Infant Baptism from Heaven and Not of Men, Chapter 11
CHAP. XI.
Objections againſt the laſt Propoſition anſwered. The concluſion of the whole.
Object. 1.
NOtwithſtanding all that hath been ſaid for the confirmation of the three foregoing Propoſitions, yet ſome may ſay, That it is not the will of Chriſt, that the Infant-ſeed of believing Parents ſhould ordinarily be baptized (may be at leaſt very probably concluded) from thoſe various paſſages that do occur in the new Teſtament, wherein ſuch things are declared to have attended the adminiſtration of Baptiſm, and ſuch things are affirmed of, and required from the baptized in the primitive times, which cannot attend Baptiſm, as adminiſtred unto Infants, nor can be truly affirmed of, or rationally required from them. See 1 Cor. 12.13, 21, 25. Epheſ. 4.16. Gal. 3.26, 27.
Anſw. This Objection will ſoon vaniſh, and appear to have no ſtrength at all in it, if we conſider theſe three things, which becauſe they are ſo obvious to every one of a competent underſtanding, and at all acquainted with the Scriptures, I ſhall need do little more than mention.
Firſt, Conſider that what in theſe or the like Scriptures is declared of, or required from the Body of Chriſt, or the ſeveral Members of that Body, as united and incorporated, by the means (whether internal or external) appointed for that end and purpoſe, agrees to, and equally concerns the whole Body of Chriſt, and the ſeveral Members thereof, ſimply and abſolutely, in all times and ages; the Body of Chriſt is but one, ſucceſſively continued throughout all ages; and hence it may as well be concluded from theſe Scriptures, that Infants never were, nor ever ſhall be admitted into this Body, (the contrary whereunto is moſt evident) as that in the primitive times they were not by Baptiſm admitted into it, as then exiſtent in the world.
Secondly, Conſider that it is a thing of frequent occurrence in Scripture, for things to be declared and ſpoken of, or to whole Bodies or Societies, and that in the moſt univerſal and indefinite terms, which yet are to be underſtood and applyed variouſly, with reſpect to the particulars, according to their reſpective capacities and concernments, in what is ſo declared or ſpoken: See this abundantly verified in that Speech of Moſes to the whole Congregation of Iſrael, recorded in the twenty nine and thirty Chapters of Deuteronomy, there are ſome things ſpoken as univerſally true of them all: So their ſtanding before the Lord, in order to their renewal of their Covenant with him, thus, Dout. 29.10, 11, 12, there are other things ſpoken, which were alone true of the grown perſons among them, and that but in part true of ſome of them, in whole true of others: Thus their ſeeing what God had done for them in Egypt, and in the Wilderneſs, ſome had ſeen both the temptations they had been tried with, and the Signs wrought before them in the Wilderneſs, but had ſeen nothing, in reſpect of a perſonal ſight, of what God had done for them in Egypt: Others had ſeen what God had done both in the Wilderneſs and in Egypt, and yet the ſame things are univerſally declared of them all, verſe 2. So again, there are other things afirmed and declared of them all in one and the ſame expreſſion, which yet were to be underſtood in a different manner, as applyed to particulars: Thus of their entring into Covenant, it is ſaid of them univerſally, They ſtood before the Lord to enter into Covenant, and yet they could not enter into it after one and the ſame manner, the grown perſons were to do it perſonally, the Infants and Children, incapable of a perſonal covenanting with God, were entred by their Parents. Yet take one more Inſtance, that Command, to keep the words of that Covenant they were not entring into, is impoſed upon them all univerſally, verſe 9. Keep therefore the words of this Covenant, and do them, that ye may proſper in all that you do: Yet who will ſay, either that there were no Infants, or that Infants are capable to keep the words of that Covenant? So that we may ſee how variouſly, what is indefinitely, and in the moſt general and univerſal terms ſpoken to or of an Aſſembly, or united Body of people, as collectively or generally taken, is yet to be underſtood and applyed to the particulars of that Aſſembly, or Body of people. And ſeveral other Inſtances, of a like nature with this, might be given: See 1 Cor 10. begin. but I am willing to contract as much as may be: Thus in reſpect of the paſſages the Objection is grounded upon, what is declared to have attended the adminiſtration of Baptiſm, or what is ſpoken of or to the perſons baptized, is to be underſtood and applied to particulars, according to their reſpective capacities and concernments in what is ſo declared and ſpoken.
Thirdly, Let it be conſidered, to whom, or for whoſe uſe the Scriptures were written, as alſo what is the ſpecial deſign of the Holy Ghoſt in thoſe paſſages the Objection is grounded upon: And thus let it be conſidered, that the Scriptures were written to and for the uſe not of Infants, while in their infant capacity, but grown perſons; and the deſign of the Holy Ghoſt, in the places mentioned, is either to inſtruct and eſtabliſh in ſome neceſſary truth, or preſs to ſome neceſſary duty; and hence what in the forementioned paſſages is ſpoken to or of the Body of Chriſt, and the ſeveral Members of that Body, only concerns ſuch perſons, and is of ſpecial uſe to the promotion of the deſign aimed at in them, but that is no Argument, that Infants, to whom theſe things agree not, and who are not concerned as ſuch in them, nor are capable of improving them to the end intended, were not of that Body, and conſequently not admitted into it by Baptiſm, eſpecially when the mind of Chriſt is fully revealed in other places as to that matter.
Object. 2 But the main and principal Objection, and indeed which hath any conſiderable appearance of weight in it, is that raiſed from Mat. 28.19. compared with Mark 16.15, 16. where the inſtitution of Baptiſm, as is ſuppoſed by many, a Commiſſion authorizing and requiring the adminiſtration of it among the Gentiles, as is granted by all is recorded. Now ſay our Oppoſers, Infant baptiſm cannot be according to the will of Chriſt, in as much as it agree not with the inſtitution of Baptiſm: the inſtitution warrants the teaching and baptizing the Nations, that is, ſay the Objectors, ſuch of the Nations as are taught, and by teaching made Diſciples, but here is not a word concerning the Baptiſm of Infants. Now ſay they, certainly had it been the will of Chriſt that Infants ſhould have been baptized, he would have ſo expreſſed the inſtitution, as that his mind ſhould have been plainly and clearly held forth therein, touching this matter; but here not being the leaſt intimation that it is his will that they ſhould be baptized, therefore their Baptiſm cannot rationally be judged to be according to his will.
