very practice of the Church to baptize Infants as we have shewn it to be doth make it credible For it is not easily imaginable how such a practice should come up so early and so universally into the Primitive Church if the Church had not received it from the Apostles as a command of Christs to baptize Infants § 3. Who that understood it to have been our Saviours command to teach all nations to observe all things whatsoever he had commarded them Matth. 28. 19 20. and observed the Apostles teaching by word or practice the baptizing of Infants could judge any other but that the Baptism of Infants was one of those things which he had commanded them to teach all nations to observe Though I have also shown that even our Saviours silence in the case not excluding Infants from that which it had been the use of the Church before his time to administer to them when he did institute Baptism to be the Ceremony of admitting into Discipleship to him is a sufficient indication of his mind that it was his will they should be admitted especially when it is remembred and considered that the same use that was before his Institution was continued still after it which makes it evident that he made no alteration in it § 4. Not to add that this very Text of mine was anciently lookt upon as a ground and even as a command of our Saviours for Infants Baptism And therefore St. Augustine having exhorted the Pelagian to Quare contradicis quare novie disputationibus antiquam fidei regulam frengere conaris Quid est enim quod dicis Parvuli non babent omnino vet originale peccatum Quid est enim quod dicis nisi ut non accedant ad Jesum Sed tihi clamaâ— Jesus Sinite pueros venire ad me D. Aug Serm. 8. de Verb. Apost baptize his Infant expostulates with him for contradicting and going abour with new disputes to break the old Rule of Faith namely in the point of the baptizing of Infants upon the account of Original Sin in them For whereto saith he tends your saying that children have no not so much as original sin but to this that they might not come to Jesus that is to be baptized that being the thing which he before had pressed him to But saith he Jesus crieth to thee that sure is as much as if he had commanded Suffer the little children to come unto me that is to be baptized as is evident by the design of the Father in that place § 5. And accordingly Tertullian who lived within two hundred years of our Saviours birth De Baptismo pag. 264. Edit Rigalt thinking this Text to oppose his Opinion which was for the delaying of the Baptism of Infants for a while yet not as unlawfull but as more profitable as he phansied propounds this Text as an Objection against his Opinion and labours to answer it Which shews however that even so early as his time this Text was lookt upon as a Precept for Infants Baptism § 6. And what saith he to it Why by way of Concession he saith Our Lord doth indeed say Do not hinder them from coming to me And what then Why then let them come when they are grown up to ripeness of years Yea but if they must stay so long before they be baptized they will not be little ones when they come to baptism and so will not be concern'd in this Text which speaks of the coming not of Adult persons but of young children unto Christ He saith not Suffer those that are Adult but Suffer little children to come unto me And his saying Suffer little children to come unto me imports his mind to have them come and his readiness to receive them at their coming to him even when and whilst they are little children And what man of judgment would ever have interpreted our Saviours saying Suffer the little children to come unto me and forbid them not at a time when little children were brought to him and hindred for being brought to him so little as if he had by so saying meant Suffer these which now are little children to come to me hereafter when they shall be men that is as much as to say Suffer them not to come to me now which is to command the very same thing which at the very same time he rebuked his Disciples for going about to do and contrary to his present acting who even then turn'd them not away from him but took them up into his arms and laid his hands upon them and blessed them A gloss this that contradicts and corrupts the Text. § 7. Again saith he Veniant dum discunt c. Let them come when they have learned and are taught whither to come But those whose coming to Christ occasioned this speech and according to whose then present condition the speech is to be understood were not such nor so taught not such as had learned or could be taught how to come to Christ but were Infants brought to him by others by reason of their inability to come to him of This passage of Tertullian because it is much stood upon see further spoken to und more fully answered by B. Gauden Eccles Anglic. Suspiria l. 3. c. 13. p. 299. And by Mr. Wills Infant Baptism Asserted Par. 2. chap. 7. themselves and of them then and of such as they then were are his words now to be understood and accordingly