his Disciples to baptize he laid his hands upon them and blessed them and by those actions did as it were consign them unto baptism mark them for and deliver them up to his Disciples to baptize and that according to the former and then present manner of receiving even Infants as well as elder persons unto Proselytism by Baptism § 24. And thus when we read of a whole City as Samaria or a Family as the Jaylors and Crispuses and Stephanas's baptized though none be expressed to be baptized but those that believed yet what other can be thought but that even the children aâ—so of those Believers if they had any in their town or family were baptized Since it was agreeable with the Jewish Baptism wherein our Saviours was founded and from which in that particular it is never said in the least to have differed to receive to Proselytism by Baptism the Infants of those that were converted and baptized as well as the Converts themselves And if in so many whole Families as are reported in Scripture to have been baptized there was never a child which yet cannot be saâ—d and 't is hard to believe yet sure in Samaria a great City there were some And why any that were converted and baptized themselves should not desire baptism for their children as well as for themselves since their children were by the Institution of Christ as capable of it as themselves were is not easie to say And on the contrary that those that were converted did desire the baptism of all theirs as well as of themselves is most evident because we read of the baptizing of whole Houses consequent to the conversion of the single Master or Mistress of those Houses for instance the Jaylor and Lydias Acts 16. § 25. And touching this latter the house of Lydia it may not be amiss to make one observation before we pass namely that though it be said that the houshold of Lydia was baptized yet it is not said that they or any of them beside Lydia her self believed professed or ever so much as once heard the Gospel preached to them Now hereupon I would ask our Adversaries whether we may receive any thing as a Divine Truth that is not written in the Divine Word or we may not § 26. It is their interest to say we may not that being the main if not the whole of all the strength they have against our Plea for Infants Baptism that it is not said in the Scriptures that Infants should be baptized or were baptized whence they weakly infer that Infants Baptism is not either in the Doctrine or Practice of it to be received Now if in pursuance of their Interest they shall say we may not then I shall infer from the same ground that it is not to be received as a Divine Truth that the Houshold of Lyâ—ia dâ—d ever believe profess or hear the Gospel preached to them before they were baptized because no such thing is written of them And so here will be a Scripture Example of Persons baptized without any either belief or profession or knowledge or so much as hearing of the Gospel their believing professing knowing or hearing of it being not to be received as a Divine Truth because it is not written in the Divine Word And then a Persons not believing professing or knowing the Gospel will be no hindrance to his baptizing And so our Infants cannot be denied baptism upon that account Why man not our Infants be baptized though they neither believe nor profess nor know the Gospel upon the undertaking of believers for them as well as the House of Lydias was who for any thing that appears in Scripture to the contrary nei her believed nor professed nor had any the least knowledge of the Gospel before they were baptized but as it may be supposed were admitted to baptism through the Mistress of the Familie's undertaking for them and becoming a Godmother as it were unto them § 27. If to avoid the sorce of this Inference they say we may receive something as a Divine Truth which is not written in the Divine Word then I infer on the other side that it can be no hindrance to our receiving Infants Baptism as a Divine Truth that it is not written in the Scripture For if we may receive it as a Divine Truth that the Family of Lydia had both heard and did believe and at least make a profession to believe the Gospel before they were baptized and if they did not then let the Antipaedobaptists tell us if they can upon what account or ground they were baptized though no one syllable of all this be written of them in the Divine Word then may we as well receive it as a Divine Truth either that there were Infants among those baptized ones or that the Apostles did baptize other Infants though their baptizing be as much passed over in silence and unmentioned as the hearing believing or professing of Lydias Family before they were baptized here is especially being there are such other positive grounds as we have shewn whereupon to receive it § 28. And here I must profess my self too short sighted to be able to foresee what shift our Adversaries can find out to evade and avoid the force of this Dilemma by which their whole way of arguing against us a non scripto from our having as they pretend no Scripture for what we profess and practice in this case seems to be broken and overthrown § 29. And by this time hope it is evident to every one that not onely by the Constitution of this particular Church but also by Prescription from the Custom and Practice of the Catholick and Primitive Church and also by the Institution of Christ himself our Infants have a Right to be baptized And if so then they cannot without injury and injustice to them not to say also disobedience to the Order of this present and particular Church Separation from the practice of the Catholick and Primitive Church disagreement with the institution of Christ and resistance to the Command of Christ be denied Baptism For what else can it be to hinder those from coming to him whom he hath commanded to be suffered to come § 30. And so I have dispatcht the Fourth and last Branch of my Argument for Infants Baptism and have said all I intended to say by way of Confirmation of the Point What remains to be said will be matter of Use and Application CHAP. XXXI Infants Baptism Lawfull though there were neither Command for it nor Example of it § 1. BY what I have said in the former part of this Discourse I hope I have sufficiently evidenced the Lawfulness at least of Infants Baptism I will now go on to consider and answer Objections against it and that will still be a further confirmation of it and that being but obtained the Need they have of it and the Benefit they may have by it will be sufficient inducements to their baptizing
