what is forbidden be forborn But it doth not reach to the making of every thing unlawfull to be done which is not particularly prescribed in the Gospel Because there is a great dispaâ—ity between the Legal and Evangelical Dispensation in this case § 28. In the Legal Oeconomy particular order was given for all the circumstantial as well as substantial parts of Gods service But in the Oeconomy of the Gospel no such particular Order has been given And so the case is not equal And therefore the Argument from the one to the other from a compleatly setled administration to an administration not compleatly setled is not good § 29. Find us in the Gospel so compleat a Platform not onely for all Substantials but also for all Circumstantials as was under the Law and we shall not think fit upon the account of the equity that is pleaded from those Texts to add any thing thereto But till then we shall neither think it unfit for the Governours of the Church to whom Christ hath * Act. 1. 8. 15. 28. 1 Cor. 14. 26 40. 2 Cor. 12. 19. Eph. 4. 11 12. Tit. 1. 5. left the power of ordering Church affairs to order such things as are unordered by the Gospel nor for those that are under government to be conformable unto their Orders and consequently to baptize Infants though theâ—r baptizing had not by the Gospel been ordered § 30. And by this time I hope it appears that even their own sense of these Texts supposed which yet I do not grant that whole way of reasoning of theirs from the prohibitions of additions to the commands under the Law to the not doing of any uncommanded thing under the Gospel is inconsequent and of no force against Infants Baptism § 31. Yea but say they still there is as full and clear a Text against adding to the word of God in the Gospel as there was any under the Law Is there so I pray where Why in Revel 22. 18. If any man shall add unto these things God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this Book Well what of this Why then Infants Baptism being not written in the Gospel is an addition to the Gospel and so unlawfull § 32. Not so For the adding here spoken of hath reference onely to this one Book of the Revelation and not to the Gospel as that is one intire volume containing all the Books of the New Testament For they were not put altogether into one Book till some years after the death of the Author of the Revelation it being long ere sundry of the Books now in the Canon were received into it Yea there be that affirm the Gospel of this Evangelist Euseb Hist l. 6. cap 22. It is certain that he was banished into Patmos where he wrote his Revelation and after his Return to Ephesus his three Epistles and Gospel which was published by Gaius his host and Deacon Bp. Prideaux Introduct to Histor p. 60. According to Bucholcer in his Chronology pag. 635. he was banished Anno Christi 96 to Patmos where he writ his Revelation Anno Christi 98 he returned from banishment to Ephesus where in Anno 99 he wrote his Gospel for which he quotes Hierom-Cum publico edicto edito jussisseâ— omnes Christianos maxime praedicatores Evangelii pelli in exilium profugere Joannes coactus est in Pathmon insulam ubi dicitur Apocalypsin scripsisse si modo illius autor est hic Joannes Tandem trucidato Domitiano permissa est Christianis libertas redeundi itaque reversus est Joannes ad Ecclesiam suam Ephesinam tranquillitatem nactus scripsit contra Ebionitas Marcionem Cherintum Cerinthum haereticos Evangelium suum Herman Bonnus Farrag Exemplor fol. 7. See also Isaacksons Chronology and Hutcheson upon John pag. 1. The same may be further confirmed from several other Chronologies as that of Regino Prumiensis Hermannus Contractus Marianus Scotus the Compilatlo Chronologica published by Joannes Pistorius the Pantheon of Gotsridus Viterbiensis and Wâ—rner Roleâ—inks Fasciculus Temporum also from Spondanus's Epitome of Baronius Anno Christ 97 99. to have been written after his Revelation And therefore what is here said could have reference to it self onely and not to the other Books which were written by others or to be written by himself § 33. And however that the reference of it is onely unto it self is evident by what goes before and after in this and the following verse For I testifie saith the Author of this Book unto every man that heâ—reth the words of the Prophesie of this Boâ—k If any man shall add unto these things God shall add unto him the plagues that are writtâ—n in this Book This Book What Book Why that sure enough that himself was then a writing the Book of the Revelation containing those Prophesies which God was pleased to impart unto him and appoint him to write in a book Rev. 1. 11. Which book even whilest he was a writing of it he frequently makes reference unto as where he mentions the Words of this Prophesie and the things which are written therein Rev. 1. 3. and the sayings of the prophesie of this book the sayings of this book and the words of the prophâ—sie of this book and the words of the book of this prophesie Rev. 22. 7 9 10 18 19. All expressions intimating the book he spake of to be that book which himself was then writing containing the prophesies and predictions of the things that were to come and the most of them in a short time whence the sayings of the prophesie of this book were not to be sealed the time being at hand Rev. 22. 10. § 34. Now let our Antipaedobaptists here have his own sense of Adding let it import the doing of something not commanded And what will then follow Why that nothing is lawfull to be done now in the time of the Gospel but that which is contained in this Book the Book of the Revelation But that he will tell you cannot be For so we shall have no Baptism at all because none is commanded in the Revelation § 35. What then is the Adding here spoken against Plainly this and no more the putting of some word or words to this Book This is evident by that which is not to be taken away For contraries laâ—d together do illustrate each the other Now that the taking away is meant of any of the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Si quis abstulerit de Verbis libri Versio interlinearis si quis diminuerit de verbis Vers Vulg. Syriac Si quis detraxerit ex verbis Prophetiae quae continentur in hoc libro Vers Arab. of it For so it is in ver 19. If any man shall take away from the words of the book of this Prophesie God shall take away his part out of the book of life c. What I pray can be taken away from the words of a book but words or some
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 §