have been understood in all the ages of the Church to be sure as early as Tertullians time else why did he dispute against it § 8. But if there were neither this nor any other Text that was or lookt like a Precept for Infants Baptism in the whole Bible yet there might have been one given though none were written And what probability there is of it that one was given if none of those Texts that are written were by the practice of the Church interpreted to be such I have now shown CHAP. XXXIV The Scriptures silence no proof of the Apostles baptizing no Infaâ—ts § 1. SEcondly as it follows not that our Saviour gave no express precept for Infants baptism because none is written that is none is written so expresly as to be acknowledged for such by the Antipaedobaptists though my Text as I have shewn you is so express as to have been taken for such in St. Augustines time and in Tertullians time fourteen hundred and fifteen hundred years ago and for ought I know or any man living can prove to the contrary from the beginning so it doth not follow that the Apostles did baptize no Infants because it is not expresly written in the Scriptures that they did baptize any though I have shewn you from the Scripture a very pregnant proof of such practice even by the Apostles themselves in their own times did not prejudice so blind the eyes of our Adversaries that they will not see it For they might baptize Infants though it were
drew from our Saviours setting believing before baptizing which how weak it was I hope I need not so soon remember you And granting all they can fairly pretend to from this Text it will not hence follow that Infants are uncapable of Baptism as I shall hope to make appear upon a due and through consideration of the words § 9. Our Saviour here enlarges his Disciples Commission to go and preach and make Disciples not in one nation only as formerly but in all nations teaching and baptizing them suppose we read the words so Well what can this mean other than that those of the nations that were capable of teaching should be taught and baptized not excluding from baptizing those that for the present were onely capable of so much discipulation if I may so speak as was performed by baptizing but as yet were not capable of any teaching And what makes this against Infants Baptism There is not an exclusive Particle in the whole Text. § 10. But to proceed this we will grant that if the order of Teaching and Baptizing See Dr. Stillingflcets Vindic. A. B. of Cant. p. 107. be considered in their reference to the conversion of all nations or any one whole particular nation unconverted teaching is to go before baptizing But this is not from the naked consideration of the setting of the words Teaching and Baptizing as if the order of the words were inviolably to be observed in the order of things and if any have so thought and argued I cannot in that excuse them from a shortness of discourse but it is from the otherwise unpracticableness of the things * Non enim potest fieri ut corpus baptismi recipiat Sacramentum nisi ante anima fidei susâ—eperit veritatem D. Hieron in Matth. 28. 29. themselves For as no Adult person will be brought to be baptized before he be taught what baptism means and why he should be baptized so the Church will admit no Infants to baptism but those that are the children of baptized persons or at least are undertaken for by such as are baptized Suppose our Saviour had set baptizing before teaching as he might had he pleas'd and said Go ye therefore and baptize all nations in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost teaching them what I have commanded they should know and do who would have scrupled to begin his work with teaching notwithstanding the order of the words as imagining that none that understood themselves would ever be baptized before they were taught It is therefore not from the order of the words but from the orderliness of the things which cannot otherwise be effected but in this way and order that this course is and must in such case be taken Now if so then the whole force of the Antipaed obaptists argument from the mere consideration of the order of these words teaching set before Baptizing which yet is all they have in this point to urge from them is utterly vanished § 11. But when once some in a nation have been taught and have received the faith and have been baptized into it then it follows not that the same course must necessarily still be taken with every siâ—le person in it that was proper for and was taken with the whole of it but that all that any way and in any degree are capable of baptism may respectively according to their capacity be admitted to it though they be wanting in some thing which others of greater capacity have and is requisite in them to make them capable of it And to argue from what is requisite in Men before the conversion of a nation to what is requisite in children after the nation is converted is fallacious For it does not follow Thus it was with the Adult