indeed where this Principle is neglected many Innovations are introduced and many Truths are neglected under as fair shews of Antiquity as can be pretended for Infant-Baptism The Doctor then had little reason to call this a slavish Principle which is indeed the Principle which delivers us from Slavery to Jewish Fables Mens Inventions and Traditions Pag. 53 54. the Doctor to support infant-Infant-Baptism tells us how he builds many Points of Faith and Practice nor upon certain Evidences of the Scripture otherwise than as interpreted so or so by the Catholick Church as 1. That Christ is of one Substance with the Father 2. That there are three Persons in the Trinity 3. That it is necessary for Christians to assemble on the Lord's Day 4. That the Church be governed by Bishops 5. That Women have the Lord's Supper 6. That Infants are to be baptized And these things he makes necessary no otherwise but as the Catholick Church has interpreted divers Scriptures to justify them to be so Sure this is strange Doctrine for a Protestant But were a Man disposed to trace him in all these Particulars it might appear that the Churches in most Ages have been divided in all or the most of these Points that so that he makes the Catholick Church as it is commonly taken so great a Foundation of his Faith as he here pretends to make her will meet with many Difficulties to discourage and take off his Confidence And particularly if I desire him to resolve me but this one What sort of Christians are this Catholick Church But he adds We can prove Infant-Baptism from the Scope and Tenor of the Gospel and from many Passages of it as they are interpreted according to the Practice of the ancient Primitive Church But this is a vain Boast and I demand what Church or what Apostle did interpret any part of the Doctrine of Christ or of the Gospel to such a sense The Doctor replies It is unreasonable to presume that the Gospel would not extend the Subject of Baptism as far as the Jewish Church extended the Subject both of Circumcision and Baptism But I answer if this be granted yet the Doctor gains nothing for 1. The Jewish Church had no Baptism at all of Divine Institution and therefore could not extend that she had not 2. Her Circumcision was limited to Abraham's Family and perhaps not extended to much above a third part of that Family neither seeing all Females and all Males that died before the eighth Day were debarred of it Whereas the Gospel extends holy Baptism to all Nations to the End of the World to both Male and Female as they are qualified for it Thus for his Argument from the Scope Let us now see his particular Passages to prove Infant-Baptism P. 55. The Doctor gives us these Texts as interpreted by the Catholick Church for Infant-Baptism John 3. 5. Mark 10. 14. 1 Cor. 1. 16. Acts 16. 15 33. 1 Cor. 7. 14. 1 Cor. 10. 2. Good Reader look upon these Scriptures and thou wilt not find one word of Precept or Example for Infant-Baptism in them all The first Place shews that none can be Church-members lawfully under the Gospel except they be regenerate and have the washing of Regeneration by Water but Infant-Regeneration is a Secret no Man can know it God will fit them for Heaven if they die in Infancy this David knew for his Child which was begot in Adultery and died without Circumcision yet he nothing doubted its Salvation The second Text our Saviour pronounceth unbaptized yea I say unbaptized Infants to belong to Heaven how unwise then was the Doctor to bring it for Infant-Baptism If these very Infants which were brought to Christ's own Person yet were not by him appointed to be baptized it can never prove that other Infants are to be baptized And seeing our Saviour declares that unbaptized Infants belong to Heaven therefore that Place John 3. 5. cannot by any means be understood of Infants Look well also upon 1 Cor. 1. 16. and compare it with 1 Cor. 16. 15 16. and thou wilt find tho the Catholick Church say nothing that the Houshold of Stephanus were such as had been converted and were the first Fruits in Achaia and had addicted themselves to the Work of the Ministry and then these could be no Infants As for the two Housholds Acts 16. it's admirable that wise Men should bring them to prove what they do sufficiently confute For Lydia had no Husband we read of And there is no Infant found in her House but the Persons of her Family received Instruction from Paul and Silas Acts 16. ult therefore no Infants And of the Jaylor's Houshold it is expresly said that Paul spake the Word to all that were in his House and that he rejoiced believing in God with all his House And they went out about Midnight to be baptized All which being well weighed no Man no Church can honestly interpret this Text for Infant-Baptism And for that Place 1 Cor. 7. 14. the Doctor does injure it as he did before in thrusting in the word common And it is ill done to make any distinction of common and unclean from holy which God has not made but rather taken away as we proved from Acts 10. 15. No Man as such is now to be called common or unclean and therefore no Infant is to be called common or unclean but being born according to God's Ordinance they are as such a holy Seed or a Seed of God. See the learned Diodate upon the Place Mal. 2. 14. Marriage ought to be of one with one and two in the same Flesh God's chief End in this Proceeding was that the Posterity might be sanctified being born in chaste Wedlock according to his Appointment whereas it is defiled by all manner of unlawful Conjunction And to concude I wish that my self and the Doctor my Opposâ—â—â— in this case be found at last as holy as a dying Infant of a Jew or poor Indian and we shall be sure to go to Hea-Heaven for I could never find that it is the Will of our Heavenly Father that one of these little ones should perish We come now to his last Text 1 Cor. 10. 2. where we find and the Doctor does ingenuously acknowledg that the Baptism here meant was but an Vmbrage or Shadow of Baptism not a real Baptism Nor does the Text speak of Infants being baptized in this umbratical Baptism it seems as clearly restrained to the Fathers in the case of Baptism as the eating and drinking spiritually of Christ is restrained to them ver 3. So that nothing can be urged from this Text for Infant-Baptism which will not with equal Truth and Reason conclude for their coming to the Lord's Table Read Mr. Diodate upon this place he was for Infant-Baptism yet does not infer Infant-Baptism from this Text as indeed there is no reason so to do For it is certain that all that passed through the Sea were not baptized to Moses
the new Covenant as it respects the Abolition of the condemning Power of Original Sin and Gift of eternal Life as I think whatever the Doctor says at some turns yet he will grant me this at least for the substance of it for all that die in Infancy yet he will not say that all Infants in the World in Abraham's time who were Males ought to be circumcised or that all Infants in the World since Christ's time are to be baptized And therefore suppose the Covenant of Grace before in and since the Law to be the same yet it 's clear that an immediate Right to the Mercy of the Covenant in the sense before explained does not infer an immediate right to partake of Ordinances but some other particular Qualifications and God's Direction must give immediate right to participate of them or else we act and do we know not what Let us then calmly consider what were the necessary Qualifications for Circumcision and what are the necessary Qualifications for Baptism and then we shall soon be able to answer this Question Whether Infants are capable of Baptism Infants Qualifications for Circumcision were these They must be the Seed of Abraham according to the Flesh or born in his House or bought with Money or the Children of Proselytes and they must be Males and they must be eight days old else they could not lawfully be circumcised I say it was not all Infants as such that might lawfully be circumcised but Infants under such Circumstances or Qualifications Wherefore in the next place let us consider the indispensible Qualifications for Baptism And here I shall chiefly make use of that Text Col. 2. 11 12. so much insisted on by the Doctor with its parallel place Rom. 6. 1 2 3. From these Texts it plainly appears that Baptism is a mystical Burial and therefore every one of the faln Race of Mankind which are lawfully baptized are buried with Christ in Baptism So then there is an indispensible Necessity that all who are to be thus buried be first dead for it is directly against these Scriptures and against all Reason and Religion to bury any Person before they be dead The Question therefore is what Death is here meant It cannot be a corporal Death for then none but dead Bodies should be baptized which is absurd Nor can it be a Death in Sin for if that did qualify for Baptism then all unregenerate Persons were fit Subjects for Baptism but that also is absurd It must therefore be a Death to Sin and to the Rudiments of the World. And thus does St. Paul himself expound it How shall we that are dead to Sin live any longer therein Rom. 6. 