Nesher Articles
The Catechist Catechised
by Richard Hollingworth
Sir,
There is an Anabaptistical Catechism that walks abroad, lately directed
to Lancashire; when it is of age and can answer for itself you shall
know the name of it*; it is but newly brought forth to this county, and
therefore not christened. If you meet with it, it would be a good work
to Lancashire in which you dwell, to the town of Manchester the place
of your nativity and ministry, to make some annotations of it; a few
smooth stones out of soft Siloam hurled out of your sling might lay it
dead; a friendly arrow shot beyond it may may give warning that there
is danger. I would not engage you to the contest with this A.B.C. but
that error is a springing leprosy in contageous times. Worms in
children may turn to the plague. A few vacant hours will serve the
business, and satisfy earnest desire of
Sir, your brother and fellow labourer in the work of Christ,
Richard Heyricke
January 1, 1652
* The Anabaptistical Catechism to which is referred here has been identified by Rev. Dr Whitley, Secretary of the Baptist Historical Society, as Christopher Blackwood’s “A Soul-searching Catechism” etc., 1652 or 1653, a reprint of portion of Blackwood’s “The Storming of Antichrist” 1644.
To all in Lancashire,
that love and seek the Lord in all His soul-filling ordinances,
especially them of the associated churches about Manchester.
Dearly Beloved, and longed for, our joy and crown;
You shall with more praise to God, light and stability to yourselves,
read the ensuing treatise, if you first consider, and lament, that (for
abuse of ordinances) Satan, transforming himself into an angel of
light, hath undermined all ordinances of divine light and life. The
Lord’s Day not moral, public solemn assemblies turned into house
meetings, public ministry exchanged for private conferences, public
preaching of the Word common to gifted brethren with called ministers;
no prayer but when the Spirit moves, no communion in the Supper but in
churches newly gathered, and no baptism for infants. No wonder that
religious ordinances be thus undermined, when the doctrine of the Holy
Trinity, the deity of Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Ghost, the divine
authority of the Scriptures, the obligation of the Decalogue, and other
fundamentals of faith, holiness and righteousness, are, by the
ministers of the prince of darkness, professedly overturned. No wonder
that children are unchurched, when so many churches are unchurched,
many of them that have done the former having begun the latter. They
who would not be saved by ordinances, shall perish for want of
ordinances; and they that would not unite themselves to the fountain of
life by faith, shall be separated from the streams and conveyances of
life, that they may apparently wither and die. Only upon the living in
Jerusalem, that by the subtilty of delusion, or power of interest, are
darkened and benumbed, pray and weep that the Sun of Righteousness may
arise with healing in His wings. But the ordinances, being the purchase
of Christ’s blood, as well as the church, the gifts of His
Princely government, the ensigns of His victory over the kingdom of
darkness, and of His glorious ascension; He will by His sovereign power
maintain; and to that end successively enoble the spirits of some with
beams of heavenly light and courage, that they shall discover the
strategems of opposers, and adventure upon their armies marshalled
against them, and triumphantly overcome by His glorious power,
redeeming the captived ordinances of their king unto a just and
glorious liberty. This being so high a favour from Christ, the glory of
His grace and power, it is most thankfully to be accepted, and His
instruments to be had in honour, by all that rejoice in the glory of
His kingdom. His ministers He hath designed to be the executors of His
Last Will and Testament; to them it belongs by divine appointment, to
give out the several legacies there bequeathed, and to put in suit all
them, in the High Court of sacred Scripture, who shall, upon any
pretence whatsoever, detain any legacy bequeathed. And where will their
faithfulness more appear than to open their mouth for the dumb, and to
sue for children’s rights, whilst they are forcibly wronged and
unable to right themselves? Where is greater trust and more shining
fidelity? The right of infants to baptism hath of late been openly
impleaded in reference to Lancashire, and the bill printed to be
published there in special, with expectation of the concurrence of the
godly. But, blessed be God, one of the Lord’s executors (in
Manchester, where part-taking was most desired and expected) hath
wisely and faithfully joined issue, and by clear evidence hath procured
a determinate sentence for the settling of their undoubted right upon
infants, to our great comfort and the honour of the kingdom of Christ,
in the right whereof, infants are rightly baptised. And our hope in the
Lord Jesus is that the questioning of the right of infants, and the
shaking of their title, will have that influence upon all the godly in
Lancashire, especially parents (peculiarly in Manchester, and the rest
of the associated churches) that out of enflamed love to Christ and the
souls of their children, they will so much the more settle their
judgments in this truth, by the conscionable and diligent use
of this help, provided by the Lord amogst them, so seasonably in
respect
of danger, and so suitably in respect of clearness, brevity and charge;
that wil happily lead to the believing, repenting and prayerful use of
this ordinance, which is the Covenant way of conveying to their
children the sure and saving mercies of the Covenant. So shall they,
and others, who have seen the holy seal set on in infancy, clearly
behold in their holy life, the lively characters of the spirit of the
Covenant, the image of the Lord Jesus in their riper years; to their
own abundant satisfaction, the sliencing of adversaries, the increase
of the church mystical, the encouragement of them that have carefully
and painfully pleaded their right; and above all, the honour of the
Lord Jesus, who in their infancy opened unto them His arms and bosom in
His church, that in an hidden way He might warm them with a spiritual
life, to be maintained in due time. In this hope we pray for you and
labour amongst you, that we might present parents and children in
Covenant-obedience and blessing, at that great Day. This is the
principal desire and soul-travail of the Lord’s unworthy
servants, who in reference to infants do rejoice in our ministry:
John Angers
John Harison
Nathaniel Rathband
William Meek
March 10, 1652
Author’s Preface to the Christian Reader
In these times, the Lord’s builders are compelled while they with
one hand work in the work, with the other hand to hold the weapon. Some
wise master builders have been valiant for the doctrine and practice of
Paedobaptism, whilst others have bent their tongues like a bow against
it. Some of them I have seen, and made use of; some I have heard of,
not seen; others (possibly) there are which I have neither seen nor
heard of. However, I desire that if any wisdom or strength be
discerned in this examination, it may be esteemed first
God’s, then theirs; the weakness hereof is not theirs (much less
God’s or the cause’s) but mine own; yet I humbly hope this
poor pains will be acceptable to God, the chiefest master builder and
captain of His Host, and also (thou helping together with thy prayers)
profitable to thee His servant and soldier. Satan, our grand
enemy would prevail (if he could) for such a gross renunciation of
baptism (received in infancy) as witches, wizards (his devoted vassals)
and open apostates, do make. But having no hope at first to prevail so
far, he endeavours to bring us by a pretence of purity to such denial
and renunciation of infant baptism as the Anabaptists do make, which
hath been very advantageous to his kingdom as well in Germany as in
other places; the more sad it is to see that some reputed, yea
(possibly) real saints, do in the simplicity of their hearts act and
argue for him in this business, as Peter did in another (Matt.
16:22,23).
The various turnings, crooked ways and windings of the
serpent in this controversy (as I could in so short a time and piece) I
have
endeavourd to discover, and to make the paths of the Lord straight and
plain to His people. Repetitions (for brevity’s sake) I have
avoided, even where they might have been somewhat useful, by reason of
which some parts hereof taken by themselves may seem more dark and
defective than (I hope) they will be found if thou compare one place
with another, and spare thy censure of any part till thou hast read the
whole. I have kept close to the main matter, viz.
infant baptism, not
omitting any objection of the catechist against it; but I have
purposely slighted by-matters, lest this book should be voluminous, or
I seem to be contentious above what is meet. I have desired to speak
rationally to the cause, and durst not bring any railing accusation
against persons. My comfort is this, the testimony of my conscience,
that in simplicity and godly sincerity I have managed this matter, not
daring to talk deceitfully for God, or willing to wrong any. The worst
I wish to my antagonists in this cause, is that both they and I might
be ready to receive every revealed truth of God both in the light and
love of it.
Richard Hollingworth
The Catechist Catechised
or An Examination of an Anabaptistical Catechism, pretended to be published for the satisfaction and information of the people of God in Lancashire etc.
by Richard Hollingworth
ANABAPTIST CATECHISM Q.1:
“Q. Who are fit subjects for baptism?
A. Only such as believe (Acts 8:12,37; 16:34; 18:8; Matt. 28:19), and
such as repent (Acts 2:38; Matt. 3:6).”
1. None of these texts severally, nor all of them jointly, do prove
that only such as believe, and such as repent, are fit subjects for
baptism. Nor do they so much as show that any son or daughter of
Christian parents (such as we baptise in infancy) did believe, or
repent, or make profession of faith and repentance, before they were,
or could be, admitted to baptism.
Acts 16:34 doth not evince that the jailer’s house or family
rejoiced, or believed (as you seem to understand it); for the text (the
Greek
being of the singular number) may thus be read: He “believing,
rejoiced” or “expressed his joy (having believed) in all
his house,” by feasting Paul and Silas in his house,
“whither he had brought them” (v. 34). Or, (if by
“house” be meant his family) he rejoiced in, or amongst,
his family, because of the promise made to him (v. 31) that, if he did
believe in the Lord Jesus Christ (as he now did), he should be saved,
and his house. And, if any infants of the jailer might be in the number
of those that should be saved (as you will confess they might), why
might they not be also in the number of those that were baptised?
Besides, this “believing,” of whomsoever it is spoken, is
not in the text expressed to have been before they were baptised. For
it is said (v. 33) that “he and all his were baptised
straightway,” or immediately; after which, “he brought them
into his house, set meat before them, believing in God.”1
So this very chapter (vv.14,15) saith of Lydia, that Paul preached to
her, and she heard and “attended to those things that were spoken
of Paul.” But none of these things are spoken of her house, yet
they were baptised as well as she. It is true, it is said that Paul
preached to the jailer and “to all that were in his house”
(v. 32), and that Crispus “believed in the Lord with all his
house” (Acts 18:8). Yet this (you know) doth not show that there
were none but actual believers in the household. Abraham (Gen. 18:19)
is said to command his children and servants to keep God’s way;
and surely his house might be called a “believing house.”
And now we call godly families, “praying families,” though
there be children in them not capable of understanding or obeying the
Word, or of actual believing and praying.
Now seeing the jailer, Lydia, and their, and other households, are said
to be baptised (as Abraham and his house were circumcised [Gen. 17]);
and seeing children are part of the household, and often included (if
not chiefly intended) under that name (1 Tim. 5:8; Gen. 18:19; 45:18;
46:5 with Exod. 1:1; 1 Sam. 20:15; 1 Kin. 17:12,13, with 15), and that
there are so few families without little ones; who dare affirm, and can
prove, that there were none in these families? Or that they were
excluded from baptism, seeing the Scripture doth not exclude them (as
elsewhere, upon just cause, it expressly doth [Gen. 50:8])? Nor do we
read of whole households admitted to the Lord’s Supper, as we do
to baptism, though your principles are as much for the one as for the
other: so that some texts, by you brought to overthrow infant baptism,
do afford, at least, a very probable argument for it.
2. Matt. 3:6 names “confessing of sin” (which is oft not2
too far from repentance), probably to God, not to John; or if to John,
not a particular confession of each of them by himself (which papists
from hence urge); for it was not possible for John to hear the
particular confessions of so many as for their multitude deserved to be
called “Jerusalem, and all Judaea, and all the region round about
Jordan” (v. 5) in any convenient time. But, whatsoever confession
it was, it seems it was not before their baptism (as you would have it)
but after. For it saith, they were baptised, not “having
confessed,” but “confessing” their sins. And it is
not said they were baptised because they had repented, but rather, on
the contrary, that John’s baptism was a baptism “unto
repentance” (v. 11). This, you know, is consistent enough with
infant baptism. As for Acts 2:38, it is probable that repentance, to
which (notwithstanding their “being pricked in their
hearts” [v. 37]) the apostle exhorts, was in them only in
fieri3
before their baptism; for, immediately after this exhortation, they
were baptised. And there could not be time to question three thousand
in one day after sermon (which, consisting of many main points, must
needs be long; and three of the twelve hours of the day being spent
before it begun [v. 15]), so as to make strict enquiry into, and to
take distinct notice of the repentance of each of them. Of Matt. 28:19;
Acts 2:38; and Matt. 3:6; more hereafter.
