not expressed in their extant writings that they did so § 2. Aâ—e all things written in the Scriptures that all the Twelve Apostles did in all places where they came and preached gathered and setled Churches Yea how little is there written of what was done by any of them And how many are there of them of whom there is nothing written at all neither what they did nor whither they went nor what became of them Did they nothing of whose doings nothing is written who are at least one half of the whole number of the Apostles And if they did any thing as sure enough they would be doing they might as well do that baptize Infants as any thing else for any thing that is written And where we find Infants Baptism in a Church planted by an Apostle as in Musâ—ovia Christianized by St. Andrew or in India by St. Thomas Why may we not think that planted there by that Apostle as well as other Christian Customs or Constitutions though in the Scripture there be a deep silence as to the whole Story And there is as good proof that they did not any thing else of all those things which our Saviour commanded them as that they did not that because no more is written of any thing else that they did than of that which is just nothing at all § 3. And they of whose doings any thing is written did they no more than just what was written Were they so exact in keeping and publishing Diaries of all their actions Not a word said not a deed done but what was book'd down How many persons do you read of that were baptized by Paul in all that time that he continued preaching the Gospel and planting the Church of Christ at Rome And do ye think none were baptized by him or at his command all the while Can there be a Church founded and formed up without baptism And if any were baptized where is it written in Scripture who what or how many they were Again do ye think the Saints at Rome did never commemorate the death of Christ in the celebration of the Eucharist If yea what mention is there of it in Scripture In what book chapter verse is it to be read No doubt both the one and the other Sacrament was by Pauls instructing and ordering received there and yet is the Scripture profoundly silent as to any such thing And who now will be so silly as from the Scriptures silence to draw a negative conclusion and say no such thing was done there because the Scripture says nothing of the doing of it The like may be said of other Apostles and the Churches planted by them § 4. Unless therefore that which is written were a perfect register of all that was done by all and every one of the Apostles as it is not of the doings of either all or one half or any one of them it cannot be proved that no one of them did any thing or appointed any thing to be done for instance to baptize Infants because it is not extant in those few scanty memoires and intimations rather than relations of some actions of some few of them written for the most part occasionally which are come to our hands that any one of them dâ—d it They might therefore do it though their doing of it be not expresly written in the Scriptures § 5. And that they did it or however so far delivered their mind concerning it that done it was and upon the account of their authority is most credible Because the Practice thereof is and has been looked on in all the Ages of the Church succeeding that wherein they lived as a Tradition of theirs And that Tradition from them is as credibly avouched to us as their writing those several Fpistles and Gospels which we receive for their writings and look upon as the word of God And we may as well receive the one upon that Tradition as the other and with as good reason reject the one as the other We have the Testimony of the Church for the one and we have but the Testimony of the Church for the other And if we may believe the Church when it tells us the Apostles wrâ— those Books why may we not as well believe it when it tells us the Apostles ordered that thing And if it be of no credit in the latter let our adversaries consider whether they do not by so saying derogate from and destroy all its credit in the former And so the matter is at last come to this that either we must have no new Testament Scriptures or else we must have Infants baptism The new Testament and this Sacrament of it must for ought I see ever stand and fall together both standing upon one bottom Catholick Tradition which must bear up both or neither not being able to support the one if it cannot support the other also § 6. I will not say but that some few one or two for many hundreds of years may have thought it not necessary to be administred so soon as in the prime of Infancy unless in case of death But their not thinking it necessary then is a sufficâ—ent evidence of their opinion of its lawfulness at other times For what is not lawfull at other times cannot