though they had no positive Right unto Baptism § 2. The Antipaedo baptists main ground on which they build their Opinion of the Unlawfulness of Infants Baptism taken in its full strength lies thus That which no one Text in all the Scriptures either commands or gives example of that it Unlawfull But in all the Scripture there is no one Text that either commands or gives an example of Infants Baptism Therefore it is Unlawfull § 3. In contradiction to this ground and to shew the falseness of it I thus argue against the first part of it If nothing be lawfull to be practiced but what some Text of Scripture doth command or give example of then nothing will be lawfull to be believed but what some Text of Scripture doth affirm For it is as necessary that we should have a Scripture Affirmation for what we believe as a Scripture Command or Example for what we practice And this I think no Antipaedo baptist will deny And if so then many things that we now believe and practice and shall become Hereticks and Schismaticks if we do not believe and practice them shall become unlawfull to us because there is in all the Scriptures no one Text that affirms the one or commands or gives example of the other as I shall shew in both particulars § 4. And first in matters of Faith First that the Son as God is equall to the Father this we believe and I hope the Antipaedobaptists do not disbelieve it And yet there is no one Scripture that doth expresly affirm it So that as Man he was circumcised this we believe and our Antipaedobaptists do not deny and yet as we have already noted there is no one Scripture that doth expresly affirm it § 5. Again that the Holy Ghost is God this we believe and I would hope our Antipaedobaptists did believe it too And yet there is no one Scripture that doth expresly affirm it Also that the Holy Ghost proceedeth from the Father and the Son this we believe and our Antipaedobaptists do not that I know deny it And yet there is no one Text of Scripture that doth expresly affirm it § 6. Thirdly that the Three Persons in the Trinity the Father the Son and the Holy 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 D. Basil de Spir. Sancto cap. 27. p. 213. Ghost are but One God this we believe and our Antipaedobaptists have not that I know of declared themselves to deny it And yet there is no one Scripture that doth expresly affirm it § 7. Fourthly even but this to add no more that it is the duty of Children to love their Parents this we believe and sure the Anabaptists will not deny it And yet where is there one Text in all the Scripture that doth expresly affirm it § 8. Now if we do and may believe these things and ought to believe them having sufficient ground for our belief of them even good Consequence drawn from some one or more Texts of Scripture compared together though no one Text of Scripture doth singly and alone in terms affirm them then may we as well practice some things which no one Text of Scripture doth expresly command or exemplifie so long as we can deduce that practice from any one or more Texts of Scripture compared together And the contrary Doctrine which is the Antipadobaptists ground for the Unlawfulness of Infants baptism is erroneous and absurd § 9. Again in matters of Practice That Women as well as Men ought to receive the Si quid valerent id genus argumenta mulieres pariter Coena Domini interdicendae essent quas Apostolorum seculo ad cam fuisse admissas non legimus Calvin Instit l. 4. c. 16. S. 8. Sacrament of the Supper of the Lord this we believe and practice and the Antipaedobaptâ—sts too And yet there is no one Text of Scripture that any more expresly commands or exemplifies that than Infants baptism is commanded or exemplified § 10. So that the weekly Lords day is to be sanctified or kept holy this we believe and practice and the Antipaedobaptists too And yet there is no one Text of Scripture that commands it Nor is there in the Scripture any example of its sanctification but what may agree to any other besides it It may indeed be shown that some where they did meet on that day and perform holy duties but it may also be shown that other where they did meet and perform holy duties on other days and if one conclude for the one then will the other conclude for the other and so we shall either have all holy days or none and then not that for any either command that enjoyns it or example that infersit § 11. So that Men or Women may be baptized either naked or cloathed we believe and the Church hath practiced And the Anabaptists I suppose do believe and have practiced both ways And yet there is no one Text of Scripture that commands baptizing either way neither is there an example of any persons being either way baptized extant in Scripture Of the going of some into the water of their being baptized therewith we find mention but of their going into it or being baptized with it naked or clothed there is nothing mentioned So that let the Antipaedobaptist say which way men and women should be baptized whether naked or clothed yet still here will be a circumstance at least in practice