Anabaptism and Other Errors, Chapter 6
CHAP. VI. The Antipaedobaptiſts Objections anſwered.
M. …, &c. M. …om…s, and M … O…jecti….THE exceptions which uſe to be taken to infant-baptiſme, goe about in a number of late Treatiſes; the principall are as I take it, in the three laſt which I have ſeen upon that ſubject; the declaration of the publick diſpute intended betwixt ſixe of the prime Preachers of the Anabaptiſts, and ſome City Miniſters. Mr Tombs exercitation, and the nameleſſe Treatiſe of Baptiſme. In the firſt are nine Arguments; in the ſecond eight, and ſome more in the third. Who deſire to ſee large and ſolid anſwers to all theſe, and to what elſe is brought to any purpoſe by any other of their companions: let them look upon M Marſhals Sermon and its vindication; M• Blacks three Treatiſes, and M. Cottons Dialogue: for the time, they who are in haſte may have this ſhort reply to the main arguments of the three named Authors.
They are in effect but few, & all invented by the old Anabaptiſts.Take upon all, theſe two generall obſervations; Firſt, that what ever any of them has, is all borrowed from the old Anabaptiſts, in whom the ſpirit of the worſt hereſies did rage; who will be at the pains to compare the writs of the Authors in hand with that which Zuinglius, Bullinger, Guy de Bres, Ainſworth, and others have ſet down in the name and words of the old Anabaptiſts, ſhall finde that our late oppoſers doe adde little that is conſiderable to the arguments of their Fathers. Secondly, that all the arguments which either the elder or later Anabaptiſts bring againſt Paedobaptiſme, are but two or three at moſt; when they are increaſed to a greater number, it's but the ſame body put in many diverſe habits by a needleſſe variation of ſhapes.
M. Cox firſt Argument … makes examples alone a full rule.The nine Arguments of the publick diſputants have not as yet ſo far as I know been honored wth any anſwer; neither do I think was there any neceſſity of it; for the Diſputants do ſo inſolently out-bragge the City Miniſters, and the matter of their Arguments has ſo often been anſwered in divers Treatiſes, that very juſtly thoſe grave Divines did paſſe them by with contempt; how vain and unworthy all that they bring is, any intelligent perſon may eaſily conſider. Their firſt argument is this, OnelyOnly ſuch as John and the Apoſtles miniſtred Baptiſm to, ought to be baptized; But John and the Apoſtles adminiſtred Baptiſm only to beleevers and not to their infants, Ergo, onelyonly beleevers and not their infants are to be baptized. Anſw. Both major and minor are denied; the major becauſe it makes examples of Scripture, the full rule of Baptiſm, contrary not only to truth but to the Anabaptiſts own principles, and the Diſputants own arguments following, who are content to make up the Scripturall rule of Baptiſm, not only of examples, but alſo of commands and of other Scripturall warrants; no man ever in any ordinance of God, did tie alone to Scripturall examples, that is but a partiall rule either of faith or practice. The minor likewiſe is denied, for the Apoſtles baptizing of whole houſe-holds is an example of baptizing of all within the houſe, young and old, male and female, without the exception of infants.
