not expressed in their extant writings that they did so § 2. Aâ—e all things written in the Scriptures that all the Twelve Apostles did in all places where they came and preached gathered and setled Churches Yea how little is there written of what was done by any of them And how many are there of them of whom there is nothing written at all neither what they did nor whither they went nor what became of them Did they nothing of whose doings nothing is written who are at least one half of the whole number of the Apostles And if they did any thing as sure enough they would be doing they might as well do that baptize Infants as any thing else for any thing that is written And where we find Infants Baptism in a Church planted by an Apostle as in Musâ—ovia Christianized by St. Andrew or in India by St. Thomas Why may we not think that planted there by that Apostle as well as other Christian Customs or Constitutions though in the Scripture there be a deep silence as to the whole Story And there is as good proof that they did not any thing else of all those things which our Saviour commanded them as that they did not that because no more is written of any thing else that they did than of that which is just nothing at all § 3. And they of whose doings any thing is written did they no more than just what was written Were they so exact in keeping and publishing Diaries of all their actions Not a word said not a deed done but what was book'd down How many persons do you read of that were baptized by Paul in all that time that he continued preaching the Gospel and planting the Church of Christ at Rome And do ye think none were baptized by him or at his command all the while Can there be a Church founded and formed up without baptism And if any were baptized where is it written in Scripture who what or how many they were Again do ye think the Saints at Rome did never commemorate the death of Christ in the celebration of the Eucharist If yea what mention is there of it in Scripture In what book chapter verse is it to be read No doubt both the one and the other Sacrament was by Pauls instructing and ordering received there and yet is the Scripture profoundly silent as to any such thing And who now will be so silly as from the Scriptures silence to draw a negative conclusion and say no such thing was done there because the Scripture says nothing of the doing of it The like may be said of other Apostles and the Churches planted by them § 4. Unless therefore that which is written were a perfect register of all that was done by all and every one of the Apostles as it is not of the doings of either all or one half or any one of them it cannot be proved that no one of them did any thing or appointed any thing to be done for instance to baptize Infants because it is not extant in those few scanty memoires and intimations rather than relations of some actions of some few of them written for the most part occasionally which are come to our hands that any one of them dâ—d it They might therefore do it though their doing of it be not expresly written in the Scriptures § 5. And that they did it or however so far delivered their mind concerning it that done it was and upon the account of their authority is most credible Because the Practice thereof is and has been looked on in all the Ages of the Church succeeding that wherein they lived as a Tradition of theirs And that Tradition from them is as credibly avouched to us as their writing those several Fpistles and Gospels which we receive for their writings and look upon as the word of God And we may as well receive the one upon that Tradition as the other and with as good reason reject the one as the other We have the Testimony of the Church for the one and we have but the Testimony of the Church for the other And if we may believe the Church when it tells us the Apostles wrâ— those Books why may we not as well believe it when it tells us the Apostles ordered that thing And if it be of no credit in the latter let our adversaries consider whether they do not by so saying derogate from and destroy all its credit in the former And so the matter is at last come to this that either we must have no new Testament Scriptures or else we must have Infants baptism The new Testament and this Sacrament of it must for ought I see ever stand and fall together both standing upon one bottom Catholick Tradition which must bear up both or neither not being able to support the one if it cannot support the other also § 6. I will not say but that some few one or two for many hundreds of years may have thought it not necessary to be administred so soon as in the prime of Infancy unless in case of death But their not thinking it necessary then is a sufficâ—ent evidence of their opinion of its lawfulness at other times For what is not lawfull at other times cannot be necessary even then § 7. And what ever reason we find any of the Ancients had to think it fitter to defer it I am of opinion we shall never find the unlawfulness of it to have been any of their reasons Tertullian thought the deferring of it Quid enim necesse est Sponsores etiam periculo ingeri quia ipsi per mortalitatem destituere promissiones suas possunt proventu malae indolis falli Tert. de Bapt. was more profitable but not the doing of it unlawful to be sure he does not say so And what 's his reason against the necessity of it That the Godfathers might not be brought into danger of failing in their undertaking by their own mortality or the Infants untowardness The deferring of it might then be prudential but that makes not the doing of it unlawfull And if he thought it prudential to defer it others as judicious as he have thought it no less prudence to hasten it And so his opinion in that case signifies nothing as to our present concern § 8. Perhaps some might think it prudence to defer it to avoid the exposing of so sacred an administration to the jeers of profane scoffers Dionysius the Areopagite mentions Eccl. Hier. c. 12. some such in his days as jeer'd at the Sureties being interrogated and answering in the Infants name And no doubt there are now such in our days as think that practice ridiculous enough But still be it as ridiculous as any has imagined it that renders it not unlawfull And if every thing must be laid by that any will think ridiculous we shall have little left either of our Worship or Doctrine When some heard of the Resurrection they
se habeant quae insania est paucis de Filio Spiritie Sancto commutatis quae apertam blasphemiam praeferebant caetera ita ut fâ—ripta sunt protuliste in medium impia voce laudâsse cum utique illa ista de uno impietatis fonte processerint D. Hieron ad Avitum Tom. 2. Col. 218. A. B. Paucisque testimoniis de Filio Dei Spiritu Sancto commutatis quae sciebas diâ—plicitura Romanis caetera usque ad finem integra dimisisti hoc idem faciens in Apologia quasi Pamphili quod in Origenis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 translatione fecisti D. Hieron l. 1. Apolog. adv Ruffinum Tom. 2. Col. 296. B. for his overmuch fidelity in translating some of Eusebius and Origens works and changing onely some few things concerning the Son and the Holy Ghost likely to grate upon Roman ears and letting the rest go intire and publishing them so as they were written Besides what should move Ruffinus to falsifie Origen in this place How came he concern'd to make any such Interpolation what advantage to himself or any party could he intend herein But what if after all this that piece of Origen on Rom. were translated by St. Hierom himself and this be owned by him in his Epistle to Heraclius prefixt before the Commentary why then all the dust about Ruffinus his corrupting of Origen in this particular vanishes into smoke and we have St. Hieroms Authority as Dr. Dr. Hammond Inf. Bapt. §. 42. †Cum igitur constet Anabaptistas agi sanatico spiritu non moveat nos corum autoritas ut discedamus à communi consenâ—is veteris Ecclesiae de baptizandis infantibus Nam vetustissimi Sâ—riptores Ecclesiastiâ—i probant baptismum infantium Otigenes enim in 6 cap. ad Rom. sic scribit Itaque Ec clesia ab Apostolis traditionem accepit etiam parvulis dare baptismum Sciebant enim illi quibus secreta divinorum mysteriorum commissa sunt quod essent in omnibus genuinae sordes pâ—ccati quae per aquam spiritum abolere deberent Haec sunt Origenis verba in quibus utrumque testatur baptizari infantes consequi eos per baptismum remissionem peccati originalis hoc est reconciliari eos Deo Melancth Loc. Com. de Baptismo Hammond saith to secure us that these are Origens words And that Origens words they are †Melancthon doth expresly say And lastly why Origen should be so much as suspected to be corrupted in this Place unless in some other of his writings he had declared himself to the contrary which I see not pretended is no easie thing to say and the suggestion of it is nothing else but a miserable shift of persons enslaved to an Hypothesis and resolved to say any thing how irrational and groundless soever for the maintaining of it And though this place were laid by as likewise that of his in Levit. yet whilest his 14 Homil. on Luke of unquestion'd Authority shall be extant there will be a witness of Origens to be produced for Infants Baptism Lastly for Cyprian his not urging it as an Apostolical Tradition or Precept doth not prove it was none However his delivering his Judgment for Infants baptism is a sure evidence that he thought neither Scripture precept nor Apostles practice nor Church Tradition was against it And it cannot be thought a private opinion which was so early concluded in a Council of no fewer than 66 Bishops And though H. D. meets with no such Council nor can tell where it was held yet St. Augustine doubtless was satisfied concerning the truth of it and St. Hierom too or else he would never have appealed to its Authority in the case Nor does St. Cyprians mentioning it to be defined in a Council prove it no Apostolical Tradition because it was delivered for an Apostolical tradition before that Council Nor was it properly Infants Baptism that was defined in that Council but whether Infants might be baptized before the eighth day Whether the grounds upon which that Councils Conclusion was grounded wear weak and frivolous as they are confidently enough said to be is not now under my consideration though to wiser persons than I they may for ought I know seem strong and weighty but whether they did so conclude or no which so good a witness as St. Cyprian is sufficient to prove Nor do I find it so much contradicted by his great Master Tertullian whom he so much reverenced who disputed Inf. Bapt. Par. 2. chap. 7. indeed against the hastening but not against the lawfulness of Infants baptism to which disputation I have given an Answe in part and Mr. Wills more fully And therefore I shall rather believe St. Cyprian himself declaring himself to be for Infants Baptism then Baronius if he assert or suggest that he was against it And if other things have been fathered on Cyprian yet till that Epistle of his to Fidus be demonstrated to be spurious which H. D. doth not tell us is yet done no not by Daille himself I shall presume it is his own And well may having it own'd for his by two so early and eminent Authors as St. Augustine and St. Hierom †Beatus quidem Cyprianus non aliquod decrecum condens novum sed Ecclesiae fidem firmissimam servans ad corrigendum cos qui putabant ante oâ—tavum diem nativitatis non esse parvulum baptizandum non carnem sed animam dixit esse perdendam mox natum rite baptizari posse cum suis quibusdam cocpiscopis censuit D. Aug. Ep. 28 ad Hieron Tom. 2. Col. 108. B. the former of which in his Epistle to Hierom appeals to it * Ac me putes haeretico sensu hoc intelligere beatus Martyr Cyprianus cujus te in Scripturarum testimoniis digerendis amulum gloriaris in Epistola quam scribit ad Episcopum Fidum de Infantibus haptizandis haec memorat Porro autem si etiam gravissimis delictoribus c. D. Hieron l. 3. adv Pelag. Tom. 2. Col. 47. C. the latter in his third book against the Pelagians not onely doth that but transcribes a considerable part of it Nor shall I ever the unwillinger receive from him a Catholick Verity for his having held other I will not say with H. D. corrupt and Antichristian Tenents which I should tremble to say or think of so pious a person and eminent a Martyr but private opinions as Tertullians and Gr. Nazianzens for the delay of Infants Baptism are said to have been which if no worse than that of the Churches being founded upon Peter and that sprinkling might serve in stead of baptizing in both which I can assure the Reader he hath good company may prove not to deserve so heavy a censure nor he for them to be adjudged a Notable Factor for Antichrist and one in whom the mystery of iniquity did strongly work which is a character strangely inconsistent with that estimate that by the Catholick