allowed and used by them as well as by our selves without any Scripture Command for it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 D. Bas de Sp. Sanâ—to c. 27. or Example of it So that men may be dipped either once or thrice at their baptizing we believe and it hath in the Church been practiced both ways But what Scripture command or example have we to determine that circumstance either way § 12. Now if both we and the Antipaedobaptists do rightly believe and lawfully practice what we believe of and practice in these things without any Scripture command or example to enjoyn or direct us then their assertion of the Unlawfulness of what is neither commanded nor exemplified in Scripture is erroneous and full of absurdity Which yet I shall further make to appear upon other accounts § 13. I think any rational man will grant that there is no more necessity of having a Divine Command for every thing we take up into our practice then there is of having a Divine Countermand for the laying down of any thing practiced by a Command Divine Yea of the two there is more reason we should have an express command from God to leave off what himself had once commanded than there is to have a command for the beginning of a practice never commanded by him For that which he never expressed any command for may yet be agreeable to his secret will and so not only lawfull but acceptable to him And this may be shewn in sundry cases and particularly in the Jews ordaining and keeping the Feasts of
A Modest Plea FOR INFANTS BAPTISM Wherein the Lawfulness of the Baptizing of INFANTS is defended against the ANTIPAEDOBAPTISTS And the Infants Need for it Benefit by it Capableness of it and Right unto it Is fairly shown from Grounds of Scripture the Tradition of the CHURCH and the Institution of CHRIST With Answers to Objections By W. W. B. D. Commendaverim Charitati vestrae causam eorum quâ— pro se loqui non possunt D. Aug. Ser. 8. de Verb. Apost CAMBRIDGE Printed by John Hayes Printer to the University and are to be sold by Henry Dickinson Bookseller 1677. To the Right worshipful Mr. Robert Cole Alderman of Grantham And to the worshipful The Twelve Comburgesses his Brethren And to all the worthy Commoners of that ancient Corporation WILLIAM WALKER Wisheth all temporal Prosperity and eternal Felicity Right Worshipful c. THe singular Favours Which you have shewed to me do merie a gratefull acknowledgement from me In testimony therefore of my obligations I dedicate unto you this Treatise May it prove what I design it a lasting monument of your generosity and my gratitude Through Gods blessing on the conjoyn'd erdeavours pious care and prndent conduct of Magistrate and Ministir your Corporation now is as Jerusalem of old was as a City that is at unity in it self A rare blessing that at all times but especially in dividing times Few Corporations in England cawboast the like God continue that happiness to you and to yours after you from generation Thereto if these Papers of mine be in any measure contributory as I do most sincercly wish it so I shall most heartily rejoyce at it as being one who takes a great pleasure in the Prosperity of your Corporation and no less in being serviceable in any manner or measure to it So begging your kind acceptance of my good meaning in this Dedication and wishing a perpetuation and inorease of Vnity and Amity and all the blessed Consequents thereof among you I present these Papers to your favour and remain Grantham School Aug. 1. 1676. Your most humble Servant WILLIAM WALKER The Preface to the READER OF all Dissenters from the Church of England none seem to lie under stronger Prejudices than the Antipaedobaptists as having so seemingly fair Pleas to make both for Themselves and against their Opponents and that both from Scripture Text and Ecclesiastick Practice as few of their fellow Dissenters can parallel With the more favour and kindness in my thoughts are their Persons precisely considered as such to be treated and with the more fairness and clearness ought those Endeavours which are undertaken for the removal of their Prejudiees to be managed And this may be a sufficient Account for that Prolixity which some may think there is and for that Plainness which I have studied there should be in these ensuing Papers especially if I shall add thereto this Consideration that the Persons lying under these Prejudices and whose rescue from under the captivity of Errour is the wish of all good Christians are mostly such as are to be spoke to in Vulgar language and Familiar speech as not having had those advantages of a learned education which should make them capable to sound the depths of profound performances unravel the windings of intricate discourses and keep pace in understanding with a high tide of big words and a rolling torrent of strong lines in which way to him that speaketh they will be but as Barbarians and he that speaketh shall be but a Barbarian unto them Whence by the way I shall take occasion to admonish those that read Books onely for the elegance of the language and cannot relish the wholsome food of soâ—â—â— matter unless it be served up in the savoury sauce of a piquant Phrase and set out with the specious garnish of a florid style to proceed no further as being not likely to find herein that sparkling briskness of Expression nor pleasing flavour of Elocution which suits the Tasts of their delicate palates as also to advise others of deeper learning and profounder knowledge not to expect from me new discoveries of hitherto unrevealed mysteries and fresh-sprung mines of as yet unravish'd and unrifled notions whose design in these Papers is not at all to teach the Learned but to instruct the Ignorant and that in all humility and submission as being conscious to my self of my manifold ignorances and imperfections and seeing even