Anſw. I ſhall not debate the Queſtion, whether this of Matthew be, or may be, fitly called the, or an inſtitution of Baptiſm, either abſolutely, or unto us Gentiles, though let me ſay, it ſeems ſomething ſtrange to me, how it comes to bear the denomination of the inſtitution of Baptiſm, ſeeing Baptiſm was in uſe long before this Command was given out, and certainly the Adminiſtrators of it would not act without an inſtitution, neither do I think it can properly be called the inſtitution of Baptiſm to us Gentiles. I doubt not, but this was only a Commiſſion given out by Chriſt to his Apoſtles, and in them to all the Miniſters of the Goſpel, authorizing and enjopyning them to adminiſter thoſe two Ordinances, of preaching the Goſpel and Baptiſm, afore inſtituted, in ſuch an extenſive way, as is here expreſſed in the adminiſtration of which Ordinances the Adminiſtrators were and are to be regulated, not only by the letter of this Commiſſion, but by all other directions Chriſt himſelf had, or yet ſhould give them, relating to that their adminiſtration: But let that paſs, call it the inſtitution of Baptiſm, abſolutely or reſpectively to us Gentiles, or a Commiſſion, it is much at one as to my preſent purpoſe: As for the Objection as afore laid down, a brief anſwer may ſuffice: Two things, I ſuppoſe, are and will be granted by the generallity of, if not univerſally by all our Oppoſers.
Firſt, That this Inſtitution or Commiſſion, call it which you will, doth not of it elf neceſſarily exclude Infants from partaking of the Ordinance of Baptiſm.
Secondly, That this inſtitution or Commiſſion doth warrant, yea, injoyn the application of Baptiſme to all thoſe our Lord Jeſus Chriſt hath in his Word declared, that it is his will they ſhould be baptized.
Now let but theſe two things be granted, and I have what I deſire, having, as I judge, ſufficiently evidenced, that Baptiſm was practiſed in primitive times by the Apoſtles themſelves, and by others, by their allowance, direrection and approbation, which whether I have done or no, I ſhall leve to the judgment of all judicious and impartial Readers, ſo that I might diſmiſs this Objection, the framers of it granting what I contend for: but yet becauſe I find this Objection ſo much inſiſted upon, and accounted, by thoſe of the ableſt parts among our Oppoſers, to be the main and principal Objection, to oppoſe that practice of Infant-baptiſm we have hitherto pleaded for, I ſhall take it a little further into conſideration, and ſee what ſtrength it hath in it: and I find three things in a ſpecial manner urged, as giving ſtrength to it.
Firſt, That that Relative foreign, them, in this Commiſſion, muſt refer to Diſciples, included in the Verb foreign, tranſlated by our Tranſlators teach, by others, Diſciple, or make Diſciples, and not to foreign, Nations.
Secondly, That Infants being incapable of teaching, cannot be, nor in any propriety of ſpeech ſaid to be, Diſciples.
Thirdly, That this inſtitution or Commiſſion is to be underſtood excluſively, as excluding all from a rightful participation in that Ordinance of Baptiſm, who are not comprehended in it; and hence the ſum of what is urged from this inſtitution or Commiſſion, againſt the practice of Infant-baptiſm, amnounts to thus much, That the Subjects, appointed by Chriſt to be baptized, being Diſciples, and Infants not being, nor rightly to be called Diſciples, and all others beſides Diſciples being excluded from Baptiſm, by Chriſts appointing of them as the proper Subjects of that Ordinance; therefore Infants neither may nor ought to be baptized: And thus, I conceive, we ſee the utmoſt ſtrength of this Objection.
For anſwer, I ſhall a little diſtinctly conſider theſe three things giving ſtrength to it.
And for the firſt, That foreign, them, muſt refer not to foreign, Nations, but to the Noun Diſciples, included in the Verb foreign, to teach as its Antecedent or Subſtantive.
This I deny, and affirm on the contrary, that it ought to be referred to Nations, and not to Diſciples, ſuppoſed to be included in that Verb, and that for two Reaſons,
Firſt, Becauſe we ought to keep to the literal and plain Grammatical conſtruction of a Text, where there is no neceſſary Reaſon to inforce a receſſion from it: Now according to the literal and plain Grammatical conſtruction of theſe words, they muſt refer to Nations, wherther we tranſlate that Verb, teach or make Diſciples, ſaith Chriſt, teach all Nations, or make all Nations Diſciples, baptizing them: Baptizing whom? Why, the Nations, who according to this Commiſſion of Chriſt are to be taught, or made Diſciples: And hee is no neceſſary reaſon why we ſhould recede from the moſt literal and plain Grammatical conſtruction of the words; what reaſon is pretended ſhall be taken notice of by and by.
Secondly, Becauſe it is doubtful, whether the Noun Diſciples, ſuppoſed to be implyed in the Verb foreign, were eyed by our Saviour in this Commiſſion; what is affirmed in this matter, is affirmed mainly, if not only upon the conceit of a Critticiſm, concerning the ſignification of that word, viz. That it muſt needs ſignifie, to teach cum effectu, or to teach till the perſons taught become Diſciples: But now whether this Critticiſm were attended to by Chriſt, or whether he uſeth the word in that ſene or no, is altogether uncertain: We ſee evidently Mark uſeth another word in ſetting down this Commiſſion, Go preach the Goſpel to every Creature, which, ſay our Oppoſers, anſevers this, Go teach all Nations; which if true, we may read the Commiſſion thus, Go preach the Goſpel to every Creature, or to all Nations, baptizing them; and then there can be no other antecedent, but the Creatures or Nations to be taught; and it is certain, the Goſpel may be preached where no ſaving effect is produced by it, in thoſe to whom it is preached; ſo that to leave the plain Grammatical and moſt literal conſtruction of the words, and to ground a conſtruction upon a ſuppoſed Critticiſm, whereas it is wholly uncertain, whether Chriſt eyed any ſuch Critticiſm or no, as uſing that word in this Commiſſion, is altogether unſafe, and therefore, I ſay, Nations, not diſciples, muſt be the antecedent to foreign, them, injoyned by this Commiſſion to be baptized: But ſome Reaſons are urged to prove a neceſſity of taking Diſciples, as included in that Verb, as the Antecedent to them.
