A Public Dispute Touching Infant Baptism, Sermon
MARK. 16.15, 16.
15. And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, & Preach the Gospel to every Creature.
16. He that beleeveth, and is Baptized, shall be saved, but he that beleeveth not, shall be damned.
THese two verses hold out the rich Charter of the Gospel, which our Saviour delivered to the Apostles after his Resurrection; The parts are two, First a Precept, in the former verse, Go ye into all the world, and Preach the Gospel to every Creature; Secondly a Promise, with a Commination in the latter, He that beleeveth, and is Baptized, shall be saved; but he that beleeveth not, shall be damned.
In the Precept, we have two particulars, First a Mission, he sends them, Go ye into all the world; Secondly a Commission, he authorizes them, and Preach the Gospel to every Creature.
In the latter verse, or promise, we have First the thing promised, layd down affirmatively, shall be saved; Secondly the qualification, and that either absolute, he that beleveth, or conditional, and is Baptized; he that beleeveth, and is Baptized, shall be saved; Or a Commination shall be damned, with a qualification negative, and absolutely without any limitation, he that beleeveth not, he that beleeveth not shall be damned.
Weel only hint at the former verse for introduction to the latter. And he said, (that is Christ,) Observe, that it is only God, Christ God and Man, that can give Mission, or Commission to Preach, and ordain Sacraments. Math. 28.18. All power is given me in Heaven and Earth, Go ye therefore, and teach all Nations. Go ye into all the world, there is the largeness of their Commission, to all the world, as he, to all Nations as Matthew. Hence observe, the Apostles, and by them the Evangelists, had an extraordinary Commission which extended through the world, but our Commission ordinarily is limited to certain places; True it is, there may be itinerants upon special occasions, (and they also confined within their verges,) But as Doctor Buckeridge observes well when Christ speaks to Apostles, he says, Go ye into all the world, but when to ordinary Pastors, and Teachers foreign he fixed some to be Pastors, and some Teachers.
And Preach the Gospel to every Creature, there is the Commission, wherein we have First the Act Preach, that is proclame, Secondly the object of the Gospel, which in the Original, and other languages signifies good news, or a good speech; from the connexion between the Mission and Commission comming from the same Authour Christ, and extended to the same persons, the Apostles, and their successours, observe, that none may Preach as Church Officers, but they that are sent in a Gospel way; our adversary in the common cause spoke so home to this, that we need not press it further. The last thing is the extent of the Commission, and that a very large one, unto every Creature, as here, to all Nations, as Matthew.
Now the Quaere will be, what is meant by every Creature? Some limit it to every rational creature, Angels, men, Devils, as Origen, & his misericordes Doctores who held the Devils and reprobates should be saved; but that cannot be; for 2. Pet. 2.4. They are cast down to hell, and reserved to judgement. Some more strictly restrain it only to man, and that when he is come to age, and understanding, excluding Children; this is too strict, True it is, Infants are not capable to be taught of men, but they may be taught of God; they cannot actually understand the Gospel, but they may actually receive the benefit of the Gospel; a noble mans Child hath interest in his Fathers Patent, and pardon; a sucking Infant (though he knows it not) may be joined in a lease with the Parents. Some extend it, and it is conceived more fitly according to the Letter, without any Synecdoche, or figure, to every creature, as if he should say, Go and proclame the benefit that comes by Christ to every Creature; for as by the first Adam all creatures were accursed, so by Christ the second Adam, all creatures shall be blessed, Rom. 8.22. foreign every creature groans, desiring to be delivered into the glorious liberty of the Sons of God, answerable to this, Preach the Gospel foreign to every creature, telling them, that they are now by Christ to be delivered into the glorious liberty of the Sons of God.
Object. But the creature cannot hear, nor understand.
Answ. Its true not properly, no more could John Baptist in his Mothers Womb, and yet foreign the Babe sprang for joy; Nay the Holy Ghost ascribes a hearing to the creature, Hosea 2.21. And it shall come to pass in that day saith the Lord, I will hear the Heavens, and they shall hear the Earth, and the Earth shall hear the Corn, and the Wine, and the Oyl, and they shall hear Jezreel. Hence observe, that every creature in a sense is sensible of the benefit they have by Christ; but every one in their kind, men come to years, and discretion, are capable of actual understanding, actual profession, actual faith; Infants only in actu primo, are capable of the first seeds of understanding, of profession of Faith, which will shew it self in the fruits when they come to years; The rest of our fellow creatures as by a natural instinct they groan for the curse, so by an other instinct, they lift up their heads in expectation of the blessing, and that foreign, with an earnest expectation, or a stretched out neck as the word in the original signifies, Rom. 819.
