Disproves Infants-Baptism under this Head, viz.
That the Baptizing of Infants is no Ordinance of Jesus Christ; which is made good in the Seven following Chapters.
Chapter I.
Wherein the Scriptures total silence about Infants-Baptism is observed, with the necessity of Scripture-warranty to authorize every Ordinance, and that by the Confession of Parties themselves.If Infants-Baptism had been any Appointment or Ordinance of Jesus Christ, there would have been some Precept, Command, or Example in the Scripture to warrant the same; but inasmuch as the Scripture is so wholly
silent therein, there being not one Syllable to be found in all the New Testament about any such Practice, it may well be concluded to be no Ordinance of Jesus Christ; for where the Scripture hath no Tongue, we ought to have no ear; according to that known Maxim; To practice any thing in the Worship of God, an Ordinance of his, without an Institution, ought to be esteemed Will Worship and Idolatry.And that there is neither Precept nor Example for any such thing as Infants-Baptism in the Scripture, we have the Ingenuous Confession of Parties themselves, viz.
The Magdeburgenses, in Cent. 1, l. 2. p. 496., do say, That concerning the baptizing of the Adult, both Jews and Gentiles, we have sufficient proof from Acts 2, 8, 10, 16, chap. But as to the baptizing of Infants, they can meet with no Example in the Scriptures.
Luther, in Postitt, saith, Young Children hear not, nor understand the word of God, out of which Faith cometh; and therefore if the Commandment be followed, Children ought not to be baptized. And again,
In his Epistle of Anabaptism, saith, we cannot prove, by any place of Scripture, that Children do believe; neither do the Scriptures clearly and plainly, with these or the like words, say, Baptize your Children, for they believe; wherefore we must needs yield to those that drive us to the Letter, because we find it no where written.
Erasmus, In his Book of the Union of the Church, saith, It is no where expressed in the Apostolic writings, that they baptized Children.
And again, upon Romans 6. Baptizing of young Infants was not in use, saith he, in St. Paul's time. And again,In his fourth book, De Rations Conc. saith, That they are not to be condemned, that doubt whether Childrens-Baptism was ordained by the Apostles.
Calvin, In his fourth Book of Institutes, c. 16. Confesseth, That it is no where expressly mentioned by the Evangelists, that any one Child was by the Apostles hands baptized.
Bucer, upon Matthew, saith, That Christ no where commanded to baptize Infants.
Staphilius, In Epitome, saith, That young Children should be baptized, is not expressed in the Holy Scripture.
Choclens, De Bapt. parvulorum, saith, That Jesus took a Child, and place him in the midst of them: What Child was it? I think it was not a young or new-born Child, and that the same was not baptized: For infants were not in those dayes baptized, but such as being come to their full growth, confessed their sins.
Melancthon. In his Treatise concerning the Doctrine of the Anabaptists, writeth, That there is no plain Commandment in the Holy Scriptures, that Children should be baptized.
Zwinglius, In his Book of the Movers of Sedition, speaking of baptizing of Children; So it is, saith he, That there is no plain words of the Scripture, whereby the same is commanded.
These latter Quotations from the German Doctors, you have in an old Dutch author,
called, A very plain and well-grounded Treatise concerning Baptism. - Englished 1618.Mr. Daniel Rogers, in his Treatise about Baptism, Part 29. confesseth himself to be unconvinced by demonstration of Scripture for it.
Mr. Baxter himself, that wrote that Book called Plain Scripture-Proof for Infants-Church-Membership and Baptism; yet in contradiction thereto, in the same Book, p. 3. confesseth, That Infants-Baptism is not plainly determined in the Scriptures.
And again, In the Defence of the principles of Love, in the epistle saith, That he having had more invitation to study the Point throughly, and to treat of it largely, than most that are offended herein, that they must give him leave to say, that he knoweth it to be a very different Point.
Dr. Taylor, Lib. Proph. p. 239 saith, It is against the perpetual analogy of Christ's Doctrine to baptize Infants; for besides that; Christ never gave any Precept to baptize them, nor ever himself, nor his apostles (that appears) did baptize any of them: All that either he or his Apostles said concerning it, requires such previous dispositions to Baptism, of which Infants are not capable, and those are Faith and Repentance. And not to instance those innumerable places that require Faith before Baptism, there needs no more but this one of our Blessed Savior, He that believes, and is baptized, shall be saved; but he that believeth not, shall be condemned. Plainly thus; Faith and Baptism will bring
man to heaven; but if he hath no faith, Baptism shall do him no good; so that if Baptism be necessary, so is Faith much more; for the want of Faith damns absolutely; it is not said so the want of Baptism.Thus you have it acknowledged by Adversaries themselves, that there is neither Precept, Precedent, nor Example in Scripture for baptizing of Infants.
