Disciples by Instruction and Believing Does in so doing exclude all that cannot be taught and believe I answer In this Commission Christ had a more peculiar Regard to the Persons to whom the Apostles were first and more immediately sent who were indeed Men and Women and therefore he mentions such Qualifications antecedent to Baptism as in Reason and the Nature of Things were indispensably necessary considering the State of the World at that time Men were almost universally revolted into Idolatry Ignorance Superstition Profaneness and other great Iniquities And with these Qualifications it was not fit they should be admitted into a Covenant of Grace and Reconciliation with God These were therefore first to be Converted and Reclaimed and then Baptized And this was the great Work to which the Apostles are here Commissioned Now if from hence you argue that none ought to be baptized but those only who are thus taught and made Disciples by actual Belief I must beg leave to ask how you reconcile your Belief of Infants Salvation with these Texts For they as much exclude Infants from Salvation as from Baptism I do not ask how Infants shall be saved for in answer to that you will say Secret Things belong to God But I ask how you who do believe and confess that Infants may and shall be saved do reconcile that Opinion with these Texts and particularly with that of St. Mark which does by the same Consequence prove that Infants cannot be saved as that Infants ought not to be baptized For observe the Argument Christ says Matt. 28. 19. Go make Disciples of all Nations and baptize them And Mark 16. 15 16. Preach the Gospel to every Creature he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved and he that believeth not shall be damned From whence you argue thus None are to be baptized but those who are first made Disciples by believing but Infants are not capable of believing therefore they ought not to be Baptized Now in the very same Manner one may argue thus That Infants shall not be saved He that believeth not shall be damned Infants are not capable of Believing Ergo Infants must all be damned This is just the same Way of Arguing without any Difference at all How will you answer this Will you set up for this Peice of Cruelty that all Infants are damned If not you must say here as we do concerning Baptism That these Texts are improperly and impertinently alledged in the Case of Infants because they were never intended to extend to them Otherwise they will as certainly conclude against the Salvation of Infants as against the Baptism of them in that Faiâ—h and Repentance are as necessary to the one as to the other The Matter then in short is this Men and Women were first of all to be made Disciples by a Saving Faith the Case of Children was a distinct Case to be considered afterwards when their Parents had been first converted And tho' believing was necessary in the Parents to be before their Baptism yet this does not prove that their Infants were to be excluded from the Sacrament because they could not actually believe But you 'll reply is not Faith then necessarily required of Persons to be baptized I answer Where the Apostles found Infidelity and Iniquity they were necessarily to preach Faith and Repentance before they baptized But the Scripture intimates that the Innocence of harmless Babes whose original Guilt is done away by Christ and who never offended him by any actual Transgression is as pleasing to God and as agreeable a Qualification for the Admission into a Covenant of Grace and Mercy and sealing that Covenant by the Sacrament of Baptism as either the Faith of the actual Believer or the Repentance of the Penitent Christ has said of us all That unless we become as little Children Mat. 18. 3. that is for their lovely Innocence we shall in no wise enter into the Kingdom of God I do not argue whether he spake this with a particular Respect to the Baptism of Infants or no. I urge not that But I speak of the Qualifications that recommend us to God's Favour and Mercy And Christ does here declare That their Innocence is as grateful to him as any Man's Faith and Repentance And for this Reason they ought not to be excluded The Truth of what I now maintain I think is sufficiently prov'd from the very Nature of this Sacrament Baptism as I understand it is a Seal for the Confirmation of that Covenant which God has made with Mankind in Jesus Christ and that Covenant is on God's Part a free Promise and Engagement to grant Mercy and Salvation through the Blood of Christ to All whose actual Sins do not render them incapable of and exclude them from it From whence I argue thus Those that are not in a State of actual Sin are capable of being admitted into this Covenant and thereby entitled to the Promises for nothing but Sin made us at first obnoxious to Death and nothing but the Guilt of Sin can exclude us from eternal Life And those that are capable of being admitted into the Covenant and entitled to the Promises are capable of that Sacrament which is the Seal of it This I think is a good Conclusion Infants therefore tho' by Nature born in Sin yet being reconcil'd to God I don't say by Baptism but by the Blood of Jesus Christ are capable of Admission into the Covenant by Baptism which is the Seal of it tho' they do not actually believe For this Reason it is that the Church of England has so judiciously declar'd That Infants baptized and dying before they commit any actual Transgression are undoubtedly saved For dying in a State of Reconciliation and having the Promises of God confirmed by this Seal They are safe having not by any actual Violation of the Covenant forfeited the Claim This cannot but think a reasonable Way of Arguing from the Nature of this Sacrament and Covenant And if it be these Texts do not exclude Infants either directly or by Consequence And methinks it savours of Rashness and Inconsideration to think that because God has required Faith and Repentance of Men in a State of Sin and under the Power of abominable Lusts and consequently altogether unfit to be admitted into Covenant till they abjure their Idolatry and abandon their Vices That therefore innocent Babes who never offended shall not be admitted through want of the same Qualifications The different Circumstances and Conditions of the Persons is a sufficient Proof that the same Qualifications are not necessarily required in both But I foresee some Objections which I will briefly consider and then proceed 1. It is pleaded that Capacity gives no Right you may have a mapacity to be a Justice of Peace but must have a Commission before you ought to act as such And tho' the Innocence of Babes be thus acceptable to God and he does for Christ's sake save them yet this will not at