Men of the nation before any of it were converted therefore thus it must be with the Infant Children of the Nation after the conversion of their Fathers more being required of Men than of Children of Men that can receive or reject the Gospel than of Children that can neither reject it nor receive it Men are not to be admitted to baptism but upon those accounts in respect whereof they are to be qualified for it Children are to be admitted to baptism upon those accounts in respect whereof they are qualified for it and not to be rejected upon those accounts in respect whereof they are not qualified for it unless it had been positively and particularly required of them that they should be so qualified or not be baptized Why should any require from Infants so much as is required of Men to qualifie them for baptism when the Scripture hath not required of them so much Why should any make Infants entrance into the kingdom of Heaven straiter than God himself hath made it Why should any keep them out whom God has a mind to let in Why should any keep them from coming to Christ whom Christ hath commanded should be suffered to come unto him § 12. Our Saviour saith Go teach all nations baptizing them but he doth not say Baptize none of those nations before they be taught Some must be first taught that all may be baptized not none baptized but those that are first taught He saith teach all nations baptizing them but he doth not say whether the teaching or the baptizing shall be first No he determines neither to be first or second but according as their discretion should think fit He says not so much as Teach and Baptize but only Teach baptizing Which therefore enforceth neither to be first but according as the nature of the things may require and the condition of the persons admit Suppose he had said Go ye therefore and convert all nations preaching to them my Gospell who would ever have imagined it to have been his command that the Apostles should first convert the nations and then preach the Gospel to them and that because the words were so set converting before preaching therefore none were to be preached to but those that were first converted St. Bâ—sil gives the Text this gloss he commanded Tà 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 D. Basil adv Euâ—omium l. 5. the Gentiles that had believed and had been taught to be baptized in the name of the Trinity Can any man from the order of the words here believed set before taught gather hence that St. Basil thought persons were first to believe and then to be taught or that none were to be taught but they that first believed It is unimaginable And if this way of arguing be most fallacious and absurd as it is then such is that of the Antipaedobaptists whereto this is exactly parallel and every way the same when they argue from the order of the words to the order of the things But what will they say to Gregory Nazianzene who inverts the order of our Saviours words sets Baptizing before Teaching * Greg. Nazianz. Orat. 40. p. 670 677. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
retentam est non nisi Aâ—â—boritate dpoâ—lâ—lica traditum reâ—issime crediâ—â—r D. Aug. de Bapt. â—oâ—tra Donat l. 4. c. 24. therefore it is most rightly behaved in St. Augustines judgment to be delivered by Authority Apostolical c Co â—suâ—tuâ—o â—amcn matris Ecclesiae in baptiâ—â—an 〈◊〉 parvulis nâ—quaq â—amspernenda câ—t ni que ullâ— mâ—dâ— supersluâ— dep it inâ—â— ner omnino credâ—â—da nisâ—â—â—â—stolica esse traditiv D Aug. l. 10. de Genes al Literan c. 2â— This reading isasserâ—ed and vindicated by Dr. Sâ—illing flâ—â—â— Vindic. of A. B. of Cant. part 1. c. 4. p. 108. nor saith he is it to be believed to be any other but an Apostolical Tradition which it seems it was so apparent then to be that the Pâ—la 〈…〉 s themselves upon that account did yield that Infants were to be baptized though they would not yield it upon the account of any original sin in them because saith he they cannot go against the Authority of the Universal Church del vered d Parvulos baptizandos esse conâ—â—dant quia contra authoritarem universae Ecclesiae proculdubio per Dominum Apostolos traditam venire non possunt D. Aug. l. 1. de pecc merit remiss without doubt by the Lord and his Apostles And accordingly Origin testifies that the Church did receive from the Apostles e Ecclesia ab Apostolis traditionem susccpit etiam parvulis baptismum dare Origen l. 5. in â—p ad Roman a Tradition for the baptizing of Infants And so when the Author of the Ecclesiastick Hierarchy reports Infants Baptism to have been brought down to his Time from ancient Tradition f Hoc quoque de hac re dicimus quod divini nostri ponrisices à veteribus acceptum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nobis tradiderunt Aiunt cnim id quod ctiam verum est pucros si â—n sancto instituto ac lege instituan â—ur ad sanctam animi constitutionem perventuros esse ab omni errore solutos ac liberos sine ullo impurae vitae periâ—â—lo Hoc cum in mentem venisseâ— divinis