Vindication of Baptizing Believers Infants, Chapter 11
CHAP. XI.
THe ſecond Argument followeth:Exercitat.
That which agreeth not with the Lords inſtitution of Baptiſme, Argu. 2 § 15. The Argument from the inſtitution of Chriſt, Mat. 28.19. againſt Infant-baptiſme, confirmed.that is deſervedly doubtfull.
But the rite of Infant-Baptiſme agrees not with the Lords inſtitution of Baptiſme, Ergo.
The Major is proved, becauſe Inſtitution is the rule of exhibiting worſhip to God.
The Minor is proved from the words of Inſtitution, Mat. 28.19. Going therefore, diſciple ye all nations, baptizing them.
Whence I gather thus:
That rite agrees not with the Lords Inſtitution of Baptiſme, according to which they are baptized, whom the Lord appointed not to be baptized.
But after the rite of Infant-Baptiſme, they are baptized whom the Lord appointed not to be baptized, Ergo.
The Major is manifeſt of it ſelfe.
The Minor is proved: The Lord appointed not Infants to be baptized, Ergo. The Antecedent is proved;
Thoſe, and no other, the Lord appointed to be baptized, who have been made Diſciples.
But this cannot be ſaid of Infants. Ergo.
The Argument is confirmed from Iohn 4.2. where it is ſaid that Ieſus made more diſciples; then that he baptized: firſt it is ſaid that be made diſciples, then baptized.
Some one perhaps will ſay that Baptiſme of Infants is elſewhere inſtituted, although not here.
To which is anſwered, Let he that can, bring forth that inſtitution, and the doubt will be looſed.
But Infants may be diſciples, for they may be ſanctified by the Spirit?
Anſw. It is true, Infants may be ſanctified by the Spirit of God, purged by the blood of Chriſt, ſaved by the grace of God; my minde abhors from the doctrine of them that aſſert, That Infants not baptized, neceſſarily periſh, or are deprived of the Kingdome of God; nor do I doubt, but that the Elect Infants dying in Infancy are ſanctified; yea, if it ſhould be made known to us that they are ſanctified, I ſhould not doubt that they are to be baptized, remembring the ſaying of Peter, Act. 10.47. Can any man forbid water, that theſe ſhould not be baptized, who have receined the holy Ghost as we?
Then you will ſay [make diſciples] in that place, may be ſo expounded, as that it may include Infants?
Anſw. It follows not; but this onelyonly follows, that in caſe extraordinary, we may depart from the ordinary rule: But the ordinary rule is, make diſciples, that is, by preaching the Goſpell, make diſciples, as appears from Mark 16.15. and baptize them, to wit, whom you have made diſciples; and in the ordinary courſe of Miniſtery, we muſt follow the ordinary rule.
Perhaps ſome one will except, that Chriſt teacheth that ſuch diſciples ſhould be baptized, but that the ſpeech is not excluſive.
Refut. But it is meet he remember, who ſhall thus except; if inſtitution be the rule of worſhip, it is neceſſary that he that ſhall adminiſter the worſhip, binde himſelf to the rule; otherwiſe he will deviſe will-worſhip, and arrogate the Lords authority to himſelf: Surely the Apoſtle in the buſineſſe of the Lords Supper, inſinuates this, when being about to correct the aberrations of the Corinthians, concerning the Lords Supper he brings forth theſe words, 1 Cor. 11.23. For I have received of the Lord, that which I alſo have delivered unto you.
Beſides as Chriſt Mat. 19.4.8. argues from the inſtitution of Marriage, againſt Divorce for a light cauſe, and Polygamy, becauſe it is ſaid, Two, not more then two ſhall be one fleſh; ſo in like manner it may be here argued, Chriſt ſaid Baptizing them, and not others, therefore theſe and not others are to be baptized.
But as for him who gathers from this place, Infants are to be baptized, becauſe Chriſt Commands all Nations to be baptized, verily he is faulty,
1. In caſting away that reſtriction that Chriſt hath put.
2. By determining that all men whatſoever are to be baptized; ſo that this is not a priviledge of beleevers and their children, but common with them, to all Infidels and their children.
And in very deed, however aſſertors of Infant-baptiſme, crack of a priviledge of beleevers and their off-ſpring; not onelyonly the uſuall practiſe of baptiſing any little children offered, but alſo Sayings prove that men have gone far, not onelyonly from Chriſts inſtitution, but alſo from the principles upon which, men at this day are buſie to eſtabliſh Infant-baptiſme. I ſhall prove this by ſome inſtances. In the 59 Epiſtle of Cyprian to Fidus, from which Auguſtine is wont in his diſputations-againſt the Pelagians, to take his proof for Infant-baptiſme, and to which Writers attribute much, although that I may ſay no worſe, without cauſe, this reaſon is put why it was not aſſented to Biſhip Fidus, who thought that an Infant was not to be baptized, afore the eighth day, according to the Law of ancient Circumciſion, We all rather judged, that the mercy and grace of God is to be denyed to none that is born of men.
