The Right Method for Proving Infant Baptism, Postscript
A POSTSCRIPT: Being a further Defence of INFANT-BAPTISM, againſt Mr. Keach.
WHEN the foregoing Sheets were juſt wrought off the Preſs, a little Tract came to my hand, put forth by Mr. Benjamin Keach, one of the Epiſtolers to Mr. Cary's Book, which I have peruſed; and although I find not my ſelf, in the way wherein I have proceeded, farther proof of Infant-Baptiſm much concerned; neither do I fear but that any who ſhall truly weigh what I have written, will ſee what he hath ſaid is ſufficiently obviated, and therefore I might well, and at firſt view of his Book, have thought to have let it paſs without taking any notice of it. Yet becauſe it is poſſible ſomething that he hath ſuggeſted, or rather repeated from others, may ſomewhat obſtruct Perſons of weaker Capacities, in their compliance with that Practice I have pleaded for; I have, upon ſecond thoughts, judged it meet to conſider what he hath written, ſo far as I conceive neceſſary; for I would not willingly leave any thing behind me unremoved out of the way of the weakeſt of ſincere Chriſtians, complying with the Mind and Will of our Lord Chriſt, in reference unto that practice wherein his Intereſt and Kingdom, the Glory of God, the Good of Children, and the Comfort of their Parents, is ſo nearly concerned; and the rather, becauſe our Lord Chriſt ſeems in a ſpecial manner to have allotted me, with ſome others, the maintaining of this Province: And it may not be unuſeful, at leaſt to Mr. Keach himſelf, to remark ſome few things in the general, before I come to a particular conſideration of what he hath ſaid; and,
Firſt, It may be remarkable how confident he is, when the Grounds he proceeds upon are ſo ſlight and trivial, and which have been afore fully removed, giving us too much ground to ſuſpect, he hath as yet looked but a very little way into this Controverſy. How ſlight and trivial his Grounds are, and where he might have ſeen them before removed, ſhall be ſhewed after. Yet ſee how he expreſſes himſelf, pag. 65. in an Apoſtrophe to our Lord Chriſt; Lord, ſays he, that Man ſhould be ſo bold and preſumptuous, as once to attempt to alter or change any thing (he hath reſpect unto the Subject of Baptiſm) of this Holy or great Commiſſion, or adventure to do things contrary to what is given forth here by Jeſus Chriſt, as King and Law giver of the New Teſtament. When he might, and it is ſomewhat hard for me to perſwade my ſelf, that he hath not ſeen it fully proved, that in the Pleas we make for Infant-Baptiſm, we make not the leaſt alteration or change in that Commiſſion, but affirm that it was neceſſary, that although it be the Will of Chriſt that Infants ſhould be baptized, yet he ſhould expreſs himſelf therein as he hath done. I ſhall only ſay at preſent, it's eaſy, and not unuſual for Men, Cynick-like, by crying out of other's ſuppoſed Evils, to diſcover the ſame more prevailing in themſelves.
Secondly, It may be remarked, how partial he is in his own Cauſe; it appears that he takes it for granted, as indeed we all do, that Chriſt hath power to preſerve, protect, and uphold all grown Perſons, in their being Baptized by Dipping or Plunging, how aged, weak, and infirm ſoever they are, and that in the coldeſt Climates, and ſharpeſt Seaſons; and he would perſwade himſelf, yea, is very confident, none ever received the leaſt hurt or damage by being ſo baptiz'd, (yea, he concludes, as he may juſtly do, That our Lord Chriſt would not inſtitute any Ordinance to deſtroy the Lives of any Perſon) thus pag. 66. and yet he pleads it as an Evidence, That Infants cannot be the Subjects of Baptiſm, becauſe their tender Bodies cannot bear it in theſe cold Climates without palpable danger of their lives. And tells us again, That Chriſt never appointed any Ordinance to deſtroy the lives of any of his Creatures; thus Page the 4th of his Epiſtle, and 32d of his Book. But let me ſay, Why cannot Jeſus Chriſt preſerve, protect, and uphold Infants, as well as grown Perſons, whoſe Age, Weakneſs, and Infirmities, in conjunction with the tender and delicate way and manner of living, renders their Bodies alike tender as, if not more tender than the Bodies of Infants, and whoſe Baptiſm by Immerſion would as palpably in danger their lives, as the Immerſion of Infants would indanger theirs. But it ſeems, in the conceit of our Author, that is an Argument againſt the Subjects of Baptiſm, which is none againſt the manner of baptizing, when as the thing it ſelf is indeed as ſtrong an Argument againſt the one, as againſt the other: And for mine own part, were there a neceſſity of Baptiſm by Immerſion, I could as eaſily truſt our Lord Chriſt with the preſerving the lives of Infants, as of grown Perſons, viz. ſuch as thoſe aforementioned: But our Author here gives as a hint why they ſo zealouſly plead for baptizing by Immerſion, it is, that they might exclude Infants from Baptiſm.
