A Christian, Chapter 1
CHAP. I. Severall Conſiderations premiſed, as an entrance to the Diſcourſe.
BEFORE I enter on the main queſtions handled in this Diſcourſe, it will not be unneceſſary to premiſe ſomething in general concerning this Controverſy, which is ſuch a bone of contention among the Saints, for to make our way clear before us.
And 1. Let this be conſidered, that there is nothing in all the N. T. againſt the baptizing of Infants, not one hint from any expreſs word dropt from Chriſt or his Apoſtles; not one phraſe, which though never ſo much ſtrain'd, doth forbid ſuch an act; but there is much for it in divers Scriptures compared together; and what is wanting in the one, is ſupplyed in another abundantly, as hereafter will appear.
2. The ſum of all that our Oppoſites have to ſay, though they make a great deal of noiſe in the World, is only this, that they can find no ſyllabical precept, or word of command in terms, ſaying, Go baptize Infants; or any poſitive example where it is ſaid in ſo many words, Infants were baptized; only actual believers, as they believed, were baptized: all that they ſay beſides, is only to quarrel with our arguments, and make ſhift to evade the ſtrength of them: but this is their only argument, and their all; for however they talk of the Covenant, and fleſhly and ſpiritual ſeed, yet this is the Goliahs ſword, none like to it; I would therfore fairly encounter with it in the Portall, that I may ſee all their ſtrength before me.
Concerning which, take in theſe conſiderations: Firſt, this argument is built on this falſe principle, That no direct conſequences from Scripture are mandatory, and ſo obliging, nor of Divine Authority, which all Orthodox Profeſſors and Divines grant, but theſe which are againſt Infants baptiſm; and it is moſt clear: for,
1. The way to know Scriptures, is by comparing them together, 1 Cor. 2.13. and this muſt needs be by their Harmonie, and by deduction from one to another.
2. Without True conſequence were as Scripture, no one could ſpeak truth but theſe that ſpeak juſt the very expreſſions of Scripture.
3. There could be no ſpiritual reaſons nor arguments uſed in any Diſcourſe to be of any force or conſequence, though from the Scripture; for there can be no arguing from Scripture, but by conſequences and deduction; for in all arguments there muſt be a medium and a concluſion, a propoſition and an inference.
4. Nothing upon this account can be Scripture but the very letters and ſyllables in the Bible; nothing of the meaning or ſenſe is Scripture; for you muſt draw out the ſenſe and meaning from the letters by rational conſequence, as the concluſion from a propoſition by a fit medium; and how abſurd would this prove, that letters ſhould be Scripture, and not the ſenſe? and ſo it muſt be according to that Maxim of theirs.
5. This is againſt all preaching, and expounding Scripture; nothing muſt be read but the very bare characters for to draw any deductions from; it is to no purpoſe, though never ſo direct and full; for if they be not Scripture, they cannot bind conſciences; and to what end is preaching, but to open and apply Scripture?
6. The ſearchings of the Scripture were the moſt uſeleſs undertaking that could be imagined; for what need I ſearch, but read? for no conſequence, by compariſon of Scripture, is of authority to ſatisfie my conſcience, if I draw a concluſion from a text, and perceive the meaning of it to be thus; if nothing without it be laid down in ſo many ſyllables, how many ſuch ſtrange abſurdities would follow the denying conſequences from Scripture, which are purely deducted? and by this principle, that where there are not ſo many letters put together in one ſentence, there is no command, men would ſoon draw Religion into a very narrow compaſs.
7. This would be as much againſt themſelves; For,
Firſt, They have no command in ſo many words, Go and baptize actual or viſible believers: if they ſay ſuch were baptized: it's anſwered, that is not to the purpoſe: for it's a verball command required by them to give warrant to an ordinance.
Secondly, That they muſt prove by conſequence alſo, believers were baptized, Ergo there was a command: Neither,
Thirdly, Can they prove one act concerning their own form of baptizing by any command, but by conſequences: When they ſay Infants are not to be baptized, they draw it from conſequence thus, becauſe there is no command in their ſenſe; When they affirm the Covenant is not made with believers now, and their ſeed, as with Abraham, it's drawn by conſequence, becauſe, ſay they, Abraham is no natural father to us, as to the Jews, and becauſe that covenant was a mixt Covenant, &c. When they come to prove baptizing to be by plunging, they argue by conſequence, becauſe the word ſignifies it, becauſe they went where much water was, and went down into the water, &c. though they are miſtaken in all their conſequences, as I ſhall hereafter ſhew; yet this is full ad hominem, and againſt themſelves, who deny conſequences to warrant inſtitutions, and yet have nothing for to prove their own way, but what is by conſequence from Scripture.
8. It's common among the Apoſtles to argue in ſuch a method, and to deduce one thing from another, to make out what they intended; 2 Cor. 5.14. We thus judge, if Chriſt died for all, then all are dead; if the firſt be true, then the latter; ſo 1 Cor. 15.13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20. and all that Chapter, arguing out the reſurrection by fit mediums: ſo about the Ordinance of Baptiſm, Acts 10.47. Can any man forbid water, why theſe ſhould not be baptized, who have received the holy Ghoſt as well as we? There was never any command to baptize theſe that had received the holy Ghoſt, nor any example of any baptized on theſe terms; but the Apoſtle argues from the equivalency of the mercy, and the reaſon of the ſtate they were in; the ſame method he uſes 1 Cor. 10.15, 16, 17, 18. 1 Tim. 5.17, 18.