Church has been made of him both in the times he lived in and in those that succeeded as may appear by what Gr. Nazianzen saith in his Oration of him and what Baronius and others record concerning him in memory of whose pious life and glorious death Temples were built an Altar erected and a Festival observed And this with men of Reason and Modesty may suffice to have been said in Vindication of those Primitive Witnesses and their Testimonies He that is not satisfied herewith may find more for his satisfaction in Mr. Wills of Inf. Bapt Part. 2. ch 3. p. 125 c. One thing more I shall beg the favour of saying and then conclude the Readers trouble and that is that I have not urged all the Arguments that are or might be insisted on in this dispute so that if all I have said on these grounds should chance to signifie nothing yet still is the cause neither desperate nor deplorable there being behind Reserves of other Auxiliary forces for its succour and support But why then did I not insist on them Partly because I thought what I have said to be enough and was loth to be troublesome with more and partly because those Arguments have already Mr. Baxter Stephens Sydenham Geree Wills c. been managed by other Writers with great diligence and dexterity so that it seemed needless for me to concern my self in them As for those I have used they are the same mostly that were used by Dr. Taylor and Dr. Hammond which because I thought very good yet as delivered by them not so well adapted to vulgar capacities by reason of the too much abstruseness of the language of the one and too much floridness of the style of the other as to do that good on ignorant souls which they intended therefore I have sent them abroad again in a vulgar dress and country habit accommodated for language and style as near as I could and the matter would bear to mean capacities so as to be intelligible by the ignoranter sort who have most need of instruction as being most liable to temptation and whose information conviction and satisfaction I have chiefly and even almost solely aimed at in these Papers yet Adding withal some things of my own and somewhat Improving what was theirs And if I have at any time exalted my Pen it has been merely for the refreshment of some Readers who would else have been tyred with too long a continuation of one strain and that too but the dull hum of a Country drone and for that if it be criminous I beg and hope the Readers pardon Et jam defessus lampada trado FINIS A Table of the Contents CHAP. 1. THe Text. The occusion of the words The doctrine gathered from it and proved Pag. 1 Chap. 2. Of the children that are to be suffered to come to Christ Infants 4 Chap. 3. What children are to be suffered to come unto Christ 5 Chap. 4. What coming of little children unto Christ is to be suffered 12 Chap. 5. The interpretation of the Text vindicated 20 Chap. 6. Baptism beneficial unto children in regard of their early consecration there by unto God 26 Chap. 7. Baptism beneficial unto children in regard of their being brought thereby into Covenant with God 32 Chap. 8. Baptism beneficial unto children in regard of the Vow they are brought under by it 37 Chap. 9. Baptism beneficial unto children in regard of the care that by others is taken of them upon it pag. 48 Chap. 10. Baptism beneficial unto children in regard of their being thereby united unto Christ 53 Chap. 11. Baptism beneficial unto children in regard of their being made thereby the children of God 73 Chap. 12. Baptism beneficial unto children in regard of their being made thereby Heirs of Heaven 80 Chap. 13. Baptism beneficial unto children in regard of their being thereby made partakers of grace 90 Chap. 14. Baptism beneficial unto children in regard that by it they are consigned unto a resurrection 103 Chap. 15. Baptism beneficial unto children in regard they are saved by it 108 Chap. 16. Childrens need of baptism in râ—gard of its efficacy to take off the guilt of original sin 118 Chap. 17. Childrens need of baptism in regard of their being under the guilt of sin 125 Chap. 18. Childrens need of baptism further shewn from the consideration of the evil nature and evil consequents of original sin 136 Chap. 19. Childrens baptism not to be neglected upon presumption that God can or will save them without their being baptized pag. 144 Chap. 20. Childrens need of baptism shewn from six other considerations 151 Chap. 21. Children not incapable of baptism in regard of their bodily weakness 161 Chap. 22. Children not incapable of baptism in regard of their having sin in them 168 Chap. 23. Children not incapable of baptism in regard of their not believing 172 Chap. 24. Children not incapable of being baptized in regard of any thing required of them in baptism 184 Chap. 25. Children not incapable of baptism by any text of Scripture that forbids it either directly or by consequence 194 Chap. 26. Childrens Right to baptism by the constitution of this Church and custom of the Catholick Church 219 Chap. 27. The Catholick Churches custom to baptize Infants 224 Chap. 28. Infants baptism a Tradition Apostolical 287 Chap. 29. Infants baptism an Apostolical Practice 292 Chap. 30. Childrens right to baptism by the Institution of Christ 303 Chap. 31. Infants baptism lawfull though there were neither Command for it nor Example of it pag. 331 Chap. 32. Infants baptism no addition to the Word of God The Scriptures objected on that account considered cleared 340 Chap. 33. The Scriptures silence no proof of our Saviours not commanding the baptizing of Infants 368 Chap. 34. The Scriptures silence no proof of the Apostles baptizing no Infants 375 Chap. 35. The Argument from the sixth Article of our Church answered 384 Chap. 36. A Reply to an Answer made by H. D. to the Objection from the no express Command or Example in Scripture of Womens receiving the Lords Supper referring to Chap. 31. Sect. 9. 396 Chap. 37. The Conclusion of this Discourse with a Reprehension Caution and Exhortation 403 A Postscript 409 The END
A Modest Plea FOR INFANTS BAPTISM Wherein the Lawfulness of the Baptizing of INFANTS is defended against the ANTIPAEDOBAPTISTS And the Infants Need for it Benefit by it Capableness of it and Right unto it Is fairly shown from Grounds of Scripture the Tradition of the CHURCH and the Institution of CHRIST With Answers to Objections By W. W. B. D. Commendaverim Charitati vestrae causam eorum quâ— pro se loqui non possunt D. Aug. Ser. 8. de Verb. Apost CAMBRIDGE Printed by John Hayes Printer to the University and are to be sold by Henry Dickinson Bookseller 1677. To the Right worshipful Mr. Robert Cole Alderman of Grantham And to the worshipful The Twelve Comburgesses his Brethren And to all the worthy Commoners of that ancient Corporation WILLIAM WALKER Wisheth all temporal Prosperity and eternal Felicity Right Worshipful c. THe singular Favours Which you have shewed to me do merie a gratefull acknowledgement from me In testimony therefore of my obligations I dedicate unto you this Treatise May it prove what I design it a lasting monument of your generosity and my gratitude Through Gods blessing on the conjoyn'd erdeavours pious care and prndent conduct of Magistrate and Ministir your Corporation now is as Jerusalem of old was as a City that is at unity in it self A rare blessing that at all times but especially in dividing times Few Corporations in England cawboast the like God continue that happiness to you and to yours after you from generation Thereto if these Papers of mine be in any measure contributory as I do most sincercly wish it so I shall most heartily rejoyce at it as being one who takes a great pleasure in the Prosperity of your Corporation and no less in being serviceable in any manner or measure to it So begging your kind acceptance of my good meaning in this Dedication and wishing a perpetuation and inorease of Vnity and Amity and all the blessed Consequents thereof among you I present these Papers to your favour and remain Grantham School Aug. 1. 