A Modest Plea FOR INFANTS BAPTISM Wherein the Lawfulness of the Baptizing of INFANTS is defended against the ANTIPAEDOBAPTISTS And the Infants Need for it Benefit by it Capableness of it and Right unto it Is fairly shown from Grounds of Scripture the Tradition of the CHURCH and the Institution of CHRIST With Answers to Objections By W. W. B. D. Commendaverim Charitati vestrae causam eorum quâ— pro se loqui non possunt D. Aug. Ser. 8. de Verb. Apost CAMBRIDGE Printed by John Hayes Printer to the University and are to be sold by Henry Dickinson Bookseller 1677. To the Right worshipful Mr. Robert Cole Alderman of Grantham And to the worshipful The Twelve Comburgesses his Brethren And to all the worthy Commoners of that ancient Corporation WILLIAM WALKER Wisheth all temporal Prosperity and eternal Felicity Right Worshipful c. THe singular Favours Which you have shewed to me do merie a gratefull acknowledgement from me In testimony therefore of my obligations I dedicate unto you this Treatise May it prove what I design it a lasting monument of your generosity and my gratitude Through Gods blessing on the conjoyn'd erdeavours pious care and prndent conduct of Magistrate and Ministir your Corporation now is as Jerusalem of old was as a City that is at unity in it self A rare blessing that at all times but especially in dividing times Few Corporations in England cawboast the like God continue that happiness to you and to yours after you from generation Thereto if these Papers of mine be in any measure contributory as I do most sincercly wish it so I shall most heartily rejoyce at it as being one who takes a great pleasure in the Prosperity of your Corporation and no less in being serviceable in any manner or measure to it So begging your kind acceptance of my good meaning in this Dedication and wishing a perpetuation and inorease of Vnity and Amity and all the blessed Consequents thereof among you I present these Papers to your favour and remain Grantham School Aug. 1. 1676. Your most humble Servant WILLIAM WALKER The Preface to the READER OF all Dissenters from the Church of England none seem to lie under stronger Prejudices than the Antipaedobaptists as having so seemingly fair Pleas to make both for Themselves and against their Opponents and that both from Scripture Text and Ecclesiastick Practice as few of their fellow Dissenters can parallel With the more favour and kindness in my thoughts are their Persons precisely considered as such to be treated and with the more fairness and clearness ought those Endeavours which are undertaken for the removal of their Prejudiees to be managed And this may be a sufficient Account for that Prolixity which some may think there is and for that Plainness which I have studied there should be in these ensuing Papers especially if I shall add thereto this Consideration that the Persons lying under these Prejudices and whose rescue from under the captivity of Errour is the wish of all good Christians are mostly such as are to be spoke to in Vulgar language and Familiar speech as not having had those advantages of a learned education which should make them capable to sound the depths of profound performances unravel the windings of intricate discourses and keep pace in understanding with a high tide of big words and a rolling torrent of strong lines in which way to him that speaketh they will be but as Barbarians and he that speaketh shall be but a Barbarian unto them Whence by the way I shall take occasion to admonish those that read Books onely for the elegance of the language and cannot relish the wholsome food of soâ—â—â— matter unless it be served up in the savoury sauce of a piquant Phrase and set out with the specious garnish of a florid style to proceed no further as being not likely to find herein that sparkling briskness of Expression nor pleasing flavour of Elocution which suits the Tasts of their delicate palates as also to advise others of deeper learning and profounder knowledge not to expect from me new discoveries of hitherto unrevealed mysteries and fresh-sprung mines of as yet unravish'd and unrifled notions whose design in these Papers is not at all to teach the Learned but to instruct the Ignorant and that in all humility and submission as being conscious to my self of my manifold ignorances and imperfections and seeing even what I see but through a glass and that darkly And further to prevent any man's sinning against God by rashly judging or uncharitably censuring me about the quorations in these Papers which are many and large I declare that my ends in making them were to give strength and credit to the cause I maintain by shewing it espoused by persons of reputation for learning and judgment in their several ages and to free my self from the imputation of novelty and singularity in any thing maintained by me and that I made them so large partly to prevent suspicion of insincerity in my dealings and partly to furnish some with apposite testimonies Who may not have those conveniences of consulting Authors that I have had And let not any one think these quotations needless because the Antipae do baptists reject all authority but that of Scripture For I write not onely for the conviction and conversion of them but also for the satisfaction and confirmation of others Of whom some may have such a value for tradition as to be much confirmed by it others may think it so necessary as not to be satisfied without it And for their sakes according to the advice in Vincent Lirinensis I have been willing to fortifie the â—ape igitur magno studio sumkind attentione perquirens à quam pluribus sanctitate doctrinâ prastantibus viris quonam modo possim certa quâdam quasi generall ac regulari viâ Catbolicae fidei veritatem ab haereticae pravitatis falsitate discernere bujusmodi semper responsum ab omnibus fere retuli Quod five ego sive quis alius vellet exurgentium baereticorum fraudes deprehendere laqueosque vitare in fide sanâ sanus integer permanere duplici modo munire fidem suam Domino adâ—uvante deberet Primò scilicet divine leg is authoritate tum deinde Ecclesiae Catholicae traditione Hic forsitan requirat aliquis cum sit perfectus Scripturarum Canon sibique ad omnia satis superque sufficiat quid opus est ut ei Ecclesiasticae intelligentiae jungatur autoritas Quia videlicet scripturam sacram pro ipsâ suâ altitudine non uno codemq sensu universi accipiunt sed ejusdem eloquia aliter atq aliter alius atque alius interpretatur ut pene quot homines sunt tot lllinc sententiae erui posse videantur Aliter namque illam Novatianus aliter Photinus aliter Sabellius aliter Donatus exponit c. atq idcirco multum necesse est propter tantos tam varii error is ansractus ut
