Circumcised with the Circumcision made without hands in putting off the Body of the Sins of the Flesh by the Circumcision of Christ having been buried with him in Baptism Col. 2.11 12. But in the second place if we consider the Original of Baptism as a Jewish Institution we shall find it very improbable that Circumcision should be a Type of it because a Type properly speaking is a * Typus quatenus vox ista sensum habet Theologicum ita definiri posse videtur ut sit futuri alicujus Symbolum quoddam aut exemplum ita à Deo comparatum ut ipsius plane instituto futurum illud prafiguret Quod autem ita praefiguratur illud Antitypus dici solet Outramus de Sacrificiis l. 1. cap. 18. Symbol of something future or an Exemplar appointed under the Old Testament to prefigure something under the New But Baptism was it self of Jewish Institution under the Old Testament and by consequence could not be Typified and prefigured by Circumcision with which it was coexistent and used with it for many years together in the Jewish Church The Jewish Church made it a Ceremony of initiating Proselytes unto the Law and our Saviour liking the Institution continued the use of it and made it the only Ceremony of Initiating Proselytes unto the Gospel superadding unto it the compleat Nature of an Initiatory Sacrament or the full force of Circumcision as it was a Sign of the Covenant and a Seal of the Righteousness of Faith These things being premised let us proceed to the stating of the former Questions And first of all Quest I. Whether Infants are uncapable of Baptism Which considering what hath already been said concerning the Spiritual and Evangelical Nature of the Covenant which God made with Abraham and the initiation of young Children into it by God's especial appointment cannot without rashness be affirmed Nothing can reflect more dishonour upon the Wisdom of God and the practice of the Jewish Church than to assert Infants to be uncapable of the same privilege which God and the Jewish Church granted unto them For God commanded them to be Circumcised and the Jewish Church commanded them to be Baptized as well adult Proselytes and if they were then capable both of Circumcision and Baptism surely they are capable of Baptism now If they be not from whence comes the difference Not from the Nature of the Covenants for the Covenant which God made with Abraham and his Seed was as I have shew'd the same Covenant for substance which he hath since renew'd with us in Christ Nor from the Signs and Seals of the Covenant for Circumcision was a Sign and Seal of the same Grace or of the same Righteousness of Faith under the Old Testament that Baptism is now under the New Wherefore since the Covenants were for substance the same both Spiritual and Evangelical Covenants and the Grace of those Covenants the very same and only the Rites and Ceremonies which were Signs of those Covenants and Seals of that Grace being different what hinders in the nature of the thing but that Infants who were capable of the one should not also be capable of the other Is Baptism a more Spiritual Ordinance than Circumcision That cannot be because Circumcision is a Gospel-Ordinance I mean an Ordinance of the Gospel which God preached before unto Abraham and if the Spirituality of outward Ordinances are to be measured from the ends of their institution then Circumcision was every way as Spiritual as Baptism because it really signed the same Covenant and sealed the same Grace and was a Ceremony of Initiation to the same Spiritual Seed of Abraham that Baptism now is Wherefore if the relative nature of Circumcision considered as a Sacrament was the same under the Law that Baptism is under the Gospel it must needs follow that Children under the Gospel are as capable of this supposing no new Command to exclude them as under the Law they were of that if Infant Church-Membership or the Initiation of Infants was then no absurdity surely it can be none now If God under the Old Testament vouchsafed it as a gracious Priviledge unto Children to be incorporated with actual Believers and with them to be made members of his Church without a Prohibition to the contrary they must needs be capable of the same Priviledge still Nay if Infants were admitted into the Church when the entrance into it was more grievous and not without blood how unreasonable is it to assert that they are now uncapable of admission into it when the entrance into it is made more easie and more agreeable to the natural weakness of a young and tender Child Certainly if the Jewish Infants were Circumcised with the most painful and bloody Circumcision made with hands Christian Infants without a Special Countermand from God must be deemed capable of the Circumcision made without hands I mean of Baptism which is the Circumcision of Christ What God hath Sanctified and Adopted and made a Member of his Church let no Man presume to think it uncapable of Sanctification Adoption and Church-Membership but yet so rash and extravagant have the profess'd Adversaries of Infant-Baptism been as to pronounce little Infants as uncapable of Baptism as the young ones of unreasonable Creatures and that it is as vain to call upon God to send his Holy Spirit upon them as to pray him to illuminate a Stone or a Tree Nay upon this very Presumption that Infants are uncapable of Baptism they assert Infant-Baptism to be a Scandalous abuse of the Ordinance of Baptism a meer Nullity and insignificant performance and scornfully call it baby-Baby-Baptism forgetting all this while that Circumcision of Infants was no scandalous abuse of the Ordinance of Circumcision but a valid and significant Performance and that in their Phrase there was baby-Baby-Circumcision and baby-Baby-Baptism in the Jewish Church The reason why they conclude Infants uncapable of Baptism is taken from the consideration of their incapacity as to some ends and uses of Baptism which cannot be answered say they but by the Baptism of grown Persons who are capable of understanding the Gospel and of professing their Faith and Repentance and of submitting unto Baptism and of having their Faith and Hope further strengthned in the use of it but Infants being utterly incapable of understanding the Gospel or of professing their Faith and Repentance and of submitting unto Baptism in which they are meerly passive or of having their Faith strengthned in the use of it they ought to be deemed uncapable of Baptism whose ends are so much frustrated when it is applied unto them But this way of arguing how plausible soever it may seem at first hearing is weak and fallacious and highly reflecting upon the Council and Wisdom of God First It is weak and fallacious because it makes no distinction betwixt a strict institution which is instituted by God for one or a few ends and precisely for Persons of one sort and an Institution of
or imputation may hereafter lay upon him I here before you all wash him with pure water to signifie that he is cleansed from his Original Attaindure and Corruption of Blood and that he is as fully restored to his Birth-right as if he had never been Attaint Now suppose this were done for a poor attainted Infant could any Man say that the action was insignificant and invalid because the Child knew nothing of it or that he was incapable of the Sign when he was capable of being washed from the Attaindure and of being thereby restored to his blood and Birth-right which was the chief thing signified thereby These things should be well considered by the Despisers of Infant-Baptism against whom I may urge for Precedents the Circumcision and Baptism of the Jewish Church both these as I must often observe were applied unto Infants as well as adult and actual Believers under the Old Testament and accordingly tho' Abraham believed and solemnly professed his Faith before he was Circumcised yet I hope they will not say that God acted foolishly in commanding Isaac c. to be Circumcised before he understood the ends of Circumcision or could believe much less make profession of his Belief He was entered Sacramentally into Covenant with God before he was able to recontract or understand what the condition of the Covenant was but yet I presume they will not say he was Circumcised in vain although he was under the very same incapacity as to the ends of Circumcision that Infants are of Baptism now The best way that I know they have of evading the force of this Argument is by saying that Circumcision was more proper for Infants than Baptism because it left a significant Mark and Character in their Flesh whereas Baptism is a transient Sign and leaves no significant Impression behind it whereby to instruct Men and Women what was done unto them in their Infancy But this is a meer shift First Because the Mark and Character which Circumcision left in the Flesh of the Child was as insignificant to him during the time of his Non-age as Baptism is to Christian Infants neither afterwards could he tell but by the instruction of others what the meaning of that Character was and for what ends it was imprinted in his Flesh And therefore according to their way of reasoning against Infant-Baptism it ought to have been deferred till the full years of discretion when the Circumcised Person might have understood the Spiritual Signification thereof Furthermore in answer to this Objection I must remind them that the Mark and Character which Circumcision left behind it was of no force or signification unless it did appear from the * Ezrah 2.62 Nehem. 7.5.64 Registers of the Tribes that the Person circumcised was a Jew I say the Character which Circumcision left behind it was merely of it self of no force nor signification without the Registers or written Genealogies because without them neither the circumcised Person himself nor the Church could know in many Circumstances whether he were a true Son of Abraham or an Egyptian Ismaelite or Samaritan who were all Circumcised as well as the Jews If Baptism then be a Transient Circumcision was an Equivocal Sign and therefore these pretended circumstantial Differences signifie nothing nor make any substantial difference betwixt Circumcision and Baptism as to the capacity of Infants unto both They are capable of contracting a Spiritual Relation unto God by this as formerly they were by that they are capable of having their Spiritual attaindure removed they are capable of receiving the Blessings of the Covenant tho' they cannot perform the duties of it and God may solemnly bind himself unto them tho' they cannot as yet personally bind themselves unto him But Secondly Allowing that Circumcision was more proper for Infants than Baptism yet this difference is wholly avoided by referring the Practice of infant-Infant-Baptism not only unto Infant Circumcision but unto the Original Practice of infant-Infant-Baptism in the Jewish Church which understood very well that it was but a transient rite and left no Character upon the person who was initiated thereby Those therefore who take upon them to argue against infant-Infant-Baptism from this or any other pretended reason take upon them to censure and condemn the Jewish Church which for many Ages Baptised Infants and Minor Proselytes into the Covenant as well as actual Believers and yet were never censured or reproved for it by any Prophet which we may presume they would have been had Baptismal Initiation of Infants into the Covenant been so absurd Insignificant and abusive a practice as the Professors against Infant-Baptism vainly pretend it is Having now I hope sufficiently proved that Infants are not uncapable Subjects of Baptism Let us proceed to state the next Question which is this Quest II. Whether Infants are excluded from Baptism by Christ Where in the first place I must observe that the Question ought to be proposed in these Terms and not Whether Christ hath commanded Infants to be Baptized For as a good * Herodot lib. 2. Author observes of the River Nile that we ought not to ask the reason Why Nile overflows so many days about the Summer-solstice But rather Why it doth not overflow all the Year long So in the Controversie about Infant Baptism the enquiry ought not to be whether Christ hath commanded Infants to be Baptized But whether he hath excluded them from Baptism Because considering the practice of the Jewish Church as to Infant-Circumcision and Infant-Baptism too it must needs be granted that a Command from Christ to initiate Proselytes out of all Nations into the Christian Religion must without an exception to the contrary be understood to comprehend Infants as well as Men. As for Example suppose our Saviour had not changed the Seal of the Covenant Dr. Stilling-fleets Vindication of the A. C. p. 100. but instead of Baptizing had said unto the Apostles Go and make all Nations my Disciples Circumcising them in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost I appeal to any Impartial Man's judgment whether the Apostles receiving such a Commission to Circumcise Proselytes of all Nations would not have presumed without directions to the contrary that it was Christ's Intention that the Infants of adult Profelytes should be Circumcised as well as Proselytes themselves according to the Commandment of God under the Old Testament and the Practice of the Jewish Church And if a command to Proselyte and Circumcise all Nations would without an exception have comprehended Infants as well as Men why should it be imagined that the command to Proselyte and Baptize all Nations should not likewise comprehend them seeing that Infant-Baptism as well as Infant-Circumcision had been the immemorial Practice of the Jewish Church This is so true that supposing our Saviour had intended the gathering of Churches among the Gentiles according to the Old Testament and the Custom of the Jewish Church he need
