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
of them should be punished § 35. From the Ninth let us now step up to the Eighth Century And in this Age the Centuriators quote Carolus Magnus for a Cent. 8. c. 4. Col. 219. witness to Infants Baptism And with honour may such an Emperor be quoted as Plosc Histor p. 231. was esteemed Imperii sui fortissimus doctissimus the learnedest Scholar as well as stoutest Souldier in his Empire And saith he we hold one baptism which is to be celebrated in the same Baptisma unum icnemus quod iisdem Sacramenti verbic in infantibus quibus etiam in majoribus est celebrandum Carol Mag. l. 3. de Imaginib cap. 1. Cent. 8. c. 6. Col. 347. Apud Christianos fidelium quotidie baptizantur filii Daniel Ep. ad Bonif. Gratia fidei renatos in fonte baptismatis etiam parvulos atque ipsa parvula aetate desunctos superna ad gaudia perducit Beda l. 4. in Cantic Canticor ap Cent. 8. c. 4. Col. 218. l. 40 c. words of the Sacrament at the baptizing of Infants as of elder persons § 36. In this Age also they quote an Epistle of one Daniel to Boniface wherein that Author saith That among the Christians the children of the Faithful are baptized every day § 37. Also from Bede l. 4. in Cantic Canticor they quote this saying of his That the Grace of Faith doth bring to the joys of Heaven even the little children that are born again in the baptismal Font and that die in their very infancy § 38. From Regino they tell us how the Saxons coming to Lippa were baptized by Saxones ad Lippam venientes una cum uxoribus parvxlis catervatim in nomine Trinitatis baptizantur Regino l. 2. ap Cent. 8. c. 6. Col. 344. l. 19 c. troops together with their wives and little children in the name of the Trinity § 39. Lastly they tell us that baptized Infants were carried home from their baptizing by their own mothers And instance in Maria the Empress Baptizati infantes à suis matribus demum reportabantur Sic Maria Augusta Uxor Leonis una cum baptizato filio suo in aulam ex templo redit in itinere paupcribus munera projicit Diaconus l. 21. Rer. Roman ap Cent. 8. c. 6. Col. 34. l. 46. wife of Leo who returned from the Temple to the Court with her baptized Son and by the way as she went bestowed largesses on the poor § 40. These are sufficient evidences for Infants Baptism in this Century § 41. Pass we on to Century the Seventh and in that Age also we have evidences of Infants Baptism For the Centuriators tell us that in the Eighth Council of Toledo and in the Sixth Council of Constantinople there is mention made of the baptizing of Infants and among other things there are these expressions to that purpose we baptize Infants even before they be capable of reason Infantes etiam nondum rationis capaces baptizamus Et Parvulo agrotanti nullo modo baptismus denegetur si quis neglexcrit ejus morientis animam ille pro ea reddet Deo rationem Concil Tolet. Constantinop ap Cent. 7. c. 6. Col. 146. Exceptis his qui propter aetatem loqui nondum possunt 1. l. ib. Lin. 38. And by no means let baptism be denied to a sick little one if any shall neglect the soul of him dying he shall give an account for the same unto God They tell us also that in that Council of Constantinople it was ordained that none should receive either Chrysin or Baptism till he could say without Book the Creed and the Lords Prayer except such as by reason of age were not able to speak § 42. Before both these Councils it was decreed according to the determination of Greg. 1. by the Fourth Council of Toledo Anno 681 that whether an Infant were dipped in Concil 4 Toletan Can. 5. Caranz fol. 235. baptism thrice or once he should be accounted baptized the third appearing of the Infant from under the water being expressive of the Resurrection after three days and significative of the Trinity and the single immersion giving an intimation of the Unity of Substance in the Trinity of Persons § 43. They tell us of Priests killed in the temple together with Infants at baptism from Sabellicus Foro Popilii quoq◠in templo trucidat◠leguntur Sacerdotes cum infantibus inter baptizandum Sabellicus Enneadis octavae l. 6. pag. 180. apud Cent. 7. c. 6. Col. 145. § 44. And as Pope Leo granted that in case of necessity baptism might be administred on Leo Pap◠tamen concessit necessitate urgente omni die baptizari ut refert Hareman Schedel atate sexia pag. 176. Sic quadragesima post partum quosdam infantes baptizatos legimus ut Dagoberti filium in Galliis Regino l. 10. Quinquagessima verò Heduini filiam quae nata fuit in die Paschatis baptizata in die Pentecostes Beda l. 2. c. 9. ap Cent. 7. c. 6. Col. 145. any day so they tell us of Infants which they had read were baptized on the fortieth day after their birth and instance in the Son of Dagobert in France and to that from Beda mention a Daughter of Heduins born on