Thus we have paraphrased upon the first verse for introduction to the second, wherein is First, a Consolatory promise, he that beleeveth, and is Baptized, shall be saved; Secondly a Comminatorie Curse, he that beleeveth not, shall be damned. In the former, we have first the qualification, and that either absolute, he that beleeveth, or conditional, and is Baptized.
Q. Now the Quaere will be, what belief is here meant?
Sol. First the event tells us, that belief that saves us, he that believes shall be saved. Secondly the opposition, its contrary to that unbelief that damns; Observe that a saving Faith is necessary to salvation, without Faith it is impossible to please God, all they, and only they that have a saving Faith shall be saved; so that you see that Faith is a necessary, and absolute condition.
And is Baptized, that is upon supposition, if Baptism conveniently may be had; hence observe, that Baptism is not absolutely necessary by necessity of means (as they call it) as if none could be saved without it, but by necessity of Precept, if conveniently it may be had. The Israelites for forty years in the Wilderness were not Circumcised. Bernard, that saw not all things could see this, that, non absentia sed contemplus Sacramenti damnat, not the want, but the contempt of the Sacrament damns: Valentinian the Emperour dyed, as he was going to be Baptized in Jordan, and Ambrose being asked what he thought of him, answered, that he was Baptizatus volo, & voluntate, etiamsi non reverà aquae lavacro, Baptized inwardly with wish, and will, though not outwardly with the laver of water, Austin is conceived here to be mistaken, who denyed salvation to Infants Un-Baptized, hence he is called durus Pater Infantum, a hard Father of Infants; and many of the Doctors of the Church of Rome, who hold that Infants that dye Un-Baptized, are kept in limbo Infantum in a Purgatory of Infants, where they shall never behold the beatifical vision.
Object. But here is first placed beleeving, and then Baptized, so that from the order of placing the words, some would gather that we are first to beleeve before we be Baptized.
Answ. That will not follow; for Mark 1.4. There is placed first Baptizing, and then Preaching, and repentance after, whence they might as well gather that we must be Baptized, before we can hear the word Preached, or repent; Repentance in Scripture is oft placed before Faith, and yet is a fruit, and effect of Faith; some of the Evangelists place Judas his receiving of the sop before the Sacrament, some after it; it is a rule in interpreting of holy Writ, that Scriptura nescit prius, & posterius, the Scripture does not alwaies observe the precise order in which things were done.
Q. But I beseech you consider what Faith it is that is here meant?
Sol. A saving Faith; Must then a saving Faith be the rule of our Baptism? and must we Baptize none, but of those we know have a saving Faith; then we must Baptize none at all; never any Minister upon that ground had ever Commission to Baptize any, no not the Apostles, for they did not infallibly know that those they Baptized had a saving Faith; nay they actually Baptized many that were hypocrites, as Simon Magus, Alexander, Hymeneus, Philetus, and others; hence observe, That no rule for Baptizing in general can be gathered out of this Text, And to say that none are to be Baptized, but they that have a saving Faith, which is the Faith that is only here meant, or none but they which make an outward profession of Faith (which is not here meant) is an untruth not gatherable from this Scripture, and an adding to the word of God, against which he hath proclamed a solemn curse.
The Commination, or curse follows in the last words, He that beleeveth not, shall be damned; he does not say, he that is not Baptized shall be damned.
For though the contempt of it is dangerous, yet a man may be saved without Baptism; he does not say that he that is not dipped over head is damned, that is a thing indifferent, any washing in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, is Baptism; he does not say, that he that is not Re-baptized, or Baptized again, is damned, for that is the invention of Man, never heard of (in that sense) before John of Leydens time, who confessed at his execution, that he had that, and the rest of his poysoned Doctrine from Satan. Hence observe, That all unbelievers, though Baptised, shall be damned; men beleeving though (through invincible necessity) Un-Baptized, shall be saved; thus we have given you the lively meaning of the Holy Ghost in the Text.
Having layd this foundation, wee'l make further inquirie into two things which are in controversie, First what is meant by Baptism, or Baptizing, Secondly whether Infants ought to be Baptized, or no.
First, Baptism in the Original, signifies nothing but a washing, as Pareus upon the Hebrews says, Baptismus Graecis est quaevis ablutio, Baptism is in Greek any washing, whether by dipping, or sprinkling, to Baptize is to dip, or sprinkle says, Ravenel; so says the Churches old Catechism dipped, or sprinkled in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; so the Directory, Baptize the Child, by powring, or sprinkling of the water on the face of the Child, without adding any further Ceremony. And as many kinds there are of washing, so many there are of Baptizing, whereof the Pillars of the Greek Tongue, Hesichius, Budeus, Stephanus, Scapula, Arius Montanus, Pasor, mention four; First tingere, to die, or tincture, Secondly mergere, to drown, or plunge, Thirdly madefacere, to wet, or moysten, and lastly abluere, to wash, or clense.