11. Wherefore reckon your selves to be dead indeed unto Sin but alive unto God. Col. 2. 20. Dead with Christ from the Rudiments of the World. This is that Death which is so absolutely necessary to the Baptismal Covenant that the Doctor knows it to be granted by the Church of England that Repentance whereby we forsake Sin which is the same thing which St. Paul calls a Death to Sin is required of all that are to be baptized Another indispensible Qualification is every Subject of Baptism ought first to be a Child of God by Faith in Christ Jesus or to be a new Creature Hence it is said of the whole Church Militant Ye are all the Sons of God by Faith in Christ Jesus for as many as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ Gal. 3. And as every Member of this Church is said to be buried with Christ in Baptism so they are said therein to be risen with him through Faith. And to this also the Church of England gives Testimony that Faith is required of all that are to be baptized even such Faith as whereby the Promises of God made in that Sacrament are stedfastly to be believed And that it 's necessary the Party baptized be a new Creature they boldly affirm when they have sprinkled the Infant when perhaps fast asleep that he is born of the Spirit c. And that to be born again is a necessary Qualification for Baptism The Word of God is clear Tit. 3. where Baptism is called the Washing of Regeneration And St. Peter calls it the Answer of a good Conscience And unto this Doctrine all the ancient Writers of Christianity agree with full consent And for Brevities sake as also because Augustine is thought to be as eminent as any of the Fathers that were before him and more eminent then any that did succeed him I will content my self with his Testimony who saith Per fidem renascimur in Baptismate by Faith we are born again in Baptism Serm. 53. And again Primo fides Catholica Christiano necessaria est per ipsum renascimur in baptismate Salutem aeternam impetramus first of all the Catholick Faith is necessary for all Christians by the which in Baptism we are born again to obtain eternal Salvation And that Infants have not Faith he testifies in these Words Si illis minati essent ipsum Baptismum 〈◊〉 susciperent cui videmus cos cum magnis stetibus reluctari From these Premises I think we may safely conclude that Infants are not capable of Baptism for what Man with any Truth or Fairness of Discourse is ever able to bring Infants under these Qualifications or to shew that Baptism may lawfully be administred to Persons of whom we can have no Knowledg nor Evidence from themselves that there is any thing of these Prerequisites to Holy Baptism but as far as they are able Augustine being witness they do oppose and withstand it If Infants were illuminate they would gladly receive Baptism which we see them strive against with great crying Now all that Augustine the Church of England or the Doctor can say in this case amounts but to this That Infants do perform this Repentance and Faith by their Godfathers c. which is so poor an Answer so dellitute of Divine Warrant that it is to be lamented that ever wise Men should satisfy themselves with such a Speech as no Man can know to be true but by all Experience is found to be false insomuch that no Man could ever yet I suppose give Thanks to God for that Faith and Repentance which their Godfathers performed for them nor do the Godfathers themselves know that they do the Infant any good in or by any Supply the Infant does receive from them in respect of Repentance or Faith. But p. 24. the Doctor proceeds thus If the relative Nature of Circumcision considered as a Sacrament was the same under the Law that Baptism is under the Gospel it must needs follow that Children under the Gospel are as capable of this supposing no new Command to exclude them as under the Law they were of that But by the Doctor 's favour we do not exclude Children from Baptism but bring them to it as soon as lawfully we can but we must not make more haste
saith the Doctor undoubtedly had well read and considered the History of Baptism in the Acts of the Apostles but never drew such absurd Consequences from them c. And did they not as well read the History of Communion in the Acts of the Apostles and yet drew these absurd Consequences for 600 Years together that Infants should be communicated But to this the Doctor tells us That God might suffer all the Church to fall into such a harmless Practice as that of Infant-Communion or that the Fathers of the Church might comply with the Religious Fondness of the People as we do saith he in bringing them to Prayers Now as this may be well guessed so we likewise may conjecture and it 's not improbable but Infant-Baptism came stealing so too upon the Churches at the first but after these Errors had got root they were both defended by the Fathers as if they had been Oracles drop'd from Heaven And such a Necessity laid upon them as if Infants could not be saved without them Thus did Augustine teach both concerning infant-Infant-Baptism and Infant-Communion The Doctor demands What account can rationally be given why the Jewish Christians who were offended at the neglect of Circumcision should not have been much more offended if the Apostles had refused to initiate Infants under the new Testament But we may with more reason demand of the Doctor seeing the Jews were so offended at the Neglect of Circumcision why did not the Apostles quiet this discontented People by telling them you need not be offended seeing instead of Infant-Circumcision you have now Infant-Baptism and if indeed there had been any such thing it had been the most pertinent means to quiet them to refer them to that for Satisfaction But seeing the Apostles make no use of this Argument it 's clear they had no such thing to argue from for where they could use it they did as in the case of baptized Believers themselves Coloss 2. 11. which is a sufficient Argument that Infant-Baptism had no being in the Church in St. Paul's time seeing he never mentions it at all no not then when he had the greatest occasion for it that could be given The Doctor observes that the Jews always looked upon the Children of Pagans as common or unclean but upon their own as separate and Holy. And then he tells us that St. Paul makes the same Distinction between them 1 Cor. 7. 14. But this is so expresly against the Word of God that I admire the Doctor should write it was not this Distinction between Jew and Gentile the one being common and unclean the other Holy taken quite away Acts 10. 15 18. What God hath cleansed call not thou common which the Apostle expounds thus ver 28. God hath shewed me that I should not call any Man common or unclean And why should the Doctor so much as think that St. Paul should count the Infants of Jews or Gentiles which do not yet believe common and unclean The Text 1 Cor. 7. 14. says not a Word to that Purpose but is an Answer to the Scruple which some Christians had about continuing in Marriage-Union with their Yoke-Fellows who were Unbelievers supposing them to be unclean but St. Paul perswades them to continue in that Relation for that they were both sanctified to that Relation of Husband and Wife else saith he your Children were unclean Now this Text is greatly abused by Poedobaptists and the learned Muscullus who had abused this Text as they do at last did confess as much Now this place Acts 10. 15 18 28. does so fully explain St. Paul that no Man can with any shew of Truth or Reason make a Distinction between a Christian's Infant and the Infant of an Indian to call the one common and unclean the other separate and Holy for if we may call no Man as such common and unclean much less may we call an Infant so If they be born according to the Law of God they are called by the Prophet Malachi a Seed of God chap. 2. v. 15. And though this Mercy of God towards all Infants equally might perhaps gaul the Jews as it does the Doctor and his party yet it 's Evangelical Doctrine and shews evidently that God is no Respecter of Persons and Infants being all equally the same as Objects of his Pity he despises none of these little ones The innocent Babes in Nineveh were as dear to him as the innocent Babes in the Land of Israel and yet for all this it is certain that the Children of faithful Men have many Blessings which the Children of evil Men have not being Children of many Prayers and under early Advantages to know the Lord and to cut short the Days of Iniquity whilst on the other side the Children of Unbelievers are in danger by an evil Education to be kept from the Truth and brought up in Error and as such they as their Fathers for the same cause become defiled not by Birth but by Sin Tit. 1. 15. For as born according to God's Ordinance they are his Offspring Acts 17. 