Gold Refined, Chapter 9
CHAP. IX. Containing ſeveral other Arguments, proving, why not Infants, but Believers only, are the true Subjects of Baptiſm.
IF there is no word of Inſtitution,1. Argument. or any thing in the Commiſſion of Chriſt for Baptizing Infants, but of Believers only, then not Infants but Believers only ought to be Baptized.
But there is no word of Inſtitution, or any thing in the Commiſſion of Chriſt, for baptizing Infants, but of Believers only; Ergo, not Infants, but Believers only are the Subjects of Baptiſm.
The Major Propoſition is undeniable: for if Infants may be baptized in the Name, &c. without any Authority from Chriſt, or word of Inſtitution, or the leaſt intimation of it in the great Commiſſion, what Innovation can we keep out of the Church? This is enough to cauſe any Proteſtant to renounce his Religion, and cleave to the Romiſh Communion, who aſſerts the Church's Power is ſuch, that without a word of Inſtitution, ſhe may do the Lord knows what.—Nor do they, as far as I can find, aſſert Infant-Baptiſm from the Authority of the Scripture; but from the Power Chriſt has left in the Church, in which they ſeem more honeſt than ſome Proteſtants, that pretend to maintain this Rite, by plain Scripture-proof, without the leaſt ſhadow or intimation of any such thing, to the palpable Reproach of the Chriſtian Religion.
As to the Minor, 'tis evident, and owned by the Learned, that thoſe who are enjoined to be baptized, in the Commiſſion, Matth. 28. are firſt to be taught, or made Diſciples: But Infants cannot be made Diſciples, being uncapable of teaching; therefore there is nothing in that Commiſſion of Infant-Baptiſm: If they have any other word of Inſtitution or Commiſſion, let them produce it, we profeſs we know of none.
Object. Chriſt commanded his Diſciples to baptize all Nations; Children are part of the Nations, therefore may be baptized: Thus you ſee we have Authority to baptize Children from the great Commiſſion.
Anſw. Let me have the ſame liberty to argue, and ſee what will follow, viz. Chriſt commanded his Diſciples to baptize all Nations; but Turks, Pagans, and Infidels, with their Children, are part of the Nations, Ergo, Turks, Pagans, and Infidels, and their Children, may be baptized alſo. Sir, I will appeal to you, is not this Inference as good and as juſtifiable as yours? Come put it to your Conſciences; Can you ſuppoſe any should be baptized by virtue of the words of Chriſt in the Commiſſion, but Diſciples only?
Object. Well, what though that be ſo? yet we affirm, that Infants are Diſciples, and therefore may be baptized.
Anſw. What if we ſhall grant you that Infants are Diſciples, (which we can never do, it being utterly falſe) yet they are not ſuch Diſciples that Chriſt in the Commiſſion requires to be baptized▪ becauſe they were to be made Diſciples, by being taught; and that Infants cannot be ſaid to be, we are ſure.
The Lord Jeſus hath plainly excluded Infants in his Commiſſion from this Adminiſtration, according to ordinary Rule; for in that he commands the them to Baptize Diſciples, upon preaching firſt to them, it follows, that none but ſuch who are ſo taught, and ſo by teaching made Diſciples, are by virtue of the Commiſſion, to be baptized; Infants, after an ordinary rate are uncapble of underſtanding the Goſpel, when preach'd, and therefore are uncapable of being made Diſciples thereby, and there is no other way, according to ordinary Rule, of being made Diſciples but by that means: And this the Apoſtles could eaſily underſtand, as knowing that under the term Diſciple, in common ſpeech, and in the whole New Teſtament, thoſe only are meant, who being taught, profeſſed the Doctrine preached by ſuch a one as John's Diſciples, Chriſt's Diſciples, and the Diſciples of the Phariſees, &c. and accordingly the Apoſtles adminiſtred Baptiſm. And in that Chriſt appoints, theſe to be Baptized, we say, he excludes all others; for the Inſtitution, Commiſſion, and Commandment of Jeſus Chriſt, is moſt certainly the only Rule, according to which we are to adminiſter the Sacrament of Baptiſm, and all other Holy Things; and they that do otherwiſe, open a Door to all Innovations, and follow their own Inventions, and are guilty of Will-worſhip. If you ſhould ſay, Infants are Diſciples ſeminally in and by their Pa…ents: as if Believers could beget Believers, …or Diſciples of Chriſt by natural Generation, is abſurd and ridiculous, the Chriſtian Church being not made up of Perſons by meer Humane Birth, but Spiritual Regeneration. And to ſay that Infants are born Diſciples by the relation to the Covenant, and ſo have the Seal ſet on them, without any precedent Teaching, is but an unapproved Dictate; as if a Title to Baptiſm were in its Nature a Seal of the Covenant, which the Scripture no where affirms; nor is there any Rule for baptizing of Perſons becauſe of Relation to the Covenant, ſith Baptiſm wholly depends upon a poſitive Inſtitution.
