Vindication of Baptizing Believers Infants, Chapter 1
CHAP. I.
MR. Tombes his third Argument againſt Infant-Baptiſme,Exercit. Argum. 3. Sect. 16. From John Baptiſt and the Apoſtles practiſe. is from the Apoſtles, and John Baptiſt, which (ſaith he) is the beſt interpreter of our Lords inſtitution, from whence this Argument is formed.
That tenet and practiſe which being put, Baptiſme cannot be adminiſtred as John Baptiſt and the Apoſtles did adminiſter it, agrees not with the practiſe of John Baptiſt, and the Apoſtles. But the tenet and practiſe of Infant-Baptiſme being put, baptiſme cannot be adminiſtred as John Baptiſt and the Apoſtles adminiſtred it. Ergo.
1. We anſwer.Animadverſ This Argument doth not in terms conclude the thing in queſtion. For make the ſuppoſition that John Baptiſt and the Apoſtles, the beſt interpreters of our Lords inſtitution, had never any opportunitie, or occaſion offered to baptize any believers Infants; would it therefore follow that the inſtitution did not allow it when it doth not forbid it, but leaves it to be referred to the inſtitution of the firſt ſeal in the old Teſtament? Moſes the beſt interpreter of the Ceremoniall Law, and ſo of the inſtitution of Circumciſion given by God, had not any occaſion (that we read of to our remembrance) of circumciſing any Jews of ripe yeers; would it follow therefore that he might not have done it according to the inſtitution?
2. We anſwer. That when Mr. T. is to anſwer our Argument, that the Apoſtles baptizing whole families, likely baptized ſome Infants, he makes it doubtfull whether they baptized any Infants; and now Mr. T. puts it out of doubt that they baptized none. Or elſe he would prove one doubt by another.
But let us come particularly to the Argument. The minor, namely, [the tenet and practiſe of Infant-baptiſme being put; Baptiſme cannot be adminiſtred as John Baptiſt and the Apoſtles adminiſtred is denyed. For it doth not appear that they baptized no children. But Mr. T. will prove the minor thus. Before the baptiſme of John even the Jews did confeſſe their ſins; the Apoſtles afore baptiſme did require ſhews of faith and repentance. Matth. 3.6. Luk. 3.10. Act. 2.38. Act. 8.12, 13, 37. Act. 9.18. Act. 20.47. Act. 11. 17, 18. Act. 16.15.31, 32, 33. Act. 18.8. Act. 19.5. Act. 22.16. But this cannot be done in the baptiſme of Infants. Ergo.
We anſwer by limiting the major. That in baptizing people of ripe yeers, de facto in fact confeſſion of ſin, &c. did precede and forego; But neither John Baptiſt nor the Apoſtles make any ſuch expreſſe rule, that de jure of equitie none ſhould be baptized by them, but thoſe that could make confeſſion of ſin, or profeſſion of faith. Nor doth all the Scriptures brought by Mr. T. prove any ſuch rule. Mr. T. himſelf intimatedly confeſſeth, that John the Baptiſt did not make a rule for confeſſion; but onelyonly in practiſe thoſe Jews of ripe yeers that John Baptiſt did baptize, did firſt confeſſe their ſins. And that Act. 2.39. Act. 16. &c. have been alreadie diſcuſſed that they ſhewed children were baptized; who could not make confeſſion or profeſſion.
But Mr. T. objects, Act. 8.37. If thou believeſt with thy whole heart thou mayeſt be baptized. Where the Apoſtle implies in his ſpeech to the Eunuch that defect of faith was an impediment of baptiſme.
We anſwer. Mr. T. afore confeſſeth, p. 24. Infants may be ſanctified. If therefore he means the defect of manifeſtation of faith, we anſwer. It is true in men of ripe yeers. For there it is known that they are worſe then Infants. So was it in circumciſion. If Iſhmael be a known ſcoffer, he is caſt out, and ſo his children are not circumciſed, unleſſe perhaps after at yeers they gave good teſtimonie of their due ſubjection to the Law.
So that to the whole argumentation we ſay, that here is mention of the manner of the practiſe of that firſt adminiſtration of baptiſme to the parents, with confeſſion and profeſſion by many examples, and intimations, but not a rule ſet down that thus it muſt be in the ſucceſſion of believers children.
We liſt not to ſpeak any thing more of this major Propoſition, and the proofs; onelyonly wonder that among the crowd of Scriptures Mr. T. quotes, he would thruſt in that of Act. 19.5. for baptiſme of water, which was onelyonly a conferring of the miraculary gifts of the holy Ghoſt, by impoſition of hands; as many arguments from the place can evince.
But Mr. T. objects this for a confirmation of his Argument. That if it be rightly argued from 1 Cor. 11.28. that the Lords Supper is not to be granted to Infants, becauſe ſelf-examination is pre-required; by like reaſon we may ſay, Baptiſme is not yeelded to Infants, becauſe repentance and faith are pre-required. Act. 2.38. Act. 8.37. and that of thoſe that deſcended from Abraham, and to whom the promiſe was.
Beſides what we ſaid afore, we anſwer to this Argument (great in ſhew) that there is not the like reaſon between thoſe places for Baptiſme, and that for the Lords Supper. For,
1. That of the Lords Supper ſpeaks of every Communicant viritim, as counting one after another; Let the partie whoſoeuer it be enter into ſelf-examination before eating. But that Act. 2.38. ſpeaks in the gub, or generall to the parents. And that Act. 8.37. is ſpoken to one onelyonly man, and in that phraſe that cannot be found elſewhere on that occaſion.
2. There is no intimation in the New Teſtament of children admitted to the Lords Supper. But in that Act. 2. preſently in the next verſe, v. 39. there is an intimation of their Infants admitted to Baptiſme; as before we have evinced.
That clauſe of deſcending from Abraham, and the belonging of the promiſe, is of no weight in this Argument. For,
1 The parents by putting to death Chriſt, had made themſelves in wickedneſſe worſe then Gentiles.
2 That confeſſion and profeſſion is expreſly called for, onelyonly from them that were ſo apparently wicked.
3 That if they did come in by repentance, the promiſe (ſaith the Apoſtle) preſently runs to their children.