The firſt is this, Becauſe it is ſaid that Chriſt (viz. by his Diſciples) made Diſciple and baptized, John 4.1. therefore foreign muſt be in this place underſtood of making Diſciples alſo.
But to that I anſwer, That though Chriſt and his Diſciples did by preaching make Diſciples, yet all that they preached to were not made Diſciples; they preached the Goſpel to many who were not thereby made Diſciples: hence it will not follow, that becauſe Chriſt and his Diſciples made ſome, yea many Diſciples, by preaching, therefore the Apoſtles, and other Miniſters of the Goſpel, were injoyned by this Commiſſion to teach, cum effectu, in reſpect of all they were to teach: That they were and are to endeavour to teach ſo; as that the Word may be effectual, and Hearers may be made Diſciples, is unqueſtionable; but that they ſhould be enjoyned ſo to preach, as that the uneffectualneſs of their Doctrine ſhould be their ſin, as it ſeems to be, in caſe Chriſt eyed that Critticiſm, can be no way inferred from this ſucceſs vouchſafed to their Miniſtry, whilke exerciſed among the Jews.
But ſecondly, Though the Diſciples did baptiſe the Diſciples made by their preaching, yet it is not ſaid, they baptiſed only Diſciples; that Diſciples are to be baptized, ſuppoſe their caſe be the ſame with thoſe there mentioned, is unqueſtionable; but that they only are to be baptized, is not in the leaſt intimated: So that from this expreſſion in John, it cannot with any ſhew of reaſon be concluded, that Chriſt had an eye to that aforementioned Critticiſm, in that word uſed by him in this Commiſſion; nor if he had, that yet Diſciples muſt needs be the Antecedent to them, the words may be as well read, Diſciple all Nations, or make all Nations Diſciples, baptizing them, and yet Nations, not Diſciples, be the Antecedent to them.
Secondly, Another Reaſon to enforce the ſence pleaded for by our Oppoſers, is this, becauſe that ſence ſeems beſt to agree with the words of Mark, Mark 16.15, 16. where this Commiſſion is thus expreſt, Gopreach the Goſpel to every Ceature; which, ſay our Oppoſers, anſwers this phraſe, Go teach all Nations; he that believeth, and is baptized, ſhall be ſaved, which anſwers, ſay they, baptizing them: hence they infer, that the Subjects of Baptiſm are Diſciples, and theſe Diſciples muſt be Believers.
But to that I anſwer, That there is no neceſſity of our ſo interpreting the one Evangeliſt by the other; we may, conjoyning both together conceive the whole Commiſſion, as thus given out by Chriſt; Go ye therefore, teach all Nations, baptizing them; I ſay, Go preach the Goſpel to every Creature; He that believeth, and is Baptized, ſhall be ſaved, he that believeth not ſhall be damned: And then as in theſe words recorded by Mark, Preach the Goſpel to every Creature, Chriſt explained himſelf, as to the extenſiveneſs of his meaning, in that phraſe, All Nations, uſed by Matthew: So in the latter clauſe, He that believeth, and is baptized, ſhall be ſaved; he that believeth not, ſhall be damned: Chriſt informs them what the iſſue of their diſcharge of their Commiſſion ſhould be, in regard of the Nations to be taught, or Creatures, to whom the Goſpel ſhould be preached by them, thoſe that ſhould believe, and be baptized, ſhould be ſaved, but thoſe that believed not, however they might be baptized, yet they ſhould be damned; which muſt needs, according to the unanimous conſent of our Oppoſers, be underſtood of the adult; whence it will follow, that Mark ſpeaks not at all of the Subjects of Baptiſm, but of the iſſue of the Apoſtles diſcharging their whole Commiſſion, both in reſpect of preaching and baptizing, in reſpect of thoſe towards whom they ſhould diſcharge it, in caſe they ſhould receive the Goſpel preached, or through the preaching of the Goſpel ſhould believe, and were baptized, then they ſhould be ſaved; but though they had the Goſpel never ſo faithfully preached to them, yea, though they might ſo far imbrace it, as to ſubmit to Baptiſm, yet unleſs they believe, they ſhould, notwithſtanding that, be damned.
Thirdly, It is yet further urged, that in caſe foreign, them, did refer unto foreign, Nations without any limitation, then this Commiſſion would warrant the baptiſm of any Perſon or Nation in the world, whether taught or no, which it is rightly ſaid, we our ſelves acknowledge ought not to be.
To this the anſwer is at hand, 'Tis true, it would do ſo in caſe there were no other directions in any other part of the Scriptures, for the Miniſters of the Goſpel to regulate themſelves by in the diſcharge of this Commiſſion; but this ſuppoſed evil conſequence is ſufficiently obviated in other places of Scripture, where the right Subjects of Baptiſm are ſufficiently declared, viz. grown perſons, in caſe they were not afore baptized upon their faith and repentance, and with them their Infant-ſeed; and this, I conceive, is the very deſign of Chriſt in this Commiſſion, to authorize, yea, enjoyn the preaching of the Goſpel, and adminiſtration of Baptiſm to the whole world, by perſons duly called to adminiſter Goſpel Ordinances unto men, yet ſo as to regulate themſelves, in reſpect of both the one and the other, by ſuch directions and limitations as himſelf had or ſhould give, in relation to a due adminiſtration of both Ordinances; and that the Diſciples and Miniſters of the Goſpel were and are to regulate themſelves in the diſpenſing the Goſpel unto men, as well in the adminiſtration of Baptiſm, by other Rules afore or after given by Chriſt, is ſufficiently evident throughout the new Teſtament, ſo that notwithſtaning what it urged to the contrary. I conceive, it is fully evident, that them in this Commiſſion, ſpecifying the Subjects of Baptiſm, refers to Nations, not to Diſciples, as its Antecedent.