Object. But you further argue, that Infants are called Diſciples, Act. 15. 10. Becauſe the Yoak laid upon the Necks of the Diſciples, was Circumciſion; and Circumciſion belonged to Infants, ergo, Infants are Diſciples.
Anſw. To this we Anſwer, That there is no colour of Ground or Reaſon of giving the Name of Diſciples from that Text to Infants: for tho true, they are called Diſciples, upon whoſe Necks the falſe Brethren would have put that Yoak of Circumciſion; yet what's this, ſith Adult Believers of the Gentiles alſo were required by the Jews to be circumciſed, as Timothy, Act. 16. 3. And tho it be granted that they would have had Infants, as well as the converted Gentiles, to be circumciſed, yet the putting the Yoak of Circumciſion, is not actual Circumciſion in the Fleſh; for that the Jews, as well as their Children, were able to bear for many Ages. But the Yoak of Circumciſion is the neceſſity of it upon Mens Conſciences, and therewith to oblige them to keep the whole Law of Moſes, or they could not be ſaved; and this was not that which they would have put upon Children, but upon the Diſciples, i. e. the faithful Brethren in Chriſt Jeſus.
If Faith and Repentance be required as prerequiſite of all them that are to be baptized;Arg. II. then none but Believers ought to be baptized—but Faith and Repentance is required of all ſuch; Ergo, &c.
The Major Propoſition cannot be denied, without a palpable violation of Chriſt's Precept, and by the ſame Rule that Infants may be baptized, notwithſtanding this abſolute prerequiſite, Unbelievers may, invalidate the Rule of Chriſt, or render it defective, and you give all away to the Enemy. The Minor has been ſufficiently proved.
If thou believeſt, thou may'ſt, elſe he might not;Acts 8. that it ſeems was abſolutely neceſſary, Repent, and be baptized every one of you, Act. 2. 36, 37. and, thoſe of the Church of England ſay the ſame thing.
In the Rubrick, What is required of Perſons that are to be baptized? that's the Queſtion.
Anſwer, Repentance, whereby they forſake Sin; and, Faith, whereby they ſtedfaſtly believe the Promiſe of God made to them in that Sacrament.
If there be no Precedent in the Scripture, (as there is no Precept) that any beſides ſuch who profeſſed Faith and Repentance,Arg. III. were baptized; then none but ſuch ought to be baptized: but there is no Precedent that any beſides ſuch who profeſſed Faith and Repentance were baptized; Ergo, none but ſuch ought.
Had Infant-Baptiſm been any Appointment or Inſtitution of Chriſt, we ſhould certainly either have had Precept or Example in the Scripture to warrant the ſame; but in as much as the Holy Scripture is wholly ſilent therein, there being not one Example, or the leaſt Syllable to be found for any ſuch Practice, we may be ſure it is none of Chriſt's Ordinance.
If our Brethren have any Precedent or Example for it, let them ſhew it, for we declare and teſtify, there is none as we know of.
And that there is neither Precept nor Example for Infants Baptiſm, we have it confeſſed by many of them who were for it.
Eraſmus ſaith,Vnion of the Church. It is no where expreſſed in the Apoſtolical Writings, that they baptized Children. And again, upon Rom. 6. Baptizing of young Infants was not, ſaith he, in uſe in St. Paul's Time.
Calvin alſo confeſſeth,4th Book of Inſtit. c. 16. it is no where expreſly mentioned by the Evangeliſts, that any one Child was baptized by the Hands of the Apoſtles.
Ludovicus Vives ſaith,De Civit. Dei, lib. 1. cap. 27. None of old were wont to be baptized but in a grown Age; and who deſired it, and underſtood what it was.
The Magdeburgenſes, Magdeb. in Cent. 1. l. 2. p. 496.as I find them quoted by Mr. Danvers, do ſay, that concerning the baptizing of the Adult, both Jews and Gentiles, we have ſufficient Proof from the 2d, 8th, 10th, and 16th Chapters of the Acts; but as to the baptizing of Infants they can meet with no Example in Scripture.
