A Defense of Infant Baptism, Brief
A Brief EXAMINATION OF Mr. TOMBES his Exercitation about INFANT-BAPTISM.
YOur Exercitation might very well have been ſpared in this place, for any great advantage it is like to bring to your cauſe, but I am very glad it is extant, becauſe all Learned men will by it plainly diſcern how mean and poor your Arguments are, when you come poſitively to aſſert, they will now finde that true which I ſaid in the beginning, that your faculty is farre better in darkening, ſlurring, and plundering the Arguments of your Adverſary, then in making good your owne. You have here impanelled a whole Jury, and would faine perſwade a verdict of twelve men to ſtand upon record on your ſide, as having found Infant-Baptiſme guilty of the crimes which you have laid to its charge: I ſhall very briefly examine what every one of them have ſaid, and only run them over, partly, becauſe there are lately extant two learned Treatiſes againſt it, written by Doctor Homes, and Maſter Geree, the firſt of them was publiſhed when my Book was almoſt half Printed, the other ſince; but chiefly becauſe almoſt every ſentence in this your Exercitation which hath any ſtrength is by yourſelfe brought into your other Treatiſe, which you call the Examen of my Sermon, and there is already fully anſwered.
Of your twelve Arguments, the firſt is not properly to be called an Argument againſt Infant-Baptiſme, but is rather an anſwer to ſeverall Arguments pretended to bee brought for Infant-Baptiſme; and upon this you beſtow at leaſt two third parts of your Exercitation, twice as much I nke and Paper upon the foreman of the Jury, as you doe upon the other eleven.
VnderUnder the head of this firſt Argument, you have brought in no leſſe then fourteen Arguments (as you call them) for the lawfulneſſe of Infant-Baptiſme, and then you undertake to anſwer them; your ſelf ſay truly of many of them, they make a number without ſtrength; and therefore as you have made a conqueſt of them, doe with your priſoners what you pleaſe, for I count them not worth the redeeming; onelyonly this I ſay, we have ſix or ſeven of your twelve, which I think all the world, and your ſelfe alſo, will grant to be taken Priſoners by us, if you pleaſe we will exchange them for the other, and then in the exchange we ſhall loſe nothing, being aſſured yours are as weake and ſimple as it is poſſible for thoſe to be which you have taken; and for the reſt of the arguments brought for Paedo-Baptiſme, you have propounded them for▪ your owne advantage, ſo ſet them downe as to make them beſt capable of the ſpecious anſwers you bring unto them; but I like not that an enemy ſhould have the ordering of the Forces which hee meanes to fight againſt, you muſt give us leave to chooſe our own weapons, and Marſhall our own Forces, and then you may try your skill and valour againſt them. Doctor Homes hath made his Annotations upon all the arguments which you have produced according to your owne method Mr. Geree hath choſen out onelyonly thoſe arguments which carry moſt evidence, and not troubled himſelfe to examine every thing; for my part, I humbly conceive that Infant-baptiſme is not to be fetched from any one of theſe grounds ſingly, but is built upon the identity of the Covenant, Infants right to the Covenant, and the initiall ſeale; and conſequently though one Text may be a ſufficient medium or Argument to prove ſome one or two of them, yet to make the evidence full, theſe ground… muſt not be ſeparated one from another, but neceſſary recourſe muſt be had to them all; and if all your Arguments doe overthrow any one of them, either the Covenants being the ſame in ſubſtance, or infants right to the Covenant, or the Lords appointing an initiall ſeale to bee adminiſtred to all who are reputed belonging to the Covenant, I ſhall readily yeeld the cauſe, as I have often told you. All the trouble I ſhal put the Reader to, about this your firſt Argument, Arg. 1. Anſw.or rather your anſwer to Arguments, ſhal be to point him to ſuch places in my book, where you have already preſt the ſame things, and I have given an anſwer to them.
The firſt Argument from Gen. 17. hath beene examined, Part 3. Sect. 1, 2. and elſwhere.
The ſecond argument taken from Baptiſm ſucceeding into the room of Circumciſion, and Coloſſ. 2. 11, 12, &c. is examined Part 3. Sect. 9.
The third argument from the priviledges of beleevers under the New Teſtament, is examined, Part 3. Sect. 11. 7.
The fourth argument from Acts 2. …8. is fully examined, Part 3. Sect. 6.