what I see but through a glass and that darkly And further to prevent any man's sinning against God by rashly judging or uncharitably censuring me about the quorations in these Papers which are many and large I declare that my ends in making them were to give strength and credit to the cause I maintain by shewing it espoused by persons of reputation for learning and judgment in their several ages and to free my self from the imputation of novelty and singularity in any thing maintained by me and that I made them so large partly to prevent suspicion of insincerity in my dealings and partly to furnish some with apposite testimonies Who may not have those conveniences of consulting Authors that I have had And let not any one think these quotations needless because the Antipae do baptists reject all authority but that of Scripture For I write not onely for the conviction and conversion of them but also for the satisfaction and confirmation of others Of whom some may have such a value for tradition as to be much confirmed by it others may think it so necessary as not to be satisfied without it And for their sakes according to the advice in Vincent Lirinensis I have been willing to fortifie the â—ape igitur magno studio sumkind attentione perquirens à quam pluribus sanctitate doctrinâ prastantibus viris quonam modo possim certa quâdam quasi generall ac regulari viâ Catbolicae fidei veritatem ab haereticae pravitatis falsitate discernere bujusmodi semper responsum ab omnibus fere retuli Quod five ego sive quis alius vellet exurgentium baereticorum fraudes deprehendere laqueosque vitare in fide sanâ sanus integer permanere duplici modo munire fidem suam Domino adâ—uvante deberet Primò scilicet divine leg is authoritate tum deinde Ecclesiae Catholicae traditione Hic forsitan requirat aliquis cum sit perfectus Scripturarum Canon sibique ad omnia satis superque sufficiat quid opus est ut ei Ecclesiasticae intelligentiae jungatur autoritas Quia videlicet scripturam sacram pro ipsâ suâ altitudine non uno codemq sensu universi accipiunt sed ejusdem eloquia aliter atq aliter alius atque alius interpretatur ut pene quot homines sunt tot lllinc sententiae erui posse videantur Aliter namque illam Novatianus aliter Photinus aliter Sabellius aliter Donatus exponit c. atq idcirco multum necesse est propter tantos tam varii error is ansractus ut
Propheticae Apostolice interpretationis linea secundum Ecclesiastici Catholici sensus normam dirigatur In ipsa item Catholica Ecclesia magnopere cur andum est ut id tene amus quod ubique quod semper quod ab omnibus creditum est hoc est etenim vere proprieq Catholicum c Vinc. Lirin advers baeres cap. 1. 2 3. cause I maintain not onely with the authority of divine Law but also with the tradition of the Catholick Church And even the Antipaedobaptists themselves are willing enough to flourish their writings with humane testimonies and to plead tradition too if for them Indeed I observe none to be against tradition but those that think it to be against themselves or to reject the evidence of humane testimony who do not fear to be condemned by it And because the judgments or rather fancies of men as to Authors are so infinitely various that one esteems that as gold which another despises as dross and values as wheat what another rejects as chaff therefore I have endeavoured to obviate that variety of judgments with a diversity of Authors producing those of the Middle and Modern ages as well as those of the Ancient and Primitive Schoolmen as well as Commontators Historians as well as Fathers Civilians as well as Divines and Polemiâ—al as well as Didactical Writers So that the Readers which do not like of all may please themselves with what they have most fancy too leaving the liberty which themselves make use of unto others who as being of different tasts may think their leavings as good as their takings and relish that best which they disrelish most And because there is no one Prejudice that holds a stronger possession of our Antipae dobaptists than that which arises from that bright evidence which they have of the baptizing Adult Persons in all the Ages of the Church and of many's deferring either to be baptized Themselves or to baptize their Infants in several Ages of it and those especially that were nearest to the Primitive Times and the removal of that Prejudice may be a fair Introduction to their depositing of all the rest therefore I will endeavour in my entrance to remove that And if I can shew that the Delays of Baptism which they so speak of in the Ancient times were upon other Grounds and on different Accounts from those that our Antipaedobaptists alledge in the case then that plea of theirs from the practice of baptizing Adult Persons and deferring the Baptism of Infants will neither serve their Hypothesis nor disserve ours The Grounds as I understand on which our Antipaedobaptist refuse to baptize their Infants and defer their baptizing to ripeness of Age are because as they suppose there is no command in Scripture for it And because there is no example in Scripture of it either of which if there found they would hold it lawfull and because they find neither of them there they hold it unlawfull Now if it appear that the unlawfulness to baptize Infants for want of a Scripture command or Example for it was none of the Grounds on which the Ancients did defer their baptizing and that never any such thing was in the Primitive Times pretended or pleaded by any to justifie or excuse that delay then I hope the case will be clear that their delays of Baptism on other Grounds can asford no protection to the Hypothesis our Antipaedobaptists who deny Baptism to Infants upon the Account of the unlawfulness of it That never any such pretence or plea was made by any in the primitive times even for five hundred years against Infants