28. and so Holy. And to this agrees the Sentence of Muscullus Vnless Marriage were Holy and clean even between Vnbelievers what other thing would follow than that all the Children are Bastards and unclean But far be it from us to say so they are Holy for they are born of lawful Marriage CHAP. V. Answereth the Doctor 's third Question Whether it be lawful to separate from a Church which appointeth Infants to be baptized THat the Church or People of God ought to be a People separated from them that live in Wickedness and are professed Adversaries to the Truths of the Gospel in things essential to Church-Communion will not be denied I suppose by any Christian Now there are two Causes besides that of the want of true Baptism which does warrant the present Separation maintained by the present baptized Believers from the Parochial Church-Communion The first is that great Impiety and ungodly living which is every where to be seen in such Churches for the worst of Men to be sure will croud into those Churches as their Sanctuaries let the most vigilant Magistrates and the well-minded Persons in National Churches do what they can in their present Constitution for there will they be yea and in places of Preferment too Secondly The many Innovations and continual Alterations in Religion not to be avoided in National Church-Constitutions by reason of the Influence of Interest and of the Revolutions which National Government has always upon them does necessarily enforce at least some Distinction in Communion between such Churches and those whose professed Principles are constantly to adhere to Apostolical Institutions only in all things essential to the Constitution and Government of the Church of God which must ever be the same or should be however the Government of Nations do alter or suffer Revolutions And to this agrees that excellent Sentence of a Divine of the Church of England in
pass from a State of Nature wherein he was a Child of Wrath to a State of Adoption of Grace wherein he becomes a Child of God p. 64. But is the Doctor sure that Infants are now Children of Wrath that is liable to Condemnation Sure whatever their state was in the first Adam yet they are acquitted from Damnation by the Mercy of God in the second Adam for the Lamb which was slain from the the Foundation of the World has taken away the Sin of the World from innocent Babes so that they are not the Objects of God's Wrath but they are Objects of his Grace and Mercy see Jonah 4. 11. Who would think that so wise a Man should believe that the Adoption of Grace is regulated by Water-Baptism or that it must needs wait on him when he sprinkles an Infant for saith he By that Solemnity they may pass from a State of Nature c. Now we teach and believe thus that the Adoption of Grace goes before Water Baptism And so taught the Apostle Paul Gal. 3. 26 27. We are all the Sons of God by Faith in Christ Jesus And then it follows As many as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ But I think the Doctor comes very near the Papists opus operatum in what he here asserts concerning Infant-Baptism His fourth Benefit That Infants have Baptism for a Sign and Seal that their Sins are pardoned and to confer the Right of Inheritance unto everlasting-Life That Baptism washes Infants clean from Original Sin and seals the Pardon of it and the Assurance of God's Mercy unto them and being cleansed by the Washing of Regeneration from the Guilt of that natural Vitiosity which they derived from Adam and which made them obnoxious to the Displeasure of God they become reconcil'd to him and acquire as certain a right to Eternal Life upon their Justification as any Believer in the World. Now had the Doctor proved all this daintily out of the Book of God I should have thought him the finest Man that ever wrote about Infant Baptism but when he puts me off with Origen Irenaeus c. I am displeased and must only take him for a very Bold Man but no certain Oracle However he is pleased to add which was very needful for him in this place That he cannot deny but Infants may be saved without Baptism by the extraordinary and uncovenanted Mercies of God. Well here is some comfort for unbaptized Infants But who can think that the Covenant of Grace should not reach poor Infants in the case of Salvation without Baptism but if any of them that are not baptized be saved it must be by extraordinary and uncovenanted Mercy These are new and strange Doctrines and so let them be The Covenant of Grace was made with whole Adam Gen. 3. 15. And therefore as Infants without their own consent or any act of their own and without any exterior Solemnity contracted the Guilt of Adam's Sin and so are liable to all the Punishment which can with Justice descend upon his Posterity who are personally innocent so Infants shall be restored without any Solemnity or Act of their own or any other Men for them by the SECOND ADAM by the Redemption of Jesus Christ by his Righteousness and Merits applied either immediately or how or when he pleaseth to appoint Dr. Taylor His fifth Benefit That Infants are by Baptism admitted into Covenant and ingrafted into Christ's Body to acquire a present Right to all Promises of the Gospel and particularly unto the Promises of the Spirit which is so ready to assist initiated Persons This the Primitive Christians he durst not say Infants found true by Experience c. He quotes no Scripture for all this but Heb. 6. 4. which how well it agrees to Infants let the Reader consider I am perswaded the Doctor was so sensible of the Unapplicableness of these things to Infants that he durst not name them but Persons all along but seeing he must mean Infants the very recital of his Sayings is the Confutation of them For can he give so much as one Instance of an Infant that received the Holy Spirit upon its being baptized And why then does he presume to speak what neither he nor any Man else can ever prove to be true Nay he tells us in this very page for he is too wise a Man I hope to face out a Fable he confesses that the Holy Ghost cannot be actually conferred ûpon Infants in Baptism by reason of their natural Incapacity And yet being loth to let the Cudgles fall it 's notorious how faintly he goes on in this and the next Page 66 67. at last concludes in a kind of an Angry Huff saying No Person of common Ingenuity who hath any sense of Honour or any tollerable Degree of Conscience within him can without Shame and Horror break these sacred Bands asunder by which he was bound to God in Infancy But good Sir consider we do not spurn against the good Intentions of our Parents in designing us to the Service of God tho we justly disallow the irregular Methods which they fell into in so doing Your Predecessors had their Consecration in Infancy by Spittle Salt Candles Exufflations c. You do not think that they were bound to ratify these Follies when they came to Years And truly so neither can we ratify your Sprinklings Crossings Gossips c. in your Consecrations though so far as you mean well we may not despise but commond and also do now that part of God's Will which our Parents mistake would have prevented A due Regard to Vzzah's case and David's Reformation thereupon obliges us to this But now we are to hear from the Doctor what Profit Infant-Baptism brings to the Church of God. The first he says it prevents those Scandals and shameful Delays of Baptism which otherwise grown Persons would be apt to make c. To this I must needs say If any thing without the Word of God would induce me to baptize Children this Consideration of the Doctor would as soon prevail as any thing for God knows this Duty is shamefully neglected by many whose Duty it is to hasten to it But we must not do Evil that Good may come We may not do what God does not command because Men will not do what he does command And tho it be true that Men will need as many Exhortations to be baptized and perhaps more than to come to the Lord's Supper yet all this must not discourage us nor force us to innovate Methods of our own and leave what God has prescribed If the faithful Minister labour in vain some times yet his Work is with the Lord Isai 49. 4. But I cannot as the Doctor does applaud the Wisdom of those who to prevent Mens Delay of Baptism ran into another Extream by which the Church however she may be more numerous yet by this means the Grace of Baptism is destroyed or made unnecessary to Baptism because
