Infant Baptism Gods Ordinance, Chapter 6
CHAP. VI. Objections of Anabaptiſts Anſwered.
Obj. 1. IF it be God's Will Infants ſhould be baptized, Why is there no Command for it, as there was for their Circumciſion?
1. The general Command includes Children, therefore there was no need of any particular mentioning of them.
2. The promiſe is as expreſs to Children, as to Parents, Acts 2.39. The promiſe is to you and to your Children.
3. It had been abſurd to have given a new Command for Children, ſeeing they were in the actual poſſeſſion of their Priviledg, and had been ſo ever ſince Abraham's time, none had ever queſtioned their right and title to the Covenant. There was no Anabaptiſts in the Apoſtles days, nor of many hundred years after.
Obj. 2. But that Covenant, Gen. 17.7. was a Covenant of Works.
Indeed ſome weak Anabaptiſts have ſaid ſo.
But it was not a Covenant of Works, for that knows no Mercy to fallen Sinners; but there is Mercy in that Covenant, that God will be a God to his People, and to their Seed: It was a Covenant of Grace, and that the Apoſtle proves, Rom. 4.11. as hath been abundantly proved before.
Obj. 3. Though Infants were then Church-members, it doth not follow they are ſo now; the Church is now built on another foundation. Thus a Preacher among the Anabaptiſts lately urged to me.
Anſ. 1. If this be true, then the Church of Chriſt under the Old Teſtament, had a different foundation from the Church now under the New Teſtament: The Foundation is now Jeſus Chriſt; but what was it then? What will not Proud and Ignorant men ſay to maintain an Errour!
2. The Foundation of the Church then was Chriſt, and the Covenant of Grace was the ſame then as now; only then was but the dawning of the day, the darker appearances of the Son of Righteouſneſs; but now the Sun ſhines in his full ſtrength. Heb. 10.1. Rom. 4.3, 11.
Obj. 4. But though Infants were then Viſible Church-members, and had a right to the Sign of the Covenant, God has now caſt off the Jews, and ſo Infant Church-memberſhip is ceaſed.
Anſ. The Apoſtle aſſures us, That Church-memberſhip, and all other Priviledges, are as ſure and ample now to the Believing Gentiles, as they were before to the Jews, Rom. 11.17. And if ſome of the branches be broken off, and thou being a wild Olive tree, wert grafted in amongſt them, and with them partakeſt of the root and fatneſs of the Olive tree.
Obj. 5. But Circumciſion is aboliſhed, therefore Infant Church-memberſhip.
Anſ. Circumciſion and Infant Church-memberſhip, were two things; Circumciſion was but the Rite of admitting Viſible Members; the Rite is changed, but not Church-memberſhip; Baptiſm comes in the room of Circumciſion, Col. 2.10, 11, 12.
Obj. 6. Infants are not capable of the ends of Baptiſm, for it's an engaging Sign, and ſignifies the waſhing away ſin, both guilt and ſtain; Infants being uncapable of the uſe of Reaſon, muſt be ſo of Baptiſm.
Anſ. Baptiſm hath more ends than one:
1. It's Chriſt's liſting Sign for admitting Soldiers into his Service, or Diſciples into his School, or Subjects into his Kingdom; and this is what Infants are capable of.
2. It's an engaging Sign, wherein they are by Parents, or other, engaged to God, and this they are capable of alſo.
3. The inward Grace thereby ſignified, as Pardon, Juſtification, Sanctification, Adoption, theſe Infants are capable of, otherwiſe they could not be Saved, and if theſe are not, the Sacrament may be without them.
4. A leaſe for years, with a Covenant to a Child that underſtands it not, may be of great uſe: So Baptiſm, though at preſent the Child underſtands nothing of it, yet it may be, and to converted Believers is of great uſe afterwards, and Godly Parents at preſent have the comfort: For God herein hath provided for the comfort of Parents.
5. A Perſon may be Baptized that is not capable of all the ends of Baptiſm; one end of Baptiſm is to waſh away Sin, &c. this was an end Jeſus Chriſt was not capable of, and yet he was Baptized.
6. Thoſe Infants Chriſt took into his Arms and Bleſſed, and thoſe Circumciſed at Eight days old, knew no more of the benefits they received, than ours do now; they were no more capable of Faith and Repentance, than ours are; and yet they entered into the Covenant of Grace, Rom. 4.11.
Obj. 7. But we have no expreſs Command in the New Teſtament to Baptize Infants.
Anſ. I have ſhewn there needed none; their Priviledg had been ſetled many Ages before, and never queſtioned by any, nor repealed by Chriſt; their former Right continuing firm, Acts 2.39. the general Command includes them.
