having forgiven its sins by the grace of justification he might render it holy by the grace of sanctification the one as well as the other being applied conveyed or communicated to it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the washing of water with the word that is by Baptism Mundatum lavacro hoc est baptismate Theophylact Oecumen the washing here spoken of Now this the cleansing that is the remitting or taking off the guilt of sin from the Church being here by the Apostle ascribed unto Baptism and that as the Instrument used by Christ for that end who is therefore said to cleanse the Church by that washing it is evident that by Baptism as by an Instrument ordained and used by Christ for that end the Grace of justification is conveyed and communicated to the party baptized Thus the Scriptures of God say § 6. And thus say the Fathers of the Church also St. Chrysost saith * Divinae autem gratiae lavacrum non corporis sed animae maculam sordesque â—mundare consuevit D. Chrysost Hom. ad Baptizandos It is the use of the Laver of the divine grace to cleanse the spots and filth not of the body but of the soul And that they are perfectly purged from sins who are baptized Theophylact saith a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Theophyl in John 5. 4. that though the water of baptism 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chr. Hom. 40. in Act. be simply water yet when the grace of the Holy Ghost comes thereto through calling upon God it looses the diseases of the soul And these we know are sins and corruptions St. Cyprian speaking of his own baptism b Scis ipse profecto mecum pariter recognoscis quid detraxerit nobis quidve contulerit mors ista criminum vita virtutum D. Cyprian l. 2. Ep. 2. calls it that death of sins and life of vertues Baptism is the Death of sins by the Grace of Justification and the Life of vertues by the Grace of Sanctification We are washed saith c Lavamur igitur in Baptismo quia deletur chirographum damnationis nostrae gratia haec nobis confertur nè nobis jam concupiscentia noceat si tamen à consensu abstineamus D. Bern. Serm. 1. in Coen Dom. St. Bernard in Baptism because therein the handwriting of our damnation is blotted out that is our sin is pardoned and this grace is given us not to be hurt of concupiscence unless we consent unto it St. Augustin d Quam causam si voluerimus admittere eo usque progressu proveniet ut hortandi sint homines tum potius se interimere cum lavacro sanctae regenerationis abluti universorum remissionem acceperint peccatorum D. Aug. de Civ Dei l. 1. c. 27. Quod utique si fecissent sc ut Christum negarent etiam hoc eis in illo lavacro dimitteretur quod timore mortis negaverint Christum in quo lavacro etiam illis facinus tam immane dimissum est qui occiderant Christum Id. ib. l. 13. c. 7. tells us that if that be admitted which some contend for that it were ones advantage to kill himself to prevent his falling into sin through pleasure or grief it would come to this that men were to be exhorted then above all other times to kill themselves when being washed in the laver of holy regeneration they had received remission of all sins In which laver he saith that sin even that great sin of killing Christ himself was remitted Hence Juvencus calls the waters of Baptism e Pergite ablutos homines purgantibus undis Nomine sub sancto Patris Natique lavate c. Javenc purging waters and Lactantius f Cum primùm caepit adolescere tinctus est sc Christus à Johanne Propheta in Jordane flumine ut lavacro spiritali peccata non sua quae utique nulla habebat sed carnis quam gerebat aboleret ut quemadmodum Judaeos suscepta circumcisione sic etiam Gentes baptismo id est purifici roris perfusione salvaret Lactant. Instit l. 4. c. 15. calls the act of baptizing the pouring on of the purifying dew which by the way is a good instance of baptizing by way of persusion or pouring on of water so early as within three hundred years of Christs time § 7. These instances not to tire you with more sayings either of the same or other Fathers to this purpose are enough to secure you of the Catholickness of this Doctrine which being found in and founded on the Scriptures hath been generally held by all Orthodox Writers And therefore having shewn you what efficacy there is in Baptism for the taking away of sin from the Baptized I shall now proceed to shew that Infants are under the guilt of sin § 8. Only by the way let me observe that the Scriptures and Fathers which I have alledged do not speak restrictively either as to the sins remitted in baptism but so as extending the remitting efficacy thereof unto all sin Original as well as Actual or as to the Persons whose sins are in baptism remitted but so as comprehending all Persons to whomsoever sin may be imputed whether Men or Infants CHAP. XVII Childrens Need of Baptism in regard of their being under the guilt of sin § 1. NOw as to the Point of Infants being under the guilt of sin this also as the former I shall shew first from the Scriptures and then from the Fathers § 2. The Scriptures that speak to the Point are many Amongst them that of St. Paul Rom. 5. 