Propheticae Apostolice interpretationis linea secundum Ecclesiastici Catholici sensus normam dirigatur In ipsa item Catholica Ecclesia magnopere cur andum est ut id tene amus quod ubique quod semper quod ab omnibus creditum est hoc est etenim vere proprieq Catholicum c Vinc. Lirin advers baeres cap. 1. 2 3. cause I maintain not onely with the authority of divine Law but also with the tradition of the Catholick Church And even the Antipaedobaptists themselves are willing enough to flourish their writings with humane testimonies and to plead tradition too if for them Indeed I observe none to be against tradition but those that think it to be against themselves or to reject the evidence of humane testimony who do not fear to be condemned by it And because the judgments or rather fancies of men as to Authors are so infinitely various that one esteems that as gold which another despises as dross and values as wheat what another rejects as chaff therefore I have endeavoured to obviate that variety of judgments with a diversity of Authors producing those of the Middle and Modern ages as well as those of the Ancient and Primitive Schoolmen as well as Commontators Historians as well as Fathers Civilians as well as Divines and Polemiâ—al as well as Didactical Writers So that the Readers which do not like of all may please themselves with what they have most fancy too leaving the liberty which themselves make use of unto others who as being of different tasts may think their leavings as good as their takings and relish that best which they disrelish most And because there is no one Prejudice that holds a stronger possession of our Antipae dobaptists than that which arises from that bright evidence which they have of the baptizing Adult Persons in all the Ages of the Church and of many's deferring either to be baptized Themselves or to baptize their Infants in several Ages of it and those especially that were nearest to the Primitive Times and the removal of that Prejudice may be a fair Introduction to their depositing of all the rest therefore I will endeavour in my entrance to remove that And if I can shew that the Delays of Baptism which they so speak of in the Ancient times were upon other Grounds and on different Accounts from those that our Antipaedobaptists alledge in the case then that plea of theirs from the practice of baptizing Adult Persons and deferring the Baptism of Infants will neither serve their Hypothesis nor disserve ours The Grounds as I understand on which our Antipaedobaptist refuse to baptize their Infants and defer their baptizing to ripeness of Age are because as they suppose there is no command in Scripture for it And because there is no example in Scripture of it either of which if there found they would hold it lawfull and because they find neither of them there they hold it unlawfull Now if it appear that the unlawfulness to baptize Infants for want of a Scripture command or Example for it was none of the Grounds on which the Ancients did defer their baptizing and that never any such thing was in the Primitive Times pretended or pleaded by any to justifie or excuse that delay then I hope the case will be clear that their delays of Baptism on other Grounds can asford no protection to the Hypothesis our Antipaedobaptists who deny Baptism to Infants upon the Account of the unlawfulness of it That never any such pretence or plea was made by any in the primitive times even for five hundred years against Infants Baptism I rationally presume because I see none yet produced by any of the Learnedst of our Antipaedobaptists who have I believe search'd through and through all the writings of the Fathers and Primitive Historians and ransack'd every page and rifled every passage in them for some patronage to their Hypothesis And as they are quick sighted enough to have espied it so they would have been carefull enough if there had been any to have produced it And upon the most curious search that I have been able to make for it my self as far as the circumstances I am under would permit me I sincerely profess I have not been able to find any What I have found urged or but binted at as a ground or reason for any ones delaying either his own or any Infants baptizing I shall fairly give an account of and then leave the Reader to judge what advantage our pleaders against Infants Baptism upon the account of the unlawfulness of it can make therefrom or rather what a miserable fallacy they put upon themselves and others whilest they alledge the Primitive Practice of deferring Infants Baptism in justification of their denying Baptism to Infants upon the account of the unlawfulness of it for want of a Command or Example in Scripture whereas it was never in the Primitive Times denied to any Infant upon that account nor was that ground ever urged or alledged by any in those days as a reason or so much as pretence for their deferring to baptize their Infants nor did any ask as our Antipaedobaptists now do What Scripture have you for it Where did Christ ever command it or where did any Apostle practice it Now in order to the shewing on what Accounts Baptism was in Ancient Times so oft and so long deferred I must premise that some did voluntarily defer their own baptizing and some had their Baptism deferred by others the former were Adult the later Infants And of the Reasons or Occasions of both I will speak distinctly And First Those that delayed their own baptizing had severall Reasons and Pretences for it 1. Some did it out of a fear of sinning after baptism and so forfeiting the grace of it and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Gr. Naz. Orat. 40. p. 647. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Id. ib. p. 649. Sed mundus rursus delinquit quo male comparetur diluvio it aque igni destinatur sicut homo qui post baptismum delict a restaurat Tertull. de Bapt p,259 ed. Rigalt 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Gr. Nyssen de Baptismo p. 221. Indeed 't was very usuall in those times notwithstanding the Fathers did solemnly and smartly declaim against it for persons to defer their being baptized till they were near their death out of a kind of Novatian principle that if they fell into sin after Baptism there would be no place for repentance mistaking that place of the Apostle where 't is said that if they who have been once enlightened 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which the Ancients generally understand of Baptism sall away 't is impossible to renew them again unto repentance Dr. Cave Prim. Christian par 1. ch 10. pag. 309. being certainly damned without â—hope of recovery even by repentance especially when they considered the pronenese of their own nature to sin and the occasions and temptations to sinning that they should meet withall in