Preach the Gospel to every Creature saying He that believeth and is Baptized shall be saved I say seeing Children are capable of the benefits of Baptism and the Apostles who received this Commission knew them to be capable of it and to have had both Circumcision and Baptism administred to them in the Jewish Church how should they or any others imagine from the tenure of such a Commission which was given unto them as Planters of Churches but that it was Christ's intention that Children as well as grown Persons were to be Baptized Should God in the days of David or Solomon have called eleven or twelve Prophets and given them the same Commission which Mutatis Mutandis Christ gave to his Apostles bidding them go and Teach all Nations the Law Circumcising and Baptizing of them in the Name of the God of Abraham and teaching them to do whatsoever he had commanded them I say should he have sent them out to Preach the Law to every Creature saying He that believeth aad is Circumcised and baptized shall be saved but he that believeth not shall be damned would a Commission so worded have been of it self a sufficient ground for them to think that it was God's intention to restrain Circumcision and Baptism to adult Persons contrary to the practice of the Jewish Church Or if in a short History of their Mission and Undertaking we should have read that they Circumcised and Baptized as many Proselytes as gladly received their word would this have been an Argument that they did not also Circumcise and Baptize the Infants of those believing Proselytes according to the Laws and Usages of their Mother-Church No certainly such a Commission to Proselyte Strangers to the Jewish Religion could not in reason have been strained to prejudice the customary right of Infants to Circumcision and Baptism and therefore in parity of reason neither could the Apostles so understand their Commission without other Notices as to exclude Infants from Sacramental Initiation into the Church The plain truth is their Commission was a direction how they should proselyte Strangers to Christianity according to the nature of propagating a new Religion in strange Countries as it is set forth by the Apostle Rom. 20.14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed And how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard And how shall they hear without a Preacher And how shall they Preach unless they be sent Accordingly they were sent out to Preach or to Disciple Men and Women by Preaching and to Baptize as many of them as should upon their Preaching Believe and Repent But though the Order of Nature required that they should proceed in this Method with grown Persons as the Jews were wont to do with Proselytes to the Law yet it did not hinder that they who had been born and bred Jews should initiate the Infants of such Proselyted Persons according to the usage of the Jewish Church What need Christ have said more unto them when he sent them out than to bid them Go and teach all Nations Baptizing them in the Name of the Father c. Or to Preach the Gospel to every Creature and tell them that he that would believe the Gospel and be Baptized should be saved But then the respective sence of these words could only concern adult Persons and their qualification for Baptism but could in no reason be construed by them to exclude Infants but only unbelieving Men and Women whereof none were to be admitted into the Church by Baptism before they were taught Christianity and had confessed their Faith and Sins Should God as I said before call twelve Men of any Church where Infant-Baptism had been the constant and undoubted practice and bid them go and Preach the Gospel in the Indies to every creature and to say He that believeth the Doctrine which we Preach and is Baptized with the Baptism which we Administer shall be Saved I appeal to any Dissenter upon the account of Infant-Baptism whether he thinks that these Men bred up to the practice of Infant-Baptism could in probability so interpret this Commission as to think that it was God's intention that they should exclude the Infants of believing Proselytes from Baptismal admission into the Church The Professors against Infant-Baptism put the greatest stress upon these words of our Saviour He that believeth and is baptized shall be Saved But if they would well consider the next words they would find that Infants are not at all concerned in them because it follows but he that believeth not shall be Damned The same want of Faith which here excludes from Baptism excludes also from Salvation and therefore it cannot be understood of Infants unless they will say with the * The Petrobusians vid. Cassandri praefat ad Duc. Jul. Cli. praefat advers Anabaptistas Original Anabaptists that the same incapacity of believing which excludes them from Baptism excludes them from Salvation too Wherefore it is plain that the believing and not believing in that Text is only to be understood of such as are in capacity of hearing and believing the Gospel that is of grown Persons just as the words in Joh. 3.36 He that believeth on the Son of God hath Everlasting Life and he that believeth not shall not see Life but the Wrath of God abide thou him Thus far have I proceeded to shew how inconclusively and absurdly the Anabaptists go about to prove that Infants ought to be excluded from Baptism from the fore-mentioned Texts which speak of the Order of Proselyting grown Persons and their Qualifications for Baptism and as little success have they with some others which they bring to shew how unprofitable Baptism is for Infants as that in 1. Pet 3.21 Where the Apostle tells us that external Baptism of putting away the filth of the Flesh of which Infants are only capable signifies nothing but the answer of a good Conscience towards God of which say they Infants are altogether uncapable to which the answer is very easie that another Apostle tells us that external Circumcision of which Infants were only capable profited nothing without keeping the Law which Infants could not keep nay that the outward Circumcision of which Infants were only capable was nothing but that the inward Circumcision of the heart and in the spirit was the true Circumcision and yet Infants remaining Infants were utterly uncapable of that so that their way of arguing from this and such like Texts proves nothing because it proves too much and stretches the words of the Apostles unto undue consequences beyond their just Meaning which was only to let both Jews and Christians know that there was no resting in external Circumcision or Baptism but not that their Infants were unprofitably Circumcised and Baptized So weak and unconcluding are all the Arguments by which the Anabaptists endeavour from Scripture to prove that Christ hath limited the Subject of Baptism unto grown Persons put them all
under the Gospel was no accepter of Persons So he was no accepter of Ages but that Infants might be Baptized as soon as they were born to wash away their Original Sin The African Church was one of the most flourishing strict and pious of the Primitive Churches and this resolution of the Council which as St. Augustin observed an 100 Years after was not novum decretum supposeth that Infant-Baptism had been the Original and immemorial practice of that Church This Council sat about the middle of the third Century 150 Years or thereabouts after the Death of the last surviving Apostle and about the middle of the fourth Century we find Gregory Nazianzen speaking thus c Orat. 40. in Sanct. Baptisma 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hast thou a Child Let not Sin get the advantage but let him be sanctified from his Infancy and consecrated by the Spirit from his tender Years But it may be thou art afraid to have him consigned because of the weakness of his Nature what a silly Mother art thou and how weak in Faith Anna promised Samuel to God before he was born and not fearing any thing of Humane Weakness but trusting in God Consecrated the Child to the Priest-hood almost as soon as he saw the Light Thou wilt have no need of Superstitious Charms and Amulets for him in which the Devil steals to himself from silly Souls the Honour which is due to God but call upon him the name of the Holy Trinity which is the most safe and excellent of Charms And afterwards a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so for the Baptism of those who desire Baptism but what shall we say of Infants who are sensible neither of the gain nor loss of it shall we Baptize them Most certainly if they be in danger for it is better that they be Sanctified without the Sense of it than that they dye uninitiated and unconsigned and my reason is taken from Circumcision which was administred on the Eighth Day unto Infants that had no Reason to which I may add the saving of the First-Born in Goshen by the sign of the Blood on the Lintel of the Door and the two Side-Posts The Brevity which I design in this Treatise will not permit me to recite many more Authorities which are very b Vid. testim Veter Script de Baptism apud Cassand Gerhard Joh. Voss disp 14. de Baptismo numerous out of Chrysostom Ambrose Jerom Augustin c. But I shall rather superadd some Considerations which confirm this Ancient Tradition of Infant-Baptism and are sufficient to induce any considerate and impartial Man to believe that so Ancient and universal a Practice was as old as the Planting of Churches by the Apostles and originally derives its Authority from them For first if Infant-Baptism was not the Practice of the Apostles but an Innovation it is very hard to imagine that God should suffer his Church to fall into such a dangerous Practice which would in time Un-Church it while Miracles were yet Extant in the Church The same Holy Spirit that was the guide of the Apostles into all Truth was the Author of Miracles too but the first four Witnesses which I have produced for Infant-Baptism to wit Irenaeus Tertullian Origen and Cyprian do all likewise assure us that Miracles were then not extraordinary in the Church c Adversus haereses l. 2. cap. 56 57. Euseb Hist Eccles l. 5. cap. 7. Irenaeus tells us that the true Disciples of Christ did then dispossess Devils and had the Gift of Tongues and of Praescience and Praediction and of healing the Sick and that the whole Congregation meeting together did by Fasting and Prayer often raise the Dead and that many so raised were then alive in the Church Nay he tells us that the number of Spiritual Gifts were innumerable which the Church all the World over then received from Christ and I truly confess it cannot enter into my heart to believe that God should suffer the Church to Embrace such a pernicious Error as Infant-Baptism was if it was not of Apostolical Tradition and fill the Christian World with Mock-Christians while he bore them Witness with Signs and Wonders and divers Miracles and Gifts of the Holy Ghost Tertullian in his a Et ad Scapulam c. 2. Apologetic tells us that the Christians had then power to make the Gods of the Heathen confess themselves to be Devils Nay he Challenges the Heathens to bring any one of those that were acted and inspired with any one of their Gods and Goddesses whom they worshipped and if that Daemon God or Goddess not daring to tell a Lye before any Christian should not confess it self to be a Devil then they should shed the Blood of that Christian upon the Place Origen in his Answer to Celsus frequently appeals to the Miracles which the Christians wrought in his Days particularly in the first b Cambridge Edition p. 34. Book he saith that they exorcised Daemons healed the Sick and foresaw Future Events And in the c p. 334. See also p. 62 80 124 127 376. seventh Book he proves that Christians did not their Miracles by any curious Magical Arts because Idiots or illiterate Men among them did by nothing but by Prayers and Adjurations in the Name of Jesus banish Devils from the Bodies and Souls of Men. d In Epist ad Donatum vid. Epist ad Magnum ad Demetrianum p. 202. Ed. Rigalt St. Cyprian tells us that the Christians in his days had power to hinder the Operation of deadly Poisons to restore Mad-men to their Senses to force Devils to confess themselves to be so and with invisible strokes and Torments to make them cry and howl and forsake the Bodies which they possessed These are the first four Witnesses which I have produced for the Practice of Infant-Baptism and let any man judge whether the Church could yet run into a Church-destroying Practice within such an Holy and Miraculous Period as this But secondly If Infant-Baptism was not an Apostolical Tradition or were derivable from any thing less than Apostolical Practice how came the a Vid. Vossii hist Pelag. l. 2. pars 2. Thes 4. 13. disp de Bapt. Thes 18. disp 14. Thes 4. Cassand praefat ad Duc. Jul. p. 670. Testim veterū de Bapt. parvulorum p. 687. Pelagians not to reject it for an Innovation seeing the Orthodox used it as an Argument against them that Infants were guilty of Original Sin It had been easie for them had there been any ground for it to say that it was an Innovation crept into Practice since the time of the Apostles or that it was brought up by False-Apostles and False-Teachers in the Apostles Times but then they were so far from doing this which they would have been glad to do upon any colourable Pretence that they practiced it themselves and owned it for an Apostolical Tradition and as necessary for Childrens obtaining the