I confess there are some that distinguish betwixt foreign to rantise (as they call it) or sprinkle, foreign which is to plunge to the bottom, foreign which is to swim upon the top, and foreign, which is, as they criticise upon it, to swim betwixt the top, and bottom; these three last are mentioned by Casaubon in his notes upon the third Chapter of St. Mathew, as was quoted by our adversary, but with what fidelitie, or advantage to his cause, I leave it to the Godly, and learned to Judge, for he left out the last words, wherein the whole state of the question is determined by Casaubon against him, for thus he concludes, horum sententia jampridem meritò est explosa, &c. the judgement of those men is deservedly long since exploded, and trampled down, that would have Baptizing to be by dipping, and he gives a reason, quum non in eo posita sit mysterii hujus vis, & foreign, seeing the force, and efficacy of Baptism, this mysterie, consists not in that, that is the manner of washing. Which is confirmed by Aquinas, Immersio non est de necessitate Baptismi, dipping is not of the necessity of Baptism, And Dominico sotus, Ablutio est de essentiâ Baptismi, washing is of the essence of Baptism, but the manner of washing, whether by dipping, powring, or sprinkling, is accidental.
Many places of Scripture confirm this, 1 Cor. 10.2. there the Israelites were Baptized in the red Sea, when their feet did but touch the water, not as if they were Baptized, when they were not (as the Ana baptists gloss upon this place) and that the Egyptians were really Baptized, for the Egyptians were not Baptized in their sense, but sunk to the bottom like stones. Exod. 15.5.
Baptized under the Cloud, not that the Egyptians were Baptized, and the Israelites as if they were (as they descant) under the Cloud, for the Egyptians were never under the Cloud, for the Israetites went before the Egyptians, and the Cloud, part of it was over the Israelites, part of it went before them.
There is mention made in the Gospel of Baptizing, or washing of themselves when they came from Market, of Cups, of Vessels, of Tables, which cannot be meant of plunging, in water, so often, where that Element was so scarce, but rincing.
Johns Baptizing in Jordan, Philips going down to the River with the Eunuch proves nothing at all; for what strange consequence would this be, especially from the Anabaptists (that must have express Scripture for all things) John Baptized in Jordan, foreign or to the water.Philip went down into the water with the Eunuch, therefore, they were dipped, seeing it might as well be by powring, or sprinkling of water upon them, for any thing that appears out of the Text.
Object. John Baptized in Enon, because there was much water.
Answ. This will seem to be no wonder in those hot Countries, where there are many miles without a Spring of water, especially seeing Geographers, and Travellers tells us, that Enon is a little Brook that one may stride over, scarce Knee deep, and therefore not capable of dipping.
Object. But Baptism, say they, must resemble the death of Christ, Rom. 6.4. We are buryed with him by Baptism, which is not by sprinkling, but dipping.
Answ. I answer, the scope of the place is to shew, that one end of our Baptism is to Seal our Communion with Christ in his death, but to press a necessity of resemblance by descending into the water, and comming out again, we see no ground in Text, and if our abiding under the water must answer Christs Burial in exact representation, then as Christ lay three days, and three nights in the Grave, so they must lye three days, and three nights under the water, which if it were put in execution, the dispute would quickly be at an end.
But should we grant this resemblance, I appeal to any man, whether our powring on of water in Baptism, does not more resemble our Christian Burial, which is by powring on of Earth, or Dust, than by plunging over head.
Thus you see it proved, that Baptizing is any kind of washing, In the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; we do not deny with Master Perkins, that if we were to Baptize converted Turks, or Pagans of ripe age, in hot Countries, we might Baptize them by dipping, Provided that their Garments were not first Baptized, or washed, for that is conceived to be no less superstition, than Baptizing of Bells; Baptism (says Vossius) non est immersio vestium, sed humani Corporis, is not a washing of the Garments, but of the Body; we account the Church of Rome Idolaters, for presenting that worship, First to the Image, which is terminated in Christ; the Garments are first washed, or dipped, and the Body but at the most wet, or moystned through them.
But to affirm that no Baptism but that which is by dipping is lawful, is a will-worship, much more, that Baptism otherwise is a nullitie, and those that are Baptized so, ought to be Baptized again, or Re-Baptized, which the Senate of Syrick understood well, when they made an Act, that all that did presume to Re-Baptize such as were Baptized before, should be drowned.