Now having diſcovered the uncertainty, yea, falſity of this firſt Principle aſſerted, and laid as a foundation to the Objection propoſed, the Objection is ſo far enervated, as that little need be added to the other two things, from which, in conjunction with this, it receives the whole of what ſtrength it hath.
And therefore ſecondly, as to what is aſſerted in the ſecond place, viz. That Infants neither are, nor can in propriety of ſpeech be called Diſciples, it concerns not me; it is enough, as to my preſent purpoſe, that they may be comprehended under that phraſe, All Nations; I ſhall therefore only ſay, that I cannot but conceive, that will men judge impartially, ſuppoſe we ſhould grant, that them in this Commiſſion of Chriſt doth refer to Diſciples, and not to Nations, and conſequently that Diſciples are the proper Subjects of Baptiſm; yet they muſt acknowledge, that what hath been ſaid by others to prove, that Infants may and ought, according to Scripture account, be numbred among the Diſciples of Chriſt, renders this Objection wholly inſufficient to counterballance the evidence produced from other Scriptures, for the eſtabliſhment of the practice now pleaded for, which is all at preſent I contend for.
And therefore thirdly, As for that Aſſertion, That this Inſtitution or Commiſſion is to be underſtood excluſively, and conſequently, that none are to be baptized, but ſuch whoſe baptiſm is in expreſs terms warranted by it. I ſhall only ſay it is true, we ought ſo to underſtand it, in caſe we had no other Scriptures for our direction in the adminiſtration of Baptiſm, but take this Commiſſion or Inſtitution abſolutely in it ſelf, and the not including Infants in it, is not an excluding of them out of it. We ſee here Chriſt ſpeaks immediately and directly to his Diſciples, Go ye therefore, &c. none beſides them are expreſly included in it, and ſhall we ſay therefore that this Gommiſſion only concerned them? Surely no, it is a Commiſſion for all that at that time, or in after Ages, ſhould be called forth by Chriſt to miniſter in the Goſpel; ſo it will not follow, ſuppoſe Diſciples be the Antecedent to them, that therefore none elſe are to be baptized: As for what Inſtances are brought of Commands, expreſt only poſitively, & yet interpreted by all Interpreters excluſively, as 1 Cor. 11.28. and the like, the Reaſon is, becauſe no other Scriptures allow any others, but ſuch there ſpoken of, to partake of that Ordinance there ſpoken of, otherwiſe the bare commanding perſons to examine themſelves, in order to their due receiving of that Ordinance, doth not of it ſelf exclude all others from it, that do not, or cannot examine themſelves; ſo that I ſay, the Inſtitution or Commiſſion, as abſtractedly taken, doth not exclude all from the participation of this Ordinance of Baptiſm, who are not in expreſs terms comprehended in it, which is all that I contend for, and as I have ſaid, I ſuppoſe will be granted on all hands; ſo that ſhould we grant, that them is to be referred to Diſciples, included in that Verb, and that Infants are not Scripture Diſciples, neither of which, notwithſtanding all that is ſaid by our Oppoſers, is granted, our Propoſition may ſtand firm, for though Infants are not expreſly included in the Commiſſion, yet they are not excluded out of it, therefore their Baptiſm muſt ſtand or fall by the evidence of other Scriptures, and we having ſufficient evidence from other Scriptures, that it is the will of Chriſt that they ſhould be baptized, their not being expreſly mentioned in the Commiſſion, ought to be no Remora in the way of our thankful imbracement of what light he hath elſewhere given of his mind and will in this matter.
Object. 3. There is an Objection or Argument, which ſome ſeem to conceive to have a very great ſtrength in it, yea, to be unanſwerable, which is carried on gradually to this iſſue, ſay the Framers of it, Seeing there is no expreſs Command requiring the Baptiſm of Infants, the practice muſt needs be deduced only in a conſequential way from the Scriptures: Now to prove that it cannot be rightly and duly deduced from any Scripture in a conſequential way, ſo as that the omiſſion of it ſhould be a ſin in the Parents, (and their ſin it muſt be if it be a ſin at all) againſt any Law of Chriſt, it is thus argued;
If the omiſſion or neglect of the Baptiſm of Infants were a ſin chargeable upon their Parents, as being a tranſgreſſion of ſome Divine Law, then ſome one or other, at one time or other would in Scripture have been commended for the practice of it, or blamed for the neglect of it: But no one, at any time whatſoever, is in Scripture either commended for the practice of it, or blamed for the neglect of it; Therefore the omiſſion of it cannot be a ſin chargeable upon the Parents, as a breach of ſome divine Law.
Which Argument laid down catagorically muſt run thus.
Whatever practice is conſequentially deduced from Scripture, in caſe it be from Heaven, ſome one or other, at one time or other, hath been commended for the practice of it, or blamed for the neglect of it: But no one was ever commended for the practice of Infant-baptiſm, nor blamed for the neglect of it; Therefore it cannot be from Heaven, but muſt needs be of men.
And for the proof of the Major Propoſition, ſeveral Inſtances are produced of Duties conſequentially drawn, in reſpect of which we find, that ſome one or other, at ſome time or other, hath been commended for the practice of them, or blamed for the neglect of them: thus, if I miſtake not, that action of Phinehas, in ſlaying Zimri and Cosbi, recorded Numb. 25.6, 7, 8. is produced as one Inſtance, and variety of other Inſtances are reckoned up.
Anſw. In anſwer to this Objection, or Argument, I ſhall ſay in general, that were it not for the high conceit ſome have of it, and that the ſudden propoſal of it, eſpecially in the heat of diſputation, when the mind, variouſly diſtracted cannot alwayes ſuddenly recal it ſelf to a due weighing of what is propoſed, may for a little while ſeem to puzzle ſuch, who yet upon a little ſerious review of it will ſoon diſcern the extream vanity of it, I ſhould wholly paſs it by, as not thinking it worthy an anſwer, the weakneſs of it ſo evidently appearing to all conſiderate perſons; but ſeeing it is ſuppoſed to be of ſuch ſtrength, for the oppoſing the practice I have hitherto pleaded for, I have judged it meet, to take it into conſideration, and as previous to a direct Anſwer to it, I ſhall premiſe theſe two Queſtions.