TRUTH and PEACE OR The Last and most FRIENDLY DEBATE CONCERNING Infant-Baptism Being a brief Answer to a late Book intituled The Case of Infant-Baptism Written by a Doctor of the Church of England In which Answer is shewed I. That the Covenant of Circumcision strictly taken was not the Covenant of Grace for the Salvation of Mankind many being not bound to observe it II. That Circumcision was no Gospel-Ordinance as is affirmed by the Doctor but a part of the Yoke of Bondage III. That the Jews had a Tradition to baptize Infants is either a Fable or destructive to the Christian Baptism if grounded thereon IV. The Doctor 's five comprehensive Questions particularly answered V. From the whole it is made evident that the Restoration of Sacred Baptism in respect of the true Subject and due manner of Administration is the only true method to revive the Ancient Christian Religion in all Nations where it has been corrupted by humane Innovation Whereunto is annexed A brief Discourse of the Sign of the Cross in Baptism and of the use of the Ring and bowing at the Altar in the Solemnization of Marriages By THOMAS GRANTHAM The Custom of baptizing Infants was brought in without the Commandment of Christ Curcelleus Disserta of Orig. Sin n. 56. London Printed for the Author 1689. The PREFACE THAT Prophecy of St. Paul 2 Tim. 4. 4. That Men shall turn away their Ears from the Truth and shall be turned unto Fables had too much of its Verification in the early Times of Christianity and as in other respects so in the case of sacred Baptism both in respect of the Time and Order in which it should be performed 1. From a Fear that Sin committed after Baptism should hardly if at all be remitted many did delay their Duty being desirous to have the full remission of their Sins near their Death This scandalous delay of Baptism proved pernicious to the Church of Christ as well as to the Persons thus neglecting their Duty and seems to have been the occasion of altering the manner of the Administration of Baptism For many of these Delayere being surprised with Sickness and afraid to die without Baptism requested that it might be administred to them in their sick Beds which was endulged to them without any Warrant from Heaven which in such cases should always be enquired for Yet this Custom was so doubtful to them that did allow it that they required such Chinicks that in case they recovered their Sickness they should be had to the River and there be baptized Cyprian Epist ad Magnum 2. Others did as much outrum the Rule of this Duty in preposterous haste even to baptize Infants as soon as born and sometimes before and this Error sprang from this apprehension that God had tied the Solvation of all Flesh to Baptism that even Infants dying without it could not be saved Yea so powerful was this Error that its Assertors did Anathematize all that held the contrary The Council of Afric decreed That all that affirm young Children receive eternal Life albeit they be not by Baptism renewed they are accursed Sure a more unreasonable Decree was never made by Men. Now this Leaven of false Doctrine has so prevailed that scarce any but Infants came to be concerned in obeying Christ in Baptism nor could poor Infants obey him therein for Austin confesses they did not willingly receive Baptism but strove against it with great Crying So that neither Young nor Old in a manner were found in some Ages to put on Christ in Baptism seeing that cannot be done without the free Consent of an Heart enlightened by Faith Gal. 3. 26 27. Acts 2. 40. It is therefore the work and proper business of the Restorers of holy Baptism to do what they possibly may to remove this Stumbling-block out of the way I mean this Doctrine which would damn to Hellish Torments all Infants dying unbaptized Concerning which I have wrote several Treatises and could be content still to be an Advocate for all dying Infants as being through the Grace of God in our Lord Jesus Christ discharged of the condemning Power of Original Sin and having no Actual Sin the Infirmity of their Nature shall not damn them but the Mercy of God shall save them all And were Mens Judgments clear in this Point the Controversy about Infant-Baptism would naturally cease and all Men would see it the only safe way to refer Baptism to the time wherein through Repentance and Faith it might according to the Will of God interess them in the remission of their Sins and in the Priviledges of the Church of the Living God in order to Life eternal I shall therefore once more endeavour to take away this false Covering which is not of God's Spirit I mean the Doctrine of Infant-Damnation by proposing a few things to this Generation as an Introduction to my Reply to the Case of Infant-Baptism And 1. Seeing it cannot enter into the Heart of any Christian I hope that God does create Infants on purpose to damn them and to shew them no Mercy seeing he is very merciful to the chief of Sinners if we can find out a just cause for the damning of them it must be either 1. From themselves from their Parents from the Devil or from Christ's not loving them so as to redeem them from the Fall which they had in Adam But none of these things can be the cause of Infants Damnation 1. They cannot damn themselves by sinful Courses and it is certain our gracious God will damn none who do not first destroy themselves by their Wickedness This is evident by his unwillingness to destroy those who had destroyed themselves Hosea 13. 9. O Israel thou hast destroyed thy self but in me is thy Help How then can it enter into any Christian to think that God should have no pity for innocent Babes who never offended him Is he thus compassionate towards great Sinners and is there no Help in him for poor Infants 2. No Man can damn Infants because if any have power to damn his Infants all Men have it it 's no Man's peculiar Power whether good or bad to do this and if any say all Men have this Power he reflects upon the Goodness of God for giving such power to Men and contradicts the Word of God Jer. 31. Every one shall die for his own Iniquity the Son shall not bear the Iniquity of the Father This is only true in the case of eternal Death for Children even Infants often die for their Fathers Sin a temporal Death as in the old World in Sodom yea and in Jerusalem too Lam. 2. 11. Yet who can think that our just and merciful God should now after their swooning in the Streets cast them into Hellish Torments It was not the Iniquity of the Infants but of the grown Persons which cried for Vengeance 3. The Devil cannot damn Infants because they are out of the Reach of his Temptations They know
Jews had such a Ceremony as Baptism among them before John Baptist came And in this Enquiry we will prefer a Learned Protestant of the Church of England who writes thus As to their Argument who would have our Baptism to be derived from the Jewish Lotions as there is nothing of certainty in it so it is so far from being grounded on any Authority in Scripture that there are hardly any Footsteps to be found thereof in the Old Testament They deduce the Original of Baptism from the Hebrew word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifies to wash or cleanse But the Rabbins if I am not deceived use the Hebrew word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifies Immersion thereby making it appear that they owe the Notion of the Word to the Greeks or rather to the Christians For what affinity is there between Lotion and Immersion But the thing is so uncertain that it cannot be said of the Rabbins that there were not several among them who differed very much about this matter For in the very place cited by the forementioned Learned Men Rabbi Eliezer expresly contradicts Rabbi Joshua who was the first that I know of who asserted this sort of Baptism among the Jews Now to whom shall I give credit To Eliezer who asserts what the Scripture confirms meaning that Proselytes were not baptized or to Joshua who affirms what is no where to be found in Scripture meaning this pretended Baptism is not to be found in Scripture But the Rabbins upheld Joshua's side and what wonder was it for it made for their business that is for the Honour of the Jewish Religion That the Christians should borrow their Ceremonies how imprudent then is the Author of the Book we are answering to give this Advantage to the Jews against the Christians But when I see Men of great Learning fetching the Foundation of Truth from the Rabbins I cannot but hesitate a little For whence was this Talmud sent to us that we should give so much credit thereto for the Talmud is called a Labyrinth of Errors and the Foundation of Jewish Fables This is then a Fault in the Church of England Doctors to fly hither for Refuge for Infant-Baptism It was brought to Perfection 500 years after Christ This shews the danger of trusting to it it being so lately confirmed Therefore it is unreasonable to rest upon the Testimony of it And that which moves me most Josephus who was also a Jew and contemporary with Rabbi Eliezer who also wrote in particular of the Rites Customs and Acts of the Jews is altogether silent in this matter He knew no baptising of Infants among the Jews So that it is an Argument to me next to a Demonstration that two such eminent Persons both Jews and living at the same time the one should positively deny the other make no mention of Baptism among the Jews Besides if Baptism in the modern sense were in use among the Jews in antient times why did the Pharisees ask John Baptist Why dost thou baptize if thou be not Christ nor Elias nor that Prophet Do they not plainly intimate that Baptism was not in use before and that it was a received Opinion among them that there should be no Baptism till either Christ or Elias or that Prophet came How then there should be so much affinity between Baptism and the Divings of the Jews that the one should be successive to the other by any Right or Pretence is altogether I confess beyond