Thirdly, I cannot but remark Mr. Keach his great diſingenuity, (that is the mildeſt term I can give it) for indeed 'tis very bad, exceeding bad, and a very great diſparagement, both to himſelf and his Cauſe. I ſhall only give a two-fold Inſtance: Firſt, in his quoting Mr. Baxter, and other Paedobaptiſt Aſſertions, concerning the Uſe and End of Baptiſm, and the Qualifications of the Subjects to be baptized, as though they were contradictory unto their practice; whereas what they ſay, is indeed no way contradictory thereunto, but fully conſiſtent therewith; and in particular, as for Mr. Baxter, he hath fully vindicated himſelf, which yet Mr. Keach hath the ingenuity to take no notice of: And it is certain, the Uſe and End of Baptiſm are not ſuch, but that it may be fitly applied to Infants; and how unreaſonable and abſurd is it to conclude, that becauſe ſuch and ſuch Qualifications are required in the Adult, therefore Infants are not to be baptized? that there were certain Qualifications required in the Adult Heathens to their Circumciſion which their Infants were uncapable of yet, and that their Infants were circumciſed with them, is undeniable. Now ſuppoſe any of the Prieſts or Levites, whoſe Lips were, as the Holy Ghoſt ſpeaks, to preſerve Knowledg, ſhould preach or write of thoſe Qualifications; for any from thence to conclude againſt the circumciſing their Infants, how abſurd would it be? It may be our Author will ſay, they had an expreſs Command for their Circumciſion. To which I anſwer, It is granted, and we affirm that we have, if not an expreſs Command, yet that which is equivolent thereunto, for the baptizing of Infants: of which more immediately.
2ly. Our Author's Diſingenuity appears in his frequent Citations out of Mr. Danvers Book (a Book of which it muſt be ſaid, it hath been and for ever will be a Reproach to the Cauſe it pleads; and I cannot but hope himſelf hath repented, as others of that Perſwaſion are aſhamed of it) without taking notice of the Anſwers long ſince returned unto it; yea, ſuch is the Diſingenuity of our Author, that he cites ſome Teſtimonies againſt Infant-Baptiſm, which have been paſt all Contradiction, proved to be meer Falſhood and Forgeries, take that Inſtance, pag. 91. where he quotes the Magdeburgenſes, as cited by Mr. Danvers. It is true, our Author has the Wit to leave out part of Mr. Danvers's pretended Citation, wherein that Falſhood did particularly lie, but he has the Diſingenuity to conceal part of what thoſe worthy Authors ſay, which had he produced, would have quite ſpoiled their Teſtimony, ſeeing they poſitively affirm, that Infants as well as the Adult, were in Primitive Times baptized. Now how Men of any Conſcience can uſe ſuch diſingenuous Methods, is to me a Riddle. I ſhall only add, O my Soul, enter not thou into their Secrets. But to come to the Book: as for what he ſays in his firſt Chapter, we are fully of the ſame mind with himſelf; the four next Chapters are wholly taken up in Attempts to prove, that it's only Baptiſm by dipping or plunging the whole Body into Water, which is true Baptiſm. I ſhall not ſay much to this, having already given a clear account of the Grounds on which I judg that our Lord Chriſt hath not indiſpenſably tied up his Church to that manner of adminiſtring that Ordinance, which Mr. Keach may conſider if he pleaſe. At preſent I ſhall only obſerve a few things in thoſe Attempts made by our Author, and paſs on.
Firſt, I cannot but obſerve how he will needs oppoſe Rantiſm or Sprinkling, to Dipping, or Plunging, or immerging the whole Body under Water, as tho that were, if not the only, yet the main and moſt principal uſed manner of Pedo-Baptiſts adminiſtring that Ordinance: hence he ſtrenuouſly applies himſelf to prove that there is a difference between foreign and foreign, and that the word foreign cannot ſignify to ſprinkle; and this I ſuppoſe he doth ad faciendum populum, ſeeing he cannot but know that many, if not moſt, or all Pedo-baptiſts, eſpecially who conſcienciouſly make the Word their Rule, adminiſter that Ordinance by waſhing, or pouring Water upon the Face of the Party baptized, whether Infant or Adult.
