Dr. Williams on Baptism.
[74]. Tertullian observes on this passage, that if either parent were christians,, the children were enrolled in Jesus Christ by early baptism. And it fairly implies infant baptism in the days of Paul. For, having declared that the unbelieving partner was not to be divorced according to the law of Moses, which held the heathen to be unclean; he pronounces the unbelievers set apart by such marriage to God, as far as regarded that marriage; and in proof of this he refers to a fact as known to the Corinthians, namely that the children of such marriages were received into the church, and treated as holy, that is devoted to God. Now if the children of such marriages were not treated as heathens, but owned by the church, and this could be in no other way than by receiving them by baptism, there can be no doubt, that this was the case when both parents were believers.—Ακαθαρτος & αλιος never mean illegitimate and legitimate; and if they did, this would be no proof that the unbelieving party was consecrated to God, so as that the children should be clean and devoted to him.
[75]. All these scriptures which require faith, that is, the credible profession of it, to precede baptism, are certainly directed only to those who are at years capable of it, and not to infants. These scriptures do not exclude infants whose claim is through the church-membership of their parents, by which they are not “unclean,” 1 Cor. vii. 14. but holy, entitled to the promises made to the seed of Abraham; and also by virtue of the commission to disciple all nations, of which they are a part as much as their believing parents; and by the practical exposition of that commission in the universal baptism of infants in the christian churches for the first four hundred years.
[76]. It may be objected, “If the preceding account be true, that baptism is not an institution merely positive, as much so as any enacted under the Mosaic dispensation; then the present economy hath no institutions at all of that kind.” This objection supposes,
1. That precepts of a positive nature under the Mosaic dispensation, were absolutely so in all their circumstances; so as not to leave any thing to be inferred by the person or persons concerned, in the discharge of the duty enjoined.—But if these things were so, if the Jewish ritual was so express as to leave nothing to be determined by inference, one might well wonder whence could spring so many Targums and Talmuds, so many voluminous works intended to explain and illustrate the various circumstances attending the performance of these positive duties among others. Are not these unprescribed circumstances of ritual worship, and other positive injunctions, what in a great degree swell the interpretations of the Rabbins?—The truth is, that there were many precepts under the Jewish economy positive in a considerable degree, relative to the subject as well as the mode of an institute, and respecting the former, it was sometimes particularly scrupulous, for reasons already assigned; but it does not follow that ANY ONE of these were so strictly positive, as not to take some things for granted respecting the circumstances of the duty, such as national custom, the common dictates of sense and reason, traditionary knowledge, the general principles of the law of nature, &c. And it should not be forgotten, that the administrator of the Jewish rites had the subjects distinguished and characterized in a sensible manner, which qualification was to be determined by the same sort of evidence as any facts in common life; but the administrator of the Christian rites has no such grounds to proceed on; his commission is of a discretionary nature, arising from the nature and design of the institutions themselves, as before shewn.
2. The objection again supposes, that there is some excellency in an institution being merely and absolutely positive, more than in one of a mixed nature. But this supposition is vain and erroneous. For what conceivable superior excellency can there be in any precept or duty on account of its positiveness? Were there any force in the objection, it would imply that the Christian dispensation is less excellent than the Mosaic; as having fewer positive rites, and their proportion of positiveness being also smaller. And it would also imply, that the reasonable duties of prayer and praise, as founded on the law of nature, as well as more fully enjoined by revelation, were less excellent than baptism and the Lord’s supper; and it would follow, that the services of the church triumphant are in their own nature less excellent than those of the church militant; which are consequences from the force of the objection equally genuine and absurd. Our Lord’s answer respecting the first and great commandment, shews at once that what is the most important duty, is also the most natural, and therefore the most remote from what is merely positive; and that is the love of God. This matter has been fully shewn before. In one word, the spirit of the objection is truly pharisaic.
Some may perhaps object, “that this has been always admitted as true, that baptism and the Lord’s supper are positive institutions of the New Testament; and that many pædobaptists have availed themselves of this fort, in ascertaining the nature and enforcing the obligation of the latter, and particularly bishop Hoadly. And as his lordship’s principle, in his Plain Account of the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper, has been deemed unanswerable, Mr. Foot, Dr. Stennett, and others, have taken but the same method in treating about baptism.” To this I reply,
That, as principles taken upon trust, dignified titles, and lawn sleeves, are light as a feather in the scale of argument; so, on the other hand, I am satisfied the bishop of Winchester’s positions, taken in a sound sense, nay, the only consistent sense in which they can be taken, are evidently true and important. The sum is this; that all positive duties, or duties made such by institution alone, depend entirely upon the will and declaration of the person who institutes or ordains them, with respect to the real design and end of them, and consequently, to the due manner of performing them. This is strictly true, in the degree that any duties are positive, but no further. And to denominate a precept or duty positive, though but partially so, I have no objection, for the sake of distinguishing them from such as are merely moral, and evidently founded on the reason and nature of things. “Except we observe this caution,” as bishop Butler observes, “we shall be in danger of running into endless confusion.”
It may be said, “If we resign this maxim, that a positive precept or duty excludes all moral reasoning, analogy and inference, we open a door to numberless innovations, and deprive ourselves of a necessary barrier against the encroachments of popery, &c.” In reply to this specious objection let it be observed,
1. That this maxim, whatever confidence our opponents place in it, is a very insufficient barrier for the defence of truth, if the objection implies, that it is calculated to defend truth against error, and not error against truth as well. For it is notorious, that there is hardly any extravagance, in the whole compass of the distinguishing peculiarities of religious practice, that is not barricadoed by this very maxim. If Protestants use it against Papists, Papists in their turn use it against Protestants. If the Quakers are pursued and foiled when they occasionally quit this fort, they soon rally their controversial forces, and, entrenching themselves behind the strength of this maxim, become again victorious. Whence passive obedience and non-resistance? Whence an opposition to all forensic swearing, in common with profane? Whence the Quakers’ nonconformity to what other serious Christians consider as lawful? Their peculiar mode of salutation and address? Their method of conducting religious worship? The little stress they lay on the observance of the christian Sabbath? &c. Whence the popish absurd figment of transubstantiation, apostolical succession, extreme unction? &c.—On the contrary,