1676. Your most humble Servant WILLIAM WALKER The Preface to the READER OF all Dissenters from the Church of England none seem to lie under stronger Prejudices than the Antipaedobaptists as having so seemingly fair Pleas to make both for Themselves and against their Opponents and that both from Scripture Text and Ecclesiastick Practice as few of their fellow Dissenters can parallel With the more favour and kindness in my thoughts are their Persons precisely considered as such to be treated and with the more fairness and clearness ought those Endeavours which are undertaken for the removal of their Prejudiees to be managed And this may be a sufficient Account for that Prolixity which some may think there is and for that Plainness which I have studied there should be in these ensuing Papers especially if I shall add thereto this Consideration that the Persons lying under these Prejudices and whose rescue from under the captivity of Errour is the wish of all good Christians are mostly such as are to be spoke to in Vulgar language and Familiar speech as not having had those advantages of a learned education which should make them capable to sound the depths of profound performances unravel the windings of intricate discourses and keep pace in understanding with a high tide of big words and a rolling torrent of strong lines in which way to him that speaketh they will be but as Barbarians and he that speaketh shall be but a Barbarian unto them Whence by the way I shall take occasion to admonish those that read Books onely for the elegance of the language and cannot relish the wholsome food of soâ—â—â— matter unless it be served up in the savoury sauce of a piquant Phrase and set out with the specious garnish of a florid style to proceed no further as being not likely to find herein that sparkling briskness of Expression nor pleasing flavour of Elocution which suits the Tasts of their delicate palates as also to advise others of deeper learning and profounder knowledge not to expect from me new discoveries of hitherto unrevealed mysteries and fresh-sprung mines of as yet unravish'd and unrifled notions whose design in these Papers is not at all to teach the Learned but to instruct the Ignorant and that in all humility and submission as being conscious to my self of my manifold ignorances and imperfections and seeing even what I see but through a glass and that darkly And further to prevent any man's sinning against God by rashly judging or uncharitably censuring me about the quorations in these Papers which are many and large I declare that my ends in making them were to give strength and credit to the cause I maintain by shewing it espoused by persons of reputation for learning and judgment in their several ages and to free my self from the imputation of novelty and singularity in any thing maintained by me and that I made them so large partly to prevent suspicion of insincerity in my dealings and partly to furnish some with apposite testimonies Who may not have those conveniences of consulting Authors that I have had And let not any one think these quotations needless because the Antipae do baptists reject all authority but that of Scripture For I write not onely for the conviction and conversion of them but also for the satisfaction and confirmation of others Of whom some may have such a value for tradition as to be much confirmed by it others may think it so necessary as not to be satisfied without it And for their sakes according to the advice in Vincent Lirinensis I have been willing to fortifie the â—ape igitur magno studio sumkind attentione perquirens à quam pluribus sanctitate doctrinâ prastantibus viris quonam modo possim certa quâdam quasi generall ac regulari viâ Catbolicae fidei veritatem ab haereticae pravitatis falsitate discernere bujusmodi semper responsum ab omnibus fere retuli Quod five ego sive quis alius vellet exurgentium baereticorum fraudes deprehendere laqueosque vitare in fide sanâ sanus integer permanere duplici modo munire fidem suam Domino adâ—uvante deberet Primò scilicet divine leg is authoritate tum deinde Ecclesiae Catholicae traditione Hic forsitan requirat aliquis cum sit perfectus Scripturarum Canon sibique ad omnia satis superque sufficiat quid opus est ut ei Ecclesiasticae intelligentiae jungatur autoritas Quia videlicet scripturam sacram pro ipsâ suâ altitudine non uno codemq sensu universi accipiunt sed ejusdem eloquia aliter atq aliter alius atque alius interpretatur ut pene quot homines sunt tot lllinc sententiae erui posse videantur Aliter namque illam Novatianus aliter Photinus aliter Sabellius aliter Donatus exponit c. atq idcirco multum necesse est propter tantos tam varii error is ansractus ut
having forgiven its sins by the grace of justification he might render it holy by the grace of sanctification the one as well as the other being applied conveyed or communicated to it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the washing of water with the word that is by Baptism Mundatum lavacro hoc est baptismate Theophylact Oecumen the washing here spoken of Now this the cleansing that is the remitting or taking off the guilt of sin from the Church being here by the Apostle ascribed unto Baptism and that as the Instrument used by Christ for that end who is therefore said to cleanse the Church by that washing it is evident that by Baptism as by an Instrument ordained and used by Christ for that end the Grace of justification is conveyed and communicated to the party baptized Thus the Scriptures of God say § 6. And thus say the Fathers of the Church also St. Chrysost saith * Divinae autem gratiae lavacrum non corporis sed animae maculam sordesque â—mundare consuevit D. Chrysost Hom. ad Baptizandos It is the use of the Laver of the divine grace to cleanse the spots and filth not of the body but of the soul And that they are perfectly purged from sins who are baptized Theophylact saith a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Theophyl in John 5. 4. that though the water of baptism 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chr. Hom. 40. in Act. be simply water yet when the grace of the Holy Ghost comes thereto through calling upon God it looses the diseases of the soul And these we know are sins and corruptions St. Cyprian speaking of his own baptism b Scis ipse profecto mecum pariter recognoscis quid detraxerit nobis quidve contulerit mors ista criminum vita virtutum D. Cyprian l. 2. Ep. 2. calls it that death of sins and life of vertues Baptism is the Death of sins by the Grace of Justification and the Life of vertues by the Grace of Sanctification We are washed saith c Lavamur igitur in Baptismo quia deletur chirographum damnationis nostrae gratia haec nobis confertur nè nobis jam concupiscentia noceat si tamen à consensu abstineamus D. Bern. Serm. 1. in Coen Dom. St. Bernard in Baptism because therein the handwriting of our damnation is blotted out that is our sin is pardoned and this grace is given us not to be hurt of concupiscence unless we consent unto it St. Augustin d Quam causam si voluerimus admittere eo usque progressu proveniet ut hortandi sint homines tum potius se interimere cum lavacro sanctae regenerationis abluti universorum remissionem acceperint peccatorum D. Aug. de Civ Dei l. 1. c. 27. Quod utique si fecissent sc ut Christum negarent etiam hoc eis in illo lavacro dimitteretur quod timore mortis negaverint Christum in quo lavacro etiam illis facinus tam immane dimissum est qui occiderant Christum Id. ib. l. 13. c. 7. tells us that if that be admitted which some contend for that it were ones advantage to kill himself to prevent his falling into sin through pleasure or grief it would come to this that men were to be exhorted then above all other times to kill themselves when being washed in the laver of holy regeneration they had received remission of all sins In which laver he saith that sin even that great sin of killing Christ himself was remitted Hence Juvencus calls the waters of Baptism e Pergite ablutos homines purgantibus undis Nomine sub sancto Patris Natique lavate c. Javenc purging waters and Lactantius f Cum primùm caepit adolescere tinctus est sc Christus à Johanne Propheta in Jordane flumine ut lavacro spiritali peccata non sua quae utique nulla habebat sed carnis quam gerebat aboleret ut quemadmodum Judaeos suscepta circumcisione sic etiam Gentes baptismo id est purifici roris perfusione salvaret Lactant. Instit l. 4. c. 15. calls the act of baptizing the pouring on of the purifying dew which by the way is a good instance of baptizing by way of persusion or pouring on of water so early as within three hundred years of Christs time § 7. These instances not to tire you with more sayings either of the same or other Fathers to this purpose are enough to secure you of the Catholickness of this Doctrine which being found in and founded on the Scriptures hath been generally held by all Orthodox Writers And therefore having shewn you what efficacy there is in Baptism for the taking away of sin from the Baptized I shall now proceed to shew that Infants are under the guilt of sin § 8. Only by the way let me observe that the Scriptures and Fathers which I have alledged do not speak restrictively either as to the sins remitted in baptism but so as extending the remitting efficacy thereof unto all sin Original as well as Actual or as to the Persons whose sins are in baptism remitted but so as comprehending all Persons to whomsoever sin may be imputed whether Men or Infants CHAP. XVII Childrens Need of Baptism in regard of their being under the guilt of sin § 1. NOw as to the Point of Infants being under the guilt of sin this also as the former I shall shew first from the Scriptures and then from the Fathers § 2. The Scriptures that speak to the Point are many Amongst them that of St. Paul Rom. 5. 12. is very notable By one man sin entred into the world and death by sin and so death passed upon all men for that all have sinned The one man here mentioned is the Father of all mankind Adam The World into which sin entred by this one man is mankind so then if Infants be any part of mankind any of the natural descendents from Adam then by Adam hath Omnes enim unus fuerunt D. Aug. 7 Serm. de Verb. Apost Ecce primus homo totam massam damnabilem facit Id. ib. sin entred on and passed through even to them they through the imputation of his fault are concerned in his guilt as having all been in him when he sinned Again ver 14. it is said Death reigned from Adam to Moses even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adams transgression that is who can it be else but Infants who die not upon the account of any actual sin of their own but upon the account of Adams first sin Again ver 15. Through the offence of one many be dead Many 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the many i. e. even all Again by the offence of one i. e. Adam judgment i. e. a sentence came upon all men and so on Infants to condemnation Again ver 19. By one mans disobedience many 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the many i. e. even all were made sinners and so
to understand that our Saviour when he put an end to the Mosaical Observances did not wholly evacuate and make null all that was in use and practice among the Jews and introduce a perfectly new platform of his own wholly other in all both the Substance and circumstances of it from what was before but did take much of what he found ready to his hand among them that was usefull to him and did continue it still in his Church onely accommodating and fitting it to his own purpose and improving and heightning it in the uses and advantages of it to his Disciples This the Learned shew by instances Dr. Hammond Quaere of the Baptizing of Infants §. 5. in sundry particulars And thus particularly it was in the institution of Baptism That before the time of our Saviour even from ancient days had been in use among the Jews as one Ceremony among others of the initation of Disciples into the Covenant of God as the most Authentick Records of the Jewish Antiquities do testisie And that our Saviour leaving off the other two which were in use together with it namely Circumcision and Sacrâ—fice did continue and ordain shouâ—d be the sole and single Ceremony of Initiation or Admittance of Disciples into his Church And here by the way I cannot let pass without a remark the mercifulness of our Saviour towards mankind in the continuation of this and dismission of the other two in that whereas Sacrifice was chargeable and Circumcision was painfull he was pleased to lay down them and continue onely Baptism which was neither charge nor pain § 8. Now it is most certain that before our Saviours time those that became Proselytes to the Jewish Church were admitted into it by three things Circumcision Sacrifice and Baptism which last was so necessary that though one were circumcized yet if he were not also baptized he was not a true Proselyte but a Gentile still Whence as the Learned Dr. Light foot informs it is said and said as a known Axiome by the Gemara Non est quis Proselytus usque dum circumcidatur baptizetur Dr. Lightfoot Horâ— Habraicae l. 42. Babylonica Jevamoth fol. 46. 