By the anſwer of Auguſtine to Bonifacius, Tom. 2. Epiſt. 23. Enquiring concerning the truth of Sureties, in affirming the unknown faith of little ones, and promiſing for them, it will appear to the Reader, that the Baptiſme of any little ones offered to baptiſme, is defended by him, Although they were not brought, that they might be regenerated to eternall Life, by Spirituall grace; but becauſe they think by this remedy (I uſe the words of Auguſtine) to retain or receive temporall health; Iohn Gerhard, Loc. Theolog. Tom. 4. de Baptiſ. Cap. 7. Sect. 4. defends the practiſe of the Ancients baptizing the Children of unbeleevers: And the words of Mr Samuel Rutherford, Scot, in his Book lately put forth in the Engliſh tongue, intituled A peaceable and temperate plea, c. 12. arg. 7. ſeemes to mee to propend too much to this opinion, The words are theſe, If then the Iewes in Pauls time were holy by Covenant, howbeit for the preſent the Sonnes were branches broken off, for unbeliefe; much more ſeeing God hath choſen the race and nation of the Gentiles, and is become a God to us and to our ſeed, the ſeed muſt be holy, with holineſſe of the choſen nation, and holineſſe externall of the Covenant, notwithſtanding the Father and Mother were as wicked as the Iewes who ſlew the Lord of glory.
And the grave confutation of Browniſts, by Rathband, Part. 3. Page 50. Fourthly, Children may be lawfully admitted to Baptiſm, though both their Parents be prophane, if thoſe who are inſtead of Parents to them do require Baptiſme for them, and give their promiſe to the Church for their religious Education, ſeeing they may lawfully be accounted within Gods Covenant, if any of their Anceſtors in any Generation were faithfull, Exod. 20.5.
Laſtly, if this Argument be not of force, Chriſt commandeth firſt to Diſciple, and then to baptize thoſe that are Diſcipuled; to exclude Infants from Baptime; neither will the argument be of force, from 1 Cor. 11.28. Let a man examine himſelfe, and ſo let him eat, to exclude Infants from the Lords Supper; for by the like cluſion this argument may be rejected by ſaying, that the ſpeech of the Apoſtle is not excluſive, and is to be underſtood of receiving the Lords Supper by Perſons grown onelyonly; yea, verily, neither will the argument be of force from the inſtitution of the Supper, Mat. 26.26, 27. therefore only beleevers are to be admitted to the Lords Supper. If any reply. But the Apoſtle 1 Cor. 10. and 11. hath declared, that the inſtitution is excluſive, the fame may be ſaid of the inſtitution of Baptiſme, from the following Argument.
To this ſecond Argument of Mr T. out of Mat. 28.19. for the Affirmative,Animadver. That men of ripe years onelyonly are to be baptized (the other being onelyonly negative, to put off Arguments for childrens baptiſm) I ſay, that I verily expected Mr T. would not have urged it ſo curtedly, careleſly, or ſo ſcatteringly.
Curtedly] For he ſpeakes ſo abruptly touching the buſineſſe of Biſhop Fidus p. 25. That I can hardly divine what his meaning is. I conjecture this anſwer will ſerve.
1. That God himſelfe puts the cauſe, and makes the premiſſes wider than the effect or concluſion, 2 Pet. 3.9. 1 Tim. 2.4. Yet he doth not warrant us to apply comforts or ſeales to all.
2. That Cyprian in all likelihood ſpeaks to the point in hand: That as circumciſion was not denyed to any children of Jewiſh parents that were members of that Church; ſo Baptiſme is not to be denyed to any ſo born of men, that is are the children of Parents reputed true members of the Church.
Careleſly] for firſt he ſaith, p. 24. [Iohn 4.2. Where it is ſaid That Ieſus made more diſciples, then, that he baptized; firſt, it is ſaid, that he made diſciples, then baptize.] So Mr T.) Now we muſt needs ſay that here is a groſſe falſhood. For that text, Iohn 4.2. ſaith expreſly, Ieſus baptized none at all. Secondly, Mr. T. ſaith p. 24. [The ordinary rule is, make diſciples, that is by preaching the Goſpell make diſciples, as appears Mark 16.15. and baptiſe them: to wit, whom you have made diſciples] So Mr T. here. Yet in another place of his Exercitation, Mr. T. doth not forget, but confeſſeth that Mar. 16.15. is not make diſciples, but onelyonly preach the Goſpell. And ſo Mark makes not more of foreign make Diſciples (as the Anabaptiſts would have it) but onelyonly foreign preach the Goſpell.
Scatteringly] Not onelyonly floteing ſo much paper with the Inke of Syllogiſme under Syllogiſme, and Argument under Syllogiſme; as if Mat. 28.19. did not indeed in any ſhew ſerve his turn, without much lifting: but alſo in ſcattering ſuch ſpeeches to the great diſgrace of Anabaptiſme. For Mr T. ſaith, p. 25. That Auguſtine was wont to take out his proof for. In-infant-Baptiſme in his diſputations againſt the Pelagians, from Cyprians 59 Epiſtle to Fidus. So that by this Mr T. confeſſeth that the Pelagians of old were the men that denyed Infant-Baptiſme; which brought to mind that great Iames Arminius was an Anabaptiſt, who had that and other dangerous principles from that unſound Caſtalio; Mr G. Philips, his Reply and to T. Lamb. p. 137and that of Maſter George Philips of Water Town in New-England: That the firſt that denyed Infants Baptiſme, and oppoſed the practiſe of the Churches in this caſe was one Auxentius an Arrian with his adherents (that denyed the Godhead of Chriſt) who dyed about 380 yeeres after Chriſt, as Mr Philpot the Martyr of Jeſus, noteth in an Epiſtle of his, written out of priſon, to a fellow priſoner of his, about the point. So Mr Fox relateth in his book of Martyrs, ad Ann. 1555. Bullinger affirmeth the ſame. Tom. 3. Serm. 8. Decad. quint. After him the Pelagians and Donatists oppoſed it, againſt whom, Auguſtine beſide others, wrote and defended it. The Pelagians denied it upon this ground, That Infants had no Originall ſinne. And in Bernards time, one Peter Abilaird, among many other groſſe opinions, wherein he ſaith, he was Magis Arrius, quam Arrius (rather more then Arrius, then bare Arrius) held this alſo, that Infants were not to be baptized, Ep. 190. So Mr Philips.
But to come to Mr T. his Argument out of Mat. 28.19. The ſumme of it is this,Exercitat. §. 15. That Chriſts inſtitution is That thoſe only ſhould be baptized that are made diſciples, Mat. 28.19. But beleevers Infants are not diſciples. Ergo.
To the place of Mat. 28.19. That is,Animadver. the proof of the Major, We have anſwered ſomewhat afore, Chap. 1. of our Animadverſ. p. 7. which we intreat the patient reader to ponder over againe; more we have anſwered but now; by comparing, Mark 16.15. who renders it barely preach the Goſpell; which the reader cannot but eſteem of more weight then all the interpretations, not onelyonly of all Anabaptiſts, but of all men. We adde now. 1. That this place can argue no more but that the adminiſtration of Baptiſme began firſt on the parents, that received the word, and ſo deſcended to their children: they being baptized, their children preſently were baptized alſo. For the Jews generally carried their children with them after Ordinances; whereof we have not onelyonly ſome ſpeciall inſtances, that Hanna carried Samuel up to Shilo. 1 Sam. 24. and Mary and Ioſeph carried Ieſus to Hieruſalem, Luke 2.22. and thus they carried him yeerly at the time of the Paſſeover, Luke 2.41, 42, 43. but we have ordinary inſtances.
As that when the Jews came to the Paſſover and followed Chriſt to hear him preach, and do miracles, they brought their children with them who partook of that they were capable not only of the Paſſeover, but of the diſpenſations of Chriſt: The children partook of the miracle, Math. 14.21. compare Joh. 6.4, 5. The children are offered by their parents and friends that came to hear Chriſt, to have Chriſts hands layd upon them and to be bleſſed of him, and were bleſſed Mar. 10. And by the ſame proportion, children are underſtood when it is ſaid Math. 3.5, 6. Then went out to him Jeruſalem, and all Judea, and all the region round about Jordan, and were baptized of him (the parents) confeſſing their ſinnes, and the children accepted under their confeſſion, being put under the ſame promiſe, I am the God of thee and of thy ſeed; even as when Abraham expreſſed his beliefe in God Gen. 15.6. from that time forward God proclaimed he was his God, and the God of his ſeed, and gave them Circumciſion for a Seal thereof. Nor is all this to be blown away with the blaſt of the word [uncertain] unleſſe Mr T. could make out hence an expreſſe excluſion of children from Baptiſme, more certain. 2. It cannot bee more then bare preſumption to ſay that children that are ordinarily three parts of All Nations, ſhould be here reckoned as no part of All nations here meant, firſt ſeeing All Nations are here put as an oppoſite member of diſtinction, to that one Nation of the Iewes; compare Mat. 21.41. Rom. 11.17. The Gentiles have the Vineyard and were ingraſted as the Iews: But the Jews and their children had the benefit of the Vineyard, and both partook of the ſtock according to their capacity and method of Gods diſpenſation. Ergo, ſo the Gentiles. So that whereas afore, the Word and Sacraments were couched within the confines of the Jewiſh nation, and them that came into them, now Chriſt gives a commiſſion to pull down that partition wall; and to ſend the Word and Sacraments likewiſe to All Nations of the Gentiles, But to the Jewes, the Word and firſt Seal coming to the parents; that Seal came likewiſe to their children: Therefore the ſame proportion is to be kept in the New Teſtament. 2. It is not nothing that it is ſaid Go teach all Nations, baptizing them, and not Go teach and baptize all Nations. And therefore the method and order of the phraſe is not ſo cloſely framed to make teaching and baptizing of an exact equall latitude, that only taught diſciples ſhould be baptized; as it might have been if that had been the Intent of the Text. For Chriſts inſtitutions are wont to be wonderfull plain in all the things it mainly intends.