alike But before I explain this Argument I cannot but observe to you by that little I have seen in these Controversies that the naming of such an Argument will raise some Mens Wonder who being quicker to wrangle about Words than to weigh the Reason of Things will break out into Exclamations and say Prove Baptism of Infants from the Example of God! Did Christ ever baptize an Infant Is there one Syllable of such a Practice in all Sacred Writ This must be the Old Thred-bare Argument from the Analogy between Baptism and Circumcision Infants under the Law or before it were Circumcised Ergo they may be Baptized and what a Non-sequitur is this But Sir after all that Raillery and Disdain with which this Argument is treated which has indeed been often urged and as often laughed at yet I must confess I cannot despise it but am perswaded that there is great Force in it if it be stated well and set in a true Light I do not then insist that one was a Type of the other nor argue from a bare Analogy as to Jewish Church Member-ship or the like but my Argument is this Baptism is now the Seal of the Covenant which was once sealed by Circumcision Infants were by God's own Command admitted then Ergo Infants may be admitted now Or thus God did admit Infants into a Covenant of Grace and Salvation thro' Jesus Christ and upon the Conditions of Faith and Obedience in that Covenant made with Abraham and confirmed by the Seal of Circumcision Baptism of Infants does but admit them into the same Covenant upon the same Conditions and as a Seal confirms that Covenant to them Ergo in Baptizing Infants we act by God's own Authority and Example for we do no more in baptizing them than by God's own Ordinance was done in Circumcising them The Rite indeed is changed it was Circumcising it is now Baptism What then The Use of both these Rites is still the same the One is a Seal of the Covenant of God and so is the Other a Seal of the same Covenant And so after all the pretended Non-sequiturs in this Argument from Circumcision to Baptism when the Use or main Design of both these Rites or Sacraments shall appear to be the same the Argument will have Force and the Change of the external Ordinances cannot lessen it In the Prosecution therefore of this Argument I have Two Things which you will challenge me to prove 1. That Circumcision when enjoyned Abraham was ordained to be the Seal of that Covenant which God made with him 2. That the Covenant with Abraham was the same with ours that is a Covenant of Grace and Salvation through Jesus Christ and upon the Conditions of Faith and Obedience And if these Propositions be found true the Consequence I think will be so clear as to want no Proof First That Circumcision when enjoyned Abraham was ordained to be the Seal of that Covenant which God made with him And this I think is very plain both from the Original Institution of Circumcision in the Old Law and the Explanations of it in the New As to the Old Testament God having made some Trial of Abraham by calling him out of his own Country and having found him readily observant in all that he commanded him declares Gen. 17. 2. that he will now establish a Covenant with him I will make my Covenant between me and thee and thou shall be a Father of many Nations Ver. 4. And again Ver. 7. I will establish my Covenant between me and thee and thy Seed after thee in their Generations for an everlasting Covenant to be a God unto thee and to thy Seed after thee And as every Contract among Men must have its Sanction and Establishment so here God declares after what Manner this Covenant should be confirmed Ver. 10. This is my Covenant which ye shall keep between me and you and thy Seed after thee every Man-Child among you shall be Circumcised Which Words do not make Circumcision the Substance of the Covenant but only the Manner of Establishing and Confirming it as appears from the following Verse And ye shall circumcise the Flesh of your Fore-skin and it shall be a Token or Sign of Covenant between me and you And again Ver. 13. My Covenant shall be in your Flesh for an everlasting Covenant that is a Token or Pledge in your Flesh of an everlasting Covenant Bishop Patrick in 〈◊〉 For as a Reverend Father of our own says It was not a meer Mark whereby they should be known to be Abraham's Seed and distinguished from other Nations but they were hereby made the Children of the Covenant and intitled to the Blessings of it and Circumcision was the Seal of it And this is farther evident from the New Testament for St. Paul in his Controversie with the Jews about Justification instances in Abraham whom he declares to be justified not for his being circumcised but for the Faith he had before it Rom. 4. 11. He received the Sign of Circumcision a Seal or Pledge of the Righteousness of that Faith which he had yet being uncircumcised a Seal of that Covenant by which God receives him as Righteous for his Faith And thus St. Peter Acts 7. 8. He gave him the Covenant of Circumcision that is he gave him the Covenant which he sealed and confirmed by Circumcision which is both a usual and very intelligible way of speaking So also St. Paul Gal. 3. 15. Brethren I speak after the Manner of Men if it be but a Man's Covenant yet if it be confirmed no Man disannulleth or addeth thereto And again Ver. 17. he speaks of the Covenant that was confirmed before of God in Christ plainly alluding to this Covenant with Abraham which was Sealed and had its Confirmation by Circumcision 2. The Second Observation was that this Covenant with Abraham of which Circumcision was the Seal is the same Covenant with that which we Christians are now admitted into with God by Christ Mr. Keach I remember disowns this and contrary to what I now maintain offers this Argument p. 47. That Covenant that was made to separate the natural Seed of Abraham from all other Nations of the World and made sure unto them the Earthly Promise of the Land of Canaan could not be a Covenant of Grace which concerns the Infant-Seed of Believers under the Gospel He who often finds Fault with other Peoples Logic should take special Care of his own Here was one little but material Word omitted in this first Proposition It should have run thus That Covenant which was made only to separate c. The want of that only spoils the Consequence It might be made thus to separate Abraham's Seed and it might be made to other Ends too And so it might be a Covenant of Grace notwithstanding God intended by it that Distinction of his People also To prove then that the Covenant besides the Promises it contained of a Land of Canaan and
general and does not exclude any that are capable of being admitted into Covenant with God in Christ Infants are capable of being admitted into Covenant with God in Christ therefore the Precept does and must include them The first is evident from the very Words of St. Matt. 28. Go make Disciples of all Nations and baptize them which being given in general and unlimited Terms and ordained by Almighty God as one of the ordinary Means of Salvation ought to be extended to all Persons whatsoever that are capable of Admission into the Covenant Infants are capable of being admitted into the Covenant and then Infants are also included in this Precept or Command The Latter I have in great measure prov'd already in my Answer to the Two first Objections I shall only add here that it seems strange to me when so many of your Perswasion allow Infants to be in the Covenant and believe that they shall be saved which they cannot be but by the Merits of Christ that yet none of them should think Infants intitled to this Sacrament For why should not the Covenant be confirmed to all those to whom the Promises of it belong If indeed all Infants were said and prov'd to be in a State of Sin and inevitable Damnation this would be a real Argument against us for then we should be charged with confirming the Covenant to those to whom the Promises of it do not at all belong And this would be a Crime indeed But if Infants may be saved by Christ nothing of this can be alledged But you say that we baptize Infants that know nothing of it and that is almost as bad Why so We only by this Seal confirm the Covenant to those to whom God has promised the Blessings of it And where is the Impropriety of that Or why is it more absurd to baptize those in the Name of Christ that know nothing at all of him than to Redeem and Save those by Christ that know nothing at all of him In short if no good Reason of Difference can be alledged from the Nature of Things let Men wrangle never so long it must follow that if Infants are in the Covenant of Christ they are also fit Subjects of Christian Baptism and if they are fit Subjects of Christian Baptism then the general Precept includes them and so the Baptim of Infants is as much founded on the Autority of God's Word as the Baptism of Men and Women But I am sensible Sir you will not acquiesce in this No Baptism is a Sacrament a Fundamental in Religion that gives Being to a Church in which you must have a Command mentioning Infants expresly totidem verbis or it will not do Inferences and Deductions here are not of sufficient Force But by the Way What is your Second Objection but a Deduction that Infants not being capable of Faith are not capable of Baptism This is unreasonable and very hard when you your self must argue by Deductions and Inferences against the Baptism of Infants not to allow us to do so for it I appeal whether this be fair However fore-seeing that this my Argument would be thus withstood I proceed to show 1. That clear and evident Deductions from the Word of God are of equal Force with the express Word of it and that in Fundamental as well as in other Principles of Religion For can we suppose that in the Manifestation of all those Divine Truths which are revealed in the Gospel God would have us supersede all Use of our own Understandings in the Conclusions to be drawn and the Consequences that follow from such Doctrines And yet we must do this if the Inferences and Deductions from them be not acknowledg'd of sufficient Autority to determine our Judgment and guide our Practise It was certainly no part of God's Design to undermine our Reason by Revelation but to Enlighten and Improve it to supply its Defects by teaching us those Things which of our selves we were not able to find out and to clear some Principles of Religion that to the Light of Reason only seem'd disputable and doubtful But where that Light shines bright and clear of it self it is a Divine Lamp held forth from Heaven to direct us and its Autority is not to be despised Thus for Instance in the Institution of a Sacrament we must expect a particular Revelation For this being no part of natural Religion but a Positive Ordinance and depending on the sole Pleasure and Will of God we can know nothing but what he shall be pleased to reveal For tho' baptizing was in use among the Jews as a Rite in admitting Proselytes and by our Saviour receiv'd from them yet it must be his Positive Decree and Command that must make it a Sacrament to us Had it therefore been the Autority of the Institiution it self that had been in dispute You had argu'd well that an express Precept was to be expected But as to the Subjects of Baptism or the Persons to be baptized the Case is not the same nor is there the same Reason to look for a Command mentioning Infants in express Words For tho' the Sacrament be new the Covenant is still the same And therefore we may here argue and be particularly instructed by Parity of Reason viz. that those who were admitted to the Old Covenant may be admitted to the New because the Conditions and the Promises are the same in both And here Deductions and Inferences from God's Word are of sufficient Force to determine the Argument and ought to be received in all such Cases And the chief Thing to be respected is not whether the Matter be Fundamental or no but the Certainty of it and the clear Evidence of its Truth A certain and evident Truth ought to be received in Things Fundamental as well as not Fundamental let the Way of attaining the Knowledge be what it will whether from the Light of Reason or Revelation or Deduction and Inferences from it 2. But to make this more plain I shall further show from St. Peter's own Example in being determined by such Arguments in a Case equally Fundamental that this Autority ought to be submitted to in the Case now before us The Case I shall instance in is the Admission of the Gentiles into the Church of Christ and baptizing them And there the Question once was much as it is now viz. about the fit Subjects of Baptism For some then did as firmly believe that the Gentiles as polluted and unclean were as unfit to be admitted into the Covenant with God as others now-a-days would have Infants excluded for their Incapacities And I would beg these Men to observe what Methods the Holy Ghost used for the Conviction of St. Peter and how he directs him by such a Train of general Instructions as all along required the sincere and impartial Use of his Reason in the Application of them And at last there was no particular Command for baptizing them all that the Holy Ghost
A VINDICATION OF Infant Baptism From the FOUR Chief OBJECTIONS Brought Against it Viz I. From the Natural Incapacity of Infants II. From their not actually Believing III. From the Want of an express Command to Baptize them IV. From the Want of Scripture-Precedents for it In a LETTER to Mr. **** By JOHN TVRNER A. M. LECTURER of CHRIST-CHURCH LONDON LONDON Printed for JOHN WYAT at the Rose in St. Paul's Church-yard M DC XCIX A VINDICATION OF Infant Baptism c. SIR IT is now some considerable Time since you and I occasionally reviving some former Discourse that had pass'd between us about the Difference in our Persuasions You desir'd to see my Arguments and to consider them at your Leisure I have now comply'd with that Request but saw it necessary before I could do so to enlarge and illustrate them a little that they might come closer to many of those Scruples which I found sometimes alledged in these Controversies If I give this as one Reason of my not complying sooner with your Desire though I had other Reasons for this Delay yet you are sensible how just an Excuse I have in the few Minutes I can spare from the constant Engagement of my daily Business You 'll perhaps ask why I now send you this in Print which I once seem'd to be averse to But when I found you called in Mr. A to answer my Argument from the 1 Cor. 7. 14. I apprehended the Debate might not continue between you and me alone and therefore thought it better to submit to the Censure of the World than to part with my Papers into private Hands where the Design of them might be mistaken I have carefully avoided all undue Reflections upon either Persons or Parties hoping thereby that I should make no Man my Enemy by a candid Defence of what I firmly believe to be agreeable to the Laws of God and Christ and being desirous whatever Difference there may be in our Persuasions to observe strictly all Rules of Christian Charity Love and Friendship I 'll detain you no longer in the Way of Preface but beg you fairly to consider the following Arguments CHAP. I. THE most considerable Objections that I have yet met with against the Baptism of Infants are these Four I. It is pleaded that it is an unreasonable Practice in that Infants are not capable of knowing any Thing of the Covenant into which they are admitted by it II. That it is contrary to the Institution of our Saviour which you say requiring Persons to be first Instructed before Baptized thereby excludes Infants as incapable of that Antecedent Instruction III. That it is an unwarrantable and unlawful Practice in that there is no Precept nor Command nor Autority for it in all the Word of GOD. IV. and Lastly That there is no mention at all made of such Practice in all the NEW TESTAMENT