2. That till a man were both circumcized and baptized he was no Proselyte I say a Man because for a woman baptism was sufficient to maâ—e her a Proselyte without circumcision as the same Gemara shews Jevaâ—â—h fol. 45. 2. § 9. Now I being a Statute Law upon record among the Jews Numb 15. 15. that one â—â—dmaâ—ce should be both for them and for tâ—â— manger the Pâ—oselyte that so journed with them and that as thâ—y were so should the stranger he before the â—ord and that one â—aw and one Manner as for Moral Duties so for Rites and Ceremonies should be both for the native Jews and Proselyees that sojourned among them nothing can be more evident than this that what is recorded to have been their uâ—e with the Proselytes was theâ—r uâ—e also with and among themselves and that they did to themselves Dr. Hammâ—nâ— Defence of Inf. Bapt. p. 10 11 24 25. By three things say the Hebrew Doctors did Israel enter into the Covenant by Circumcision and Baptism and Sacrifice And so in all ages when an Ethnic is willing to enter into the Covenant and gather himself under the wings of the Majesty of God and take upon him the yoke of the Law he must be circumcised and baptized and bring a Sacrifice And if it be a woman she must be baptized and bring a Sacrifice as it is written Numb 15. 15. as ye are so shall the stranger be How are ye by circumcision and baptism and bringing of a Sacrifice so likewise the stranger throughout all generations by Circumcision and Baptism and bringing of a Sacrifice Ainsworth on Gen. 17. 12. pag. 68. and theirs what they did to the Proselytes and their Children insomuch that their way of arguâ—ng to what was necessary to be done to the Pâ—oselyte proceeded from what was done among themselves and that because the Law of God was that as it was with them so it should be with the stranger § 10. Now this is most certain as being upon record in the Gemara Babylonica one besides others of their most Authentick writings Dr. Hammond Bapt. of Inf. §. 15. and Def. of Inf. Bapt. Sec. 3. Dr. Lightfoot Horae Hebraicae pag. 42. 43. that when any of Heathens became Jews not onely the Proselytes themselves but also their Infant Children if they had any were baptized They baptize the little or young stranger or Proselyte saith the Gemana Again If together with a Proselyte his sons and daughters be made Proselytes which none were without being baptized what their father doth for them turns to their good Indeed as R. Josph said when they grew up they might if they pleased renounce what was done Where the Gloss saith This is to be understood De parvulis of little ones that were made Proselytes together with their Fathers And so again Maimonides They baptize the Infant or little stranger upon the knowledge or understanding of the house of Judgment or the Congregation And again saith he If an Israelite take or find a Heathen Infant and baptize him in the name of a Proselyte Ecce ille est Proselytus loe he is become a Proselyte So R. Hezekiah saith Behold one finds an Infant cast out and baptized him in the name of a servant do thou also circumcise him in the name of a servant but if he baptize him in the name of a freeman do thou also circumcise him in the name of a freeman Hierosol Jevamoth fol. 8. 4. Infants then were baptized among the Jews before our Saviours time admitted into Covenant with God and into Communion with his Church by Baptism § 11. And that it was so with Infants â—fter our Saviours time I have I hope sufficiently made it appear by what I have already said in this discourse shewing by abundant authorities and instances that it has been the Practice of the Catholick Church of Christ in all the Ages of it to baptize Infants and that Practice founded in the Tradition and derived from the Practice of the Apostles sufficiently though somewhat obscurely attested by the holy Scriptures § 12. Now where we find what was before and what was after our Saviours time in this matter answering exactly each to other save where an alteration is expresly made what other can any rationall man judge than this that as it was before our Saviours time and as it was still continued after his time so our Saviour in his time did institute and appoint ordain and decree that unto all future time it should be And it is impossible any better account than this should be given of any Institution of our Saviours that is not particularly recorded in Scripture as this of Infants Baptism neither is nor was necessary * Nam cum Paedobaptismus in Ecclesia Judaicâ in admissione Proselytorum ita
mocked Acts 17. 32. But as wise and pious persons will not be jeer'd out of a practice that is solemn and serious and of weighty concern by the raillery of a few aieny-brain'd phantasticks so it is beside the question in hand and if any have thought fit to defer it on that account that is no argument of the unlawfulness of it § 9. Some perhaps imagining the Contract made by the Persons themselves though never so young but three or four years old so they could but answer themselves to what was to be required of them in order to their baptizing would afterwards be accounted by themselves the more obligatory and have stronger impressions upon them than if made by others have thought it fitter to defer it for a while I dispute not the prudentiality of the consideration but onely say that the prudency be it never so great of its deferring longer can infer no unlawfulness on its doing sooner And it seems to me that there are more weighty considerations inclining to and pressing for the hastening of it than that or any I have yet met with for the deferring because the generality have this way shew'd themselves inclined by baptizing their children whilest Infants § 10. And since we have so many weighty considerations moving to hasten it being we are assured by a late learned Father of our B. Gawden Eccles Angl. Suspir p. 299. Church that there is not any one of the Ancients that doth deny its lawfulness I see no reason why any suggestions or pretences of inconveniency unnecessariness or novelness in that practice by an inconsiderable number of persons either of elder or later times should sway us against the vogue of the Catholick Church to deposite a Constiâ—ution in which we see there is so much conveniency for which we see there is so great necessity of which we see there is so great antiquity antiquity reaching up both unto and also into the Apostles Age as being delivered unto the Church by them CHAP. XXXV The Argument from the sixth Article of our Church answered § 1. YEa but is it not the express Doctrine of our Church that Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation Yes And what then Is Infants Baptism therefore unlawfull No such matter It follows not I hope there are more things lawfull than what are either necessary to salvation or are contained in holy Scripture § 2. But what then follows Why this That supposing Infants baptism were neither read in Scripture nor could be proved thereby it were not to be believed as an Article of the Faith nor were the belief of it to be thought necessary to salvation But sure a thing is not therefore unlawfull because it is not to be received as an Article of the Faith or because its belief is not necessary to salvation And so this Article even on that supposition fights not with the lawfulness of Infants Baptism § 3. But we deny the supposition and say that Infants Baptism is contained in the Holy Nullum dari potest dogma ad salutem obtinendam cognitu necessarium quod in Scripturâ non contineatur express è vel implicitè analogiâ—e ità uâ— per consequentiam legitimam inde elici possit Wendelin Theolog. Proleg c. 3 Thes 7. Cum dico perspicuè intelligo vel in se vel per se vel in suis principiis per aliud Hier. Zanch. de Sacrâ Script q. S. prop. 1. pag. 194. Etsi enim non extet expressum praeceptum hac de re sc de baptizan â—is infantibus fidelium liberis colligitur tamen perspicuè ex suis principiis hoc est ex causis propter quas conferendus sit alicui baptismus c. Id. ib. pag. 195. Scriptures in that manner as other things are that are not expressed in it but yet may be deduced from it namely eminently though not formally implicitly though not expresly so as all Points of Faith are contained in the Creed that are not expressed in it or as all Duties are contained in the Decalogue or all Petitions are contained in the Lords Prayer that are not particularly and formally expressed therein § 4. And that it may be proved thereby I hope this Discourse hath already given a sufficient evidence And before I conclude I will yet add one further proof of it and that such an one as though some think not conclusive of the Point yet that acute Divine as well as Heroick prelate A. B. Laud thought to be a direct proof and neer an expression in Scripture it self 'T is Acts 2. 38 39. Then Peter said unto them Repent and be baptized every one of you in the Name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost For the promise is unto you and to your children c. But how doth this prove Infants Baptism Why let that learned Man tell you in his own words For when St. Peter had ended that great Sermon of his Acts 2. he applies two comforts unto them ver 38. Amend your lives and be baptized and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost And then ver 39. he infers For the Promise is made to you and to your children The Promise what Promise What why the Promise of Sanctification by the Holy Ghost By what means Why by Baptism For 't is expresly Be baptized and ye shall receive And as expresly This promise is made to you and to your children And therefore A. C. may find it if he will That the Baptism of Infants may be directly concluded out of Scripture § 5. But Infants are not named here True Yet Children are But those children might be men Yes and they might be Infants also I conceive the word is exclusive of neither but inclusive of both Unless any will say that the Infants were no children or that the promise that was made to the children as well as persons of the then present hearers was made onely to such of their children as were men and not Infants which is easilier said than proved For the Apostle says to your children that is all of them not onely some of them all of them being capable of the thing promâ—sed and none of them being exempted from the benefit of the promise And where God has enlarged the bounds why should man enclose the Common where God has made a restriction Where God has been kind why should Man become cruel and shut out Infants from the benefits of a promise when God has opened a door wide enough to let them in to it § 6. It is true the word Children is not always to be understood of Infants but sometimes of Men and as true it is that it is not always to be understood of Men but sometimes of Infants and as true again it is that sometimes it includes both For when the children of Israel went into the midst of the sea upon the dry ground Exod. 14. 22. Were