Baptism I rationally presume because I see none yet produced by any of the Learnedst of our Antipaedobaptists who have I believe search'd through and through all the writings of the Fathers and Primitive Historians and ransack'd every page and rifled every passage in them for some patronage to their Hypothesis And as they are quick sighted enough to have espied it so they would have been carefull enough if there had been any to have produced it And upon the most curious search that I have been able to make for it my self as far as the circumstances I am under would permit me I sincerely profess I have not been able to find any What I have found urged or but binted at as a ground or reason for any ones delaying either his own or any Infants baptizing I shall fairly give an account of and then leave the Reader to judge what advantage our pleaders against Infants Baptism upon the account of the unlawfulness of it can make therefrom or rather what a miserable fallacy they put upon themselves and others whilest they alledge the Primitive Practice of deferring Infants Baptism in justification of their denying Baptism to Infants upon the account of the unlawfulness of it for want of a Command or Example in Scripture whereas it was never in the Primitive Times denied to any Infant upon that account nor was that ground ever urged or alledged by any in those days as a reason or so much as pretence for their deferring to baptize their Infants nor did any ask as our Antipaedobaptists now do What Scripture have you for it Where did Christ ever command it or where did any Apostle practice it Now in order to the shewing on what Accounts Baptism was in Ancient Times so oft and so long deferred I must premise that some did voluntarily defer their own baptizing and some had their Baptism deferred by others the former were Adult the later Infants And of the Reasons or Occasions of both I will speak distinctly And First Those that delayed their own baptizing had severall Reasons and Pretences for it 1. Some did it out of a fear of sinning after baptism and so forfeiting the grace of it and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Gr. Naz. Orat. 40. p. 647. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Id. ib. p. 649. Sed mundus rursus delinquit quo male comparetur diluvio it aque igni destinatur sicut homo qui post baptismum delict a restaurat Tertull. de Bapt p,259 ed. Rigalt 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Gr. Nyssen de Baptismo p. 221. Indeed 't was very usuall in those times notwithstanding the Fathers did solemnly and smartly declaim against it for persons to defer their being baptized till they were near their death out of a kind of Novatian principle that if they fell into sin after Baptism there would be no place for repentance mistaking that place of the Apostle where 't is said that if they who have been once enlightened 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which the Ancients generally understand of Baptism sall away 't is impossible to renew them again unto repentance Dr. Cave Prim. Christian par 1. ch 10. pag. 309. being certainly damned without â—hope of recovery even by repentance especially when they considered the pronenese of their own nature to sin and the occasions and temptations to sinning that they should meet withall in
some pertinency to the Command of our Saviour to suffer them to come such not being to be denied reception into that kingdom of God as that Kingdom of God consisteth of But then how will our Saviours Command be pertinent to the present Occasion of his speech No question being made by his Disciples at that time about the final estates of children dying in their Infancy and the whole matter being that they denied admission of some Infants brought by others unto Christ to be touched by the Imposition of his hands and to be prayed over by him probably in order to their being made his Proselytes by baptism at which denial of theirs he being angry gave order that the children should be suffered to come to him namely for such purpose as those then came in all likelihood to be by his Imposition of hands and Prayer consigned over unto Proselytism and should not be hindred from coming to him § 4. And what were a declaration of childrens capacity for glory and fitness to come to Christ when he should be corporally present in Heaven if they died in their infancy to this matter especially at a time when Christ was not corporally present in Heaven but lived in body here below upon the earth § 5. Again a Command so given as this was would suppose an ability in those to whom it was given to do contrary unto that Command namely to hinder Children from reception into the Kingdom of God notwithstanding their greatest capacity for that kingdom But that was neither then in the power of his Disciples nor now is in the power of any man on earth Supposing children dying in their Infancy to belong to the kingdom of glory it is needless to command any man to suffer them to come to that kingdom § 6. So that neither of a Spiritual access of these children unto Christ where he is now corporally present in glory are these words interpretable such an interpretation of our Saviours words rendring them impertinent to the occasion of them And I hope none will say that our Saviour did at any time speak impertinent words § 7. And therefore not being able to imagine any other way by which our Children may come and yet may be hindred from coming unto Christ but that One way which hath hitherto been insisted on namely by being made Disciples to Christ by being baptized into the Name and Faith of Christ I conclude that this way our children ought to be suffered to come to Christ and ought not to be hindred from so coming § 8. And now the Point being thus explained and the Explication thereof thus vindicated