So we have resolved the former doubt, that Baptizing is not dipping, and come to the latter, that Infants may, nay ought to be Baptized. And (Brethren) I beseech you to give me leave a little to speak for Infants, those poor Souls, that cannot speak for themselves.
And before we come to the Question, take with you these two Considerations; First, that those truths that were not in controversie in the Primitive times, the Apostles were not so punctual in pressing of them, seeing there was no need; Solon being asked why he made no Law against murtherers of Parents, answer'd, because he conceiv'd none would commit that unnatural Act; If the Apostles had been asked, why they did not put down Infant-Baptism in plainer terms, I suppose they would have answered, that they thought none would have denyed it.
Secondly observe, that those things that are pressed often in the old Testament, are mentioned more sparingly in the New, as the Sabbath, and Magistracy in the old Testament, line upon line, and precept upon precept, but scarce a Syllable for a Christian Sabbath, or a Christian Magistracie in the new. Nothing is more clear then Infants Church-Membership in the old Testament, therefore not so clear in the New, and yet clear enough to those that have eyes to see it, as will appear by these reasons following.
1. Arg. First, those that are in Covenant with God, ought to have the Seal of the Covenant, which is Baptism.
But Infants of beleeving Parents are in Covenant with God.
Therefore Infants ought to have the Seal of the Covenant, which is Baptism.
The former Proposition is firm by Confession of all Divines, even our adversaries, Haec est fundamentalis ratio paedobaptismi (sayes Daneus) this is the fundamentall reason of Baptizing of Infants, that they are in Covenant, Esse foederatum sufficit ad accipiendum signum foederis, sayes Davenant, to be in Covenant is sufficient to receive the signe, and seal of the Covenant, Omnes foederati sunt Baptizandi, sayes Wendel, all that are in Covenant are to be Baptized, Si in foedere sunt, impiè agunt, qui eis signum foederis negant, saith Ferus, if they be in Covenant, they do wickedly that deny them the signe of the Covenant; in a Civill contract (sayes Mr Perkins) the Father, and the heir make but one person, and the Covenant's for himself and his posterity.
The Minor proposition that Infants of believing Parents are in Covenant, is grounded on many Scriptures, Genes. 17.7. Where God establishes a Covenant, not only with Abraham, but with his seed after him in their generations, for an everlating Covenant, everlasting, and therefore to last to the end of the World; as Cornelius à Lapide sayes, absolutè aeternum est in semine spirituali fidelibus, It is absolutely everlasting in the spirituall seed to the faithfull. Galat. 3.8 The Scripture foreseeing that God would justifie the Heathen through faith, preached before the Gospel to Abraham; therefore if Isaac was in Covenant with his Father when he was but eight dayes old, and had the seal by vertue of the Lamb to be slain, much more the Children of believing Parents, by vertue of the Lamb that is already slain. Deutero. 29.11. When all the people stood in Covenant before the Lord, their little ones are mentioned amongst the rest, which is further confirmed, Acts 2.38, 39. Be Baptized every one of you, for the promise is to you, and your children; to say that they were not yet believers, is but a shift, the Text makes it cleer, as soon as they were believers, their Children were in Covenant with them, and to be Baptized.
Arg. 2. Such as were Circumcised under the Law, may be Baptized under the Gospell.
But Infants of believers were Circumcised under the Law. Therfore they may baptized under the Gospel.
Huic Argumento non omnes Anabaptistae resistent (sayes learned Whitaker) all the Anabaptists shall not be able to resist this Argument; the Minor, that Infants under the Law were Circumcised, is confessed.
The former proposition is onelyonly questioned, that Baptism under the Gospel to Infants, does not necessarily follow from Circumcision under the Law; Augustin is cleer for it, saying, Mutatis signis manet eadem gratia sine aetatis discrimine, the outward visible signes being changed, the same grace remaines without any difference of age, and he gives a reason, because the grace of God is not straiter in the new Testament than in the old; Therefore Christ, Hebr. 8.6. Is said to be Mediator of a better Covenant, but how were it a better Covenant, if all poor Infants that were in Covenant under the Law, were out of Covenant under the Gospel? Titus. 2 12. The grace of God hath appeared unto all, and therefore surely to Infants; as Ireneus sayes, Christus pro parvulis parvulus factus est, Christ becam a little one, for little ones sake, that he might redeem the little ones. Little ones were the first Martyrs that suffered for Christ, in Rama, was a voice heard; and that Baptism came in place of Circumcision, the Apostle cleares it, Coloss. 2.11, 12. Ye are circumcised with circumcision made without hands; How is that? Buryed with him in Baptism. Hence arises another Argument.