his Disciples to suffer those to come to him that already were at and with him Yea suppose he had onely called them and they were not yet come who can imagine that it were needful to give any further command to his Disciples to suffer those to come at him whom he had but just then called unto him It is therefore of Infants in general and not of those particular Infants onely that he spake § 7. Yet Fourthly Our Saviours speaking these words upon that particular occasion doth not necessarily restrain the concernment of his words unto those particular Infants Acts of justice and acts of Grace are of general concernment though the occasions of them be particular unless there be something in the circumstances of the acts that may lay a restraint upon their concernment And the Apostle hath notably taught us to draw general conclusions from particular expressions in Heb. 13. 5 6. He hath said I will never leave thee nor for sake thee So that we may boldly say The Lord is my helper The promise of not being for saken of the Lord was a particular one made upon a particular occasion unto a particular person namely Joshua Jos 1. 5. And yet saith the Apostle so general is the concernment of it that we may boldly say The Lord is my helper And thus were the occasion of this Speech of our Saviour never so particular yet how fairly is this general conclusion drawn therefrom Christ gave order that little children when they were brought should be suffered to come to him and not be forbidden Therefore little children should now and at all times be suffered and should not be forbidden to come unto Christ especially since as there is the same need for our children that there was for those children to come to Christ so there is the same mercy in Christ now to move him to receive our children that there was in him then to move him to receive theirs and there is no circumstance in all the action debarring our children of his mercy and restraining it unto theirs § 8. But it is time I should proceed to speak to the Third and shew what coming of little children unto Christ it is that is to be suffered and ought not to be hindred CHAP. IV. What coming of little children unto Christ is to be sufferedm and ought not to be hindred § 1. NOw to clear this we must shew that the Phrase of coming unto Christ is capable of various interpretations § 2. And first it notes an approach or access of any person unto Christ as exhibiting himself corporally present in place Thus those Saducees came to him that came to pose him Matth. 22. 23. And this is the ordinary and proper signification of the Phrase And in this sense those Infants spoken of in the Text did come to Christ Their being brought to him was a coming of theirs to him When the Disciples rebuked those that brought them our Saviour commands that they the children should be suffered to come unto him § 3. But in this sense now our children cannot come unto Christ Christ is no where corporally present upon earth that children may be carried to him or in this sense come at him In Heaven indeed he is corporally present but thither children cannot be carried thither children cannot come Whither I go ye cannot comâ— saith our Saviour John 13. 23. i. e. not till after death nor then neither but in spirit till the resurrection of the dead For flesh and blood unchanged cannot inherit the kingdom of God 1 Cor. 15. 20. So that the words taken in relation to children now are not to be understood properly And therefore unless we mean not to have our children come at Christ we must go seek out some other meaning of the Phrase and find out some other way by which they may come to him § 4. Secondly therefore the Phrase may be taken Figuratively And so sometimes in notes a becoming or a being made a Disciple unto Christ And so when our Saviour saith Matth. 11. 28. Come unto me all ye that labour his meaning is become disciples to me for so it follows in ver 29. Take my yoke upon you and learn of me Where he offers himself to be a Master to such as should come to him And in what other sense than this can we understand that in John 3. 26. Behold the same baptizeth and all men Omnes currunt ad baptismum illius Alcu. in Aqui. Au. Cat. come unto him That is Jesus by Baptism receiveth proselytes and there is great recourse unto him for that end many persons become his Disciples by receiving his Baptism And to thâ—s agrees the Paraphrase of Nonnus upon the place 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Non. in loc All the citizens make hast desiring to partake of his divine washing i. e. to become his Proselytes to be made his Disciples by Bapâ—ism And in accordance with this sense is the same Phrase interpretable John 5. 40. Ye will not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 come to me i. e. become my disciples believing on me and being baptized by me that ye may have life And See Dr. Ham. on John 6. 37. Similitudo sumpta à discipulis quos pater magistro tradit quique volentes eum frequentant Grot. ap Poli. Synops so again in John 6. 37 44 65. In all which places the phrase of coming unto Christ implies a becoming disciples to him being made his Proselytes § 5. So then to become a Disciple to Christ is in one sense to come to Christ And if children may be made Disciples to Christ then there is a way left whereby they also as well as elder persons may come to Christ § 6. And that they may is very fairly hinted even in this Text the words which our Saviour useth to express the coming of these Infants to him by being the very words as is observed Dr. Hammond of which that name is composed by which such as became Disciples to Christ were anciently called viz. Proselytes His words are Suffer the little children 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or as St. Matthew relates them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to come to me q. d. to become my Proselytes for so were they called that from Gentilism did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 come over unto Judaism before Christs time and from either Gentilism or Judaism came over unto Christianity in or after the days of Christ And by those words of St. Athanasius wherein he mentions some other books besides the Canonical ones that were by the Fathers proposed to be read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. to those that as yet came to and were desirous to be catechized i. e. instructed or taught the word of piety or the principles of true religion a Proselyte seems to be described And the word it self 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 proselyte we have indiverse Scriptures Matth. 23. 15. Ye compass sea and land to make