3. Suppose your texts do show that the Samaritans, the eunuch, the
jailer, the Corinthians, and others, which were then adult, and
formerly either of the Jewish or heathenish religion, did believe or
profess faith and repentance, and were baptised; that is nothing to
paedobaptists, who never held that a Jew or heathen should be baptised
without profession of faith, but grant further, that actual believers
or professors are indeed the primary and immediate subject of baptism,
and in their own right; and their children are but the secondary
subject, and may not be baptised, but by a capacity derived unto them;
and at that time Christian churches were but ingathering, not gathered.
The foundation was not to be laid in infants, not in infants only. And
the sacred story relating the manner of founding churches, hath not so
much occasion to speak of the baptism of infants, the secondary
subject, as of actual believers, the primary.
God created the first man and woman of a perfect age, though all their
posterity were born infants. At first, men of age were circumcised
(Gen. 17:24 with 14:14); and again after some intermission of that
ordinance (Josh. 5:4). And, if any nation had been proselytised, their
men of age must first have been taught or discipled, and have made
profession of faith, before they should have been circumcised; though,
in the settled condition of the Jewish church, child circumcision was
most in use. If believers and penitents ought to be baptised, will it
thence follow that none but they only are to be baptised? The rule is, A
proprio primo modo ad proprium secundo modo non valet argumentum:
all crows are black, therefore none but only crows are black, is no
good argument. If it were granted that infant baptism cannot be proved
by those texts, yet it will not follow that it cannot be proved by any
other texts. Women’s admission to the Supper, though it cannot be
proved by Matt. 26; Mark 14; Luke 22 (Christ admitting only men), may
notwithstanding be proved by other Scriptures. Your notion that none
are to be baptised, but such as they were whose baptism is mentioned
Acts 8:12,37 etc., 16:34 etc., is by some further improved, saying: All
those were such believers as had been in person Jews or heathens, and
therefore such only are to be baptised; and those that have Christian
parents, and were educated in Christianity from their childhood, are
not (at least not by virtue of any of those texts) to be baptised at
all, neither in infancy, nor when they make profession. As they in
their case, so also you in your case are to blame, to insert into your
answer the word “only,” which you find in none of your
texts. Our Scripture grounds for infant baptism you shall hear anon, in
answer to Q. 10.
ANABAPTIST CATECHISM Q.2:
“Q. What grounds have you against infant baptism?
A. Many; but chiefly Christ’s commission (Matt. 28:19), where the
subjects of baptism are those that are made disciples, and this
commission is to last to the world’s end (v. 20), and reacheth to
every creature that is to partake of baptism (Mark 16:15,16).”
1. Matt. 28:19 is not the first commission for baptising, no more than
for preaching. John Baptist (Matt. 3), and Christ’s disciples
(John 4:1,2) did baptise before this, and had commission for it (John
1:33; Matt. 21:25,26), which Christ confirmed by His being baptised by
John (Matt. 3:13). Yea, we have express examples in Jewish records of a
baptism, which was a rite of initiation into the Jewish church, a
concomitant of circumcision, if not more ancient. So Jacob, admitting
the preserved Shechemites into communion (all of age being women), bade
them be washed or baptised or cleansed by washing (Gen. 35:2), which is
the reason why a Jewish proselyte is in Arianus4 called a
“baptised person.” Hence, the Jews did not question
John’s baptism as a new and unusual rite (they were already well
acquainted with it), but his authority to administer it. Grotius5 on
Matt. 3:6 conceives it was begun upon occasion, and to preserve the
memory of, the purging of the world by the deluge, and that Peter (1
Pet. 3:21) signifies so much, calling baptism the antitype and figure
of it. And the infants of the Jews were thus admitted, as well as the
proselyte, for “one ordinance” was for both (Num. 15:15).
And thus the Hebrew doctors assert (notwithstanding Mr. T.6, to the
contrary, pretends that the proselytes only were baptised, because they
were unclean), that Israel as well as others, entered into covenant:
males by three things, viz. circumcision,
baptism, and offering;
females only by the two last.
Now, as Christ, abolishing the Passover, took the postcoenium, or
common custom used at the Passover, of the master of the family
breaking a piece of bread, and distributing it and a cup of wine
amongst the company, to be materials of the Lord’s Supper; so He
(abolishing circumcision and offering) advanced this ancient, usual,
unquestionable concomitant of circumcision, and of the initiation of
males, females, infants, or others, into the church, to be a sacrament
of the New Testament; the use whereof and the persons to whom it should
be administered, being then ordinarily and commonly known, the
Scripture did not need to record the commission or warrant given to
John, or that the Jews had long before, for their baptising. It was
enough that there is not the least hint in the Word that baptism, when
advanced to be a divine sacrament of the New Testament, should not be
applied to infants as it was before. Indeed, when the apostles’
commission was to be enlarged to “all nations” (this being
a new thing, and rarely known or believed), it was needful that it
should be set down in terminis7, as it here
is.
And
yet this
gospel was not written till about eight years after the ascension of
Christ, and other gospels were written some years after this; the
Jewish church, all this while, being guided by the Old Testament, and
observing the Jewish lawful rites and customs, and this of baptising
doubtless amongst others.
2. You say: “the subjects of baptism in the text are such as are
made disciples, and therefore Christ’s commission is against any
other being baptised, particularly against infant baptism.” But
may not I as solidly argue:
(1.) the persons here commissioned to baptise are such as were made
apostles, had the gift of tongues; they were to go to all nations:
therefore, none but apostles are to baptise? or
(2.) that none are to be baptised, but such, as by teaching or
preaching the gospel to them are made disciples, though they be (as you
know it is possible), converted by other means?
These inferences, though weak, are as strong as yours. For suppose the
apostles, being to baptise the nations or heathens (for to that the
Greek
relates, notwithstanding the gender here, as well as Acts 15:17; 28:28;
13:48; Rom. 2:14,15), were to preach to them, and thereby make them
disciples, doth that forbid that those that are already discipled
should have their children baptised? None but disciples were to be
circumcised amongst the Jews (Acts 15:10), and yet children were
circumcised. If the Lord had given commission to Isaiah and Jeremiah or
any other, to proselytise all, or some nations, it had not been any
whit incongruous and inconsistent with child circumcision, if the
commission had run in these very words: “go teach all
nations,” or “this or that nation,” and
“heathen people,” and “circumcise them;” and
how then can the like speech be contrary to infant baptism, especially
seeing it was a thing so commonly known that infants were baptised as
well as circumcised? See sect. 1 above. And infants are as considerable
a part of the other nations, as they were of the Jews, in reference to
whom other people were called “heathen.” And all nations
(i.e. some of all nations or some of each sort in the nations), infants
amongst others, “should be blessed in Abraham” (Gen.
18:18). He saith not, “grown persons,” much less doth He
say, “grown persons only,” but “all nations.”
Nor is there any appearance of taking away, by this text, any privilege
from Jewish believers or their children, but only of enlarging their
privileges unto the Gentiles. The apostles being commanded that, as
they had preached the gospel and sacramentally initiated the Jews only,
so now they should do the same to others also.
3. If you insist upon the order of the words, and argue thence that
“teaching” (as the word is translated) must go before
“baptising,” you know there is no necessity that what is
set first in Scripture must always be done first. Sometimes preaching
is put before baptising, and sometimes baptising before preaching (Mark
1:4); sometimes repentance before faith (Mark 1:15); glory before
virtue (2 Pet. 1:3) etc. And here, as teaching is put before baptism,
so it is also put after baptism (v. 20). To avoid tautology in the
words, “go teach baptising teaching,” some godly learned
men conceive the Greek word should be
translated “make disciples” or “disciple” all
nations, which was the end of their mission; baptising and teaching
them, were the means of discipling them; whether they be set down in
exact order of time or no, is not material. You (it seems) urge the
word in this sense, and say in effect that infants are not disciples.
It is answered both, that the phrase “to disciple” or
“make disciples” answers an Hebrew phrase among the
Rabbins8
(the New Testament frequently using their phrases in their
sense) which signifies “admission to be taught,” though
they were not yet taught, and in common use. Children the first day
they go to school, before they know any letter, or have any actual
willingness to learn, are called scholars (the same with disciples) of
such a master. And he that is listed in an army is called a soldier,
though possibly he knows little or nothing of the art military.
And infants are disciples in the sense and language of Scripture, as
Acts 15:10, “those upon whose neck the yoke” of
circumcision (for of that he speaks, as appears by vv. 1, 5, 24)
“was put,” were not only nor mostly adult, but infants. Nor
did the synod determine against the circumcision of grown men only, but
also of infants. Children are evidently called “God’s
servants” (Lev. 25:41,42), and they are as well disciples, as
servants.
If Adam had not fallen, his children should have been disciples and
servants of God (and so was Christ in His minority), notwithstanding
their infancy. Besides, it appears by comparing Matt. 10:42 and 18:3-5;
Luke 9:47,48. and Mark 9:41, that the same persons which belong to
Christ (from which privilege infants in general are not warrantably
excluded) are also the disciples of Christ; and that infants are
quickly capable of knowing mothers and nurses from others, of being
taught actions and gestures by them, and sensible of other things, is
very evident. Much more are they capable of being taught by Christ,
whose disciples they are, according to that promise, a part of the new
Covenant (Jer. 31:34; Isa. 54:13) (others being but God’s ushers
and petmasters9
Eph 6:2), their souls being as capable of being taught
by God a Spirit and Father of spirits in their minor, as in their riper
years. And experience teacheth that some (not to mention Jeremiah and
John Baptist), being sanctified from their infancy (so far as can
possibly be discerned by men), have chosen the good and hated the evil:
a thing which neither their own nature nor the art of man could teach
them.
When parents believe, God makes Himself over to them and theirs to be
their God and to teach them, and they make themselves and theirs over
to Him to be His people and disciples. And so children are discipled
when their parents are; and if they are discipled, then, by your own
argument, they are fit subjects of baptism by virtue of Christ’s
commission. Thus, that which you call your chief argument against
paedobaptism appears for it, not against it. Christ’s command of
discipling all nations and baptising them, doth not exclude a part, and
great part too, of the disciples of the nations. Et non
restringendum ubi Scriptura non restringit:
if the Scripture doth not limit itself, we must not limit it. You could
tell us of households without children, but surely you will not tell us
of nations without children.
As for the “lasting of this commission to the world’s end,
and the reaching of it to every creature that is to partake of
baptism” (Mark 16:15,16); if you will maintain the very same
commission in Matt. 28 and Mark 16 to reach as far and to last as long,
and to be unalterable in anything, you should clear up these three
things:
(1.) that some persons are now commissioned from God (as the apostles
hereby were) to go into all the world, and to teach all nations.
(2.) that casting of devils, speaking with tongues, healing the sick,
etc., as mentioned in Mark 16, are to be perpetually in the church.
(3.) that infants are there intended under the name “every
creature,” and of them God doth require actual believing, as of
as great or greater necessity to salvation than to baptism.
The words are not, “He that believeth not, shall not be
baptised,” but “shall be damned.” And are you as
confident that all infants are damned, as you are that none of them
should be baptised? I wonder you dare urge this text against infant
baptism, which your own heart tells you is as much or more against
their salvation, than against their baptism. For my part, I conceive
infants are not to be screwed up10 to that
proportion which God
requires of adult persons: “The Lord will take vengeance on them
that know not God, that obey not His gospel” (2 Thess. 1:8), and
“Every tree that brings not forth good fruit is hewn down”
etc. (Matt. 3:10). Must, therefore, infants either know God, obey the
gospel, and bring forth fruit, or be damned? May we not feed and clothe
infants, because the Word saith, “He that will not labour, must
not eat” (2 Thess. 3:10)? Might not the Jews admit infants into
the visible church, because the Psalmist describes the citizen of Zion
(you say a church member) “walking uprightly, working
righteousness, speaking the truth in love, contemning vile
persons”? etc. (Psa. 15:1-4). The application is easy.