Kingdom of Heaven tho they denied that they were Baptized for the Remission of Original Sin But thirdly If Infant-Baptism were not in Practice from the first Plantation of Christian Churches or were derivable from any other Cause than Apostolical Tradition let the Opposers of it tell us any other probable way how it came to be the uniform practice of all Churches not only of such as were Colonies of the same Mother-Church or had Correspondence with one another by their Bishops and Presbyters but of such as were Original Plantations and betwixt which there was likely none or but very little Communication by reason of the vast distance and want of intercourse betwixt the Countries where b Brerewoods Enquiries c. 23 Cassand exposit de auctor Consult Bapt. Infant p. 692. they lived Among these of the latter sort are the Abassin-Church in the further Ethiopia and the c Osor l. 3. de rebus gest Eman cit à Vossio in disp 14. de Baptismo Brerewoods Enquiries c. 20. Indian Church in Coulan and Crangonor and about Maliapur Planted by St. Thomas both which practice Infant-Baptism tho in all probability they never had it one from the other or both from any third Church It is very incredible that God should suffer all Churches in all the Parts of the World to fall into one and the same Practice which certainly is a Church-destroying Practice if the Apostles and their Assistants did not Baptize Infants but only grown Persons One may easily imagine that God might suffer all Churches to fall into such an harmless Practise as that of Infant Communion or that the Fathers of the Church might comply with the Religious fondness of the People in bringing their Children to the Sacrament as we do with bringing them to Prayers but that God should let them all not preserving any one for a Monument of Apostolical Purity fall into a Practice which destroys the Being of the Church is at least a thousand times more Incredible than that the Apostles without a Prohibition from Christ to the contrary and no such Prohibition is Extant in the New Testament should Baptize Infants according to the Practise of the Jewish Church But in the fourth Place what Account can rationally be given why the Jewish Christians who were offended at the neglect of Circumcision should not have been much more offended if the Apostles had refused to initiate Children under the New Testament which had always been initiated under the Old Is it reasonable to believe that those who complained so much meerly because the Apostles Taught the Jews which lived among the Gentiles that they should not Circumcise their Children would not have complained much more if they had not Baptized them but quite excluded them like the Infants of Unbelievers from Admission into the Church It must in all probability have galled them very much to see their Children Treated like the Children of meer Strangers and to have had no visible difference put between the Infants of those that Embraced and those that resisted the Faith For they always looked upon Pagan Children as Common and Unclean but upon their own as Separate and Holy and St. Paul makes the same distinction between them 1 Cor. 7.14 But had the Apostles taught that the Children of those who were in Covenant with God had no more right unto Baptismal Initiation than the Children of Idolaters who were out of the Covenant they had Taught a Doctrine which certainly would have offended them more than all they Preached against Circumcision and keeping the Ceremonial Law Wherefore since we never read among their many Complaints upon the alteration of the Jews Customs that they complained of their Childrens not being initiated by Baptism it is a greater presumption that the Apostles and their Assistants Baptized their Children then the want of an Express Example of infant-Infant-Baptism in the New Testament is that they Baptized them not Having now shewed first that Infants are not uncapable of Baptism Secondly That they are not excluded from it by Christ but that on the contrary we have very convincing Reasons to presume that the Baptism of Infants as well as of grown Persons was intended by him Let us now proceed to make a fair and impartial enquiry upon the Third Question Quest III. Whether it is lawful to separate from a Church which appointeth Infants to be Baptized And this considering what I have said upon the former Questions must be determined in the Negative Whether we consider Infant-Baptism only as a thing lawful and allowable or as a Thing highly requisite or necessary to be done I know very well that my Adversaries in this Controversie will be apt to deny this distinction betwixt Lawful and Necessary as acknowledging nothing in Religious matters to be lawful but what is necessary according to that common Principle imbibed by all sorts of Dissenters That nothing is to be appointed in Religious matters but what is commanded by some Precept or directed unto by some special Example in the Word of God Hence they ordinarily say Can you shew us any Precept or Example for Baptizing Infants in the New Testament if you can we will grant that the appointment of it is lawful but if you cannot we disallow it as unlawful nay as an Usurpation and will never be of a Church which so Usurpeth it over the Consciences of Men. This way of Arguing is plausible to the Vulgar and would be very good were there such a Principle in the Scripture as this from whence they Argue viz. That nothing is to be appointed in Religious matters but what is warranted by Precept or Example in the Word of God Wherefore as the Men with whom I have to deal in this Controversie are generally Persons of good natural Understandings So in the First place I beg them to consider that there is no such Rule in the Scripture as this and therefore those who teach it for a Scripture-rule or Precept do themselves impose upon Mens Consciences as bad as Papists and like them and the Pharisees of old teach the Traditions of Men for Doctrines of God On the contrary the Gospel tells us that Sin is the Transgression of a Law and that where there is no Law there is no Transgression and according to this plain and intelligible Rule though the Baptizing of Infants were not commanded in the Scriptures yet the Church would have Power and Authority to appoint it upon supposition that it is not forbid Secondly I desire them to consider the absurdity of this pretended Scripture-rule in that it takes away the distinction betwixt barely lawful or allowable and necessary and leaves no Negative mean betwixt necessary and sinful but makes things forbidden and things not commanded to be the very same Thirdly I desire them to consider what a slavish Principle this is and how inconsistent it is with the free and manly nature of the Christian Religion under which we should be in a far more servile
Age. These are all the Authorities for Infant-Communion that I know of till St. Augustin's time whereas besides the authority of St. Cyprian which is the first they have for Communicating Infants we have the authority of a whole Council of Fathers in which he presided and of Origen Tertullian and Irenaeus who was the Scholar of St. Polycarp and the Grand-Scholar of St. John And then whereas among the Writers of the 4th Century there are but the two above-cited who make mention of Infant-Communion we have St. * See them all cited at large in Walker's Plea for Infant-Baptism from p. 266. to p. 275. Hierom St. Ambrose St. Chrysostom St. Athanasius Gregory Nazianzen and the Third Council of Carthage who all speak of Infant-Baptism as of a thing generally practised and most of them as of a thing which ought to be practised in the Church Furthermore none of the four Testimonies for Infant-Communion speak of it as of an Apostolical Tradition as Origen doth of Infant-Baptism not to mention that the Pelagians never owned the necessity of Infant-Communion as they did of Infant-Baptism All which things considered shew that there is nothing near the like Evidence in Antiquity for the practice of the one as there is for that of the other And as there is not the like evidence for the constant successive and general practice of Infant-Communion that there is for infant-Infant-Baptism So there is not the like Reason for the practice of it First Because Baptism is the Sacrament or Mystery of Initiation of which Persons of all Ages are capable it being instituted chiefly for an initiatory Sign to solemnize the admission of the Baptized Person into the Church and to Seal all the Blessings of the Gospel unto him as a Member of Christ This is the Substance or Chief end of Baptism which as I have shewed upon the Second and Fourth Questions is equally answered in the Baptism of Children as well as of professing Believers Confession of Faith as well as Confession of Sins being but accidental Circumstantials which are necessary with respect to the State of the Person to be Baptized but not to Baptism it self But on the contrary the Holy Eucharist or Communion is the Sacrament of Perfection and Consummation in the Christian Religion being primarily and chiefly instituted for a Sacrificial Feast in remembrance of Christ's Death and Passion which being an act of great Knowledge and Piety Children are not capable to perform But Secondly There is not the like Reason for Baptizing and Communicating Infants because that is grounded upon the Authority of many Texts of Scripture which without the Concurrence of Tradition are fairly and genuinely interpretable for it but this is grounded only upon one Text John 6.53 Except ye eat the Flesh of the Son of Man and drink his Blood ye have no life in you which it is doubtful whether it is to be understood of the Holy Eucharist or no because it cannot be understood of it but in a proleptical sence the Lord's Supper having not been yet instituted by him or if it be to be so understood yet the sence of it ought to be regulated by the Chief end of its Institution contained in those words of our blessed Saviour do this in remembrance of me and this do ye as oft as ye drink it in remembrance of me Wherefore though this Text were literally to be understood of the Holy Eucharist as St. Augustine first interprets it yet it ought not to be strained to Infant-Communion because Infants cannot partake of the Holy Banquet in remembrance of Christ And therefore though the Custom of Communicating Infants prevailed by Degrees in some Ages of the Church yet the Western Churches discerning the mistake upon which it was grounded have long since laid it aside though they still continue the practice of infant-Infant-Baptism as fully answering the Chief end of Baptism and as being founded upon more and clearer Texts of Scriptures and a much more noble Tradition than Infant-Communion is But Thirdly There is not the like reason for Baptizing and Communicating Infants because the Correspondent practice of the Jewish Church in infant-Infant-Circumcision and infant-Infant-Baptism answered as a Pattern unto that under the Law but there was nothing of a Pattern under it which answered so to Infant-Communion because a Child never partook of the * Exod. 12.26 27. Passover before he was old enough to take his Father by the hand and to go up from the Gates of Jerusalem unto the Mount of the Temple and to enquire about the meaning of the Service and was capable of understanding the nature of it as it was done in remembrance of their Deliverance out of Egypt And in like manner when the Children of Christians are old enough to be instructed in the nature of the Holy Communion and to understand that then they may partake of it be it as soon as it will if they are Baptized and Confirmed though it is true that Christian Children are usually much older than the Jewish were before they Communicate which is merely accidental because it requires a riper reason to understand the Mystery of the Holy Eucharist which is done in remembrance of our Spiritual Deliverance by the Sacrifice of Christ both God and Man upon the Cross than to understand the plain and easie meaning of the Passover which was annually kept in remembrance of the Temporal Deliverance of the Jews But to speak yet more fully of Infant-Communion the practice of it is so far from prejudicing the Cause of Infant-Baptism that it mightily confirms it because none were or could be admitted to partake of the Holy Communion till they were validly * Theodoret. Therapeut Serm. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Baptized and therefore the practice of Infant-Communion is a most emphatical Declaration that all the Churches wherein it ever was or a As in the Greek Russian and Abyssin Churches and among the Christians of St. Thomas in the Indies still is practised were of Opinion that the Baptism of Infants was as lawful and valid as that of professing Believers can be As for the Original of this custom it is not known when it began probably it came in by degrees from the ancient and laudable custom of administring the Lord's Supper to grown Persons presently after their Baptism and if so many of the ancient Churches were so tender towards Infants as to bring them to the Communion rather than deprive them of the least shadow of right what shall be said in excuse of those uncharitable Men who will rather destroy all the Churches in the World than bring their Children unto Baptism of which they are capable and to which they have a Right so highly probable if not certain and infallible as I have proved above The Second Objection against Infant-Baptism which I took no notice of but reserved for this place is taken from their incapacity to engage themselves in Covenant unto God For say these Men