nostris praeccptoribus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 placuit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 admitti pueros hoc sancto modo Dionys Areopag l. de Eccles Hierarch cap. ult and saith that when it came into the mind of our divine Guides that children being brought up in a holy law would lead their life in holiness it pleased them that Infants should be admitted to it after that holy manner there by him described Maximus his Scholiast interprets those Divine Guides to be the Apostles And so Ph. Meloncthon g Baptismum infantium constat à veteribus Scriptoribus Ecclesiae probari Nam Origines Augustinus scribunt ab Apostolis receprum esse Melancthon Concil Theolog. part 1. p. 59. names both Origen and Augustin as avouchers hereof And whereas the Antipaedobaptists in Mr. Calvins time made the simple believe that for many years together after the resurrection of Christ Infants Baptism was unknown in that saith he they telled a most soul lie for as much as there is no so ancient writer as doth not of a certainty refer the original thereof unto the Apostles h Quod autem apud simplicem vulgum disseminant longam annorum seriem post Christi resurrectionem praeteriisse quibus incognitus erat paedobaptismus in co faedissime menâ—iuntur siquidcm nullus est scriptor tam verustus qui non cjus originâ—m ad Apostolorum scculum pro certo reserat Calvin Instit l. 4. c. 16. Sect. 8. Age. § 5. So that I shall no further labour by the Testimony of Ecclesiastical Writers to prove the Tradition to have been Apostolical but rather go on to make it evident to you from the Testimony of the Sacred Scriptures that it was the Practice of the Apostles a thing done by some or all of them to baptize Infants Not that I can produce any Text which expresly saith they did so that must not be expected from me out of these writings which we have of the Apostles one such expres testimony would end the strise on all hands but that I shall name some Scripture Texts from which it may very probably at least be gathered if it cannot be demonstratively concluded that they did baptize Infants And yet by the way meâ—hmks even a probable Intimation of any Apostolick Practice from the Scriptuâ—e backt with so full and positive an Affirmation of it by the Catholick Church as hath been produced should be enough to sway the judgment and carry the Assent of any modest nquirer thereinto next to if not as good as a Demonstrative Argument CHAP. XXIX Infants Baptism an Apostâ—lical Practice § 1. Now for Practive We read in the Scripture of several hâ—ush Ids baptized at once as Lydia and her houshold Acts 16. 15. and the Jaylor and his houshold ib. 33. and the houshold of Stephanas 1 Cor. 1. 16. and all these by St. Paul And it is not to be doubted but the other Apostles walked in the same steps with him and did as he did receiving unto Proselytism whole housholds by baptizing them And no marvel if they did sometimes baptize whole housholds who were commisâ—ionated to baptize all nations § 2. Now though it be not expressed there were any Infants in those or any of those houses yet first it is very strange there should be none in any of them as if the grace of God had delighted to take place and dwell chiefly in barren families who should be in least probability of propagating it to posterity at a time when its propagation seems to have been the design of all the persons in the Trinity and secondly if there weâ—e any it is certain that being not excepted they were baptized Which probability though the Antipa dobaptists who cannot deny it do yet think they sufficiently conâ—ute by laughing at it is not so altogether improbable nor will be found so to be when it shall appear that it was the manner of the Jews to baptize the Infants of the Proselyte Converts as well as themselves and that the Christian Baptism founded therein made no variation therefrom in that particular Of which more anon § 3. But to come to that which I chiefly purpose to insist on St. Paul tells the Corinthians See Dr. Hâ—mmond of Inf. Bapt. Sec. 31. to Sec. 39. and Defence of Inf. Baptism pag. 101. pag. 58. to pag. 66. 1 Cor. 7. 14. that the unbeliâ—ving husband had beâ—n sanctisied by the nife and the unbelieving wife by the husband and that otherwise their children had been unclean whereas now saith he they are holy Now this Text rightly rendred and understood is a full evidence for Insants Baptism by the very Apostles themselves or those whom they themselves appointed to baptize which comes all to one The word which in the English we render is sanctified is if rightly rendered hath been sanctisied So the Tense of the Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
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