Secondly, It may be obſerved, That whereas our Author inſiſts ſo much upon the word foreign, to prove that baptizing muſt neceſſarily be by ſlipping or plunging under the Water, and that as eſſential unto true Baptiſm: It is certain, and himſelf acknowledges it, that this word is of a large Signification: Firſt, It ſignifies to Die, and this ſeems to be its firſt and moſt native Signification. This ſome of his own Authors, and others might be mentioned, do affirm; and anſwerably it ſignifies to plunge, Tingendi cauſa, in order to Dying or giving ſome new Colour; the primitive word being taken from a Dyers Fat. Hence we read in Prophane Authors foreign, tingere lanas, to die Wool; ſo foreign, double-dyed Purple. Hence it will follow, that barely to dip or plunge into Water, is not the firſt or primary Signification of the Word; It notes ſomething more than a bare dipping or plunging into Water; it notes ſuch a Dipping or Plunging as whereby the thing dipped or plunged may receive a new Die or Colour which it had not before. 2ly, It ſignifies barely to dip or plunge, and it ſignifies dipping or plunging; becauſe things died are dipped or plunged into that Liquor or Liquid Matter they are dyed in. 3ly. It ſignifies to waſh, ſo Mr. Lee (one of the Authors cited by Mr. Keach) tells us, that the word foreign, as Heſychus, Stephanus, Scapula and Budeus, the great Maſters of the Greek Tongue, make good, by very many Inſtances and Allegations out of Claſſick Writers, importeth no more than Ablution or Waſhing; ſo that according unto theſe great Maſters of the Greek Tongue, Ablution or Waſhing, is as …roper a Signification of this word, as dipping or plunging. Hence for any to argue meerly from the Signification of the Word, is exceeding weak, and utterly unconvincing. But,
3dly. It may be obſerved, that whereas our Author ſaith, that when it ſignifies Waſhing, it is ſuch a Waſhing as is done by dipping ſo much as is waſhed; it muſt be ſaid it is otherwiſe. Take it only of waſhing the Hands, tho other things might be mentioned, ſo the waſhing the Hands or the Feet of the Prieſt under the Law is included in thoſe foreign, mentioned Hebrews 9.10. compared with Exod. 30.18. So the Phariſees waſhing their hands before Meat, is called Baptiſme, Luk. 11.38. where it's ſaid they marvelled that he, meaning Chriſt, foreign, that he had not been baptized. Now it is certain in waſhing their Hands they did not always, if ordinarily, dip or plunge them into the Water, but had Water poured upon them: ſee 2 Kings 3.11. So that the word, according unto its uſe in the Scripture, may be rendred very fitly to waſh; and ſignifies ſuch waſhing, as is by pouring Water on the Party or Subject waſhed. I ſhall not fear to affirm, that the waſhing one Part of the Body by pouring Water, is according to the Scripture-Acceptation of the word, true Baptiſm. Doctor Owen, who underſtood the Greek as well as moſt in his Day, if not as any in any former Age, tells us, That Baptiſm is any kind of waſhing, whether by dipping or ſprinkling, putting the thing to be waſhed into the Water, or applying Water unto it, ſee Heb. 9.10. And how invalid then is his Argument taken from the bare ſignification of the word.
4thly. It may be obſerved, that whereas our Author tells us, that Dr. Du-Veil affirms, that the conſtant Practice of the Univerſal Church till about the Year 1305, was to baptize by Immerſion, it muſt be ſaid, that ſuppoſe Mr. Keach doth faithfully cite him, he was under a very great Miſtake, the contrary may be evidenced paſt all rational Contradiction, only to inſtance in thoſe at preſent, called Clinici, which were ſuch as were baptized on their Beds, of whom we read at leaſt 1000 Years before that; and hence note,
5thly. The utter Improbability that our Lord Chriſt ſhould bind up his Church to ſuch a manner of adminiſtring this Ordinance, as would neceſſarily exclude many thouſands from it, or expoſe them to apparent danger of Life, as in the caſe of Infants, the dueneſs of whoſe Baptiſm I hope hath been ſufficiently proved; ſo in the caſe of Perſons in extream old Age under lingring Sickneſs and Weakneſs, eſpecially ſuch who have lived Valitudinarian Lives all their days; but he ſeems evidently to have uſed this word foreign, which admits of different Modes of adminiſtring this Ordinance, either by dipping, or plunging, or waſhing, whether by pouring Water upon the Subject, or otherwiſe applying Water unto it, and a liberty of adminiſtring it either way, hath conſtantly been maintained in the Church.