The fifth argument from 1 Cor. 7. 14. is examined, Part 3. Sect. 8.
The ſixth argument from Mark 10. 14. Matth. 19. &c. which alſo you put into ſeverall ſhapes, is examined, Part 3. Sect. 15.
The ſeventh argument from Acts 16. and ſeverall other places which ſpeake of baptizing of houſholds, is examined Part 3. Sect 14. And in theſe ſeverall places you have preſſed whatever is of any ſeeming weight in this your Exercitation, and added many other things which the reader ſhall finde to bee examined in the places which I have pointed to, beſides in ſeverall other places of my Booke, where you have again and again repeated many of the ſame things.
The other ſeven arguments (as you call them) I looke not upon as arguments, and therefore will not meddle with them▪ ſome of the Scriptures mentioned in them, as, Exod. 20. 6. 1 Pet. 2. 9. &c. ſo farre as they have any uſe in this controverſie, are alſo conſidered of here, and there in my Book, as the Reader may obſerve.
Your ſecond Argument againſt Infant Baptiſme is fetcht from Mat. 28. 19. That which agrees not with the Lords inſtitution Arg. 2.of Baptiſme, that is deſervedly doubtfull; But the rite of Infant-baptiſme agrees not with the Lords inſtitution of Baptiſm, Ergo. This argument hath received its full examination, Part 3. Sect. 13. and Part 4. Sect. 1. whither I refer the Anſw.Reader, as not willing to trouble him with needleſſe repetition of the ſame things.
Your third Argument is taken from the practice of the Apoſtles, and John the Baptiſt, and runs thus, That tenet and Arg. 3.practice which being put, Baptiſm cannot be adminiſtred as John Baptist and the Apoſtles did adminiſter it, agrees not with the practice of John Baptiſt and the Apoſtles; But the tenet and practice of Infant-Baptiſme being put, Baptiſme cannot bee administred as Jo. Baptiſt, and the Apoſtles administred i…; Ergo &c. This you goe about to prove, becauſe John and the Apoſtles baptized none but ſuch as confeſſed ſinnes, they required ſhewes of faith and repentance in all whom they baptized.
This Argument relates wholly to matter of fact, wherein you put your ſelfe to prove a negative; and therefore the argument Anſw.can prove nothing, unleſſe you can produce ſome one place at leaſt out of the Scripture wherein it is ſaid no Infant was baptized by them, or no other then ſuch as you have mentioned; but what you have here ſaid about it is fully conſidered, Part. 3. Sect. 13. eſpecially Part 4. Sect. 1.
Theſe three Arguments, which alone deſerve to bee called (if yet the firſt may be ſo called) are fully examined in the places above-mentioned; the reſt of your arguments are ſo wholly inconſequent, that I wonder you ſhould think them worthy or fit to face an Aſſembly of Divines, and expect that they ſhould joyne their ſtrength together to frame an anſwer to them; when as I verily thinke they may all bee routed by the running pen of an ordinary Clerke in a few houres.
Your fourth is taken from the next age after the Apoſtles, and ſtands thus in your book, Becauſe Infant-baptiſme Arg. 4.cannot be proved that it was inforce or uſe in the next age after the Apostles; Ergo, the tenet and practice of it is doubtfull. The major (you ſay) is manifest of it ſelfe; for the minor you alledge Vives, and Strabo; and (ſay you, it is confirmed by examining of places brought to that purpoſe, & by continuing queſtions to the parties baptized in ages following, and other tokens from Councells, and Eccleſiaſticall writers.
I anſwer, Firſt, to your Major, which you ſay is manifeſt of its ſelfe, I judge to bee moſt falſe, and a moſt dangerous Anſw.poſition: is every tenet and practice doubtfull, which cannot be proved by hiſtoricall evidence to have been received and practiced in that age, whereof we have ſo few Records? the proceſſion of the holy Ghoſt, the propagation of originall ſinne, and many other Tenets, I beleeve you will neither find mentioned in that age nor the next; How would you have laughed at ſuch a concluſion ſet downe by another? And ſecondly, for your Minor, I anſwer 1. There were no Councells at all aſſembled in that age next to the Apoſtles. And 2. as for Eccleſiaſticall Writers, I wiſh you would name them; I beleeve you will find very few Writers of credit in that age, whoſe legitimate workes are tranſmitted to poſterity. Thirdly, how do Vives and Strabo know what was done in the ages next the Apoſtles, when the eldeſt of them lived almoſt 800 years after that age? the authority and skill of theſe two men hath been ſufficiently ſpoken to, Part 1. Sect. 2. Fourthly, I wonder how the queſtions propounded in ages following to the baptized, doe prove that Infant-Baptiſme was not in uſe in the age next after the Apoſtles.