be necessary even then § 7. And what ever reason we find any of the Ancients had to think it fitter to defer it I am of opinion we shall never find the unlawfulness of it to have been any of their reasons Tertullian thought the deferring of it Quid enim necesse est Sponsores etiam periculo ingeri quia ipsi per mortalitatem destituere promissiones suas possunt proventu malae indolis falli Tert. de Bapt. was more profitable but not the doing of it unlawful to be sure he does not say so And what 's his reason against the necessity of it That the Godfathers might not be brought into danger of failing in their undertaking by their own mortality or the Infants untowardness The deferring of it might then be prudential but that makes not the doing of it unlawfull And if he thought it prudential to defer it others as judicious as he have thought it no less prudence to hasten it And so his opinion in that case signifies nothing as to our present concern § 8. Perhaps some might think it prudence to defer it to avoid the exposing of so sacred an administration to the jeers of profane scoffers Dionysius the Areopagite mentions Eccl. Hier. c. 12. some such in his days as jeer'd at the Sureties being interrogated and answering in the Infants name And no doubt there are now such in our days as think that practice ridiculous enough But still be it as ridiculous as any has imagined it that renders it not unlawfull And if every thing must be laid by that any will think ridiculous we shall have little left either of our Worship or Doctrine When some heard of the Resurrection they
word and doing that which is unlawfull And then there will be Absurdities enow following hereupon as has upon Mr. Hooker Eccl. Politie Dr. Hammond Will-worship c. several accounts and occasions been shown by sundry of our Divines But if the Prohibition of adding to the word here be not for the absurdities consequent thereunto to be extended unto the actions of common life then it is not to be extended to the actions of religious service For the same addition that is not to be made to the one is not to be made to the other and the same diminution that is not to be made from the one is not to be made from the other There being no distinction in this case made betwixt the one and the other it must be applied to both or to neither And either there shall no uncommanded actions of common life be lawfull or else some actions of religion may be lawfull though not commanded and the doing of them no addition to the word And if so then Infants Baptism may be lawfull enough notwithstanding any thing that here is said to the contrary and not be found any addition to the word § 5. Secondly I answer that this way of Interpreting this Text so as to render all uncommanded either civil or sacred actions unlawfull being overthrown there are other commodious rendrings of the Text which may fully speak the sense of it and yet render Infants Baptism not unlawfull § 6. One is that of Hugo Grotius who saith To diminish is not to do that which is bidden Diminuere est non facere quod jubetur addere aliter quam est jussum facere Grot. in loc To add is to do otherwise than 't is bidden To do what otherwise Why that sure which is forbidden His word is not aliud another thing as if the doing of any other thing than what was bidden were in his sense that adding to the word which is forbidden but it is aliter otherwise clearly shewing his sense of the Adding here forbidden to be the doing of what was bidden otherwise than it was bidden to be done Now what is this to Infants Baptism How can our doing of it be a doing otherwise than is commanded and so an adding in his sense to the word if in the word there be nothing at all commanded that concerns it And if it be not all commanded how is it possible we should do it otherwise than 't is commanded and so be guilty of adding to the word in his sense by the doing of it § 7. Another is that of Dr. Hammond who makes the paying of an Uniform Obedience to God by Defence of Superstition pag. 15. 16. the Jews according to the Law of Moses to be the meanâ—ng of the not adding nor diminishing mentioned in this Text. Now what is this you shall fulfill all my commandments and not disobey any of them either by doing what I forbid or by leaving undone what I command or by doing any thing that I have commanded otherwise than I have commanded otherwise than I have commanded it to the business of Infants Baptism What one either Affirmative or Negative Law of God touching his worship and service given to the Jews by Mosâ—s is violated and disobeyed thereby And if none then for any thing yet here said it must remain lawfull § 8. A third is that of theirs with whom I agree that interpret the not adding here forbidden of not adding any thing to the word of God as the word of God which was never spoken by