Dr. Taylor ſaith,Lib. Proph. p. 239. It is againſt the perpetual Analogy of Chriſt's Doctrine to baptize Infants; for beſides that, Chriſt never gave any Precept to baptize them, nor ever himſelf, nor his Apoſtles (that appears) did baptize any of them: All that either he or his Apoſtles said concerning it, requires ſuch previous Diſpoſitions to Baptiſm, of which Infants are not capable, and thoſe are Faith and Repentance. And not to inſtance in thoſe innumerable places that require Faith before Baptiſm there needs no more but this one of our bleſſed Saviour: He that believeth and is baptized, ſhall be ſaved; but he that believeth not, ſhall be condemned: plainly thus Faith and Baptiſm will bring a Man to Heaven; but if he hath no Faith, Baptiſm ſhall do him no good: so that if Baptiſm, ſaith he, be neceſſary, ſo is Faith much more; for the want of Faith damns abſolutely, it is not ſaid ſo of the want of Baptiſm.
If Paul declared the whole Counſel of God unto the Churches and Primitive Chriſtians,Arg. IV. and yet never declared or made known to them Infants Baptiſm. Then Infants Baptiſm is none of the Counſel of God. But Paul did declare unto the Churches and Primitive Chriſtians the whole Counſel of God, but never declared any thing to them of Infants Baptiſm. Ergo.
The Major Propoſition can't fairly be denied: and as to the Minor, ſee Acts 20. 27. For I have not ſhunned, ſaith he, to declare unto you all the Counſel of God. It appears by the Context, that he concluded he could not be pure from the Blood of all Men, if he had not been faithful in this matter, i. e. in making known all the whole Will of God to them. Paul was the great Apoſtle of the Gentiles, and he ſpake theſe words to a Gentile Church, viz. the Church at Epheſus, and therefore it is the more remarkable, God hath by his Mouth made known all things that are neceſſary for us to know or underſtand of his Counſel, or our Duty. See our late Annotators on this Verſe.
God's Decree to ſave all that believe in Chriſt,Pool's Annotat. on Act. 20. 27. or the whole Doctrine of Chriſtianity, as it directs to an holy Life; whatſoever▪ God requires of any one in order to a bleſſed Eternity: this is that which (say they) the Phariſees rejected, Luke 7. 30. and ſo do all wicked and ungodly Men, who refuſe to take God's Counſel, or to obey his Command. Now Baptiſm is that part of God's Counſel which the Phariſees rejected againſt themſelves. Moreover in Chap. 19. it appears he opened and explained that great Ordinance to thoſe Chriſtians at Epheſus, at the firſt Plantation of the Church there, but not a word of their Duty to baptize their Infants; nor was there any reaſon he ſhould, it being none of God's Counſel.
If whatſoever is neceſſary to Faith or Practice,Arg. V. is left in the written Word, or made known to us in the Holy Scripture, that being a compleat and perfect Rule, and yet Infant-Baptiſm is not contained or left therein, then Infant-Baptiſm is not of God. But whatſoever is neceſſary to Faith or Practice, is left in the written Word, or made known to us in the Holy Scripture, &c. and yet Infant-Baptiſm is not contained therein. Ergo, Infant-Baptiſm is not of God.
That the Holy Scripture contains in it all things that are neceſſary for us to believe and practice in order to Eternal Life, is acknowledg'd by all worthy Men both Ancient and Modern; and that Infants Baptiſm is not contained in the holy Scripture we have proved.
The holy Scriptures,Athanaſius againſt the Gentiles. ſaith Athanaſius, being inſpired from God, are ſufficient to all Inſtructions of Truth.
Iſychius ſaith,Iſychius lib. 5. 6. 16. on Levit. Let us which will have any thing obſerved of God, ſearch no more but that which the Goſpel doth give unto us.
All things,Chryſ. on 2 Thes. & 2 Tim. 3. ſaith Chryſoſtom, be plain and clear in the Scripture; and what things ſoever be needful, are manifeſt there.
If there be any thing needful to be known or not to be known, we ſhall learn it by the Holy Scriptures; if we ſhall need to reprove a Falſhood, we ſhall fetch it from thence; if to be corrected, to be chaſtened, to be exhorted, or comforted; to be ſhort, if ought lack, that ought to be taught or learned, we ſhall alſo learn it out of the ſame Scriptures.
Auguſtin ſaith,Aug. to the Brethren in the Wildern. Read the Holy Scriptures, wherein ye ſhall find fully what is to be followed, and what to be avoided.