Your fifth argument runs thus, That which in ſucceeding Arg. 5.ages in which it was in uſe, was in force firſt as a Tradition not written. Secondly, out of imitation of Jewiſh circumciſion. Thirdly, without univerſall practice. Fourthly, together with the error of giving Infants the Lords Supper, and with many other humane inventions under the name of Apoſtolicall Traditions, that is deſerv…dly doubtfull. But ſuch was Infant-Baptiſme in thoſe ages, Ergo, &c. I anſwer, firſt, by denying your Major, the obſervation of the Lords day hath beene by ſome accounted a Tradition, others have ſaid it is Jewiſh to keep any Sabbath at all, becauſe Sabbath dayes were a ſhadow of things to come, but the body is Chriſt, what will you thence conclude againſt our Chriſtian Sabbath? And for what you ſay about the practice of it that it was not univerſall, I deſire you to remember, that argumentum ductum a non facto ad non jus eſt abſurdiſſimum; may wee plead thus, ſuch and ſuch a thing was not generally obſerved, Ergo it was not a duty? the boyes in the Schooles would ſtamp and hiſſe at ſuch an inference; from the dayes of Ioſoua, to the dayes of Nehemiab, the children of Iſrael had not kept the feaſt of Tabernacles Nehem. 8. 17.in Booths or Tents, which was about a thouſand yeares; was it therefore not their duty to have done it? Dr. Hoylin in his Hiſtory of the Sabbath, urgeth this very argument againſt the Lords day, in ſuch and ſuch Fathers days many did not obſerve the Lords day, many did tipple and dance upon the Lords day; ergo the Lords day was not generally obſerved, and if it were not generally obſerved in thoſe days, Ergo we are not bound to obſerve it. This kind of arguing is almoſt as wilde as that which the Schools call, a baculo ad angulum, my ſtaffe ſtands in the corner, Ergo it will rain tomorrow morning.
Your laſt Exception under this fourth argument is yet more ſtrange, There were many other things went under the name of Traditions, which were meer humane inventions, Ergo Infantbaptiſm, which went under the name of a Tradition is alſo a humane invention. Shall I ſhew the naturall face of this argument in a glaſſe; ſuch and ſuch men who went under the name of honeſt men were knaves; Ergo all that goe …nder the name of honeſt men are knaves. It is true, many things went in thoſe dayes under the name of Traditions, which were but humane inventions, and it is as true that many points of faith, and other divine inſtitutions went in the ſame ages under the name of Traditions, as I have made apparent, Part 1. Sect. 2. You ſee what a poore argument this would prove although your minor were true, though the things were as you ſet them downe; but I have abundantly proved the contrary: I have ſhewed the Ancients received it as a Divine Inſtitution, and upon ſuch arguments as we doe, though ſome of them preſt ſome corrupt grounds which we reject: and as for the univerſality of the practice of it both in the Greek and Latin Churches I have abundantly cleared it from all Objections you make againſt it: and you out of all your reading have not been able to produce one of the ancients, who either beld it unlawfull, or denyed that it was in uſe from the Apoſtles dayes. One or two indeed you bring who adviſed the deferring Infant-Baptiſm, as they did alſo the baptiſme of grown men; and ſome examples you produce of the children of Chriſtians not baptized (as you think) in their Infancy; to all which I have ſpoken at large, Part. 1. ſect. 2. And as for what you alledge of their giving the Lords Supper unto Infants, I have denyed, and ſhall doe ſtill, till you bring ſome evidence for it, that there was any ſuch univerſall practiſe, indeed in the African Churches that errour did obtain in the days of Cyprian and Auſtin, but I finde no ſuch generall practice of it; however the Argument follows not, That it was their error to give Infants the Lords Supper; Ergo it was their error to baptize Infants.