God The word Add is explain'd by the word Diminish To diminâ—sh any thing from the word of God is properly to rob God of any part of it This is done two ways First by wholly destroying it as if it had never been spoken at all And this is a thing that they were guâ—lty of whoever they were by whom any book or part of any book of Gods word hath been lost if ever any were as is to be suspected some things being spoken of as written which are not to be found amongst the writings that are extant Secondly it is done by diminishing the Authority of it reckoning that for merely Humane which is Divine This is a thing which we are wrongfully charged by the Papists to be guilty of because we own not the Apocryphal Books as the divinely inspired word of God but as the writings of uninspired men But they are justly guilty of it that look upon the Scripture as a dead letter and Caspar Swenckfeldius docuit vocale verbum tanquam literam ocsidentem rejiaiendum esse solo spiritu nos contentos esse debere Alsted Prolegom Theolo Polem Sensum literalem aiunt Weigeliani esse umbram sonum Antichristianum sapientiae expertem spiritu vacuum fundamentum arenosum saluti noxium ambiguum in verbis imperfectum in doctrinâ mortuum inefficacem in literâ ineptum ad consolationem Wendelin Theolog. Christian Epist Dedicator a useless thing to be laid by as out of date now in the times of the effusion of greater light This is the Doctrine of the Swenckfeldians and Weigelians and espoused I doubt by too many of our English Enthusiasts § 9. And accordingly to Add to the word of God is to foist in and obtrude words upon God pretending them to be delivered and spoken by him though he never spake them nor gave any man order to speak them from him And this is done two ways First by adding words to the word of God This he should be guilty of that should put any words into the Bible more than Originally were there or should put into the Translation of the Bible more then is in the words or sense of the Original And this they are guilty of that affirm any thing to be spoken by God which he neveâ— spake And this Nicholas Stock and John of Leiden Ringleaders amongst the Dr. Feaâ—ley Dippers dipt p. 225. c. Germane Anabaptists formerly have been charged with And I could wish none of our English Enthusâ—sts were chargeable with it Secondly it is done by giving a divine authority to words not spoken by a divine inspiration This we accuse the Papists to be guilty of in making the Apocryphal Books of equal Authority with the Canonical Which yet cannot be proved to have been written by a Divine Inspiration nor to have been given by God as a Law of Faith but onely written by Men as a Direction for Life § 10. If then for the Baptizing of Infants we pretend no word of Gods not spoken by him if into his word we have put no words of our own or any mans else nor have given to any thing not written by him an equal Authority with his word then we are not we cannot be guilty of that Adding to the word of God which here is prohibited None sure is so weak as to think the baptizing of a child to be the adding of words to the word of God §
time and in all probability some considerable time before that Whence Dr. Hammond not onely saith of him himself * Dr. Hammond de Confirmatione c. 2. §. 10. p. 60. that he is not to be contemned in the opinion of other Doctors though Dalleus relish him not as being near upon equal with Damasus but also tells us * Dr. Hammond Quaere of Infanâ—s Bapt. §. 43. what Mr. Casaubons opinion was of him namely that he was Scriptor antiquissimus elegantissimus a very ancient and most elegant writer And it doth not follow that his writing was false and forged because questioned For then some books of Holy Scripture will come under suspicion whose Authentickness was for some time doubted of if yet they pass for current with all For what Hyginus who died a Martyr about the year 158 saith Dr. Hammond tells us it is affirmed by Platina out of the ancient Dr. Ham. of Inf. Bap. §. 42. 43. Records And though the words alledged from the Author of the Constitutions were not written in the Apostles times by Clemens Romanus yet he saith there is sufficient reason to assure us that they were very ancient and the Testimony of a Person of his Learning Judgment and Integrity is very considerable with unbias'd persons Then for the Responses ascribed to Justin Martyr if they should not be his yet being acknowledgedly a very ancient piece they are nevertheless a considerable testimony for the Antiquity of Infants Baptism And a suspicion of their Interpolation cannot take away their Authority unless it could be proved that they were interpolated in this part or a suspicion of it had been started before this controversie And it is observed that even in Justin Martyrs Dialogue with Trypho the Jew there is a passage that