I ſhall only further note, in the laſt place, that whereas our Opponents generally inſiſt upon John 3.23. where the Evangeliſt gives the Reaſon of John's baptizing in Aenon, to be the muchneſs of Water being there; and it muſt be granted, they are ſomewhat countenanced in their Notion by our late Annotators, and ſome others; this I would ſay, that neither the Learned Annotator upon that Book, nor our Brethren ſeem duly to conſider the Original, for it is not, there was foreign much Water, but foreign many Waters, many Streams or Rivolets of Waters; and Travellers tell us they were ſo ſhallow as not to reach above the Ankle, (ſee Sandys Travels) ſo that the Evangeliſt giving that as the reaſon of John's baptizing there, viz. becauſe there were many Waters, ſeems rather to imply that ſeveral were imployed in baptizing, than that Baptiſm was adminiſtred by Immerſion, the ſmall quantity of Water there hardly admitting that way of adminiſtring the Ordinance. But I deſign Brevity, and anſwerably ſhall refer both our Author and all others to what I have ſaid in my Anſwer to Mr. Danvers, and alſo to Mr. Walker's Treatiſe of this Subject afore referred unto, and come to the main Controverſy between us and our Brethren, and that concerns the Subjects of Baptiſm. And I call this the main Controverſy, becauſe neither my ſelf, nor, ſo far as I know, do any Pedo-baptiſts deny the Validity of Baptiſm by Immerſion; neither ſhall I deny that Baptiſm was ſometime ſo adminiſtred in Primitive Times; that it was always ſo is altogether uncertain; yea, there is a very great probability that it was not. See our new Annotations, that Mr. Keach often cites upon John 3.23. Therefore, I ſay, the main Controverſy is about the Subjects of Baptiſm; and the Queſtion is, Whether only Adult Believers are the Subjects of this Holy Sacrament? or, Whether their Infant-Seed are not the joint Subjects of it with themſelves? The former is affirmed by our Brethren, we affirm the latter. Our Author attempts to prove the former Two ways.
1. More laxly.
2. More Strictly and Syllogiſtically. And what he ſaith in a more lax or looſe Way, he afterwards reaſſumes and forms into Arguments. And therefore, I ſhall paſs that by, and the rather, becauſe I have already fully obviated all that he ſaith in my Anſwer to Mr. Danvers, who argues from the very ſame Topicks that our Author doth, (which he might have, and I ſuppoſe hath ſeen, tho' for Reaſons that may be gueſſed at by others, but are beſt known to himſelf, he hath taken no notice of) and come to his Arguments; the four firſt of which are but a repetition of what he had in a more lax or looſe way formed up into Syllogiſms, ſo that I might juſtly paſs them alſo by, but yet briefly to touch upon them.
The Firſt is this; If there be no Word of Inſtitution, nor any thing in the Commiſſion of Chriſt, for the baptizing of Infants, but of Believers only; then not Infants, but Believers only ought to be baptized: but the former is true, therefore the latter.
Anſw. I find Mr. Keach himſelf takes (as he ought to do) Authority from Chriſt, equivalent to a Word of Inſtitution, or the expreſs mention of Infants in the Commiſſion. And that being granted, I deny his Minor Propoſition, and affirm, That we have full Authority from Chriſt to baptized Infants. This I have ſo fully and demonſtratively proved already, (ſome account of what I have ſaid in proof of it, may be ſeen in the foregoing Sheets) that it is ſuperfluous to add any thing more. I have proved that they are joint Subjects of the Covenant with their Parents, and as ſuch, the proper Subjects of Baptiſm. If Mr. Keach will ſatisfactorily anſwer the Arguments I have offered, he will do both the Church of God and my ſelf no little Service.
As for what he adds in confirmation of his Minor Propoſition, it is meer trifling; in brief, it is this, 'Tis evident and owned by the Learned, That thoſe who are enjoined to be baptized in the Commiſſion, are firſt to be taught, or made Diſciples.
To which I ſhall ſay, Suppoſe we have ſufficient Authority from Chriſt to baptize Infants, how evident ſoever it be, that thoſe who are enjoined to be baptized, are firſt to be taught and made Diſciples, we have ſufficient Warrant for their Baptiſm, that Authority of our Lord Chriſt is our Warrant.
