Infant Baptism Asserted and Vindicated, Part · Chapter 2
CHAP. II. Containing his ſecond Argument to prove the Baptiſme of Believers the only true Baptiſm, and that is (if we will believe him) from the Apoſtles Doctrine teaching the ſame.
Reply.
ALthough what we have before ſaid to invalidate his main Argument drawn from the Inſtitution of Chriſt, be ſufficient to overthrow whatſoever is brought in the two following Chapters; yet we ſhall further add, that it is not to be denyed, that the Apoſtles aſſert Believers Baptiſme to be a true Baptiſm, but that they teach us that it is the only true Baptiſme is utterly falſe, and we have only the Authors word for it. The Texts cited out of Act. 2.37. Act. 8.36, 37. Act. 10.42. Act. 16.29. prove, that grown perſons unbaptized ought to be required to believe before their Baptiſm, which we grant; but to inferr thence, that the Children of Baptized Believers are not to be Baptized, is more then theſe Texts (or any elſe that I know) can yeild. We read of none de facto that the Apoſtles Baptized,A non dicto ad non factum, non valet conſequentia: Becauſe it is not expreſt in ſo many words therefore it was not done, is not Logical. but Believers; therefore none but ſuch, de jure ought to be Baptized, is a ſorry way of arguing. The words of Dr. Taylor in his Diſcourſe of Baptiſme, part 2. pag. 34. are very weighty, viz. A Negative argument for matters of fact in Scripture, cannot conclude, &c. And therefore ſuppoſing that it be not intimated that the Apoſtles did Baptize Infants, it follows not (ſaith the Dr.) that they did not: and if they did not, it does not follow that they might not, or that the Church may not. The Scripture ſpeaks nothing of the Baptiſme of the Virgin Mary, and of many of the Apoſtles; therefore they were not baptized, is a weak arguing. The words and deeds of Chriſt are infinite which are not recorded, Joh. 20.30. and 21.25. Many things Chriſt did, that were not written; and of the Acts of the Apoſtles we may ſuppoſe the ſame in their proportion; and therefore what they did not, is no rule to us, unleſs they did it not, becauſe they were forbideen: So that it can be no good Argument to ſay, The Apoſtles are not read to have Baptized Infants, therefore Infants are not to be baptized; but thus, We do not find they are excluded from this Sacrament and Ceremony of Chriſtian Inſtitution; therefore we may not preſume to exclude them.
Now ſince all contradiction againſt Infant-Baptiſm, depends wholly upon theſe two grounds; The Negative Argument in matter of fact, and the pretences, that faith and repentance are required to Baptiſme; ſince the firſt is wholly nothing and infirm, upon an infinite account; and the ſecond may conclude that Infants can no more be ſaved then be baptized, becauſe faith is more neceſſary to Salvation then to Baptiſme; it being ſaid, he that believeth not ſhall be damned; and it is not ſaid, he that believeth not ſhall be excluded from Baptiſm; it follows, that the Doctrine of thoſe that refuſe to Baptize their Infants is upon both its legs weak and broken, and inſufficient. Thus far the Learned Doctor. To conclude this, whereas the Apoſtles Preached up faith and Repentance before Baptiſm, it was requiſite they ſhould do ſo, according to their Commiſſion, having to do with Aliens grown up, (as not only the Gentiles, but the Jews were; in reference to the new Adminiſtration;) for theſe being the firſt ſubjects of Baptiſme, it was neceſſary they ſhould make profeſſion of their faith before they were admitted to it, but not ſo in their Children to be Baptized, no more then in Iſaac and the Children of the Proſelytes to be Circumciſed. Abraham believed firſt, and afterward was Circumciſed; Gen. 17.24. And why ſo? Becauſe he was the firſt ſubject of that Ordinance, and therefore could not be admitted to it, but by his own faith. But as for Iſaac his Son, he was Circumciſed before believing, and ſo was it with the Proſelytes and their Children; when any Gentile was converted to the Jewiſh Faith, he had a perſonal Right to be circumciſed, and his Child likewiſe was Circumciſed at eight days old, as was the cuſtome of the Jewiſh Church, by virtue of Gods Covenant, giving it a parental Right.
The Author is very unhappy at Citations, for uſually they ſerve not his purpoſe. He acquaints us out of Bede, that men were inſtructed into the knowledge of the Truth, then to be Baptized as Chriſt hath taught, becauſe without Faith it is impoſſible to pleaſe God. Magdeburg. Cent. 8. pag. 220. But this, Bede himſelf tells us was the method uſed amongſt the Inhabitants of this Iſland, when Paganiſh — In initio naſcentis Eccleſiae apud Britannos, Beda lib. 2. Angl. Hiſt. cap. 14. When a Church firſt of all began to be planted amongſt the Britains; and he tells us it was at that time when Gregory ſent from Rome, Auſtin, and forty other Preachers, and afterward Paulinus, who converted Ethelbert the Saxon King; but of this we ſhall ſpeak more hereafter, when we ſhall ſhew how Bede himſelf was for Infant-Baptiſme, notwithſtanding the Author ſo perverts his words.
His other Citation is Eraſmus, who in his Paraphraſe upon Mat. Obſerveth (and tis a great Obſervation indeed,) That the Apoſtles were commanded firſt to teach, and then to baptize, &c.
Every Child that can read obſerves the ſame;Probabile eſt tingere Infantes inſtitutum fuiſſe ab Apoſtolis, &c. but if you would know his judgment about Infant-Baptiſm, you may read it in his Ratio concionandi, lib. 4. where he conceives it probable, that the Apoſtles ordain'd and practiſed it.
And truly amongſt other probable reaſons this ſeems to be one, if it be not a Demonſtration; namely, becauſe we do not read of any children of believing Parents who were Baptized when they came to years of diſcretion. That they were Baptized I preſume (ſaith Brinſley) our Adverſaries will not deny; and if ſo,Note, No Children of Believing Parents Baptized afterwards to be found from John the Baptiſt to John the Evangeliſt ending his Miniſtry, which was about 60. years. An Argument ſufficient, if not to convince the Adverſary that they were Baptized in Infancy, yet to ſtop their mouths: Brinſley Doctrine and Practice of Paedobaptiſme, pag. 75. let them ſhew where, and when. For this let all the Sacred Regiſter be ſearched, from the time that John the Baptiſt began his Miniſtry, to the time that John the Evangeliſt ended his, (which was about 60 years, during which time thouſands of Children of Believing Parents were grown up to maturity;) and if in all that time they can but ſhew any one inſtance of any child born of a believing Parent, whoſe Baptiſm was deferred till he came to years of diſcretion, and that then he was Baptized, we will then acknowledge there is ſome ſtrength in their Negative Allegation, viz. We read of no children Baptized, therefore There were none.