And again he ſaith,Lib. 2. of Chriſtian Doctrine, c. 3. In theſe therefore, which are evidently contained in the Scriptures, are found all things which contain Faith, manner of living, Hope and Love.
Let us ſeek no farther than what is written of God our Saviour,In his 198 Epiſtle to Fortunat. leſt a Man would know more than the Scriptures witneſs.
Luther ſaith,Luther upon Gal. 1. 9. there ought no other Doctrine to be delivered, or heard in the Church, beſides the pure Word of God, that is the Holy Scriptures, let other Teachers, and Hearers, with their Doctrine be accurſed.
Baſil ſaith,Baſil in his Sermon de ſide. that it would be an Argument of Inſidelity, and a moſt certain ſign of Pride, if any Man ſhould reject any things written, and should introduce things not written.
Let this,Calvin. l. 4. Inſtit. c. 8. Sermon 8. ſaith Calvin, be a firm Axiom, that nothing is to be accounted the Word and Will of God to which place ſhould be given in the Church, but that which is contained in the Law and Prophets, and after in the Apoſtolical Writings.
It is,Theoph. lib. 2. Paſchal. ſaith Theophilact, the part of a Diabolical Spirit to think any thing Divine, without the Authority of the Holy Scripture.
Bellarmine ſaith,Bellarm. in his Book de Bapt. l. 1. c. 8. that though the Arguments of the Anabaptiſts, from the defect of Command or Example, have a great force againſt the Lutherans, for as much as they uſe that Rite everywhere, having no Command or Example theirs is to be rejected; yet is it of no force againſt Catholicks, who conclude the Apoſtolical Tradition is of no leſs Authority with us than the Scripture; for the Apoſtles ſpeak with the ſame Spirit with which they did write; but this of baptizing of Infants is an Apoſtolical Tradition, &c.
And laſtly, to cloſe with this Argument, take what Mr. Ball ſaith,Mr. Ball in his Anſwer to the New-England Elders, p. 38, 39. We muſt for every Ordinance look to the Inſtitution (saith he) and neither ſtretch it wider, nor draw it narrower than the Lord hath made it; for he is the Inſtitutor of the Sacraments, according to his own pleaſure, and 'tis our part to learn of him both to whom, how, and for what end the Sacraments are to be adminiſtred; in all which we muſt affirm nothing but what God hath taught us, and as he taught us. If this worthy Man speak Truth, as be ſure he did, and his Doctrine be imbraced, certainly our Brethren muſt never ſprinkle, nay baptize, one Child any more.
If no Man or Woman at any time or times were by the Almighty God,Arg. VI. Jeſus Chriſt, nor his Apoſtles neither commended for baptizing any one Child or Children, nor reproved for neglecting to baptize ſuch; then Infants Baptiſm is not of, nor from God.
But no Man or Woman was at any time or times either commended by the Almighty God, &c. for baptizing any one Child or Children, nor reproved for neglecting to baptize such. Ergo, Infants Baptiſm is not of, nor from God.
This Argument remains good and unanſwerable, unleſs they can ſhew us that there is ſome Goſpel-Ordinance and univerſal Duty injoyned on Men, that no Man or Woman was ever commended for doing it, nor reproved for neglecting it: when they can ſhew that, this Argument will be invalid.
That Doctrine that reflects upon the Honour,Arg. VII. Care and Faithfulneſs of Jeſus Chriſt our bleſſed Mediator and glorious Law-giver, or renders him leſs faithful then Moſes, and the New Teſtament in one of its great Ordinances, nay Sacraments to lie more dark and obſcure in God's Word than any Law or Ordinance of the Old Teſtament did, cannot be of God. But the Doctrine of Infants Baptiſm reflects upon the Honour, Care, and Faithfulneſs of Jeſus Chriſt, &c. or renders him leſs faithful than Moſes, and the New Teſtament in one of its great Ordinances, nay Sacraments to lie more dark and obſcure in God's Word than any Law or Ordinance of the Old Teſtament. Ergo, Infants Baptiſm cannot be of God. The Major certainly none will deny.