I appeal to Common Reason whether or no there be not here that which the Antipaedobaptists of these days do with so much insolency demand of us viz. a fair and clear Scripture Ground for Infants Baptism If Children may come to Christ and must by the command of Christ be suffered to come to him and there be no other way of their coming to him but by Baptism what can be more plain than that in commanding that they should be suffered to come to him he commanded that they should be suffered to be baptized and forbad that they should be hindred from Baptism § 9. And by this time I hope it appears with how good judgment our Church hath appointed this passage of Scripture which as H. D. tells us was called of old the Scripture Treatise of Baptism pag. 177. Canon for Infants-Baptism and upon which as he saith much stress hath been laid since to prove the same to be read in the Congregation at the baptizing of Infants namely as containing in it a fair ground and a clear proof for Infants Baptism which I hope you do by this time see to be no such scriptureless thing as our Antipaedobaptists do pretend § 10. Yet least any man should think this Collection alone to be too weak a ground to bear that weight we lay upon it though by the way I must say that a Consequence from Scripture rightly made is a ground good enough to bear any weight that can be fairly laid upon it and as valid to all intents and purposes as if it were express Scripture it self that being eminently contained in the Scripture what ever it be that may be fairly drawn from it and that we have no better ground then a Consequence from Scripture to build other Points of our Christian Faith upon every way as weighty and material as Infants Baptism is yet I say I shall for your better settlement in the belief of this Catholick truth confirm it unto you by this one further Reason § 11. That by which Children may have Benefit for which they have Need of which they are Capable and to which they have Right that they ought to be suffered to have and ought not to be denied the having of But Children may have Benefit by Baptism they have Need for Baptism they are Capable of Baptism and they have a Right unto Baptism Therefore they ought to be suffered to have it and they ought not to be denied the having of it § 12. That Children ought to be suffered to have and ought not to be denied that whereby they may be Benefited for which they have Need of which they are Capable and to which they have a Right I suppose it not needful to prove For Charity will give them that Benefit for which they have need and Justice will not deny them that Right of which they are Capable I shall therefore forthwith proceed to make it out unto you that Children may have Benefit by Baptism have Need for Baptism are Capable of Baptism and have a Right unto Baptism And these things I shall shew you severally and in order beginning first with the Benefits that Infants may have by Baptism CHAP. VI. Baptism beneficial unto Children in regard of their early consecration thereby unto God § 1. IT will be found upon search that Baptism is beneficial unto Children more ways than one § 2. And First by Baptism they are offered and presented dedicated and consecrated unto God Baptism is a consecration of the Baptized unto God who are thereby Sanctified to his service Hence that of St Paul to the Corinthians 1 Cor. 7. 14. The unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband else were your children unclean but now are they holy i. e. separate from the common unclean condition of Heathens and by Baptism admitted into the community and relation and state of Christians who are Saints by calling as being called to be Saints that is Holy Ones and by their very 1 Cor. 1. 1. calling consecrated unto God and obliged by their Naming of the name of Christ who is named upon them at their baptizing to depart from iniquity 2 Tim. 2. 19. § 3. Hence as Beza Nam Baptismo consecramur Deo quoniam ibi nostra adoptio in Christo per
Dedication and of Purim But the leaving off to do what God hath once commanded cannot but be against his revealed will and so neither acceptable to him nor lawfull unless there be good and competent ground for the What may be a sufficient ground in this case See Dr. Stilling fleets Irenic part 1. c. 1. S. 3. p. 12 13. leaving it off and a sufficient evidence of the ceasing of that obligation to it which was once by vertue of a Divine command upon it If then there may be any thing shewn which was once expresly commanded by God and practiced in obedience to that command whose practice is now left off and by the Anabaptists themselves without any express command to the contrary and yet lawfully then it will follow and convincingly I hope that there may be something practiced by us which yet never was in Scripture expresly commanded us and so Infants Baptism may be lawfull enough though never expresly in Scripture commanded Now I instance in the Sanctification of the seventh day and in the Circumcision of Infants at eight days old both expresly commanded both accordingly practiced and both now left off to be observed and yet without any express command for the disobserving of either I speak all this while of things sacred and not merely civill or naturall And say an express command because I find nothing else will satisfie Else enough hath long enough and often enough been offered to shew the lawfulness of Infants Baptism Which if nothing else had been offered is sufficiently proved by this Argument following which they are as far from being ignorant of as they are from being able to answer § 14. That which is no sin cannot be unlawfull Infants Baptism is no sin Therefore it is not unlawfull That Infants baptism is no sin either to the Baptizer or Baptized is plain because it is no transgression of any Law For that which is no transgression of a Law is no sin Infants Baptism is no trangression of any Law Therefore it is no sin That that can be no sin which is no transgression of any Law is most evident not onely because St. John hath positively defined sin to be the transgression of a law 1 John 3. 