their Sureties the Infants are doubly obliged First by the infinite advantages that come to them by it which unless they be fools or mad they will hasten all that ever they can as soon as they know it further to assure unto themselves by a personal engaging in it Secondly by the forfeiture of all benefits by it besides many other obligations before mentioned upon their disavowing and disclaiming of it § 18. No profession then beâ—ng required from themselves and a sufficient one being made for them by others they are not uncapable of entring into Covenant with God on this account neither § 19. And thirdly that their want of understanding renders them not incapable of entering into Covenant with God is evident by one instance beyondexception in Deut. 29. 10 11 12. Ye stand this day all of you before the Lord your God your Captains of your tribes yâ—ur Eldâ—rs and your officers with all the men of Israel your little ones your wives and thy stranger that is in thy camp from the hâ—wer of thy wood unto the drawer of thy water That thou shouldst enter into Covenant with the Lord thy God and into his Oath which the Lord thy God maketh with thee this day See! even the little ones as well as Elders and Officers were capable of entring and did actually enter into Covenant with God and into the Oath of God their want of years and understanding to know the condition of the Covenant and Oath which they entred into or to make profession of entring into it not at all withstanding So that want of years and unâ—erstanding cannot render children incapable of entring into Gods Covenant And then much less can it render them uncapable of receiving the sign or seal of his Covenant § 20. And however that it cannot is evident because the Jewish Infant was capable as of the Covenant it self as we have seen before so of Circumcision the sign and seal of the Covenant which to receive at eight days old he was bound upon pain of excision He that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you every man-child in your generations And the uncircumcised man-child whose flesh of hâ— foreskin is not circumcised that soul shall be cut off from his people he hath broken my Covenant Deut. 17. 12. What he was so bound to receive surely he was capable of Now why the child of a Christian should be less capable of receiving one seal of a Covenant than the child of a Jew was of another I am yet to learn § 21. And so there is nothing in Baptism it self rendring Infants uncapable of being baptized CHAP. XXV Children not incapable of Baptism by any Text of Scripture that forbids it either directly or by consequence § 1. ADmit Infants never so capable of Baptism in all other respects yet if the Scripture do forbid it then it becomes unlawfull for them to have it and they upon that account become uncapable of it § 2. Thirdly therefore and lastly I affirm that upon the diligentest search that I was ever able to make I could never find any Scripture that forbad it Search the Scripture from end to end and not one Text appears wherein it is forbidden As the Antipaedobaptists call but for one Scripture that commands it and upon that say they will yield to it so on the other hand the Paedobaptists call for a Scripture that forbids it and upon that say they will not contend for it But there is none no not one it would else have been shewn ere this being so much and so long called for § 3. Yea though there be never a Scripture that expresly and in terms forbids it yet if there be but one wherein by direct and evident consequence it is forbidden though our adversaries will yield nothing to all the many Scriptures from whence we do by good consequence deduce it because we produce not a Text that doth in express terms command it let it be shewn and we shall pay all due respect unto it the Contest will instantly be given over by us who seek not victory without truth but truth whether with or without victory we shall believe the baptizing of our Infants unlawfull and upon the account of its unlawfulness believe them uncapable of it § 4. But if there be no such Text in all the Scripture as doth so much as by consequence forbid the baptizing of Infants we must then beg to be excused if we hold the baptizing of them lawfull and upon the account of that lawfulness think them not uncapable of it § 5. For if sin be a transgression of the law as St. John defines it 1 John 3. 4. and where there is no law there is no transgression as St. Paul determines it Rom. 4. 15. then can it be no sin either to Infants to be baptized or to others to baptize Infants because no law is by either †For therefore any thing is unlawful because it transgresseth a law W. Penn. Eng. Present Interest p. 24. transgressed there being none that either forbids them to be baptized * It is an evidence that Infants are not to be excluded from Baptism because there is no divine Law which doth prohibit their admission into the Church by it Dr. Stilling fleet Irenic p. 7. or forbids others to baptize them therefore their baptism is lawfull and they upon the account of its lawfulness are capable of it § 6. And put case we should grant that there were no Text in Scripture whereon to ground it yet would it not follow thence that it were unlawfull For the mere uncommandedness of a thing doth not infer the unlawfulness of it a thing is not therefore unlawfull onely because it is not commanded To make a thing necessary indeed there must be a law for it and to make a thing unlawfull there must be a law against it But to make a thing onely lawfull it is not necessary there be any law for it it is sufficient that there be no law against it If then we cannot prove it necessary because the Antipaedobaptists say we have no law for it they cannot prove it unlawfull because we are sure they have no law against it It remains therefore that it be lawfull and that our children upon the account of the lawfulness of it be capable of it § 7. Why but our Saviour sets Teaching before Baptizing Matth. 