Infant Baptism Asserted and Vindicated, Part 2 · Chapter 1
CHAP. I.
Containing his firſt Argument againſt Infant-Baptiſm, becauſe there is no Scripture for it; which is in form as followeth.
If (ſaith he) Infant-Baptiſm had been any Appointment or Ordinance of Jeſus Chriſt, there would have been ſome Precept, Command or Example in Scripture to warrant the ſame; but inaſmuch as the Scripture is ſo wholly ſilent, there being not one ſyllable to be found in all the New-Teſtament about any ſuch Practice, it may well be concluded to be no Ordinance of Jeſus Chriſt.
THe Argument conſiſting of two Branches, muſt accordingly be anſwered in Parts. Firſt then, to that which hath ever been objected by them, there is no Precept or Command; We anſwer:
1. A thing may be ſaid to be commanded in Scripture two wayes.
Firſt, Expreſly, or Liter thy and Syllabically, that is, totidem verbis, in to many plain term, or words. Thus we acknowledg Infant-Baptiſm is not commanded; it is nowhere ſaid, Go, baptize Infants: if it had, there would have been no controverſie.
Secondly, A thing may be commanded in Scripture Implicitly, and by good conſequence; and what is thus commanded, is as valid and obliging, as if it were in ſo many letters and ſyllables; and thus we affirm Infant-Baptiſm is commanded. There are in Scripture clear Grounds and Principles. from whence by juſt and warrantable Conſequences it may be deducted, that the Children of Believers have right to Baptiſm; for, if they belong to the Covenant, and are Holy, if they are Members of the viſible Church, &c. then they ought to be baptized. So then the Argument againſt our Practice drawn from a want of expreſs Precept, is built upon a falſe Hypotheſis; That no direct Conſequences from Scripture are mandatory and obliging, contrary to the Judgment of all Orthodox Divines, and the Method of Chriſt and his Apoſtles in their Arguings. Chriſt proved the Reſurrection of the Body againſt the Sadducees not by any expreſs Text, but by Conſequence, Mat. 22.31, 32. So Paul proved the Reſurrection of Chriſt by Conſequence, Act. 13.33, 34.
2. There needed no expreſs Command in the New-Teſtament that Infants ſhould be ſigned and ſealed by Baptiſm, when the Covenant is not aboliſhed that took in the Seed with the Parent: as there needs no expreſs Command for the Lord's-Day, or Firſt-Day Sabbath in the New-Teſtament, becauſe the fourth Commandment for ſubſtance is ſtill in force: So there needs no new Command for Baptizing the Infant-ſeed of Believers, becauſe the Command for ſealing ſuch, is for ſubſtance ſtill in force. It is alſo well noted by Mr. Gerce, that there is a great difference between an Ordinance it ſelf, and ſome particular Circumſtance, or Subject to which that Ordinance is to be applied. As for the Ordinance it ſelf the ſetting up of Baptiſm as a Sacrament of the Goſpel-Covenant renewed by Chriſt, this requires expreſs warrant in the Word of God; but when we have ſuch warrant for the Ordinance it ſelf, to whomſoever we find by grounds and principles in Scripture that it doth of right belong, there we may apply it, though we want expreſs Command for it, if we have none againſt it.
3. We farther add what is well argued by ſome Divines: That if the Children of Believers have a right to be Baptized by the word of Promiſe,Mr. Stephens, and Mr. Sydenham. then they have a right to be Baptized by the word of Command; but the Children of Believers, have a right to be Baptized by the word of Promiſe: therefore they have a right to be Baptized by the word of Command. Now that Children have a right to be Baptized by the word of Promiſe, appears from Act. 2.39. For the Promiſe is made to you and to your Children, &c. The exceptions which the Antipaedobaptiſts make againſt this Text ſhall be removed in its proper place.
Now for the other Branch, there is no Example of Infants being baptized; therefore it is no Ordinance of Chriſt.
The Conſequence ſtands upon a lame Leg: for, as is before ſhewn, a negative Argument in matters of Fact is not valid. For Christ did many things that were not recorded, and ſo did the Apoſtles, whereof this was one for ought we know, the Baptizing Infants: and it is the more probable upon a twofold account; Firſt, becauſe we find ſuch frequent mention of their Baptizing whole Families, as Stephanus and his houſhold, Lydia and her houſhold, and divers others, as ſoon as we read of the head of the Family to believe, the whole houſhold was baptized. As when Abraham believed, he and his whole Family were circumciſed; and ſo when the Head of a Family became a Proſelyte, ordinarily He and His were Circumciſed. Now in ſo many Families. as were baptized, it cannot rationally be ſuppoſed that there were no Children, and if there were any, they were baptized; for they are a part of the Family or Houſhold. And ſecondly, Becauſe we never read in Scripture of any Children of Believing Parents who were Baptized afterwards. Our Oppoſits will not believe the Apoſtles baptized Children, becauſe we can give no particular inſtances of it; but this Negative Argument may be thus retorted againſt themſelves. The Children of Believing Parents were baptized in their Infancy, for they cannot find in Scripture, any of them that were baptized when they came to years of diſcretion, and not before. I urge not this as a concluding, though probable Argument, that in the Apoſtle's days Children were Baptized; however I am certain, that to ſay Infant-Baptiſm is no Ordinance of Chriſt, becauſe we have no examples in the Scripture of any that were Baptized, is a pittiful Argument.