Firſt, Whether it be neceſſary, for the determining whether any controverted practice be from Heaven or of Men, that this commendation or diſcommendation, of perſons practiſing or neglecting of it, ſhould be expreſly, or in plain words, declared in Scripture? or whether it be not ſufficient, that they themſelves may be conſequentially, and by way of Argument, drawn and deduced from Scripture.
Secondly, Whether it be neceſſary that this commendation or diſcommendation, pleaded to be ſo neceſſary for the end mentioned, muſt be contained in ſome Scripture diſtinct from thoſe the practice controverted is deduced from, or whether it may not be ſufficient that they are contained in ſome Scriptures, which yet may be urged to give contenance to the practice under debate? And let the Framers of this Argument anſwer to theſe Queſtions, as they conceive moſt conducing to the end deſigned in it.
Theſe two Queſtions being premiſed, let us come more directly to the Anſwer; and it may be anſwered ſeveral wayes, according to the Anſwer our Oppoſers ſhall give to the foregoing Queſtions.
Firſt, Suppoſe it ſhall be ſaid, That it is ſufficient to determine any controverted practiſe to be from Heaven, in … it can be conſequentially, or rationally deduced from any Scripture whatſoever, whether urged to give countenance to the practice controverted or no, That ſome one or other, at one time or another, hath been commended for the practice of it, or blamed for the neglect of it: Then I ſhall anſwer theſe two things.
Firſt, I deny the Minor Propoſition, and ſay, that we have Inſtances of perſons commended for the practice of Infant-baptiſm, take theſe Inſtance, of Lydia, the Gaoler, and others.
But it is replyed, It doth not appear that they had any Infants baptized, and therefore Luke's telling us, that they and their Houſholds were baptized, cannot be interpreted as a commendation to them for practiſing of Infant-baptiſme.
But to that I anſwer, Lis ſub judice eſt, we judge they had, our Oppoſers judges they had not: And who ſhall be Judge in this caſe? Surely neither we nor our Oppoſers, being both parties in the caſe controverted. And therefore,
Secondly, I ſay, That this Argument leaves the Controverſie as it found it, and is of no uſe at all for the end deſigned in it; Its deſign is to prove, that the practice of Infant-baptiſm is not from Heaven, but of men, and it leaves it as doubtful, whether it be from Heaven or of men, as it was before; for notwithſtanding ſuch commendations or diſcommendations may be produced the way allowed in this Anſwer, yet the practice will be doubtful, and the Reaſon is evident, becauſe it may be doubted, whether theſe commendations or diſcommendations are rightly and duly deduced from Scripture or no. And therefore,
Secondly, I ſuppoſe the Objections or Argumentators muſt needs ſay, That ſuch a commendation or diſcommendation, as is required, muſt be declared and expreſſed in ſome plain and expreſs Scripture, or the conſequence be drawn ſo evidently, as amounts to a plain and expreſs Scripture; but then how extreamly ridiculous the Arguments is, will ſoon appear to every ordinary capacity; and the Major may be juſtly denied, and that for a fourfold Reaſon.
Firſt, It is evidently falſe, there are ſome practiſes conſequentially drawn, owned, and practiſed by our Oppoſers, as well as by our ſelves, reſpective unto which no one Inſtance can be produced of any, either commended for the practice of them, or diſcommended for the neglect of them: That Inſtance of Womens receiving the Lords Supper is obvious, that practice is only warranted in a conſequential way; for where is any expreſs Command to warrant it? And let any ſuch Inſtance, as agrees with the ſence of the Oponent in the Major Propoſition be produced of any Women, that is in Scripture commended for the practice of it, or diſcommended for the neglect of it.
Secondly, This Argument involves the Authors of it in an abſolute contradiction, conſidering what is and muſt rationally be granted by them, for the practice the Argument makes head againſt, muſt rationally be granted to be controvertible, or a practice that rational men may differ in their judgments about, ſome conceiving it is from Heaven, others conceiving it is from Men. Now let it be carefully obſerved, that ſuppoſing there were any plain Scripture expreſly declaring, that ſome one or other had been commended for the practice of it, or blamed for the neglect of it, how could it be controvertible among wiſe and rational men? Sure the producing of ſuch a Scripture would put it out of all queſtion among theſe that will be guided by Scripture light; ſo that this Argument doth imply, either that a controvertible practice may be ſo evidently declared in Scripture, as to admit of no controverſie about it, or elſe that there is no ſuch thing as a controvertible practice in rerum natura, which is an eaſie way of deciding all Controverſies; for as for duties plainly expreſt and declared in Scripture, no wiſe man will move a controverſie about them; and as for practiſes conſequentially drawn, the way is moſt obvious, to determine whether they are from Heaven or of men; if from Heaven, ſome one at one time or other would have been in Scripture either commended for the practice of them, or blamed for the neglect of them; if no ſuch commendation or diſcommendation be extant in Scripture, than they are infallibly of men: Now ſurely it may eaſily be found out, whether there be extant any ſuch commendation or diſcommendation, reſpective to any Religious practiſes whatſoever, ſo that were this Objection or Argument worthy of any notice to be taken of it, we ſhould ſoon have an end of all our Controverſies among all ſober Chriſtians. But
Thirdly, Suppoſe no practice could be inſtanced in beſides that in controverſie that is from Heaven, but hath received its atteſtation from God, one of the ways mentioned in this Argument; and ſuppoſe the Framers of it were not involved by it, in ſuch a contradiction as afore declared, yet, I ſay, the proof is wholly inſufficient. For
Firſt, The Inſtances produced for the proof of it are wholly impertinent, as to the thing to be proved; for obſerve it, what is that which ought to be proved, in caſe the Argument make any oppoſition againſt the practice pleaded for? It is this, that all thoſe practices that are deduced from Scripture only in a conſequential way, and on that account are controverted among rational men, ought to have a Teſtimonial from God, of their being from him, in caſe they are ſo, by his either ſomewhere in Scripture commending ſome one or other for the practice of them, or blaming ſome one or other for the neglect of them; if this be not proved, the practice of Infant-baptiſm, though deduced only in a conſequential way, may be from Heaven, notwithſtanding none have ever either been commended for the practice of it, or blamed for the neglect of it.