ANABAPTIST CATECHISM Q.3:
“Q. What other grounds have you against infant baptism?
A. Infants are not fit subjects for baptism because they do not
believe, they have not reason to discem between good and evil (Deut.
1:39). Faith is an act of the understanding, which cometh by hearing,
as well as an act of the will; and it is unlawful to baptise persons
without they believe (Acts 8:37). If thou believest, it is lawful (Acts
10:47; 8:12; 18:8).”
1. All the texts you now produce have been answered before in the first
chapter, save Acts 10:47, from which you may collect that those that
had the “gift of the Holy Ghost” (as it is called v. 45)
and could “speak with tongues” (v. 46) were to be baptised.
But surely you will not infer thence, that those that have not the said
gifts are not to be baptised. If you do, you will deny all baptism that
is nowadays, and turn Seeker11.
But as by your principles you hold
confession of faith and repentance sufficient to baptism, without those
gifts; so you should show that the aforesaid gift, and speaking with
tongues, was instead of their believing and repenting; or else confess
you impertinently allege this text.
2. I must now ask you once for all, what you mean by
“believers”? Whether such only as have a true justifying
faith; or all that make profession of faith, whether indeed and in
truth they have a true justifying faith or no? The first is requisite
in foro Dei, & conscientiae, & ex parte baptizati12:
that our baptism may be acceptable to God, and comfortable to us (1
Pet. 3:21). So the eunuch, desiring baptism with the saving benefit
thereof, and asking, not, “What doth hinder thee from baptising
me?” but, “What doth hinder me” was answered,
“If thou believest with all thy heart, thou mayest.” But in
foro ecclesiae, & ex parte baptizmatis13:
the latter sufficeth for admission, yourself being judge. No Scripture
rule was transgressed when Judas, Simon Magus, Ananias, and Sapphira
were baptised. The eunuch’s profession, that he “believed
Jesus Christ to be the Son of God” sufficed to present admission
of him to baptism. And surely not the inward and spiritual
qualifications, but the outward and visible estate of persons to be
baptised is to be looked at, and we should descend to the lowest
(personal profession of faith and repentance being the highest) degree
of visibility.
Suppose a minister had a spirit to discern the inward estate of men as
certainly as Christ did of Judas, and possibly the apostles did of some
which they baptised. Yet were he not to withhold from any, for want of
inward grace, the privileges which they have right and title to by
virtue of their visible estate. Saint Augustine and others think Judas
was admitted to the Lord’s Supper, though he but received panem
Domini not panem Dominum14;
and Mr. Cartwright also so judgeth, from that connection (Luke
22:19-21). Certainly he was admitted to the Passover by virtue of his
visible estate. Ishmael and Esau were regularly15
circumcised, though
Abraham knew that the one, and Rebecca that the other, was not the
elect seed of the Covenant (Gen. 17:19,20 with 23; 25:23; Rom. 9:12).
We can but charitably judge, not infallibly know, who are believers.
And, though infants do not actually believe, yet, by the judgment of
charity (if that be one rule), we ought to judge that infants born of
Christian parents are regenerate, and have faith habitual, or the
principle seed of it, so much as is absolutely necessary to their
participation of Christ and salvation by Him, and that they dying in
infancy are saved. See answer to Q.5. For though they cannot actually
believe, or at least not make profession of their faith, yet they are
not to be doomed infidels, no more than they are to be judged
irrational or dumb, because they cannot actually reason or speak. And
therefore they (unless you can reduce them to a third party, which will
much strengthen the popish conceit of a third place for them when they
die, limbus infantum) are to be counted
believers;
and so methinks Christ accounts of them, Matt. 18:6, with v. 4.
3. Ever since God gathered a distinct number out of the world to be His
church, visible kingdom, city and household, in opposition to the rest
of the world, which is the visible kingdom, city or household of Satan,
God would have the infants of all who are taken into covenant to be
accounted His, and to belong to His church and family, and not to the
devil’s. If Adam had kept the covenant of works, his infant seed
had been righteous. Adam breaking that covenant, his infant seed was
guilty of that breach, and became sinners against the law, though they
knew not what the law, or sin against it, was. Adam being within the
Covenant of grace, his infant seed was so judged likewise. For by
“seed of the woman”, (Gen. 3:15) is meant Christ in His
minority, as well as in His grown years, who died for infants as well
as others. Neither are infants to be excluded from the benefit of that
promise. The infants of Noah, Abraham and the Jews, were members of the
same church with their parents: as infants of Jews, Turks and pagans,
though incapable of those opinions or practices, are esteemed Jews,
Turks, pagans; so the infants of Christians (though, as the children of
men, they are “born in sin” [Psa. 51:5], “dead”
in it [Eph. 2:1,3]) yet, as children of the church they are visibly
Christians, not infidels, Jews, Turks, or pagans. Though a nobleman, a
freeman of a corporation, a visible church member, do beget children as
men, not as a person of honour, a freeman, a church member; yet,
according to their respective charters, the honour of the one, the
freedom of the other, and church privileges of the third, may descend
on their children.
ANABAPTIST CATECHISM Q.4:
“Q. What other arguments have you to prove that infants have
not faith, and are not to be baptised?
A. If they had faith, they were presently to be admitted to the Supper,
and not excluded from communion therein, as many are which are admitted
to communion in baptism; whereas the communion in both is one and the
same, the same thing signified in both, viz. our
fellowship with Christ
in His death and resurrection. So that all that are baptised into one
body, are all made to drink into one Spirit (1 Cor. 12:13), and the
same preparation of faith and repentance are required for both; and he
that is cast out of the one, is cast out of the other, seeing by
excommunication he is like an heathen or publican.”
1. It is the judgment both of Mr. Rutherford and Mr. Hooker and others
of New England, that infants of visible churches, born of wicked
parents, members of the same churches, ought to be baptised. The reason
may be that we (when a child is presented to baptism) are to take
notice of the parent’s church membership, not of his
scandalousness. If the church do not cast out the parents, why should
the minister cast out the child? Parents, where suspended, lose only
their present fruition, not their fundamental right of membership. It
is right of membership, not the present fruition of it, nor their
worthiness of that right, which doth (as they conceive) transfer that
privilege to infants. Mr. Cotton in his “Way”
(p.115) conceives it is considerable, if the grandfather or
grandmother, making profession, be still living, and willing to
undertake for the child; yea, that in some cases a heathen’s
child may be baptised in right of its household governor (Gen. 17). Yet
it is very far from their opinions, that these children, or the
immediate parents of them should be admitted to the Supper.
2. Amongst the Jews, infants were circumcised: yet were they not
presently admitted to the Passover. They could not come up (nor do we
read they were carried) from the remote parts of Judaea to Jerusalem,
where only the lamb was eaten. Nor could they eat it standing
“with staves in their hands”, and “with sour
herbs”, as was required (Exod. 12); nor keep it to the Lord (v.
46) with spiritual respects to God’s glory, to God’s ends
and rules, and to have their “hearts prepared”, as well as
to be ceremonially clean (2 Chr. 20:33; 30:17). And the same males were
as well to be at the feast of tabernacles (as at the Passover) and to
carry boughs (which was no infant’s work) to make booths or
tabernacles to dwell in (Deut. 16:16 17. with Lev. 23:34,35, 38-40).
The children, yea those that could speak and ask questions, did not
partake of the Passover, as is implied in that they did not say,
“What mean we”, but “What mean you by this
service?” It was not allowable to count them for the eating of
the Passover that could not eat of it, viz.
infants, sick
persons, uncircumcised and unclean. See Ainsworth on Exod. 12:4. The
uncleanness of a proselyte was no bar to circumcision, but to the
Passover it was (Num. 9:6,10). An adult proselyte might in some cases
be circumcised and baptised, and not presently admitted to the
Passover. Ainsworth on Exod. 12:44.
3. The rite of baptism is after the common custom of washing new born
infants from the pollutions of the womb (Ezek.16:5,9). but the elements
of bread and wine are the food of riper years. Baptism is a sacrament
of initiation (as Bernard calls it), the Supper is the highest
ordinance Christians (as such) are capable of. It is one thing to be
admitted a scholar in a school, or to be matriculated into the
University; another thing to be of such a form, standing, or degree. It
is one thing to be a subject, a tenant, or free of a corporation (which
children may be); another to do homage, suit and service. Our
regeneration or birth in Christ (whereof baptism is the laver) infants
are capable of, but not of that growth and augmentation signified in
the Supper. To be baptised, is to be passive (as in the first act of
regeneration we are merely passive); the action is wholly the
baptisers, “I baptise thee” etc. But to eat and drink in
remembrance of Christ’s death, and to discern the Lord’s
body, is to be active, and requires exercises of reason and grace. And,
as Christ Himself did not administer the baptism, but His disciples
(John 4:1,2); and Paul saith, God sent him not to baptise, the apostles
did not so usually baptise, as ordinary ministers (1 Cor. 1:14-17);
but, Christ did administer the Lord’s Supper, as also the chief
ministers present did usually afterward. So multitudes were baptised by
John Baptist and the disciples of Christ, which were not presently
admitted to the Supper, when Christ initiated it.
The apostles were to teach all nations, baptising them; but the
communicating of all nations is not expressed. Of the Samaritans, and
several households baptised, we read; of their present admission to the
Supper, we read not. So that though the communion in both sacraments be
one, and the preparations for them both in adult persons be the same
for substance, yet because of their different dispensations and
degrees, infants may be admitted to the one and not to the other. Yet,
I freely and confidently assert that to admit children to the Supper,
is far more excusable than to deny them baptism. For they have jus
ad rem,
a right to it (as a young heir hath to his lands), as saints decayed in
mind and body have a right to hear the Word. And the communicating of
infants is more of antiquity and credit in the church, than denying of
their baptism; though I hold it not fit that infants should
communicate, because they have not jus in re: they
have not
aptitude and fitness for it. A child is not fit to manage his own
estate; nor is it rational to preach the gospel to an holy man (what
right soever he may have to it), when he is destitute of the capacity
to hear or understand it. And hence it is, that the church having some
while admitted infants to the Lord’s Supper, did upon second
considerations discern the mistake, and laid it aside, but yet still
continued that other of baptising infants, seeing no cause to leave it
off, but rather more strictly to observe it.
ANABAPTIST CATECHISM Q.5:
“Q. But what if an infant or any other in their childhood,
should die unbaptised, are they not damned?
A. We know nothing out of the Scripture of their salvation or
damnation, and therefore we must not be too inquisitive. Yet, such
infants, so dying, may be saved, through the presentment of the
satisfaction of Christ to the justice of God for original sin, which
satisfaction, though it be applied through believing in those that can
believe, yet it may be applied without in those that cannot believe,
else how could any infant be saved?”
If you know nothing of their salvation, Christ doth (Mark 10:14).
“Of such”, saith He, “is the kingdom of
heaven”. He means not only those that are meek humble, harmless, like
little children (for He would not have blamed those that would have
kept little children from Him; nor have blessed them when they came, if
they were only mere emblems of such as are blessed, as a lamb or a dove
may be), but little children themseIves. David judged that his child,
though adulterously begotten, and whom God took away in His wrath, was
saved, else he would not have eaten, and drunk, and rejoiced that he
should go to it (2 Sam. 12:20).
If any affirm, that all infants of Christians dying in infancy are
certainly saved, I know no Scripture against it; and if there be no
place punctually proving it, we are bound to incline to the more
charitable opinion (Matt. 7:1), especially when we speak of this or
that particular infant.