12. is very notable By one man sin entred into the world and death by sin and so death passed upon all men for that all have sinned The one man here mentioned is the Father of all mankind Adam The World into which sin entred by this one man is mankind so then if Infants be any part of mankind any of the natural descendents from Adam then by Adam hath Omnes enim unus fuerunt D. Aug. 7 Serm. de Verb. Apost Ecce primus homo totam massam damnabilem facit Id. ib. sin entred on and passed through even to them they through the imputation of his fault are concerned in his guilt as having all been in him when he sinned Again ver 14. it is said Death reigned from Adam to Moses even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adams transgression that is who can it be else but Infants who die not upon the account of any actual sin of their own but upon the account of Adams first sin Again ver 15. Through the offence of one many be dead Many 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the many i. e. even all Again by the offence of one i. e. Adam judgment i. e. a sentence came upon all men and so on Infants to condemnation Again ver 19. By one mans disobedience many 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the many i. e. even all were made sinners and so
being observed that Christians Decernimus ut extra tempora decreta baptismi nullus filios suos baptizet nisi infirmitas nimia vel dies extremus compulerit filios suos baptismum suscipere Conc. Matisc c. 3. Omnes omnino 〈◊〉 die quadragesimo cum infantibus suis ad Ecclesiam observare praecipimus ut impositionem manus c. Synod Matisconensis ap Magdeb. Cent. 6. c. 9. Col. 613. did not observe the solemn set day for baptizing of their children but baptized them at other times so that there were scarce found above two or three to be baptized at Easter that custom was prohibited unless in case of extream infirmity and necessity and an order was given for the attendance of all with their Infants at the Church on the solemn festival to receive their imposition of hands Chrysm and Baptism § 49. The Second Council of Braccarum Anno 580 ordered the Bishops to signifie throughout their Churches that if they that Placuit ut unusquisque Episcopus per Ecclesias suas hoc praecipiat ut hi qui infantes suas ad baptismum offerunt si quid voluntarè pro suo offerunt voto suscipiatur ab eis c. Concil Bracarense Can 7. ap Magd. Cent. 9. Col. 354. Caranz fol. 250. brought their Infants to baptism pleased to offer any thing voluntarily it should be accepted but that nothing should be extorted from those whose poverty rendred them unable to make any offering lest thereby they should be discouraged from bringing their children unto baptism and they dying unbaptized their loss should be required at their hands through whose violence this was occasioned This Synod placed by Alsted in the year above mentioned is placed by the Magdeburgenses in the seventh Century Anno 610 and so if it witness not for this Century it will for that And the Council of Vivense ordained the very same as H. D. informs us from Vossius de Bapt. p. 179. § 50. Isidor Hispalensis whose time is placed by Alsted about Anno 596 is of this judgment touching Infants dying without baptism That for Original Sin alone newly born Infants do suffer pains Pro solo peccato originis luune in inferno nuper nati infantuli poenas si renovati per lavacrum non fuerint Proinde pro hac causa nuper natus damnatur infans si non regeneratur quia originis noxitate perimitur Isidor de sum bono cap. 23. apud Magd. Cent. 7. c. 4. Col. 98. Mag. Cent. 6. c. 6. Col. 331. in hell if they be not renewed by baptism What his judgment was as to the baptizing of Infants is not to be questioned when this was his judgment of those that died unbaptized He is quoted by the Magdeb for the Seventh Century but placed by Alsted in the Sixth and so will serve for the one or the other The Centuriators tell us that some having in the time of Gregory made some change in the dippings of Infants Isidore notes that Gregory did earnestly reprove them for not dipping them but once or else thrice § 51. Justinus the Emperor who reigned about Anno 570 Ordained as H. D. tells us concerning the children which in regard of Treat of Bapt. 2 Edit p. 112. their years cannot receive Divine Doctrine that they shall without delay be made worthy or partakers of Baptism And Justinian the Emperor who reigned about Anno 530 Ordained That children should be admitted to Baptism Justinian Novel Institut 44. ap 11. Danvers Tre at of Bapt. p. 112. Edit 2. and that those that were come to their full growth should be taught before they were baptized § 52. Johannes Maxentius a Monek and Priest of Antioch Anno 520 thus writes in the Confession of his Faith Therefore do we believe that little children newly born are Propterea recentes ab utero parvulos non tantum ut adoptionem mereantur filiorum aut propter regnum Coelerum sicut Pelagii Caelestii sive Theodori Mansuestini disciputi c. sed in remissionem peccatorum eos credimus baptizari nè pereant in aeternum Maxent ap Magdeb. Cent. 6. c. 6. Col. 227. l. 4 c. baptized not onely