Arg. 3. Those that were once in Covenant, had the Seal of the Covenant, and were never disfranchized, and put out of Covenant, have title to the Covenant, and Seal of it still.
But Infants were once in Covenant, had the Seal of the Covenant, and were never disfranchized, and put out of Covenant, Therefore Infants have title to the covenant, and seal of it still.
Let any man shew one syllable, one tittle in Scripture, that ever Infants were put out, and weel yield the gantlet; nay, the Gospell is so far from expressing of them that they are put out, that it gives them large commendations beyond them of riper years, making them the rule of our perfection, as new born babes, receive the sincere milk of the Word. Unless you be as little Children, ye shall not enter into the Kingdom of God; which is a case so cleer, that even Bellarmine him self encludes, Nullum est impedimentum, &c. there is nothing that hinders, but that Infants may as well be Baptized under the Gospell, as they were Circumcised under the Law; for neither hath God forbidden Ministers to give them this Sacrament, neither are they uncapable to receive it.
Arg. 4. That which God hath commanded may lafully be practised by the Ministers of Jesus Christ.
But God hath, commanded Infant-Baptism.
Therefore it may lawfully be practised by the Ministers of Jesus Christ. That God hath ommanded it, appears, Matth. 28.19. Go Baptize all Nations; its a generall command, and (as Aquinas sayes) posito generali mandato pars ejus negari non potest, a generall command being given, no part of it can be denyed; Infants are a part of Nations, and included in them.
Object. But here is no mention made of Infants.
Answ. No, nor of them of age; we might retort it upon our adversaries, there is no mention made of Dippers, no, nor of them that are to be dipped, therefore they ought not to dip, nor be dipped. Generals include particulars in all Lawes; Psalm. 117. Praise the Lord all ye Nations, Nations includes old men, and babes, young men, and maids, all without exception, as another Psalm interprets it.
Now if Infants be excepted, contrary to that saying of Saint Ambrose, Qui dixit omnes, nullum excepit, ne que parvulos, &c. He that commanded all to be Baptized, excepnone, no, not little ones. If (I say) they be excepted, its either because they are not named, or because we never read in Scripture that any Infants were Baptized, or, because they are not capable; (that fourth cavill, being the same with the third, Ile take away anon) but for none of these three; therefore Infants are not excepted from Baptism.
Not for the first, because they are not named, for so neither old men, nor nobles, nor Ministers are named. Not because we read not of their Baptism, so we neither read of the Baptism of the Apostles, nor of the Virgin Mary, yet we piously believe that they were Baptized; De negatione facti ad jus non valet consequentia, such a thing is not mentioned, that it was done; therfore it was not done, or was not done, therefore it ought not to have been done, is no consequence; Christ did, and said many things that are not written; so did his Apostles.
Not for the third, because they are uncapable, which is denyed; for if Infants be uncapable, it is either because they have not repentance, and faith in act, which cannot hinder them; Christ was Baptized, had not repentance, for he had no sin to repent of, had not faith, for faith presupposeth one lost in himself, that depends upon another for salvation, Christ is that Rock of Salvation, upon whom all mankind being lost depends; Neither because they cannot hear the Word preached; then they that are born deaf should be excluded from Baptism; Or because they are not otherwise qualified; but that cannot hinder them, for God requires no more of them that are in Covenant, and born of believing Parents, but a pure capacity, and receptability, which Divines call Potentiam objectivam; as God in the beginning created the World of nothing, so in the beginning of the new creature he does regenerat, and recreate us of nothing; upon this account it is, that we read of many whole families Baptized, not excluding, but rather including Infants, Cornelius was Baptized with his houshold, Acts 10.47, 48. Lydea, and her houshold, Acts 16.15. Crispus, and all his house, Acts 18.8. and the houshold of Stephanus, 1 Corinth. 1.16. the Jayler foreign, all that were his, Acts 16.31, 32. His Servants, his Children; for can we imagine so many families without a child?
Arg. 5. They that are capable of the Kingdom, and the blessing, which is the greater, are capable of Baptism, which is the lesser.
But Infants are capable of the Kingdom, and the blessing, which is the greater.