Now if it be made appear that none of these Objections have any just Force in them this I think will be sufficient to vindicate the Church of England in retaining this Ancient and Pious Practice 1. The First Objection is That it is an unreasonable Practice in that Infants are not capable of knowing any Thing of the Covenant The Want of which Knowledge and the Incapacity thereupon is thought to make their Baptism unreasonable and absurd But if all other Objections have no more Force than this they will admit of a very quick Dispatch 1. In that it is not at all disagreeable to the Reason of Mankind for Infants to be bound in Covenants to the future Performance of Conditions which they at present know nothing at all of nor can be capable of performing till they come to Age. This is common among Men and practised almost every Day Every Will and every Conditional Settlement of an Estate on Heirs is a Covenant And every Contract that a Guardian makes for a Minor is made in that Infant 's Name and he is bound by it and really enjoyns the Benefits of it in Expectation of a future Performance of the Conditions by him And Baptism is only the Seal of a Covenant or Contract between God and Man Why then should it be thought strange or incredible that God should thus deal with us in a Dispensation of Grace and Mercy 2. If the Incapacity of Infants were in the Nature of Things a necessary Bar it must be an Universal and Indispensable One and must exclude Infants from all Covenants with God whatever whether of Works or of Grace whether by the Law or by the Gospel For what arises absolutely from the Nature of Things must needs be Universal and Perpetual and must have always the same Influence But that the Incapacity of Infants is not an Universal and Perpetual Bar to all Covenants our Adversaries themselves I hope will grant in that Infants were admitted into a Covenant with God under the Law If then God admits Infants into a Covenant under the Law he may do so under the Gospel too if he pleases And if God may do so it can be neither Improper nor Unreasonable nor in the Nature of Things Absurd The Difference in the Conditions or Substance of the Covenant makes nothing in the Case the one being Law the other Gospel the one of Works and the other of Grace is nothing to the Purpose because Infants are equally incapable of understanding both And where the whole Stress lies in the Incapacity of the Subject it must have as much Force in the One as in the Other If it be said God may admit them but does not This is running before-hand to a new Objection that shall be considered in its proper place The only Thing now in debate is whether the Natural Incapacity of Infancy be in it self a necessary Bar if it be this must be alledged as an universal Obstacle to all Covenants as well as to this we plainly see that it is not an universal Obstacle because God hath admitted them into Covenant with him and bound them to the Performance of Conditions by that Covenant Therefore this Objection is of no Force in that it does not necessarily conclude Mr. Keach p. 85. This indeed some of your Persuasion seem to grant If then the Incapacity of Infants is not in the Nature of Things a Necessary and Universal Bar to all Covenants in general I am to enquire whether there be any thing in the Christian Covenant peculiarly that excludes them from thence CHAP. II. THE Second Objection is That Infants as incapable of understanding the Covenant and believing and repenting are by our Saviour's Institution Prohibited and Excluded from Baptism for say you the Apostles were to make Disciples by Instruction before they were to Baptize them Matt. 28. 19. Go teach all Nations and then Baptize them And Mark 16. 15 16. He that beleiveth and is baptized shall be saved This say you is the great Charter of the Gospel which requiring Persons that are to be baptized to be first made
the true God and believe the general Promises of a Messiah as we Christians are to believe and obey the Gospel more particularly revealed by Christ From hence I conclude seeing Infants at Eight Days old were circumcised and admitted into this Covenant with God by his own Appointment and Command this Command is a good Authority for the Baptizing of Infants which is but a new Way of Admission into the same Covenant For while there is no Alteration of the Substance of the Covenant but only of the external Ceremony of Admission which is the Seal of it all Things else are to continue as they were till God shall ordain otherwise by a new Law But when he did change the Seal from Circumcision to Baptism he did not by any express Law forbid Infants to be admitted Therefore by Virtue of the first Original Institution when God made this Covenant with Abraham by Circumcision and commanded Infants to be admitted we have Autority to admit them now by Baptism For where the Covenant and the Capacities are the same the Reason also must be of the same Force But to this Argument I have found it objected 1. That what was done in Abraham's Time was in the Minority of the Church when Things were obscurely represented but now that we have clear Light and in that respect are under a better Dispensation there is not the same Reason for admitting Infants which there was then All the Force of this Objection lies in the different Degrees of Revelation that have been made to Abraham and to us and this I readily acknowledge for a great Truth That which God intended in that Covenant with Abraham was but obscurely and in general set forth and the Particulars both of Faith and Practice and also of our Reward and Happiness are more fully and clearly brought to Light by Jesus Christ When therefore I asserted that our Covenant is the same with that made with Abraham and his Seed I speak of Generals not of Particulars and my Meaning is that Faith and Obedience were required in Abraham's Covenant as well as they are from us Not but that the particular Articles of that Faith and the particular Duties of that Obedience too are now more fully discovered and set in a clearer Light But I cannot see how this makes any Difference either as to the Capacity or the Right of Admission to this Sacrament because Children being equally insensible of both cannot be less capable of the one than of the other 2. It is objected that there was an express Command for the Circumcision of Infants but there is none for baptizing them To this I answer There was not the same Necessity for it There was an absolute Necessity for commanding Infants expresly to be circumcised because there was nothing Antecedent to that Institution that could give Light or Knowledge to direct to it But there was no such Necessity for an express Precept for Baptizing Infants because this might be learnt from the Autority of God in the Antecedent Institution under Abraham For they were certainly as fit Subjects of the one as of the other because the Conditions were the same and if as fit Subjects of the Covenant equally to be received by the Seal of it This I am inclined to believe was the first Ground of Baptizing Infants among Christians When the Apostles first began to preach the Gospel and especially to the Jews the Substance of their Preaching was that what God had long before declared by Abraham and the Prophets he had now fulfilled and accomplished by Jesus Christ From whence they were to learn that this Gospel was no new Thing but what had been long declared and prophesied in old Time The Covenant was the same the Religion was the same only brought into a clearer Light by a more perfect Revelation This was the Sum of St. Peter's Sermon Acts 3. 