Now mark, what do theſe Inſtances produced prove only this, that ſome practiſes may be lawful, which yet are deduced only conſequentially from Scripture, in as much as ſome have been commended for practiſing upon that ground, others have been blamed for the neglect of practiſing Duties ſo deduceable, Et quid hoc ad rhombum, what is that to the purpoſe? the Inſtances, if pertinent to the purpoſe for which they are brought, ſhould be of practices produced, as afore expreſt, which Antecedent to a lawful practiſe of them, have received ſome ſuch teſtimonial from God, of his approbation of them by the wayes mentioned.
Secondly, Suppoſe we ſhould grant (which yet we by no means can do) that theſe Inſtances were pertinent, yet who can ſay the enumeration is full and compleat, yea, it is evident it is vaſtly deficient, for notwithſtanding we find ſuch and ſuch practiſes owned to be from God, by the commendation he hath given to ſome one or other for the practiſing of them, or by the blame he hath laid upon others for the neglect of them: Yet who can ſay, but that ſome duties and practices might have been duly deduced in a conſequential way, from ſome diſcovery that God had afore made of his will, in reſpect of which there is no one Inſtance throughout the whole Scripture, of any one practiſing of them, nor mention made of any ones neglect of them? Shall we think, that no more duties were deducable from the ſeveral Laws, whether Moral or Ceremonial, or Judicial, then ſome have been commended for the practice of, or others have been blamed for the neglect of? It would be moſt irrational to ſuppoſe it. For any to infer, that becauſe ſuch and ſuch have been commended for the practice of ſuch duties, which they have conſequentially drawn from ſome antecedent diſcoveries of the will of God, or others have been blamed for the neglect of others that might have been conſequentially drawn, therefore whatever practice is duly inferred, by conſequence would have its atteſtation from God one of thoſe wayes, in caſe it were indeed from him, is as unreaſonable an Inference, as well can be drawn by any man that hath the uſe of his own Reaſon.
Fourthly, I anſwer, That the Inſtances mentioned for the proof of the Major Propoſition, are ſo far from proving that, the confirmation of which is deſigned by them, that they do indeed prove the quite contrary: The thing to be proved is this, That all ſuch practiſes as are deduced conſequentially from Scripture, in caſe they be from Heaven, as the pleaders for them pretend them to be, would be declared ſo to be by ſome commendation recorded in Scripture, that God at one time or other had given to ſome one or other for practiſing of them, or by ſome reproof, that he at one time or other had given for the neglect of them.
Now for the proof of this, ſeveral Inſtances are brought of practiſes deduceable only in a conſequential way, in regard of which, we read how God hath commended ſome for the practice of them, and blamed others for the neglect of them.
Now let theſe Inſtances be well weighed, and we ſhall ſee they prove the quite contrary to that, the confirmation whereof they are deſigned unto, namely, That a practice that is only conſequentially drawn from Scripture, may be lawful, yea, a duty, though none have antecedently been ever commended by God for the practice of it, or blamed for the neglect of it. Take that action of Phinehas in ſlaying Zimri and Cosbi, and ſuppoſe Phinehas to have deduced his duty in that particular only by way of conſequence, from ſome antecedent diſcovery of the will of God: Now it is evident, that Phinehas doth perform that duty, and was accepted of God in it, as only ſo conſequentially deduced, without any approbation of it from God, either of the wayes before mentioned, was there any one at any time, either commended for killing Zimri and Cosbi, or for killing any others upon the like occaſion, and yet we ſee Phinehas only deducing his duty in a conſequential way, is faithful in it, and is accepted and rewarded of God; and the like will be found true of all other Inſtances of the like nature, produced for the ſame end and purpoſe: And thus ſuppoſe the practice of Infant-baptiſm were only deduced in a conſequential way, and no one were ever commended for the practiſe of it, nor any ever blamed for the neglect of it, yet it may be ſafely practiſed, and none need, upon the account of the want of ſuch Inſtances as is required, queſtion their acceptation with God; we have the Inſtance of Phinehas, and other of a like nature, for our warrant and incouragement, becauſe Saints have formerly been accepted, and highly rewarded for the doing of that their duty, which they could only infer in a conſequential way, and if we, following of them, do indeed rightly infer our duty, and faithfully practiſe it, we ſhall be alike accepted of God, and not miſs of our reward. From all that hath been ſaid, we may ſee the unreaſonableneſs of this Argument, and were it not for the Reaſons aforementioned, I ſhould have judged it rather worthy of contempt than a ſerious anſwer.
Theſe Objections being anſwered, I conceive, I may with ſafety and ſecurity to the Truth pleaded for, come to a cloſe only whereas it is by Antipoedobaptiſts uſually q…ed, What can we rationally ſuppoſe can be the end of our Lord Jeſus Chriſt, in appointing the application of Baptiſm to Infants while in their infancy? Or what good can accrew unto them by it, ſeeing it is certain they underſtand not what is done unto them, neither are they capable of making any preſent improvement of it?
I judge it neceſſary to offer ſomething for their ſatisfaction, wherein yet I ſhall, on the account elſewhere mentioned, be very brief, and all that I ſhall ſay at preſent is this, That take Baptiſm, as the Sign, Token, or Seal of the Covenant, as it ought to be taken, and anſwerably applyed upon that ground, viz. their intereſt in the Convenant and Promiſes thereof, and as ſerving to, and performing thoſe various uſes and ends, with reference to which a Sign or Token in the general is annexed to the Covenant: And ſo I ſay, that as there were mighty ends of our Lord Jeſus, his appointing the application of it to the Infant-ſeed of believing Parents, ſo exceeding much good doth and, were it rightly and duly improved by them, as they grew up to a capacity inabling them thereunto, vaſtly more would accrew unto them thereby.