You say, they may be saved without baptism. True, there is a
possibility of it. So if infants of the Jews had not been circumcised
the eighth day, and had died uncircumcised, they might also have been
saved, their parents or governors being guilty of the contempt or
neglect of the ordinance, not they. And why should their salvation or
damnation depend upon others doing or not doing their duty?. That
phrase of “cutting off” (Gen. 17:14), either concerns grown
men only, or threatens only excommunication or death, not eternal
damnation. God had mercy on the penitent thief; yet, it is presumption
in us to defer repentance till death, or to neglect baptism. God can
bring a child into the world without a midwife; shall we therefore
neglect the means? Parents, when their children are baptised before
they die, may not only be comforted in the performance of their duty,
but also have more grounded hopes of their children’s salvation.
Your antipaedobaptistical doctrines do take away all, or most, of the
grounds of hope which Christian parents have of the salvation of their
dying infants.
ANABAPTIST CATECHISM Q.6:
“Q. Whether do you think it were better for persons to have
baptism deferred till they be able to make a profession of faith.
A. Yes, it would be far better, for hereby the churches would have
right matter, (i.e.) saints in profession, and persons would be careful
to get knowledge and holiness, whereas now they are careless of both.
Infant baptism brings many mischiefs, besides that it fills the church
with rotten members, confounds the church and the world together, and
is a groundwork for more traditions, and doth so darken the doctrine of
baptism, that we cannot know the true meaning of it when we read it in
Scripture.”
1. The many “mischiefs” of infant baptism, and the
“benefits” of such delaying of it, were unknown to the
apostolic primitive church, else surely they would have left us some
precept or precedent of their delaying the baptism of the children of
Christian parents. The Jewish church had child circumcision and child
baptism too as rites of initiation: had it been better they had been
deferred? Was not the Jewish church to be freed from
“mischiefs” (as you call them), as well as the Christian
church? If children’s admission did not bring such mischiefs upon
the Jewish, how comes it to be so mischievous to the Christian church?
We have a command for child baptism, not indeed such a direct express
command as they had for circumcision, but a virtual, implicit and
consequential command, as you shall hear anon in answer to Q.12. And
this is abundantly sufficient to clear it from being a cause of itself
of any mischief at all.
2. You hold and pretend to prove that John Baptist and the disciples of
Christ did not baptise infants. But were no rotten members baptised,
when Jerusalem, all Judaea, and all the region round about Jordan, came
and were baptised? (Matt. 3; Mark 1); yea, that people or multitude
whom, or some of whom, he called “generation of vipers”
(Luke 3:7. with 21)? Mr. Cobbet, a New England divine, saith,
“John Baptist did and might lawfully baptise those multitudes,
albeit in the general he knew that many, yea most of them, would prove
false and frothy”. Mr Nyes, another of them, saith, “The
apostles for the baptising of three thousand expected no testimonies,
nor a day’s (much less a month or years’) experience, nor
could they, in so short time, make any inquisitions, or hear any
persuasive relations”. When all the Samaritans, very lately
bewitched by Simon Magus (Acts 8:9,10), were baptised (v.12), were
there then no rotten members? Suppose all London, Middlesex, and all
the region round about Thames or Trent, should be Jews or heathens (and
surely you account them now much better) and should presently, upon
hearing of a sermon, make some profession of faith or confession of
sins and be baptised, would you judge all these right matter, saints;
and that there is no rotten member amongst them?
What became of those multitudes and myriads of baptised ones when
Christ suffered, or afterwards, if they were not rotten members? Were
not Judas, Ananias, Sapphira, Hymenaeus, Philetus, and many others,
rotten members? Were there not amongst the Corinthians (though called
saints, a parse meliore16, as we call
a wheat
field
a corn
field, though we see many tares and thistles in it), known carnal
schismatics, fornicators, idolaters, some that sacrificed to devils,
drunken communicants, heretics denying the resurrection, despisers of
Paul, admirers of the false teachers, men (as Paul feared) that had not
repented of the uncleanness, fornication and lasciviousness they had
committed, amongst whom were debates, envyings, wraths, strifes,
backbitings, whisperings, swelling tumults, etc? Were none of these
rotten members? It is the work of the ministry to convince rotten
members of their rottenness, and by the blessing of God to convert
them, and make them sound (1 Cor. 5, 6 & 10; Gal 4:19). And if
so
be they remain incurable, and after much means, pains and patience, are
not reclaimed, the church may cut them off. Though the drawnet doth
take in both good and bad, yet the bad afterwards may be cast away
(Matt. 13:47,48).
3. Are there not also among the Anabaptists (notwithstanding their
rejection of infant baptism) many rotten members, heretics,
blasphemers, such as deny the Trinity, the divinity or humanity of
Jesus Christ, the immortality of the soul, the morality of the Sabbath,
authority of the Scriptures, the guilt of original sin, the necessity,
yea the very being of the ministry, officers and ordinances; asserters
of the whole body of Arminianism, of immediate revelations and
enthusiasms, of antinomianism, of polygamy, perfection of grace? Who
more than the Anabaptists (I had almost said, who but they) have been
given up by God to those strong and strange delusions, to those
damnable opinions and abominable practices mentioned in the late Act?
Where is there a more wicked and wretched sect than the Ranters17? But
(possibly) you that published this catechism may be of the strictest
sect of your religion (as the worst of these at their first separating
from us seemed also to be), and do abhor to have communion not only
with these, but with drunkards, adulterers, swearers, etc. To you I
say, if there be not amongst you drunkards, adulterers, swearers, etc.
(Satan himself is none of these), but are there not seditious,
schismatical persons, that say all the church is holy? Sacrilegious
persons, that devour that which is holy, or dedicated to the service of
God and His church, not by themselves (which was Ananias’ sin)
but by others? Are there not murderers, railers, false accusers, liars,
proud, boasters, covetous, traitors, heady, high minded, lovers of
themselves, despisers of good men, having a form of godliness? etc.
Such an one is Satan.
As for the rotten members in paedobaptist’s congregations, they
are, or should be, duly proceeded against, and much good is done that
way in many congregations where government is set up, and people help
forward the work (human infirmities both in rulers and ruled ever have
been, and will be). And more good would have been done, had not the
separation of some from us, the exemption by the civil powers from
church government of whosoever will not freely own it, and unjust
clamours of Presbyterian rigidness and tyranny, together with the
tumults and troubles of the time, hindered it.
4. As for infant baptism, it is a consecrating of children to God, and
formally initiates them into the church; which is a great benefit (as
casting out, or excommunicating out of the church, is a great censure).
It is an outward distinctive sign of Christian’s children from
pagans, signifies their original sin and necessity of regeneration,
even before the commission of actual sin, and the salvation of infants,
as well as grown men, by Christ. It makes infants partakers of the
ordinances, at least of the prayers of the church, as members thereof.
It pre-engages them to a Christian course, when they have the least
prejudice and obstruction against it; and as soon as they are capable
to receive the nurture and admonition of the Lord, to frequent
ordinances, and to own Jesus Christ by external profession. It binds
parents to be more careful and conscientious of their religious
education; it comforts their hearts (godly parents may speak this
experimentally) to see their children thus sealed, in assurance that
God is their God, and the God of their seed. Yea, God doth sometimes,
yea always (as we ought to judge, till the contrary appear) baptise
them inwardly, or infuse grace, or the seed of it, into the soul of the
baptised infant. These and the like were counted great benefits in the
time of the law; and are they, or can they be, mischiefs in the time of
the gospel?
You assert indeed, that delaying of baptism would make men
“careful to get knowledge and holiness, whereas now they (viz.
they that do not delay baptism) are careless of both”. But may
they not be as conscientiously taught, and as careful and apt to learn
in Christ’s school in His visible kingdom, as out of it? Baptised
as unbaptised? Are not many grown persons as forgetful and careless of
the promises they make on their sick beds, and other occasions, as of
those which were made in infancy? Are Anabaptists the only men that are
careful to get knowledge and holiness? Are not multitudes of persons,
which were baptised in their infancy, as careful to get knowledge and
holiness, and as good proficiency therein, as any others? Is it better
not to put children into a lease or grant of a privilege, lest they
should be secure and careless to pay rent and homage, than to put them
in? May not deferring of baptism so long, make them despise it when
they come to age? Satan may more easily keep children, when grown up,
from receiving Christianity, than work them to renounce it; though he
sometimes prevails with witches and wizards to renounce their baptism
(received in infancy) that they may be his vassals, and more assured to
him. Keeping the children of Christians out of the church, is a strange
way (sure it is none of God’s ways, nor is it likely to prevail)
to make them in love with Christianity. If any good can be done by such
mediums, the warrantable deferring of the Lord’s Supper alone may
do it, as well as the unwarrantable delaying of baptism.
As for “darkening the doctrine of baptism”, experience
teacheth us that the doctrine thereof was clear enough in Scripture,
and competently understood, as well as the doctrine of the Lord’s
Supper, before such opposition hath been made to infant baptism. If it
be now darkened, the darkness is not from infant baptism, but from your
opposite opinion and practice.
ANABAPTIST CATECHISM Q.7:
“Q. But may not infants be baptised, if they be Abraham’s
seed?
A. Yes; but we Gentiles are only Abraham’s seed by believing
(Gal. 3:7; so Rom. 4:16, Gal. 3:29). They that would make the children
of believers to be the seed of Abraham, are mistaken; for the Scripture
speaketh but of three seeds of Abraham, viz: (1)
Christ (Gal. 3:16),
(2) The carnal seed, (3) The believer, Jew or Gentile (Gal 3:28). And
they add a fourth seed of Abraham, viz. the seed
or children of
believers amongst the Gentiles, about which the Scripture is
silent.”
Either you do not sufficiently enumerate, or not rightly understand
your enumeration of the Scripture-kinds of Abraham’s seed, or
both. For:
(1.) Christ personal is not the whole of
Abraham’s
seed,
to whom (though He may be the whole in whom, 2 Cor. 1:20) the promises
were made, but Christ mystical, the whole church
of
Christ (1
Cor. 12:12,13), all which, whether Jews or Gentiles, bond or free (I
may add, young or old) are but one in their Head Jesus Christ (Gal.
3:28). All that are Christ’s are Abraham’s seed (v.29), and
infants are His, as well as grown persons; for He became an infant,
suffered much in His very infancy, was the Head of the church while an
infant (and therefore might well have infant members), died for infants
as well as for grown men, bade His disciples to suffer little children
to come unto Him – if not that He might baptise them (for He
baptised none at all, infants or others [John 4:1,2]) yet that He might
bless them – and said, that “of such is the kingdom of
heaven” (Matt. 19:14).
(2.) As for the carnal seed of Abraham, their fleshly relation was not
sufficient to entitle them to church privileges, except they had a
spiritual relation also (Rom. 9:6,8). Open apostates, and revolters,
though the carnal seed of Abraham, were not counted of the church, but
as strangers, and heathens, as David calls them (Psa. 54:3, 59:5). That
text (Exod. 12:48) prohibiting strangers, did, by the rule of
proportion, prohibit from the Passover all such Jews as did forsake the
faith. The Chaldee paraphrase saith, “No son of Israel that is an
apostate, or fallen from the faith, shall eat of it.” Cain and
his posterity were rejected (Gen. 4:15,16 with Gen. 6:1,2). So Ishmael
was cast out, and the Ishmaelites (Gal. 4:30; Gen. 21:10,14; Psa.
83:6), which last place mentions the Edomites also, which were the
posterity of Abraham. Yea, all the twelve tribes, which were the seed
of Abraham, were cast off at the last; and yet, their being begotten
after the flesh, and being circumcised in the flesh, was an help, not
an hindrance, to their being begotten of the promise, or to
circumcision in the Spirit. Jacob was of Isaac and Rebecca after the
flesh, and yet also the heir of promise. And as then some were born
only after the flesh, such as Ishmael, Esau, and some were also born
after the Spirit, as Isaac, Jacob; so the apostle (looking not only to
the parallel, but to the history) saith, “so it is now”
(Gal. 4:29). Some, even in the time of the gospel, are born of
Christian parents only after the flesh, and some also after the Spirit,
and these do persecute one another. This difference may discover itself
in riper years, but in infancy it is undiscoverable now as then.