18. Those Things that God before had shewed by the Mouth of all his Prophets that Christ should suffer he hath so fulfilled And Acts 11. 25. Ye are the Children of the Prophets and of the Covenant which God made with our Fathers saying unto Abraham and in thy Seed shall all Nations of the Earth be blessed And for this Cause St. Paul says Rom. 15. 8. That Christ Jesus was a Minister of the Circumcision for the Truth of God to confirm the Promises made unto the Fathers And as this was the common Subject of the Apostles Preaching so those who were hereby convinced and prevailed on to believe were immediately admitted into the Christian Covenant by Baptism Here is indeed no express mention made of Infants because there was no Occasion for it Their own Reason and Understanding were sufficient to convince them that what God had authorized and commanded from the Beginning was a very good Example for them to imitate And consequently that when Circumcision was abolished from being any longer the Seal of God's Covenant and Baptism was instituted in its stead there was the same Reason for baptizing Infants that there had been for circumcising them God's having commanded the One was an Evidence of the Lawfulness of the Other And what they were sufficiently instructed in by the Autority of a Divine Precept and Command in the Old Testament was not absolutely necessary to be repeated in the New For to what purpose should there be a particular Revelation to discover that which Men might be sufficiently convinc'd of without one And yet again 2. The Baptism of Infants is founded on God's Word in that tho' there be no such Precept or Command of baptizing in which Infants are totidem verbis expressed yet there is such a Precept and Command in which Infants are certainly included And this I shall prove thus 1. From St. Peter's Words Acts 2. 39. Repent and be baptized that your Sins may be blotted out for the Promise is to you and your Children In which Words Children are fairly intimated at least to be entitled both to the Promises of the Covenant and to the Sacrament that confirms it I am not ignorant that some laugh at this Argument with a great deal of Scorn and Derision and think it ridiculous to mention it because Men and Women are often call'd Children in Scripture as the Children of Israel are often spoken of when Infants are not all intended but only Men of the Posterity of Israel I grant it and yet when they have laughed their fill I cannot think this Argument so ridiculous nor so much to be despised For tho' its true the Word Children if that were all might import no more than the Posterity Yet the Promise here spoken of is that very Covenant into which Children I mean Infants were commanded to be admitted So that if the Promise which God made with Abraham and his Children included Infants this Promise made to Christians and their Children will by the same Autority include Infants also for the Promise is still the same 2. The Precept for Baptizing is
all countenance their being baptized because it is no where commanded I answer That if this be all then the Case is changed and the Objection is not that Infants are excluded but that their Baptism is no where commanded I was only now to prove that nothing in the Nature of this Sacrament does necessarily exclude them Infants being in a State of Reconciliation and Favour does I think sufficiently prove that How far a particular Command is necessary to be added to this Capacity is another Question that shall be consider'd in its place 2. I may possibly be asked how I reconcile this Doctrine to our Church-Catechism which teaches that Faith and Repentance are required of Persons to be Baptized Indeed I think the Answer is easie for the Catechism speaks first indefinitely without any respect to Adults or Infants as Christ has done in Matt. 28. and declares what in general are the Conditions of the Covenant and consequently not of this Sacrament only but of our Salvation also And these are Faith and Repentance which every one that enters into this Covenant when they come to Age are obliged to But it no where declares that actual Faith and actual Repentance are universally necessary to all Persons whatever that shall be admitted to this Sacrament No it declares the Contrary that tho' Infants by reason of their tender Age cannot perform these Conditions yet they are baptized not upon their Sureties Faith or believing by Proxy But upon the Expectation grounded on their Engagement that the Children shall be taught and exhorted to perform them afterwards And this I think is agreeable to what I have here maintained 3. It may possibly be objected That if this Doctrine be true it will from hence follow that the Infant-Children of Turks Jews and Pagans may be as capable of Baptism as the Children of Believers because they are innocent as well as others and have their original Guilt as well expiated by the Blood of Christ I answer Infants as to Covenants and Privileges are reputed in the same Estate and Right with their Parents and that because being under their Tuition its presumed they will have the same Principles and Persuasion And therefore as the Children of Unbelievers on this account may in some Sense be said to be Partakers of their Parents Infidelity as they are like to be brought up in it For this Reason they are denied Baptism Otherwise they are capable and may be admitted wherever there is sufficient Satisfaction given to the Church that they shall be educated in the Christian Religion And the Reason why they are not admitted now is only on this Account because it would be preposterous to admit Children into a Religion which they were never likely to be instructed and educated in afterwards But I say could the Church be assur'd that they would be instructed and educated in that Faith they also might be baptized and nothing in our Saviour's Commission necessarily excludes them 4. and Lastly If it be objected That this Doctrine makes the Baptism of Infants unnecessary in that if they were in a State of Reconciliation and Favour before Baptism they can profit nothing by being baptized I answer I did not undertake to prove that the Baptism of Infants was absolutely necessary to their Salvation but that it is lawful and not at all disagreeable to Christ's Institution and therefore no just Cause of the Separation from the Communion of our Church which is all that I now contend for CHAP. III. THE Third Objection is That it is an Unwarrantable and Unlawful Practice to baptize Infants because there is you say no Precept nor Command nor Autority for it in all the Word of God And this is the Sheet-Anchor on which you lay the greatest Stress For when we can demonstrate by God's own Autority and Example that the natural Incapacity of Infants is no necessary Bar to exclude them from the Seal of the Covenant you reply all this is nothing because there was an express and positive Command for Circumcising Infants but there is none at all for Baptizing them and when we argue that Faith and Repentance are made as necessary to Salvation as they are to Baptism and consequently do no more exclude Infants from this Sacrament than from Salvation you plead that tho' they are capable and within the Covenant of Grace yet they ought not to be Baptized because it is not Commanded In Christianity nothing is to be done without the express Autority of God's Word And here you load us with heavy Charges of pretending to take the Word of God for our only