2. We ſay, that Infants are Included in the Commiſſion. All that are to be baptized, their Baptiſm is enjoined in the Commiſſion: But Infants are to be baptized, Ergo, &c. As for thoſe Learned Men he ſpeaks of, if he means that they own, That all thoſe univerſally who are enjoined to be baptized, muſt be taught, or made Diſciples, he muſt certainly intend the Learned of his own Perſwaſion; which now few they are, is ſufficiently known; neither is it of any great concern what they own or diſown in this Controverſy. As for others, what they own, concerns only the Adult; which makes nothing againſt the baptizing of Infants, whoſe right to Baptiſm comes in another way, viz. from their Covenant-Intereſt, as having the Promiſes made unto them as the Seed of Believing-Parents. And as for what our Author ſays in Anſwer to that Objection of ſome Paedo-Baptiſts, viz. That Children are part of the Nations commanded by Chriſt to be baptized, I ſhall paſs it by (not being concerned at all in it) and proceed;
2. He Argues from the Scriptures requiring Faith and Repentance, as Prerequiſites of all them that are to be baptized.
Anſw. I ſhall only ſay, this requires better Proof than what our Author hath here given; which I ſhall expect ad Graecas Calendas. He only cites Acts 2.36, 37. and Acts 8. I ſuppoſe he hath reſpect to the 37th Verſe, and an Anſwer to a Queſtion in the Rubrik; but to how little purpoſe, is obvious unto all. That Faith and Repentance are required as Prerequiſites of all the Adult that are to be baptized, is granted; but that they are required of all univerſally, neither is nor can be proved. Therefore to paſs this, and,
3. The Sum and Subſtance of his Third Argument is this, As there is no Precept, ſo no Precedent in Scripture, that any beſides ſuch as profeſſed Faith and Repentance were baptized, therefore not Infants; but only ſuch ought to be baptized.
Anſw. In Anſwer whereunto, I doubt not it hath been fully proved, that we have a Precept for Infant-Baptiſm. See my Infant-Baptiſm from Heaven, Firſt Part, pag. 114. And beſides the other Revelations our Lord Chriſt hath made of his Will, are obliging and equivalent to a Precept. And this being granted, That becauſe there is no Precedent in Scripture that any Infants were baptized, therefore they ought not to be baptized, is a non ſequitur; a Precept is enough without any Precedent. But,
2. I ſay, We are not altogether without Precedents: Thus, in all thoſe Houſholds that were baptized, when yet only the Parents, or chief Governors, are recorded to have believed.
4. His Fourth Argument is this, Becauſe Paul, who declared the whole Counſel of God to the Churches, and Primitive Chriſtian, never declared any thing of Infant-Baptiſm; therefore they are not to be baptized.
Anſw. I ſhall not at preſent enquire how, or in what ſenſe Paul is ſaid to have declared the whole Counſel of God. Two things I would only ſay:
1. That it is certain, ſo far as the Declarations Paul made of the Counſel of God are recorded in Scripture, he did not declare abſolutely and univerſally his whole Counſel. This is too evident than to need proof: neither is it abſurd to ſay, that the Apoſtle declared much more of the Counſel of God, than what is contained in any of his Sermons or Epiſtles, it being contained in other parts of Scripture. And for the Pen-men of the Holy Scriptures, to have ſet down the whole of what every Prophet, or our Lord Chriſt, or any of his Apoſtles declared to the Churches, had been ſuperfluous: 'tis enough that the whole Counſel of God is contained in one or another part of the Scriptures; and we are ſure they contain this part of his Counſel, that Infants ought to be baptized. But,
2. I ſay, that the Apoſtle did declare ſomething, yea, much of this part of his Counſel. For,
1. He declares, That if either Parents are Believers, then their Children are Holy, that is, Holy foederally.
2. Paul declared, That the Infant-Seed of Believers do appertain to the Myſtical Body of Chriſt. He expreſly declares, that that Promiſe, Gen. 17.7. was made unto Chriſt, Gal. 3.16. that is, Chriſt Myſtical; and that Promiſe extended unto Infants, it being made to Abraham's Seed in their Generations, (as is before proved) and this the Apoſtle perfectly underſtood.
3. He declares this as part of the Counſel of God, that all that appertain to this Myſtical Body, ought to be admitted or incorporated there into by Baptiſm. This is doubt not but Mr. Keach will readily grant.
6. He argues thus; Whatſoever is neceſſary to Faith or Practice, is left in the written Word, or made known to us in the Holy Scriptures: but Infant-Baptiſm is not contained therein; therefore Infant-Baptiſm is not of God.