2 We anſwer to the Minor; namely [But Infants of Beleevers are not Diſciples.] To which we ſay that it being taken, as here pronounced, that Infants of beleevers without exception are no Diſciples we eaſily prove it is moſt falſe; by two Texts of Scripture: The firſt we have mentioned afore*Chap. 1. of our Animadv. p. 8. Namely Acts 15.10. Now why tempt yee God to put a yoke upon the necks of the Diſciples? This yoke was Circumciſion; which was at firſt by Inſtitution put upon children, at eight dayes old. Gen. 17. According to which the falſe teachers out of doubt as the only ſeeming ſtrength of their Impoſition of it did ground it. And therefore purſued it that as the Fathers like Abraham, ſo the children as Iſaac &c. ſhould be circumciſed. The ſecond Text is Iohn 9.28. We are Moſes his diſciples ſay the Jews. But the only thing that entred them into the ſchool of Moſes, that firſt nominated them to be Moſes his Diſciples was Circumciſion in their Infancy which after tyed them to Moſes his obſervations, Gal. 5.3. Therefore the infants of beleeuers are Diſciples.
Some will ſay (ſaith Mr T.) that Baptiſme of Infants is elſewhere inſtituted.Exercitat. Let him that can (ſaith he) bring forth that Inſtitution.
We have out of diverſe texts (as clearly and clearlyer then Mr. T. hath brought forth a prohibition) as out of 1 Cor. 7.14.Animadver. Mar. 10. Heb. 6. Gen. 17. which laſt text is not ſo much eſteemed of profeſſors of the Gospell, as their profeſſion injoynes them. For though it be not a text in the New Teſtament; yet it is the grand Charter of the Goſpell, I am the God of thee and of thy ſeed, to bleſſe you through THE SEED Chriſt; to which as to the originall, all the tenor of the New Teſtament runnes, Rom. 4. Gal. 3. Acts 2.39. &c.
Infants may be ſanctified by the ſpirit of God, Exercitat.&c.
I anſwer all Anabaptists are not of this mind,Animadver. partly by word of mouth; partly by writings in print. Some ſay children are not capable of grace, having no faith, &c. others when they are put to it upon this argument; if children may not have grace, and be within the Covenant; then (ſay we) either all Infants dying are damned, or elſe they are ſaved without a Covenant, and ſo without Chriſt and grace, or elſe they have no originall ſinne; they imbrace the laſt member of the argument that Infants have no originall ſinne".
Yea if it ſhould be knowne to us that Infants are ſanctified,Exercitat. I ſhould not doubt that they are to be baptized.
Wee Reply,Animadver.
firſt where is that clauſe in Scripture they muſt be known to be ſanctified?
2 Is not the believing parent as well known to beleeve as a new Convert, is known to be converted? If ſo, then Gods promiſe to me concerning my childe, I am the God of thee, and of thy ſeed, is as ſure to me, as mans judgement of the Convert that he is converted.
Obj. But ſome children of believers prove wicked.
Anſ. So do ſome ſeeming Converts. 2 Pet. 2.1. therefore as we muſt judge indefinitely charitably of Converts, so of believers children; for we have not an infallibility of either.