Therefore they are capable of Baptism which is the lesser; forbid not (sayes our Saviour) little Children to come unto me, for unto such belongs the Kingdom of God; for surely, if the Kingdom of Heaven receive them, the Church may not exclude them; for the Church must receive such as glory receives, Acts 2.47. There were daily added to the Church such as should be saved. Now for proof of this Argument, take these places, Mark. 10.13. to 17. Mark. 9.14.36, 37. Matth. 18.2, 3, 4. Matth. 19.13, 14, 15. Luke 9.14, 15. Luke 18.15, 16. Which tho they be spoken upon severall occasions, all prove Infants to be Church-members, and capable both of grace, and glory; weel instance in two, Jesus called a little child unto him, the word is foreign, which (as Hippocrates in his distinction of ages sayes, and Beza seconds him,) signifies a child under seven years, and set him in the middest of them, and said, Verily I say unto you, except ye be converted, and become as little children, that is, endevour to be free from actuall sin, as they are, ye shall not enter into the Kingdom of Heaven.
The other is that of S. Luke 18.15. wherein observe, First a Precept, Suffer little children to come unto me.
Secondly, we have a prohibition, and forbid them not.
Thirdly, his displeasure against his Disciples, for hindring them from coming to him, he looked on this act with indignation, and was much displeased at it.
Fourthly, he adds a reason why little ones should be brought to him, because to such belongs the Kingdom of God, that is, the Kingdom of grace here, and glory hereafter; they are visible members of his Church, and Kingdom, and therefore none may hinder their access to him.
Fiftly, he confirmes this reason, à majori, from the greater to the less, Gods Kingdom doth not onelyonly belong to them, but I tell you more, whosoever will come into this Kingdom, must resemble Infants in Innocency, humility, simplicity.
Sixtly, he adds his benediction of them, he took them up in his arms, put his hands upon them, and blessed them; and tells us that their Angels alwayes see the face of his Father, which is in Heaven; and the danger of them that offend one of these little ones; and all this recorded by three Evangelists, Matthew, Mark, Luke, as if it were of purpose to check the sacrilegious insolencie of these latter times that denyes them the seal. Christ is not more punctuall by his Spirit, in declaring his own Birth, Passion, Resurrection, than he is in this precious Truth so much trampled under foot.
And if any object, these were not young Children, the text easily confutes them, they were foreign. Children under seven yeares of age, foreign, Children that could scarce speak, they did not lead them, but foreign, they carried them unto him; Christ is said twice in S. Mark, foreign, to take them up in his armes, and embrace them; Christ was already instructing the people that were able to understand, the Apostles were offended for bringing of Children which could not understand.
Well then, doth Christ take Children in his armes, and would he have them all put out of his visible Church? would he have us receive them in his Name, and yet not to receive them into his visible Church, nor as his Disciples? How can Infants be received in Christs Name, if they belong not visibly to him, and his Church? Nay, doth Christ account it a receiving of himself, and shall we then refuse to receive them, or acknowledge them the subjects of his visible Kingdom? will it not follow then that whosoever refuseth them, refuseth Christ, and him that sent him? For my part (to use the words of a godly, and learned divine) Seeing the will of Christ is that I must walk by, and his word that I must be judged by, and he hath given me so full a discovery of his will in this point, I will boldly adventure to follow his rule, and had rather answer him upon his own incouragement for admitting an hundred Infants into his Church, than answer for keeping out of one.
Argument 6. All Disciples may be Baptized.
But Infants of believing parents are Disciples.
Therefore some Infants may be Baptized.
The Major, or former proposition, is granted by our adversaries, who translate that place, Matth. 28.19. foreign, go make Disciples of all Nations, which is in our last translation, Go teach all Nations, confessing, as soon as they are Disciples they may be Baptized.
Now for the Minor, that Infants are Disciples, is evident from Acts 15.10. Why, tempt yee God, and put a yoak upon the neck of the Disciples? this yoak was Circumcision, and the attendants of it, as will appear by comparing it with the fift verse, and the context from the beginning of the Chapter. Now among the Jews, children were only to be Circumcised, and amongst the Gentiles, children together with parents when they were converted, and became Proselites. To say that not only Circumcision, but the Doctrine, and Observation of the whole Law, by the yoak is meant, is but a shift; Circumcision was the Seal, or Ordinance by which the Jews were bound to observe the Doctrine, and the Law, and all those upon whom the yoak was layd by Circumcision, are called Disciples; whereof Infants were a great part.
And if it be objected, that children are not capable of instruction, as it is nothing to the purpose, so it contradicts Scripture, Esay 54.13. And all thy Children shall be taught of the Lord, and great shall be the peace of thy Children. And if any one carnally interpret this of the Jews return from captivity, as they do other places of Esa. our Saviour checks them, John 6.45. And It is written in the Prophets, And they shall all be taught of God.
Arg. 7. All that have faith may be Baptized.
But some Infants have faith. Therefore some Infants may be Baptized.
The proposition none will deny, the Minor may be proved by severall reasons.
First, Christ expresly calls them Believers, Matth. 18. He attributes humility to them, and faith; and commands Elders to imitate them; and that you may see they were Infants, Mark 9.36. tells us they were such as Christ took up in His armes.