Easter day and baptized on Whit sunday § 45. And as Heribert was Godfather to Dagoberts Son at his baptism so was King Lotharius Idem sc Rex Lotharius Meroveum Regis Theoderici filium infantem de baptismo suscepit Nauclerus generatione 21. Heribertus Dagoberei filium Regino lib. 1. Magdeb. Cent. 7. c. 6. Col. 147. Godfather to Meroveus Son of King Theoderic baptized an Infant § 46. And now supposing enough said for this Age I shall close it up with the Law of Ina before mentioned whom I take to have flourished Leg. Inae c. 2. p. 1. cited by Sr Roger Twisden Vindic. of Ch. of Engl. p. 97. from Jorvalens c. 2. Col. 761. in this Century about Anno 689 which was That children should be baptized within 30 days after birth § 47. A scend we now to the Sixth Century And in the end of this appears as a witness for Infants Baptism Pope Greg. 1. who was chosen Pope Anno 590 and died Anno 604. and so as several more who have lived within the compass of two Centuries may pass as a witness for both And he as the Centuriators tell us witnesseth that it is free to baptize Infants the same hour they are born in case of danger of death He also forbids Item liberum esse infantes mox in ipsâ horâ si est periculum mortis baptizare Gregorius testatur l 12. Epist 10. apud Magd. Cent. 6. c. 6. Col. 367. l. 21. Presbyteri baptizatos infantes signare bis in fronte Chrysmate non praesumant Id. l. 3. c. 9. Priests to presume to sign baptized Infants twice in their foreheads with Chrysm § 48. In the second Synod of Matiscon Anno 599 it
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
11. And what hath been said of this Text will serve in answer to other Texts of the same import Such as Deut. 12. 32. where it is said What thing soever I command you observe to do it thou shalt not add thereto nor diminish from it What thing soever that is as the Septuagint render it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 every word that I injoyn you every word of command that I give you that shall you be carefull to observe to that shall you pay an uniform obedience forbearing to do the things that I forbid and doing the things whatsoever they be that I command and to my words ye shall add no words of your own ye shall put into my Law no commands that I never gave you you shall not take from my Law any of the commands that I have given you ye shall not change the Rule I have set down for you â—o walk by either in whole or in part by imposing on your selves either more severe or more easie performances than I have required from you instead of those that I have required but ye shall do fully that which I have commanded and ye shall do it faithfully as I have commanded it § 12. And this is agreeable to those Texts where this uniform observance of the then setled rule is more explicately set down As in Deut. 5. 32. ye shall observe to do therefore as the Lord hath commanded you you shall not turn aside to the right hand or to the left And Deut. 28. 14. Thou shalt not go aside from any of the words which I command thee this day to the right hand or to the left to go after other gods to serve them And Joshua 1. 7. Be thâ—u strong and very couragious that thou mayst observe to do according to all the Law which Moses my servant commanded thee turn not from it to the right hand or to the left § 13. Now what is this to Infants Baptism supposing it utterly uncommanded How is the baptizing of an Infant a not doing as the Lord hath commanded or a going aside from any of his words or a turning from them to the right hand or the left What one word of our own or anies else have we added to his to bring it in what one word of his have we left out that else might have given a stop to our doing of it what one word of his have we changed to make the easier way for its introduction or continuation what one thing required by him have we turned from and let alone unperformed that we might do that in the stead of it yea on the contrary how doth not our doing of it hold proportion with his word and so can be no violation of his word In short when it can be made appear that the baptizing of Infants is the putting of words into Moses's Law then we shall and till then we shall not yield that it is that adding to the word of God which God by Moses in this Text for bad § 14. Such again is that saying of Agur Prov. 30. 