Perhaps (ſaith Mr. T.) ſome one will except,Exercit. that Chriſt teacheth that taught-diſciples ſhould be baptized, but the ſpeech is not excluſive. Refut. It is will-worſhip (ſaith he) that follows not the rule. And the Apoſtle in rectifying the buſineſſe of the Lords Supper, brings out onelyonly theſe words, 1 Cor. 11.23. For I have received of the Lord that which I alſo have delivered unto you. Beſides as Chriſt Matth. 19.4.8. argues from the inſtitution of marriage againſt Divorce for a light cauſe and polygamie, becauſe it is ſaid, two, not more ſhall be one fleſh. So in like manner it may be here argued, Chriſt ſaid, Baptizing them, and not others therefore theſe, and not others, are to be baptized.
We anſwer. The caſes of the Lords Supper, Animadverſ.and marriage were far different from this of Baptiſme.
1. That as there were clear precedent fore-going inſtitutions of marriage and the Lords Supper: So to thoſe inſtitutions the words of Chriſt and Paul expreſly relate.
2. That therefore thoſe repetitions Mr. T. quotes were not the firſt inſtitutions of thoſe two, but an application of the firſt inſtitutions unto exact practiſe accordingly to them.
3. That the occaſion of this repetition of the inſtitution of thoſe two were groſſe abuſes in both, expreſt by the Apoſtle and Chriſt, for which there was no fair pretence; but an apparent offending againſt the firſt inſtitution As that a man ſhould for every light cauſe put away his wife; which was not onelyonly againſt the firſt inſtitution, Gen. 2.24. Matth. 5.32.-19.4, 5, 8. but againſt Moſes his diſpenſation. Deut. 24.1. which was not to put her away, unleſſe he found ſome uncleanneſſe, that hindred cohabitation according to the intent of marriage. Matth. 19.8. So likewiſe theſe were groſſe abuſes, firſt, that men at the communion ſhould not tarry one for another; but every faction, they of Paul by themſelves, they of Peter or Cephas by themſelves, and (firſt come firſt ſerved, as we ſay) ſhould partake of the Lords Supper. Secondly, that after their holy Supper, ſome that were rich made ſuch large feaſts of charitie (which Chriſt inſtituted not) of the collections, that they were drunk; whiles the poorer coming after were hunger-bit, had nothing leſt for them.
Now for the buſineſſe of Baptiſme in this 28. of Matt. it is quite otherwiſe in all the ſaid three particulars.
For as for the firſt particular: either as we ſay, in circumciſion was a full and ſufficient foregoing inſtitution of the adminiſtration of Baptiſme: and then Chriſt needed not ſay more here but go teach and baptiſe, as referring us to the inſtitution of the firſt ſeal circumciſion in the old Teſtament. Where after believing Abraham was taught, Gen. 12. Gen. 15. and after circumciſed, Gen. 17. he accordingly circumciſed his children: and therefore ſo it ſhould be in the New Teſtament. The parents being taught and baptized, their children were to be baptized alſo. Or elſe (as the Anabaptiſts ſay) there was no preceding or fore-going inſtitution of baptiſme before Chriſts time; and that Baptiſme differs much from Circumciſion. But if this be true, how doth this place of Matth. 28.19. agree with thoſe quoted places of marriage and the Lords Suppers there being nothing fore-going this, as there is afore them, to make us punctually underſtand the meaning of it, at leaſt in every main particular; eſpecially in matters of main difference from the adminiſtration of the firſt ſeal of the old Teſtament. And therefore,
To the ſecond particular we ſay, that if this 28. of Matth. be the inſtitution of baptiſme; Firſt, as it doth not agree with the places of marriage, and the Lords Supper, to be an application of a former inſtitution of Baptiſme to an exact practiſe; ſo our faithfull Chriſt muſt needs have ſpoken plainer and fuller in an inſtitution, to have prevented ſo groſſe an abuſe (if it had been abuſe) that men ſhould apply this Sacrament to any infants if to them it ſhould not belong. For how ſhould it be prevented but from the inſtitution at leaſt? And how from the inſtitution, if Chriſt will not there ſpeak it?
So for the third and laſt particular; as Baptiſme of believers infants hath, you will yeeld, at leaſt a fair religious pretence for it out of Gen. 17. ſo the Lord Chriſt, or John Baptiſt, or the Apoſtles do not in the leaſt intimate any where, that the baptizing of beleevers children was an abuſe, as is intimated about that of marriage, and the Lords Supper: and therefore we cannot attend to any ſuch intention of Chriſt in the leaſt in this of Matth. 28. to prevent the baptiſme of believers infants.
Bat Mr. T. in his Argument afore out of Matth. 28. objecteth, that if any gather thence that Infants are to be baptized becauſe Chriſt commands all Nations to be baptized, that, firſt, he is faultie in caſting away that reſtriction that Chriſt hath put. Secondly, in making the priviledge of believers and their children common to all Infidels and their children.