(3.) It was not necessary that they should be the carnal seed of
Abraham that were in covenant relation, and initiated into the church;
for Abraham was (as to this) not only the father of the Jews, but of
many nations, and upon this account his name was changed (Gen. 17:4,5).
Proselytes being Gentiles as well as we, and not of his carnal seed,
nor (many) so much as of his family, yet they were the seed of Abraham
by believing, as well as we are now. And they were not only initiated
into the church, but those of them that were of Abraham’s family
were the foundationals and first members of the church, as constituted
in Abraham’s family. His 318 trained servants, besides others,
were not all (if any) of his carnal seed.
(4.) As for the infants of believers, which you separate from their
parents (of which see before Q.3, sect. 3) and make them a fourth seed,
you know that proselytes became Abraham’s seed only by believing,
as (you say) we Gentiles now do. And yet their children were accounted
Abraham’s seed (though they be none of the three which you
mention) and as such were initiated into the church (Gen. 17:12,23;
Exod. 12:48,49). In the same sense that Abraham was a father to a
proselyte, or believing Gentile and his seed then, he is father to a
Christian Gentile and his seed now, for his paternity abides the same.
Nor can you show a better warrant for his paternity over the one, than
over the other; nor have the Gentiles lost any privilege by the coming
of Christ which they had before. The Scripture saith, “The
brethren now are the children of the promise, as Isaac was” (Gal.
4:28). Now Isaac was the seed of Abraham, and in the promise as an
infant of believing parents, before he was an actual believer; and his
infants were within the Covenant, and accordingly initiated into the
church. Abraham might say, “God is my God, and the God of my
infant seed,” and so might the Gentile proselyte say also.
And why may not a Christian, who is “blessed with faithful
Abraham” (Gal. 3:9) say so too? Especially seeing Jesus Christ,
the Minister of circumcision, did not abrogate, but “confirm the
promises made unto the fathers, and that the Gentiles might glorify God
for His mercy” etc. (Rom. 15:8,9). God, alluding to the outward
circumcision of His people and their seed, promiseth to
“circumcise their hearts and the hearts of their seed”
(Deut. 30:6); and this promise is gospel, and a parcel of the Covenant
of grace, as appears by (Deut. 30:6,10-14 with Rom. 10:6-8); and this
circumcision of the heart is commended (Rom. 2:28,29) and is signified
and sealed in baptism (Col. 2:11,12). It is observed that Gen. 17:7
speaks not of Abraham and his seed (which, you say, are actual
believers) abstractly taken, but of his seed in their
generations, which words necessarily imply and include, as
the parents generating, so the children generated.
(5.) Lastly, Abraham is not only called the father of particular
believers, but the father of nations professing the true faith, as well
as of the Jewish nation. Every nation receiving the true faith as they
did, and in which there is a national agreement in doctrine, worship,
discipline, as was in the nation of the Jews, is an holy nation, a
peculiar people to the Lord, even Egypt and Assyria, with Israel, and
may call Abraham father (Isa. 19:21; Gen. 17:5). When the Gentiles were
grafted into that stock from which the Jews were broken off, and did
partake of “the root and fatness of the olive tree” (Rom.
11:17), Abraham began to be the father of many nations (Rom. 4:16,17).
Regenerate infants are Abraham’s spiritual seed by Mr. T.’s
confession, and he professeth that he would baptise them, if he could
know them. I am sure no one dare say of this or that particular infant,
that it is not regenerate. Yea, we are bound to judge they are such,
till something appear to the contrary.
ANABAPTIST CATECHISM Q.8:
“Q. But are not the children of godly persons visibly in the
Covenant of grace?
A. No. The Covenant of grace is an invisible thing, and we cannot know
who are in it, nor have we grounds to judge persons are in it, till we
see some profession of holy life of faith and repentance, which infants
cannot make.”
1. Not to speak of such as are only intentionally in the Covenant of
grace, as children yet unborn may be (Deut. 29:15); those that are
actually in the Covenant of grace are of two sorts:
(1.) Some are externally in it, as Ishmael, Judas, Simon Magus, and so
all such as own God to be their God and themselves to be His people (as
the Jewish church did, and every true Christian church doth), though
but externally, are said to be within the Covenant. You yourself say
that profession of faith and repentance are grounds to judge some
persons to be in the Covenant of grace. There is external being in
Christ (John 15:2); vocation (Matt. 22:14); sanctification (Heb.10:29);
and purging from sin (2 Pet. 1:9).
(2.) But some are also internally and savingly in the Covenant of
grace, as Isaac, Jacob, while infants and when adult; also Zacchaeus,
Lydia and her household, the jailor and all his. This distinction is
grounded upon Rom. 9:4-8. We may know who is in the Covenant of grace
externally; but the Covenant of grace in the second sense is invisible,
and none could know who were in it in the time of the Jews (though
infants were then visibly in it, and initiated as such) or amongst
Christians.
If the invisibleness of the Covenant of grace, and our not knowing who
are in it, doth exclude infants, it doth also exclude adult professors
from admission into the church; for the signs of their being savingly
in the Covenant of grace are but conjectural, hopeful and probable; not
certain and infallible. None can be sure that he that makes a
profession at a full age, which qualifies him for baptism, is not an
hypocrite at this minute, and will not be an apostate the next. Nor can
we know that they are in the Covenant, for then we would know they are
elected, whereas this is a secret known only to God (2 Tim. 2:19; Deut.
29:29). And the little ones of the church, though they make no personal
profession as adult persons do, yet are as visibly within the Covenant
of grace (parents having as much authority and reason to covenant for
their children now as in Deut 29:10 with 30:6); and as charitably to be
accounted of, seeing of adult Christians, the weakest can hold forth no
more than the least degree of absolute probability, and the strongest
no more than the highest degree of probability.
2. Peter saith (Acts 2:38,39), “the promise is to you and to your
children.” Concerning which I observe:
(1.) That hereby is not meant Christ is exhibited
(as some
gloss). The promise is fulfilled, Christ is come; for this they heard
before (v.36) and knew to their trouble, and therefore “were
pricked in their hearts”; and these words are not anywhere in
Scripture to be otherwise taken. Nor is baptism a seal barely to Christ
being come in the flesh, but to the benefits thereof covenanted and
promised. Nor is it a promise of the gifts of the Holy Ghost, but the
gospel promise of remission of sin (Heb. 8:10,12), signed and sealed in
baptism (Acts 3:19); which belongs to God’s people at all times,
might heal their being “pricked in their heart” (v.37), and
is fitly used as a motive to persuade them to “repent and be
baptised”, and is a suitable answer to their question,
“What shall we do to be saved?”
(2.) He saith not, “The promise is to you, and to as many as God
shall call, whether of your children or strangers,” as he might
have said if he would have levelled the children of Christians and
pagans; but, he saith, “The promise is to you and your children,
and to as many;” making their children a distinct party, as from
those that were, so from those that after,
should be
called; the words holding out their right, are in the indicative mood,
the promise is to you. The like is never said to pagans, or to any out
of the church.
(3.) These words are the same in substance with the reason and ground
of circumcision (Gen. 17:8,10,11). That promise and Covenant was a
gospel Covenant: “in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth
be blessed;” and was an everlasting Covenant, made four hundred
and thirty years before the Law, and to be fulfilled, in a great part
of it, after the ceasing of Moses’ pedagogy and of circumcision
(Gal. 3:15-17. Rom. 4:12,16,24; Heb. 13:20; Rev. 14:6). And the said
everlasting Covenant was not only with actual believers, but with the
lineal seed of Abraham, even before they actually believed, till some
open revolt did disable them; and with the infant seed of proselytes or
Gentiles converted to the faith.
(4.) His motion, that every one of them should be baptised, doth imply
they had right to baptism, (for he doth not persuade them to be
usurpers of that to which they had no right). And he grounds his motion
not only upon their bare personal interest in the promise, but their
children’s joint interest with them (as, in Gen. 17, God doth for
circumcision); which latter could not rationally be urged as a motive
to persuade the Jews to be baptised and to embrace Christian religion,
if the joint interest of their children with them were not (at least)
fully as great in the Christian as in the Jewish church. Now, if a Jew
had a child born before his conversion to Christianity, that child was
sacramentally to be initiated; but if he had a child after, you say it
was not, but was in the same condition as a pagan’s child, viz.
not to be admitted into the church till it were called. And if so, then
where is the benefit belonging to children of Jews converted by virtue
of their Christianity? If a landlord should move his tenants to give up
his old lease or grant (which hath certain immunities and privileges to
him and his children) and to take a new one in which his children have
no more privileges than mere strangers, could he rationally persuade
him to surrender the old lease or grant, and to take a new one, from
the benefit they may accrue to the tenant and his children by it?
(5.) Here seem to be three ranks and conditions of persons: (i) the
Jews themselves, then present and adult. (ii) their children, the
present issue, which already was, or should be born of their bodies,
whatever they were, younger or elder, infants not excluded. (iii) those
that were afar off, not in estate (for the
mystery
of the
calling of the Gentiles was not fully closed with by Peter till Acts
10; nor could the Jews yet bear that saying), but those that were afar
off in time: the Greek here
is a different phrase from that used of the Gentiles, (Eph. 2:13,17);
and fitly may denote the posterity of the Jews in after ages.
(6.) These Jews (it is likely) were “pricked in their
hearts,” not only for their crucifying of Christ, but their
cursing their children about two months since (Matt. 27:25); which
curse did include their very infants then newly born, and others that
should be born afterward; and therefore if Peter had not included
infants in this promise, the plaster had not been large enough for
their sore.
(7.) Lastly, the Jews were apt long after this to scruple lesser
matters (Acts 21:20), and can it be thought that they should not
startle and be discontented to have both circumcision and baptism taken
from
their infants? Nor inquire whether this exclusion of their infants was
not a fruit of their cursing of them? Or how could it be justified by
the Old Testament (their being no other written Word)? Or by what
warrant the church membership and Covenant interest, which their
children formerly had, was repealed and taken from them? By all which,
seriously considered, it will appear that the children of believers are
included within the promise, and to be baptised. Besides, if infants be
not within the Covenant of grace, then they are strangers from it, and
consequently “without God” and “without hope”
(Eph. 2:12), as pagans’ children are; and if they die (though in
infancy) their parents
may mourn over them as such that “have no hope,” contrary
to 1 Thess. 4:13. Yea, while they live, they may lament over their
children, as such whom they have begotten and brought forth to the
devil, and not to God, in respect of their visible estate.
ANABAPTIST CATECHISM Q.9:
“Q. What is circumcision?
A. It was an obligation to keep the whole law (Gal. 5:3, Rom. 2:25),
and showed unto them that it was their duty to circumcise their hearts
(Jer. 4:4).”
Circumcision in itself was but an obligation to the law as a rule of
righteousness, subservient to the Covenant of grace (as baptism also
is, Rom. 6:3), not to the law in the rigour of it, as it was a covenant
of works. For Abraham, Isaac and Jacob were not so obliged; they were
in the Covenant of grace as well as we, and circumcision was to Abraham
(by your own confession) “a seal of the righteousness of
faith.” Christ did profit many hundreds and thousands that were
circumcised in the time of the law. He was the “Lamb slain from
the beginning of the world”, and they were saved by faith in Him
(1 Cor. 10:1-3; Heb. 11). But when Christians were circumcised in the
time of the gospel, out of a persuasion of its necessity and their
justification by it, then it did bind them to keep the whole law, and
Christ in that case did profit them nothing. And this is all that can
be inferred from your texts, as to this matter.
As circumcision did show it was their duty to circumcise their
hearts,
so baptism shows it is our duty to wash our hearts (Jer. 4:14; Jam.
4:8). (Between heart circumcision and heart washing is no great
difference, if any). And as there was a precept for the circumcision of
the heart, so God promised His people that He would “circumcise
their hearts, and the hearts of their seed;” of which, see Q.7.