The ſecond Argument;The ſecond makes one and the ſame man to differ from himſelfe eſſentially. Infant Baptiſm differeth eſſentially from the Baptiſm taught by Chriſt and his Apoſtles: The eſſentiall difference is put in the ſubject and form of Baptiſm: We baptize infants, Chriſt taught theſe to be baptized who do actually beleeve and repent: We baptize by ſprinkling, Chriſt taught to baptize by dipping. Anſwer; The bringing in, in a diſpute before ſimple people, the School term of eſſentiall difference, ſerves more to clogge and darken, then to clear the underſtanding of the hearers; however we deny both the parts of the proof, Sprinkling and Dipping are two forms of Baptiſm, differing not eſſentially, but accidentally, circumſtantially, or modally, ſo to ſpeak, and till of very late the Anabaptiſts themſelves did not ſpeak otherwiſe: but becauſe now our adverſaries are come to make ſprinkling alone a ſufficient ground of nullifying our Baptiſm, we ſhall conſider that whole matter in a Chapter by it ſelf: For the other part of the proof, the eſſential difference of the ſubjects, we deny it upon two grounds; firſt, let the difference betwixt infants and their beleeving Parents be as great as it may, yet it is nothing to us, who affirm that theſe very places which expreſſe the Baptiſm of beleevers do not inferre the excluſion of infants, but as we proved from the ſame, and other places, do clearly inferre their Baptiſm. Secondly, theſe new Diſputants do not well to force upon us a new Logick, eſpecially when in their very next argument they baniſh out of this diſpute all the Logick, men have hitherto been acquaint with, whether naturall or artificiall, Do infants and their Parents differ eſſentially? is the difference betwixt any men how repugnant ſoever in qualities and other accidents any more then numericall? who did ever dream that an infant unbaptized did differ from himſelf when thereafter he did beleeve and was baptized, eſſentially? I hope our Diſputants intend not to multiply the ſame individuall perſon to more, differing eſſentially one from the other, or rather one from it ſelf; this were more then ever came in the minde of the Poet, when he doubled the perſons of Amphitruo and Soſia, or of the Papiſts when they multiply the ſame body in divers places.
The third ties God in the revelation of his will to precepts and examples alone.The third Argument is this, That religious worſhip, for which there is no command nor example in Scripture, is unlawfull: But the Baptiſm of infants is a religious worſhip, &c. Ergo. Anſ. This is the ſame in effect with their two former arguments, but that the firſt takes onelyonly one part thereof, examples recorded in Scripture, and the ſecond clogges it with the needleſſe term of eſſentiall difference. In this third ſhape it is proſecuted with a great deal of high language, as if their adverſaries could not have anſwered it, while as indeed it is nothing but the old cavill of all the Anabaptiſts, which has been anſwered ſo often as any have ever had to do with any of that generation; and what here is brought to relieve it is ſo abſurd, that few of the Anabaptiſts themſelves will own it. But to the argument it ſelf: Both its propoſitions are falſe, the major for this reaſon, The Lords revealed will in his word is a ſufficient warrant for our practiſe: now the Lord reveals his will not only by commands and examples, but alſo by promiſes, threatnings, inſtructions, and other ſuch ways of ſpeaking: In this, the former argument came nearer the truth, for it ſpoke of the doctrine of Baptiſm, but did not limit that doctrine to commands and examples alone. Again, the minor is falſe, for all theſe Scripturall commands and examples of Baptiſm which warrantably are applied to the Baptiſm of infants, are ſo many commands and examples written in Scripture for infant Baptiſm, and of thoſe in our arguments for the affirmative we brought many. Apply this your great and Achillean reaſon to another ſubject, and its vanity will quickly appear. That religious worſhip for the which there is no command nor example in Scripture is unlawfull: But womens participation of the Lords Supper, the Baptiſm of Kings, of Merchants, of M. Cox, or any perſon in his Congregation is ſuch: For where have they either a command or example for the baptizing of any of theſe particulars, if they exclude as here they do all kinde of conſequences and deductions from Scriptures.
The queſtion is not,It everts the principles of all reaſoning, and turns men into ſtones. If that which by neceſſary conſequence is deduced from Scripture, be Scripture; that is but a needleſſe Logomachy: but if it be a reall truth which we ought to beleeve, and according to which we may lawfully practiſe.
However ſome old Anabaptiſts over Sea did decline ſo farre as they might, conſequences from Scripture, yet of our late Anabaptiſts in England I have heard of none before thoſe Diſputants that have ever called true Scripturall conſequences into queſtion; and if theſe men ſhould ſtand to this plea, they would quickly involve themſelves into worſe errours then yet they have thought of.
No Scripture can be made uſe of, or applied for inſtruction, reproof, comfort, or any other ſervice, to any ſingular perſon, but by conſequence, and according to the rule of reaſon, Dictum de omni & nullo; deſtroy the principle of reaſoning, you turn anon men into beaſts, into timber and ſtone: The fooliſh Jeſuite Veron, who was the chief authour of this extravagancy was quickly cried downe in this madneſſe by his own companions.