Rule of Faith and Manners and yet to keep Unscriptural Ordinances and do that which the whole Word of God speaks not one Word of from the Beginning to the End So that we of the Church of England are guilty of adding to the Divine Laws of God in the most weighty Matters of Christianity without his Autority Teaching for Doctrine the Commandments of Men. This is a severe Charge of which if we were indeed guilty it must needs be heavy upon us at the last Great Day And that we may be the better prepared then let it be considered fairly what we have to alledge in our Defence now First This Argument may easily be turned upon you the Baptism of Infants you say is no Gospel-Ordinance 't is not Commanded and therefore it is unlawful I reply 't is no where forbidden and therefore it is not unlawful And this Argument of no Prohibition is of more than ordinary Force here in that God all along in both the former Covenants of Abraham and Moses having commanded Infants to be admitted and sealed by the Sacrament which was ordained for the Confirmation thereof When he changed the Ordinance and instituted Baptism to be the Seal of his Covenant it was then proper to have declared if Infants that were fit Subjects to receive the Seal of it before should now be excluded For his having given no express Prohibition goes a great way to vindicate the Lawfulness of this Paactice in that it seems to show his Pleasure that they should be continued to have the Seal of the Covenant as they had had before For if ever Prohibition was to be expected to declare a Thing unlawful it was to the Abolishing a Practice that had been so long established and received I mean the admitting Infants into Covenant with him 2. But Secondly We have the Autority of God for this Practice in two Respects 1. The Autority of his own Example 2. Of his Command in his revealed Word and Laws 1. We have the Autority of God's Example for our Warrant in this Practice and as Mr. Keach I remember confesses Page 35 36 that an Apostolical Practice or a Gospel-Precedent is of equal Authority with a Gospel-Precept So I hope it will be allowed that a Divine Precedent from the Example of God is of the same Autority also when the Nature of Things and the Circumstances are
Parent for as the Children are said to be holy so it is said of the unbelieving Husband or Wife that he or she is sanctified or made holy and therefore as much ought to be baptized Answ But where 's the Force of this Conclusion You seem from hence to infer that there is the same Holiness in both But why so Are there not several Degrees or Kinds of Holiness or Religious Discrimination Are not all Christians holy by their Profession In which Sense St. Paul calls them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Saints or holy Ones by way of Distinction from other Men And are not all true Christians holy by a real Sanctification of God's Spirit And yet these are not the same Again Are not all that minister at the Altar holy in a third Sense by their Office There is then an internal and there is an external Holiness there is a real actual Holiness consisting in Faith and Obedience by the Sanctification of the Spirit and there is a relative Holiness consisting in Separation by Profession or Privilege or Office Here then are different Degrees of Holiness ascrib'd to different Persons according to their several Circumstances The Holiness of the Believer is of one Kind that of the Unbeliever of another that of their Children of a third And so this Objection can be of no Force in that it s founded on this gross Mistake That the Holiness is the same in all Object 2. It is objected That the Holiness or Sanctification of the unbelieving Parent is mentioned by the Apostle as The Cause of the Childrens Holiness Otherwise i. e. were it not that the Unbeliever was thus sanctified your Children were unclean but now are they holy Consequently say you there is a stronger Argument in this Text for baptizing the unbelieving Parent than the Children Even as The Cause is more noble than the Effect Answ I answer If it had been said One Cause of the Childrens Holiness it had sounded better because the Cause looks as tho' it were the chief or only Cause in which Sense the Assertion is not true For the Logicians have justly taught us to distinguish that there is a principal Cause and a less principal Cause The Holiness of the unbelieving Parent is at most but a less principal Cause of the Holiness of the Children or a Cause sine quâ non otherwise were the Children unclean but now are they holy And if this be St. Paul's Meaning yet then in this Sense the Conclusion will fail For whereas it is alledged that on this Account the Words are a stronger Argument for Baptizing the unbelieving Parents than their Children even as the Cause is more noble than the Effect Here lies the Weakness of this Objection which is indeed a downright Fallacy for it is not the less principal but the Principal Cause only that is nobler than the Effect 'T is one of the Maxims of Logic that the less principal Cause Semper est deterior effectu suo is always less noble than the Effect There can then be no Force in this Conclusion unless Men will assert that the Holiness of the unbelieving Parent is the Principal Cause of the Holiness of the Children which is more than St. Paul ever said Object 3. It is objected That a Foederal Holiness cannot be intended here unless it be supposed that the unbelieving Husband or Wife is in the Covenant of Grace Answ But why so I have already shown that their Holiness is not the same the one therefore may be a Foederal Holiness and the other not and so this is a false Deduction Object 4. Another Objection is That if here he meant a Foederal Holiness whereby Infants are set apart from the rest of the World as Members of Christ's Church they ought to be admitted to the Lord's Supper also which Ordinance is no less a Duty and Privilege of every Member of Christ's Church than Baptism And therefore says Mr. A It is well known that among the Ancients Infants were for a time admitted to this Sacrament as well as to the former But seeing none now to the Latter why to the Former He who makes this Objection has furnish'd me with an Answer to it and says That Self-examination is urged as a Bar in this But if this be all I shall not thank him for the Invention There is another and I am perswaded a better Argument drawn from the different Nature and Design of these Two Sacraments For Baptism is a Sacrament of Initiation the other of Confirmation And tho' God may and does of his abundant Grace admit Infants into his Covenant yet the Renewing of this Covenant is founded on a Supposition of our Frailty who more or less do all transgress the Conditions of our Baptismal Vow and impair our Hope The Lord's Supper therefore was intended the stronger to oblige Men to actual Faith and Repentance after the Violation of their first Vow and to administer Comfort in our Penitential Sorrows in the Commemoration of our Saviour's Passion This Sacrament therefore in the very Nature of it always supposes actual Faith and Repentance which Baptism does not Actual Faith and Repentance are not universally necessary to Baptism as I have proved above but where Sin and Infidelity have gone before For he that has never sinn'd has nothing to repent of And the Innocence of the Person then is a sufficient Qualification for Baptism where there is a rational Hope that he shall afterwards believe and obey the Gospel But the Lord's Supper which was design'd for the Renewing and Confirmation of our Vow supposes both that Vow to have been broken and that Breach to have been repented of There is not therefore the same Reason for admitting Infants to the Lord's Supper as to Baptism because the different Nature and End of each Sacrament shows the One to be proper and the other not For which Cause that Custom is now left off I think then Mr. A 's Objections against my Interpretation of this Text appear to have very little or no Force I desire now that my Reasons against his Interpretation of the Place may be as fairly considered and as impartial a Judgment pass'd upon them Which is most agreeable to the Context and the Force of the Apostle's Argument and Design His Interpretation is this The Scope of the Apostle determines the Sanctification or Holiness of the unbelieving Husband or Wife to be no other than Matrimonial Holiness or Chastity in Opposition to Vncleanness or Fornication in which Sense it is taken 1 Thess 4. 