if at all) be remitted, many did delay their Duty, being deſirous to have the full remiſſion of their Sins near their Death. This ſcandalous delay of Baptiſm proved pernicious to the Church of Chriſt, as well as to the Perſons thus neglecting their Duty, and ſeems to have been the occaſion of altering the manner of the Adminiſtration of Baptiſm. For many of theſe Delayere being ſurpriſed with Sickneſs, and afraid to die without Baptiſm, requeſted that it might be adminiſtred to them in their ſick Beds, which was endulged to them without any Warrant from Heaven, which in ſuch caſes ſhould always be enquired for. Yet this Cuſtom was ſo doubtful to them that did allow it, that they required ſuch Chinicks, that in caſe they recovered their Sickneſs, they ſhould be had to the River, and there be baptized. Cyprian Epiſt. ad Magnum.
2. Others did as much outrum the Rule of this Duty in prepoſterousS. Fiſher▪ Bap. …. p. 311. haſte, even to baptize Infants as ſoon as born, and ſometimes before; and this Error ſprang from this apprehenſion, that God had tied the Solvation of all Fleſh to Baptiſm, that even Infants dying without it, could not be ſaved: Yea ſo powerful was this Error, that its Aſſertors did Anathematize all that held the contrary. The Council of Afric decreed, That all that affirm young Children receive eternal Life, albeit they be not by Baptiſm renewed, they are accurſed. Sure a more unreaſonable Decree was never made by Men.
Now this Leaven of falſe Doctrine has ſo prevailed, that ſcarce any but Infants came to be concerned in obeying Chriſt in Baptiſm; nor could poor Infants obey him therein; for Auſtin confeſſes they did not willingly receive Baptiſm, but ſtrove againſt it with great Crying. So that neither Young nor Old (in a manner) were found in ſome Ages to put on Chriſt in Baptiſm, ſeeing that cannot be done without the free Conſent of an Heart enlightened by Faith; Gal. 3. 26, 27. Acts 2. 40.
It is therefore the work and proper buſineſs of the Reſtorers of holy Baptiſm to do what they poſſibly may to remove this Stumbling-block out of the way, I mean this Doctrine which would damn to Helliſh Torments all Infants dying unbaptized. Concerning which I have wrote ſeveral Treatiſes, and could be content ſtill to be an Advocate for all dying Infants, as being through the Grace of God in our Lord Jeſus Chriſt, diſcharged of the condemning Power of Original Sin, and having no Actual Sin, the Infirmity of their Nature ſhall not damn them, but the Mercy of God ſhall ſave them all. And were Mens Judgments clear in this Point, the Controverſy about Infant-Baptiſm would naturally ceaſe, and all Men would ſee it the only ſafe way to refer Baptiſm to the time wherein through Repentance and Faith it might, according to the Will of God, intereſs them in the remiſſion of their Sins, and in the Priviledges of the Church of the Living God, in order to Life eternal.
I ſhall therefore once more endeavour to take away this falſe Covering, which is not of God's Spirit, I mean the Doctrine of Infant-Damnation, by propoſing a few things to this Generation, as an Introduction to my Reply to the Caſe of Infant-Baptiſm. And,
1. Seeing it cannot enter into the Heart of any Chriſtian (I hope) that God does create Infants on purpoſe to damn them, and to ſhew them no Mercy (ſeeing he is very merciful to the chief of Sinners) if we can find out a juſt cauſe for the damning of them, it muſt be either, 1. From themſelves, from their Parents, from the Devil, or from Chriſt's not loving them, ſo as to redeem them from the Fall which they had in Adam. But none of theſe things can be the cauſe of Infants Damnation. 1. They cannot damn themſelves by ſinful Courſes, and it is certain our gracious God will▪ damn none, who do not firſt deſtroy themſelves by their Wickedneſs. This is evident by his unwillingneſs to deſtroy thoſe who had deſtroyed themſelves, Hoſea 13. 9. O Iſrael, thou haſt deſtroyed thy ſelf, but in me is thy▪ Help. How then can it enter into any Chriſtian to think that God ſhould have no pity for innocent Babes who never offended him? Is he thus compaſſionate towards great Sinners, and is there no Help in him for poor Infants?
2. No Man can damn Infants, becauſe if any have power to damn his Infants, all Men have it, it's no Man's peculiar Power (whether good or bad) to do this; and if any ſay, all Men have this Power, he reflects upon the Goodneſs of God for giving ſuch power to Men, and contradicts the Word of God, Jer. 31. Every one ſhall die for his own Iniquity—the Son ſhall not bear the Iniquity of the Father. This is only true in the caſe of eternal Death: for Children, even Infants, often die for their Fathers Sin a temporal Death, as in the old World, in Sodom, yea and in Jeruſalem too, Lam. 2. 11. Yet who can think that our just and merciful God ſhould now after their ſwooning in the Streets, caſt them into Helliſh Torments. It was not the Iniquity of the Infants, but of the grown Perſons which cried for Vengeance.