4. but also because St. Paul hath concluded negatively that where no Law is there is no transgression Rom. 4. 15. And these men that conclude Infants baptism unlawfull which must needs signifie its being sinfull I wonder how or whence they come to know it and conclude it Sure they do not know more than St. Paul did And his Rule to know sin by and so what is lawfull and what unlawfull was the Law For saith he by the Law is the knowledge of sin Rom. 3. 20. And I had not known sin but by the Law for I had not known lust i. e. had not known it to be a sin except the Law had said Thou shalt not covet Rom. 7. 7. So then Infants Baptism being no transgression of any law because there is no law against it for there can be no transgression of a law which is not it must follow that it can be no sin and so cannot be unlawfull § 15. The Scripture I say being laid down to be the Rule of Lawfull and Vnlawfull in sacred Things as that which the Scripture commands is not onely lawfull but necessary and that which the Scripture forbids is not onely unnecessary but also sinâ—full so that which the Scripture neither commands nor forbids is neither necessary nor yet sinfull but of a middle nature betwixt both and that is Lawfull So that though the Scripture had never spoke word either in particular or in general of Infants baptism yet it must have been granted lawfull and could not have been concluded unlawfull because neither in particular nor in general hath the Scripture spoke any one word or title against the baptizing of Infants CHAP. XXXII Infants Baptism no Addition to the Word of God The Scriptures objected on that account considered and cleared § 1. YEa but argues the Antipaedobaptist Nothing is lawfull that is not commanded in Scripture Infants Baptism is not commanded in Scripture Therefore it is unlawfull But why is nothing lawfull that is not commanded in Scripture Because the doing of any uncommanded thing is an Adding to the word all additions to the word are forbidden by the Word and so unlawfull Now the Scriptures that forbid all additions to the word are many Deut. 4. 2. Deut. 12. 32. Prov. 30. 6. Isa 1. 12. § 2. But what if not every doing of an uncommanded thing be an adding to the word Or what if the baptizing of an Infant suppose it never so much uncommanded be no such addition to the word as is forbidden Why then Infants Baptism for all its supposed uncommandedness may be no sin And so the whole force of the Argument falls to the ground But because the best trial hereof will be a particular view of the Scriptures objected on this account I will therefore instantly address my self to the consideration of them and from that view I shall hope to find as that not all doing of a thing beside the word is an addition to the word so that Infants baptism is none of those culpable additions to the Word which are forbidden by it § 3. And the first is that in Deut. 4. 2. Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you neither shall you diminish ought from it that you may kâ—ep the Commandments of the Lord your God which I command § 4. To this I answer first that the Adding here forbidden cannot possibly be so understood as to make it unlawfull to do any thing even appertaining to the worship of God which is not expresly commanded in the word of God And that will be enough to overthrow their ground and secure Infants Baptism from the guilt of unlawfulness For it is evident that the word here commanded to Israel to which they were not to add and from which they were not to diminish are the Statutes and the judgments which Moses taught them to do ver 1. namely in this Book of Deuteronomy and the several chapters and verses of it and however in the whole book of the Mosaical Law Now it is most certain that those Statutes and judgments as they lie dispersed in the whole book of Moses Law do reach unto all sorts of duties of common life towards our selves and towards our brethren as well as of worship towards God If then all doing any uncommanded thing be an adding to the word and that adding to it which is here forbidden by it then all other uncommanded actions as well as uncommanded acts of worship and service towards God must hereby be forbidden and so be unlawfull and we must no more do any action of common life than any act of worship and service towards God but what is expresly commanded in the word for fear of incurring the guilt of adding to the
hope proved to be needful for children as well as parents And where there is the same need why should we not think he designed the same help When he bad the Parents be baptized for the remission of sins can it be thought his meaning was that the children should rather go without remission than have baptism as if he had some compassion indeed for the parents but none for the children § 13. But if he meant their childâ—en as well as themselves should be baptized why did he not say Be baptized both you and your children but onely be baptized your selves without any mention of their children I answer It was needless so to say because as one that well understood the Genius of that people he knew that they would look upon their children as heirs of the promise as well as themselves and so to be as capable of and to have as good right to the means that would make them partahers of the promise as themselves and because he intended particularly to urge that reason for their baptizing which would be as appliable to their children as to themselves and which they accordingly observing the custom He that would see this Text further open'd