9. There will be hardly found a definition of the moſt doctrinal and high myſteries of the Goſpel, but by comparing Scripture with Scripture, and ſo making it forth by conſequence: what perfect definition of juſtification, or of juſtifying faith, in ſo many formall expreſſions in all the N. T. but what muſt be deducted by comparing Scriptures together to make one reſult? where are women either by ſuch a wordy expreſſion commanded to receive the Lords Supper? or any example? if they ſay (foreign) ſignifies both ſexes, yet it's ſtill by conſequence, no command or example: and why not (foreign) as fit to ſignifie Infant-Saints, as grown Saints, Infant-holineſs, as perfect holineſs? it's applyed to both; if they will ſtick at a ſyllable, we may ſtick with them on the ſame grounds.
10. Deny conſequences to have the ſtrength of commands, and you will leave very few duties to be practis'd, or ſins to be avoided, in the Old or New Teſtament: Expound the ten Commandments, the ſum of the Law, without conſequences, and very few ſhall be found literal tranſgreſſors, but moſt deſperate debauched perſons. Mat. 5. Chriſt expounds the whole Law, and by conſequences from the inward meaning, draws out new conſiderations of duties; and ſince the Bible is but a ſhort ſyſteme of Religion, every place is fitted to expound each other; and this muſt be done by rational-ſpiritual compariſons and inferences; but enough to the firſt conſideration on this head of commands and conſequences.
2. Where we have a promiſe laid as the foundation of a duty, that is equivalent to any expreſs command; for as commands in the Goſpel do ſuppoſe promiſes, to encourage us to act them, and help us in them: ſo promiſes made to perſons do include commands, eſpecially when the duties commanded are annexed to the promiſes, as all New Teſtament Ordinances are, as well as Old.
3. We have as much in the N. T. to prove Infant-baptiſm, from the true principles of right to Ordinances, as they have for theſe whom they baptize; for they baptize grown perſons on ſuch and ſuch conſiderations; and we ſhall hereafter ſhew, we baptize on as ſtrong and equivalent grounds; and that's enough to warrant a command, to demonſtrate the ſame ſubſtantial grounds of the command to reach the ſame caſe.
4. If we can find no poſitive command in ſo many words for their baptizing (ſhewing the ſame fundamental grounds) it's requiſite they ſhould ſhew us ſome expreſs command to the contrary, and ſome authentique repeal, ſeeing Infants ſo long enjoyed ſuch a like Ordinance: upon the ſame grounds Chriſt would not have taken away ſuch an antient priviledge, when his grace abounded, and ſuper-abounded, but he would have left ſome characters of it in the Goſpel, and entred ſome formal diſcharge in his Word of ſuch perſons, and given a warning of it to the Gentile believers to expect it; but he hath both by his words and carriages left clear demonſtrations, that he is ſo far from repealing, as he confirms it to Infants; let the Scriptures opened hereafter ſpeak to this.
The third Conſideration premiſed is this, as all that they urge as to examples of actual believers being baptized, all along the New Teſtament, eſpecially the Acts, and that if thou believeſt thou mayſt, &c. we can freely grant without any damage to this truth: For,
1. We ſay as they, profeſſing believers, grown men were firſt baptized, and ſo they ought to be, who are to be the firſt ſubjects of the adminiſtration of an Ordinance, perſons able to give an account of their own faith; it was ſo with Abraham, Gen. 17▪ 24. he was 99 years old when he was circumciſed. and he muſt be firſt circumciſed before he could convey a right to his ſeed; now you may as well argue, Abraham was firſt circumciſed when ſo old, therefore old perſons are to be circumciſed, and none elſe; as becauſe grown perſons were baptized, therefore not Infants, when they muſt be firſt baptized themſelves; for Children are baptized by the promiſe firſt to them, and in them to their ſeed.
2. An affirmative poſition is not excluſive of ſubordinates; becauſe believers were ſaid to be baptized, Ergo not their ſeed▪ is not true reaſoning; for their ſeed were comprehended with them in the ſame promiſe.
3. A non dicto ad non factum, non valet conſequentia, as Divines ſay; becauſe it's not expreſt in ſo many words, therefore it was not done, is no argument; eſpecially when there is enough to ſhew it was done, though not written; Chriſt ſpeaks ſhort, that we may ſearch; he expects N. T. Saints to be ſo ingenuous as to take more by a hint, then thoſe of the Old who were not ſo bred as we now; they had every pin of the Tabernacle appointed; it's not ſo punctually ſet down now, either as to Churches, or Government, but only the main Subſtantials laid down, and it's left to the ingenuity of the Saints to draw forth the conſequences.
Laſtly, to premiſe no more; God hath alwaies ordained ſome Ordinances; in the adminiſtration of which, for the moſt part, the ſubject hath been purely paſſive, to expreſs his own free grace moſt eminently, as Circumciſion on Infants: And can we think he hath left no Ordinance now as a viſible character, only to hold forth his meer grace in the N. T. where he reigns by grace? And there is no ſign ſo fit to expreſs it as Baptiſm, and no ſubject ſo capable as poor Infants.