3. The Devil cannot damn Infants, becauſe they are out of the Reach of his Temptations▪ They know not to chuſe them, nor refuſe them; they know not their right hand from the left▪ they know neither Good nor Evil; whom the Devil cannot tempt, them he cannot damn. A learned Proteſtant tells us, God will not damn any Perſon for that which they … help. This Sentence muſt needs be as true in the caſe of Infants as any … World. And indeed the Equity of that merciful Law, Deut. 22. 25, 26. may ſuffice to convince any Man, that in the Judgment of the Almighty there is no Sin in Infants worthy of Damnation; ſeeing what Sin ſoever is upon them, it was impoſſible for them to avoid it. They therefore ſhall not be damned for it.
When Chriſt puts the Queſtion, How can ye eſcape the Damnation of Hell? He ſpeaks to incorrigible Sinners, that the Fear of Damnation ſhould not overwhelm weak Perſons; but never did he ſpeak a Word againſt poor Infants. He never told them they were of the Devil. Satan is not the Father of Infants. Ergo, they are not his Children.
4. Chriſt loved and gave himſelf for all dying Infants; therefore not one of them ſhall be damned. Chriſt gave himſelf a Ranſom for all: He loved, and dyed for the chief of Sinners. Therefore he loved and died for the poor innocent Babes: He bought them that deny him, 2 Pet. 2. 1, 2. How ſhould he deſpiſe the helpleſs Infant?
Object. If God be ſo good to all Infants, why then is he not ſo good to let them be baptized. I anſwer; God is good to Infants in that he accepts them without Baptiſm. And I appeal to any conſidering Man, whether he was not as good to the Infants of the Righteous before Abraham, as he was to the Infants of Abraham? and whether God was not as good to an Infant in Iſrael of 7 days old, as to an Infant of 8 days old? And whether God be not as good to us, in that he accepts us in the uſe of a very few Ceremonies, as he was to Iſrael, accepting them in the uſe of many Ceremonies? And whether if he had pleaſed to accept of us upon Repentance and Faith without Baptiſm, he had not been as good to us, as now, that together with Repentance and Faith he does require Baptiſm? The Truth is, Baptiſm is therefore good, becauſe it is commanded. It is not good in it ſelf, no more was Circumciſion, nor indeed any Ceremony. Now Repentance and Faith are good in themſelves, it's abſolutely neceſſary, that thoſe that ſin, be humbled for it and forſake it. It's abſolutely neceſſary for the Creature to believe, and to depend upon the Creator.
Now Baptiſm though it be not good in it ſelf, yet Heavens Authority enjoyning it, and Divine Myſteries being contained in it, and Priviledges conferred by it, it is therefore good to thoſe to whom it is appointed. But where God requires is not, but extends his Goodneſs without it, it is a like Vanity in us to give it where he does not appoint it, as it would have been in Abraham to give Circum… to every Male Child as ſoon as it was born, or at 6 or 7 days old … to his Females alſo, becauſe it was a ſign of a great Covenant … to whom it did belong by Appointment.
And therefore I conſider further, that as thoſe had no Loſs of any Priviledg that was neceſſary for them in Iſrael, who by the Law were not required to be circumciſed [as in the caſe of all Females] So neither ſhall any loſe God's Favour for not being baptized when he requires it not. The Danger lieth on the other ſide. For had Abraham out of a conceit of making Infants [Male] of 7 days old, and all his Females alſo Sharers in the Covenant, equally with thoſe of 8 days old circumciſed them, he had hazarded both his own and their Loſs of the Covenant. In like manner, whoever will (preſumptuouſly at leaſt) baptize any Perſon whom God does not require to be baptized, is ſo far from bringing him into Covenant, that he runs the hazzard of loſing his own part in the Covenant: Rev. 22. For I teſtify unto every Man. - If any ſhall add unto theſe things, God ſhall add to him the Plagues which are written in this Book. But,
4. All dying Infants are under the Bleſſing of the Covenant▪ of Grace, therefore no dying Infant ſhall be damned. This, how ſtrange ſoever it may ſeem, muſt be a Truth, or elſe poor dying Infants are the worſt of Creatures. When therefore we ſay all dying Infants are in the Covenant of Grace, we mean it, as God hath vouchſafed to intereſs them in his Mercy by Chriſt; That as Condemnation came upon them by Adam's Sin, ſo Juſtification of Life has abounded towards them by the Obedience of Chriſt; and he himſelf that beſt knew God's Deſign concerning them, has declared, without excepting ſo much as one of them, that to them belongs the Kingdom of Heaven. And what then is he that ſhould except them, as the manner of ſome is, and in their cruel Judgment ſend them by Millions to Hell Torments? Now either Infants (even all of them) are thus in or under the Bleſſing of the Covenant through the Mercy of God, or they are not concern'd in any Covenant at all: for the Covenant of pure Nature, as made with Adam in Innocency, concerns not Infants, but as the Breach of it is imputed to Mankind; but here they are loſt. The Covenant of Works concerns them not, it cannot be ſaid of them, the Man that doth theſe things ſhall live in them. And to ſay that Infants are under the Bleſſing of no Covenant, is to rank them with the vileſt of Men, yea which the Devils themſelves, who are therefore moſt accurſed, becauſe there is no Saviour, no Mercy for them. They are ſhut up in Chains under Darkneſs to the Judgment of the great day. Now far be it from all Chriſtians to have ſuch Thoughts of God, whoſe tender Mercies are over all his Works. The very Devils had a State wherein they might have been happy, but preſumptuouſly fell from it, Jude v. 6. But poor Babes before they had a being were expoſed to Condemnation through the Offence of another. Shall theſe Objects of Pitty periſh eternally too without Remedy? O God forbid; let them be preſſed with all the Inconveniences conſequent to Original Sin, yet either it will not be laid to the charge of Infants, 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 takes them away before they can glorify him with a free Obedience. Dr. Taylor.