Anſw. This Argument hath been already ſufficiently anticipated. I ſhall only ſay at preſent, That Infant-Baptiſm is contained in the Scriptures; and muſt ſay, the Reaſon why our Adverſaries ſee it not, is their too evidently ſhutting their Eyes againſt that Light held forth unto them: Hence all our Author's Quotations are impertinent, ſoeing we ground our Practice upon the Scriptures. Let our Author ſatisfactorily Anſwer what we have ſaid, and then let him triumph. But,
6. He argues thus; If no Man or Woman, at any Time or Times, were by the Almighty God, Jeſus Chriſt, nor his Apoſtles, neither commended for baptizing any one Child, or Children, nor reproved for neglecting to baptize ſuch; then Infant-Baptiſm is not of nor from God.
Anſw. This Argument our Author ſeems to have borrowed from Mr. Ives; and he might have ſeen it ſufficiently baffled long ſince: See my Infant-Baptiſm from Heaven, Firſt Part, p. 300, to 310. I ſhall only add, as it is formed by Mr. Keach, That the Conſequence in the Major Propoſition needs proof. Why ſhould we impoſe upon the Spirit of God? Is it not enough that he hath revealed our Duty? What neceſſity is there that he ſhould leave upon Record a Commendation of any for the Practice of it, or a Diſcommendation for the Neglect of it? And therefore for our Author to ſay as he doth, pag. 69. is exceeding weak. He ſhould have proved that it is univerſally true, with reſpect to all Goſpel-Duties, at leaſt Ordinances: and that it muſt neceſſarily be ſo, let him produce a Commendation given to any Woman for participating in the Lord's Supper, or Diſcommendation for the Neglect of it. But not to ſtay upon ſuch Trifles.
7. Our Author argues, from a ſuppoſed Reflection, That the Doctrine and Practice of Infant-Baptiſm make upon the Honour, Care, and Faithfulneſs of Jeſus Chriſt, our Bleſſed Mediator, and Glorious Law-giver; he ſuppoſes they render him leſs faithful than Moſes, and the New Teſtament in one of its great Ordinances, nay Sacraments, to lie more dark and obſcure in God's Word, than any Law or Ordinance in the Old Teſtament did, and therefore cannot be of God.
Anſw. But to this, I ſay, Our Lord Chriſt hath perfectly revealed his Will relating to this practice; and it muſt be ſaid, it is from the Darkneſs and Ignorance, if not wilful Blindneſs of our Opponents, that they do not, or rather will not ſee it, and conſequently doth not at all reflect on the Honour, Care, or Faithfulneſs of Chriſt, it rather reflects upon themſelves; and this I ſhall add to ſpeak, with utmoſt holy fear and trembling in ſuch tremendous Matters, that it had vaſtly more reflected upon the Honour, Care, and Faithfulneſs of our Lord Chriſt, had he not declared his Will to us, that Infants ſhould not be Baptized, ſuppoſing that had been his Will, then his revealing it no plainer than he hath done, when it is his Will that they ſhould be Baptized doth: But for this, ſee my Anſwer to Mr. Danvers, pag. 56, & 57.
But to come to our Author's laſt Argument, which is this; That Ordinance God has made no Promiſe to Perſons in their Obedience thereto, nor denounced any Threatning or Puniſhment on ſuch who ſlight, neglect, and contemn it, is no Ordinance of God; but God has made no Promiſe to Perſons that Baptize their Children, nor denounced no Threatning nor Puniſhment; therefore Infant-Baptiſm is no Ordinance of God.