Obj. 8. But if they had a Right, we might expect to find ſome Examples of their Baptizing.
Anſ. 'Tis manifeſt that Believers houſholds were Baptized with them, Acts 10. Acts 16.15, 16, 33. and if no Infants are mentioned, ſo neither any Children of Believing Parents Baptized at Age; and we have much more reaſon to believe there were Infants in all, or ſome of thoſe Families, than any have to think there was none.
Obj. 9. The Baptiſm of Believers is come in the room of Infant Church-memberſhip.
Anſ. it hath been abundantly proved, that Infant Church-memberſhip was no Ceremony, or Type; if any ſay it was, let them prove it: Therefore as it was never aboliſhed, nor Infants never unchurched, nothing can be ſaid to come in the room of it.
2. That Baptizing Adult Believers ſhould exclude Infants, is as if the receiving and Circumciſing the Gentile Proſelytes into the Church of Iſrael, had been a means to have unchurched their Infants, which for any to affirm, would be extremely ridiculous.
Obj. 10. How can Infants covenant with God, or be engaged by this Sign? or where doth God engage Parents to promiſe any thing for their Children?
Anſw. That Parents may, and ought to covenant for their Children, plainly appears,
1: From Nature, Lex naturae eſt, Lex Dei; may not Parents take a Leaſe for their Children? who buyeth Lands, and not for himſelf and Heirs? are not Children bound by thoſe Ties? and then much more to God.
2. From Scripture, Deut. 29.10, 11, 12, 13. here you may ſee the Parents Covenant, not only for their Children then preſent, but unborn, and they were by Circumciſion to enter them into Covenant, ſo Deut. 26.17, 18. and hath the Goſpel taken away the Parent's Right in his Child?
Obj. We promiſe what we cannot perform.
Anſ. We promiſe to educate this Child for God, to inſtruct him in Goſpel truths; leaving the renovation and ſanctification of the Heart to God, who works when, on whom, and by what means he pleaſeth.
May not a man covenant for himſelf and Heirs to pay a yearly Rent? and what follows in caſe it be not paid, but forfeiture of his Leaſe, and that from the perſon that ſhould have paid it?
Obj. 11. If Infants muſt be baptized, why may they not as well receive the Lord's Supper?
1. If there were that Scripture-proof to adminiſter the Lord's Supper to Infants, as there is for baptizing them, we would do it, when they have as clearly proved the one, as we have the other.
2. Baptiſm is the initiating Seal of entering into the Church, which Infants being Diſciples of Chriſt, are capable of; the Lord's Supper is the confirming Seal to be adminiſtred only to grown Chriſtians; therefore Infants have a right to the one, but not to the other.
Obj. 12. If Infants ought to be baptized, why is it left ſo dark in the New Teſtament?
Anſ. 1. It's not dark, which admits of ſuch clear proof as you ſee this doth.
2. That all Chriſt's Diſciples ought to be baptized, is not dark, Matth. 28.19. Infants are Diſciples; therefore 'tis plain they ought to be baptized.
Obj. 13. The baptizing perſons before they know, occaſions much groſs Ignorance.
Anſ. 1. Chriſt is the occaſion of the ruin and damnation of thouſands, for he was ſet for the fall, as well as the riſing of many in Iſrael, Luke 2.3, 4. but had it been better the world had had no Chriſt?
2. The Goſpel is the ſavour of death to many; had it been better then we had had no Goſpel? What will not the wicked take hurt by?
3. Let them ſhew what in Baptiſm tends to breed Ignorance; Is the entring a Boy's name in the School the way to breed him in ignorance? if a Child's name be put into a Leaſe, is this like to hurt him? what harm is it to be in Chriſt's Family from our youth?
Nay, the contrary is the way to breed Ignorance and Prophaneneſs; for how many ſad Examples have we among the Anabaptiſts, who refuſing to dedicate their Infants to Chriſt, they are ignorantly and bruitiſhly brought up, live and die like Pagans.
Thus it hath been proved abundantly, that Infant Baptiſm is God's Ordinance; that the Infant Seed of Believers were once taken into the Church as viſible Church-members; that Chriſt owns them, &c. therefore they ought to be baptized; that it's a falſe and dangerous Doctrine to deny them Church-memberſhip and Baptiſm.
Enough hath been ſaid for the ſatisfaction of thoſe who are ſeeking Truth; ſuch who wilfully ſhut their Eyes, it's in vain to ſet light before them, becauſe ſeeing they ſee, but do not underſtand; and hearing they hear, but do not perceive.
There's one thing more remaining, viz. The right manner of baptizing; that ſhall next be diſpatched.