5. No Man is able to prove that any Infant ever was or ever ſhall be damned to helliſh Torments; therefore none of them, dying ſuch, ſhall be damned. We ſhould hold nothing as a Point of Faith, but upon clear Proof, and eſpecially things of ſo high a Nature as this is. Some Men talk of ſome Infants as if they were little better than Devils. But could never yet bring a juſt charge againſt any one of that innocent part of Mankind. The Inſtance of Eſau is all that looks like an Enemy to Infants, but mind it well, there is no ſuch matter in it. God knew that Eſau ſhould not dy an Infant, he knew he would be a bad Man, and is judged as ſuch. Eſau is not to be ranked with dying Infants; and this Inſtance failing, there is not the Shadow of any Proof that God will damn poor dying Infants.
But becauſe the Doctor, whoſe Book we are to examine, has ſome Kindneſs for all dying Infants, as I conceive, though the Quality of his Subject does ſometimes enforce him to drop ſuch Sentences as may ſeem to deny all Mercy to unbaptized Infants, yet he corrects all ſuch Paſſages, by ſaying they may be ſaved by uncovenanted Mercy, &c. A ſtrange Speech it is, but there is ſome Kindneſs to poor Infants dying without Baptiſm; I ſhall therefore inſiſt no farther at preſent upon the p…int of Infants Salvation; but make my way to the Book itſelf, by premiſing a few things.
Our late Aſſertors of Infant-Baptiſm ſeem to me to be ready to yield that Chriſt has not commanded to baptize Infants, yea ſome of them grant it in totidem verbis; yet they think themſelves ſafe, becauſe (in their Judgment) Infant Baptiſm is not forbidden. And with this Apprehenſion away they go to the Jews for Relief, who out of their Talmud, Gemara, and Maimonides give them an account of ſome ſuch Ʋſage among the Iſraelites. And now from Dr. Hammond (who has ſearched much into the Rabinical Doctrine) they grow confident that Baptiſm was a Jewiſh Ceremony originally, though they grant it was but of humane Inſtitution, and that the Chriſtian Baptiſm is but the Copy, which is taken from that Original. Yea the learned Author of the caſe of Infant Baptiſm does tell us boldly; That our Saviour being obliged to lay by Circumciſion, conſecrated this Cuſtom of the Jewiſh Church to be the Sacrament of Initiation into his Church. But certainly John's Baptiſm of Repentance for Remiſſion of Sins, which was from Heaven and not of Men, was more fit to be eſtabliſhed by our Lord Chriſt, for a perpetual Miniſtery in his Church, than ſuch a Jewiſh Cuſtom.
Pitty it is that we ſhould yet be contending about Infant-Baptiſm from this ſuppoſed humane Inſtitution of the Jews. When our needful Work is to do our Endeavour, to prepare our Youth (and many aged Perſons too) for an orderly Admiſſion to that Holy Laver for Remiſſion of Sins, and not to blind their Eyes by fabling to them that they were regenerate and born again▪ as ſoon almoſt as they came into the World. We have certainly as much need of good Schools to catechiſe our Youth, and to prepare them thereby for the Profeſſion of the moſt ſacred Religion, as the ancient Chriſtians had.