hath a favourable aspect on Infants Baptism Where saith he * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Just Mart. Dial. cum Tryph. pag. 261. D. C. And we who through him are come unto God have not received that circumcision which is according to flesh but that spiritual which Enoch and the like kept But we received it by Baptism through the mercy of God in as much as we had been born sinners and it is free for all in like manner to receive it Here the reason alledged for Mens obtaining from God that spiritual Circumcision by Baptism namely because we had been born in sin is as truly alledgable on the behalf of Infants And how can it be thought but that he that understood there was the same reason for childrens baptizing as for mens should be of opinion that children were to be baptized as well as men And when he extends the liberty of receiving it unto all why should he be thought not to extend it unto Infants Especially when as well the external motive of Gods compassion the misery of mans being born in sin as the internal Mover of God unto compassion even his mercy to men so born is extended unto Infants as well as Men. And when he saith * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Justin Martyr Dialog cum Tryph. pag. 260. B. C. Moreover the precept of Circumcision commanding to circumcise Infants on the eighth day was a type of the true circumcision wherewith we were circumcised from our errour and naughtiness by him that rose from the dead hath he not a kind aspect on Infants baptism Fairly intimating by expressing the time of Circumcision the eighth day that our Circumcision which is baptism should agree with that which typified it so far at least as to be susceptible by Infants even of eight days old younger than which Fidus the Presbyter because of that law of circumcision thought they ought not to be baptized though Cyprian shew'd him that himself and a whole Council Cypian lib. 3. Ep. 8. were of another mind even that they might be baptized sooner And that he had so is the more probable in regard Greg. Naziarzene †〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Gr. Naz. Orat. 40. p. 658. A. B. gives the Circumcision of the Jewish Infants on the eighth day for a reason why the Infants of Christians should in case of danger be baptized even so early as whilest they are insensible of either the want or having of grace by the want or having of baptism To proceed to Origen if he were as perhaps he was not so very Heretical and desperately Erroneous in his own judgment as is pretended yet this doth not follow that he must be also insincere and mendacious in his report of the Churches Practice Is it impossible for a man that is erroneous in something to speak true in any thing If so the truth it self will have few witnesses to it but be well neer left to stand and fall by its self Had Origen been of no Authority in the Church sure St. Hierome would never have appealed to his judgment in the case of so high a concern as whether the Hebrew Books of the Bible had been falsified by the Jews or no saying * Quod si aliquis dixeris Hebraos libros postea à Judaeis esse falsatos audiat Originem quid in octavo volumine explanationum Esaiae huic respondeat quaestiunculae quod nunquam Dominus Apostoli qui caetcra crimina arguunt in Scribis Pharisais de hoc crimine quod erat maximum reticuissent D. Hier. l. 3. Comment in Esaiam cap. 6. Tom. 4. Col. 55. if any man doubt of that Audiat Originem let him hear Origen c. But we have not Origens Original of his Commentaries on the Ep. to the Romans but Ruffinus's Translation No matter so the Translation be right But Ruffinus added and alter'd at his pleasure so that if Erasmus say true you know not when you read Origen aâ—d when Ruffinus Then it cannot be known but that what we read in him touching Infants Baptism is his own And being taken so to be by all not concerned to oppose it it ought to pass for his unless the contrary could be proved And suppose it were not his but Ruffinus's yet still is that a good evidence for the Age he lived in and that was pretty early up towards the Apostles Times being confessedly in the Fourth Century But Ruffinus was a very bad man Perhaps not all out so bad as his bitter adversary St. Hierom makes him And may not a bad men speak truth Had he spoken untruth in this case why was not his falshood detected in the times he lived in why did not Hierom amongst all the rest of his accusations charge this upon him that he made Origen say l. 5. in Rom. c. 6. that the Church received from the Apostles a tradition to give baptism even to Infants when as Origen said no such thing 'T is plain he had nothing to say because he said nothing who had will enough to incline him and passion enough to provoke him to say all he could Yea who sometimes quarrels with Ruffinus * Cum haec ita