28. 19. saying to his Disciples when he commissionated them to be his Apostles to all the nations of the world for the gathering of a Church out of it Go ye therefore and teach all nations baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost Well and what then Why then saith the Antipaedobaptist none must be baptized before he be taught and so taught as that they do learn And this because Infants are incapable of therefore they are uncapable of baptism § 8. This Argument of theirs is like that former which they
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Had this Father understood of any force in the order of our Saviours words to signifie the order of the things he would not have inverted it or had he intended any such force in the order of his own words that is had he intended by setting teaching after baptizing to express such teaching as was to come after baptizing he would then have put the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not onely after 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but after the whole sentence 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 There cannot be any force therefore in arguing from the order of the words to the order of the things and yet in this argument of twisted hairs doth the great strength of these our Samsons lie § 13. Yet further if this Argument have any force in it then it is clearly for us and against them For you plainly read here in the 19 th verse the word Baptizing And the first word of the 20 th verse following is Teaching So then if the things must go according to the order of the words then Baptizing must go before Teaching And so this Text is so far from making against Infants baptism that it makes clearly for it even by the Antipaedobaptists own way of arguing § 14. By which way of arguing if allowed for good it were easie to prove that John the Baptist did first baptize his Disciples before he taught them because in Mark 1. 4. his baptizing is set before his preaching For so 't is expresly there said John did baptize in the wilderness and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins See first he baptized and then he preached and so by his example especially according to their way of arguing men may at least if yet they ought not to be baptized before they be taught § 15. And so whereas it is said that those that John did baptize were such as confessed their sins yet it may be said that his baptizing at least according to their way of arguing went before their confessing For so it follows in ver 5th There went out unto him all the land of Judea and they of Jurusalem and were all baptized of him in the river of Jordan confessing their sins See â— first ye have his Baptizing and after their confessing Which that it was really the Holy Baptists order of proceeding though it be not concluded from the order of the words yet may seem probable from what was the custom of the Jews as the learned in their customs say namely See Dr Lightfoots Horae Hebraicae pag. 41. to admit men unto Proselytism or Discipleship by Baptizing them Either way our business is done For if he did not baptize them before he had preached to them and they had confessed to him then the Argument from the order of the words to the order of the things is not good But if he did baptize them before his preaching and their confessing then here is a Scripture instance of Baptizing before Teaching and confessing which justifies our practice and gives an utter overthrow to the whole Hypothesis of the Antipaedobaptists in this matter § 16. And as for the word Teaching which goes before Baptizing in the 19 th verse several very learned Persons * They mistranslate the words for Christ saith not Go teach all nations for his words are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Go make Disciples among all nations do affirm that it is not so properly there rendred Teaching The word that properly signifies Teaching comes after baptizing in the 20 th verse and is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to teach whence 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doctrine or teaching and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Doctor or Teacher But the word Dr. Featly Dippers dipt pag 40. The Phrase which is there used in the original is a singular one not duly expressed by our English Teach It is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 make Disciples or receive into Discipleship all nations Dr. Hammond Quaere of the Baptizing of Infants pag. 196 See his Defense also p. 46. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e Discipulos facite Introducite per Baptismum ut doceantur Dr. Lightfoot Horae Hebraicae p 323. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Discipulate aut discipulos reddite Vatablus Discipulate i. e. discipulos reddite Lucas Brugensis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 non est docere sed discipulum facere Wendelin Thcolog l. 1. c. 22. Explic. Thes 11. Teach them that is make them my Disciples c. Mr. Perkins cited by H. D. pag. 4. Edit 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Locutio est Hebraica nam 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 est 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 discipulus unde formant verbum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 facere discipulum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sicri discipulum Thus Cameron declares the propriety of the word though he is not of opinion that it is used in that propriety here but saith simpliciter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 docere and so makes a Tautology in the words which yet he endeavours afterward to salve by a distinction but in vain that in the 19th Baptizing and is rendred teaching is another word namely 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which coming from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a disciple as that from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to learn according to its variety of construction signifies to be a Disciple to another or to make another a Disciple § 17. With a Dative case of the Person it signifies to be a Disciple to another Plutarch in the life of Isocrates speaking of Theopompus and Ephorus's being Isocratess's Scholars so expresseth it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. But Disciple or Scholar unto him was The pompus and Ephorus St. Matthew expresses Josephs being a Disciple to Jesus by the same Phrase Matth. 27. 57. There came a rich man of Arimathea named Joseph who also himself 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was Jesus disciple i. e. Disciple or Scholar to Jesus So Justin Mâ—rtyr in his second Apology speaks of some of sixty and seventy years old 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from their infancy or ever since they were children had been disciples to Christ Yea and in the forenamed place of Plutarch without any Dative case expressed but absolutely set it signifies to be a Disciple And I saith he will teach you my whole art 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 if you will be my Scholar or will learn § 18. But with an Accusative Case of the Person it is used to signifie to make another a Disciple So Justin Martyr speaking of the Gentiles which before the coming of Christ were like an unbroken colt that had never born either saddle or yokâ— saith that when Christ was come Discipulos suos ablegavit per ipsos eas in disciplinam suam recepit The Lat. Translat of Justin 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he sent by his Disciples and Discipled them or made them Disciples And according to this import of the verb active 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
suit notus usâ—tatus frequens â—â— nâ—hil fere notius usitatius frequentius 1 Non opus erat ut aliquâ— pracepto robâ—rarâ—tur cum Baptismus jam in Sacramentum evaderet â— van elicuâ—â— Nam Christus Baptismum in manus suis atque 〈◊〉 Evangelicum suscepit qualem in 〈…〉 hoc solâ—m dito quod ad digniorem finem atque largiorem usum promoveret Novit satis gens universa parvulos solitos baptizari illud praecepto opus non habuit quod communi usu semper invaluerat Si prodiret â—am edictum regale in haec verba Recipiat se unusquisque die Dominico ad publicum conventum in Ecclesia insaniet certe ille quiâ—unque olim hinc argueret non celebrandas esse die Dominico in publicis conventibus preces conciones psalmodias co quod nulla in edicto de iis mentio Nam cavit edictum de celebratione deel Dominicae in publicis conventibus in genere de particularibus autem divini cultus speciebus ibidem celebrandis non opus erat ut esset mentio cum istae ante datum edictum cum daretur semper ubique notae essent in usu assiduo Ipsissimo hoc modo res st habuit cum Baptismo Christus eum instituit in Sacramentum Evangelicum quo in professionem Evangelii omnes admitterentur ut olim in Prosâ—lytismum ad religionem Judaicam Particularia â—ò spectantia modus scilicet baptizandi atas baptizanda sexus baptizandus c. regula definitione opus non habuerunt eo quod haec vel lippis tonsoribus satis nota erant ex communi usu 2 E contra ergo plana aperta prohibitione opus erat ut insantes parvuli non baptizarentur si eos baptizandos nollet servator Nam cum per omnia secula praecedentia usitatissimum esset ut baptizarentur parvuli si adoleri istam consuetudinem vellet Christus aperte prohibuisset Silentium ergo ejus Scripturae hac in â—e Paedobaptismum firmat propagat in omnia secula Dr. Lightfoot Horae Hebraicae in Matth. 