is done but suiting better with my design to have it done this way § 2. And for this present Seventeenth Century now current we need no other but our own eyes to be our witnesses of the daily Practice to baptize Infants both in our Church at home and other Churches abroad as well Protestant as Popish § 3. And as little need almost have we to seek for witnesses in the Century next foregoing there being many no doubt yet living who were baptized Infants themselves within the compass of that Century if they do not also remember the baptisms of others However at home our Articles of Religion first agreed on in the reign of Q. Elizabeth Anno 1562 declaring that Infants baptism is in any wise to be retained in the Church as most agreeable to the Institution of Christ and our Liturgy compiled before in the reign of K. Edward the Sixth Anno 1549 wherein is contained the office for the publick baptizing of Insants is to us a sufficient evidence for it without seeking further To which for neighbourhood sake we may add the Confession of the Faith of Scotland in the year 1582 wherein they confess and acknowledge that baptism appertaineth as well to the Infants of the Faithfull as unto them that be of full age and discretion § 4. And for the Churches abroad their Confessions shew their belief and practice in this case The Council of Trent in the fifth and seventh Session of it Anno 1546 Anno 1547 Si quis parvulos recentes ab utcris matrum baptizandos negat Antthema sit Concil Trident. Sess 5. apud Caranzam Si quis dixerit par vulos co quod actum credendâ— non habent susccpto baptismo inter fideles â—omputandos non esse Anathema sit Id. ib. Sess 7. con 13. anathematizes those that either say that children ought not to be baptized or that being baptized they ought not to be reckoned amongst believers or that it is better wholly to let their baptizing alone than that not believing by any proper act of their own they should be baptized upon the account of the faith of the Church And that gives sufficient evidence for the Church of Rome § 5. Then for the Protestant Churches the Harmony of the Confessions of Helvetia Bohemia Printed at Cambridge 1586. Belgia Auspurge Saxony Wittemberg We condemn the Anabaptists who deny that young Infants born of faithful parents are to be baptized For according to the doctrine of the Gospell Theirs is the kingdom of God And they are in the Covenant of God And why then should not the sign of the Covenant be given to them The latter Confession of Hâ—lvetia In which holy Font we do therefore dip our Infants because that it is not lawful for us to reject them from the company of the people of God which are born of us Former Confess of Hâ—lvetia Young children also who are reckoned in the number of Gods people in like sort are by this Ministery to be benefited towards the attaining of salvation that they likewise may be consecrated and dedicated to Christ according to his commandment when he saith Suffer ye the little ones For these causes do our Ministers without any doubt and boldly baptize children Bohemie Seeing that God doth together with the Parents account their posterity also to be of the Church we assirm that Infants being born of holy Parents are by the Authority of Christ to be baptized French Confess We by the same reason do believe that they Infants ought to be baptized and sealed with the sign of the Covenant for the which in times past the Infants amongst the Israelites were circumcised that is by reason of the same promises made unto our Infants that were made unto others Confess of Belgia They teach that young Infants are to be baptized They condemn the Anabaptists which allow not the baptism of Infants Confess of Auspurge We also baptize Infants because it is most certain that the promise of grace doth pertain also to Infants Confess of Saxony We acknowledge that Baptism is to be ministred as well to Infants as to those that are grown to full age Confess of Wittemberge Seeing that Baptism is a Sacrament of that Covenant which God hath made with those that be his promising that he will be their God and the God of their seed therefore our Preachers do teach that it is to be given to Infants also Confess of sweveland Sweveland with the French Confession all unanimously declaring for Infants baptism though some on one ground and some on another evidently enough shews what was believed and practiced by those parts of the Church in that age § 6. To these I shall add the Confession of the Churches of the Valleys of Piemont assembled in Angrogne Anno 1532 in the 17 Artic. whereof they say we have but two Sacramental Signs left us by Jesus Christ the one is Baptism the other is the Eucharist which we receive to shew that our Sir Sam. Morland History of Piemont p. 41. perseverance in the Faith is such as we promised when we were baptized being little children Also a Confession presented to Ladislaus K. of Bohemia Anno 1508 by his Subjects falsly called Waldenses and after to Ferdinand Id. ib. pag. 53. K. of Bohemia Anno 1535 in the 12 Artic. whereof They likewise teach that children are to be baptized unto salvation and to be consecrated to Christ according to his Word Suffer little children c. And whereas the Waldenses are charged to have rejected the baptism of little Infants they in their Book intituled the Luthers Forerunners l. 1. c. 4. p. 10. 15. of part 1. spiritual Almanack sol 45. quit themselves as my Author faith from this imputation as followeth The time and place of those that are to be baptized is not ordained but the charity and edification of the Church and Congregation must serve for a rule therein c. And therefore they to whom the children were nearest allied brought their Infants to be baptized as their parents or any other whom God had made charitable in that kind Again in the Book of the Doctrine of the Waldenses and Albingenses ch 3. Id. ib. part 3. pag. 43. their iudgment and Practice is thus delivered And for this cause it is that we present our children to Baptism which they ought to do to whom the children are nearest as their parents and they to whom God hath given this charity It is confessed that they did in process of time grow to deser the baptizing of their Infants for some while but that was not from any opinion of the unlawfulness Id. ib. part 1. pag. 15. of Infants Baptism but partly because their own Ministers were many times abroad imployed in the service of their Churches and partly out of detestation of some humane inventions held by them to be pollutions added to that Sacrament as administred by the Priests of the Church of