The conſequences that here are multiplied about Epiſcopacy, the Service-book, the Ceremonies, &c. are for no purpoſe: for the world knows that no good conſequence from any Scripture could ever be brought for any ſuch corruptions. And for that which here, as alſo in the Preface, is ſo much deſired concerning a publick Diſputation, is but a needleſſe vanity; this was the cry for a long time of the old Anabaptiſts, but when they had gotten their belly full of publick diſputations what the iſſue was, Munſter and Zurick can bear witneſſe. The Diſputants here themſelves relate that it was no ways the fault of the City Miniſters that they got not ſo many and ſo publick diſputations as they wiſhed, but it appears that their gain by ſuch diſputations, could not have been very great if their Arguments were not much ſtronger then any, which in this Declaration they make publick.
The fourth makes it an hereſie to make any uſe of any thing in the old Teſtament to clear any thing in the New.Their fourth Argument is this, Infant Baptiſme denies Chriſt to be come in the fleſh, becauſe it takes from him what the holy Ghoſt aſcribes to him, conſidered come in the fleſh, it deſtroyes his Propheticall and Prieſtly office, for it brings light from Moſes and the old Teſtament to clear Chriſts Doctrine of Baptiſm, and ſo makes Moſes a greater Light then Chriſt: alſo it layes the duty of infant Baptiſm upon the Subjects of Chriſt without his warrant, and ſo puts him from his Kingdome. Anſwer: The upſhot and ſtrength of this reaſon is no more then what was brought before, that infants Baptiſm wants the warrant of Chriſt. 2. We ſee by the form of this reaſon to how high a pinne thoſe men do ſtretch our errour (as they count it) of paedobaptiſm: it muſt be no leſſe a crime then the deniall of Chriſts Offices and of his very Incarnation: The people muſt hold us for very groſſe Hereticks, and ſuch from whom a ſeparation is abſolutely neceſſary. 3. The phraſe which here is oft repeated, Chriſt conſidered come in the fleſh, is very obſcure, or elſe a meer non-ſenſe: why conſidered come in the fleſh, rather then come in the fleſh?
But the chief matter & ground of the argument as here it is proponed is a new and dangerous crotchet, which the moſt of the Anabaptiſts, as I think, will never own: muſt it be a deniall of Chriſts Offices and Incarnation? muſt it be a ſetting up of Moſes and the Prophets as greater lights above Chriſt and the Apoſtles, when any thing is brought out of the old Teſtament to clear ſome paſſages of the New? When for the clearing of ſundry things both in the Old and New Teſtament we bring paſſages from Pagan, Jewiſh or Chriſtian Writers either old or New, do we hereby ſet up theſe humane Authors as greater lights above Scripture? if the Diſputants would admit of any conſequences, they might ſee what does ſtand at the back of ſuch wild aſſertions; but what ever be their minde of conſequences, yet ſome of their followers from this their poſition make two unhappy, though very neceſſary deductions; Firſt, the caſting away of all humane Writs, at leaſt the making of their ſervice towards the clearing of Scripture altogether unlawfull; they make the uſe of all humane Arts and Sciences for this end abominable. Secondly, the laying aſide of the whole old Teſtament, as that which may not be applied for to clear any thing that is in the New: notwithſtanding Chriſt and his Apoſtles are very frequent not only in clearing, but in proving the body of their Doctrine from the Law and the Prophets, yet I hope that none of them for this practice ſhall be counted by the Diſputants deniers of Chriſts Incarnation or any of his Offices.