Your ſixth Argument runs thus; that which hath occaſioned Arg. 6.many humane inventions, partly by which Infant-Baptiſme it ſelfe may bee underpropt, partly the defect in the p…licy of the Church ſupplyed; that is deſervedly douhtfull; But the matter i… ſo in the buſineſſe of Infant-Baptiſme: and here you bring in witneſſes in Baptiſme, Epiſcopall confirmation, the reformed union by examination, confeſſion, before receiving the Lords Supper, Church-Covenant before the admiſſion of Church-members into Church-fellowſhip, &c.
I anſwer briefly, if by occaſioned you meane that Infant-Baptiſme Anſw.hath exnaturâ rei given occaſion to theſe things, I deny your minor, Infant-Baptiſme is no more an occaſion of theſe things in the Chriſtian Church, then circumciſing of Infants was an occaſion of the like in the Jewiſh Church; Infant-Baptiſme may very well ſtand, and doth very well ſtand in many reformed Churches without ſuch witneſſes, without confirmation, or any other examination, confeſſion, &c. before the Lords Supper, or other Church-diſcipline, then ſuch as might bee in uſe to men though they were not baptized in their Infancy: but if by occaſioned you meane not … da…a, but … temer… a…pta, that the corrupt mind of man hath thence tooke occaſion for other errors and miſtakes; if you meane that which hath thus … caſioned many humane inventions is doubtfull, then I deny your major: there is ſcarſe any common place in the body of Divinity but hath occaſioned humane inventions, the Lords Supper hath occaſioned kneeling at the Sacrament; and that hath occaſioned ſuſpenſion, excommunication, ſeparation; what will you thence conclude againſt the Lords Supper? Ergo, the Lords Supper is a humane invention?
Your ſeventh, eighth, and ninth Arguments are but ſo many branches or rather ſo many repetitions of your ſixth Arg. 7, 8, & 9.Argument, poſſibly you have thus divided them that you might make up a whole Jury. And the ſelfe ſame anſwer ſerves them as was given to the other; I will conclude as Anſw.ſtrongly againſt you, out of your owne premiſſes thus; Antipaedobaptiſme hath occaſioned many errours, many abuſes and faults in diſcipline, divine worſhip, and converſation of men, together with many unneceſſary diſputes, foſtering contention onelyonly: Ergo, Antipaedobaptiſme is what you pleaſe to all Infant-baptiſme: I leave out that paſſage onelyonly in the major of your ninth Argument, viz. which cannot bee determined by any certaine rule, becauſe therein you doe very heartily beg the queſtion.
Your tenth argument is framed thus; That in the midſt of the darkneſſe of Popery, the ſame men who oppoſed invocation Arg. 10.of Saints, Prayer for the dead, adoration of the croſſe, and ſuch like, oppoſed alſo the baptizing of Infants, and here you bring in Bernard his 66▪ Sermon upon the Canticles, and his 140. Epiſtla againſt Henry the Heretick (as you call him) and Cluniacinſis againſt Peter de Bruis and Henry; alſo a paſſage out of Oſtander, accuſing the Albingenſes …s conſenting with the Anabaptiſt…. To which I anſwer, firſt, I deny the conſequence, becauſe they oppoſed invocation of Saints, prayer Anſw.for the dead, &c. and alſo oppoſed Infant-Baptiſme; Ergo, the laſt is an errour as well as the firſt: for the ſame men have oppoſed Popery and the Sabbath, the ſame men have denyed Prelacy and the bleſſed Trinitie: Is it not poſſible for the ſame man to oppoſe a multitude of curſed errors, and yet to oppoſe ſome one bleſſed truth? Secondly, I alſo deny your minor; they who thus oppoſed invocation of Saints, &c. did not oppoſe baptiſme of Infants: Bermgarius, the Waldenſes, Albingenſes, Wickluites, Huſſites, and others are indeed ſlandered by ſome of their adverſaries, as if they denyed Infant-baptiſme, but are cleared out of their owne confeſſions; as I have made abundantly manifeſt, Part 2. Sect. 2. What under the head of this tenth Argument you mention out of Tertullian, and Gregory Nazianzen hath beene fully confidered of, Part 1. Sect. ….