I ſhall give this one Inſtance, and that is Its uſeful ſubſervency to their preſervation in that Covenant-ſtate, into which they, as the Seed of ſuch Parents, were afore admitted, and conſequently to the injoyment of all the good benefits and bleſſings of the Covenant, and the uſeful ſubſervency Baptiſm hath to this great end lyes in this, that thereby the Seed of Believers are anticipated in their choice of what God they will ſerve, and what way they will walk in.
For the clearing up of this let it be obſerved, that youth is ordinarily mans chuſing time, hence whereas we read in Eccleſ. 12.1. Remember thy Creator in the dayes of thy youth. Arius Montanus in his Interlineal reads, In diebus electionum iuarum, in the dayes of thy chuſing; the word comes from a Root, which properly ſignifies, elegit, ſelegit, hence the Subſtantive, by a Metaphor, is uſed to ſignifie a Youth or a young Man, either becauſe of the fitneſs of youth for ſervice, upon which account ſuch are uſually choſen out for ſpecial ſervice, whence is that frequent phraſe in Scripture, of choſen men, ſpeaking of Soulders, or men appointed for war, or elſe becauſe youth is the ſpecial time of mans choice; Man ſo ſoon as capable of reflecting upon himſelf, and perceiving his own indigency, as to that happineſs his natural make and conſtitution yenders him capable of its forc'd to look out and caſt about him, for the gaining from without ſuch a ſupply as may compenſate that indigency he finds himſelf to lye under, and no ſooner doth man begin to look abroad into the world, but as variety of objects, ſo variety of wayes and courſes of life court to his mind and thoughts, from whence he may conceive a hope of furniſhing himſelf with thoſe ſupplies; and as in the general, a Deity, with the wayes and means of his worſhip and ſervice, and the world, with the various wayes and means of gaining and injoying that, become Competitors in his choice: So ſeeing to all Nations, nor to all people in each Nation, there is not one and the ſame God nor one and the ſame way of worſhipping & ſerving him, & ſeeing there are variety of particular Objects in the world, & various ways and means of gaining and injoying this or that particular Object, hence he hath variety of choice, when in the general he is come to a reſolution with himſelf, whether it ſhall be by the worſhip and ſervice of a Deity, or by the gaining and injoying the world, he will attempt his own happineſs, and according as the mind is ſwayed towards, at leaſt ſo as to fix upon this or that object, or this or that way or courſe, ſuch uſually at leaſt frequently, is the man throughout his whole life and converſation, take it of the things of the world in general, as coming in competition with a Deity, with the way and means of his worſhip and ſervice, if the mind be ſwayed towards the world, ſo as to fix upon that, the man uſually lives an irreligious life, and proſecutes the world and the things of that throughout his whole life; but now if it pleaſe the Lord to open the eyes, and ſhew the Soul himſelf, and effectually draw and incline the mind to himſelf and his wayes with the benefit and advantages of chuſing, ſerving and worſhipping him, it is unto God and his wayes of worſhip and ſervice that the man applyes himſelf, as the only way to attain unto happines. So take it of any particular object in the world, or any particular way or courſe of life, accordding as the mind fixes at the firſt, ſo is the man throughout his whole life and converſation. Now, I ſay, 'tis in youth at leaſt uſually, that the mind of man pitches upon this or that object, this or that way or courſe, afterwards proſecuted, or after taken and walked in throughout the following part of his life; hence it is ſound, at leaſt very frequently, as for thoſe who injoy the means of Grace in their youth, if they are not then wrought upon to cloſe in with God in Chriſt his wayes and worſhip, as the only way to attain unto happineſs, they are ſeldom ever wrought upon.
Now here is an eminent expreſſion of the goodneſs of God to his people, that as he hath extended his Covenant to their Seed, ſo he hath ordained the application of the Sign and Token of the Covenant unto their Seed as well as to themſelves, that he might thereby anticipate their choice, that when they come to look abroad into the world, they may find themſelves afore well provided for in their intereſt in God, and find themſelves preobliged to take God in Chriſt as their God and portion, and to walk in his wayes, they find themſelves not leſt at liberty to chuſe what God they pleaſe, or walk how or in what way themſelves pleaſe, but they find themſelves afore dedicated and given up to God in Chriſt, as his people, and obliged and ingaged by Baptiſm to cleave unto him, and to walk in his wayes, and ſuppoſing them by thoſe upon whom that concern is incumbent, inſtructed in this Obligation they are prevented by, and what is the danger of breaking of it, their baptiſm hath a moſt uſeful ſubſerviency to the preſervation of their Covenant-ſtate, and conſequently their injoyment of all the good, bleſſings and benefits of the Covenant. And let me add thus much more, That Baptiſm having a bleſſing annexed to the adminiſtration of it, is one of thoſe means, ſuppoſing the party baptized come to make a due improvement of it, that God doth make uſe of effectually to incline the heart of the Seed of Believers, to a right and willing complyance with that Obligation put upon them by it; and by this little hint we may eaſily perceive, that God had weighty ends in injoyning the application of Baptiſm, the preſent Token of the Covenant, as well as Circumciſion of old, the then Token of the Covenant to the Infant ſeed of his People; and that the application of it is of admirable uſe and benefit unto them, when duly improved by them; and certainly then it muſt needs be not only highly injurious to the Seed of believing Parents, to withhold the Token of the Covenant from them, they being thereby deprived of a ſpecial means, ſubſervient to their preſervation, in their Covenant-ſtate and injoyment of all the good of the Covenant, but exceeding prejudicial to the intereſt of Chriſt in the world, the Tabernacle of David as we have before proved, is raiſed up, and upheld among the Gentiles, by Gods taking Families into Covenant with himſelf: Now to neglect a ſpecial means that God hath appointed, ſubſervient to the preſervation of theſe Families in their Covenant-ſtate, muſt needs directly tend to the ruine and overthrow of the intereſt and Kingdom of Chriſt in the world: But not to inlarge upon this at preſent.