be said in General that it is reasonable to suppose that on what accounts the Adult delayed to be baptized themselves on the same they delayed the baptizing of their children unless where the case was altered by some particularity of circumstance and so it came to pass that the baptizing of many Infants was deserred till they came to riper years But there are further more Particular accounts to be given of the delaying of Infants more nearly relating unto them First some were as yet Heathens themselves unconverted to Christianity when their children were born and no marvel if they would not make their children Christians who themselves were Heathens And the same is the case of such as though in heart and purpose Christians when their children were born yet kept off from being baptized 2 Some Infants owed the delays of their baptizing to their Parents tendâ—rness and cautiousness who forbore to baptize them for fear they shoud be too weak either to endure the pâ—esent severities of baptism especially as then mostly administred by a total immersion and in some places three times into the water or to avoid the after defilements that would be contracted by them when they were baptized through the imbecility of their nature and the power of temptations whom Greg. Nazianz. checks for womanly weakness and littleness of faith unlike 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Gr. Naz. Orat. 40. p. 648. Vide Eliae Cretens notam in locum Of the Trine Immersion see Dr. Cavâ— Primitive Christianity Part. 1. c. 10. P. 322. Also Greg. Notes ch 39. p. 171. and of the Ancients Apostol Canon 49. Dionys de Eccl. Hierarch cap. 4. Tertull. advers Praxeam p. 659. Ed. Rig. de Corona Mil. p. 121. D. Athanas q. 94. de Interp. Parab Script therein to Hannah who dedicated her Samuel unto God before he was born and consecrated him to his service as soon as he was weaned advising to arm and fortifie their Infants against all fears with that great and good Amulet of the Trinity by baptizing them into the Faith of it 3 Some were apt to delay their Infants baptism upon the account of their being insensible at their baptizing of what was got or lost by being or not being baptized perhaps also on a supposition that the Infants had no perception of any inward operation that baptism had upon them which some that were baptized at full years felt †The ancient Christians speak of high Illuminations wherewithall God pleased then to grace Baptism I make no question but they spake as they felt and that they talk noâ— of a strange change then wrought which never was Dr. Patrick of Baptism pag. 42. and St. Cyprian in particular testifies of himself l. 2. Ep. 2. Whom Greg. Nazianzen nevertheless advises 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Gr. Naz. Orat. 40. p. 658. by all means to baptize their Infants especially in case of urgent danger telling them it were better that their children were sanctified without the sense then died without the seal of baptism arguing for the baptizing of the Infants of Christians though insensible of baptism from the eircumcising of the Infants of Jews the eighth day though insensible of circumcision 4 Lastly some might be of the mind of Tertullian and Gregory Nazianzen who in this case have something of singularity in their opinions and think it might be more for their childrens Itaque pro cujusque personae conditione ac dispositione etiam atate cunâ—latio baptismi utilior est pracipuè tamen circa parvalos Ait quidem Dominus Nolite illas prohibere ad me venire Veni ant ergo dum adolescunt veniant dum discunt dum quo veniant docentur siant Christiani quum Christum nosse potucrint Norint petere salutem ut petenti dedisse videaris Tertull. de Bapt. pag. 264. Ed. Rigal 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Greg. Naz. Orat. 40. p. 658. advantage if they were not baptized till they could be able to answer to though they could not fully understand their Catechisms and in their own names desire to be baptized and might upon that account unless in case of necessity defer their Baptism the contrary whereto will I hope be abundantly manisested in these ensuing Papers And these are all the Reasons that in my little converse with the ancient Writers I have found of anies deferring either their own or their childrens Baptizing amongst all which there is not one that so much as borders upon any unlawfulness in Infants Baptism And now so many reasons being alledged for the delaying of Baptism so many shifts used for the putting it off in the Primitive Times and yet the Lawfulness of its being administred to Infants never once questioned all the while the Vlawfulness of it never urged it is a plain case that those Times had no such thoughts of Baptism as these have For had they thought Infants baptism unlawful for want of a Scripture command for it or example of it when any had been exhorted to an early baptizing of their children how easie and how unanswerable an answer had been ready at hand Christ never commanded any such thing as Infants baptism the Apostles never practised any such thing as the baptizing of Infants there is neither Precept for it nor Example of it in Holy Scripture and therefore it is unlawful and we dare not do it But in regard there is in all those times not the least appearance of any such objection made against it or of any such plea pretended for the deferring of it it is plain they thought there was either precept for it or example of it in Scripture or both or else thought that want of either or both did not make it unlawful and so did not defer it upon account of the unlawfulness of it And so all our Antipaedobaptists great boast of Antiquity for the baptizing of only Adult believing Persons and against the baptizing of Believers Infant children affords them but little roast there is not the least strength added to their cause thereby nor weakness brought upon ours And I wish those ignorant ones that are deluded with the great noise and gay show of it to take notice hereof that they be no longer deceived thereby And now this grand Prejudice being as I hope it is removed I shall no longer detain the Reader from the Treatise it self than to desire him to joyn with me in prayer to God to bless it to the end for which it is designed A Prayer GRacious Lord God who are not willing that any should perish but willest that all should be saved and come unto the knowledge of the Truth and hast sent both thy Prophets and thy Apostles thy Son and thy Spirit to convince men of Errour and bring them unto the Truth be pleased graciously to bless this Treatise and make it usefull unto that end Dispose the minds of those ignorant and deceived ones that shall read it unto a readiness to receive the truth therein held
Infants being no way excepted are included the sin of their first father being by imputation made theirs and they accounted of as having sinned in him § 3. And unless all had sinned in Adam what account of it can be given that all should die in Adam 1 Cor. 15. 22. If Infants partake not in Adams fault why should they partake in Adams Quod si nullum esset sc primi peccati originale contagium profecto nulli malo parvuli obstricti nihil mali vel in corpore vel in anima sub tanta justi Dei potestate paterentur D. Aug. Cont. Julian Pelag. l 3. c. 5. punishment Why should they have paid unto them the wages of sin who were no way concerned in the work of sin § 4. And if all Infants be not conceived in sin how then came David to be so conceived was it only his particular mishap to be born under the guilt of his forefathers sin Or rather is it not the common condition of all mere men that are born into the world § 5. That which is born of the flesh is flesh John 3. 6. that is such flesh as that is that it was born of sinful flesh of flesh that is sinful as that was of which we were all born it being in his own likeness not in the likeness Fatendum est primos quidem homines ita fuisse institutos ut si non peccavissent nullum mortis experirentur genus sed eosdem primos parentes ita fuisse morte mulctatos ut etiam quicquid eorum stirpe esset exortum eâdem poenâ teneretur obnoxium Non enim aliud ex eis quam quod ipsi fuerant nasceretur pro magnitudine quippe culpae illius naturam damnatio mutavit in pejus ut quod poenaliter praecessit in peccantibus hominibus primis etiam naturaliter sequeretur in nascentibus câ—teris Quod est autem parens homo hoc est proles homo Et quod homo factus est non cum crearetur sed cum peccaret puniretur hoc genuit quantum quidem attinet ad peccati mortis originem c. D. Aug. de Civ Dei l. 13. c. 3. of God that our first father begot us in his own likeness as vitiated and defiled by his transgression not in Gods likeness the spotless purity and unstained integrity of his first creation § 6. And if there be not one that can bring a clean thing out of an unclean Job 14. 4. how then can man be justified with God or how can he be clean that is born of a woman Job 25. 4. § 7. So then we must conclude with that of the Apostle Rom. 3. 13 that all have sinned all young and old Fathers and Children Adam and his Posterity He in himself his Posterity in him he actually they Originally nay and actually too if living till capable of adding sin unto sin actual to original and so are come short of the glory of God not only of that glory to which God had ordain'd us the glory of happiness but also of that glory in which he did create us the glory of holiness § 8. And thus you see that as the Apostle saith Gal. 3. 22. the Scripture hath concluded all under sin Infants themselves not excepted who dying before the commission of actual sin would have had no need * Nam quis 〈◊〉 dicere non esse Christum Infantum salvatorem nec redemptorem Unde autem salvos facit si nulla in cis est originalis aegritudo peccati D. Aug. de pecc merit remiss l. 1. c. 23. Quid necessarium habuit Infans Christum si non aegrotat D. Aug. Serm. 10. de Verb. Apost of Christ to save them were they not under the guilt of so much sin as might condemn them § 9. Thus speak the Scriptures to the Point let us now again see what the Fathers say to it § 10. Primasius saith a Cum peccato concipimur cum peccato nascimur Primas in Heb. 4. 15. With sin we are conceived and with sin we are born St. Ambrose saith and cites Psal 51. 5. to prove it b Omnes homines sub peccato nascimur quorum ipse ortus in vitio est D. Amb. de Poenit. l. 1. c. 11. that all men are born in sin and our very birth is in fault Chrysologus saith c Per peccatum primi hominis natura lethale vulnus accepiâ— caepit esse origo mortis quae erat initium vitae Petr. Chrysolog Serm. 143. Nature got a deadly wound by the sin of the first man and that began to be the original of death which was the beginning of life St. Cyprian saith d Prohiberi à baptismo non debet infans qui recons natus nil peccavit nisi quod secundum Adam carnaliter natus contagium mortis antiquae prima nativitate contraxit D. Cyprian l. 3. Ep. 8. The Infant ought not to be denied baptism who being new born hath no way sinned but that it hath contracted the contagion of the old death by its first birth that is is guilty of Original sin St. Gregory saith e Quia à statuÌ„ rectitudinis primus homo peccando corruit peccati poenam ad filios misit D. Greg. in Psal 51. 5. Peccatum quippe originale à parentibus trahimus nisi per gratiam baptismatis solvamur etiam parentum peccata portamus quia unum adhuc cum illis sumus ex originali peccato anima polluitur prolis D. Greg. Expos in c. 21 Job l. 15. c 31. Because the first man fell by sinning from his state of Integrity he derived the punishment of his sin upon his children St. Bernard saith f Dixi saepius vobis nec mente excidere debet quoniam in casu primi hominis cecidimus omnes c. D. Bern. Serm. in Coen Dom. de Bapt. de Sacram Altar de Ablut Pedum A planta pedis usque ad verticem non erat in nobis sanitas erraveramus ab utero in utero damnati antequaÌ„ nati quia de peccato in peccato concepti D. Bern. Serm. 2. in die Pentecostes In the fall of the first man we all fell and thereupon were damn'd ere born because conceived of and in sin St. Augustin g Nos certe causam cur sub diabolo sit qui nascitur donec renascatur in Christo peccati ex origine dicimus esse contagium D. Aug. contr Julian Pelag. l. 3. c. 5. saith Why he that is born should be under the power of the Devil till he be new born in Christ i. e. baptized the cause we say is the contagion of sin by his birth that is Original sin Tertullian h Ita omnis anima co usque in Adam censetur donec in Christo renascatur tamdiu immunda quamdiu recenseatur Peccatrix autem quia immunda recipiens ignominiam ex carnis societate Tertull. de Anima c. 39. reckons every soul