6. Add thou not unto his words lest he reprove thee and thou be found a liaâ— What can this mean other than that no man ought to add any of his own or others words to the word of God as if God had spoken them whereas he never spake word of them This whosoever he be that doth he must needs be found a liar when God comes to reprove him But what reproof can he be liable to for adding to his words that hath added nothing to them Or how can he be found a liar upon the account of adding to Gods words who doth not affirm God ever said one word more than he hath said § 15. And now what is this Text or any thing that can be inferred from it to our pleading for Infants baptism Have we for the introducing or defending that practice inserted into the word of God any words of our own pretending them to be his words Let the book be searcht and the words produced and let the shame of such adding light upon the doers of it But if we do no such thing if we have added no one word concerning this to Gods Words then can this Text make nothing at all against us who have done nothing of that which is forbidden by it § 16. Indeed from such words of God as are expressed in Scripture we draw such Consequences as naturally flow from them being rightly interpreted But this is no adding to the words of God This is but what we are enabled to by the example of our Saviour and his Apostles who prove things not expressed in Scripture by Consequences deduced from Scripture and by such proving justifie a rational collection from the word to be no culpable addition to the word which is the thing that this Text forbids § 17. Yea but do we not find the Jews severely reproved again and again for performing uncommanded acts of worship of which saith God I commanded thâ—m not neither came it into my heart or mind Jer. 7. 31. 19. 5. 32. 35 Yes verily And what then Why then uncommanded acts of worship and service are unlawfull And so Infants Baptism will upon that account also be unlawfull as being an uncommanded thiâ—g § 18. So the Anabaptists indeed reasons from these Texts but without any reason yea against all reason For the acts spoken of in those Texts as not commanded are acts of devotion to and worship of false gods building high pâ—aces to Baal and causing their sons and daughters to pass through the fire to Molech Now in the name of God doth this follow Israel were repâ—oved for performing uncommanded acts of devotion and Idolatrous worship to false gods therefore it is unlawfull for Christians to perform uncommanded acts of devotion and religious worship to the true God Or because it was unlawful for them to cause their sons and daughters to pass through the fire to Molech therefore it must be unlawfull for us to cause our sons and daughters to pass through the water to Jesus Christ May not we baptize our Infants and so consecrate them unto God because they may not burn their Infants and so sacrifice them to the Devil What an absurd What a wild and irrational consequence is this § 19. But let us a while consider the expression which I commanded them not nor speake it neither came it into my heart or mind What is this but a Meiôsis intimating in a milder expression a severer interdiction which I commanded not that is which I have most strictly forbidden as abhorring it and abominating it in my heart And were not these things forbidden strictly enough both in general in the first and second Commandment of the Decalogue and particularly in Levit. 18. 21. where it is expresly said Thou shalt not let any of thy sâ—ed pass through the fire to Molech neither shalt thou profane the name of thy God And again Levit. 20. 1
2 3 4 5. where stoning to death by the people of the land and that without mercy is threatned against the offender in this kind See! these uncommanded things as they are called here were things elsewhere most strictly prohibited most severely interdicted § 20. Again it is said in the Third Commandment The Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain Is that all that the Lord will not look on him that taketh his name in vain as altogether an innocent man Is it not that the Lord will most severly punish him What else is meant in Ezek 17. 18 19. Jerem. 7. 9 with 12 14 15. Zech. 5. 2 3 4. Malach 3. 5. Hosea 4. 2. Jerem 23. 10. So his not commanding here is his forbidding The not coming into his heart is his hating such abomination as it is called Jerem. 32. 35. § 21. Now what is this to Infants Baptism Where hath God any where forbidden it that the doing of it should be such an abomination to God From this manner of Gods expressing himself I commanded not touching things most severly forbidden hated and abhorred by God how doth any argument arise how is any reasoning framed to the rendring of that unlawfull to man as abominable unto God which God is so far from having ever any where forbidden or exprest any detestation against that he is supposed never to have said the least word about it § 22. Yea what if this be spoken in the way of aggravation of their fault in proceeding to such unnatural cruelties towards their children in the worship of false gods as were never by the true God required of them As if God Almighty had said Your idolatrous wickedness is so much the greater in that ye do these things to serve your false gods which for the cruelty and unnaturalness of them I who am the true God never commanded you to perform to me it never so much as once came into my heart or mind to require any such thing of you to my self still this will no way be applicable unto Infants Baptism which can in no respect be parallel'd unto these most inhumane acts of the most devillish worship § 23. No more can that of Isa 1. 