Their fifth argument is this,The fift argument making the actions done by or to Chriſt the full rule of our practice, is a wild phanſie. That which is no part of righteouſneſſe may not be obſerved; But the Baptiſm of infants is no part of righteouſneſſe, becauſe it was neither practiſed upon Chriſts Perſon, nor by him upon any other perſon, he was neither baptized in his infancy, nor did baptize any infants. Anſwer: This reaſon is as ſtrange as any of the former, both the major and minor are faulty; the major, becauſe in common ſpeech and ordinary Scripture language, righteouſneſſe is contradiſtinguiſhed to holineſſe, ſo all acts of holineſſe according to this argument behoved to be unlawfull, being no parts of righteouſneſſe. The minor alſo and its proof muſt both be denied: Let the word righteouſneſſe be taken in as large a ſenſe as they pleaſe, for all duties either to God or man; for all acts either of piety, juſtice, or charity, yet to ſay that there is no act of righteouſneſſe which cannot be proved to have been done either by Chriſt or upon Chriſt, is a very wild fancy. For inſtance, what will they ſay for the Baptiſm of women, and the Baptiſm of old men? will they deny thoſe to be parts of that righteouſneſſe whereof they ſpeak? or will they affirm that theſe things were practiced either upon the perſon of Chriſt or by the perſon of Chriſt? Chriſt did fulfill all righteouſneſſe when he payed tribute and did all thoſe acts of juſtice which belonged to him, though hee never medled with any duties belonging to others, but were impertinent to him as nothing belonging to him, or whereof his perſon was not capable. The firſt argument concluding the unlawfulneſſe of infant Baptiſm from the want of Scripturall example, was abſurd; but this argument which reſtricts Scripturall example to the perſon of Chriſt onelyonly to things done by him or upon him, is much more abſurd.
The ſix…h ar…ument, will have none bap…i…d but who b…li ve and are elect.Th…ir ſixth argument is this, Only they are to be baptized who are Abrahams ſeed either according to the fleſh, or according to promi…e; But the infants of Gentiles are not of Abrahams ſeed, either according to the fleſh, or according to promiſe becauſe only the Jews are Abrahams ſeed according to the fleſh, and only believers are his ſeed according to promiſe. Anſ. Upon this argument they triumph and cry out of a deadly wound given thereby to infant Baptiſm: I will be loth to upbraid any man with preſumptuous ignorance; yet I cannot but marvell what the Diſputants can mean to prejudice their friends in every one of their arguments a great deal more then their adverſaries. This their deadly reaſon is dead and rotten in all its parts: the major according to their own principles is clearly falſe, for if none may lawfully be baptized but the ſeed of Abraham according to the fleſh, or his ſeed according to promiſe, and the one be only Jews and the other be only beleevers, what will they ſay to Simon Magus, and thouſands whom themſelves do baptize who are not Jews, and ſo not the ſeed of Abraham according to the fleſh, nor believers and elect perſons, and ſo not the ſeed according to the promiſe, nor the children of the heavenly Jeruſalem?
The minor likewiſe is falſe in both its parts: Firſt, ſome infants of believing Gentiles may well be counted the ſeed of Abraham and Iſrael according to the fleſh, ſuch as are members of the Church viſible, but reprobates. The argument to the contrary that only Jews are Abrahams ſeed according to the fleſh is not good, for theſe very Scriptures Gal. 3. & 4. which they cite for its ground do diſtinguiſh the children of Abraham according to the fleſh and according to the promiſe, the children of Sarah and Hagar, theſe that were born of the free-woman the Jeruſalem above, and the bondwoman Sinai and Jeruſalem upon earth: all this is applied to the Galatians who were Gentiles, the one part of the diſtinction to thoſe of them who were juſtified by faith, the other to thoſe of them who pleaded for a juſtification by the works of the Law, and thereby lay under the bondage and curſe of the Law: If both parts of the diſtinction may not be applied to the Gentile Galatians, the ground of the Apoſtle his argument and of his whole diſcourſe is overturned.