Next, ſaith he, That there is neither Precept nor Example for any ſuch thing, as Infant-Baptiſm in the Scripture, we have the ingenuous Confeſſion of the parties themſelves. The Magdeburgenſes do ſay, That concerning the Baptiſing the Adult both Jews and Gentiles, we have ſufficient proof; but as to the Baptizing of Infants, they can meet with no Example in the Scriptures.
Very good Sr. now you have learnt to ſet down things right, but why did you ſay in the 56 page of your Treatiſe referring to the ſame place Cent. 1. L. 2. pag. 496. That the Magdeburgenſes as to the Subjects of Baptiſm tell us, that in this Age they only Baptized the Adult; was that lapſus calami or mentis? And do you not know that in the ſame place they tell us, notwithſtanding particular inſtances cannot be found, (as all the Paedobaptiſts confeſs); yet 'tis evident from the Writings of the Apoſtles, that they did not exclude Infants from Baptiſm, and then bring Arguments for the lawfulneſs of it, as before?
For that of Luther in his Epiſtle of Anabaptiſm, I have not the Book by me to Examine it, yet I am ſure by what the Author cites it hurts us not. The Scriptures (ſaith he) do no where clearly and plainly with theſe, or the like words ſay, Baptize your Children for they believe: and we muſt needs yield to thoſe that drive us to the Letter.
This is ſtill no more than what we all ſay: we all acknowledg it is no-where written, Children do believe (as Lutherans hold they do); and again we ſay as Luther did, it is no-where written clearly and plainly, with theſe words, Baptize your Children for they Believe. Nor have Antipaedobaptiſts any command in ſo many words, Go and Baptize actual and viſible Believers. If they ſay ſuch were Baptized, we may reply with Mr. Sydenbam, that is not to the purpoſe: for it is a verbal command, which they require to give warrant to an Ordinance, and for ought we can learn from Chriſt's Commiſſion, Matt. 28.19. Whoſoever are taught (be the parties never ſo wicked) they muſt be Baptized (if they will) for there is no mention made of their entertainment of the Goſpel.
Next he Fathers that upon Eraſmus, which was never ſpoken by him in his Comment upon Rom. 6. Namely, That Baptizing of infants was not in uſe in St. Paul's time. There is no ſuch word, I aſſure thee, Reader, there.
Again, in his 4th Book de Ratione Concionandi, he ſaith, That they are not to be condemned that doubt whether Childrens Baptiſm were Ordained by the Apoſtles.
But why, Sir, did you not ſpeak out all? You know Eraſmus his words are theſe: Probabile eſt tingere Infantes inſtitutum fuiſſe ab Apoſtolis, non damnaretur tamen qui de hoc dubitaret. It is probable the Baptiſm of Infants was inſtituted by the Apoſtles, nevertheleſs if one doubt thereof he ſhould not be condemned. In this Eraſmus ſpeaks like an honeſt, moderat-Spirited man, that would not have weak Chriſtians Anathematized (as the Papiſts uſe to do) for their diſſent in Circumſtantial and Diſputable points.
Calvin in his 4th Book of Inſtitutes, Chap. 16. confeſſeth, that it is no-where expreſly mentioned by the Evangeliſts, that any one Child was by the Apoſtles Baptized: to the ſame purpoſe are Staphilus, Melancthon, Zwinglius quoted; to which I only ſay, That whereas they all tell us, there is no expreſs Command or expreſs Example, an Implicite one is ſufficient; ſo that in this long train of Authors which our Antagoniſt quotes, he doth but magno conatu nugas agere, take a great deal of pains in trifling. But that which he cites from Mr. Daniel Rogers ſeems to have more weight, who in his Treatiſe about Baptiſm, Part 29. Confeſſeth himſelf to be unconvinced by demonſtration of Scripture for it. This is taken from Mr. Tombe's Examen, Tombes Examen p. 2.pag. 2. To which I anſwer, one man may be fully convinced by Scripture-demonſtration, when another is not: but 'tis fit the Reader ſhould know all that Mr. Rogers ſaith there upon the point; for it is unhandſome to bring in ſcraps out of Authors. He tells us, he no leſs doubts of the warrantableneſs of Infant-Baptiſm, than he doth of the Creed, ſaying that ſundry learned men have undertaken to ſtop their Schiſmatical mouths that oppoſe it, and to anſwer their peeviſh Arguments; and though he ſaith his ſcope tends another way, yet gives his reaſons for it.