And in the next place, you have it further owned, That there is a necessity for Scripture-Authority to warrant every Ordinance and Practice in Divine Worship, viz.
Luther, upon Galatians 1.9. saith, There ought no other Doctrine to be delivered, or heard, in the Church, besides the pure Word of God, that is, the holy scriptures; let other Teachers and Hearers, with their Doctrines, be accursed.
Calvin, l. 4. Inst. c. 8. Serm. 8. Let this be a firm Axiom, saith he, that nothing is to be accounted the Word and Will of god, to which place should be given in the Church, but that which is first contained in the Law and the Prophets, and after in the Apostolical Writings.
Basil, in his Sermon De Fide, saith, That it would be an Argument of Infidelity, and a most certain sign of pride, if any man should reject things written, and should introduce things not written.
Austin himself saith, Detrabe Verbum, quid est Aqua nisi Aqua? Take away the Word, what is the Water but plain Water? If the Word of Institution be wanting, what doth the Element of Water Signifie?
Theophilact, Lib. 2. Paschal. It is, saith he,
the part of A Diabolic Spirit, to think any thing Divine, without the Authority of the holy Scriptures.Tertul. Contra Hermog. I do adore, saith he, the fullness of the Scriture: Let Hermogenes shew that it is written; if it be not written, let him fear the woe destined to those who add or detract.
And Mr. Ball, very excellently to this purpose, in his answer to the New-England Elders, p. 38, 39. Saying, we must for every Ordinance look to the Institution, and neither stretch it wider, nor draw it narrower than the Lord hath made it; for he is the institutor of the Sacraments, according to his own good pleasure; and it is our parts to learn of him, both to whom, how, and for what and the Sacraments are to be administered; in all which we must affirm nothing but what God hatrh taught us, and as he hath taught us.
The sixth Article of the Church of England, saith very fully to this Point, that the holy Scriptures do contain all things necessary to Salvation, so that what soever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be requested by any man that it should be believed as an Article of Faith, or be thought requisite and necessary to Salvation.
We shall conclude this Chapter with that Notable Observation that Bellarmine makes in the Case, upon the Anabaptists calling for plain Scripture-proof for the baptizing of Infants from them who so exactly require it frm others, and will not in any other case admit the omission thereof, in his book De Bapt. l. 1.
c. 8. Where he saith, that though the Argument of the Anabaptists, from defect of Command or Example, have great force against the Lutherans, forasmuch as they use that Principle every where. viz. That the Rite which is not in Scripture, having no Command or Example there, is to be rejected. Yet is it of no force against Catholicks, who conclude that Apostolical Tradition is of no less Authority with us than the Scripture; for the Apostles spake with the same Spirit, with which they did write. But that this of baptizing of Infants, is an Apostolical Tradition, we know, whence we know the Apostolick Scripture to be the Apostolick Scripture, viz. from the Testimonies of the Ancient Church.The Objection that is usually brought under this Head is, That there is no express Command or Example for Womens [sic] receiving the Lord's Supper; yet who doubts of a good ground from consequential Scripture for their so doing?
In Answer whereto, you'll find there is both Example and Command for the Practice, viz.
1. From Example, Acts 1.14. Where we read, that Mary and other Women were gathered together, and that these Women, together with the rest of the Disciples, were all together in one place, and continued stedfastly in the Apostles Doctrine and Fellowship, and breaking of Bread and Prayers, chap. 2.42, 44. It being expressly said, That all that believed were together.
2. It appears from Command, 1 Corinthians 11.28. Let a man examine himself, and so let him eat: The greek Word signifieth a Man or a Woman; the word is ________ , a word of the Common Gender, as appears, 1 Timothy 2.4, 5. There is one Mediator betwixt God and Man, and Woman; there is the same word used, Galatians 3.28. There is neither Male or Female, but ye are all in Christ. Let but as good proof appear, (from Command and Example) for Infants-Baptism, and it shall suffice.___________