all who enter into Covenant and receive the Seal of the Covenant must contract and stipulate for their parts as well as God doth for his and therefore St. Peter saith That the Baptism which saveth us 1 Ep. 3.21 must have the answer or restipulation of a good Conscience towards God But how can Infants restipulate or what Conscience can be in them who have not the use of reason nor are capable of knowing what the Covenant means To this Objection I answer as formerly That it is as strong against infant-Infant-Circumcision as infant-Infant-Baptism for the Infants of the Jews were admitted as effectually into the Covenant and had it as really sealed unto them and were as strongly tyed to perform the Conditions of it when they came to years of understanding as if they had been Circumcised then and at their Circumcision had personally and expresly indented with God Wherefore the same answer which will serve to justifie Infant-Circumcision will justifie Infant-Baptism which succeeds in the place of it and it is this That God of his goodness towards Infants was pleased to seal the Covenant of Grace unto Infants upon an implicite and imputative sort of Stipulation which at years of understanding they were bound to own by openly professing the Jewish Religion or if they then renounced it thereupon they became Strangers to the Covenant which in such cases was as void as if it had never been made An implicit Stipulation was sufficient for the Children of Believers though an open Profession and Stipulation was required of Grown Proselytes which shews that Circumcision was an institution of Latitude and that personal and express Restipulation was not a general pre-requisite condition to Circumcision but only to some Persons to be Circumcised In like manner Baptism being an institution of Latitude ordained for Persons under as well as at the years of discretion personal and express Stipulation is only required of the former and therefore St. Peter in the Text above cited likely had respect not to all Baptism or Baptism in general but only to the Baptism of Adult Proselytes whom the Minister used to * Hence Tertullian de Baptismo calls Baptism Sponsionem Salutis And in St. Cyprian we often read of the interrogation in Baptism interrogate at the time of Baptism much after the same manner as we interrogate Adult Proselytes now Wherefore this Objection like the rest which the Anabaptists make runs upon this presumption that Baptism is a strict institution and that personal and express answering or Restipulation is a pre-requisite condition to all Baptism whereas it is only a personal qualification required of Majors or Adult Persons when they come to be Baptized But as for Children Baptism may be administred unto them upon an implicite and imputative sort of Restipulation as Circumcision was to the Jewish and Baptism now is to agonizing Christian Infants or else it may be administred unto them as Baptism formerly was among the Jews to the Infants and Minors of Proselytes upon a vicarious Restipulation by their Sponsors which seems to have been translated together with the use of Baptism from the Jewish Church It is certain that * De Baptismo cap. 18. quid enim necesse est Sponsores etiam periculo ingeri Tertullian makes mention of Sponsors or Sureties for Children at Baptism and very probable that the Apostles made Parents and Major domos stipulate in the name of their †Praefecturae igitur juridicae quae Baptismo prae erat profitebatur Proselytus ipse Majorennis Masculus qui annum decimum tertium foemina quae duodecim superaverat legem Mosaicam se servaturum Minorum vero nomine idem ipsum profitebatur praefectura ipsa uti in Christianismo susceptores minorennium seu parvulorum saltem si nec parentes adessent qui idem praestare possent Selden de Synedriis Lib. 1. c. 3. And what is here said of the CONSISTORY among the Jews concerning the Baptism of Infants and Minors St. Augustine saith of the Church among Christians accommodat illis mater Ecclesia aliorum pedes ut veniant aliorum cor ut credant aliorum linguam ut fateantur Minors when they Baptized them as the Jews were wont to do and upon this Supposition St. Peter in the Text above cited might also probably allude to all Baptism because Grown Proselytes to the Christan Religion did answer for their Children as well as for themselves at Baptism according to the Custom of the Jewish Church Nay there is little reason to doubt but that the Jewish being the Pattern of the Christian Baptism the Apostles and their Assistants who were Jews or Hellenists did observe this Custom of Vicarious Stipulation at the Baptism of Infants and Minors as well as all the other Particulars in which they resemble one another as the Picture doth the Face whose Picture it is As for Example the Jewish Baptism was administred to Women as well as Men and so is the Christian Secondly It was never reiterated nor repeated no more is the Christian Thirdly It was called Regeneration and a New Birth and Baptized Persons were said to be born again and Regenerated which also holds in Christian Baptism Fourthly Baptized Proselytes among the Jews were bound to leave their nearest Relations if it were necessary and adhere to the Church and so are Baptized Christian Proselytes bound to do the same Fifthly The Infants of Proselytes were Baptized among the Jews as well as the Proselytes themselves and so have I proved that Infants have been always Baptized among the Christians And therefore in the last place since the Jewish Church Baptized Infants upon Vicarious Stipulation why should not we think it sufficient for their entrance into the Covenant and that the Apostles did so too These things and whatsoever else is written in this little Tract I hope will be fairly and candidly considered by the Dissenters among us upon the account of Infant-Baptism I say the truth in Christ I lye not my Conscience also bearing me Witness in the Holy Ghost who is the Searcher of Hearts that I have great heaviness and almost continual sorrow in my heart for them and that to reconcile them to the Church I could wish in the Apostles Sence that I my self were an Anathema from Christ And because it is a Disease too common among Dissenters and more especially among those with whom I have been a dealing to have minds full of Prejudice Prepossession and sinister Suspitions against what we Speak or Preach or Write I have here subjoined a Letter of that Famous Martyr of Jesus Christ Mr. John Philpot concerning Infant-Baptism which I seriously recommend to their Impartial and diligent perusal hoping that the same Arguments which may perhaps have less effect upon them as they come from me may be better received and make deeper impression upon their Souls as they come from him who like the Primitive Martyrs was Blessed with Heavenly Visions and chearfully suffered
not have expressed his meaning in any other manner than by saying unto the Apostles Go Proselyte all Nations Circumcising and Baptising of them c. Nay he could scarce have expressed his Intentions in a more emphatical or intelligible manner unto them who being Jews must needs have the same Apprehensions as to the Subjects of Initiation and Church-Membership under the Gospel that they had under the Law They had lived under a Dispensation where Infants were initiated both by Circumcision and Baptism into the Church and without they had been instructed to the contrary they must naturally have understood their Commission of Baptizing to have extended unto Infants as well as actual Believers as if for instance God should now extraordinarily call twelve Men of any Christian Nation where Infant-Baptism had been a constant and universal Practice and bid them go and Proselyte the Indians baptizing them c. None of these Men could possibly imagine that Infants were excepted out of their Commission but common nâ—â—e on the contrary would oblige them to understand it according to the usage of their own Church Besides abstracting at present from the Controversie Whether Christ did or did not exclude Infants from Baptism What reason can any Man give why he who fetched so many of his Institutions from Jewish usages should exclude them from it and recede in this Point from the Jewish Church They are every way as capable of the visible Signs of Gods invisible favour and of the Benefits of the Abrahamical Covenant under the New Testament as they were under the Old they are as fit Subjects of Baptism now as they were of Circumcision and Baptism then their initiation into both Churches seems to be equally rational because though the sign of the Covenant be altered yet the Covenant still remains the same In a word there lay no Obligation upon our Blessed Lord to lay aside the practice of Infant-Baptism as being inconsistent either with the Free or the Manly or Universal nature of the Christian Church Thus much I have said to shew why the Question betwixt us and the Dissenters upon the account of infant-Infant-Baptism should be Whether Christ hath excluded Infants from Baptism And not Whether he hath commanded Infants to be Baptized And certainly the Premises being considered there is far more reason to conclude that Christ should have prohibited Infants from Baptism if it had been his intention not to have them Baptized than that he should have commanded them to be Baptized if it had been his intention to continue the practice of Infant-Baptism For he need not have commanded his Apostles to do that which they would naturally have done of themselves without a Prohibition and that he did not prohibit them to Baptize Infants is now the thing to be proved in shewing that he did not exclude Infants from Baptism For if he excluded them from Baptism he either excluded them from it directly by an express Prohibition not to Baptise them or consequentially by so limiting and determining the Subject of Baptism as to make it unapplicable unto them That he never excluded them by any express Prohibition the Anabaptists themselves do grant because there is no such Prohibition to be found in the New Testament but then they pretend that it was Christ's intention that grown Persons should be the only Subjects of Baptism because the Gospel requires that Persons to be Baptized should first be Taught Believe and Repent First The Gospel requires that they should be Taught as in Matth. 28.29 Go and teach all Nations Baptizing them c. Secondly That they should believe as in Mark 16.15 Go ye into all the World and Preach the Gospel to every Creature saying He that Believeth and is Baptized shall be saved Thirdly Repentance as in Acts 2.38 Repent and be Baptized every one of you in the Name of Jesus But now say they these three Qualifications before Baptism can belong to none but grown Persons to Men and Women at years of discretion and therefore none but such ought to be Baptized And accordingly we find that Baptism was practised upon these terms throughout the History of the Acts and in Heb. 6.1 2. Repentance and Faith are mentioned as prerequisite qualifications to Baptism in these Words Not laying again the Foundation of Repentance from deadly works and of Faith towards God of the Doctrine of Baptisms These are the Arguments by which the Adversaries of Infant-Baptism endeavour to prove that Christ so limited the subject of Baptism as to exclude Infants from it But in this they are grievously mistaken because these and the like Texts do of themselves no more prove that grown persons are the only Subjects of Baptism than the words of the Apostle 2 Thes 3.10 prove that grown Persons only are to eat The Apostles words are these When we were with you this we commanded you that if any would not work neither should he eat From whence in their Sophistical way it may be argued thus It belongs only to grown Persons to eat because the Apostle requires that Persons who eat should first Work but now this Apostolical qualification of working can belong to none but grown Persons and therefore none but such ought to eat I have made use of this Parallel instance to shew how inconclusive the former way of arguing against Infant-Baptism is in it self and how impossible it is to prove from the Texts above-mentioned or any other like them that Baptism is restrained to grown Persons because none but grown Persons can be Taught Believe and Repent And I will further discover the weakness and fallacy of this Argument from a familiar Comparison which any common Capacity may understand Suppose then there were a great Plague in any Country and God should miraculously call eleven or twelve Men and Communicate unto them a certain Medicine against this Plague and say unto them Go into such a Country and call the People of it together and teach them the Virtues of this Medicine and assure them that he that believeth and taketh it from you shall Live but he that believeth not shall Dye Upon this Supposition I demand of these Dissenters if the words of such a Commission would be sufficient for the Missioners that received it or any others to conclude that it was God's intention that they should administer his revealed Medicine to none but grown Persons Because they only could be called together and taught the Virtues of it and believe or disbelieve them who brought it No certainly this way of arguing would not be admitted by any rational Man because the Children would be as capable of the Medicine as the Men though they were ignorant of the benefits of it and merely passive in the Administration thereof Wherefore seeing Children as I have shewed are capable of the benefits of Baptism and seeing the Apostles who received a Commission to go and Teach and Baptize all Nations Or as it is in the words of St. Mark to
and Childish condition then the Jews were under the Law which as it is evident from the Feast of Purim and from the Institution of Baptism among the Jews allowed private Persons to practice and the Church to appoint things of a Religious nature which God had not commanded to be done Lastly I entreat them to consider how utterly impracticable this pretended Principle is as might be proved from the contrary Practice of all those who advance it against Ecclesiastical Authority and particularly from their own Practice in Baptizing grown Persons who were bred up from Infants in the Christian Religion and in admitting Women to the Lords-Supper who were not admitted to the Passover nor Paschal-cup of Blessing without any Precept or President for so doing in the Word of God This little well considered is enough to obviate all Objections against my first Assertion viz. That it is not lawful to separate from a Church which appointeth Infants to be Baptized upon supposition that Infant-Baptism is barely lawful and allowable but if any man desire further satisfaction as to this point he may have it abundantly in the case of indifferent things to which I refer him it being more my business to shew here that Infant-Baptism is at least a lawful and allowable thing To prove this I need but desire the Reader to reflect upon the State of the two first Questions For if Infants be as capable of Baptism under the Gospel as they were of Circumcision under the Law and if Christ have not excluded them from it neither directly nor consequentially Otherwise if Baptism be an Institution of as great Latitude in its self as Circumcision its Fore-runner was and Christ hath not determined the administration of it to one Age more than one Sex Once more if Children may be taken into the Covenant of Grace under the Gospel as well as under the Law and Christ never said nor did any thing which can in reason be interpreted to forbid them to be taken in In a word If they are capable of all the Ends of Baptism now that they were of Circumcision then and of having the Priviledges of Church-Membership and the Blessings of the Covenant consigned unto them and Christ neither by himself nor by his Apostles did forbid the Church to satisfie and fulfil this their capacity Or last of all If Christ hath only appointed Baptism instead of Circumcision but said nothing to determine the Subject of it then it must needs follow that Infant-Baptism must at least be lawful and allowable because it is an indifferent and not a forbidden or sinful thing But upon this supposition that it were left undetermined and indifferent by Christ it might like other indifferent things be lawfully appointed by any Church from which it would be a Sin to separate upon that account For in