Your eleventh Argument runs thus; The aſſerters of Infant-baptiſme Arg. 11.little agree among themſelves upon what foundation to build Infantbaptiſme: ſome from univerſalitie of divine grace, ſome from neceſſitie of Baptiſme to ſalvation, ſome from the promiſe of the ſureties, ſome from the faith of the Infants, ſome from the faith of the next parents, Ergo, What? what concluſion can you make from this: Anſw.The Antipaedobaptiſts reject the Baptiſme of Infants upon ſeverall grounds: ſome becauſe Infants have no ſinne, ſome becauſe they have no more to doe with the Covenant of grace, then the Infants of Turkes; ſome becauſe Infants are not capable of grace, ſome becauſe they are unbeleevers, ſome becauſe we cannot know whether they have grace or no, will you therefore ſay Antipaedobaptiſme is to bee rejected? So for the Lords day, fome pleade it upon one ground, others reject that ground, and plead it upon another, have therefore none of them hit upon a right ground? the like may bee ſaid of many other points both of faith and practiſe in Chriſtianitie; the utmoſt that can bee collected from mens different grounds in pleading for ſuch or ſuch a truth is, that God hath not left that truth ſo cleare as poſſible he hath done others wherein there is a greater conſent: but to collect that therefore the opinion is to be rejected, is a ſtrange conſequence. I add farther that almoſt all, both ancient and moderne, doe agree in the argument from Circumciſion to Baptiſme, which neceſſarily implies our Covenant to be the ſame with theirs, our Infants right to be the ſame with theirs, and our Sacrament of Baptiſme to be the ſame with theirs of Circumciſion as to the uſe of an initiall Seale.
Your twelfth and laſt Argument which brings up your reere, which you call a weighty reaſon, runs thus: Becauſe Infant-Baptiſme Arg. 12.ſeemes to take away one, perhaps the primary end of Baptiſme, viz. that it ſhould bee a ſigne that the baptized ſhew himſelfe a Diſciple, and confeſſe the faith in which hee hath been inſtructed, and this you prove from Iohn the Baptiſt and other paſſages in the New Teſtament, which put Baptiſme for Doctrine, from the forme of Chriſts inſtitution, and by the uſe of Baptiſme in the initiating of Proſelytes, and hence you collect that Baptiſme doth not onelyonly confirme a benefit, but ſignifies alſo a profeſſion made. To which I anſwer: This Argument how weightie ſoever it bee, is but a branch taken from your ſecond argument out of Mat. 28. and from your third argument from the practiſe of John and Chriſts Apoſtles, and is but a Crambe of what you have often preſt before, and hath received its full anſwer, Part 3. Sect. 13. and Part 4. Sect 1. and I adde further, that even that which your ſelfe here ſets downe, gives a full anſwer to your own Argument, for you ſay that a Sacrament is not only a viſible ſigne of an inviſible grace, …r appointed to ſignifie only a divine benefit, but it likewiſe ſerves to ſignifie his dutie who receives the Sacrament: It ſignifies a profeſſion made, as well as confirmes a benefit; for doth it not thence neceſſarily follow that the Infants of the Jewes made by their Circumciſion a profeſſion, as well as received the ſigne of a benefit? and that therefore the Baptizing of Infants doth not fruſtrate that end of initiating them to bee Diſciples or Profeſſors? And that which you adde of the uſe of Baptiſme in the initiating of Proſelytes into the profeſſion of Judaiſme, is as full to the purpoſe as can bee to prove what I affirme: for wee know from all the Authors who write about it, that Infants as well as growne men were initiated into the profeſſion of Judaiſme by the rite of Baptiſme.
In the laſt place you ſhut up your Exercitation with a diſcourſe about the Devills indenting with witches to renounce their Baptiſme, as if ſome would thence argue that Infant-Baptiſme is good, becauſe the Devill would have them renounce it: but you, who it ſeemes know the Devills mind in it, ſay the true reaſon why hee requires witches to renounce their Baptiſme, is not becauſe the Baptiſme is good in reſpect of the adminiſtration of it, but becauſe the faith mentioned in the forme …f Baptiſme is good; for my owne part, I am ſo little acquainted with the Devills practiſe in it, and ſee ſo little ſtrength of Argument for or againſt Infant-Baptiſme from the trading betwixt the Devill and the witch, that I intend not to meddle with this Argument … from h…ll, I reſt contented with thoſe which I find in the …ke of God.
FINIS.