retentam est non nisi Aâ—â—boritate dpoâ—lâ—lica traditum reâ—issime crediâ—â—r D. Aug. de Bapt. â—oâ—tra Donat l. 4. c. 24. therefore it is most rightly behaved in St. Augustines judgment to be delivered by Authority Apostolical c Co â—suâ—tuâ—o â—amcn matris Ecclesiae in baptiâ—â—an 〈◊〉 parvulis nâ—quaq â—amspernenda câ—t ni que ullâ— mâ—dâ— supersluâ— dep it inâ—â— ner omnino credâ—â—da nisâ—â—â—â—stolica esse traditiv D Aug. l. 10. de Genes al Literan c. 2â— This reading isasserâ—ed and vindicated by Dr. Sâ—illing flâ—â—â— Vindic. of A. B. of Cant. part 1. c. 4. p. 108. nor saith he is it to be believed to be any other but an Apostolical Tradition which it seems it was so apparent then to be that the Pâ—la 〈…〉 s themselves upon that account did yield that Infants were to be baptized though they would not yield it upon the account of any original sin in them because saith he they cannot go against the Authority of the Universal Church del vered d Parvulos baptizandos esse conâ—â—dant quia contra authoritarem universae Ecclesiae proculdubio per Dominum Apostolos traditam venire non possunt D. Aug. l. 1. de pecc merit remiss without doubt by the Lord and his Apostles And accordingly Origin testifies that the Church did receive from the Apostles e Ecclesia ab Apostolis traditionem susccpit etiam parvulis baptismum dare Origen l. 5. in â—p ad Roman a Tradition for the baptizing of Infants And so when the Author of the Ecclesiastick Hierarchy reports Infants Baptism to have been brought down to his Time from ancient Tradition f Hoc quoque de hac re dicimus quod divini nostri ponrisices à veteribus acceptum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nobis tradiderunt Aiunt cnim id quod ctiam verum est pucros si â—n sancto instituto ac lege instituan â—ur ad sanctam animi constitutionem perventuros esse ab omni errore solutos ac liberos sine ullo impurae vitae periâ—â—lo Hoc cum in mentem venisseâ— divinis nostris praeccptoribus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 placuit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 admitti pueros hoc sancto modo Dionys Areopag l. de Eccles Hierarch cap. ult and saith that when it came into the mind of our divine Guides that children being brought up in a holy law would lead their life in holiness it pleased them that Infants should be admitted to it after that holy manner there by him described Maximus his Scholiast interprets those Divine Guides to be the Apostles And so Ph. Meloncthon g Baptismum infantium constat à veteribus Scriptoribus Ecclesiae probari Nam Origines Augustinus scribunt ab Apostolis receprum esse Melancthon Concil Theolog. part 1. p. 59. names both Origen and Augustin as avouchers hereof And whereas the Antipaedobaptists in Mr. Calvins time made the simple believe that for many years together after the resurrection of Christ Infants Baptism was unknown in that saith he they telled a most soul lie for as much as there is no so ancient writer as doth not of a certainty refer the original thereof unto the Apostles h Quod autem apud simplicem vulgum disseminant longam annorum seriem post Christi resurrectionem praeteriisse quibus incognitus erat paedobaptismus in co faedissime menâ—iuntur siquidcm nullus est scriptor tam verustus qui non cjus originâ—m ad Apostolorum scculum pro certo reserat Calvin Instit l. 4. c. 16. Sect. 8. Age. § 5. So that I shall no further labour by the Testimony of Ecclesiastical Writers to prove the Tradition to have been Apostolical but rather go on to make it evident to you from the Testimony of the Sacred Scriptures that it was the Practice of the Apostles a thing done by some or all of them to baptize Infants Not that I can produce any Text which expresly saith they did so that must not be expected from me out of these writings which we have of the Apostles one such expres testimony would end the strise on all hands but that I shall name some Scripture Texts from which it may very probably at least be gathered if it cannot be demonstratively concluded that they did baptize Infants And yet by the way meâ—hmks even a probable Intimation of any Apostolick Practice from the Scriptuâ—e backt with so full and positive an Affirmation of it by the Catholick Church as hath been produced should be enough to sway the judgment and carry the Assent of any modest nquirer thereinto next to if not as good as a Demonstrative Argument CHAP. XXIX Infants Baptism an Apostâ—lical Practice § 1. Now for Practive We read in the Scripture of several hâ—ush Ids baptized at once as Lydia and her houshold Acts 16. 15. and the Jaylor and his houshold ib. 33. and the houshold of Stephanas 1 Cor. 1. 16. and all these by St. Paul And it is not to be doubted but the other Apostles walked in the same steps with him and did as he did receiving unto Proselytism whole housholds by baptizing them And no marvel if they did sometimes baptize whole housholds who were commisâ—ionated to baptize all nations § 2. Now though it be not expressed there were any Infants in those or any of those houses yet first it is very strange there should be none in any of them as if the grace of God had delighted to take place and dwell chiefly in barren families who should be in least probability of propagating it to posterity at a time when its propagation seems to have been the design of all the persons in the Trinity and secondly if there weâ—e any it is certain that being not excepted they were baptized Which probability though the Antipa dobaptists who cannot deny it do yet think they sufficiently conâ—ute by laughing at it is not so altogether improbable nor will be found so to be when it shall appear that it was the manner of the Jews to baptize the Infants of the Proselyte Converts as well as themselves and that the Christian Baptism founded therein made no variation therefrom in that particular Of which more anon § 3. But to come to that which I chiefly purpose to insist on St. Paul tells the Corinthians See Dr. Hâ—mmond of Inf. Bapt. Sec. 31. to Sec. 39. and Defence of Inf. Baptism pag. 101. pag. 58. to pag. 66. 1 Cor. 7. 14. that the unbeliâ—ving husband had beâ—n sanctisied by the nife and the unbelieving wife by the husband and that otherwise their children had been unclean whereas now saith he they are holy Now this Text rightly rendred and understood is a full evidence for Insants Baptism by the very Apostles themselves or those whom they themselves appointed to baptize which comes all to one The word which in the English we render is sanctified is if rightly rendered hath been sanctisied So the Tense of the Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
11. And what hath been said of this Text will serve in answer to other Texts of the same import Such as Deut. 12. 32. where it is said What thing soever I command you observe to do it thou shalt not add thereto nor diminish from it What thing soever that is as the Septuagint render it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 every word that I injoyn you every word of command that I give you that shall you be carefull to observe to that shall you pay an uniform obedience forbearing to do the things that I forbid and doing the things whatsoever they be that I command and to my words ye shall add no words of your own ye shall put into my Law no commands that I never gave you you shall not take from my Law any of the commands that I have given you ye shall not change the Rule I have set down for you â—o walk by either in whole or in part by imposing on your selves either more severe or more easie performances than I have required from you instead of those that I have required but ye shall do fully that which I have commanded and ye shall do it faithfully as I have commanded it § 12. And this is agreeable to those Texts where this uniform observance of the then setled rule is more explicately set down As in Deut. 5. 32. ye shall observe to do therefore as the Lord hath commanded you you shall not turn aside to the right hand or to the left And Deut. 28. 14. Thou shalt not go aside from any of the words which I command thee this day to the right hand or to the left to go after other gods to serve them And Joshua 1. 7. Be thâ—u strong and very couragious that thou mayst observe to do according to all the Law which Moses my servant commanded thee turn not from it to the right hand or to the left § 13. Now what is this to Infants Baptism supposing it utterly uncommanded How is the baptizing of an Infant a not doing as the Lord hath commanded or a going aside from any of his words or a turning from them to the right hand or the left What one word of our own or anies else have we added to his to bring it in what one word of his have we left out that else might have given a stop to our doing of it what one word of his have we changed to make the easier way for its introduction or continuation what one thing required by him have we turned from and let alone unperformed that we might do that in the stead of it yea on the contrary how doth not our doing of it hold proportion with his word and so can be no violation of his word In short when it can be made appear that the baptizing of Infants is the putting of words into Moses's Law then we shall and till then we shall not yield that it is that adding to the word of God which God by Moses in this Text for bad § 14. Such again is that saying of Agur Prov. 30. 