that they may obtain the adoption of sons or for the kingdom of Heaven like the Disciples of Pelagius Coelestius but for remission of sins also that they may not perish for ever § 53. The Council of Gerunda about Anno 517 or 520 as some decreed That little children Ut parvuli si infirmari contingat codem die quo nati sunt baptizentur Concil Gerund Can. 4. ap Caranz fol. 179. in case of weakness should be baptized the same day that they were born § 54. Not to be endless in testimonies the Magdeburgenses tell us from Adon and Gaguin how Androvera wife of Chilperic was forced upon a surprize to be both Witness and Adon in Comment 4 aetatis Gaguinus l. 2. narrant Androveram Chilperici uxorem infidiis circumventam ipsam natae suae filiolae baptizandae testem commatrem extitisse Cent. 6. cap. 6. Col. 332. lin 28 c. Godmother at the baptism of her own little daughter And thus much for this Age. § 55. Go we on to the Fifth Century And here we meet with plenty of evidences of Infants Baptism § 56. The Council of Milevis Anno 418 in the time of Pope Innocent and the Emperor Arcadius as the Centuriators tell us Item placuit ut quicunque parvulos recentes ab uteris matrum baptizandos negat aut dicit in remissionem quidem peccatorum eos baptizari sed nihil ex Adam trabere Originalis peccati quod regenerationis lavacro expictur unde sit consequens ut in cic forma baptismatis in remissionem peccatorum non vera sed falsa intelligatur anathema sit Quoniam non aliter intelligendum est quod Apostolus ait Per unum hominem peccatum intravit in mundum per peccatum mors ita in omnes homines portransiit in quo omnes peccaverunt nisi quemadmodum Ecclesia Catholica ubique diffusa semper intellexit Propter hanc regulam fidei etiam parvuli qui nihil peccatorum in semetipsis committere potuerunt ideo in peccatorum remissionem veraciter baptizantur ut in cis regeneratione mundetur quod generatione traxerunt Synod Milevitana ap Magdeb Cent. 5. c. 9. Col. 835. Caranza fol. 123. decreed an Anathema to him that should deny baptism to new born Infants The ground of their decree they make to be Original Sins being drawn from Adam by all and death by sin and that according to that sense which the Catholick Church diffused every where ever had of that saying of St. Pauls By one man sin entred into the world and death by sin and so death passed upon all men for that all had sinned For which rule of Faith even little ones say they which in themselves were uncapable as yet of committing of any
Peccat Merit Remiss c. 9. God obtained for them by the prayers not onely of their Paren's in particular but of the Church in general have a principle of Faith inspired into them by the secret operation of that invisible Spirit of grace who works how and where and when and how far himself pleaseth And where it is so in any one who dares deny that person sufficiently qualified in point of Faith for Baptism Can any man forbid water that these should not be baptized which have received the Holy Ghost as well as w◠Acts 10. 47. And of what Infant of any one Believer can any man say that it is not so with him And if there be never an Infant of any one believer of whom it can be absolutely affirmed that he is in respect of a divinely infused inwardly working principle of Faith utterly unqualified for Baptism then why should any one be denied Baptism of whom it cannot be said but that he is in some degree and measure qualified for it § 7. But being under no necessity for the supporting of the cause I maintain to assert these grounds I shall no further insist thereon but to the Objection against Infants capableness of baptism founded in their want of Faith give my Answer that their not believing is no hindrance to their baptizing § 8. It is no hindrance to their salvation even in the judgment of our Anabaptists who declare it as one Article of their Faith That all children dying in Infancy that is before they can act faith in their own persons and be believers qualified for baptism according to their account having not actually transgressed against the Law of God in their own persons are onely subject to the first death and that not any one of them dying in that estate shall suffer for Adams sin eternal punishment in hell which is the second death It is no hindrance then to their salvation in their judgment that they believe not And why then should it be a hindrance to their Baptism Is more required to their baptism than to their salvation to the means than to the end § 9. But to make short work where or by whom is faith required of Infants in their own persons to render them capable of baptism What one Text is there in all the Bible that saith either in particular that Infants shall not be baptized because they believe not or in generall that no persons whatsoever whether capable or incapable of believing shall be baptized but those that believe Let the Adversaries of Infants baptism produce the place and the controversie I believe will quickly be ended We all Paedobaptists will readily yield all that shall of right be fit to be yielded to it or unto them from it But if the Scripture say no such thing either in words or in sense then for ought that as yet appears our Infants will be capable of Baptism though they do not believe § 10. Why but doth not our Saviour say in Mark 16. 16. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved but he that believeth not shall be damned § 11. Yes And what then must not therefore our Infants be baptized because they do not believe or not till they believe No such matter What is here said that makes believing a condition necessarily antecedent unto Baptism It is neither said negatively he that believeth not shall not be baptized nor so much as affirmatively he that believeth shall be baptized But believing and being baptized are made conditions not the one of the other but both of being saved And now in the name of God what is here that can possibly exclude Infants from baptizing for want of believing § 12. Yea but believing is set before baptizing He doth not say he that is baptized and believeth but he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved And what then Why then believing must go before baptizing and none must be baptized but those that first believe § 13. To this I answer that if the order of things must universally answer to that order of words wherein the Scripture sets them down then Repentance which is a Fruit of Quomodo aget poenitentiam homo qui necdum credit D. Hieron advers Lucifer Faith must go before Faith whose Fruit it is because our Saviour set repenting before believing saying first repent ye and then believe the Gospel Mark 1. 15. Then the outward baptism of water must always go before the inward baptism of the spirit because our Saviour said Except a man be born first of water and then of the spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God John 3. 5. Whereas the contrary hereto fell out in the family and company of Cornelius Acts 10. 44. which drew from Peter that question in ver 47. Can any man forbid water that these should not be baptized who have received the Holy Ghost as well as we Then the Ruler in Luke 18. 22. must have given nothing to the poor till he had sold all he had because our Saviour saith first set all that thou hast and then distribute to the poor § 14. But to shew the weakness of this way of Arguing it may be proved by this same Argument and from the same Text that Infants ought to be baptized And then let them judge what strength there is in this way of Arguing For as our Saviour sets believing before baptizing so he sets baptizing before being saved And if none must be baptized but he that believes because believing is set first then none must be saved but he that is baptized because baptizing is set first And then what better argument can be made for Infants baptism They must be baptized if we will have them saved because they cannot be saved without being baptized for baptizing goes before saving And yet from the same Text and by the same way of a guing it may be proved contrary to what the Anabaptists say of the Universal salvation of all Infants dying before the commission of actual sin that no Infants are saved but those that believe because believing is set before being saved and not onely so but whereas it is not said he that believeth not shall not be baptized it is said he that believeth not shall be damned § 15. And this may suffice to shew tho absurdity of this way of arguing to the order of things from the ordering of the words § 16. As to the thing it self I think it will be granted them that in Persons capable of believing or disbelieving the Gospel faith or at least a profession of it is to go before baptizing § 17. This we gather from the Apostles baptizing no adult persons that we read of without some evidence given of their believing § 18. Thus it was with the Converts in Acts 2. 41. with the Samaritans Acts 8. 12. with the Eunuch Acts 8. 37. with Cornelius his family Act. 10. 44. with Lydia and the Gaoser Acts 16. 14 33.
institution of baptism but onely an insinuation by Deed that we should be baptized aâ— his saying to Nicodemus Joh. 3. Except a man be born again c. was an Insiâ—uation of it by Word And Mr. Calvin * In co jam plusquam puâ—riliter labintur quâ—d primam Baptismi institutionem inde derivant quem ab exordio praedicationis suae Apostolis Christus administrandum manâ—averat Calvin Inst l. 4. c. 16. S. 27. saith Christ commanded his Apostles to administer it form the very beginning of his own preaching and that it is a great piece of childishness to fetch the Institution of baptism from those Texts And truly though the precise hour of its institution be not infallibly to be declared from the Gospel yet from the Gospel it is most evident that it was instituted by Christ before his resurrection or passion and then those words in Matth. 28 aâ—d Mark 16 cannot be its institution And that of John 4. 