Anſw. As previous to an Anſwer to this Argument, it may be inquired what Mr. Keach means here by an Ordinance of God? if he means any Act or Part of Worſhip that is contra-diſtinguiſhed from all other Acts or part of Worſhip, as preaching the Word is an Ordinance contra-diſtinguiſhed from the Celebration of the Sacraments; then I ſhall readily grant his Concluſion, and do affirm, That Baptiſm, as applied to Infants, is not diſtinct Ordinance from Baptiſm as applied to grown Perſons, no more than Baptiſm as applied to Women, is a diſtinct Ordinance from Baptiſm as applied to Men; or as it is applied to young Men, is a diſtinct Ordinance from Baptiſm as applied to old Men; 'tis not any Conſideration or Circumſtance relating to the Subjects of an Ordinance, that makes that an Ordinance diſtinct from the ſame Ordinance, as the Subjects of it fall under other Conſiderations or Circumſtances; Circumſtances relating to the Subjects of Ordinances, diverſifies not Ordinances. And therefore if Mr. Keach underſtand this Term Ordinance in this ſence, let him make the utmoſt he can of his Argument, we are not concerned in it. But, 2dly. If he mean by Ordinance, any Duty injoyned by God reſpective to his Ordinances, take it of Baptiſm in particular; then I deny the Conſequence in his Major Propoſition, and affirm, That that may be a Duty, unto the Performance of which no particular, explicite or expreſs Promiſe is made, or againſt the Neglecters or Contemners of which no particular or explicite Threatning is denounced; 'tis enough that God hath revealed our Duty, and promiſed Rewards in the general to the Obedient, and denounced Threatnings and Puniſhments on the Diſobedient; and how many Duties might be mentioned that have no particular, explicit or expreſs Promiſe made to the Performance of them, nor any ſuch Threatning or Puniſhment denounced againſt thoſe that neglect or contemn them. But to haſten, having, tho briefly, yet I hope ſatisfactorily ſhewed the Invalidity, yea Vanity of theſe Reaſonings of Mr. Keach, to prove, that the Adult are only the proper Subjects of Baptiſm; I ſhall now briefly conſider what he hath ſaid to invalidate our Argument for Infant-Baptiſm taken from the Covenant entred with Abraham, Gen. 17.7. which, he rightly ſaith, is the main and great Argument which we bring for our Practice. Indeed he in reciting our Argument hath confuſedly jumbled ſeveral things together, which I ſuppoſe he will not find ſo jumbled together in any Pleader for Infant-Baptiſm: In brief, our Argument is this; If the Infant-Seed of Believers are in common with their Parents the true and proper Subjects of the Covenant of Grace, then they are the true and proper Subjects of the Token of that Covenant, which now is Baptiſm: but the former is true; therefore the latter. Now let us ſee what our Author has ſaid to this Argument; and it may be obſerved, that he doth not at leaſt expreſly deny that Covenant to be the Covenant of Grace, yea, implicitly he grants it ſo to be, wherein he leaves, if not the moſt of thoſe who, eſpecially of late, have pleaded the ſame Cauſe with himſelf: I ſuppoſe he hath ſeen the unſucceſsfulneſs of their Attempts, and therefore was not willing perdere oleum in proving what he knew could never be proved. But he offers four things to invalidate our Argument: 1. He ſaith, and is very poſitive, That this Covenant was not made with Abraham, and his Carnal (he ſhould have ſaid Natural) Seed according to the Fleſh: But that it was made with him and his Spiritual Seed, and ſuch who had the Faith of Abraham. And he ſeems greatly to wonder that all Men ſhould not be convinced by thoſe three Scriptures compared together, Gal. 3.16. & 29.9. Rom. 7.8. that is, to ſee how confidently he expreſſeth himſelf, pag. 100. one would think the Apoſtle might be believed in his expounding that Text, meaning that in Gen. 17.7. Pag. 106. when he had feigned an Objection that ſome might make, which he thus frameth, Say what you will, the Promiſe and Covenant of Grace was to Abraham, and his Natural Off-ſpring. He returns this Anſwer, Why, Do you not believe the Apoſtle who tells you the quite contrary? So once again, after he had cited thoſe fore-mentioned Scriptures, he adds, Could the Apoſtle in plainer terms have detected the Error of theſe Men? he means thoſe who ſay that Covenant was made with Abraham and his See according to the Fleſh. Strange Confidence! But who ſo blind as they that ſhut their Eyes? But in Reply unto this, I ſhall only ſay, Or Author lies under a double Miſtake; the former is about what we affirm, the latter about the mind and meaning of the Apoſtle in thoſe places. 1. The Miſtake he lies under about what we affirm, is this; he ſuppoſes we ſay, that that Covenant was made with Abraham and all his Natural Off-ſpring, whether immediately or mediately deſcended from him meerly as they were his Natural-Off-ſpring, whereas both my ſelf and many others, both formerly and of late, do affirm, that that Covenant was actually entred only with Abraham and his Natural Seed, immediately proceeding from his own Loins, and that all his Natural Seed mediately deſcended from him, held their Intereſt in the Covenant, either as his Spiritual Seed, or as their Infant-Seed; and that Abraham's Natural Seed immediatly deſcending from his own Loins, were taken into this Covenant with Abraham himſelf, is made evident paſt all rational Contradiction: See my Infant-Baptiſm from Heaven, firſt Part, Pag. 2. and ſo on; neither doth the Apoſtle in any of the places mentioned in the leaſt contradict this.