6. Add thou not unto his words lest he reprove thee and thou be found a liaâ— What can this mean other than that no man ought to add any of his own or others words to the word of God as if God had spoken them whereas he never spake word of them This whosoever he be that doth he must needs be found a liar when God comes to reprove him But what reproof can he be liable to for adding to his words that hath added nothing to them Or how can he be found a liar upon the account of adding to Gods words who doth not affirm God ever said one word more than he hath said § 15. And now what is this Text or any thing that can be inferred from it to our pleading for Infants baptism Have we for the introducing or defending that practice inserted into the word of God any words of our own pretending them to be his words Let the book be searcht and the words produced and let the shame of such adding light upon the doers of it But if we do no such thing if we have added no one word concerning this to Gods Words then can this Text make nothing at all against us who have done nothing of that which is forbidden by it § 16. Indeed from such words of God as are expressed in Scripture we draw such Consequences as naturally flow from them being rightly interpreted But this is no adding to the words of God This is but what we are enabled to by the example of our Saviour and his Apostles who prove things not expressed in Scripture by Consequences deduced from Scripture and by such proving justifie a rational collection from the word to be no culpable addition to the word which is the thing that this Text forbids § 17. Yea but do we not find the Jews severely reproved again and again for performing uncommanded acts of worship of which saith God I commanded thâ—m not neither came it into my heart or mind Jer. 7. 31. 19. 5. 32. 35 Yes verily And what then Why then uncommanded acts of worship and service are unlawfull And so Infants Baptism will upon that account also be unlawfull as being an uncommanded thiâ—g § 18. So the Anabaptists indeed reasons from these Texts but without any reason yea against all reason For the acts spoken of in those Texts as not commanded are acts of devotion to and worship of false gods building high pâ—aces to Baal and causing their sons and daughters to pass through the fire to Molech Now in the name of God doth this follow Israel were repâ—oved for performing uncommanded acts of devotion and Idolatrous worship to false gods therefore it is unlawfull for Christians to perform uncommanded acts of devotion and religious worship to the true God Or because it was unlawful for them to cause their sons and daughters to pass through the fire to Molech therefore it must be unlawfull for us to cause our sons and daughters to pass through the water to Jesus Christ May not we baptize our Infants and so consecrate them unto God because they may not burn their Infants and so sacrifice them to the Devil What an absurd What a wild and irrational consequence is this § 19. But let us a while consider the expression which I commanded them not nor speake it neither came it into my heart or mind What is this but a Meiôsis intimating in a milder expression a severer interdiction which I commanded not that is which I have most strictly forbidden as abhorring it and abominating it in my heart And were not these things forbidden strictly enough both in general in the first and second Commandment of the Decalogue and particularly in Levit. 18. 21. where it is expresly said Thou shalt not let any of thy sâ—ed pass through the fire to Molech neither shalt thou profane the name of thy God And again Levit. 20. 1
part of the words So that in accordance here with the adding here forbidden is the putting of any word or words to the words of this book more or other then were at first set down in it by the Author of it whose design is to prevent any Hoc propter insalsatores dixit Gorâ—an in loc cx Beda mans corrupting of his book by addition or diminution by putting any word to it or taking any word from it § 36. And this was a caution but necessary for those times when Hereticks began to corrupt the Apostolical writings with their Innuit futuros in Ecclesia Hareticos qui Scripturas saâ—ras adulterarent atque ad eas cor rumpendas in â—uos errores detorquendas quaedam adjicerent quaedam â—â—iam mutilarent Id quod de Marcione testatur multis in locis Tertullianus Et in primis quod plura deleret in sacris literis ad suas haerereses astruendas docet l. de carne Christi cap. 2. His opinor consiliis tot originalia instrumenta Christi delere Marcion conatus est Vnde eundem Marcionem Tertullian lib. adv eum 1 cap. 1. Murem Ponticum appellat Evangelium corrodentem Quod verò Marcion de suo quaedam Scripturis adjiceret docet idem lib. de carne Christi c. 7. Non recipio inquit quod extra Scripturam de tuo infers Quod de Marcione docet Tertull. in multis aliis Hareticis ostendi posset quos uti diximus hoc loco notavit Apostolus Blas Vieg in Apocalyps cap. 22. Sect ult p. 893. Adjuro te qui transcribis librum istum per Dominum Jesum Christum per gloâ—iosum ejus adventum c. own interpolations And of Marcions so dealing with the Sacred Scriptures both by taking away from them and adding to them Tertullian is a witness who from his gnawing away of the Gospel calls him the Pontick Mouse And Blasius Viegas tells us the like may be shewn of many other Hereticks In reference to which evil dealing of Corrupters with Authors Irenaeus imitation of our Author at the end of one of his own books adjures the Transcriber of it by the Lord Jesus Christ his glorious coming to judge both quick and dead to compare his copy with the Original and most diligently to amend it by the exemplar from whence he had transcribed it § 37. Now who is so weak as not to see how nothing at all this makes against Infants baptism and how remote it is from proving every thing unlawfull that is not commanded A child is able to distinguish betwixt a Font and a Standish water and ink an Infant and a Bible pouring water upon the one and putting words into the other and how no connexion there is between the one and the other so that from the prohibition of the one to the unlawfulness of the other no Argument can be drawn § 38. And if the want of a Command cannot render Infants baptism unlawfull then much less can the want of an Example unless we were under some command not to act without a precedent nor to proceed further than we have example But that as we have not so I do not hear it pretended as yet And therefore though I think we may in some cases I will not say in all argue positively from an example and say this I lawfully may do because I find it done yet I do not think we must in all cases argue negatively from a no example and say this I may not lawfully do because I find no example of its doing So that if there were not the least intimation of any such thing done in the Scripture nor any thing whereby we might conjecture the doing of any such thing the contrary whereto has abundantly been shewn in this discourse yet were not that any Argument at all from whence to conclude Infants Baptism unlawfull § â—9 And now having shown the no unlawfulness of â—nfants baptism though there were in all the Scripture no either command to enjoyn it or example to just â—fie it I might here set up my rest § 40. Nevertheless as being willing to give the fullest satisfaction that can be needed I shall yet ex abundanti further speak touching that often urged but never proved assertion that our Saviour gave no precept for the baptizing of Infants and that the Apostles of our â—aviour never baptized any both which yet might be though nothing were said of either and the Scriptures supposed silence in the case is no proof either that he did not command or they not practice any such thing I will speak of both severally CHAP. XXXIII The Scriptures silence no proof of our Saviours not commanding the baptizing of Infants § 1. ANd first it doth not follow that our Saviour gave no precept for the baptizing of Infants because no such precept is particularly as our Adversaries suppose expressed in the Scripture For our Saviour spake many things to his Disciples concerning the kingdom of God both before his Passion and also after his Resurrection which are not written in the Scriptures And who can say but that among those many unwritten sayings of his there might be an express precept for Infants baptism And if there were one it is never the less binding for its not being written It is Gods speaking not mans writing that makes his word Authentick and his command obliging If no Apostle nor Evngelist had ever set pen to paper to tell us by writing what our Saviour did command sure his commands had been as obliging though unwritten as they are now after their writing And if any command of his did escape writing as well might be the Evangelists neither resolving every one severally nor agreeing all joyntly to set down in writing all his commands as writing at several times and in several places and upon several occasions and without any command that appeaâ—s from God to set down universally all his sayings and make one Codex as it were of all his Laws I say if any of his commands did escape writing See Dr. Hammonds Quaere of Resolving of Coâ—troversies it does notwithstanding bind those to whom it is though by any other way than writing credibly made known as much as if it had been written So that if it may credibly appear that our Saviour did give any precept for the baptizing of Infants then will Infants baptism be to be received and practiced upon a higher account than that of the mere lawfulness of it as being though not commanded yet not forbidden in the Scriptures § 2. And truly to pass by S. Ambrose his affirming that Infants Baptism was a Constitution And they all agree with St. Ambrose l. 10. ep 84. ad Demetriadem Virginem who expresly affirms it Paedobaptismum esse Constitutionem Salvatoris And it proves it out of St. Joh. 3. 5. A. B. Laud Confer S. 15. pag. 55. in margine of our Saviours that such a Precept was given by him the
very practice of the Church to baptize Infants as we have shewn it to be doth make it credible For it is not easily imaginable how such a practice should come up so early and so universally into the Primitive Church if the Church had not received it from the Apostles as a command of Christs to baptize Infants § 3. Who that understood it to have been our Saviours command to teach all nations to observe all things whatsoever he had commarded them Matth. 28. 