We anſwer to the firſt. That firſt, that is the queſtion whether Chriſt hath here put a reſtriction againſt believers children? Secondly, that we extend not this place further then to the children of taught-or-made diſciples; underſtanding it to refer to Gen. 17. where inſtructed Abraham was to circumciſe his children; as we ſaid afore. Yet it is ſaid, I will make thee a Father of many Nations; and in thy ſeed all the Nations ſhall be bleſſed. So here though it be ſaid, Go teach and baptize all Nations, yet we extend it not beyond the children of parents taught and baptized.
But ſaith Mr. T. However aſſertors of baptiſme of Infants crack of a priviledge of believers, and their off-ſpring; yet by their ſayings, and doings, touching baptizing all Infants, they go far from Chriſts inſtitution, and their own principles at this day, upon which they are now buſie to eſtabliſh Infant-Baptiſme. For their doings: firſt, Mr. T. urgeth their baptizing all Infants offered to them. For their ſayings he urgeth, Auguſtine, and his quotation out of Cyprian. Alſo Mr. S. Rutherford, Scot; and Mr. Rathband.
Anſw. As we did not appoint Cyprian, Auguſt. John Gerard, Mr. Rutherford, or Mr. Rathband to ſpeak for us all: So nor do they undertake it. We know as theſe men have and do confeſſe, they are men, & humanum eſt errare, man may miſtake. Mr. T. aſſumes not to himſelf infallibilitie. If Auguſt. and Cyprian, &c. did erre on the right hand in ſaying all Infants may be baptized; yet this doth not inferre, that that is no errour in others that ſay no Infants are to be baptized; which erres on the left hand. And though we might excuſe Cyprian and Auguſtine, &c. thus farre, (and yet be excuſed of candid men for ſo doing) that there is not no difference between ſaying, Grace is not to be denied to any man; and ſaying, All Infants whatſoever are to be baptized (let them that can, conſult the places of Cyprian, and Auguſtine) yet we ſay rather that the Fathers had their ſeverell naevos, their blemiſhes in divers things; as Danaeus on Auguſtine, and Toſſanus upon all the Fathers, note them. Auguſtine was ſo ſenſible of this; that he wrote his Confeſſions to acknowledge the errours of his life, and his Retractations of his errors in opinion. Who knows but that Mr. Tombes, and that other H.D. (that is ſharp with Mr. Marſhall, for ſtating the queſtion of baptizing believers children, his practiſe and others, as he ſaith, having been formerly larger.) I ſay who knows but Mr. T. and Mr. D. formerly have ſo thought, and ſo done themſelves, or at leaſt have not profeſſed againſt it; which now they diſlike in others. Therefore let me offer to Mr. T. and Mr. D. and others of their judgement, theſe three conſiderations.
Firſt, who that hath eyes (as they Revel. 4.) as well within as without, may not arreign himſelf guilty of this encroachment, of extending his practiſe, beyond the rule? In many practiſes he throws open all fences, and turns them into common. But if he be queſtioned by the weakeſt diſputant, he cannot, he dares not juſtifie himſelf in his ſins: but confeſſeth his way is butted there, and bounded here; and all the reſt treſpaſſe againſt the line he ought to walk by.
Secondly, who is that profeſſor, eſpecially a Miniſter living in this Summer of the Goſpel, at this time of the aſſent of Reformation to our Pole, that forgets how in the dark and ſtormy Winter, he ſaw leſſe, and ſtumbled more? Even many of the Antipaedobaptiſts (whom we own as brethren) if they count Non-baptizing of beleevers children a peece of further Reformation, a ſpark of clearer light, muſt of neceſſitie confeſſe, that not long ſince they thought not, they did not ſo, why then ſhould we inſult over our brethrens failing? or taunt them for ſetting neerer their meridian, cloſer to the rule? that inſtead of baptizing all children, they now ſtate the queſtion, that onelyonly believers children ought to be baptized, unleſſe in ſome ſpeciall caſes, of which after.