1. will put it out of doubt where long before our Saviours Resurrection or â—eath even while John Baptist was yet alive we read of our Saviours making and baptizing disciples that is receiving disciples by Baptism Which Ceremony yet he himself did not after the taking in of his Apostles to be his Disciples administer by himself but by his Disciples Now certainly they did it not of themselves but by his Institution which is nothing else but his prescribing and appointing the use of it to that end whereto it was to be used Whence it is said of those whom his Disciples baptized that he baptized them that being reckoned as done by him that was done by his appointment Now if it were practiced by the Disciples of our Saviour and by his appointment in his life then could not those words in Matth. and Mark be the Institution of it which were not spoken by him till after his death But that must be the time when ever it was when our Saviour instructed empowred and appointed his Disciples to baptize and the words what ever they were whereby he did instruct empower and appoint them to do it must be the words of Institution And accordingly the learned Gabriel Biel decides the Case saying that Baptism was not instituted Institutus est ergo baptismus prius quando baptizandi officium discipulis commissum fuerat licet quan â—o ubi determinatè ex Scriptura non sit certum Gab. Biel. when Christ was baptized nor in that saying of his to Nicodemus Except a man be born again nor in the last of Matihew when he commanded his Disciples to Go teach all Nations c. nor in 4 lib. Sent. dist 3. qu. unica in the last of Mark when he said He that believeth and is baptized nor on the Cross when out of his side came blood and water nor when he sent his disciples by two and two preach but before when the office of baptizing was committed to his Disciples though when and where that was done is not determinately certain out of the Scripture And so those Texts can be of no force in the world against Infants Baptism so Sed propugnaculum omnium munitisimum in ipsa Baptismi institutione se habere gloriantur quam ex capite Matthaei ultimo petunt c. Calvin Inst l. 4. c. 16. S. 27. Inexpugnabilis baec ratio qua tantopere considunt Id. ib. S. 28. as to gather thence that by the Institution of our Saviour Infants are excluded from Baptism And then one of the Antipaedobaptists strongest supports of their Error is fallen to the ground § 4. Well but what were those words then I answer they were a Confirming of that Commission which the Discâ—ples of our Saviour Baptismi Confirmatio fuit facto quando non solum sanguis sed aqua exivit de latere ejus Verbo quando post resurrectionem misit eos dicens Deceteâ—omnes gentes baptizames eos c. Guillerm Vorrilong sup l. 4. Sent. dist 3. art 3. fol. 123. b. col 1. Caterum Apostoles non jam ad solâ—s Jâ—â—â—os mictit sâ—d ad omâ—â—â— genâ—â— Theophyl in loc had formerly received and an Enlarging of it to a giving of them power to become his Apostles Legates or Embassadors to forreign Nations so as that whereas in his life they were onely to go to the people of the Jews Matth. 10. 5 6. after his death they were to go unto the Gentiles even into all the world to preach the Gospel to the whole creation and make Disciples of all nations § 5. But where then is the Institutioin of Baptism set down and in what form of words was it instituted I said before it was no where particularly set down in Scripture when the Institution of Baptism was Nor is it that I can meet Institutio autem baptismi fuit 1 Facâ—o quan do Christus venit in in Juâ—â—am Joh. 3. baptizaâ—â—â— 2 Verbo quando misit disciâ—â—los pradicare ut creâ—itur baptizare Luc. 10. Guiller Vorrilong in 4. l. Sâ—nt dist 3. art 3. fol. 123. with how ever Guillerm Vorrilong say it was instituted by Deed when Christ came into Judea and baptized Joh. 3. By Word when Christ sent his Disciples to preach and as it is believed to baptize Luk. 10. in which latter he is contradicted by Gabriel Biel. And in what Form of words it was instituted is more than I or I think any man living can tell The Scriptuâ—e is not nor was ever meant to be a compleat Register of all either the words or actings of Christ how absurdly soever some will not allow of any thing as said or done by him but what is expresly written there how credibly soever it may be otherwise shewn to have â—een said or done by him And if the Form of words whereby our Saviour did institute Baptism be no moreâ—k own then the Time of its institution then can there no Argument be drawn from thence whereby Infants can be excluded from Baptism § 6. But how then shall we know what the Institution of Christ was and so judge by that what Persons are to be baptized I answer very well and by the consideration of two things The first is what was in use among the lews before our Saviours time The second is what has been the use among Christians since the time of our Saviour And if we find the oâ—e agreeing with the other and answering to it as face answers to face in water then there can be no other judged but that as the one did agree with the other so our Saviour did ordain it should be appointing that what was in use before should be still in use as it was save where he did improve or alter any thing therein Now whether we look at what was in use among the Jews before our Saviours time or what has been in use among Christians since hâ—s time we shall find all making for Infants Baptism § 7. And by the way you are