The Minor is eaſily proved: Can any thing reflect more upon the Honour of Chriſt, &c. than this? as if he ſhould neglect to ſpeak out his Mind and Will to us plainly, or be ſo careleſs about it, that ſorry Man is forc'd to try his Wit to ſupply what is defective and wanting in this Matter in Chriſt's Word; for he is ſtrangely left of God and benighted, who will not confeſs Infant Baptiſm to need much of humane Craft and Cunning to make it out from Chriſt's New Teſtament; and when he has done all, he leaves it as doubtful as he found it in the Judgment of indifferent Perſons. Did Moſes deal thus with the Children of Iſrael? No, no. How careful was he to deliver every Law, Statute, and Ordinance exactly, particularly the Law of the Paſſover! Do but read how careful and circumſpect he was in that, in all reſpects and matters relating to it. Nay, and the Wiſdom of God was such, to leave nothing then in the dark, but gave order that all Things might be made plain, that he that run might read it, and he that did read, might know the Duty, i. e. the Statu…e or Ordinance, (tho in many things they might need inſtruction how in a right Spirit to be found in it, and what it ſignified.) But I dare affirm, no Man who reads the New Teſtament, from the beginning of Matthew to the end of the Revelations, a thouſand times over, ſhall ever from that Holy Word, or any place or part of it, find it to be his Duty to baptize his Child; the Word of God is powerful in convincing Men of their Duties, as well as of their Sins; but in this it fails, it has no Power to convince Mens Conſciences. The Faith of Perſons muſt ſtand in the Wit and Subtilty of Men, in reſpect of Infant-Baptiſm, and not in the Power of God, and efficacy of his bleſſed Word. Let ſome ſhew us the Perſon, who only by reading the New Teſtament was convinced of Infant-Baptiſm; though, 'tis true, divers by reading of the Writings of Learned Men, and their ſubtil and ſophiſtical Arguments, (for ſo I muſt call them) have been perſwaded to believe it to be of God.—Yet, after all, ſome of them have plainly ſignified the great Ground and Argument they build upon, is this, viz. Becauſe ſuch and such Learned, Godly, and Wiſe Men, aſſert it to be a Truth of Chriſt. So that it appears very clear, they build their Faith herein, not upon the Authority of God's Word, but upon the Credit and Authority of Men. But certainly it muſt needs, as I ſaid, reflect upon the Honour and Faithfulneſs of Chriſt, to conclude Infant-Baptiſm to be of God: for can any think the Lord Jeſus would leave ſo great an Ordinance, or Sacrament, of the New Teſtament, ſo obſcure and dark in his Sacred Word, had it been his Mind that Believers ſhould baptize their Children, ſince the Apoſtle magnifies Chriſt's Faithfulneſs, who is the Son, above that of Moſes, who was but the Servant? And Moſes verily was faithful in all his Houſe as a Servant, for a Teſtimony of thoſe things which were to be ſpoken after, Hebr. 3. 5. But Chriſt as a Son over his own Houſe, &c. ver. 6. and therefore was counted worthy of more glory than Moſes, ver. 3.
Beſides, do but conſider what Darkneſs and Confuſion the Aſſerters of Infant-Baptiſm ſeem to be in, about the Proof and Right they ſay Children have to it.
1. Some of them ſay, it depends wholly upon the Authority of the Church.
2. Others dare not baptize them, but as Believers and Diſciples, and therefore affirm they have Faith, &c.
3. Others can't believe this; and therefore though they likewiſe baptize them as Believers, yet get Sureties to ſtand for them.
4. Others ſay, they have a Right by the Faith of their Parents: ſome are for baptizing all Children, others none but the Children of Believers.
5. One ſays, if either of their Parents are Believers they may be baptized; ſome ſay both Father and Mother, both muſt be godly Perſons and in the Covenant of Grace, or elſe the Child has no Right to be baptized. No marvel when Men have loſt their way, they are thus loſt in a Wilderneſs.
That Ordinancé God has made no Promiſe to Perſons in their Obedience thereto,Arg. VIII. nor denounced any Threatning or Puniſhment on ſuch who ſlight, neglect, and contemn it, it is no Ordinance of God. But God has made no Promiſe to Perſons who baptize their Children, nor denounced no Threatning or Paniſhment on thoſe who ſlight, neglect and contemn it. Ergo, Infant-Baptiſm is no Ordinance of God.
Let any ſuch who aſſert Infant-Baptiſm, ſhew us a Promiſe to the Obedient herein, or a Threatning denounced againſt the Diſobedient thereto, and we will ſay no more. There are Promiſes made to Believers in their being baptized, that's evident; and Puniſhments threatned on ſuch who reject the Counſel of God in that reſpect, the like there is in reſpect of any other Goſpel-Ordinance, but none of this in the Caſe of Infant-Baptiſm.