Secondly, they are said to receive the Kingdom of God, Mark 10. that is, the grace of God, Remission of sins, and life eternall; now the Kingdom is not received, but by faith in Christ.
Thirdly, they please God, therfore Christ blesseth them; but without faith it is impossible to please God.
Fourthly, either faith must be allowed them, or salvation denyed them; but the latter is cruell, and impious; therefore the former must be godly, and pious; faith only purifies the heart, but no unclean thing shall enter into Heaven.
Fiftly, tho Infants cannot make actuall profession of faith, yet they may have inward roots of Sanctification, and faith.
John Baptist and Jeremie were sanctified in their mothers wombs; let carnalists say what they will, that is the principal meaning of that place, Esay 65.20. There shall be no more an Infant of days; The Jews thought they were not sanctified, unless a Sabbath went over them; the child shall dy an hundred year old, that is, as well in Covenant with God, or a visible Church-member, as if he were a hundred years old. Therefore Pareus sayes, Infantes Ecclesiae etiam ante Baptismum censentur sideles; Infants of the Church, even before Baptism, are judged faithfull. Hommius sayes, infants have faith, in semine, in the seed, tho not in messe, in the harvest; Beza sayes, they have faith foreign, in power, tho not foreign, in operation. Faith (says Treleatius) is twofold;
1. Active which the Elder have by hearing the Word.
2. Passive, and by imputation, which Infants have by vertue of the Covenant, and Divine promise. Pelagius asks Austin where he places infants Baptized? he answers, in numero credentium, in the number of believers, and addes, nec judicare ullo modo aliter audebis, si non vis esse apertè haereticus, neither may thou presume to judge otherwise, if thou wilt not be a plain Heretick. Weel conclude this with that of Vossius, As in naturals, so in supernaturals we must distinguish these three things, power, habit, and act; there is the power of reasoning in Infants, the habit in men sleeping, but the act, and exercise, in them that are waking; the power answers the seed, the habit the tree, the act, and exercise, the fruit; the seed of Faith may be in Infants, the habit in men of age, but the act, and exercise, in them that work according to the habit.
8. Arg. Those that are Holy, with a Covenant-holiness, may be Baptized. But Infants of beleeving Parents are Holy with a Covenant-Holiness. Therefore Infants of beleeving Parents may be Baptized. For the former Proposition, foederatis competit signum foederis, (says Vossius) the sign of the Covenant belongs to them that are in Covenant; Holiness is twofold (says Bullinger) either of Faith, or of the Covenant. Ezra. 9.2. Ye have mingled the holy seed, that is them in Covenant, with the Nations, that is them that are out of Covenant. Thus you see, that Covenant-holiness is no gibberidge, but grounded upon Scripture, and avouched by learned men: as shall more fully appear.
The Minor, that Children of beleeving Parents are holy with a Covenant-holiness, is clear from 1 Cor. 7.14. Else your Children were unclean, that is, not in Covenant, but now they are holy, that is, in Covenant, thus (besides the ancients) Sharpius, and Peter Martyr interpret it, and Hugo Grotius himself, Non loquitur Apostolus de Sanctitate naturali, &c. The Apostle (says he) speaks not of natural holiness, and inhering to the nature of Children, but of an holiness adhering to them, that is, the holiness of the Covenant, for the Children of beleevers are comprehended in the Covenant of grace, and therefore accounted holy of God. To interpret it (as the gross Anabaptists do) that they are holy, that is, no Bastards, is a new holiness not heard of in Scripture, and as (Doctor Featly says) a Bastard exposition; and Pareus gives the reason, if the Children of beleevers be therefore holy, because they are no Bastards, the Children of Pagans are as well holy, for they are also no Bastards. If the first-fruits be holy, the lump is holy, and if the root be holy, so are also the branches. Rom. 11.16. The first fruits and the root, that is the Parents; the lump, the branches, that is the Children, and posterity.
And, Rom. 11.17. if the Jews were broken off, and the Gentiles graffed into their place, it will follow, that if the Jews were broken off, Parents with Children, then the Gentiles shall be graffed in, Parent with Children.
But the Jews were broken off Parents with Children. Therefore the Gentiles shall be graffed in, Parents with Children.
9. Arg. If Infants should be out of Covenant under the Gospel, many dangerous absurdities would follow.
First, Infants would be losers by the comming of Christ, and be put in a worse condition than the Jewish Infants were; they with the Parents were admitted to the Seal of the Covenant, which was Circumcision, and not Children with Parents to Baptism.