this case Churches might safely differ in their practice about Infant-Baptism as they do now in the Ceremonies of Baptism and those who lived in a Church which did practice it ought no more to separate from her for appointing of it then those who lived in another Church which did not practise it ought to separate from her for not appointing thereof Thus much I have said I hope with sufficient moderation upon supposition that all I have written upon former Questions doth but satisfactorily prove that Infant-Baptism is only lawful and not highly requisite and necessary but then if it be not only lawful but highly requisite and necessary so that it ought to be appointed then it must needs be much more sinful to separate from a Church which appointeth Infants to be Baptized Now as to the requisite necessity of Infant-Baptism supposing that my Reader bears in memory that I have said upon the last Question to make it appear with the highest degree of credibility that Christ instituted Baptism for Infants as well as grown Persons and that the Apostles and their Companions Practised infant-Infant-Baptism I must here entreat him further to observe that there is a two-fold necessity in matters of Christian Faith and practice one which proceeds from plain dictates of natural reason or from plain and express words of the Gospel where the sense is so obvious and clear that no sober man can mistake it or doubt of it and another which proceeds from the general Scope and Tenour of the Gospel or from doubtful places in it so or so understood and interpreted by the unanimous voice and practice of the ancient Catholick Church The first degree of necessity is founded on ostensive certainty and demonstration wherein there is no room left for Objection And the Second is founded upon violent presumption where the Objections on one hand are insufficient to move or at least to turn the Ballance if put in the Scale against the other which is weighed down Mole universatis Ecclesiae with the authority of the Universal Church And because this Rule like others is not so intelligible without an Example I will add some Instances of things which are necessary to be believed and practised by every good Christian under both these Notions of necessity that they may be better understood According to the First Notion of it it is necessary to believe that Jesus Christ is the Messias and the Son of God because it is delivered in express words of Scripture And according to the Second Notion of it it is necessary to believe that he is of the same substance with the Father and equal unto him and that there are three distinct and coequal Persons in the God-head which are all but one God because these Doctrines though they are not to be found in express words in the Gospel yet they are to be collected from several places of it which were always so interpreted by that ancient Catholick Church Again according to the First Notion of necessity it is necessary for all Men to believe the Word of God whether spoken or written because natural reason teacheth us so to do And according to the Second Notion of it it is necessary to believe the Books contained in the New Testament to be the Word of God and no other how Divine and Orthodox and Ancient soever they may be because they and they only have been received for such by the ancient Catholick Church In like manner as to matter of Practice by the First sort of Necessity it is necessary for Christians to assemble together to Worship God because Reason and Scripture plainly teach them so to do And by the Second fort it is necessary that they should assemble themselves periodically to Worship God on every first day of the Week because the Observation of the Lords Day appears to be a Duty from several places of the New Testament as they are interpreted to this sence by the universal Practice of the ancient Catholick Church To proceed according to the First Notion of Necessity Church-Government is necessary because it is enjoyned by the Dictates of Common reason and most express
grown Persons then the Ordinance of any Church to Baptize them must needs lay an Obligation of Obedience upon the Consciences of Parents and Pro-parents who live within the Pale of it because the matter of that Ordinance is a thing not forbidden but at least allowed by Jesus Christ But because People when the are once satisfied with the lawfulness are wont especially in Church-matters to enquire into the expediency of their Superiors Commands and to obey them with most Chearfulness and Satisfaction when they know they have good reasons for what they ordain therefore least any one whom perhaps I may have convinced of the bare lawfulness of Infant-Baptism should doubt of the expediency of it and upon that account be less ready to comply I will here proceed to justifie the practice of the Church in this Particular by shewing First That Baptismal-Initiation is very beneficial and profitable for Infants And Secondly That the Baptizing of them conduceth very much to the well-being and edification of the Church First then Baptismal-Initiation is very beneficial and profitable for Infants because they are capable of the Benefits and Priviledges of Baptism This I shewed in general before under the first Question and now I will shew it in a more particular manner of Induction by insisting upon the several Ends for which Baptism was ordained First then Baptism was ordained That the Baptized Person might be thereby solemnly consecrated unto God and dedicated to his Service and I hope I need not prove that Children are capable of this benefit since Jewish Infants were Consecrated to God by Circumcision and the Scripture tells us that * Judges 13.15 Sampson was a Nazarite from the Womb and that Samuel from the time of his Weaning was dedicated unto the Lord. Secondly Baptism was ordained That the Baptized Person might be made a Member of Christ's Mystical Body which is the Holy Catholick Church This is a great and honourable Priviledge and no Man can deny but Infants are as capable of it under the New as they were under the Old Testament Nay so far are they from being under any Natural Incapacity as to Church-Membership that they are ordinarily born free of Kingdoms Cities and Companies and therefore why any Man should think it not so proper for the Church-Christian to be as indulgent to them as the Jewish Church was and Civil Societies usually are I profess I cannot tell Thirdly it was ordained That the Baptized Person might by that Solemnity pass from a State of Nature wherein he was a Child of Wrath into a State of Adoption or Grace wherein he becomes a Child of God For by our First Birth we are all Children of Wrath. But by our Second Birth in Baptism we are made Children of God And why it should be so improper for a Child to pass in this solemn manner from one Spiritual as well as from one Temporal State to another or be Solemnly Adopted by God as well as Man or Lastly Why a Child may not be Adopted under the Gospel as well as under the Law I am confident those who are willing to defer the Baptism of Infants would be puzzled to give any rational account In the Fourth place Baptism was instituted for a Sign to Seal unto Baptized Persons the pardon of their Sins and to confer upon them a Right of Inheritance unto Everlasting Life but Baptism hath this Effect upon Infants as well as upon adult Persons for it washes them clean from * De hoc etiā David dixisse credendus est illud qui in peccato concepit me mater mea pro hoc Ecclesia ab Apostolis traditionem suscepit etiam parvulis Baptismum dare Sciebant enim illi quibus mysteriorum secreta commissa sunt divinorum quia essent in omnibus genuinae sordes peccati quae per aquam spiritum ablui deberent Origen in Ep. ad Lous l. 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Contra Celsum l. 4. Quanto magis prohiberi non debet Infans qui recens natus nihil peccavit nisi quod secundum Adam carnaliter natus contagium mortis antiquae primâ Nativitate contraxit Cyprian in Ep. ad Fidum Those that would see more Testimonies out of the Ancients about Original Sin before the time of the Pelagian Controversie may consult Irenaeus l. 4. cap. 5. l. 5. cap. 16. l. 3. cap. 20. l. 5. cap. 14.17 21. and many more cited out of Just Mart. in Dial cum Tryph. Tatianus his Scholar Athanasius c. by Vossius in his Hist Pelag. l. 2. part 1. Th. 6. Vid. Can. Concil Carthag 112. Original as it doth Men and Women both from Actual and Original Sin I say it washes them clean from Original Sin and seals the Pardon of it and the assurance of God's favour unto them and being cleansed by the washing of Regeneration from the guilt of that natural vitiosity which they derived from Adam and which made them obnoxious to the displeasure of God they become reconciled unto him and acquire as certain a Right to Eternal Life upon their justification as any actual Believer in the Word I cannot deny but they may be saved without Baptism by the extraordinary and uncovenanted Mercies of God and so may actual Believers who die unbaptized if they did not contemn Baptism but then the hopes which we ought to have of Gods Mercy in extraordinary Cases ought not to make us less regardful of his sure ordinary and covenanted Mercies and the appointed means unto which they are annexed But in the Fifth place Baptism was ordained That being admitted into the Covenant and ingrafted into Christ's Body we might acquire a present Right unto all the Promises of the Gospel and particularly unto the promises of the Spirit which is so ready to assist Initiated Persons that it will descend in its influences upon them at the time of their Initiation in such a manner and measure as they are capable thereof This the Primitive Christians found by experience to be so true that they called Baptism by the names of * Heb. 6.4 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Just Mart. Apol. 2.94 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Gregor Nazianz. Orat. 40. Illumination Grace and Unction and we need not doubt but they talked as they felt and for this reason they Baptized Infants because they knew that they acquired a Right unto the same Spirit by Baptism who would be sure to preside and watch over them and act upon their Souls according to the measure of their capacity and prevent them in their very first doings with his gracious helps Wherefore though it should be granted that the Holy Ghost cannot be actually conferred upon Infants in Baptism †Vid. Cypriani Ep. 1. ad Donatum by reason of their natural incapacity as Anabaptists rashly assert yet the Baptizing of them is not frustraneous as to this great End of Baptism because they thereby acquire an actual Antecedent Right to the Assistances and Illuminations of the
next day after or when I answer by shewing the impertinency of that Question in reference to Grown Believers thus When must a Believing Man or Woman be Baptized As soon as he Believes or the next day after or when And truly the Answer is the same to both Questions at any time the Gospel indulging a discretional Latitude in both Cases and only forbidding the wilful neglect of the Ordinance and all unreasonable and needless delays thereof Quest V. Whether it is lawful to Communicate with Believers who were only Baptized in their Infancy The stating of this depends upon what I have said upon the Second and Third Questions to prove That Infants are capable Subjects of Baptism and that it is lawful to Baptize them and if I have not erred as I hope I have not in those two Determinations then the Baptism of Infants is lawful and valid and if the Baptism of them be lawful and valid then it cannot be unlawful to Communicate with them when they come to be Men and Women Accordingly it never entred into the Heart of any of the ancient Christians to refuse Communion with grown Believers who had been Baptized in their Infancy whether they were Baptized in perfect health as Children most commonly were or only in danger of Death as the Children of those Novatian kind of Parents above mentioned always were who were so far from thinking Infant-Baptism a Nullity or Corruption of Baptism that they thought it necessary for them in case of apparent danger and durst not let them die unbaptized Some others deferred the Baptizing of their Children because they thought them too weak to endure the Severities of the Trine immersion and others perhaps according to the private Opinion of a De Baptismo c. 18. Ait quidem dominus nolite illos prohibere ad me venire veniant ergò dum adolescunt veniant dum discunt dum quò veniant docentur Tertullian and b 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Orat. 40. Nazianzen thought is more convenient to delay the Baptizing of them till they were capable of being Catechized between Three and Four years old but still this delay of Baptism supposed their continuing in health but in case of danger they thought it c 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 necessary to Baptize them and if they survived the danger looked upon them as lawfully and validly Baptized These were all the Pleas we read of for deferring the Baptism of Infants among the Ancients who never urged this for one that Infant-Baptism was unlawful or invalid No They never argued against it from the want of those pre-requisite Conditions in Children which Christ and the Apostles required in Adult Proselytes nor from the want of Precept and Example for it in the New Testament but so understood the Scriptures as to think it as lawful and warrantable as the Baptism of grown Believers and necessary in case of danger and just so did those who deferred their Baptism for fear of sinning after it think the Baptism of Men and Women only necessary at the last extremity in apparent danger of Death But then if the ordinary practice of Infant-Baptism be not only lawful and valid but also necessary as appearing most agreeable to the presumed Will of Christ who did not countermand the practice of it and most conformable to the practice of the Apostles as can be proved from the practice of the very next Age unto them then it must not only be lawful to Communicate with Believers who were Baptized in their Infancy but an exceeding great Sin and Presumption to refuse Communion with them upon that account In a word If Infant-Baptism be not only lawful but