This Arg. many ways abſurd.The other part of the minor is far more abſurd; That only actuall believers are the children of the promiſe; for if ſo, then firſt at one breath all Chriſtian Infants are blown out of heaven, none of them have any more intereſt in Chriſt, in grace, and in ſalvation then Turks and Pagans: Thus farre the moſt of the Anabaptiſts wont not to goe, but the Diſputants profeſſe it is their reall meaning; their retortion here upon us is very ſilly, that we do put Chriſtian infants in as evill a condition as they, by granting all infants to be born in originall ſin; for they know that we joyn to this a ſecond aſſertion, That the elect infants of believing Parents, though born in ſin, and the children of wrath by nature as well as others, yet by ſupernaturall grace and mercy are born under the new Covenant, and have their right and intereſt both in the Covenant of grace and the ſeals thereof. Secondly, by this Doctrine the Diſputants cut off all Jewiſh infants from any intereſt in the promiſes of grace: Iſaac himſelf, Jacob and Joſeph cannot be children of the promiſe in their childhood, but according to the Diſputants they muſt be children according to the fleſh, totally fleſh without the Covenant of grace, that ſo they behoved to remain till they came to thoſe yeares wherein they did actually believe, and by this actuall faith became children of the promiſe; which promiſe before their actuall faith did no more belong to them then to any other of mankinde. Thirdly, by this argument Circumciſion is made to be a ſeal only of a Covenant of works; So Iſaac and the reſt of the Patriarchs by their Circumciſion had no promiſe of grace ſealed unto them; all of them, except Abraham, at the time of their Circumciſion, and many years after were under a Covenant of works only, all of them to the years of their diſcretion and actuall faith were incapable of any intereſt in the Covenant of grace: ſtrange abſurdities!
Fourthly, by this argument they muſt profeſſe that none but true believers, juſtified, ſanctified, and elect perſons, are under the Covenant of grace, that ſuch onelyonly have right to participate of the Sacraments, the ſeals of that Covenant, and that ſuch only can be lawfull members of any true Church.
They reject our diſtinction of an outward and inward Covenant of grace: We teach that the Covenant of grace in the outward adminiſtration thereof, both in preaching the promiſes and applying the ſeals of the Sacraments, is to be proponed by Gods appointment to all the outward viſible members of the Church: But the inward ſaving grace of this Covenant, whether in preaching of the word, or adminiſtring the Sacraments, is by the holy Ghoſt conferred onelyonly upon the true living, inviſible members of Chriſts myſticall body. By this common and neceſſary diſtinction, we eſcape eaſily that blot of Arminianiſm which they would lay upon us, for although we put all whom we baptize, and all to whom we preach as to Church members, under the outward adminiſtration of a gracious Covenant, yet do we not grant any true ſaving grace to any but the elect and regenerate who do never totally and finally fall away: But the moſt of our adverſaries are full & groſſe Arminians, yea, their refuſing to diſtinguiſh betwixt the outward and inward Covenant or ſomething equipollent, does draw them to all theſe and greate abſurdities.
Th… 7, 8. and 9. Arg. are but repetitions.Their ſeventh argument is a meer Battology; Infant Baptiſm, ſay they, is unlawfull, and will-worſhip, becauſe not adminiſtred according to the rule of the word, having neither precept, nor example, nor rule for it. Anſ. We need not repeat what was ſaid before to the ſame thing; only we obſerve that they inſiſt upon the baptizing of true believers only, for they ſpeak here in terminis, that they only of the Gentiles might be baptized who did ſincerely believe, and they prove this from Acts 8.37. ſo then it ſhall be as unlawfull to baptize the faireſt profeſſors if hypocrites as to baptize infants.
Their eighth argument is another Battology, to wit, that infant Baptiſm is unlawful, becauſe Chriſt did not command his Apoſtles to preach and practice it: Their ninth argument is of the ſame nature; That infant Baptiſm is unlawfull, becauſe it is no part of the revealed will of God; to thoſe tautologies our former anſwers need not be repeated.