This is the way to have our Poſterity to receive the Truth in the Love of it, when their Judgments are informed to underſtand it in the Beauty and Excellency as well as to ſee the Neceſſity of it. This is the way to have them ſtand faſt under all Revolutions, when they have been radicated in the firſt Principles of Cathechiſm, Heb. 6. 1, 2. Theſe Principles of Chriſtianity are plain and eaſy to be underſtood, and yet God knows there are but a few that have a competent Ʋnderſtanding of them in this Nation. And it is but a bad way to promote Chriſtian Knowledg in Principles of Catechiſm [as that of Baptiſm is ſuch] by Stories out of the Talmud, or other Jewiſh Books, which if we had them we cannot underſtand them, why then are we ſent unto them? Is the Holy Scripture leſs able to make us wiſe to Salvation than the Talmud? Let us take to the good old way, and diligently teach our▪ Youth the Rudiments of Religion; ſo ſhall Goodneſs and Mercy follow us all the days of our Life, and we ſhall dwell (by our Poſterity) in the Houſe of the Lord for ever.
One main thing in the Book now under Conſideration is the Covenant of Circumciſion, which the Doctor will have to be a Goſpel-Covenant, and Circumciſion a Goſpel-Ordinance. Now aſ all this were true, it would come ſhort of proving it our Duty to baptize our Infants. For ſeeing there is a proper time for our Participation of all Goſpel-Priviledges, ſo we muſt learn what time this is, not from Circumciſion, (for then the 8th day muſt preciſely be the time) but from Chriſt and his Apoſtles, who are our only infallible Inſtructors herein. But that the Doctor is miſtaken in this thing which he makes a Pillar to his Building, is (I hope) ſufficiently made manifeſt.
Nor ſhall it be amiſs in this place to give you the Judgment of a very learned Jew, lately converted and baptized in the City of London, bicauſe he may rationally be thought to underſtand the Nature of the Covenant of Circumciſion (being a great Student in all Jewiſh, as well as Chriſtian Theology) as any other Man. And this is the account we have from him of this matter, in his printed▪ Expoſition upon the Acts of the Apoſtles, chap. 2. 40. The Jews (ſaith he) who were circumciſed in Infancy, before Circumciſion was abrogated, were here baptized, by the order of Peter: from whence it appears that by Baptiſm and Circumciſion, two Covenants altogether differing, were to be ſealed, of which the one was with thoſe who by the Law of Nature were born of the Seed of Abraham, the other with thoſe who were ſpiritually reborn by the Gift of Faith.
And whereas one main hinge upon which the Doctors Diſcourſe for Infant-Baptiſm is ſupported, is the Cuſtom of the Jewiſh Church, and the Cuſtom of the ancient Chriſtian Church, the ſaid learned Jew ſpeaks very well to that Plea in theſe Words: The Cuſtoms of Churches ought to ſubmit to the Words of Chriſt, not the Words of Chriſt to be wreſted to the Cuſtoms of the Church; in regard the Words of Chriſt are the Foundation upon which all Church-Cuſtoms are to be built, that they may be ſafe and laudable. Whatſoever ſavours againſt the Words of Chriſt, ſavours againſt the Truth; and, as Tertullian ſays, what ever ſavours contrary to Truth, is Hereſy, though it be an ancient Cuſtom. It is in the Power of God to pardon thoſe that err out of Simplicity; but becauſe we erred once▪ we are not always to go on in our Errors.
The Doctor divides his Book into a previous Diſcourſe, and into the Reſolution of five Queſtions. In ſtating and reſolving his Queſtions, he repeats much of the previous Diſcourſe: I have endeavoured to take his ſence, and have ſet down many of his Words; and my Reply to his previous Diſcourſe may ſerve as a Supplement to my Reply to the Reſolution of his Queſtions, becauſe the ſame Arguments are handled in both.
What I have added about the Sign of the Croſs in Baptiſm, I have collected chiefly from a learned Proteſtant Writer, in a Book intituled, A Scholaſtical Diſcourſe againſt Symbolizing with Antichriſt in Ceremonies.
I have intituted my Book (as you ſee) The laſt and moſt Friendly Debate concerning Infant-Baptiſm. And glad ſhould I be to ſee an end of the Controverſy, by an Agreement in the Truth, or a brotherly Condeſcenſion in ſuch things on either part, as may be without Sin.
That I have undertaken this Task was, not the Fruit of my own Choice, but indeed I was particularly deſired by Letter from ſome Perſons of Quality and Learning to give a brief and diſtinct Anſwer to the Contents of the Caſe of Infant-Baptiſm; which they commend for the temper … which it is framed, and for that it is very nervous in Argument; inſomuch that till it was anſwered, it was ſo ſatisfactory, that more need not be ſaid on their part. And now, I hope, they will do me the Juſtice, as to read me with Patience, and to judg without Prejudice, knowing that ſhortly we muſt all appear before the Judgment-Seat of Chriſt, and receive from him the things done in the Body, whether they be good or bad.