Infant Baptism Gods Ordinance, Chapter 1
CHAP. I. Containing five Introductory Conſiderations, very needful for the right underſtanding the Controverſy of Infant Baptiſm.
1. COnſider, that a Doctrine or Practice may be proved to be of God two ways.
1. By the expreſs words of Scripture; as the Reſurrection of the dead may be proved from ſuch a Text as cannot be denied by any that own the Scripture to be God's Word; as John 5.28. All that are in the grave ſhall come forth.
2. Or from Evident Conſequences drawn from Scripture; then have we the mind of Chriſt, when we have the right meaning of Scripture; thus Chriſt proves the Reſurrection to the Sadduces, Luke 20.37, 38. Now that the dead are raiſed, even Moſes ſhewed at the buſh, when he calleth the Lord, The God of Abraham, the God of Iſaac, and the God of Jacob; God is not the God of the dead, but of the living.
Now this Scripture doth not prove the Reſurrection in direct terms, but remotely, and by conſequence. How little ſatisfaction would this Text have given our Modern Anabaptiſts, if they had been preſent at the Diſpute between Chriſt and the Sadduces; would they not have reprov'd Chriſt for his Impertinence? We will not believe the dead will riſe, unleſs we have a plain Text; would not theſe men have reported abroad that Chriſt could could not prove the Reſurrection?
Thus they deal with us at this day; We challenge you, ſay they, to prove Infant Baptiſm to be God's Ordinance; bring us a plain Text, and we will believe.
Now if we prove Infant Baptiſm as plainly as Chriſt proved the Reſurrection, then it is certainly God's Ordinance; and we are bound to own it.
Moſt we believe nothing but what we have totidem verbis, in juſt ſo many words in Scripture? then how ſhall we prove the firſt day of the Week to be the Chriſtian Sabbath? That a Woman may come to the Lord's Table? That a Chriſtian may be a Magiſtrate?
2. Obſerve, That a mind prepoſſeſſed with Error and Prejudice, that is, not ſeeking Truth, but only ſomething to defend their preſent Embraced Opinions, will not be ſatisfied, let the Text be never ſo clear, or the Argument never ſo firmly built upon Scripture; but will ſtill be inventing ſome ſhift or other to ward off the force of any Text or Argument.
This is evident in the Example of the Sadduces beforementioned; we find indeed Chriſt ſilenced them, but we do not find ſo much as one of them convinced, and brought off to a ſound mind.
Men are generally ſo fond of their Errors, that when they are beaten out of one hold, they fly to another.
3. Thoſe Doctrines which were clearly revealed, and fully confirmed in the Old Teſtament, though little or nothing be ſaid of them in the New Teſtament, and were never repealed, are yet to be owned, received and believed, as if much had been ſaid of them in the New Teſtament; the whole Scripture is God's Word, and what need of proving the ſame thing twice, unleſs the Authority of the Old Teſtament were queſtioned? this is evident in the lawfulneſs of a Chriſtian Magiſtracy, in an Oath before a Magiſtrate, and making war upon a juſt occaſion: There is ſo little ſaid of theſe things in the New Teſtament, many of the Anabaptiſts have denied them; yet theſe being fully ſetled and confirmed by God in the Old Teſtament, are to be owned, though little be ſaid of them in the New.
Now this is the caſe of Infant Baptiſm.
The Queſtion is not by what Sign, but at what Age, perſons are to be admitted into the viſible Church?
Now this was fully determined in the Old Teſtament, That Infants at eight days old were to be admitted Members of the Viſible Church; and ſuppoſe little be ſaid of it in the New Teſtament, it is becauſe there was no need of it; this truth having been once ſetled in the Old Teſtament, and never repealed.
4. Thoſe Doctrines which were once throughly ſetled in the Old Teſtament, and never called in queſtion by any in the New, there was no occaſion given to ſpeak of them again.
We find, that what was but darkly hinted in the Old Teſtament, and much queſtioned in the New, is fully cleared; and much is ſaid of it, as that glorious Doctrine of Juſtification by the imputation of the Righteouſneſs of Chriſt: This was very darkly hinted in the Old Teſtament, and very much oppoſed by Legal Preachers in the New Teſtament, therefore much is ſaid in the New Teſtament to clear it.
But Infants right to the Covenant, or to Church-memberſhip, there was much ſaid of it in the Old Teſtament, and it was neve… denied or called in queſtion by any in the Apoſtles days; they were ſetled, and had had peaceable poſſeſſion of their Priviledges ever ſince Abraham's time.
Had any in the Apoſtles days ſcrupled in Infants Right, very much would have been ſaid of it; for the Jews, who tenaciouſly adhered to their old Priviledges, would never ſo ſilently have ſuffered their Children to be caſt out of covenant, without taking notice of it.
A Doctrine may be very clear, the Scriptures brought to prove, and the Argument thence deduced clear and convincing; and yet it may remain dark to one that is uncapable of diſcerning it. An Object may be very obvious, and yet not well diſcerned, by reaſon the Eye is clouded. How plain are the Doctrines of the Trinity; the Divine Nature of Chriſt; Juſtification by Imputed Righteouſneſs, &c. and yet many are ſo blind as not to ſee theſe things?
So the matter in debate, viz. That the Infants of believing Parents have a right to Baptiſm, is as clear to me as the other, yet many will not ſee it. The generality of Chriſtians are but Babes in knowledge, have but dark and confuſed apprehenſions of the cleareſt Truths in Religion, and muſt needs be much more at a loſs in what hath not that clearneſs and perſpicuity in it.