Thirdly, though meerly that ſecond nature cuſtome, and that whirlwinde of perſecution, did precipitate many of later times to baptize all Proteſtant profeſſors children, confeſſing Chriſt to be come in the fleſh, and juſtification to be rooted in his righteouſneſſe alone, yet all Miniſters did not the ſame upon the ſame principles; But,
1. They knew that very anciently (as appears by Tertullian, living ann. Dom. 195. which was not long after St. John. Helvic.This Tertullian being alledged in this queſtion by H.D.) the Churches did not baptize the children of unbeleevers out of the Church, without Sponſores or Suſceptores, undertakers (which we call Witneſſes) who engaged themſelves as parents to look to the Chriſtian education of ſuch children, called Godfathers, as if fathers under God, or for godlineſſe, to ſee them trained up in ſound Religion. Tertullians words in his Treatiſe de Baptiſmo, cap. 18. are theſe. Ita que pro cujuſ que perſonae conditione, ac diſpoſitione, etiam aetate, cunctatio baptiſmi utilior, praecipue tamen circa parvulos. Quid enim neceſſe est, ſi non tamneceſſe, ſponſores etiam periculo ingeri. On which words, Junius his note is this. Tria hic diſtincti proponit Auctor, quae ſi rectè intelligantur locus eſt ſanctiſſimus. Conditio perſonarum baptizandarum eſt quod ſint in faedere, ſive grandiores, ſive parvuli. Diſpoſitio eſt quòd credant & obſequantur Evangelio, profiteanturque. Aetate, non qui ſunt in faedere (nam & parvuli piorum liberi in faedere ſunt) ſed qui profitentur fidem recognoſci ſolent. Quum ita que dicit praecipue tamen circa parvulos, id de extraneorum, non de faederatorum, domeſticorumque liberis opus eſt intelligi: ut aetiologia ſequente confirmatur. Illud autem ſr non tam neceſſe, etiam ſine injuriâ auctoris abeſſe poteſt.
Not to ſpend time in conſtruing all this, we now onelyonly give you the ſumme of both, in the point now in hand; for we ſhall more largely ſpeak to every particular afterwards. That which they both ſay concerning witneſſes to children, that in theſe ancient times, they were uſed for children whoſe parents were without, and not of the faith, not of the Church. We ſpeak not for the uſing of witneſſes or godfathers, &c. in baptizing children as the wont was among us. But,
Secondly, that this ancient cuſtome (as ancient at leaſt as Tertullian) might poſſibly have ſome reſpect to the Scripture Gen. 17. according to Mr. Cottons obſervation.His book of the way of the Churche, in N. England. pag. 115. Baptiſme (ſaith he) may orderly be adminiſtred to the children of ſuch parents, as have profeſſed their faith and repentance before the Church. Or where either of the parents have made ſuch profeſſion. Or it may be conſidered alſo whether the children may not be baptized, where either the grandfather, or grandmother have made ſuch profeſſion, and are ſtill living to undertake for the Chriſtian education of the childe. For it may be conceived, where there is a ſtipulation of the covenant on Gods part, and a reſtipulation on mans part,So M.Grcenham alſo. See his works, where he ſaith the children of unbeleeving parents are within the covenant by virtue of their believing grandfathers. Or elſe how is God the God of their ſeed to ſhew mercy to thouſands of generations of them that love him? there may be an obligation of the covenant on both parts. Gen. 17.7. Or if theſe fail, what hindereth but that if the parents will reſigne their Infant to be educated in the houſe of any godly member of the Church, the childe may be lawfully baptized in the right of its houſhold governor, according to the proportion of the Law, Gen. 17, 12, 13. So far Mr. Cotton, both his judgement, and his grounds. Now in imitation of this laſt clauſe, in all likelihood were Witneſſes uſed (though abuſively) in baptizing the children of ſome unbelievers, and ſtrangers from the Church; yet therefore we have not ſuch cauſe to trample upon any of our brethren about their error in baptizing too many Infants; ſeeing they erred with ſome antiquitie, and ſome pretence of Scripture before they ſaw this light, for which God muſt be glorified, and not man prided.
The laſt thing Mr. T. objects in this Argument on Matth. 28.19. is, that if this place doth not exclude all Infants from Baptiſme, then nor doth 1 Cor. 11.28, [Let a man examine himſelf; and ſo let him eat] exclude Infants from the Lords Supper, ſaying by the like eluſion, that the ſpeech of the Apoſtle is not excluſive. Yea verily (ſaith Mr. T.) neither will the Argument be of force from the inſtitution of the Supper, Matth. 26.26, 27. that believers onelyonly are to be admitted to the Lords Supper.