2. Our Author miſtakes about the mind and meaning of the Apoſtle in this Scripture, he ſuppoſes that he excludes both Abraham's Natural Seed, whether immediate or mediate, as alſo the Infant-Seed of all Believers, from this Covenant and the Promiſes of it, which never entred into the Thoughts of the Apoſtle to do. As for that in Rom. 9.7, 8. ſee my Infant-Baptiſm, Part 1. Chap. 7. throughout, where I have proved that the Apoſtle is ſo far from excluding Abraham, or any Believer's Natural Seed from this Covenant, or any Promiſes of it, that as to Abraham's immediate Natural Seed he neceſſarily ſuppoſes their Intereſt in it. And for Gal. 3.16, 29. I ſhall only ſay, that in caſe that Covenant was entred with Abraham and his Natural Seed immediately deſcending from him, and all his Spiritual Seed in their Generations, including their Infants with them, which I have demonſtrated that it was; the Apoſtle is ſo far from excluding them, that it's paſt all rational Contradiction he doth include them; the Promiſe is made unto Chriſt, that is, Chriſt Myſtical, as our Author himſelf acknowledges, but the Promiſe was made to Abraham and his Seed, in their Generation, including Infants with their Parents, therefore will we believe the Apoſtle, Infants with their Parents are included in that term Chriſt; it is Chriſt Myſtical, including himſelf as Head, Abraham and his Seed in their Generations, that the Covenant was entred with: For the Lord to ſay unto Abraham, I will be a God unto thee, and unto thy Seed, in their Generations, is all one, as the Apoſtle Expounds it, as to ſay, I will be a God unto Chriſt; ſo that Abraham and his Seed in their Generations, ſtill including himſelf as Head, conſtituted and make up Myſtical Chriſt. Now then thoſe two Miſtakes of our Author being rectified, his firſt Conſideration vaniſhes, and makes not the leaſt head of Oppoſition againſt our Arguments. But, 2. he puts a Suppoſition that we could prove all the Children of Believers to be in that Covenant made with Abraham, yet our Author thinks it doth not from hence follow, that they may be baptized, unleſs we can ſhow the Lord Chriſt has injoyned them ſo to be. But to this I would ſay, Would he really grant this, the main of our Controverſy were at an end. And will he grant this, as will he yield unto Truth he muſt do, then I ſhall refer him to theſe three Arguments I have laid down to prove, That they not only may, but ought to be baptized. See my Infant-Baptiſm, Part 1. Ch. 9. Till which Arguments are anſwered, which Mr. Keach may do at his Leiſure, if he pleaſes, it is utterly ſuperfluous to add any more. We ſhall not deny what he hath ſaid, viz. That it's not enough to ſay Children are in the Covenant, therefore they ought to be baptized: yet let me ſay, this would carry a fair probability in it; but this I ſay, If our Lord Chriſt hath aſſured us, that it is his Will that being in Covenant they ought to be baptized, as thoſe Arguments fully prove he hath; Then that is enough to warrant our Baptizing of them. Hence as to our Author's two other Conſiderations, they only deſigning the Confirmation of this Aſſertion, I ſhall ſay nothing eſpecially having touched upon what he ſaith in them in my Anſwers to Mr. Grantham, and therefore ſhall come to a Cloſe, not finding my ſelf concerned in his Anſwers to the other Scriture-Proofs and Arguments Pedo-Baptiſts produce for the baptizing of Infants. I ſhall only further deſire both Mr. Keach, and thoſe others whoſe Books I have now conſidered, ſeriouſly and impartially to weigh what I have ſaid in Anſwer to what they affirm concerning Circumciſion, its being only a Seal unto Abraham of the Righteouſneſs of Faith, and not ſo to any of his Seed, in my Infant-Baptiſm from Heaven, Pag. 228, unto 236. and ſhall only add my hearty Deſire our Opponents will truly and impartially weigh what hath been offered unto them, and determine, as they will anſwer it at the great Day of Accounts, which we all profeſs our ſelves Expectants of; and in caſe any of them will return any Anſwer to what I have written upon this Subject, I deſire they would do it with what ſpeed conveniently they may: My Age now tells me my appearing before our Lord Chriſt cannot be very far off, and I would gladly, either be convinced of my Error, ſuppoſe I have erred, (Infallibility I pretend not unto) which yet at preſent I am above any ſuſpicion that I have done, or may have opportunity to ſhew them the Inſufficiency of the Anſwers returned by them.
FINIS.
ERRATA.
PAge 23. line 10. read ſome. P. 31. l. 10. after made, add muſt be fixed. P. 33. l. 19. read inſtitutes.
End of the text · Joseph Whiston, The Right Method for Proving Infant Baptism (1690)