Rome by whom for some certain hundreds of years they had been constraind to suffer their children to be baptiz'd § 7. So that it is needless to appeal for further evidence to the Conference at Mompelguâ—t * Anno 1529. or the Articles of Smalkald †Anno 1536. or book of Concord * Anno 1580. much less to the testimonies of single persons though men of note and eminence in their generation such as Luther Melancthon Calvin Zanâ—hy or any other of the many writers on this Subject in that Age. Who were by so much the more moved to write on this Subject in regard of an Opposition then made to Infants Baptism by the Anabaptists who as Melancthon saith were then Melancthon loc Comm. de Bapt. nuper nati newly come up whereas before there was great quietness in the Church about that Point § 8. Yet to shew that Infants Baptism was not the practice of the more Western parts of Europe onely but of the Eastern too and of those that followed the Greek Church as well as those that followed the Latine I will give two or three evidences of thâ—s practice among the Russians Ruthens and Moscovians § 9. In an Epistle written to David Chytraeus dated 8 Kal. Aug. Anno M. D. LXXVI De Russorum Moscovitarum Tartarorum Religione pag. 240. the Author relating the manner of baptizing among the Russians saith the Priest useth to pour a whole gallon of water upon the Infant Alexander Gaguin saith of Ib. pag. 232. the Ruthens that they baptize their Infants by immersion These receiving the Faith about the year 942 and retaining it firmly ever since are an Instance of Infants Baptism not for this Century only but for all the time from their first conversion And the same is testified of them by Johannes Sacranus Canon of Cracow Ib. pag. 193. who writing his Book in the year 1500 is a witness in this case as well for the foregoing as present Century And Johannes Faber writing to Ferdinand King of Ib. pag. 176. the Romans Anno 1525 concerning the Moscovites who as themselves say received their religion from St. Andrew and are very firm to what they have once received saith that they baptize their Infants by a threefold immersion if he be strong else by pouring on of water Now this Relation if true and why it may not be so I cannot tell speaks not only for the Century the Relator writ in but for time before how much 't is uncertain but for ought I know for all the time since their first conversion which reaches up to the very Apostles days § 10. And to shew that Infants baptism was not the practice onely of Europe but of other parts of the world and so hint at that which some other better read in History may be able sully to make out a Catholickness of it in respect of Câ—unâ—ries professing Christianity as well as Times I will give you a brief tast from Mr. Brerewoods Enquiries how it was about this Century and God knows how many Centuries before whether from the beginning or no in this Point with the Eastern and Southern parts of the world where Christianity is professed And to begin with the Christians of St. Thomas so called as being supposed to Chap. 20. have been by his preaching converted to the Christian Religion inhabiting in India in great numbers about Coulan and Cranganor Maliapur where St. Thomas is supposed to lie buried and Negapatan These baptize their Infants though not indeed till they be forty days old except in danger of death Next the Jacobites are a sort of Christians who inhabit in Chap. 21. Syria Cyprus Mesopotamia Bâ—bylon Palâ—stine and under other titles are said to be spread abroad in forty kingdoms And these all baptize their Infants signing them first with the sign of the Cross which they imprint into their face or arm with a burning iron Then the Coâ—hti or Christians in Aegypt where Religion was planted Chap. 22. in the Apostles days these baptize their children though not afore the fortieth day â—o not in case of death The Habâ—stine Christians inhabiting the Chap. 23. midland of Africa do also baptize their Infants but their Males not till forty days after their birth and their Females not till eighty except in peril of death The Armenian Christians are spread in Chap. 24. multitudes over the Turkish Empire but chiefly in the Armenia's the Greater and Lesser and in Cilicia And these also baptize their Infants Lastly the Maronites are a sort of Christians inhabiting Chap. 25. Aleppo Damascus Tripoli of Syria Cyprus and mount Libanus And these too baptize their Infants but their Males not till forty days after their birth and their Females not till eighty days after it So that from all the Quarters of the world where Christianity is professed witnesses come for Infants baptism § 11. But not more fruitful was this Century for Testifiers to this Truth then some of the foregoing are barren not from the rarity of the practice or opinion of men against it but from the scarcity of Writers in those Ages whose works are extant and from the little or no opposition made to it Yet in the barrenest and darkest of Ages we shall find a sufficiency of light and evidence to carry up this Practice through them to the Primitive Times § 12. In the middle of the Fifteenth Age about Anno 1452 we find Nicolaus de Orbellis giving his testimony to this Truth Yist 4. 4 Libri Sent. qu. 5. For to the question whether the effects of baptism be alike in all he answers by way of Distinction sayâ—ng that the Baptized are either Infants or Adult and that if the Comparison be of an Infant with the Adult the effect is unequal the advantage on the Adults side And upon the question whether the Infants of Infidels may be baptized against the Ib. qu. 7. wills of their parents he determines that though a private person may not compell in that case yet a Prince may And also he gives reasons why the Infants to be baptized Ib. qu. 8. should be Catechized though they be not able to apprehend any instruction which is a sufficient indication both of his opinion and of the Churches Practice in that age As for the Catechizing he speaks of that none trip at that it is nothing but the asking and answering to the questions solemnly used in bapti in by the Godfathers For he tells ye what the Godfather means when in the Person of the Infant he answers I believe And the Reasons for this he draws partly from the Church partly from the Godfathers and partly from the Infants § 13. Towards the latter end of this Century about the year 1487 flourished Gabriel Biel and he as the Author newly mentioned Omnes parvulirite baptizaâ—i rem Sacramentum sus cipiunt sed Sacramentum tantum qui fictè sine