necessary what a grievous and provoking Sin must it needs be to disown those for Members of Christ's Body whom he owns to be such But if it be neither as Anabaptists vainly pretend then there hath not been a true Church upon the Face of the Earth for Eleven hundred Years nor a Church for above Fifteen hundred with which a true Christian could Communicate without Sin This is a very absurd and dreadful consequence and inconsistent with the purity of the Apostolical Ages while the Church was so full of Saints Martyrs and Miracles and represented as * See Dr. More 's Apocalypsis Apoc. Preface p. 20. and on the 11. Ch. of the Rev. v. 1 2. Symmetral by the Spirit of God under the Symbol of Measuring the Temple of God and the Altar Revel 11.1 2. THE CONCLUSION ALthough in the management of this Controversie against the Anabaptists I have endeavoured so to state the Case of Infant-Baptism as to obviate or answer all the Considerable Pleas and Material Objections which they are wont to make against it yet there are two of their Objections of which I have yet taken no notice thinking it better that I might avoid tediousness and confusion in determining upon the preceding Questions to Propose and Answer them a part by themselves The First of these two is the ancient Custom of giving the Communion unto Infants which they endeavour with all their Art and Skill to run Parallel with the practice of infant-Infant-Baptism although there is not the like Evidence nor the like Reason for the practice of that as there is for the practice of this First There is not the like Evidence for the practice of it St. a Ac nequid de esset ad criminis cumulum Infantes quoque parentum manibus vel impositi vel attracti amiserunt parvuli quod in primo statim Nativitatis Exordio fuerunt consecuti Nonne illi cum judicii dies venerit dicent Nos nihil fecimus nec derelicto cibo ac poculo domini ad profana contagia sponte properavimus Afterwards he tells a Story of a little Girl who having been carried to the Idol-Feasts was afterwards brought by her Mother who knew nothing of it to the Communion when he administred it and when the Deacon brought the Cup to her she turned away her Face from it but the Deacon pouring some of the Wine into her Mouth she fell into Convulsions and Vomitings which the Holy Father looking upon as a Miracle did thereupon discover that she had been polluted at the Idol-Feasts Vid. August ad Bonifacium Episcop Ep. 23. vol. 2. Cyprian being the first Author which they can produce for it and after him the b Cap. 7. Contemplat 3. p. 360 362. Author of the Book of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy and c Catechesis 3. isluminat Hierosolym Cyril of Jerusalem are the next who make mention of it towards the latter end of the Fourth Century and then St. d De verbis domini in Evang. Johan Epist 23.106 107. Lib. 1. de peccatotum merit remiss cap. 20. lib. 1. Contra Julianum c. 11. Contra duas Epistolas Pelag. lib. 2. cap. 22. lib. 4. cap. 14. Augustine in the Fifth who indeed speaks frequently of it as of the practice of the Church in that
kinds of not sowing their Fields with mingled Seed nor their Vineyards with divers Seeds of not Plowing with an Ox and an Ass together and of not wearing a Garment of Linnen and Woolen God injoined them these and other things in opposition to the neighbouring Idolatrous Nations that there might be a mutual strangeness and hatred betwixt them and that by these and other Ceremonial Singularities they might be distinguished from the rest of the World But then Christ coming to break down the middle wall of Partition betwixt the Jews and Gentiles and to abolish the Enmity of Ordinances that was betwixt them that he might make Peace betwixt them and reconcile them both into one Body in the Cross it was requisite to this end that he should abolish these and all other distinguishing Characters betwixt them which would have hindred the Progress of the Gospel had it been clogg'd with Jewish Rites and Ceremonies which were become so odious and ridiculous to all the Gentile World In particular For this reason he was obliged to change the Initiatory Sacrament and the Seal of the Covenant of Grace I mean Circumcision by which the Jews excepting a few * The ancient Egyptians Ethiopians Ismaelites Cholchians Nations were distinguished from all the World They were become †Jura Verpe per Anchialum Mart. Credat Judaeus Apelles Horat. Ferro succiderit inguinis oram Petron. Mox praeputia ponunt Juven 1 Cor. 7.18 Is any Man called being circumcised let him not be uncircumcised i. e. Let him not use means to attract the Praeputium which the Jews did often to avoid Shame and Persecution in Gentile Countries odious and ridiculous to all other People upon the account of it and for this reason it would have been a mighty bar to the Progress of the Gospel had the Gentiles been to be initiated thereby Furthermore it alone was reckoned as a grievous burden by reason of the painful and bloody nature of it and for that Reason also was laid aside as being inconsistent with the free and easie nature of the Christian Religion for if Zipporah was so much offended at Moses and called him a bloody Husband upon the account of it we may well presume how much the Gentiles would have been offended at the Apostles and at their Doctrine upon the account thereof No Religious Rite could be more ungrateful to Flesh and Blood and therefore the Wisdom of our Lord is to be admired in changing of it into the easie and practicable Ceremony of Baptism which was of more universal significancy and which * Diabolus ipsas quoque res Sacramentorum divinorum idolorum mysteriis aemulatur tingit ipse quosdam utique credentes ac fideles suos caeterum si Numae superstitiones revolvamus nonne manifeste diabolus morositatem illam Judaicae legis imitatus est Tertull. de praescrip haeret c. 40. O nimium faciles Qui tristia crimina caedis tolli flumineâ posse putatis aquâ Pagans as Paganism was nothing but Judaism corrupted by the Devil practised as well as Jews Hitherto I have given the Reasons of altering the Jewish Oeconomy and of reforming of it into the Christian Church but then my undertaking obliges me to prove what before I observed that * Verissimum enim est quod vir doctissimus Hugo Broughtonus ad Danielem notavit Nullos à Christo institutos ritus novos c. Grotii opusc Tom. 3. p. 520. See Dr. Hammond in his discourse of the Baptizing of Infants Christ and his Apostles who were the Reformers of it did build with many of the old Materials and conformed their new house as much as they could after the Platform of the old This will appear from Baptism it self which was a Ceremony by which †Seld. de jure l. 2. c. 2. de Synedi l. 1. c. 3. Lightfoot Horae Hebraicae p. 42. Hammond on Matth. 3. v. 1. and of the Baptizing of Infants Jacob Altingius dissert Philologica Septima de Proselytis Proselytes both Men Women and Children were initiated into the Jewish Church Though it were but a mere humane Institution or as the dissenting Parties usually phrase it a mere humane Invention yet so much respect had our blessed Lord for the Ancient Orders and Customs of the Jewish Church that being obliged to lay by Circumcision for the reasons above mentioned he consecrated this instead of it to be the Sacrament of initiation into his Church and a Seal of the Righteousness of Faith So likewise the other Sacrament of the Lord's Supper was certainly of ‖ Mede 1 Book disc 51. b. 11. Christian Sacrifice Grot. Opusc Tom. 3. p. 510. Dr. Cudworth on the Lord's Supper Thorndike of Religious Assembly chap. 10. Dr. Taylor 's great Exemplar p. 1. disc of Baptism Numb 11. Jewish Original as hath been shewed by many Learned Men and the Correspondence of the Bishops Presbyters and Deacons to the High-Priest Priests and Levites doth shew that the Subordination of the Christian Hierarchy is taken from the Jewish Church as St. Jerome observes in his Epistle to Evagrius Et ut sciamus traditiones Apostolicas sumptas de veteri Testamento quod Aaron filii ejus Levitae in Templo fuerunt hoc sibi Episcopi Presbyteri diaconi vendicent in Ecclesia What the High-Priest Priests and Levites were in the Temple that the Bishops Presbyters and Deacons are in the Church according to Apostolical Constitution taken from the Old Testament Hither also is to be referred that wonderful Correspondence betwixt the Priest-hood and Altar of the Jewish and Christian Church as it is most excellently discoursed by the Learned and Pious a In his Discourse concerning the one Altar and the one Priest-hood c. Mr. Dodwell To all which I may add many other Institutions as that of b Dr. Taylor his great Exemplar Disc of Baptism Num◠11. Lightfoot on 1 Cor. c. 5. v. 4. Excommunication and of the ritual performance of Ordination Confirmation and Absolution of Penitents by Imposition of Hands all which are of Jewish Original Likewise the Observation of the antient Love-Feasts before the Holy-Eucharist which for their extream inconvenience were taken away by the c Concil Sext. in Trull c. 24. Churches Authority the use of Festivals and Fasts the Institution of the Lord's day which is nothing but the Sabbath translated In a word the manifold and almost entire Correspondence of the Church in her publick Assemblies and Worship with the Synagogue as it is set forth by Mr. Thorndike in his Book of Religious Assemblies even to the formal use of the Hebrew-word d 1 Cor. 14.16 Rom. 11.36 Eph. 3.21 Phil. 4.20 2 Tim. 1.17 Heb. 23.27 1 Pet. 4.11 Rev. 1.16 Rev. 1.7 Just Mart. Ap. 2. p. 97. Iren. l. 2. c. 10. Athan. Apol. ad const Imper. p. 683. Amen Hitherto I have made a short Previous Discourse concerning many useful Particulars As First Concerning the
Latitude which is instituted by him for several ends and for different sorts of Persons differently qualified for those several ends Of the first sort was the Ordinance of Fringes above-mentioned which could only concern grown Persons because they only were capable of answering the end for which it was instituted viz. To look upon them and remember the Commandments of the Lord and of the latter sort is the Holy Ordinance of Marriage which was appointed by God for several ends and for Persons differently qualified and capacitated for those several ends in so much that Persons who are incapacitated as to some ends of Marriage may yet honestly Marry because they are capable of the rest All the ends and uses for which it was appointed can only be answered by the Marrying of Persons who are capacitated for procreation of Children notwithstanding superannuated Persons who are past that capacity are not incapable Subjects of Marriage nor is the Marriage of such invalid or an abuse of the Holy Ordinance of Marriage because they are capable of answering one end for which Marriage was ordained This shews how fallaciously the Anabaptists argue against Baptizing of Infants because of their incapacity as to some ends and uses for which Baptism was ordained they ought first to have proved what they take for granted that it was a Divine Institution of the first sort which I call a strict Institution and then their Argument had been good but this they will never be able to prove because Baptism succeeded in the room of Circumcision which was a Divine Institution of the latter sort and because our Saviour was Baptised in whom there was a greater incapacity as to the ends of Baptism than possibly can be in Infants even as he was in a greater incapacity as to answering the ends of Circumcision than ordinary Jewish Infants were John verily did Baptize with the Baptism of Repentance and thereby sealed unto the People the Remission of their Sins and therefore understanding very well that our Lord was not capable of this and other ends of his Baptism he forbad him telling him that he was fitter to be the Baptist than to be Baptized of him but yet as soon as our Lord gave him one general reason why he ought to be Baptized viz. Because it became him to fulfil all Righteousness he suffered him which shews that Baptism is a Divine Institution of Latitude and that in such an Institution the incapacity of a Person as to some ends doth not incapacitate him for it when he is capable of the rest But Secondly This way of arguing from the incapacity of Infants as to some ends of Baptism is highly reflecting upon the Wisdom of God who commanded young Babes to be Circumcised although all the ends of Circumcision could not be answered but by the Circumcision of adult Persons who only were capable of understanding the nature of the Institution and the nature of the Covenant into which they were to enter of professing their Faith and Repentance and of submitting unto the bloody Sacrament in which Children were merely Passive and of having their Faith and Hope further strengthned upon fealing unto them the Remission of their Sins Wherefore the full force of this Objection rises up against Infant-Circumcision as well as Infant-Baptism because Circumcision was instituted for the same ends that Baptism now is and accordingly when Men were initiated by Circumcision they were to profess their Faith and Repentance and shortly after at their Baptism solemnly to renounce Idolatry and all idolatrous Manners and Worship and their idolatrous Kindred and Relations and yet upon the desire of such Proselytes their Children were initiated both by Circumcision and Baptism though they were altogether uncapable of understanding or doing those things which their Fathers did Wherefore those Men who argue against Infant-Baptism because it doth not answer all the ends of Baptism reproach the Divine Wisdom and the Wisdom of the Jewish Church not considering that Circumcision was and Baptism is an Institution of great Latitude and compass designed on purpose by God for Children in whom there is a capacity for some nay for the * Rem Praecipuam in Baptismo non attendunt hoc est testificationem divinae benevolentiae in foedus tutelam suam suscipientis gratiam conferentis c. nam in Baptismo praecipua res est divina gratia quae consistit in remissione peccatorum regeneratione adoptione haereditate Vitae aeternae cujus sane gratiae Infantes indigentes capaces sunt Cassand de Bapt. Infant chief ends of Baptism as well as for Men and Women in whom there is a capa city for all They are capable of all the ends of it as it is instituted for a Sign from God towards us to assure us of his Gracious favour and to consign unto us the benefits of the Covenant of Grace For their Child-hood doth not hinder but that they may be made Members of the Church as of a Family Tribe Colledge or any other Society nor doth it incapacitate them any more from being adopted the Children of God than the Children of any other Person nor of becoming Heirs of Eternal Life by virtue of that Adoption than by vertue of any other civil Adoption the Heirs to such a Temporal Estate For Children are capable of all acts of Favour and Honour from God and Men and of being instated in all the Priviledges of any Society though they cannot as yet perform the Duties of it nor understand any thing thereof Since therefore Children are as capable and stand as much in need of almost all the Benefits of the Covenant of Grace and the Priviledges of Church Membership as Men is it not as fit that the Confirmatory Sign of those Benefits and Priviledges should be applied unto them as well as unto these Should a Prince Adopt a Beggar 's Child and incorporate him into the Royal Family and settle a part of his Dominions upon him and to solemnize and confirm all this should cut off a bit of his Flesh or command him to be washed with Water who would count this an insignificant Solemnity or say that the Child was not capable of the Sign when he was capable of the chief Things signified thereby Or to make a Comparison which hath a nearer semblance with the Case of Infant-Baptism Suppose a Prince should send for an attainted Traytor 's Child and in the Presence of several Persons assembled for that purpose should say You know the Blood of this Child is attainted by his Fathers Treason by Law he hath forfeited all Right to his Ancestors Estate and Titles and is quite undone though he be not sensible of his wretched Condition My Bowels of Compassion yern upon him and here I restore him to his Blood and Inheritance to which henceforward he shall have as much right as if the Family had never been attainted I justifie him freely and declare my self reconciled unto him and that no spot