19 20. and observed the Apostles teaching by word or practice the baptizing of Infants could judge any other but that the Baptism of Infants was one of those things which he had commanded them to teach all nations to observe Though I have also shown that even our Saviours silence in the case not excluding Infants from that which it had been the use of the Church before his time to administer to them when he did institute Baptism to be the Ceremony of admitting into Discipleship to him is a sufficient indication of his mind that it was his will they should be admitted especially when it is remembred and considered that the same use that was before his Institution was continued still after it which makes it evident that he made no alteration in it § 4. Not to add that this very Text of mine was anciently lookt upon as a ground and even as a command of our Saviours for Infants Baptism And therefore St. Augustine having exhorted the Pelagian to Quare contradicis quare novie disputationibus antiquam fidei regulam frengere conaris Quid est enim quod dicis Parvuli non babent omnino vet originale peccatum Quid est enim quod dicis nisi ut non accedant ad Jesum Sed tihi clamaâ— Jesus Sinite pueros venire ad me D. Aug Serm. 8. de Verb. Apost baptize his Infant expostulates with him for contradicting and going abour with new disputes to break the old Rule of Faith namely in the point of the baptizing of Infants upon the account of Original Sin in them For whereto saith he tends your saying that children have no not so much as original sin but to this that they might not come to Jesus that is to be baptized that being the thing which he before had pressed him to But saith he Jesus crieth to thee that sure is as much as if he had commanded Suffer the little children to come unto me that is to be baptized as is evident by the design of the Father in that place § 5. And accordingly Tertullian who lived within two hundred years of our Saviours birth De Baptismo pag. 264. Edit Rigalt thinking this Text to oppose his Opinion which was for the delaying of the Baptism of Infants for a while yet not as unlawfull but as more profitable as he phansied propounds this Text as an Objection against his Opinion and labours to answer it Which shews however that even so early as his time this Text was lookt upon as a Precept for Infants Baptism § 6. And what saith he to it Why by way of Concession he saith Our Lord doth indeed say Do not hinder them from coming to me And what then Why then let them come when they are grown up to ripeness of years Yea but if they must stay so long before they be baptized they will not be little ones when they come to baptism and so will not be concern'd in this Text which speaks of the coming not of Adult persons but of young children unto Christ He saith not Suffer those that are Adult but Suffer little children to come unto me And his saying Suffer little children to come unto me imports his mind to have them come and his readiness to receive them at their coming to him even when and whilst they are little children And what man of judgment would ever have interpreted our Saviours saying Suffer the little children to come unto me and forbid them not at a time when little children were brought to him and hindred for being brought to him so little as if he had by so saying meant Suffer these which now are little children to come to me hereafter when they shall be men that is as much as to say Suffer them not to come to me now which is to command the very same thing which at the very same time he rebuked his Disciples for going about to do and contrary to his present acting who even then turn'd them not away from him but took them up into his arms and laid his hands upon them and blessed them A gloss this that contradicts and corrupts the Text. § 7. Again saith he Veniant dum discunt c. Let them come when they have learned and are taught whither to come But those whose coming to Christ occasioned this speech and according to whose then present condition the speech is to be understood were not such nor so taught not such as had learned or could be taught how to come to Christ but were Infants brought to him by others by reason of their inability to come to him of This passage of Tertullian because it is much stood upon see further spoken to und more fully answered by B. Gauden Eccles Anglic. Suspiria l. 3. c. 13. p. 299. And by Mr. Wills Infant Baptism Asserted Par. 2. chap. 7. themselves and of them then and of such as they then were are his words now to be understood and accordingly have been understood in all the ages of the Church to be sure as early as Tertullians time else why did he dispute against it § 8. But if there were neither this nor any other Text that was or lookt like a Precept for Infants Baptism in the whole Bible yet there might have been one given though none were written And what probability there is of it that one was given if none of those Texts that are written were by the practice of the Church interpreted to be such I have now shown CHAP. XXXIV The Scriptures silence no proof of the Apostles baptizing no Infaâ—ts § 1. SEcondly as it follows not that our Saviour gave no express precept for Infants baptism because none is written that is none is written so expresly as to be acknowledged for such by the Antipaedobaptists though my Text as I have shewn you is so express as to have been taken for such in St. Augustines time and in Tertullians time fourteen hundred and fifteen hundred years ago and for ought I know or any man living can prove to the contrary from the beginning so it doth not follow that the Apostles did baptize no Infants because it is not expresly written in the Scriptures that they did baptize any though I have shewn you from the Scripture a very pregnant proof of such practice even by the Apostles themselves in their own times did not prejudice so blind the eyes of our Adversaries that they will not see it For they might baptize Infants though it were
I beseech you Brethren a word of Exhortation Be perswaded to bring and suffer your little children to come to Christ Do ye not see Christ calling little children to him And how can ye then forbear bringing them unto him Do ye not hear him pronouncing them such as the kingdom of Heaven consisteth of and how can ye then any longer forbear entring them into his kingdom Do ye not observe him commanding that little children be suffered to come to him And how can ye then have the hearts to hinder them from coming to him O suffer little children to go to their Saviour who hath his arms wide open to receive them O forbid not Infants coming to Jesus who hath his hands stretched out to bless them O bring your children O carry your Infants to Christ who for their salvation did himself become an Infant and pass through the state of Childhood Suffer them to be made partakers of his grace by being baptized with water who that they might be made partakers of his glory was baptized with blood Consider the Benefit your children may have by Baptism and let that move you to have them baptized Consider the Need your Children have of Baptism and let that excite you to their baptizing Consider your Childrens Capableness for Baptism and let that perswade you to baptize them What shall I say more Consider your Childrens Right to Baptism and let that prevail with you not to suffer them to go unbaptized Shall the Constitution of this particular Church be of no force to move you Shall the Practice of the Catholick Church have no power to work with you Shall the Tradition of the Apostles of Christ be of no moment to induce you Yea shall the Institution of Christ himself have no prevalency in it to perswade you To conclude if not out of sense of your childrens misery yet out of conscience of your own duty if not that you may save your Children yet that you may not damn * Denique terrere nos summopere debet damnatio illa vindicem fore Dcum siquis foederis symbolo filium insignire conteâ—â—at quod co contemptu oblata gratia respâ—atur quasi ejuretur Calvin Instit l. 4. c. 16. S. 9. your selves if not out of regard to the Authority of the Church yet out of obedience to the command of Christ be so just to the fruit of your own bodies be so charitable to the issue of your own bowels as to suffer your little Children to come unto Christ and forbid them not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Luc. 2. 14. A Postscript TAking notice of some attempts made by H. D. to take away the strength of the Argument from Ecclesiastick Tradition and Catholick Practice by decrying the Persons of four or five of the earliest Witnesses we have thereof as erroneous or their Writings as spurious and supposititious I think fit here to speak something in vindication of them which I could not so conveniently insert into and interweave with that part of my Discourse where their Testimonies were appealed unto And first in general I cannot but think it very unreasonable that Persons and Writings generally received for Genuine and Orthodox in those things wherein they did anciently agree with the Catholick Church should for the upholding of any modern Party in their differences from the Catholick Church be thrown by as erroneous and Heteredox Persons and as Fabulous and Fictitious Writings For if to say such an Author was Erroneous in his judgment or practice and held or did some things which any now through prejudice and prepossession rather than any just reason not knowing the true ground and genuine original thereof shall call erroneous or superstitious or that he was a Factor for Antichrist and that the mystery of iniquity did work strongly in him though a Confessor of though a Martyr for Christ be enough to blow away his Credit and blast his Reputation and take away all Authority from his Testimony in any case of Difference which a private Person or Party hath with the Catholick Church about matters of Doctrine Worship or Discipline if to say any Writing of any Father or Ecclesiastick Author is supposititious or corrupted in any point of present difference without demonstrable proof that it is so in it self or was so esteemed and accounted in the Church before the arising of that difference be enough to take away the Credit of all testimony given by that writing What Authors what Writings shall we have left unquestioned to appeal unto for testimony to the Truth and support of Religion For how many must be laid by or shrewdly purged by the Papists for being in their sense guilty of Heresie How many by the Protestants for suspicion of Popery How many by those who are for Episcopacy as favouring Presbytery and the pretended Discipline How many by the Presbyterians and Independents as for asserting Episcopacy and the Hierarchy How many by the Anabaptists for proving Infants Baptism How many by the Quakers for vindicating the Scriptures and Tradition How many by the Socinians for holding the Deity of Christ and the Holy Ghost and their Unity with the Father And how many by the Orthodox Christians for countenancing Socinianism or Enthusiasm How many by the Calvinists for being Arminian and how many by the Arminians for being Calvinistical Where shall we have a Father left where shall we have a Writing left wherâ— shall we have a Council left that must not upon the differences of some or other of the Parties be cashired and laid by as an unfaithfull and an unsufficient witness in the case and then what shall we have left to vindicate our Religion and Faith against Jews Turks and Pagans withall who will credit that Religion which is professed by such erroneous and superstitious Persons who will believe that Faith that is delivered and taught in such forged and corrupted writings who will receive any writings for the word of God upon the testimony of such fallacious and deceitful men Thus shall the whole concerns of Christianity be sacrificed to the interest of a Party O tell it not in Gath publish it not in the streets of Ashkelon lest both the daughters of the circumcised rejoyce and the daughters of the â—ncircumcised too triumph Secondly in particular if the Author of the Ecclesiastick Hierarchy were pretended by us to be that Dionysius the Areopagite that lived in the Apostles days much of what is alledged might perhaps really lie against him But when his time is laid much lower even about the third Century there will be no reason for such hideous out-cry of horrid cheat as is made against him For it being questioned as Dr. Hammond informs us * Dr. Hammond Quare of the Bapt. of Infants §. 43. about the year 420 whether these were the Genuine Works of that Dionysius and Theodorus Presbyter alledging the Arguments on both sides it must needs follow that he must be an Author before that