Dedication and of Purim But the leaving off to do what God hath once commanded cannot but be against his revealed will and so neither acceptable to him nor lawfull unless there be good and competent ground for the What may be a sufficient ground in this case See Dr. Stilling fleets Irenic part 1. c. 1. S. 3. p. 12 13. leaving it off and a sufficient evidence of the ceasing of that obligation to it which was once by vertue of a Divine command upon it If then there may be any thing shewn which was once expresly commanded by God and practiced in obedience to that command whose practice is now left off and by the Anabaptists themselves without any express command to the contrary and yet lawfully then it will follow and convincingly I hope that there may be something practiced by us which yet never was in Scripture expresly commanded us and so Infants Baptism may be lawfull enough though never expresly in Scripture commanded Now I instance in the Sanctification of the seventh day and in the Circumcision of Infants at eight days old both expresly commanded both accordingly practiced and both now left off to be observed and yet without any express command for the disobserving of either I speak all this while of things sacred and not merely civill or naturall And say an express command because I find nothing else will satisfie Else enough hath long enough and often enough been offered to shew the lawfulness of Infants Baptism Which if nothing else had been offered is sufficiently proved by this Argument following which they are as far from being ignorant of as they are from being able to answer § 14. That which is no sin cannot be unlawfull Infants Baptism is no sin Therefore it is not unlawfull That Infants baptism is no sin either to the Baptizer or Baptized is plain because it is no transgression of any Law For that which is no transgression of a Law is no sin Infants Baptism is no trangression of any Law Therefore it is no sin That that can be no sin which is no transgression of any Law is most evident not onely because St. John hath positively defined sin to be the transgression of a law 1 John 3. 4. but also because St. Paul hath concluded negatively that where no Law is there is no transgression Rom. 4. 15. And these men that conclude Infants baptism unlawfull which must needs signifie its being sinfull I wonder how or whence they come to know it and conclude it Sure they do not know more than St. Paul did And his Rule to know sin by and so what is lawfull and what unlawfull was the Law For saith he by the Law is the knowledge of sin Rom. 3. 20. And I had not known sin but by the Law for I had not known lust i. e. had not known it to be a sin except the Law had said Thou shalt not covet Rom. 7. 7. So then Infants Baptism being no transgression of any law because there is no law against it for there can be no transgression of a law which is not it must follow that it can be no sin and so cannot be unlawfull § 15. The Scripture I say being laid down to be the Rule of Lawfull and Vnlawfull in sacred Things as that which the Scripture commands is not onely lawfull but necessary and that which the Scripture forbids is not onely unnecessary but also sinâ—full so that which the Scripture neither commands nor forbids is neither necessary nor yet sinfull but of a middle nature betwixt both and that is Lawfull So that though the Scripture had never spoke word either in particular or in general of Infants baptism yet it must have been granted lawfull and could not have been concluded unlawfull because neither in particular nor in general hath the Scripture spoke any one word or title against the baptizing of Infants CHAP. XXXII Infants Baptism no Addition to the Word of God The Scriptures objected on that account considered and cleared § 1. YEa but argues the Antipaedobaptist Nothing is lawfull that is not commanded in Scripture Infants Baptism is not commanded in Scripture Therefore it is unlawfull But why is nothing lawfull that is not commanded in Scripture Because the doing of any uncommanded thing is an Adding to the word all additions to the word are forbidden by the Word and so unlawfull Now the Scriptures that forbid all additions to the word are many Deut. 4. 2. Deut. 12. 32. Prov. 30. 6. Isa 1. 12. § 2. But what if not every doing of an uncommanded thing be an adding to the word Or what if the baptizing of an Infant suppose it never so much uncommanded be no such addition to the word as is forbidden Why then Infants Baptism for all its supposed uncommandedness may be no sin And so the whole force of the Argument falls to the ground But because the best trial hereof will be a particular view of the Scriptures objected on this account I will therefore instantly address my self to the consideration of them and from that view I shall hope to find as that not all doing of a thing beside the word is an addition to the word so that Infants baptism is none of those culpable additions to the Word which are forbidden by it § 3. And the first is that in Deut. 4. 2. Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you neither shall you diminish ought from it that you may kâ—ep the Commandments of the Lord your God which I command § 4. To this I answer first that the Adding here forbidden cannot possibly be so understood as to make it unlawfull to do any thing even appertaining to the worship of God which is not expresly commanded in the word of God And that will be enough to overthrow their ground and secure Infants Baptism from the guilt of unlawfulness For it is evident that the word here commanded to Israel to which they were not to add and from which they were not to diminish are the Statutes and the judgments which Moses taught them to do ver 1. namely in this Book of Deuteronomy and the several chapters and verses of it and however in the whole book of the Mosaical Law Now it is most certain that those Statutes and judgments as they lie dispersed in the whole book of Moses Law do reach unto all sorts of duties of common life towards our selves and towards our brethren as well as of worship towards God If then all doing any uncommanded thing be an adding to the word and that adding to it which is here forbidden by it then all other uncommanded actions as well as uncommanded acts of worship and service towards God must hereby be forbidden and so be unlawfull and we must no more do any action of common life than any act of worship and service towards God but what is expresly commanded in the word for fear of incurring the guilt of adding to the