3 4 7. and consequently by the Holiness of the Children flowing from it we may understand no other than Legitimacy in which Sense we read of a godly or holy Seed Mal. 2. 15. So that St. Paul here bring◠Two Arguments to prove the Marriage to be good 1. Because the Vnbeliever 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hath been sanctified not by but to or unto the Believer by being joyned in holy Matrimony and consequently a
determine their Conscience For seeing it was but St. Paul's Order and not God's Command it could not determine the Good or Evil of the Thing Had therefore the Question been what Mr. A supposes it St. Paul must have determined it by God's Autority and not by his own only so that the very Manner of the Expression plainly proves that the Question was only about the Danger of Cohabiting with an Infidel and an Idolater And if this be the Case Mr. A 's Interpretation of Holiness by Legitimacy cannot be good For Divorce in this Case can never bastardize the Children that is only done by the Original Illegitimacy of the Marriage-Contract And so far is St. Paul from asserting what Mr. A affirms that Divorce would be unlawful that he if the Unbeliever will not cohabit leaves the Christian at liberty to separate which he would rather have dissuaded if a Separation had been against the Law of Christ and made their Children Bastards As to the Autority of some Commentators Melancthon Camerarius and Musculus who are alledged to Countenance this Construction What does it signifie when it appears thus plainly to be contrary to the Use of the Phrase and the Coherence of the Place And that it does so will be more plain if we observe 3. That Mr. A 's Interpretation destroys the Force of St. Paul's Argument which our Notion of Holiness cofirms Mr. A says St. Paul proves their Marriage good by Two Arguments First Because the Unbeliever 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hath been sanctified to or unto the Believer i. e. joyned in holy Matrimony If he means that because Matrimony is an holy State therefore their Cohabitation is lawful notwithstanding the one Party is not Christian I can go along with him But when he makes St. Paul to argue Secondly Ab absurdo that if their Marriage and Cohabitation be lawful therefore a Divorce would be contrary to the Law of Christ and bastardizes their Children Here I doubt he perverts St. Paul's Sense in many respects for as I have hinted above 1. St. Paul does not say in this Case that a Separation would be contrary to the Law of Christ. So far from it that he does not determine it by God's Law but by his own Opinion V. 12. But to the rest speak I but not the Lord If any Brother hath a Wife that believeth not c. 2. He is so far from declaring their Seperation to be a Sin and such a Sin as Bastardizes the Children that he only gives his Advice in case both Parties agree to Cohabit If she be pleased to dwell with him V. 12. and if he be pleased to dwell with her let her not leave him V. 13. But if they disagree about Religion they may part If the Vnbelieving depart let him depart A Brother or Sister is not in Bondage in such Cases V. 15. 3. As I have prov'd that the Question was not about the Validity of Marriage but of the Lawfulness and Expedience of their Cohabitation So Mr. A 's Legitimacy puts such a Consequence on St. Paul's Assertion as does by no means follow for it is only the Invalidity of Marriage that Bastardizes the Children but Divorce alone does not In a Word Mr. A 's Sense of St. Paul's Words makes St. Paul to contradict himself for it makes him to declare such a Seperation contrary to God's Law and injurious to the Children in the 14th Verse which it is plain that in the 15th he consents to and which in the 12th he says he did not determine by the Autority of God's Laws but only by his own Autority But taking the Holiness of Children in our Sense for admitting them to Baptism it makes the Apostle's Argument strong and clear For the Holiness of Children born in such a State is a very good Proof that their Cohabitation was Lawful and Innocent 'T is as much as if St. Paul had said As to the Case of those married to Vnblievers the Practice of the Church in the Admission of the Children of such to Baptism as well as the Children of those Parents who are both Christians show what our Opinion is of their Cohabitation The Vnbeliever is Sanctified in this respect by the Believer else were the Children of such common and unclean like the Children of Infidels but now are they holy or in Malachi's Phrase an holy Seed and admitted into the Covenant of God in Christ by Baptism as well as the Children of those Parents who are both Believers I profess with Sincerity that I cannot find out any other Sense of the Place that will agree with the Apostle's Scope and Design And when it thus appears that after Mens Sedulous Endeavours to evade the Testimony of this Place their Objections are of no Force nor can any other Construction be devised that will well agree with the Scripture-Phrase and be consistent with the Scope and Design of St. Paul's Determination in this Case Methinks it adds very great Autority to my Argument makes the Force of it much more considerable and must be admitted as a good Proof that Infants were baptized in St. Paul's Time But the Thing now in Debate being whether it was the Apostles Practice to baptize Infants I think it will be very proper to show what early Discoveries we have of it in the Writings of the Primitive Fathers For let Men that are Conscious of the Testimony of Antiquity against them never so much decry the Autority of the Fathers and the Primitive Church and tell us that the Mystery of Iniquity began to work in it very early nothing of that should derogate from their just Esteem The Mystery of Iniquity began to work in St. Paul's Time and yet I hope that does not lessen his Autority So neither do all the Heresies and Haeterodox Opinions of the first Ages derogate from the Autority of the Fathers in that they proceeded from Men out of the Communion of the Church and were opposed by the Fathers with that Vigor Constancy and Zeal which makes their Testimony both in Doctrines and Practice highly to be valued For this Reason I say it is remarkable how early we find plain and undeniable Evidence of the Baptism of Infants From the Death of St. John for some Years we have no Christian Writings extant except a few short Epistles In which we can no more expect a particular Account of all Apostolical Practices than as I said before we can hope for a particular History of the first Ages of the World in the first Five Chapters of Genesis But one of the first of the Fathers that wrote in any considerable Bulk was Irenaeus and his Evidence is very express in this Case For he has these Words Omnes enim venit viz. Christus per semet ipsum salvare Omnes inquam qui per eum renascuntur in Deum Infantes Parvulos Pueros Juvenes Seniores Ideo per omnem venit aetatem Infantibus factus Infans sanctificans