the Trinity and the Deity of the Holy Ghost may be fairly and sufficiently proved from those Texts which the Orthodox bring for them without Ancient Tradition though without it they could not be demonstrated from them because they do not assert it in express words But then as those Texts in Conjunction with Tradition do put those Doctrines out of all reasonable doubt So do the other which I have cited in Conjunction with the Practice of the Ancient Church put the requisite necessity of Infant-Baptism out of Question because the Church in the next Age unto the Apostles practiced Infant-Baptism as an Apostolical Tradition and by consequence as an Institution of Christ In like manner as the Intrinsecal Arguments taken rom the Style Sanctity Dignity and Efficacy of the Holy Scriptures and the perpetual Analogy and Conformity of the several Books contained in them are by themselves but probable and no demonstrative reasons that all the Books contained in the Canon and no other are the Word of God but in conjunction with the Testimony and Authority of the Ancient Catholick Church amount to a Demonstration So though the Texts which I have cited are of themselves but probable Arguments for the requisite necessity of Infant-Baptism yet in concurrence with such a Comment upon them as the Practice of the next Age unto the Apostles and all Ages since from one Generation to another they amount to such a demonstration as is called in Logick Demonstratio ducens ad absurdum and are a violent Presumption that Children ought to be Baptized I might run on the Parallel as to the other Instances of Episcopal Government the admitting of Women to the Communion and the Observation of the Lord's day and therefore let the Adversaries of Infant-Baptism consider well with themselves Whether rejecting of it after a Concurrence of such Texts and such a Tradition to establish it they do not teach others especially Atheists pure Deists and Sabbatizers to which I may add Scepticks Socinians and Quakers a way to deny all the rest Thus much I have said concerning the requisite necessity of infant-Infant-Baptism to shew that it is not lawful to separate from a Church for appointing of Infants to be Baptized when there are such cogent reasons arising from the concurrence of Scripture and Antiquity to presume that Infant-Baptism was an Apostolical Tradition and an Institution of Christ And I have designedly called it a requisite to distinguish it from an absolute necessity lest the Reader should think I were of St. Augustin's Opinion who thought Baptism indispensibly necessary to the Salvation of Infants so that a Child dying unbaptized through the carelesness or Superstition of the Parents or through their mistaken Belief of the unlawfulness of Infant-Baptism were * Potest proinde rectè dici parvulos sine Baptismo de corpore exeuntes in damnatione omnium mitissimâ futuros Multum autem fallit fallitur qui eos in damnatione praedicat non futuros dicente Apostolo Judicium ex uno delicto August de peccat merit remiss contra Pelag. l. 1. c. 16. Vid. contra Julianum Pelag. l. 5. c. 8. infallibly damned No I intended no such severe Conclusion because we ought not to tye God to the same means to which he hath tied us but only to shew that the Baptism of young Children is antecedently necessary and †Articles of Religion Artic. 27. in any wise to be retained in the Church as being most agreeable with the Holy Scripture the Apostolical Practice and the Institution of Christ And to set this way of arguing more home upon the Consciences of those who Dissent from the Church upon the account of Infant-Baptism I appeal unto them Whether Scripture and Antiquity standing against Infant-Baptism in the same posture of evidence that they now stand for it it would not be unjustifiable for any sort of Men to separate from the Church for not Baptizing Infants as they do now for Baptizing of them Let us suppose for Example That the Disciples of Christ instead of rebuking those that brought little Children unto him had brought them to him themselves and he had been much displeased at them for it and said I suffer not little Children to come unto me for the Kingdom of God is not of such Let us put the case That two Evangelists had recorded this supposed Story and accordingly we had been assured by the Writers of the two next Ages to the Apostles that then there was no Baptizing of Infants and that the Apostles Baptized them not and that there never was any Church in after Ages which did practise Infant-Baptism Upon this Supposition I appeal unto them Whether it would not be highly unreasonable to separate from all the Churches in the World for not allowing of Infant-Baptism against the Concurrence of such a Text to the contrary and the sence and practise of the Catholick Church The case which I suppose one way is the real case the other only with this difference that the supposed case would have but the benefit of one Text whereas the real hath the benefit of many in Conjunction with Tradition and therefore seeing there are so many Texts and such a cloud of Witnesses for Infant-Baptism Why should it not be looked upon as one of the common Notions of Christianity like the Parallel Doctrines above-mentioned though it be not commanded especially when as I have shewed there was no need of commanding of it in express Words I know the Dissenters of all sorts and especially those for whose sake I am now writing are bred up in great prejudice and sinister Suspicions against Tradition declaiming against it as very uncertain and against the use of it as very derogatory to the sufficiency of the Word of God But as to the first part of their Objection against the certainty of Tradition I desire them to take notice that there is a certain as well as an uncertain an undoubted as well as a pretended Tradition as there are true certain and undoubted as well as pretended and uncertain Scriptures and that there are sure ways whereby ingenious and inquisitive Men may satisfie themselves which is one and which is the other The way then to find out true and undoubted Tradition as * Advers Haeres c. 3. Vincentius Lirinensis teacheth is to try it by these three Tests Universality Antiquity and Consent First By Universality If all the Churches wheresoever dispersed or how different soever in their Languages and Customs do believe or practice such a Doctrine Secondly Antiquity If what all the Churches all the World over doth so believe or practice was no innovation but Believed and Practiced in the Ages next to the Apostles when such Fathers governed the Churches or such Famous Men lived in them as knew the Apostles and conversed with them or lived near unto those or with those Apostolical Men who so knew them or conversed with them or lived near unto them Thirdly
Holy Spirit which they shall receive as soon and as fast as their natural incapacity removes This distinction betwixt having the Spirit and having a Right unto the Spirit holds not only in Infant-Baptism but in the Baptism of Hypocrites and secret Sinners who by submitting unto the Ordinances of Baptism acquire an actual Antecedent Right unto the Spirit although they are in a moral incapacity of receiving the Graces of it till their Hypocrisie is removed Nevertheless their Baptism is not ineffectual as to this End but is a means of conferring the Holy Ghost upon them without re-baptization because though they cannot receive it at the moment of their Baptism by reason of their Hypocrisie as sincere Penitents do in whom there is no such Moral Impediment yet by virtue of it they will be sure to receive it afterwards as soon as they shall in any degree become capable thereof Those are the Blessings and Benefits consequent upon Baptism by God's appointment of which Infants are as capable as actual Believers and let any Impartial Man judge Whether it is more for their benefit that this manifold capacity in them should be actually answered by the timely Administration of Baptism or that it should lay void and unsatisfied till they came to years of Discretion Which is best for a Child that hath the Evil to be Touched for it while he is a Child or to wait till he is of sufficient Age to be sensible of the Benefit Or to make one Comparison more which would be best for a Traytors Child to be presently restored to his Blood and and Estate and his Princes Favour or to be kept in a meer capacity of being restored till he was a Man But besides these Benefits which are consequent upon Baptism by God's appointment there is another no less profitable to young Children which will justifie the practice of Infant-Initiation and that is to have such an early pre-engagement laid upon them which without the highest Baseness can Ingratitude they cannot afterwards retract No Person of common Ingenuity who hath any sence of honour or any tolerable degree of Conscience within him can without shame and horrour break those Sacred Bonds asunder by which he was bound to God in his Infancy when he comes to Years of understanding but on the contrary will think himself in Honour and Gratitude bound to own and stand to the Obligation which he then contracted when he was graciously admitted to so many Blessings and Privileges before he could do any thing himself towards the obtaining of them or understand his own good It would argue a Person to be of a very ill nature and untoward Disposition to break such solemn Foederal Vows and therefore we see that Children generally do readily take upon themselves their Baptismal Obligations when they come to the use of reason whereas were they left alone to their own Freedom when they would be Baptized they would be apt to put it off from time to time through the aversness that the corrupt nature of Man hath to such strict and Spiritual Engagements and in such a State of Liberty as this Men would need as many and as earnest Exhortations unto Baptism as unto the Lord's Supper and in such an Age as ours is at least reluct as much to come unto that as we see by experience they do unto this Wherefore upon Supposition that Christ doth but allow Children to be brought unto him in Baptism The Wisdom of the Church is highly to be applauded for bringing them under such an early and beneficial pre-engagement and not leaving them to their own liberty at such years when Flesh and Blood would be apt to find out so many Shifts and Excuses and make them regret to be Baptized And therefore in the Second place as the Baptism of Infants is very Beneficial and profitable unto them So it conduceth very much to the well-being and edification of the Church in preventing those Scandalous and Shameful delays of Baptism which grown Persons otherwise would be apt to make putting of it off till the time of some great sickness as many were wont to do in the third and fourth Century when being not Baptized in their Infancy they did ordinarily receive Baptism as Papists now receive extream Unction when they were ready to expire For as it is usual now for Persons to defer the receiving of the Lord's Supper for fear of Damnation mistaking the Apostle where he saith He that Eateth and Drinketh unworthily Eateth and Drinketh Damnation to himself So in those Ages it was usual for Persons to defer their own and their Childrens Baptism out of a * Dr. Caves Prim. Christian part 1. ch 10. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Greg. Nazianz. Orat. 40. p 647 649. Sed mundus rursus delinquit quò male comparetur diluvio itaque igni destinatur sicut homo qui post Baptismum delicta restaurat Tertull. de Baptismo 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Greg. Nyssen de Baptismo kind of Novatian Principle for fear 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 were once enlightned i. e. Baptized fall away it is impossible to renew them again unto Repentance Now the Baptizing of Children being deferred by their Parents out of this Superstitious fear they when they came to be Men and Women put the doing of it off for several Reasons and Pretences which we learn out of the Writers of those times Some deferred it out of Worldly Love and a Carnal loathness to renounce their sinful Pleasures and take upon them the Yoke of Christ Some put it off pretending want of leisure through multitude of worldly business others out of laziness and careless negligence Others were wont to plead the insufficiency of their knowledge See Mr. Walker's Excellent Preface to his Treatise of Infant-Baptism others the inconveniency of the present time others would not be Baptized but at such a time or in such a place as such a City or such a River or by such a Person or in such a Company Some would put it off upon a pretence of not having such or such Relations present others would decline it upon the account of some small Expences that attended it others because they relucted to confess their Sins others because they favoured not the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity or to comply with the Arians some because they would imitate the Example of Christ who was not Baptized till the 30th Year of his Age and some out of fear of Persecution This happened formerly to the great shame and dishonour of the Christian Religion though the * Gregor Nazianz Greg. Nyss and St. Basil Fathers sharply and vehemently Wrote and Preached against it and therefore upon supposition of the bare lawfulness or indifferency of Infant-Baptism I cannot but approve the Wisdom and Prudence of those Churches which appoint it because