and urged may consult Mr. Nathaniel Stephen's Precept for the Baptism of Infants of their nation to circumcise and baptize the children as well as parents would apply unto them § 14. And thus I have shewn the Practice of this Church to baptize Infants not to be inconsistent with that Article of the Church which is urged against it And I hope I have sufficiently answered the Antipaedo baptists Arguments against the Lawfulness of Infants baptism and defended it against them CHAP. XXXVI A Reply to an Answer made by H. D. to the Objection from the no express Command or Example in Scripture of Womens receiving the Lords Supper referring to Chap. 31. Sect. 9. Obj. THe Objection saith H D that is usually brought under this Head is That there is no express Command or Example for Womens receiving the Lords Supper yet who doubts of a good ground from consequential Scripture for their so doing Answ In answer whereto you 'll find there is both Example and Command for the Practice viz. 1. From Example Acts 1. 14. where we read that Mary and other women were gathered together and that these women together with the rest of the Disciples were altogether in one place and continued stedfastly in the Apostles Doctrine and Fellowship and breaking of Bread and Prayers chap. 2. 42 44. It being expresly said That all that believed were together 2. It appears from Command 1 Cor. 11. 28. Let a man examine himself and so let him eat The Greek word signifieth a Man or a Woman the word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a word of the Common Gender as appears 1 Tim. 2. 4 5. There is one Mediator betwixt God and Man and Woman there is the same word used Gal. 3. 2. There is neither Male nor Female but ye are all one in Christ Let but as good proof appear from Command and Example for Infants Baptism and it shall suffice Thus far H. D. Edit 2. p. 95 96. Having my self with others made this Objection and finding nothing replied by Mr. Wills to this Answer made thereto I think it convenient to take away the force thereof by the ensuing Reply And first I say that the Allegation that Mary and other Women were gathered together Acts 1. 14 will not prove that there is express example for womens receiving the Lords Supper For though the Apostles continuing with one accord in prayer and supplication with the women and Mary the Mother of Jesus be mentioned there yet is no mention there made of their continuing or so much as being with them at the Sacrament of the Supper of the Lord. Nor is it there or any where expresly said that these women together with the rest of the Disciples were altogether in one place and continued stedfastly in the Apostles Doctrine and Fellowship and breaking of Bread and Prayers It is said indeed Acts 1. 15. That in those days Peter stood up in the midst of the Disciples But how does it appear that any Women were among them at that Assembly They are not mentioned And the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Disciples does not necessarily by the force of its literal import imply them For that is the proper word for male or he-disciples there are two other words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for female or she-disciples and if the she-disciples had been intended why was not one of the words proper for them used to include them But further the Apostles address is expresly to men and not to women His words are not so much as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which might be thought to take in the women but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 men in a word whose literal import excludes women and brethren So that unless by Men and Brethren must be meant and expresly too or else all is nothing women and sisters here will be no room for the women here Again in Acts 2. 1. They that were all-with one accord in one place are mentioned 〈◊〉 word of the masculine gender 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So in ver 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So in ver 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So in ver 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 again So in ver 7. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So in ver 13. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So in ver 15. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 again So in ver 37. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all expressions necessarily implying men but not necessarily implying women if not necessarily excluding them And who was it that continued stedfastly in the Apostles Doctrine and Fellowship and breaking of Bread and Prayer ch 2. 42. the women It is not so expressed But 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 expresly the Males that gladly received his word which 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 continued stedfastly in the Apostles Doctrine c. To whom before their conversion the Apostle addresses his speech as to Men not Women 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that 's his word ver 29. Men and Brethren And to and of whom after their conversion he still speaks as to persons of the male sex as far as we can guess by the gender of his words Ver. 38. Peter said unto them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and again 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 every one of you i. e. in the literal import every male of you Nor does it prove it that it is said ch 2. 44. That all that believed wore together For still they are persons of the male sex that there expressly are spoken of if 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 words all of the masculine gender denote any such thing of which gender still are all the words that denote their persons to the end of the Chapter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