my Faith. It appears from this learned Man's Discourse that there is no Certainty that the Jews had any such Baptizing of Infants or others as the Doctor pretends However God having appointed no such thing in the Jewish Church leaves such a Practice if they had it without any Authority to govern Christians in their Administration of Baptism Nor do we who assert the Ordinance according to the Scripture need to run for Counsel to the Jews Talmud Gemara and Maimonides And indeed it looks too much like going to the Witch of Endur and to Baalzebub the God of Ekron for Knowledg as if there were not sufficient Instruction in the undoubted Word of God how or to whom to dispence the first Ordinance of the Gospel to a poor Convert And it is a sure sign that the Doctor and all that make such a noise about this Rabbinical Learning to justify them in the case of infant Baptism are conscious to themselves that they have no sure Footing in God's Word for it And yet so partial are our Talmudists that they will not follow its Directions for the manner of Baptism which as Dr. Hammond shews is commonly expressed by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Immersion never by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is Aspersion or Sprinkling for such as will not be true to the Rules given in the Holy Scripture how should they be true to any other Book One thing I marvel at p. 20. where the Doctor tells his Reader that the Anabaptists endeavour to shift off the force of many good Arguments by saying Circumcision under the Old Testament was a Type of Baptism under the New. For this I take to be a great Mistake of the Doctor I never heard of any whom he calls Annabaptists who hold Circumcision to be a Type of Baptism at all But I have met with divers of the Church of England who have affirmed it to be a Type of Baptism so that all that the Doctor says upon this Mistake about which he spent some Pages is nothing to the purpose For we own no other Antitype of Circumcision but the Circumcision of the Heart called the Circumcision of Christ made without Hands But had he minded well his own Book he might have seen Mr. Philpot asserting the thing which he would charge upon us where he saith The Apostles did attemperate all their doings to the Shadows and Figures of the Old Testament Therefore it is certain they did attemperate Baptism to Circumcision and baptize Children because they were under the Figure of Baptism for the People of Israel passed through the Red-Sea c. Where I think he makes both Circumcision and passing through the Sea to be Shadows and Types of Baptism which is yet more evident because a little before he tells us that Paul calls Baptism the Circumcision made without Hands Which though it be not true seeing all Men know and Mr. Philpot cannot deny but Baptism is made by Hands yet it shews that he looked upon Baptism to be the Antitype of Circumcision But I shall not fight with dead Men otherwise I might shew his Mistake in saying that the Apostles did attemperate all their Doings to the Shadows and Figures of the Old Testament but this we have shewed before to be an unsound Speech The Doctor seems to deal unfairly with Col. 2. 11 12. Circumcision saith he hath nothing in it symbolical of Baptism and denies it to be an umbratical but areal Consignation of the Covenant of Grace
Baptism till they themselves can give a Confession of their Faith. He also brings Nazianzen in his 40th Oration treating of those to whom Baptism was not administred BY REASON OF INFANCY And it is certain that Nazianzen himself though the Son of a Christian Bishop about the 4th Century and bred up in the Christian Religion was not baptized till he was about thirty Years of Age. The same is also true of Chrysostom Hierom Ambrose Austin and others And hence saith he it does manifestly appear That the wisest of our Fathers in Christ did not come to Baptism until they were come to a strong and confirmed Age and Wit. Note here the wisest of our Fathers were not baptized in Infancy you may be sure then that the Churches did vary about it I could never read of so much as one of the Ancient Fathers for six hundred Years after Christ that was baptized in his Infancy The Learned Curcelaeus as quoted by Du-Veil affirms That the Custom of baptizing Infants was brought in without the Commandment of Christ and did not begin before the Third Age. And the Custom of it being brought in was much more frequent in Africa than in Asia and with far greater opinion of Necessity This must needs satisfy that the Churches did vary about infant-Infant-Baptism at its first creeping into the Church And how Christians have varied one from another because of it is apparent in all Ages and Nations almost ever since it had a being has been very largely evidenced by the care and industry of Mr. Danvers and others And I think this present Age may speak for it self that there are very many Christians and Churches too who vary about this Matter Therefore after the Doctor 's Rule from Tertullian they have and do err in this Matter on the one hand or on the other As the Alteration of the Subject so the Alteration of the manner of the Administration has caused great discord among Christians How Offensive it was to use Sprinkling which it should seem some were labouring to introduce in the Year 816 may be gathered from the Synod of Celicyth who gave strict Order to Dip and not to Sprinkle Let the Presbyters beware that when they Administer the Sacrament of Baptism they do not pour Water upon the Heads of the Children but let them be always plunged in the Font according to the Example of the Son of God. But directly contrary hereunto our English Synod in their Rubrick do order the Presbyters to Sprinkle in case the Child be weak and ever since they were all weak that were brought to be Baptized for they do nothing but Sprinkle And so pernicious is this Alteration that the Muscovites and others do now deny the Latins and other Western Countries to be rightly Baptized because they have changed the manner from Dipping to Sprinkling I might enlarge my Testimonies of this kind out of the Learned Du-Veil and others And yet the Doctor would perswade the World the Churches have not varied about this Matter Nor need the Doctor wonder that none of the Writers in the first Age of Christianity are found to detect the baptizing of Infants seeing there are none that yet appear in that Age to have held any such Thing And Dr. Barlow has given Testimony That there is no just Evidence of Infant-Baptism till about two hundred Years after Christ The Dissenters therefore are not unreasonable as the Doctor would have them in charging those that have altered or that approve the Alterations thus made in the Case of Sacred Baptism with Apostacy or falling from the simplicity of the Gospel at least in this that they have now no true Baptism I freely grant saith the Doctor That no Arguments are equal to the Scriptures when the Interpretations of them are not doubtful And certainly the Texts which concerns the Subject and manner of Baptism are none of the Scriptures whose Interpretations are doubtful because it did not comport with the Wisdom of Christ that they should be so Certainly the Rule which God gave about Circumcision was plain enough And shall we think our Saviour did leave us to Ambiguities to guide us in admitting his People to Church-Priviledges What then can we suppose to be plain This very thing then that the Paedobaptists are constrain'd to confess as Mr. Baxter and others that it 's a very difficult thing to prove Infant-Baptism and that as the Doctor here the Scriptures which are brought for it are not plain for if they were he confesses no Arguments are like them but being not clear for Infant-Baptism tho as clear as the Sun for Believers Baptism therefore he flies to the harmonious practice of the Ancient Churches and the undivided consent of the Apostolical Fathers as authentical Interpreters c. But these are mere flourishes there has been no such Harmony nor such undividedness among Churches and Fathers in this Matter as we have shewed He brings many Passages out of Authors Ancient and Modern but these especially the most Ancient of them have been so effectually scan'd by many Learned Pens of those of our Way as Tombs Fisher Blackwood Danvers Den Du-Veil and others that it 's needless to do more I shall rather endeavour to quiet the Clamour about Fathers Ancient Churches c. as if all must be determined by their Sentences by presenting the Reader with that grave Speech of Lactantius one of these Fathers themselves by which it will appear that this Clamour is unreasonable Thus he speaks Lib. 2. c. 8. Div. Instit Dedit omnibus Deus pro virili portione sapientiam c. God hath given Wisdom unto all Men according to a competent measure that they may both find out Things unheard of before and weigh Things already found out Neither because they had the start of us in Time doth it likewise follow that they have it also in Wisdom which if it be indifferently granted to all it cannot be forestalled by them which went before It is unimparable like the Light and Brightness of the Sun it being the Light of Man's Heart as the Sun is of the Eyes Sythence then to be Wise that is to search the Truth is a Disposition imbred in every Man they debar themselves of Wisdom who without any examination approve the Invention of their Ancestors But this is that which deceives them they like unreasonable Creatures are wholly led by others the Name of Ancestors being once set in the Front they think it cannot be that either themselves should be wiser because they are called Punies or that the other should be in any thing mistaken because they are called Ancestors So that if the Doctor had quoted more of the Ancients than he has done yet so long as we have the highest Authorities the Holy Scriptures and the Reason of Men as well as the Ancients we can only follow them as we see or know they follow Christ And more than this St. Paul does not require of us The Ancient Fathers