We anſwer. And firſt to that compariſon of 1 Cor. 11.28. with Matth. 28.19. we reply two things. Firſt, that there is expreſſed in 1 Cor. 11. an univerſall determinating terme, ſingling out all communicants, man by man, that they muſt be able to examine themſelves, before they eat. But there is no ſuch determinating word about Baptiſine, in Matth. 28.19. For firſt, we have already in ſeverall places of our Animadverſions ſhewed, that there is no certaintie at all that the Greek word here muſt ſignifie to-diſciple, or make-diſciples. For firſt, moſt learned men render it no more but teach. And ſo the Syriack, and Arabick Tranſlations.*In the beſt Tranſlations of the French Churches it is Endoctrinez teach ye. Of the High Dutch, Lebret teach ye, of the Low-Dutch, Leert teach. And likewiſe in Hutter his N. Teſtament ſet forth in 12. Languages, in ſo many of them as I can gueſſe at, it is rendred onelyonly [teach ye] His Syr. foreign teach ye. Hebr. foreign teach ye. Lat. De…te teach ye. Ital. Inſegnate teach ye. Of German, Dutch, French, we heard afore. Mark the Euangeliſt alſo renders it, Mark 16.15. onelyonly by preach. Secondly, it is evident the word in the Greek is taken divers wayes; and here is no note of circumſtance in Matth. 28.19. to prove that it muſt ſignifie to make-diſciples. Thirdly, the command is for the Apoſtle to preach to all Nations, though they ſhould not diſciple or diſcipulate all. If its objected, that if the word in Matth. 28.19. according to Mar. 16.15. ſignifies but to teach or preach; yet mention of baptizing immediately follows teaching or preaching: We anſwer. So is baptizing expreſſed to follow believing, ſaying, He that beleeveth and is haptized ſhall be ſaved. But in converting the Propoſition, that is in turning it, negatively, it is not ſaid, He that is not baptized ſhall be damned; becauſe Infants (as Mr. T. confeſſed afore) though of a day old unbaptized may have the ſanctifying Spirit. Therefore may be baptized, Act. 10.47. Our Anſwer then is, that Teaching and baptizing doth not run evenly together.
Secondly, we now obſerve that the Lord having ſaid, go preach to all Nations, he addes, baptizing them, indefinitely; not expreſſing all, or ſome (for them doth not in the Greek agree Grammatically with Nations) and ſo muſt needs leave us to compare this Text with other Texts afore-written. As with Gen. 17. where though Noah, 1 Pet. 3.19.2.2 Pet. 2.5. and Enoch, Jude v. 14. had preached to all the old world; yet ſo contrary to teaching were they, that but eight perſons were left alive by the Flood: and of theſe that remained alive, even to, or quite to the time of Abraham, but few were taught-men; as Noah, that dyed the yeer before Abrahams birth; Shem, alias Melchiſedech, and Abrahams father Terah; and Lot, few more about this time (Job was long after about Moſes his time) were taught perſons. Now among the theſe taught men, God would to Abraham communicate the firſt ſigne or ſeal; and he being ſigned, he ſhould ſigne his children alſo.
Or with John Baptiſts practiſe; who (as it is ſaid expreſly) baptized the parents, confeſſing their ſins, but doth not exclude (by any expreſſion) their children.
So then we muſt needs conclude that here is no determinating word in Matth. 28.19. to exclude believers Infants. And that this Text doth but give in the two main parts of the Apoſtles commiſſion, but not expreſly all the parts, as the Adminiſtration of the Communion, nor all the main circumſtances of thoſe two as touching childrens baptiſme.
Secondly, we anſwer to the compariſon of that place of 1 Cor. 11.28. with Matt. 28.19. Let a man examine himſelf, that the 1 Cor. 11.28. relates (as the Apoſtle there expreſſeth, v. 23. I have received of the Lord that which I delivered) I ſay relates to an expreſſe inſtitution, wherein Chriſt gave the communion to his Diſciples that were of ripe yeers, and not to children. But that place of Matth. 28.19. relates to no ſuch expreſſe inſtitution of the firſt ſeal, excluding Infants, but rather refers to ſuch places as do include them, as we ſhewed afore.
Secondly, to that collation or parallel comparing Matth. 26.26, 27. with Matth. 28.19. firſt we reply, that 1 Cor. 11.28. declares that Matth. 26.26, 27. is intended for an excluſion of unbelievers from the Communion; but there is no place to declare to us that the meaning of Matth. 28.19. is to exclude believers children from the firſt ſeal, Baptiſme.
Obj. But Mr. T. ſaith he will make it appear in the next Argument, that there are places to declare that Matth. 28.19. did intend the excluſion of believers Infants from Baptiſme.
Anſ. We ſhall by Gods leave ſhew that there are none to make any ſuch declaration, when by and by we come to anſwer that Argument. Mean while we ſay ſecondly, that there is no other place to ſhew that apparent unbeleevers, whiles ſuch, were admitted to the 2. Sacrament; and therefore that inſtitution, Matt. 26.26, 27. is ſufficient to exclude from the Lords Supper. But we have largely ſhewed that there are no places of Scripture to exclude Infants of believers from the firſt ſeal, but many for including them as belonging to it; and therefore we cannot take that generall expreſſion, go teach and baptize, Matth. 28.19. to intend to exclude them from Baptiſme.