for his Redeemer who had suffered for him and thanked God when the time was come that he was to seal the truth of the Protestant Religion with his Blood A Letter of Mr. PHILPOT to a Friend of his Prisoner the same time in Newgate Wherein is debated and discussed the matter or question of Infants to be Baptized THE God of all Light and Understanding lighten your Heart with all true Knowledge of his Word Book of Martyrs 3 Vol. p. 606. Col. 2. London 1641. and make you perfect to the day of our Lord Jesus Christ whereunto you are now called through the mighty operation of his Holy Spirit Amen I received Yesternight from you Dear Brother S. and Fellow-Prisoner for the truth for Christ's Gospel a Letter wherein you gently require my Judgment concerning the Baptism of Infants which is the effect thereof And before I do shew you what I have learned out of God's Word and of his true Infallible Church touching the fame I think it not out of the matter first to declare what Vision I had the same Night whilst musing on your Letter I fell asleep knowing that God doth not without cause reveal to his People who have their Minds fixed on him Special and Spiritual Revelations to their Comfort as a taste of their Joy and Kingdom to come which Flesh and Blood cannot comprehend Being in the midst of my sweet rest it seemed to me to see a great beautiful City all of the colour of Azure and white four square in a marvellous beautiful composition in the midst of the Skie the sight whereof so inwardly comforted me that I am not able to express the consolation I had thereof yea the remembrance thereof causeth my Heart as yet to leap for Joy And as Charity is no Churle but would have others to be Partakers of his delight some thought I called to others I cannot tell whom and whilst they came and we together beheld the same by and by to my great Grief it vaded away This Dream I think not to have come of the illusion of the Senses because it brought with it so much Spiritual Joy and I take it to be of the working of God's Spirit for the contentation of your Request as he wrought in Peter to satisfie Cornelius Therefore I Interpret this Beautiful City to be the Glorious Church of Christ and the appearance of it in the Sky signifieth the Heavenly State thereof whose Conversation is in Heaven and that according to the Primitive Church which is now in Heaven Men ought to measure and judge the Church of Christ now in Earth for as the Prophet David saith The Foundations thereof be in the Holy Hills and glorious things be spoken of the City of God And the marvellous quadrature of the same I take to signifie the universal agreement in the same and that all the Church here Militant ought to consent to the Primitive Church throughout the four Parts of the World as the Prophet affirmeth saying God maketh us to dwell after one manner in one House And that I conceived so wonderful Joy at the Contemplation thereof I understand the unspeakable Joy which they have that be at Unity with Christ's Primitive Church For there is Joy in the Holy Ghost and Peace which passeth all Understanding as it is written in the Psalms As of Joyful Persons is the dwelling of all them that be in thee And that I called others to the fruition of this Vision and to behold this wonderful City I construe it by the Will of God this Vision to have come upon me musing on your Letter to the end that under this Figure I might have occasion to move you with many others to behold the Primitive Church in all your Opinions concerning Faith and to conform your self in all points to the same which is the Pillar and Establishment of truth and teacheth the true use of the Sacraments and having with a greater fulness than we have now the first fruits of the Holy Ghost did declare the true Interpretation of the Scriptures according to all verity even as our Saviour promised to send them another Comforter which should teach them all truth And since all truth was taught and revealed to the Primitive Church which is our Mother let us all that be obedient Children of God submit our selves to the judgment of the Church for the better understanding of the Articles of our Faith and of the doubtful Sentences of the Scripture Let us not go about to shew in us by following any private Man's Interpretation upon the Word another Spirit than they of the Primitive Church had lest we deceive our selves For there is but one Faith and one Spirit which is not contrary to himself neither otherwise now teacheth us than he did them Therefore let us believe as they have taught us of the Scriptures and be at peace with them according as the true Catholick Church is at this day And the God of Peace assuredly will be with us and deliver us out of all our Worldly Troubles and Miseries and make us Partakers of their Joy and Bliss through our Obedience to Faith with them Therefore God commandeth us in Job to ask of the Elder Generation and to search diligently the memory of the Fathers For we are but Yesterdays Children Job 8. and be ignorant and our days are like a Shadow and they shall teach thee saith the Lord and speak to thee and shall utter words from their Hearts Prov. 6. And by Solomon we are commanded not to reject the direction of our Mother The Lord grant you to direct your steps in all things after her and to abhor contention with her For as St. Paul writeth If any Man be contentious neither we 1 Cor. 11. neither the Church of God hath any such custom Hitherto I have shewed you good Brother S. my Judgment generally of that you stand in doubt and dissent from others to the which I wish you as mine own Heart to be comformable and then doubtless you cannot err but boldly may be glad in your Troubles and Triumph at the hour of your Death that you shall die in the Church of God a Faithful Martyr and receive the Crown of Eternal Glory And thus much have I written upon the occasion of a Vision before God unfeigned But that you may not think that I go about to satisfie you with uncertain Visions only and not after God's Word I will take the ground of your Letter and specially answer to the same by the Scriptures and by infallible reasons deduced out of the same and prove the Baptism of Infants to be lawful commendable and necessary whereof you seem to stand in doubt Indeed if you look upon the Papistical Synagogue only which hath corrupted God's Word by false Interpretations and hath perverted the true use of Christ's Sacraments you might seem to have good handfast of your Opinion against the Baptism of Infants But forasmuch as it is of
more Antiquity and hath his beginning from God's Word and from the use of the Primitive Church it must not in respect of the abuse in the Popish Church be neglected or thought not expedient to be used in Christ's Church Amentius one of the Aâ—â—â—ims Sect with his Adherente was one of the first that denied the Baptism of Children and next after him Pelâ—gius the Heretick and some other there were in St. Bernard's time as it doth appear by his Writings and in our days the Anabaptists and Inordinate kind of Men stirred up by the Devil to the destruction of the Gospel But the Catholick truth delivered unto us by the Scriptures plainly determineth that all such are to be Baptized as whom God acknowledgeth for his People and vouchsafeth them worthy of Sanctification or Remission of their Sin Therefore since that Infants be in the number or scroll of God's People and be Partakers of the Promise by their Purification in Christ it must needs follow thereby that they ought to be Baptized as well as those that can Profess their Faith For we judge the People of God as well by the free and liberal Promise of God as by the Confession of Faith For to whomsoever God promiseth himself to be their God and whom he acknowledgeth for his those no Man without great Impeity may exclude from the number of the Faithful But God promiseth that he will not only be the God of such as do profess him but also of Infants promising them his Grace and Remission of Sins as it appeareth by the words of the Covenant made unto Abraham Gen. 17. I will set my Covenant between thee and me saith the Lord and between thy Seed after thee in their Generations with an everlasting Covenant to be thy God and the God of thy Seed after thee To the which Covenant Circumcision was added to be a sign of Sanctification as well in Children as in Men and no Man may think that this Promise is abrogated with Circumcision and other Ceremonial Laws For Christ came to fulfil the Promises Matth. 5. and not to dissolve them Therefore in the Gospel he saith of Infants that is of such as yet believed not Matth. 10. Let the little Ones come unto me and forbid them not for of such is the Kingdom of Heaven Again Matth. 19. It is not the Will of your Father which is in Heaven that any of these little Ones do perish Also Matth. 18. He that receiveth one such little Child in my Name receiveth me Take heed therefore that ye despise not one of these Babes for I tell you their Angels do continually see in Heaven my Father's Face And what may be said more plainer than this It is not the Will of the Heavenly Father that the Infants should perish Whereby we may gather that he receiveth them freely unto his Grace although as yet they confess not their Faith Since then that the Word of the Promise which is contained in Baptism pertaineth as well to Children as Men why should the sign of the Promise which is Baptism in Water be withdrawn from Children when Christ himself commandeth them to be received of us and promiseth the Reward of a Prophet to those that receive such a little Infant as he for an Example did put before his Disciples Now will I prove with manifest Arguments Matth. 28. that Children ought to be Baptized and that the Apostles of Christ did Baptize Children The Lord commanded his Apostles to Baptize all Nations therefore also Children ought to be Baptized for they are comprehended under this Word All Nations Further whom God doth account among the faithful they are faithful for it was said to Peter Acts 10. That thing which God hath purified thou shalt not say to be common or unclean But GOD doth repute Children among the Faithful Ergo they be faithful except we had rather to resist God and seem stronger and wiser than he 1 Cor. 1. And without all doubt the Apostles Baptized those which Christ commanded But he commanded the Faithful to be Baptized among the which Infants be reckoned The Apostles then Baptized Infants 1 Cor. 1. The Gospel is more than Baptism for Paul said The Lord sent me to Preach the Gospel and not to Baptize Not that he denied absolutely that he was sent to Baptize but that he preferred Doctrine before Baptism for the Lord commanded both to the Apostles but Children be received by the Doctrine of the Gospel of God and not refused Therefore what Person being of reason may deny them Baptism which is a thing lesser than the Gospel For in the Sacraments be two things to be considered the thing signified and the Sign and thing signified is greater than the Sign and from the thing signified in Baptism Children are not excluded who therefore may deny them the Sign which is Baptism in Water St. Peter could not deny them to be Baptized in Water to whom he saw the Holy Ghost given which is the certain Sign of God's People Acts 10. For he saith in the Acts May any body forbid them to be Baptized in Water who have received the Holy Ghost as well as we Therefore St. Peter denied not Baptism to Infants for he knew certainly both by the Doctrine of Christ and by the Covenant which is everlasting that the Kingdom of Heaven pertained to Infants Rom. 8. None be received into the Kingdom of Heaven but such as God loveth and which are endued with his Spirit For whoso hath not the Spirit of God he is none of his But Infants be beloved of God and therefore want not the Spirit of God Wherefore if they have the Spirit of God as well as Men if they be numbred among the People of God as well as we that be of Age who I pray you may well withstand Children to be Baptized with Water in the Name of the Lord. The Apostles in times past being yet not sufficiently instructed did murmur against those which brought their Children unto the Lord but the Lord rebuked them and said Matth. 10. Let the Babes come unto me Why then do not these Rebellious Anabaptists obey the Commandments of the Lord For what do they now a-days else that bring their Children to Baptism than that they did in times past which brought their Children to the Lord and our Lord received them and putting his hands on them Blessed them and both by Words and by Gentle Behaviour towards them declared manifestly that Children be the People of God and entirely beloved of GOD But some will say Why then did not Christ Baptize them Because it is Written Jesus himself Baptized not but his Disciples Moreover John 4. Circumcision in the Old Law was ministred to Infants therefore Baptism ought to be ministred in the New Law unto Children For Baptism is come in the stead of Circumcision as St. Paul witnesseth saying to the Colossians Colos 2. By