his Sermon before the Court of Aldermen Aug. 23. 1674. We have an Obligation to the Laws of God antecedent to those of any Church whatsoever nor are we bound to obey those any further than they are agreeable with these Separation from a Church is lawful 1. When she requires of us as a Condition of her Communion an Acknowledgment and Profession of that for a Truth which we know to be an Error 2. When she requires of us as a Condition of her Communion the joyning with her in some Practices which we know to be against the Law of God. In these two cases to withdraw our Obedience to the Church is so far from being a Sin that it is a necessary Duty Now this being our very case in the point of Baptism it would justify that Distinction which we hold needful between the Church of England and those of the baptized Believers but much more when there are some other things as pressing perhaps as this But now let us hear the Doctor Considering saith he what I have said upon the former Questions this Question must be answered in the negative whether we consider Infant-Baptism as a thing lawful or allowable only or as a thing highly requisite and necessary to be done And as a Foundation on which to build infant-Infant-Baptism as a thing at least lawful and allowable he directly denies this Principle That nothing is to be appointed in Religious matters but what is warranted by Precept and Example in the Word of God accounting this Rule an Absurdity and inconsistent with the free and manly Nature of the Christian Religion and that it is an impracticable Principle c. p. 49 50. But that this great Principle well understood should be spoken against by a Protestant is something strange and especially that he does not suffer it to take place in that which is essential in a Church-state as who are and who are not to be baptized is such a case but he will have Infant-Baptism to be admitted as lawful and allowable tho it be not warranted by Precept nor Example To free this Principle from Abuse as here suggested against it we will explain it as we hold and maintain it 1. Then we do not say that every thing which is naturally or meerly accidental and circumstantial in the Worship of God must have Precept and Example in the Word of God. 2. Nor do we hold that things which are meerly indifferent if not imposed as Boundaries of Communion are therefore to be esteemed sinful because not expresly warranted by Precept or Example in the Word 3. But we apply this Rule always and so in our present Question to such things as are essential to Church-membership and Church-Government as true Baptism is to the first and cannot be admitted only as a thing indifferent and as such allowable or lawful only for it 's either necessary in the Constitution of a Church or it 's nothing and who are of Right and who are not to be baptized is of the Essence of Baptism and can admit of no lower a Consideration The Principle thus explained is clearly justified by the Word of God and if Protestants part with this Principle they will lose themselves Now thus saith the Lord Ye shall not add to the Word which I command you neither shall you diminish ought from it that you may keep the Commandments of the Lord your God Deut. 4. 2. What thing soever I command you observe to do it thou shalt not add thereto nor diminish ought from it Deut. 12. 32. Every Word of God is pure add thou not unto his Words lest he reporve thee and thou be found a Liar Prov. 30. 6. And it is observable that our Lord as he was sent to be a Minister of the Gospel claims no Authority to speak of himself John 12. 5. Whatsoever I speak therefore even as the Father said unto me so I speak How ought this to put an awe upon all that speak in the Name of the Lord about Religion Neither does the holy Spirit it self as sent to supply the personal Absence of Christ take upon himself to give or abrogate Laws but to bring things to the Apostles Remembrance John 14. 26. Howbeit when the Spirit of Truth is come he will guide you into all Truth FOR he shall not speak of himself but whatsoever he shall hear that shall he speak And this is the Rule also by which the Spirit of Truth is known namely by his advancing the Things delivered by Christ and his Apostles He shall take of mine and shew it unto you he shall glorify me 1 Tim. 6. 3 4. If any Man teach otherwise and consent not to wholesome Words even the Words of our Lord Jesus Christ he is proud knowing nothing 1 John 4. 6. He that knoweth God heareth us he that is not of God heareth not us hereby know we the Spirit of Truth and the Spirit of Error Rev. 22. 18. If any Man shall add to these things God shall add the Plagues which are written in this Book and if any shall take away from the Words of the Prophecy of this Book God shall take away his Part out of the Book of Life And that this Text does establish as unalterable the whole New Testament our Adversaries do acknowledg See Diodate on the Place And Calvin upon Deut. 12. 32 Sith they saith he cannot deny that this was spoken to the Church what do they else but report the Stubbornness of the Church which they boast to have been so bold as after such Prohibitions nevertheless to add and mingle of her Own with the Doctrine of God. And Luther doth aver that no Doctrine ought to be taught or heard in the Church besides the pure Word of God. Beza upon Levit. 10. 3. speaking in the Person of God I will punish them that serve me otherwise than I have commanded not sparing the chief that the People may fear and praise my Judgments Mr. Borroughs in his Gospel-Worship p. 8. All things in God's Worship must have a Warrant out of God's Word must be commanded It is not enough that it is not forbidden and what hurt is there in it but it must be commanded In a Book called A brief Account of the Rise of the Name Protestant p. 12. printed 1688 we read thus Protestantism doth mainly or rather only consist in asserting the Holy Scriptures to be the Rule the only Rule by which all Christians are to govern and manage themselves in all Matters of Religion so that no Doctrine is to be owned as an Article of Faith on any account but what hath very plain Warrant and sound Evidence from the Scriptures Nor no Instance of Religious Worship to be owned or submitted to as necessary nor any thing to be determined as a part of Religion but what the Scriptures do appoint and warrant Thus our Adversaries themselves do say as much for this Principle which the Doctor condemns as absurd as we do And
seeing there was a Multitude of Strangers did go with the Israelites and they are distinguished from the Children of Israel Exod. 12. 38. Numb 11. 4. But S. Paul appropriates Baptism in the Cloud and in the Sea to the Fathers all our Fathers c. Now for any to add and all their Infants is a Presumption not to be justified It is not said that Israel or all Israel were baptized which had it been so express'd would have more favoured the Notion And yet we know that the words Israel and all Israel do not include Infants in many places for example Exod. 14. 31. 15. 1. Deut. 13. 11. Josh 7. 25. much less can they be here called Fathers and such Fathers too as did feed upon Christ in Manna c. as well as were baptized unto Moses in the Cloud c. It must needs be very dangerous to insist upon this Miracle at the Red Sea as a Rule to us to baptize Infants the Cause is weak which needs such Arguments to defend it The Doctor sets down many other Texts in his Margin which I have also put down in mine that the Reader may peruse them and see if he can find any footing for Infant-Baptism in any of them the most likely in the Doctor 's own Judgment is Psal 51. 