From this little that hath been ſaid we may eaſily perceive, that the application of Baptiſm to the Infant ſeed of Believers, is no ſuch vain or uſeleſs thing, as it is by two many ſuppoſed.
I have only a few more words to add, as a Coronis to the whole foregoing Diſcourſe, and I have done.
That it is the will of our Lord Chriſt, that the Infant-ſeed of one or both believing Parents ſhould be baptized, is to me, upon the grounds afore laid down, unqueſtionable; how far it will be ſo to others I cannot ſay; only this I know, that whatever light is held forth by man, for the diſcovery of the mind and will of Chriſt, relating to any practice yet unleſs he, who is the great Prophet of his Church, ſhall vouchſafe to open the eyes of the mind, and prevail upon the heart to imbrace and ſubmit unto that light held forth, the holding of it forth will be wholly inſignificant, as to any benefit accrewing therefrom unto men. Man may, according to what aſſiſtance is vouchſafed from Chriſt, hold forth light diſcovering the way he would have his People walk in, but 'tis wholly in his own power, whoſe Prerogative it is to lead into all Truth, to inlighten the mind, and cauſe that Soul to walk in that way: Leaving therefore the whole of what hath been ſaid in his hand, and to his bleſſing, I ſhall wind up all with a threefold advice, according to the various, ſentiments of men about, and their various concerments in the practice I have contended for.
Firſt, As for ſuch who have been, and notwithſtanding what is here offered, or hath been by others, ſhall ſtill remain to be ſo far diſſatisfied about the practice we plead for, as wholly to omit it, and walk in that way that lyes in a direct oppoſition thereunto, let me adviſe, and in the Spirit of meekneſs earneſtly beſeech them to carry it, under their preſent perſwaſions, and practiſe with a holy fear and trembling. The grounds held forth in the foregoing Treatiſe, and by ſeveral others, pleading for the ſame Truth, ſeem ſo full and clear, yea, to me ſo convincing,, that I can hardly fear being accounted over confident; though I take it for granted, that the moſt confident and reſolved of our Oppoſers muſt needs acknowledge, that our doctrine and practice of Infant baptiſm ſtands upon the ſame level of probability, if the advantage be not on our ſide, that the oppoſite Doctrine and practiſe doth, and that upon ſuppoſition of our Doctrine and practice being found agreeable to the mind and will of Chriſt, the oppoſite Doctrine and practice muſt needs be highly prejudicial to the comfort of believing Parents, the good of their Seed, and which is moſt of all, eo the ſupportation and propagation of the intereſt and Kingdom of Chriſt in the world. And let me add, that when the conſequences of refuſing or claiming a priviledge are of an even ſize, the refuſing ſuch a priviledge, ſuppoſe it be indeed granted, and ought to be accepted of, is a greater ſin, and more diſpleaſing unto God, than the claiming and appropriating of it, ſuppoſing it be not granted, nor that claim really warranted by Scripture is, as is evident to every conſiderate perſon: we ſee how much God was offended at Ahaz his refuſing a Sign when offered to him; how much God was diſpleaſed with Moſes for neglecting to circumciſe his Child: therefore, I ſay, walk with a holy fear and trembling, leſt as ſome will meet with a Who required this at your hand? ſo you ſhall meet with a How durſt thou refuſe this priviledge at my hand?
Secondly, As for ſuch whoſe judgment and practice agree with, and anſwerably are confirmed by the foregoing Diſcourſe, eſpecially ſuch to whom God hath vouchſafed that bleſſing of Children, let me adviſe, and importunately intreat them, yea, in the Name of our Lord Chriſt command them, that they ſatisfie not themſelves in the bare diſcharge of their duty, in regard of the application of Baptiſm to their Seed in their infancy; know that your work is not done when you have brought yours within the verge or under the bond of the Covenant; you will find in the foregoing Papers, that your Seeds inheriting the good which, in common with you, they are Heirs unto, depends much upon your faithful and wife diſcharge of your duty towards them, as growing up to years of maturity: Abraham muſt command his Houſhold that they keep the way of the Lord, and that to this end, that God might bring upon him the good promiſed, with reference to his, There is hardly any thing a greater diſcouragement to Miniſters, in pleading for an adminiſtring Infant-baptiſm, than the great neglect of Parents towards their Children, when baptized and grown up to a capacity of underſtanding and improving their Baptiſm, afore adminiſtred to them; therefore ſeeing you lay claim to Abraham's bleſſing, as his Children, walk in Abraham's ſteps, both in reſpect of your own perſonal faith and holineſs, and alſo in inſtructing and commanding your Children, that they may keep the way of the Lord: In particular, let them know their priviledge, and the danger of forfeiting of it, by breaking that Obligation put upon them by Baptiſm.
thirdly and laſtly, As for ſuch who are the Seed of believing Parents, and who by Baptiſm have been dedicated and given up unto God in Chriſt, and incorporated into his my ſtical Body, as viſible: Let me adviſe, perſwade and charge them, that they lay no more weight upon their Baptiſm, in relation to their eternal happineſs, than the nature of the Ordinance, and the end of Chriſt in appointing the application of it, will warrant. Baptiſm, abſtractly taken, infallibly ſecures Salvation to none; neither can Baptiſm of it ſelf be laid as a ſure ground to bottom a plea for Salvation upon; He that beliveth, and is baptized, ſhall be ſaved; but he that believeth not, however baptized, ſhall be damned, is one of thoſe unalterable Decrees laid up in the Records of Heaven: In reſpect of which we may ſay, as Job in another caſe of God, He is of one mind, and who ſhall, that is, none ſhall, turn him, Job 23.13. Your abiding in and injoyning the benefits of the Covenant, into which … as the Seed of ſuch Parents, you were admitted in you infancy, undiſpenſably requires your perſonal faith and obedience; therefore be faithful in the diſcharge of your duty, and in ſo doing you may, upon ſure grounds, apply and improve your Baptiſm, as Gods Seal, infallibly ſecuring your injoyment of the good promiſed.
FINIS.
End of the text · Joseph Whiston, Infant Baptism from Heaven and Not of Men (1670)