12. a place often enough thrown in our dish about this business Who hath required this at your hands For the fault there reproved was not the performing of Offerontium nequitla bene olens thymiams in abominationem convertit D. Chrys Hom. 27. in Gen. There are several accounts upon which God in Scripture is said to disregard and not to approve or accept of Sacrifices which yet were of his own institution 1. In respect of the Hypocrisie of the offerers That people being grown formal and corrupt trusted in Sacrifices and the work wrought in them and said by them they should be justified God expressing his indignation against such Sacrificers rejects the things themselves wherein they trusted that is in reference to them that used them This is the intention of the Holy Ghost Isa 1. 12 13. Dr. Owen Confut. of Biddle Catech ch 22. p. 472. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 D. Chrysost 1 Orat. adv Judaeos an uncommanded action the thing it self to come and appear before God and that no less than thrice a year being most particularly commanded Exod. 23. 17. and Exod. 34. 23. But it was the performing of a commanded action with such hypocrisie as they did it with it was their being hypocrites in their hearts even whilest they were before the eyes of God Their hearts were not with him even whilest they were performing exterior acts of worship and service to him Now in such case the most commanded acts of worship are hateful to God not as acts of worship but as acts of such worshippers This may be seen in the Context from 12 to 21. and so again Isa 66. 3 4. Prov. 21. 27. Prov. 28. 9. § 24. Now this can no way be applicable to the prejudice of Infants Baptism unless our Antipaedobaptists will say that our coming to appear before God with our Infants to offer and consecrate them unto him in baptism is all Hypocrisie and that as oft as we tread the courts of God to that end we come but to play the Hypocrites with him Which yet I hope they will not unjustly and I am sure they cannot justly charge us with all What we do in this we do it simply and sincerely walking according to our light and acting according to our conscience without hypocrisie § 25. But put case we do allow them their own sense of all those Texts which they bring to prove the unlawfulness of any thing that is not commanded in the word of God viz. Deut. 4. 2. 12. 32. Prov. 30. 6 c. yet still it will not follow that those Texts which were given under and as a rule for the Legal Dispensation and reached to all the most minute parts and circumstances of Gods worship which were every one under the penalty of a curse to be punctually observed are now in force under and as rules for the Oeconomy of the Gospel For that will be to bring back again and make necessary all the former legal administrations because there must be no Diminutions from Gods Word For by what Texts of Scripture are forbidden all Additions to the word of God by the same Texts are forbidden all Diminutions from his Word And if we must do nothing more than has been commanded because we must not add then we must do nothing less because we must not diminish And so we must fall again to Circumcision and all the outdated services of the Law and in plain terms turn Jews § 26. If it be said that the not doing of things now that were commanded then is no Diminution because there has been a disannulling of the Commandment going befoâ—e Heb. 7. 18 then I answer that for the same reason the doing of things now that were not commanded then is no addition And those Texts must be in force both ways or neither way reaching unto all Diminutions or else not extending unto all Additions Besides if the Commandment be disâ—nnulled then it is no Commandment And how there should either from or to a no Commandment be made any diminution or addition is not so very easie to understand How can any thing be done either more or less than is commanded when there is no command And a command disannulled is annihilated as to all existency of being a command and is now none § 27. If it be replied that the equity of those Texts remains still And that therefore as nothing was to be done in the time of the Law but what was written in the Book of the Law so nothing is to be done in the time of the Gospel but what is written in the Book of the Gospel I answer No. Thus far the equity of them remains that what is commanded in the Gospel be done as it is commanded and