5. and yet we know that David's Infant which was born in Adultery was saved without Circumcision or Baptism And the Doctor confesses that the Requisite Necessity of Infant-Baptism cannot be demonstrated from these Texts without the Tradition of the ancient Church And there is no such authentick Tradition to be found whatever is pretended for he brings none from the first Churches at all And that there is no such Tradition Dr. Jer. Taylor is a great witness who in his Disswasive from Popery and in his Rule of Conscience informs us There is no prime or Apostolical Tradition for Infant-Baptism That it was not practised till about the 3d Century and judged necessary about the 4th That Children of Christian Parents were not baptized till they came to Vnderstanding in the first Ages That Dipping and not Sprinkling was the Vsage of Christ and his Apostles and the constant Doctrine and Practice of the Ancients for many hundred Years See also Mr. Tombes 3d part of Review But after all this the Doctor is pleased to allow Salvation to Infants which die unbaptized Because saith he we ought not to tie God to the same means to which he hath tied us It seems then God hath not tied Infants to any Necessity of Baptism nor can he prove that he hath tied us to baptize them But now he will try another way to enforce his Arguments Suppose saith he that Scripture and Tradition stood against Infant-Baptism in the same Posture as now it stands for it it would not be unjustifiable for any sort of Men to separate from the Church for not baptizing Infants Let us suppose that Christ had said I suffer not little Children to come to me for the Kingdom of God is not of such and that we had been assured by the Writers of the two next Ages to the Apostles that then there was no baptizing Infants I appeal unto them whether it would not be highly unreasonable to separate from all the Churches in the World for not allowing Infant-Baptism against the concurrence of such a Text to the contrary and the Sense and Practice of the Catholick Church The meaning of the Doctor I take to be this that as it is highly unreasonable to separate from a Church who upon a doubtful or probable ground only does give Baptism to Children so it would be highly unreasonable to separate from a Church who upon a like doubtful or probable ground only should refuse to baptize Infants I confess this is an odd way of disputing for here the Churches supposed to err on either side are yet supposed themselves to be true Churches and only erring about such a doubtful Practice as this on the one side or on the other But alas the case is far different between the Church of England and us For she is wholly made up of Persons thus doubtfully baptized nay perhaps not baptized at all whatever she pretends and by this doubtful Baptism she is disclaiming all other Baptism in respect of all her Members for some hundreds of Years Otherwise I must confess had I lived in the Church in the beginning of the third Century when Infant-Baptism was creeping in there was then a Church truly baptized distinct from the Infants who here and there might perhaps be baptized upon such supposed Grounds as are mentioned by the Doctor here I say a Separation would in my Judgment have been unwarrantable it being but an ill Principle to separate from a true Church tho incumbred with some Error But should I have lived till this doubtful Baptism was forced on with Anathema's till it had overtopped and quite destroyed in such a Church all Practice of baptizing Believers in respect of her Members and that the whole Church were now become doubtful to me whether she had any Baptism at all And therewith that she had apparently left the due form of Baptism which she had formerly observed Then I think no Man could blame me if I left this Communion to sit down with those who did yet retain the ancient and only undoubted Baptism both for Subject and manner of Administration and this is our very case Now seeing it is impossible for us or any Body else to hold ample Communion with all sorts of Christians and there are some good folk amongst them all why should any one of these Parties whether Papists Prelatists Presbyterians c. expect that all should come to them or why should the Doctor think we ought to joyn Communion with his Party more than others unless they could not err as well as the rest But seeing that is not to be pretended we must all satisfy our own Souls as well as we can where to communicate and where to forbear for with all we cannot have Communion let us not then grudg one against another about this necessary Christian Liberty Page 60. The Doctor attempts to prove his Tradition not doubtful but certain in the case of Infant-Baptism to which purpose he insists on that Rule given by Vincentius Lyrinensis viz. Vniversality Antiquity and Consent But I have shewed already that all these being truly taken are all wanting in the case of Infant-Baptism because as for other reasons so for these in particular 1. The Churches in the Apostles days baptized no Infants And 2. The Greek Churches to this day do retain the Custom of delaying Baptism which yet is no delay to Children till they make Profession of their Faith and the Doctor confesses a few of the Fathers were against it And there might be more for ought he knows though not counted among such Fathers that might deserve as well as any And it is known that many very learned and good
as the learned Bossuit confesses it is separated from Baptism in little Infants Were good Schools for catechising the Youth provided and a painful Ministery to keep such Schools this might be a better way to prevent the Delays of Baptism than to baptize Infants for in truth that proving no Baptism at all proves the greatest Delay of all Now for the use of such Schools both the Scripture and Antiquity would stand by us For when all is said that can be said Baptism being the washing of Regeneration a mystical and spiritual Burial with Christ the Church ought to have pious care that none be admitted to Baptism but such as give some competent account of the Work of Faith with Power in their Souls And hereunto agrees the Scriptures with full consent What hinders that I may not be baptized saith the Eunuch If thou believest with all thy Heart thou mayest saith Philip They that gladly received the Word were baptized Lidea's Heart being opened to attend to the Word she was baptized When the Samaritans believed they were baptized so were the Corinthians The Galatians were Sons of God by Faith and so baptized The Romans were dead to Sin and so baptized and so were the Colossians and so did our Saviour order it that he that believeth should be baptized we find none else by him appointed to it In vain do Men strive against such clear Evidence of the Divine Will and Authority of Heaven and rest upon and soar very high upon the Wing of humane Authorities What is the Chaff to the Wheat saith the Lord Wherefore the Doctor 's Flourish about his high Presumption that the Apostles authorized the Practice of Infant-Baptism and that it is most agreeable to Christ's Intention p. 70 71. are but Mans Breath Christ's Intention is not known in this matter but by his Word or the Testimony of his Witnesses from whence no such meaning can with Fairness be gathered And for his Talk here again of Christ's not repealing the Jewish Custom of baptizing is but vain nor does Dr. Lightfoot's Testimony and his own that there was such a Baptism signify so much but that the Test of the learned Sir Norton Knatchbul and that learned Jew Dr. Duveil may serve to ballance them CHAP. VII Answereth the Doctor 's fifth and last Question Whether it be lawful to Communicate with Believers who were only baptized in their Infancy P. 72. IN stating this Question the Doctor does little more than repeat what he said upon the second and third Questions and grants that the stating of this depends upon what he said to them And therefore what is said in Answer to these Questions is referr'd to in this place He tells us p. 73. It never entred into the Heart of any of the Ancient Christians to refuse Communion with grown Persons who had been baptized in their Infancy But the Question is not so much what they did as what ought to be done in this Case Yet I must needs say their Case and ours differ exceedingly as I shewed in answer to the last Question before this They lived when an Error was but creeping in here and there and it was not pressed as necessary till about the fourth Century and so it may be there was no great Division about it tho it 's more than the Doctor can be confident of But we live in an Age when Infants are not baptized but rantized only and the Churches allowing such a practice do not now as then they did consist mostly of Baptized Believers but the Church the Doctor would have us communicate with have not only no other Baptism but the sprinkling of Babes but have been very fierce against all that have opposed it and asserted the Ancient Truth even to the undoing of them nay to the destroying them from off the Earth so that the Separation has been evidently occasioned by the unreasonable and cruel proceedings of the Assertors of infant-Infant-Baptism It is famous in the Writings of Learned Men that the Donatists and Novatians denied infant-Infant-Baptism tho some of them might permit it in danger of Death And it 's certain these Christians were very considerable both for Number and Piety and were more disliked by the other Party for their strictness about their Communion ordinarily than for any thing of Heresy they charg'd