1. Becauſe Circumciſion was applyed to the Infants on the 8th day in the Old-Teſtament,
2. There is no word in the New-Teſtament to infringe the liberty of the Church in it: nor ſpecial reaſon why we ſhould bereave her of it.
3. Sundry Scriptures afford friendly proofs by Conſequence.
4. The holineſs of the Child (External and Viſible) is from their Parents, therefore the ſeed being holy, and belonging to the Govenant, the Lord graciouſly admits them to the Seal of it by Baptiſm.
Farther he brings a paſſage out of Mr. Baxters plain Scripture-proof for Infants Church-memberſhip and Baptiſm, Where he confeſſeth, pag. 3. That Infant-Baptiſm is not plainly determined in Scripture.
Hear what he ſaith Reader, and then judge what he gains from Mr. Baxter: all that he ſaith is as follows viz. The Scripture ſpeaks fully of thoſe particular controverſies that were on foot in thoſe times, but more ſparingly of thoſe, not then queſtioned, and then names divers queſtions, which the Scripture fully and plainly determines.
But (ſaith he) many others as difficult, which then were no Controverſies, have no ſuch determination: and yet [mark it] the Scripture is ſufficient to direct for the determination of theſe too; if we have wiſdom to diſcern the Scope of the Spirit, to apply general rules to particular caſes: Such is the Caſe of Infant-Baptiſm, Afterward in the 9th page we have this, The grounds (ſaith he) upon which Infants are Baptized are very eaſy, and plain, though to many it be difficult to diſcern how it is from thoſe grounds inferred: and therefore though ſome few learned, and Godly and humble Men, do doubt of it, yet in the whole known Chriſtian part of the World there is but few.
After this we have ſomething brought out of Dr. Taylor's Lib. of Proph p. 239. concerning Previous diſpoſitions that are requiſite to Baptiſm, of which Infants are not capable. But to prevent tranſcribing I refer the Reader to his latter Piece of the Conſideration of the Practice of the Church in Baptizing Infants; where he himſelf confutes what he had ſaid in his Liberty of Proph. you have it pag. 25, 26.
Here alſo we have a parcel of Authors introduced, who do all, are rolundo, expreſs fully their judgments: That nothing muſt be done in Gods Worſhip without Scripture-Warrant. Mr. Ball is one of them whoſe ſaying our Antagoniſt fetcheth out of Mr. Tombes. Exerc. pag. 9.M. Tombes Exercit. pag. 9. ſo it is alſo in his Exam. p. 2.Tombes Examen p. 2. joyned to that of Mr. Rogers before-mentioned. Mr. Balls words are, We muſt look to the Inſtitution, and neither ſtretch it wider, nor draw it narrower than the Lord hath made it: For he is the Inſtitutor of the Sacraments according to his own good pleaſure; and it is our part to learn of him, both to whom, how, and for what end, the Sacraments are to be adminiſtred &c. But why doth he not ſet down all that Mr. Ball hath in that place— Circumciſion, and Baptiſm (ſaith he) are both Sacraments of Divine Inſtitution, and ſo they agree in the ſubſtance of the thign ſignified, the perſons to whom they are to be adminiſtred, and the order of Adminiſtration, if the right proportion be obſerved: as Circumciſion ſealed the entrance into Covenant, the Righteouſneſs of Faith and Circumciſion of the heart, ſo doth Baptiſm much more clearly. As Abraham and his Houſhold, and the Infants of Believing-Jews, were to be Circumciſed, ſo the Faithful their Families, and their Seed are to be Baptized.
At laſt he thinks to rout us quite with a ſaying of Bellarmin's, whoſe very name gives us an Allarm and ſounds Bellum & Arma, War & Arms. The Anabaptiſts, ſaith Bellarmine, call for plain Scripture-proof for the Baptizing of Infants, and their Argument from defect of Command or Example, have great force againſt the Lutherans, foras much as they uſe that Principle every where viz. That the Rite which is not in Scripture, having no Command or Example there, is to be rejected. Yet it is of no force againſt Catholicks, who conclude that Apoſtolical Tradition is of no leſs Authority with us, than the Scripture; but that this of Baptizing Infants is an Apoſtolical Tradition &c.
To which I Reply, that the Author might well have omitted this of Bellarmin, ſince it is but acunning inſinuation of that Jeſuitical Sophiſter, to ſet. Proteſtants at greater diſtances amongſt themſelves & to advance the eſteem of their adored Tradition. And yet he himſelf ſpeaking elſewhere of Infant-Baptiſm ſaith, ſatis aperte ex Scripturis colligitur, &c. Infant-Baptiſm is plainly enough gathered out of Scripture.