Infantes in Parvulis Parvulus Sanctificans hanc ipsam habentes aetatem Adv. Haer. lib. 2. c. 39. The Design of the Father in this Place was to lay open the Fantastic Conceits of the Valentinians who pretended that their Aeons were prefigured by the Years of Christ's Life before his Baptism and that what they dreamt of the Passion of the Twelfth Aeon was signified by Christ's Suffering the Twelfth Month to support which Notion they asserted that Christ Preached but one Year after his Baptism These were the Heretic's Fantastic Dreams to confute which Irenaeus first shows that Christ was at Jerusalem Three several Passovers after his Baptism and consequently must have Preach'd above one Year in that he begun it upon his Baptism and continued it to his Death Then he shows that Christ passed thro' the several Stages of Humane Life Omnem aetatem sanctificans per illam quae ad ipsam erat similitudinem that he might sanctifie every Age by his own Likeness thereto For says he he came to save all by himself all I mean that are regenerated by him to God Infants Little Ones Children Young Men and Old For this Reason he pass'd thro' every Age and to the Infants he became an Infant sanctifying the Infants and to the Little Ones a Little One that he might sanctifie those of that Age. Which Words were purposely designed to declare that the Salvation purchased by Christ belongs to all Ages or Years whatever whether Infants or Old Men who are Members of Christ's Church Omnes qui per eum renascuntur in Deum all that are Regenerate or born again to God by him Which is the very Expression that St. Paul and the Ancients after Tit. 3. 5. See Just Mart. Apol. 2. p. 94. Edit Par. him use for Baptism And it appears here to be added to put a Limitation to the Assertion that what he says he means peculiarly of Christians that have been by Baptism admitted into the Covenant All that are born again unto God by him Infants Babes Children c. nor are Infants capable of being born again unto God by Christ any other way that I know of but by Baptism So that I do not see how it can be evaded but that this single Evidence must be acknowledg'd a sufficient Proof that the baptizing Infants was a Thing in Practice when Irenaeus wrote this Book For otherwise this Assertion could be neither pertinent nor proper It may not therefore be amiss to show how early this was and how very improbable it is that such a Custom should so soon prevail unless it had been received by a certain Tradition from the Apostles themselves Irenaeus wrote this Book about A. D. CLXXX which was but about Fourscore Years from the Death of Bishop Pearson Op. Posthuma Dis 2. c. 14. St. John who died in the Third Year of Trajan i. e. about A. D. 100. And Irenaeus was so far Cotemporary with Polycarp who was a Disciple of the Apostles and convers'd with Iren. l. 3. c. 3. many of those who had seen Christ and by them was made Bishop of Smyrna in Asia That he says he had seen him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when he himself was but a young Man He must write this Book then in the very next Age after one that had been Contemporary with the Apostles And this I think is very early It can hardly be supposed that any corrupt Practice should be introduc'd but Polycarp who was Instructed by the Apostles and taught what he had learnt of the Apostles and what the Church had delivered to him and what alone was true as Irenaeus Lib. 3. Cap. 3. speaks of him Would zealously have opposed it and have had Autority to reject it There is no Probability that any great Innovation should be introduc'd while a Cotemporary and Disciple of the Apostles was yet alive There is then only from the Death of Polycarp to Irenaeus's writing this Book for the introducing this Practice if it was introduced And that at most is but about Thirty Two or Thirty Three Years For Bishop Pearson who places the Martyrdom of Polycarp earlier than other Men Opera Posthuma Dis 2. c. 20. asserts that it was A. D. CXLVII And can it be thought that any great Innovation should be made in Irenaeus's own Time and he either not know it or not reprove it Can those who think the baptizing Infants such a Corruption such a Violation of Christ's Institution as they conceit to destroy the true Being of a Church to deprive the Ministers of God of all just Power of Ministring in holy Things and to make Communion with us in our Sacraments unlawful Can they I say imagine that those Fathers whose Glory it was to do all Things according to the Instructions of the Apostles should suffer such an heinous Innovation to come in among them and be received and never make any Complaint nor any Opposition to it Would not Polycarp who was Instructed of the Apostles themselves have opposed it had it been in his Time And would not Irenaeus who says that only those Things are true which the Church from the Apostles delivered would not he I say zealously have oppos'd it had it been in his Time When therefore we find him speaking of it as a known Practice I appeal to all impartial Men whether it is not Rational to believe that the Fathers and the Primitive Church receiv'd it from the Apostles themselves You ought then Sir to be very tender in Charging all Christians from the Apostles Times for Fifteen Hundred Years together with not being a lawful Church nor such with whom one may Lawfully hold Communion in the Sacraments This should not be done without very good Proof Other Errors and Corruptions that have been found fault with and wanted Reformation we know when and how they were introduced And before this is so Positively affirmed to be a corrupt Innovation you ought to show us about what Time and by what Means it came to prevail rather than decry the Autority of the Fathers that bear Witness to this as an Apostolical Practice I might confirm this from the Testimony of others and particularly of Tertullian in the next Place who altho' he seems not I confess to approve it as he was in many Things particular in his Judgment yet even in his Dislike he undeniably attests that it was then in Use But the Testimony of Antiquity has been sufficiently insisted on by others I shall therefore add no more but leave it to your self to consider and to the World to judge whether your separating from our Communion upon the Account of a Practice so agreeable to Christ's Institution and the Ancient Usage of the Church be not more owing to the Prejudice of Education than to the Force of Reason or the just Merits of the Cause I am SIR your Humble Servant FINIS ERRATA PAg. 2. l. 30. read enjoys p. 6. l. 19. r. Capacity l. 34. dele first p. 13. l. 28. r. really p. 15. l. 1. r. assert p. 16. l. 26. r. at all p. 17. l. 15. dele p. 24. l. 10. after Wife add i. e. the Sanctimony of the Conjugal State is attested ADVERTISEMENT A DISCOURSE of FORNICATION Shewing the Greatness of that Sin and Examining the Excuses pleaded for it from the Examples of Ancient Times To which is added an Appendix concerning Concubinage As also a Remark on Mr. Butler's Explication of Heb. 13. 4. in his late Book on that Subject By John Turner M. A. Printed for John Wyat at the Rose in St. Paul's Church-yard