Though circumcision did show forth (you say) a duty on our part, as
well as a promise on God’s part, yet (you know) infants were then
circumcised, though they had no actual knowledge of either. What you
can gather hence (if anything) against infant baptism, I expect to know.
ANABAPTIST CATECHISM Q.10:
“Q. Was not circumcision also a seal of the righteousness of
faith? (Rom. 4:11)?
A. Yes, to Abraham only; and if Abraham’s believing children
amongst the Gentiles should be baptised as he was circumcised, then it
must not be till they have the righteousness of faith as Abraham here
had, at least they must have it in profession.”
The text saith, it was “the seal of the righteousness of faith
which Abraham had, being yet uncircumcised;” but it saith not
that it was so to him only. The apostle brings it as an argument to
prove the way of our justification to be by faith alone, which was a
mere inconsequence, if proper to him and not belonging to others. There
were adult persons, believers, in Abraham’s family when
circumcision was first instituted, and many believing proselytes
afterwards, which had faith while yet they were uncircumcised, as
Abraham had, of whom their circumcision was also a seal of the
righteousness of the faith they had before. Yea, Moses makes it to all,
a sign of the Covenant (Gen. 17), which doubtless was the Covenant of
grace; or, to use Paul’s dialect, “the righteousness that
is by faith” (Rom. 3:22,30; 10:3,6 with Deut. 30:6,10-12; Phil.
3:9); this being the tenor of that Covenant: “Believe in the Lord
Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved” (Acts 16:31). Your
passage, implying that there are some believing children of Abraham
which have not the righteousness of faith as Abraham here had, I do not
understand, except you make actual believing and having the
righteousness faith two things, not only distinct, but separable.
But whatsoever your meaning be, I cannot see here any show of proof
that children must necessarily believe, or make profession of faith,
before they may be baptised, as Abraham did before he was circumcised.
Abraham could not be circumcised in infancy, nor before circumcision
was instituted; no wonder, therefore, if he believed before. Had
circumcision been instituted in the days of his fathers, Abraham might
have been circumcised before he actually believed, as well as Isaac his
son was. Christ could not be baptised till John did baptise, which was
about the thirtieth year of Christ’s age; nor did He receive the
eucharist till the night before He suffered. Yet, some that pretend to
imitate Him, can be baptised, and possibly preach too, at 15, 16, 20,
21 etc. years of age, though Christ was neither baptised, nor did
preach, till He was thirty.
ANABAPTIST CATECHISM Q.11:
“Q. Whether doth baptism succeed circumcision in the same
office?
A. No. Circumcision was to every male (though reprobate), but baptism
only to the believer (Matt. 28:19). There being a change of the visible
church, and of the ordinances; this cannot succeed in the room thereof,
nor hath any dependence thereon.”
Your argument against the succession of baptism to circumcision is
weak, viz:
Baptism is not like circumcision in some things, therefore, it is not
like in anything, therefore, it succeeds not in the same office. By
this you may prove as well, that the Supper doth not succeed the
Passover, nor the Lord’s day the Jewish Sabbath. The office of
circumcision was to show original sin, to teach necessity of
regeneration, of mortification, of salvation by Christ, the seed of
Abraham; to sign and seal the Covenant, or the righteousness that is by
faith, to distinguish Jews from others, to initiate solemnly and
formally into the church. And doth not baptism also initiate into the
church (l Cor. 12:13)? Yea, doth it not (circumcision being now
abrogated) perform the aforesaid offices? Indeed, it is not every way
the same, for then it were not a successor. Add hereunto, that the
Covenant was the ground of circumcision (Gen. 17:7,9-11), the equity
whereof obliges to baptism, as the equity of the fourth commandment
extends to our Lord’s day.
As for the positive command (Gen. 17:12), it only determines the time
and day, which circumstance of day and time was not built upon the
Covenant of grace (as circumcision itself was) and therefore is not
perpetual. And without such a positive determination of the time,
circumcision should and might have been administered to infants. The
Jews did circumcise children bought with their money the same day they
bought them, though they bought them the same day they were born: see
Ainsworth on Gen. 17:12. Oft times circumcision was not administered
the eighth day, but deferred; in which cases the command of
circumcising the eighth day was not observed. Yet, circumcision was,
and according to right reason ought, to be administered to infants by
virtue of the naked institution thereof, as we contend that baptism
ought now to be, both of them being (as was said) seals of the Covenant.
But you, in saying “circumcision was to every male, though
reprobate,” do imply, that it was not to females. True, but both
males and females were then baptised, and so they were in the New
Testament (Acts 8:12; Gal. 3:28,29), which is sufficient justification
of our deserting circumcision in that point. And the infant females (as
well as the adult) were counted members of the Jewish church; and
though, by reason of their incapacity or God’s respect to the
modesty of that sex, they were not personally circumcised, yet, they
were circumcised in the males. Hence, the whole church of the Jews,
consisting of females as well as males, were called the Circumcision,
in opposition to the Gentiles, which were called Uncircumcision (Gal.
2:7-9). Again, it was not administered to reprobates as such, not to
every male, but to the males of the church externally in covenant, some
whereof were possibly reprobates. So, Simon Magus, Judas, Ananias and
Sapphira were baptised, and yet it is (at least) likely they were
reprobates.
Circumcision did belong to the believer as well as baptism doth. Those
that were strangers to the Jewish church could not be admitted, but
they must be proselytes, not of the gate only, but of righteousness;
they must disclaim paganism, and profess the Jewish religion. A
stranger continuing in his unbelief, was not circumcised, nor did he
partake in the Passover (Exod 12:48). And, by analogy, that text
prohibiteth all such Jews as should forsake the faith; see before, Q.7.
As for the change of the church and ordinances notwithstanding it, the
Lord’s day may succeed the Jewish Sabbath. And those same persons
that were bound to keep the Jewish Sabbath, are tied to observe the
Lord’s day, viz. servants and children, as well
as
parents and masters, though the persons be not so distinctly set down
in the New Testament as the in the Old. Paul used arguments from
analogy;
from the purging out of the old leaven at the Passover to the casting
out of the incestuous from the Supper (1 Cor. 5); from the maintenance
of the priests to the maintenance of ministers (1 Cor. 9:13).
To argue à genere ad speciem affirmativè18, is
not
good reasoning: the church was changed, therefore it was changed in
this particular. The church might be changed and yet not in this; the
sacrament may be changed and not the subject. What belonged to the
Jewish church as a church, belongs to the Christian church also. That
which belonged to it, as Jewish, was altered, such as high priest,
temple, sacrifices, ceremonies, etc. Infants’ church membership
did not belong to the church as Jewish, nor was it a ceremony or type.
If you think it was, show what it was a type of, and what was the
antitype that hath succeeded it; and prove it so if you can.
There was a church before there was a high priest, temple, etc. in the
families of Adam, Noah and Shem, which was alive in the time of Isaac.
Melchizedek surely had subjects and people, which were the church (as
well as he was a king and a priest) of the most high God. This church
might continue long, and not be united to the church in Abraham’s
family for ought we know. Whatsoever the extent of the church was,
domestic, congregational, or national, infants are reckoned of the same
church with their parents.
The church before Christ, and after Christ, is the same church; as an
heir, while in nonage19,
and when adult, is the same person. The Jews
that believed were never unchurched; the tree was not broken down, but
some branches broken off. Some additions to the church ceased, the
church itself ceased not. The partition wall was broken down, and Jews
and Gentiles made one church (Eph. 2:14; 3:6). And when the
wall
was down, were their infants turned out of the church at one door, as
the Gentiles came in at another? Was the church so changed, that it
lost so many materials? And was the Covenant of grace changed too? Did
it lose so many out of it? Visible professors and their infants are
alike in every age, and there is nothing in them inconsistent with
propriety in God, or interest in the Covenant, or the seal thereof, in
one age more than in another. Baptism is the seal of the Covenant now,
and may be administered to visible professors and their children now,
as circumcision was then. If there should be any difference, reason
would tell us, considering the painfulness and peril of circumcision
(Gen. 34:25) and the easiness of baptism, that only grown men should
have been circumcised, and infants baptised, rather than contrary.
ANABAPTIST CATECHISM Q.12:
“Q. Whether may not infants of believers be baptised by
virtue
of Covenant holiness?
A. No, for:
(1.) Baptism is not a sign or seal of
any such
outward holiness, which may befall reprobate as well as elect, but is a
sign of death, burial, and resurrection, which the believer hath with
Christ.
(2.) There is no command for baptising
such, if the Gentiles were so holy.”
1. Baptism is a sign and seal of Christ’s death, burial and
resurrection, and of the truth and faithfulness of those exceeding
great and precious promises bundled up in the Covenant of grace, which
are in Christ, yea and Amen (2 Cor. 1:20), but
it
is not an
absolute sign or seaI of the baptised’s death, burial,
resurrection with Christ, of his putting on of Christ, of grace already
wrought in him, as you assert in your answer to the second and third
question, but only conditional (Acts 16:30-33), if he believe, as the
Romans did (Rom. 6:3,4 with 5:1,2). A Christian gathers the assurance
of his justification and salvation by this, or such a like, syllogism: He
that believeth is justified, and shall be saved; I believe, therefore I
am justified, and shall be saved. The major, or former
proposition, baptism,
doth absolutely and universally seal; but not so the minor, or second
proposition, viz. I believe. If baptism should
seal to all baptised
ones, as suppose Simon Magus, Judas, etc., the truth of their faith and
their saving interest in Jesus Christ, then should God set His seal
(for baptism is God’s seal, not the church’s) to a lie and
falsehood, or at least command ministers so to do, when they are bound
by the rules of Christ to baptise such as are not inwardly holy, as
Simon Magus, etc?
2. Children of believers (1 Cor. 7:14), are said to be saints, or holy;
whereby is not meant that they were legitimate only (for so had they
been if both parents had been infidels, and children are not holy,
because they are not bastards); nor only sanctified to the use of the
parents, as the unbelieving yoke-fellow (though not holy in
se20,
nor sanctifying) is sanctified to the believing yoke-fellow (the Holy
Ghost neither here nor elsewhere speaking of anything to be sanctified
to unbelievers); but they are holy, a distinct
phrase from
being sanctified to another (as birds and beasts may be). And this
holiness proceeds from the believing yoke-fellow, which is the reason
why he saith, your children, viz.
the children of
you Christian
yoke-fellows (the infidel yoke-fellows wrote not to Paul) are holy.
Which, seeing it cannot be meant of internal and saving holiness (for
all children of the church are not such, though we are bound to judge
the best, till the contrary appear), it must needs, therefore, be meant
of outward federal holiness, which is the privilege of the children of
believing parents above the children of pagans, the Jews having had the
like privilege before (see Gal. 2:15, which I conceive runs parallel
with this).
Or, if but one of the parents be Christian, partus sequitur
meliorem partem21,
the children are not infidels but
Christian.
3. But, say you, there is no command for baptising such, and you call
it will-worship forbidden (Lev. 10:1), a tradition and groundwork for
more traditions. Others call it the mark of the beast, one of the
strongest holds of Antichrist, and what not? To all which I answer:
(1.) If Nadab and Abihu’s offering strange fire, fire
unsanctified, or not taken off the altar, was will-worship (though the
Scripture doth not call it so), yet paedobaptism (suppose it be not
warranted by the Word) cannot be will-worship, because it is not an
introduction of a new worship or ordinance, but the misapplication of
an old and unquestionable ordinance of God; or (if you put on it the
worst name you can with any show of reason), the profanation
of an ordinance,
as yourself call it. Some of your party, which have in derision or
contempt of infant baptism, baptised horses, cats or dogs, have been
unquestionably guilty of horrible profanation, but not will-worship.
(2.) Infant baptism is grounded on, and warranted by the Word of God,
and therefore, is far enough from being a profanation, or so much as
the misapplication of an ordinance. That it is so grounded and
warranted, needs no other proof than what hath already been produced in
this examination, upon occasion of the Scriptures and reasons brought
against it.