Secondly, if Infants should be in Covenant then, and not now, Grace would be larger under the Law, than under the Gospel.
Thirdly, there would be no difference betwixt the Child of a Christian, and of a Pagan, but all the Infants of Christians would be as vile as the Children of Turks, Tartars, or Cannibals.
Fourthly, they would be without God, without Christ, without hope in the world; not the Children of God, but of the Devil; would all be damned, for out of Covenant, and visible Church (ordinarily) there is no salvation.
10. Arg. Lastly, that which hath continued since the Apostles times with blessed success, must needs be lawful.
But Infant-Baptism hath continued with blessed success since the Apostles times.
Therefore Infant Baptism is lawful.
Weel begin with the first Centurie, or hundred years after Christ. Dionysius the Areopagite whom the Apostles converted at Athens, says, Holy men have received a tradition from the Fathers, that is the Apostles, to Baptise Infants. Clemens (who is recorded by some of the antients to succeed Peter in his Ministry at Rome) says foreign, Baptise your Infants.
Ireneus (who lived in the second Century) says, Christus pro parvulis parvulus factus est, Christ became a little one for little ones sake, that little ones might be received into Covenant.
Origen that lived in the begining of the third Century says, The Church received a tradition from the Apostles to Baptize Infants, and gives a reason, because they are born in impurity of sin; nay Pelagius, a great Scholar, who lived in the latter end of this Century, though he denyed Original sin, yet confessed Infant-Baptism, for when they pressed him with this Argument, if Infants had not Original sin what need they Baptism, he answered, that Christ appointed, and the Church practised Infant-Baptism, not to purge sin by past, but to prevent it for the time to come.
Cyprian in the fourth Century confirms it in his Epistle to Fidus, and gives an account of a Council of sixty six Bishops that decreed that Infants should be Baptized. Ambrose says, because every age is lyable to sin, therefore every age is fit for the Sacrament of Baptism. Nazianzene says it is better to Seal Infants with Baptism, (though they know it not) then to leave them unsealed. Austen is conceived to go too far, who denyed possibility of salvation to them that dyed un-baptized, pressing that place John 3.5. Except a Man be Born of water, and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God.
The Millevitan Counsel in the fifth Century decreed, That whosoever should deny that Infants, even taken from their Mothers wombs, might not be Baptized, should be accursed. All Churches, all ages since, agree in this; the Harmonies of confessions of all Reformed Churches, the Church of England in the Apologie, the old Catechism, The twenty seventh Article, the Directory, the greater and lesser Catechism composed by the Assembly of Divines, the late Parliament by a further Declaration, all confirm it; The Canons of our Church did not only in former times declare, but the Lawes of our Land did punish Anabaptists as hereticks. Mr. Fox in his Acts and Monuments approves of the Albigenses, Waldenses, Wickliffists, Lollards, Poor men of Lyons, Brownists, Barrowists, as members of the Reformed Churches, but wholly excludes the Anabaptists, as erring fundamentally.
I'le say no more for confirmation of this polemicall discourse, but wind up all with a word of exhortation; I beseech you brethren consider what a dangerous errour this is, that robbs the Scripture of its truth, Infants of their right, parents of their comforts, the Church of its members, Christ of his merits, God of his glory; That is the mother of many other errours; hence sprung the Ranters, Socinians, Antitrinitarians, Shakers, Levellers, they that are above Ordinances, Antiscripturians; An errour that God hath expressed many signall judgments against, as Sleiden and Gastius in Germany, and some of our worthies in England have declared. As reverend Mr. Cotton tells one of his Aposta…ed flock, that had his house burned, and his children in it, No wonder that fire seised upon his house, and God denyed water to quench it, who denyed that water should be brought to Baptize his Infants.
Secondly, consider that much benefit redounds both to parents, and children, by Infant-Baptism.
First, much comfort comes hereby to the parents, when they consider Gods free grace to them, and theirs, that he is not ashamed to be called their God, and the God of their seed after them. Hebr. 11.16.
Secondly, much benefit comes to Infants by Baptism, (which the Devill knowes well, when he causes witches to renounce their Baptism, when they enter into Covenant with him) for they are thereby admitted into the bosome of the Church, devoted, and consecrated unto God, his Name is put upon them, they wear his Royall badge, and by it they are distinguished from Heathens. And this so clear from Scriptures, truly, and spiritually understood, That the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against it.
Now the God of Peace and Truth, by his Spirit, lead us into all truth, keep us pure, and unspotted in this houre of Englands temptation, and triall, keep us faithfull to the death, that so we may receive a crown of life.
foreign.
FINIS.
End of the text · John Tombes, A Public Dispute Touching Infant Baptism (1654)