11. And what hath been said of this Text will serve in answer to other Texts of the same import Such as Deut. 12. 32. where it is said What thing soever I command you observe to do it thou shalt not add thereto nor diminish from it What thing soever that is as the Septuagint render it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 every word that I injoyn you every word of command that I give you that shall you be carefull to observe to that shall you pay an uniform obedience forbearing to do the things that I forbid and doing the things whatsoever they be that I command and to my words ye shall add no words of your own ye shall put into my Law no commands that I never gave you you shall not take from my Law any of the commands that I have given you ye shall not change the Rule I have set down for you â—o walk by either in whole or in part by imposing on your selves either more severe or more easie performances than I have required from you instead of those that I have required but ye shall do fully that which I have commanded and ye shall do it faithfully as I have commanded it § 12. And this is agreeable to those Texts where this uniform observance of the then setled rule is more explicately set down As in Deut. 5. 32. ye shall observe to do therefore as the Lord hath commanded you you shall not turn aside to the right hand or to the left And Deut. 28. 14. Thou shalt not go aside from any of the words which I command thee this day to the right hand or to the left to go after other gods to serve them And Joshua 1. 7. Be thâ—u strong and very couragious that thou mayst observe to do according to all the Law which Moses my servant commanded thee turn not from it to the right hand or to the left § 13. Now what is this to Infants Baptism supposing it utterly uncommanded How is the baptizing of an Infant a not doing as the Lord hath commanded or a going aside from any of his words or a turning from them to the right hand or the left What one word of our own or anies else have we added to his to bring it in what one word of his have we left out that else might have given a stop to our doing of it what one word of his have we changed to make the easier way for its introduction or continuation what one thing required by him have we turned from and let alone unperformed that we might do that in the stead of it yea on the contrary how doth not our doing of it hold proportion with his word and so can be no violation of his word In short when it can be made appear that the baptizing of Infants is the putting of words into Moses's Law then we shall and till then we shall not yield that it is that adding to the word of God which God by Moses in this Text for bad § 14. Such again is that saying of Agur Prov. 30. 6. Add thou not unto his words lest he reprove thee and thou be found a liaâ— What can this mean other than that no man ought to add any of his own or others words to the word of God as if God had spoken them whereas he never spake word of them This whosoever he be that doth he must needs be found a liar when God comes to reprove him But what reproof can he be liable to for adding to his words that hath added nothing to them Or how can he be found a liar upon the account of adding to Gods words who doth not affirm God ever said one word more than he hath said § 15. And now what is this Text or any thing that can be inferred from it to our pleading for Infants baptism Have we for the introducing or defending that practice inserted into the word of God any words of our own pretending them to be his words Let the book be searcht and the words produced and let the shame of such adding light upon the doers of it But if we do no such thing if we have added no one word concerning this to Gods Words then can this Text make nothing at all against us who have done nothing of that which is forbidden by it § 16. Indeed from such words of God as are expressed in Scripture we draw such Consequences as naturally flow from them being rightly interpreted But this is no adding to the words of God This is but what we are enabled to by the example of our Saviour and his Apostles who prove things not expressed in Scripture by Consequences deduced from Scripture and by such proving justifie a rational collection from the word to be no culpable addition to the word which is the thing that this Text forbids § 17. Yea but do we not find the Jews severely reproved again and again for performing uncommanded acts of worship of which saith God I commanded thâ—m not neither came it into my heart or mind Jer. 7. 31. 19. 5. 32. 35 Yes verily And what then Why then uncommanded acts of worship and service are unlawfull And so Infants Baptism will upon that account also be unlawfull as being an uncommanded thiâ—g § 18. So the Anabaptists indeed reasons from these Texts but without any reason yea against all reason For the acts spoken of in those Texts as not commanded are acts of devotion to and worship of false gods building high pâ—aces to Baal and causing their sons and daughters to pass through the fire to Molech Now in the name of God doth this follow Israel were repâ—oved for performing uncommanded acts of devotion and Idolatrous worship to false gods therefore it is unlawfull for Christians to perform uncommanded acts of devotion and religious worship to the true God Or because it was unlawful for them to cause their sons and daughters to pass through the fire to Molech therefore it must be unlawfull for us to cause our sons and daughters to pass through the water to Jesus Christ May not we baptize our Infants and so consecrate them unto God because they may not burn their Infants and so sacrifice them to the Devil What an absurd What a wild and irrational consequence is this § 19. But let us a while consider the expression which I commanded them not nor speake it neither came it into my heart or mind What is this but a Meiôsis intimating in a milder expression a severer interdiction which I commanded not that is which I have most strictly forbidden as abhorring it and abominating it in my heart And were not these things forbidden strictly enough both in general in the first and second Commandment of the Decalogue and particularly in Levit. 18. 21. where it is expresly said Thou shalt not let any of thy sâ—ed pass through the fire to Molech neither shalt thou profane the name of thy God And again Levit. 20. 1