[1.] They that are disciples in Scripture sense, are expressed in
Christ’s commission about baptism, and are to be baptised. But
infants of the church are disciples in Scripture sense. Therefore, they
are to be baptised. See Q. 2, sect. 3.
[2.] They that are Abraham’s seed are to be baptised, as you
confess. But such infants are the seed of Abraham. Therefore, they are
to be baptised. See Q. 7.
[3.] They that are visibly within the Covenant of grace are to be
baptised (as you acknowledge). But such infants are visibly within the
Covenant of grace. Therefore, they are to be baptised See Q. 8.
[4.] They that are to be judged church members are to be baptised. But
such infants of the church, or born of members of the church, are to be
judged church members. Therefore, etc.
[5.] They, of whom the kingdom of God is, are to partake of the
privileges of the kingdom of God. But of infants is the kingdom of God.
Therefore, etc.
[6.] They that are saints, and holy, are to be baptised. But such
infants are saints, and holy. Therefore, etc.
[7.] Christ knew that baptism was an ancient ceremony of initiation
into the church, and applied to the infants of the church, as well as
to adult proselytes; yet, He took up that ceremony, and advanced it (as
He did after eating of the Passover) to be a sacrament of the New
Testament, without prohibition of infants from it; and, therefore, He
did at least approve that it should be administered to infants. See Q.
2, sect. 1.
In these alone (to omit others), conscientious inquirers into the mind
of the Lord Jesus may find satisfactory grounds of infant baptism,
especially when they are compared with the grounds of the contrary
opinion and practice.
4. You cannot show any precept at all, or precedent, or good warrant,
in the Word of God, that children of believing parents should be kept
from baptism (as you require them to be), till they do in their own
persons actually believe, or make profession of faith; or that any such
were baptised in riper years (as you would have them now be). Yea, I
further say, that if you can show me in Scripture any son or daughter
of believing parents baptised, I shall show you that he or she was
baptised in infancy. Surely from the time that John Baptist began his
ministry, to the writings of the Apocalypse, great multitudes of
infants of Christians grew up to maturity, yet, amongst them all, we
read not of one whose baptism was so delayed. Nor have we any solid
ground to conceive that God, at the coming of Christ, took away
infants’ Covenant interest, church membership and sacramental
initiation, and made their condition (as to this) as bad as the
heathen, and worse than the Jewish children, seeing it cannot be said:
that God did take these privileges away in judgment, upon occasion of
Christ’s coming, from all infants, even elect children of elect
parents, seeing infants in the time of the gospel are not in any way
more guilty, or incapable, than in former times. Nor can it any way
appear, that God did it in mercy (and sure if it was done, it was done
either in judgment or mercy), for it was a mercy to the Jewish children
to have these privileges, and nothing more was conferred upon infants
which lost them, than upon adult Christians which did not lose them.
You cannot show a precept or precedent for your gathering churches out
of other true Christian churches; for requiring persons, before they
can be admitted members, to give account of the truth of their graces;
for the congregations judging whether they have grace or no, and
consequently whether they were to be admitted or no; for a solemn
explicit church Covenant, for the erection of a church without
officers; for the power of such a church, consisting only of unofficed
Christians, to elect, ordain, impose hands by one or more of them on
their officers, to censure or excommunicate any member, yea,
any
or all their officers when they have them; for maintenance of ministers
by Lord’s Day collections, formerly urged as an ordinance of God,
though of late much waved; for a sentence of non-communion with sister
churches; for synods only consultative and not decretive; for public
ordinary preaching of gifted men, not so much as intending the
ministry, and their receiving maintenance for their pains.
And yet these are asserted by men of the Congegational way (in which
anti-paedobapists are generally found) to be duties, privileges of the
church, or ordinances of God. Nor can you show any church consisting of
unbaptised ones (such as you account yourselves to
be (your
infant baptism being a nullity) till you be baptised upon profession)
and such a church admitting members, commissioning some disciples to
preach and dip; nor any precept or precedent for admission of such,
which are (in your opinion) unbaptised, to the Lord’s Supper, nor
for rebaptising such as were baptised (suppose in infancy) in the name
of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, or for renouncing such baptism. Nor
can you show any one text of Scripture against infant baptism, either
in express words, or in the interpretation of any apostolic or
primitive church or father in the purest times. Nor can you show one
visible church, from the beginning of the world to the time when your
opinion was lately broached, which was of any continuance, and did
neither admit into it, nor permit in it, any infant member.
5. Finally, should you or I, be required a command for admission of
women to the Supper (as you require a command for infant baptism,
though you can neither show command, nor example, nor good warrant for
your contrary opinion and practices), what clearer command can we show
for that, than for infant baptism? Women were not admitted to both
sacraments of the Old Testament. Christ did not admit women, no, not
His own mother, to the Supper. There is express uncontraverted mention
in the New Testament of women being baptised, but not so of women
communicating. If you alIege that the Greek word anthrop~`
(a name common to women, as well as men) ought to communicate (1 Cor.
11:28), it
is easily evaded, by saying that the apostle confines it to the male in
the Greek
(vv. 28, 29). and the same word is used of circumcision, of which the
male only was capable (John 7:22). General terms of disciples, church
members, persons in covenant, will carry it for infant’s baptism,
as well as women’s communicating. If you allege that such and
such assemblies, in which there were women, did break bread, you know
it may be, yea it is doubted by some sober spirits, whether that
breaking of bread was sacramental or no; and it may be said that the
company is said to do it because the males did it; as the whole house
of Israel is said to be circumcised, and called the Circumcision,
though the females thereof were not circumcised. If you should tell us
of households admitted to the Supper (though I know not of any such
instance in Scripture), I might as well say, there were no women there,
or they were excluded, as you say, there were no infants in such or
such an household, or if there were, they were excluded. Lastly, if men
should bend their strength that way, they might as plausibly except
against your admission of women (usually the forwardest part of your
societies) to the Supper, as you do, or (I believe) can do, against
paedobaptism. Oh, that our good God would in mercy to this distracted
church, and to the deluded souls therein, remove prejudice out of our
hearts.
ANABAPTIST CATECHISM Q.13:
“Q. Whether do you think baptism administered in infancy to
be
a lawful baptism, and sufficient?
A. To me it is not; for I think it to be a profanation of an ordinance,
for these reasons:
(1.) Because it is taught by the precepts of men (Isa. 29:13), not by
God (Jer. 7:22,23).”
You hold, it seems, that it is neither lawful nor sufficient, and (in
plain English) it is null, void, no baptism at all. But consider (I
pray you), if you could prove the nullity of infant baptism (as you
have a great mind to do) what sad consequences would ensue:
(1.) That the people of God, for the space of 1600 years using
paedobaptism, were destitute of one, if not (by consequence) of both
the sacraments.
(2.) That the churches in England, Scotland, France, Denmark, Sweden,
Germany, Geneva, Holland, New England, etc., which have usually no
other baptism but child baptism, are no churches, the members thereof
being not so much as Christians outwardly, nor sacramentally initiated
into the church. In doing whereof you dishonour God, and do Satan great
service: God’s work being to disciple and enchurch the nations of
the world (Matt. 28:19; Mark 16:16; 2 Cor. 5:19); and Satan’s to
undisciple and heathenise the church, either in reality, or in
reputation, for the advancement of his own kingdom.
(3.) That these, and all others, must for ever (as the case stands) be
wanting the sacrament of baptism, except a special and particular
warrant come from heaven (as to John Baptist) for the setting up of
this ordinance. For no man, who is both unseparated to the work of the
ministry, and unbaptised (his paedobaptism being a nullity) and
un-united to the church of Christ, can warrantably baptise himself, or
any other, any more than Saul might sacrifice; Uzzah stay the ark;
Uzziah offer incense; a midwife, Turk, Jew or pagan administer the
sacraments of Christ’s church. For if paedobaptism be a nullity
because of default in the subject, this will also be a nullity for want
of commission. For you can show neither precept, precedent, nor good
warrant from the Word, for any man that is unbaptised (having no
special commission from God) to baptise himself, or to baptise any
other; or for any man to accept of baptism from such an
one, which is indeed no baptism at all. John, as he had commission from
God for his baptising, so he affirms, that “a man can receive
nothing (viz. no authority to baptise as he did) except
it be given him from heaven” (John 3:26, 27), as if he would
professedly caution the church against such courses.
(4.) That the societies of the Independents and Separatists
(notwithstanding their separation from us) do yet (except they also
turn Anabaptists) live within one of the strongest holds of Antichrist,
are guilty of observing traditions and precepts of men, of
will-worship, of profanation of God’s holy ordinance, of filling
the church with rotten members, of confounding the church and the world
together. Yea (say some of you), they have the mark of the beast in
their foreheads, and by consequence are in the high way to eternal
damnation. And what worse can you say of any? Your texts prove that God
hates hypocrisy, and overmuch regard of the commandments of men, and
that God did command obedience rather than sacrifice, (1 Sam. 15:22),
(for God did command sacrifices and offerings, Lev. 1, 2, 3, etc) What
is this to paedobaptism? Will you acknowledge that God hath commanded
it to us, as He did burnt offerings and sacrifices to the Jews? We
ourselves say no more for it. But if your texts do forbid all human
inventions in the worship of God, paedobaptism is yet safe enough. For
it hath been proved in the foregoing chapter to have as good warrant
from the Word as some other (by yourself acknowledged) ordinances of
God have, and better than your opposite opinion and practices.
ANABAPTIST CATECHISM:
“A. (2.) Paedobaptism is done in a wrong manner, by
sprinkling
instead of dipping.”
This exception you begin your catechism with, telling us that baptism
signifies dipping; by dipping is never signified sprinkling. Whence you
would infer that baptism should be by dipping only, and that it is done
in the wrong manner when it is done by sprinkling. Wherein you much
mistake. For:
(1.) Should the original signification of the other Scripture words be
so much squeezed, then because the holy Communion is called a
“supper” (1 Cor. 11:20) (the word signifying a whole meal),
and the word “
psallo”
(1 Cor.
14:15; Eph. 5:19) signifies not simply “to sing”, but
“to sing to a musical instrument”, and the original words
for the gesture at the Supper signify “lying” or
“leaning on a bed”; you might with as good reason collect,
that the holy Communion should be a whole meal; that there should be
instrumental music in churches as well as vocal; that men ought to lie
or lean on beds at the receiving of the Supper, or else the
ordinances are done in a wrong manner.
(2.) The word “baptism” by your own confession doth signify
washing as well as dipping, and washing is the main thing, being the
end, and dipping but the means, especially with reference to this
ordinance, which is for washing or putting away the filth of the flesh
(1 Pet. 3:21; Acts 22:16; Heb. 10:22; 1 Cor. 6:11). Now a thing may be
washed, not only by dipping, but by sprinkling, or by affusion or
putting water upon it, which is mostly used by us, and not sprinkling
(3.) The Greek word “baptism” in Scripture signifies not
only washing by dipping or plunging into water, but by sprinkling or
affusion. The baptisms or washings, mentioned (Heb. 9:10), were (at
least some of them) done only by sprinkling of water, (Num. 8:7); which
was called the “water of separation” (Num. 19:9), and
“holy water” (Num. 5:17); or by sprinkling of blood, which
is instanced in (Heb. 9:13,19,21). (See also Exod. 29:16,21; Psa.
51:7). Their washings (called “baptising”) of hands, were
frequently (at least) by letting water fall on their hands from a laver
(2 Kin. 3:11). So their tables and beds were not dipped into the water,
but washed with pouring water on them (Mark 7:4). They that were
“baptised with the Holy Ghost, and with fire” (Matt. 3:11),
were not dipped or plunged into the fire (though, if they had, it seems
it would not have burned them), but “cloven tongues, as of fire,
sat upon each of them” (Acts 2:3). They that were “baptised
in the cloud, and in the sea” (1 Cor. 10:1), were not dipped or
plunged into the cloud or sea, for it was dry land, but probably they
were bedewed, besprinkled, or dropped on. The Grek word
"baptised" (by translation rendered “dipped”) (Rev. 19:13),
is no other in (Isa. 63:2, 3), than “besprinkled”.