them with But the Apostolici were more Ancient and they are expresly called Anabaptists by the Papists because they looked upon infant-Infant-Baptism as ridiculous But now if the Doctor will have the Question truly stated as the Case is in our Judgment and Conscience then it must be put into these Terms Whether it be lawful for Baptized Believers to hold Communion with such Christians as they think are not baptized at all And then the Doctor is a Person of that discretion that he himself must acknowledg that it must be resolved in the Negative till he or some Body else do convince us that the Church of England has some Baptism either true essentially or false in part and form only which would alter the Case But we do believe she has none at all So that Communion with her is more difficult We cannot conceive how Infant Baptism should be necessary by the presumptive Will of Christ as the Doctor phraseth it Such Language is very uncouth to us and seems to open a Gap for Men to presume the Will of Christ to be whatsoever they please or what by Learning and Parts they can make a plausible Discourse for It is a weighty Consideration if it were true That our Opinion does infer that there has been no true Church on Earth for 1100 Years nor a Chruch for 1500 with whom a Christian could Communicate without Sin. But this cannot be true for tho Infant-Baptism was an Error in our Judgment ever since it had a being yet there was always some Churches free of it and those we have taken notice of before to be many of the Greek Churches as Learned Authors do confess even such as were themselves for Infant-Baptism and with them are to be reckoned in this Question the Apostolici Donatists Novatians and a great part of the Waldenses as is fully made manifest by Mr. Danvers and others of which I shall here give a brief Account 1. But first we must premise That all the Churches mentioned in Scripture are ours being baptized upon profession of Repentance and Faith. No Man being able to this day to shew so much as one Infant was baptized in any one of the Churches mentioned in the Scriptures 2. In the next Age to the Apostles Justin Martyr gives this Account of the practice of the Churches I will declare saith he how we offer up our selves to God Those amongst us that are instructed in the Faith being willing to live according to the same are brought by us into the Water and there as we were new born are they also by new Birth renewed and then in calling upon God the Father the Lord Jesus
Ministerial Authority thereunto namely to catechise defend and propagate the Gospel Such were Origen Aristides Hegesippus Justin and many others see his Book of Resolut p. 265. chap. 10. Those who called themselves Catholicks in Augustin's time did allow the Baptism and other sacred Acts of the Donatists c. to be valid It is strange then that the Marriages of the present Dissenters should be made Nullities by the common Protestants who themselves are esteemed but Dissenters in a Neighbour Nation and therefore their Marriages are as liable to censure there as ours are here but these are Hardships and Cruelties in the Opinion of that learned Lawyer the late Lord Chief Justice Hale SECT IV. Of the Rituals of the Church of England concerning Marriage and the Reasons why the Baptized Believers comply not with them HOW gladly we should be to see an end of all Contention amongst Christians about unnecessary Ceremonies we have shewed in our Friendly Epistle and our late Apology wherein also we have professed our earnest Desire for Concord with all that love the Lord Jesus and more particularly with the Church of England But it seems all that we can offer below a full compliance even with the most useless Ceremonies is not thought worth the notice of the present Clergy who now do many of them wonderfully exalt themselves despising such as dissent from them and that so much the more as by how much we seek to them for Peace Marriage-Covenants we confess are things of that nature and importance that they are worthy the care of the Laws of all Nations But such has been the unhappiness of the Churches which are National as to ordain such things in order to the Celebration of Marriage which becomes a Snare to many this the Protestants found true by Experience when under the Papal Yoke and therefore have exploded part of their Ritual whereof we have an account from Dr. Willit and the manner thus 1. They who are to be joined in Matrimony must be blessed by the Priest 2. Oblation must be made for them in the Sacrifice of the Mass 3. They are covered with a Vail 4. They are coupled together with a Ribbon partly white and partly blew 5. They Bride giveth to the Bridegroom a Ring hallowed first and blessed by the Priest 6. The Priest commendeth them to God in Prayer 7. He admonisheth them to their mutual Duties Dr. Willit Synops p. 713. Now this use of the Ring amongst the Papists is condemned by this Learned Doctor of the Church of England for a superstitious Toy partly for that it must be hallowed by the Priest and partly for that the Man holding the Woman by the Ring their Fingers a-cross some inchanting words says he are then muttered but the words he sets not down And now because the use of the Ring in the Church of England and the kneeling at the Altar and to the Priest for his Blessing are very doubtful to us we shall here take a view of the matter And 1. The Ring must be laid upon the Service-Book 2. The Priest must then give the Ring to the Bridegroom 3. The Bridegroom must put the Ring upon the fourth Finger of the Woman 's left Hand 4. And holding the Woman by that Finger must say these strange Words With this Ring I thee wed with my Body I thee worship with all my worldly Goods I thee endow In the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost Amen Now these things so far as we are able to understand them do look as much like Superstition as any thing which the Protestant Doctor has to object against the Popish use of the Ring For why must the Ring be laid upon the Service-Book and so pass through the Priests hand before it be fit for the use it is to be made of Certainly the Ring is hereby supposed to be made more fit to wed the Woman and this it cannot be unless it be supposed to be sanctified or if there be nothing of all this it seems to be wholly superfluous And for the Man to say he weds her whom he has married sufficiently before with that Ring in the Name of the Father c. is so like a Sacramental form of Words as that we are sure none more solemn are appointed to be used in Holy Baptism nor can any higher form of Words be devised Had Almighty God appointed this form of Words to be annexed to the use of a Ring all Men would and surely might have concluded Marriage among Christians to be a Sacrament as well as Baptism but seeing he hath not done it it seems to us too bold an attempt for any Church to impose such a Rite or Ceremony in so great a Name and therefore in Conscience we dare not conform to the Church of England in this thing for it is dangerous to speak a Word much more to make an Institute in the Name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost which he hath not commanded Let us consider whence the Ring in Marriage was derived that we may the better judg of the matter 1. Then it is reckoned among the Heathen Roman Rites in their Marriages and the manner thus The Man gave in token of good Will they say a Ring unto the Woman which she was to wear upon the next Finger to the little Finger on the left Hand because unto that Finger alone proceeded a certain Artery from the Heart Here seems to be the Radix or Spring of the Ring in Marriage unless perhaps it might be before this among the superstitious Jews for thus we read The Wedding-Ring among the Jews had this Inscription MAZAL TOB which the Learned say is to wish good luck and it was given to the Bride-wife and the Hebrews called the Planet Jupiter Mazal whose Influence they thought to be of great force for Generation Godwin Antiq. of the Rom. and Jews Now which of these soever was the Spring-Head though there seems to be something of Superstition or Folly in the Business yet I think an impartial Man must needs say the Ring has attracted more of that kind among the Christian Nations than it had among the Jews or Heathens The short is Were the Ring used only as a Civil Ceremony without this seemingly sacred Solemnity we should say nothing But for Christians to adopt either the Heathen or Jewish superstitious Rites into the Service of the Church and to make the Celebration of them ministerial Acts is the Business for the serious and thinking Christian to consider And assuredly till it turn to the Lord to encline the Hearts of his People with one accord to restore his Holy Ordinances and amongst the rest this of Marriage to their Native Purity and Simplicity there will be continual cause of Sorrow Discontents and Animosities amongst Christians and occasion thereby given in all Christian Nations for the more Carnal and Ceremonious to persecute the more spiritual and serious sort of Christians And the