part of the words So that in accordance here with the adding here forbidden is the putting of any word or words to the words of this book more or other then were at first set down in it by the Author of it whose design is to prevent any Hoc propter insalsatores dixit Gorâ—an in loc cx Beda mans corrupting of his book by addition or diminution by putting any word to it or taking any word from it § 36. And this was a caution but necessary for those times when Hereticks began to corrupt the Apostolical writings with their Innuit futuros in Ecclesia Hareticos qui Scripturas saâ—ras adulterarent atque ad eas cor rumpendas in â—uos errores detorquendas quaedam adjicerent quaedam â—â—iam mutilarent Id quod de Marcione testatur multis in locis Tertullianus Et in primis quod plura deleret in sacris literis ad suas haerereses astruendas docet l. de carne Christi cap. 2. His opinor consiliis tot originalia instrumenta Christi delere Marcion conatus est Vnde eundem Marcionem Tertullian lib. adv eum 1 cap. 1. Murem Ponticum appellat Evangelium corrodentem Quod verò Marcion de suo quaedam Scripturis adjiceret docet idem lib. de carne Christi c. 7. Non recipio inquit quod extra Scripturam de tuo infers Quod de Marcione docet Tertull. in multis aliis Hareticis ostendi posset quos uti diximus hoc loco notavit Apostolus Blas Vieg in Apocalyps cap. 22. Sect ult p. 893. Adjuro te qui transcribis librum istum per Dominum Jesum Christum per gloâ—iosum ejus adventum c. own interpolations And of Marcions so dealing with the Sacred Scriptures both by taking away from them and adding to them Tertullian is a witness who from his gnawing away of the Gospel calls him the Pontick Mouse And Blasius Viegas tells us the like may be shewn of many other Hereticks In reference to which evil dealing of Corrupters with Authors Irenaeus imitation of our Author at the end of one of his own books adjures the Transcriber of it by the Lord Jesus Christ his glorious coming to judge both quick and dead to compare his copy with the Original and most diligently to amend it by the exemplar from whence he had transcribed it § 37. Now who is so weak as not to see how nothing at all this makes against Infants baptism and how remote it is from proving every thing unlawfull that is not commanded A child is able to distinguish betwixt a Font and a Standish water and ink an Infant and a Bible pouring water upon the one and putting words into the other and how no connexion there is between the one and the other so that from the prohibition of the one to the unlawfulness of the other no Argument can be drawn § 38. And if the want of a Command cannot render Infants baptism unlawfull then much less can the want of an Example unless we were under some command not to act without a precedent nor to proceed further than we have example But that as we have not so I do not hear it pretended as yet And therefore though I think we may in some cases I will not say in all argue positively from an example and say this I lawfully may do because I find it done yet I do not think we must in all cases argue negatively from a no example and say this I may not lawfully do because I find no example of its doing So that if there were not the least intimation of any such thing done in the Scripture nor any thing whereby we might conjecture the doing of any such thing the contrary whereto has abundantly been shewn in this discourse yet were not that any Argument at all from whence to conclude Infants Baptism unlawfull § â—9 And now having shown the no unlawfulness of â—nfants baptism though there were in all the Scripture no either command to enjoyn it or example to just â—fie it I might here set up my rest § 40. Nevertheless as being willing to give the fullest satisfaction that can be needed I shall yet ex abundanti further speak touching that often urged but never proved assertion that our Saviour gave no precept for the baptizing of Infants and that the Apostles of our â—aviour never baptized any both which yet might be though nothing were said of either and the Scriptures supposed silence in the case is no proof either that he did not command or they not practice any such thing I will speak of both severally CHAP. XXXIII The Scriptures silence no proof of our Saviours not commanding the baptizing of Infants § 1. ANd first it doth not follow that our Saviour gave no precept for the baptizing of Infants because no such precept is particularly as our Adversaries suppose expressed in the Scripture For our Saviour spake many things to his Disciples concerning the kingdom of God both before his Passion and also after his Resurrection which are not written in the Scriptures And who can say but that among those many unwritten sayings of his there might be an express precept for Infants baptism And if there were one it is never the less binding for its not being written It is Gods speaking not mans writing that makes his word Authentick and his command obliging If no Apostle nor Evngelist had ever set pen to paper to tell us by writing what our Saviour did command sure his commands had been as obliging though unwritten as they are now after their writing And if any command of his did escape writing as well might be the Evangelists neither resolving every one severally nor agreeing all joyntly to set down in writing all his commands as writing at several times and in several places and upon several occasions and without any command that appeaâ—s from God to set down universally all his sayings and make one Codex as it were of all his Laws I say if any of his commands did escape writing See Dr. Hammonds Quaere of Resolving of Coâ—troversies it does notwithstanding bind those to whom it is though by any other way than writing credibly made known as much as if it had been written So that if it may credibly appear that our Saviour did give any precept for the baptizing of Infants then will Infants baptism be to be received and practiced upon a higher account than that of the mere lawfulness of it as being though not commanded yet not forbidden in the Scriptures § 2. And truly to pass by S. Ambrose his affirming that Infants Baptism was a Constitution And they all agree with St. Ambrose l. 10. ep 84. ad Demetriadem Virginem who expresly affirms it Paedobaptismum esse Constitutionem Salvatoris And it proves it out of St. Joh. 3. 5. A. B. Laud Confer S. 15. pag. 55. in margine of our Saviours that such a Precept was given by him the
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