(4.) Baptism signifies justification by the blood of Christ, which is
called the “blood of sprinkling” (Heb. 12:24; 1 Pet. 1:2;
Heb. 10:22), and “sanctification by the spirit” of Christ,
which is called “sprinkling of clean water on them”
(Ezek. 36:25; Isa. 52:15), both which were also typified by the
aforesaid legal purifications or washings.
(5.) It cannot be proved by the Word, nor is it probable in itself,
that the three thousand baptised in Jerusalem (Acts 2:41) were carried
to a river, and there dipped one by one by the apostles; or that Paul,
Lydia, the jailer, and all theirs, which (it’s likely) were
baptised in houses, were so dipped. Did they shift their clothes, or
continued they in their wet apparel? And how could their whole body be
washed (though it might be wet) with their clothes on? Or were they all
(men and women) baptised stark naked? And was this not contrary to
modesty, and a temptation which mastered holy David? (2 Sam. 11:1).
Much less can it be proved that, be the person never so sickly, the
season never so cold, yet dipping is (though it may endanger
men’s lives) not only lawful in itself (as we account it, yea, it
hath been commended above sprinkling or affusion), but in all cases and
conditions necessary, and the omission of it upon any occasion is
sinful.
ANABAPTIST CATECHISM:
“A. (3.) Paedobaptism is done by an officer, where there is a
questionable power, as the ministers ordained by bishops deemed
antichristian.”
This exception is no force against child baptism administered by such
ministers as are not ordained by bishops22.
(2.) You tell us not by whom, or whether truly or falsely the bishops
were deemed antichristian. Certainly the old Nonconformists (how ever
they, or some of them, might hold that in the calling and
authority of the bishops there be divers things antichristian) agreed
by joint consent, that they “did not see” (I use
their own words) “how our bishops could be called
antichrists,
or antichristians:
(1.) Because the Word marks out antichrist by his false
doctrine.
Nor do we find in Holy Scripture such accounted antichrist, or
antichristian, which holding the truth of doctrine, swerveth either in
judgment or practice from Christ’s rule for discipline. Now it is
evident that our bishops do hold and teach all fundamental doctrines
and truths, and some of them have soundly maintained it against
heretics, converted many to it, and have suffered persecution for the
gospel.
(2.) Their hierarchy and other corruptions charged upon the calling of
our bishops, were rather to be esteemed the stairs and way to
antichristianity, than antichristianity itself; for they were in the
church before the Pope, who is the Antichrist and chief head-link of
all antichristianity, was revealed.
(3.) The antichristian bishops hold their pre-eminence as from
God’s law, which is unchangeable; whereas our bishops, since Her
Majesty’s reign to this day (for the most part), held their
superiority by no other right than the positive law, which is variable.
Yea, it appears by the institution of the Court of Delegates, and the
continuance thereof to this day, that they do and ought by law to hold
their jurisdiction, not as from God, but as from the Prince.”
Thus they.
And as to ministers ordained by the bishops, they say: “Bishops
are able to judge of such gifts as are required for the sufficiency of
ministers, that many of them have been such ministers themselves, as to
whose labours the Lord hath set to His seal – We are persuaded,
that (though it were not necessary, yet) it cannot be unlawful for him
that entereth into the ministry to be approved and authorised even by
them. And if our ordination be in this behalf faulty, how will our
brethren justify the calling of our own ministers, that have received
ordination ever from the people, who neither by commandment nor example
can be found to have any such authority, nor are in any degree so
capable of it, as the bishops?” See Mr Rathband’s grave
confutation, etc. pages l9 and 38.
(3.) Suppose it were confessed that the bishops, as claiming by
God’s law the sole power of ordination and jurisdiction (if any
so did) might in some qualified sense be called antichristian; had this
such an influence upon an ordination, in which others joined as well as
he, so as to make it void and null, both as from himself, and as from
them? The bishops were presbyters, and so more enabled by God’s
Word to ordain (as the godly Nonconformists truly assert) than any
non-presbyters. And they came nearer to a presbytery than two, three,
or more members (which are nothing like a presbytery, or company of
presbyters) can do. And their ordination was judged valid, not only by
the Parliament and the Assembly, but also by all the Reformed Churches
abroad, as by the Non-conformists at home, notwithstanding they were
opposers of, and were opposed by the bishops. Yea, God Himself added
His own seal, affording not only ministerial gifts and graces, but His
gracious assistance for conversion of souls and edifying of the saints;
and (sometimes) so gloriously working by the ministry of the Church of
England, as He hath not (that we know of) wrought so by any other. But
in your account the baptism administered by such a minister is
“neither lawfu1 nor sufflcient”, or at least it is the
“profanation of the ordinance”. Who you are, I know not23;
but the general opinion of your party is that any disciple (especially
a teaching disciple) may baptise (See: “Confession of the
Seven Churches,”
art. 41). And doth ordination by a bishop, and other ministers, make
void such discipleship, and make him that he cannot be so as a private
Christian; yea, make his baptism antichristian?
We receive from God the Old Testament by the hands of the Jews, and the
whole Bible by the hands of papists; most Scriptures have some time or
another been abused, must we therefore disuse them? If a bishop should
baptise one at full age, making profession of faith and repentance, yea
suppose a Jesuit, pretending to be a gifted brother, or a teaching
disciple (as it is lawful for the Jesuits to say or do anything that
may tend to the weakening of the true Reformed religion), and should
dip many, would his dipping be null and void, and to be reiterated?
This I dare say: Whatsoever is rational or religious, cannot be made
irrational or irreligious, whosoever useth or hath used it. And if
multitudes of persons should cast away all that they have received by
the bishops, and ministers ordained by them, they should with those
things irrecoverably cast their souls into hell. When Antichrist most
reigned and raged, and the woman fled into the wildemess, God did
preserve some fundamental doctrines, and the essence of baptism, and
the essence of a true ministry dispensing it; and they, that is, her
pastors, “did feed her there” (Rev. 12:6, 14).
(4.) There are now more antichrists than ever were before in our, or in
any other Reformed church; and worse antichrists, by how much
fundamental errors in doctrine are greater abominations than errors
only in discipline. All heretics in Scripture language are antichrists
(1 John 2:18-22; 4:3). The errors, heresies, blasphemies, treacheries,
hypocrisies, perjuries, sacrilegious seditious actions, divisions and
subdivisions, bitter and bloody contentions, rebaptisations,
ordinations by the people, and other mere human inventions of these
times, do justify the bishops, and all episcopal men (that have kept
themselves free from these and the like crimes) from being so
antichristian as we; do really dishonour the true Reformed religion,
delight the truly antichristian faction, and make way for our reducing,
not only to prelacy, but to that which all sober men count incomparably
more dangerous, to popery; yea to the worst edition of it, Spanish,
Jesuited, Inquisition Popery.
ANABAPTIST CATECHISM:
“A. (4.) Paedobaptism is done upon a wrong subject, who is
not
in Christ’s commission (Matt. 28.19; Mark 16.16); believers and
repentants being the subjects therein.”
You here beg the question. What you here allege, hath been answered Q.
1 and Q. 2.
ANABAPTIST CATECHISM:
“All the certainty I can have of such a baptism, is only
conjectural, not infallible; whereas the outward sign of a sacrament
must be visible and infallible, as the thing signified is. This infant
baptism I take only in trust from others.”
The infants blessed by Christ could in their riper age have no
certainty of their being so blessed by Him. Nor had the Jewish infants
any certainty of their circumcision; for the foreskin of circumcised
infants might be, and sometimes was, so drawn up, that when they came
to age they could not discern their circumcision. To this Paul alludes
(1 Cor. 7:18). If the flesh mark was always discernible, yet it could
not teach them whether a friend or foe had done it; whether for sacred
or civil ends; whether duly or unduly, without instruction or
information by word or writing. And such instruction may assure us of
our right baptism, though it was administered in infancy. You may have
such assurance of your baptism, as the priests by the registers had of
their pedigree (Ezra 2:62); as Paul had, that he was circumcised the
eighth day, that he was of the “stock of Israel, an Hebrew of the
Hebrews, of the tribe of Benjamin” (Phil. 3:5). Yea, you may have
as much or more certainty that you were baptised, as that such an one
was your father, such a woman your mother. Yet, sure (if you will call
that only a conjectural and not infallible testimony) you will rest so
much upon it, as to call him your father, and her your mother, that are
testified and reputed to be so, and without scruple of conscience
honour them, as you are bound by the fifth commandment; and also keep
that which is generally computed to be the first day of the week, or
the Lord’s day, though you take it but on trust from others.
Possibly he that is baptised at full age, may not infallibly know that
he was baptised. Some have forgotten (through sickness) the greatest
concernments, yea their own names; must they thereupon be rebaptised?
Possibly a man or woman, as you are dipping them under the water, may
be so damped, that they may not hear, or not heed the words used by the
administrator, whether he baptise, or bless, or curse; must they be
dipped again, till they do hear, and heed, that they may infallibly
know themselves to be baptised? If a man should herein be deceived, and
think he was baptised in his infancy, when he was not, the error is not
very dangerous. Faith in Christ may supply the defect of baptism; and
he not neglecting or contemning baptism, not knowing that he is wanting
of it, may reap benefit by his supposed baptism, as if were real.
As for his resolution of the case (grounded on the supposed
unlawfulness of paedobaptism), whether a Christian may with good
conscience be present at it, I judge it unnecessary for me to discuss
it (having, I hope, cleared the lawfulness of infant baptism). Yet, I
confess, I cannot approve sundry things in it24, though
paedobaptism
were confessed to be unlawful.
Endnotes
1 Interestingly
here, the A.V. text concludes the sentence
“with all his house.” The N.I.V. text has, “...he had
come to believe in God, he and his whole family,” thus implying
his whole family had come to believe. However, both the Textus Receptus
and the Nestle’s Greek New Testament place the Greek word for
“with all the household” after “rejoiced” (or
“filled with joy” N.I.V.), thus showing his household
rejoiced with him, rather than believed as he did.
2 ‘not’ omitted from text.
3 lit. “in the course of accomplishment”.
4 Flavius Arrianus (c. A.D. 96 – c. A.D. 180.), Greek historian and
philosopher.
5 Hugo Grotius (Huig De Groot) 1583-1645, Dutch jurist, statesman,
philologist, poet, theologian, historian. A man of great learning.
6 unknown person.
7 lit. “in terms”.
8 Chief Jewish authorities in matters of law and doctrine.
9 servants.
10 expected to attain.
11 Seekers. A small sect which arose in England in the year 1645. They
derived their name from the employment in which they represented
themselves as being constantly engaged, that of seeking for the true
church, ministry, scripture, and ordinances, all of which they alleged
to have been lost. They taught that the scriptures were obscure and
doubtful in their meaning; that present miracles were necessary to
warrant faith; that the ministry of modern times is without authority,
and their worship utterly vain. – Faiths of the World.
12 lit. “in favour with God and conscience, and out of baptism”.
13 lit. “in favour with the church and out of baptism”.
14 lit. “bread of the owner, not bread of ownership”.
15 according to the religious rule.
16 from the better part.
17 Antinomian movement during mid 1600’s, some with extreme
pantheistic views. Generally considered by contemporary writers to lead
morally disordered lives.
18 From the general to affirm a specific point.
19 Legal infancy or minority.
20 in himself or herself.
21 the part which is followed is the better.
22 There were at this time a number of ministers presbyterially
ordained. In 1644, by an ordinance which passed the Houses of
Parliament, twenty one ministers in Lancashire were given full power to
ordain ministers in the county.
23 The author of the ‘Anabaptistical Catechism’
was
not at the time of writing known by Richard Hollinworth.
24 The Puritans were in the main opposed to the sign of the cross, and
some other aspects ofthe baptismal service as laid down at that time in
the “Book of Common Prayer”.