The abſurdities of every one of the nine arguments.Theſe be the nine great arguments wherewith the Miniſters of the City were to be confounded, their mouths for ever to be ſtopped, and the peoples eies to be opened ſo clearly, that with chearfulneſs they might renounce their old, & receive a new Baptiſm: yet I am in the opinion that the keeping of thoſe arguments within doors had ſerved much more for the honour of the Authors, for every one of them is clogged with its own proper abſurdity. The firſt makes example alone a full and compleat rule of practice in all ordinances. The ſecond is grounded upon a wilde logick notion of ſuch an eſſentiall difference as makes a man in his riper years differ eſſentially from himſelf in his infancy. The third cuts off all reaſoning from Scripture but in terminis, were the conſequence never ſo clear. The fourth makes Chriſt and the Apoſtles ordinary practice of clearing their doctrine from the Law and the Prophets, to be no leſſe a wickedneſſe then Antichriſtianiſme and the deniall of the comming of Chriſt in the fleſh. The fifth makes the perſonall example of Chriſt, a full and compleat rule of all Goſpel ordinances. The ſixth, denys Iſaac, Jacob, Joſeph, or any of Abrahams elect ſeed, when they were circumciſed to have had any right at all in the covenant of grace; alſo it imports that no infant either of Jew or Gentile, had ever any intereſt in God, more then a Turk or a Pagan, before they come to ſo ripe years as actually to beleeve and repent. The ſeventh, eighth and ninth, are meer repetitions of the third, and import clearly the unlawfulneſſe of the baptiſme, and of the memberſhip of any who is not an actuall and ſincere beleever. If ſuch arguments be very apt to ſeduce thoſe who underſtand the grounds of their religion in any tolerable meaſure, I confeſſe I am much deceived.
As for M. Tombs eight Arguments,M. Tombes 8. Arguments anſwered by others. for the ſolution whereof, he cals upon the whole body of the Aſſembly, who are at the leiſure to ſee every title of them anſwered at large; let them look upon the Treatiſes of M. Marſhall, M. Black, M. Geere, and Doctor Homes; to thoſe, M. Tombs replies in his Apology, but how poorly and to how ſmall a purpoſe, let any Reader who will be at the pains to compare what is brought from both hands, freely pronounce the ſentence. I ſhall but name the heads of his reaſons.
Firſt, the doctrine of infant-baptiſme has no teſtimony of Scripture for it:There is no truth in any of them. the particular Scriptures which are brought to prove this point he endeavours to anſwer; but the chief of theſe anſwers we have met with in our poſitive arguments.
His ſecond argument is this, in the inſtitution of Baptiſme, Mat. 28. Chriſt has not appointed infants to be baptized, becauſe they are not Diſciples. Ergo, Their Baptiſme is unlawfull. To this we did ſpeak at length.
The third is, Infant-baptiſme is not according to the practiſe of John the Baptiſt, and the Apoſtles who baptized onelyonly penitent beleevers: to this alſo we have often ſpoken.
The fourth and the fifth is, That infant-baptiſme in the ages next to the Apoſtles was not in uſe: and when it came in uſe, that it was grounded upon divers errors and unwriten traditions. Anſwer. If the Anabaptiſts did any whit regard antiquity, it were eaſie by formall teſtimonies to refell theſe two aſſertions, and this the replyers to M. Tombs has done abundantly. But it is well known, that the Anabaptiſts generally have no regard to humane writers; ſo it were but loſſe of time to bring paſſages of the Fathers for their conviction.
His ſixt, ſeventh, and eighth arguments are theſe, Infant-baptiſme hath occaſioned many humane inventions, many errours, many abuſes in Diſcipline and worſhip. Anſwer. Some of theſe things which he cals humane inventions, errors and abuſes, are denyed to be ſuch; and thoſe which be ſuch, indeed are neither cauſed nor occaſioned by Paedobaptiſme. But many groſſe hereſies, errours and abuſes, are partly cauſed, partly occaſioned by the rejection of infant-baptiſme, as may be ſeen in our former Chapter.
M. L. Treatiſe of Baptiſme needs no anſwer.Theſe are the eight Arguments which fils M. Tombs exercitation, in which there ſeems not to be any thing which either for its novelty or ſtrength did deſerve the half of the noiſe that has been made about them. I was minded to have examined at greater length the arguments of the third Treatiſe, mentioned in the beginning of the Chapter; for I did think that a prime member and eminent Officer of the Independent Church at Arnhem would never have turned a ring-leader to groſs Anabaptiſm, without ſome very convincing & exceedingly preſſing arguments; yet finding nothing conſiderable in that Treatiſe but what was common and triviall, and all that it had to be caſt not ſo much in a way of argument as in a laxe popular diſcourſe; I chuſed rather to let it alone then to ſpend paper upon words, which as I conceive doe rather detract then adde any ſtrength at all to the old arguments of the Anabaptiſts.