3. 6. pag. 44 45. to be being already so well known by the former practice of it as the Learned Dr. Lightfoot excellently argues § 13. And now what can any mortall man that hath not addicted himself a slave to prejudice judge any other but this that in as much as our Saviour made no alteration in this particular in the Jewish Baptism therefore Infants are by his Institution to be baptized And that in all those passages of Scripture which speak of admitting any to be disciples to Christ or of any's being admitted by baptism to be his Disciples there if Infants be not by some Circumstance necessarily excluded they are in the design and by the Institution of our Saviour to be included § 14. As for instance when our Saviour enlarging his Disciples former Commission saith to them Go and make Disciples of all nations baptizing them who that remembers but what persons were admitted to be made Disciples before our Saviours time namely Infants as well as others and considers but withall that since his time also Infants as well as others were in the first Ages of the Church and ever since admitted to Discipleship by Baptism who I say that but remembers and considers this can judge any other but that our Saviour did in his design extend his words to all those that he did not exclude even to Infants also as well as to others and that his Disciples did also accordingly so understand him and baptize Infants and deliver Infants Baptism down as a thing to be for ever retained in the Church even by his Institution of which their so doing there can no other probable account or reason be given § 15. Put case whereas of three things formerly in use for the admitting of Disciples viz. Circumcision Sacrifice and Baptism our Saviour did lay aside the two former Circumcision and Sacrifice and did continue onely the later namely Baptism put case I say he had continued Circumcision to be the onely Ceremony to be used in his Church for the admitting of Disciples and had laid aside Sacrifice and Baptism and in stead of saying Go ye therefore and make Disciples of all nations baptizing them c. had said Go ye therefore and make Diseiples of all nations circumcising them c. who that remembred that Infants as well as others See Dr. Stillingfleets Vindicat. of the A. B. of Cant. p. 107. had usually in that case been circumcised would ever have interpreted his words to the excluding of Infants from Circumcision or ever have once imagined or phansied any other but that children should now and henceforth as well as formerly be circumcised Even so now our Saviour having discontinued Circumcision and Sacrifice and continued Baptism alone to be the Sacrament of the Initiation of Disciples into his Church who that remembers that it was the use before our Saviours time to admit Infants into the Church by Baptism can imagine any other but that his mind was that they should still be so admitted or but rationally phansie that in saying make disciples of all nations baptizing them he meant to exclude Infants from Baptism If Infants should have come in had he said Circumcising them as undoubtedly they would who would ever once have disputed it or made any question of it then they ought to come in now that he hath said Baptizing them For the case is equall on both sides one as well as the other being a Ceremony of admission of Disciples to Proselytism before his saying those words and there being as much reason for the one as for the other the very same for both Which one consideration if reason might take place were enough to end the controversie and carry the Cause for Infants Baptism § 16. And thus again when in the present Text our Saviour saith Suffer little Children to come unto me and forbid them not in as much as the coming he there speaks of is a coming to be his Proselytes a becoming his Disciples as appears by what he adds as a reason why Adduxerunt ergo aliqui è credentibus infantes suos ut peculiari recognitione Christus eos in discipulatum suum cooptaret ac pro suis sua consignaret be nedictione Dr. Lightfoot in Matth. 19. 13. Horae Hebraicae pag. 221. they should be suffered to come to him viz. because of such is the kingdom of God which intimates that their coming to him was for entrance into that kingdom and to be made members of his Church and his command to suffer them to come to him was to suffer them to have entrance into Gods kingdom so to come to him as Proselytes of his kingdom to become members of his Church it is most evident that he appoints they should have all things permitted to them and that performed for them which was necessary to their so coming to him and was usually done to such
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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