some pertinency to the Command of our Saviour to suffer them to come such not being to be denied reception into that kingdom of God as that Kingdom of God consisteth of But then how will our Saviours Command be pertinent to the present Occasion of his speech No question being made by his Disciples at that time about the final estates of children dying in their Infancy and the whole matter being that they denied admission of some Infants brought by others unto Christ to be touched by the Imposition of his hands and to be prayed over by him probably in order to their being made his Proselytes by baptism at which denial of theirs he being angry gave order that the children should be suffered to come to him namely for such purpose as those then came in all likelihood to be by his Imposition of hands and Prayer consigned over unto Proselytism and should not be hindred from coming to him § 4. And what were a declaration of childrens capacity for glory and fitness to come to Christ when he should be corporally present in Heaven if they died in their infancy to this matter especially at a time when Christ was not corporally present in Heaven but lived in body here below upon the earth § 5. Again a Command so given as this was would suppose an ability in those to whom it was given to do contrary unto that Command namely to hinder Children from reception into the Kingdom of God notwithstanding their greatest capacity for that kingdom But that was neither then in the power of his Disciples nor now is in the power of any man on earth Supposing children dying in their Infancy to belong to the kingdom of glory it is needless to command any man to suffer them to come to that kingdom § 6. So that neither of a Spiritual access of these children unto Christ where he is now corporally present in glory are these words interpretable such an interpretation of our Saviours words rendring them impertinent to the occasion of them And I hope none will say that our Saviour did at any time speak impertinent words § 7. And therefore not being able to imagine any other way by which our Children may come and yet may be hindred from coming unto Christ but that One way which hath hitherto been insisted on namely by being made Disciples to Christ by being baptized into the Name and Faith of Christ I conclude that this way our children ought to be suffered to come to Christ and ought not to be hindred from so coming § 8. And now the Point being thus explained and the Explication thereof thus vindicated I appeal to Common Reason whether or no there be not here that which the Antipaedobaptists of these days do with so much insolency demand of us viz. a fair and clear Scripture Ground for Infants Baptism If Children may come to Christ and must by the command of Christ be suffered to come to him and there be no other way of their coming to him but by Baptism what can be more plain than that in commanding that they should be suffered to come to him he commanded that they should be suffered to be baptized and forbad that they should be hindred from Baptism § 9. And by this time I hope it appears with how good judgment our Church hath appointed this passage of Scripture which as H. D. tells us was called of old the Scripture Treatise of Baptism pag. 177. Canon for infants-Infants-Baptism and upon which as he saith much stress hath been laid since to prove the same to be read in the Congregation at the baptizing of Infants namely as containing in it a fair ground and a clear proof for Infants Baptism which I hope you do by this time see to be no such scriptureless thing as our Antipaedobaptists do pretend § 10. Yet least any man should think this Collection alone to be too weak a ground to bear that weight we lay upon it though by the way I must say that a Consequence from Scripture rightly made is a ground good enough to bear any weight that can be fairly laid upon it and as valid to all intents and purposes as if it were express Scripture it self that being eminently contained in the Scripture what ever it be that may be fairly drawn from it and that we have no better ground then a Consequence from Scripture to build other Points of our Christian Faith upon every way as weighty and material as Infants Baptism is yet I say I shall for your better settlement in the belief of this Catholick truth confirm it unto you by this one further Reason § 11. That by which Children may have Benefit for which they have Need of which they are Capable and to which they have Right that they ought to be suffered to have and ought not to be denied the having of But Children may have Benefit by Baptism they have Need for Baptism they are Capable of Baptism and they have a Right unto Baptism Therefore they ought to be suffered to have it and they ought not to be denied the having of it § 12. That Children ought to be suffered to have and ought not to be denied that whereby they may be Benefited for which they have Need of which they are Capable and to which they have a Right I suppose it not needful to prove For Charity will give them that Benefit for which they have need and Justice will not deny them that Right of which they are Capable I shall therefore forthwith proceed to make it out unto you that Children may have Benefit by Baptism have Need for Baptism are Capable of Baptism and have a Right unto Baptism And these things I shall shew you severally and in order beginning first with the Benefits that Infants may have by Baptism CHAP. VI. Baptism beneficial unto Children in regard of their early consecration thereby unto God § 1. IT will be found upon search that Baptism is beneficial unto Children more ways than one § 2. And First by Baptism they are offered and presented dedicated and consecrated unto God Baptism is a consecration of the Baptized unto God who are thereby Sanctified to his service Hence that of St Paul to the Corinthians 1 Cor. 7. 14. The unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband else were your children unclean but now are they holy i. e. separate from the common unclean condition of Heathens and by Baptism admitted into the community and relation and state of Christians who are Saints by calling as being called to be Saints that is Holy Ones and by their very 1 Cor. 1. 1. calling consecrated unto God and obliged by their Naming of the name of Christ who is named upon them at their baptizing to depart from iniquity 2 Tim. 2. 19. § 3. Hence as Beza Nam Baptismo consecramur Deo quoniam ibi nostra adoptio in Christo per
on the place we are made one that is one body by one spirit and the same laver or washing that is by Baptism By the Spirit as the principal efficient of by Baptism as the instrumental Agent in that Union Hence is Baptism by St. August called Ecclesiae jaâ—ua and porta gratiae primus introit us D. Aug. de Cate. chizand rudib l. 2. c. 1. sanctorum ad aeternam ' Dei Ecclesiae consuetudinem the gate of the Church and the door of grace and the first entrance of Saints to an eternal Society with God and the Church So St. Bernard calls it Sacramentum initiationis intrantium Christianismum investituram the Sacrament of Initiation and the Investiture of such as enter into Christianity And by the Council of Florence it is called Primum omnium Sacramentorum locum tenet baptismus quod vitae spivitualis janua est â— per ipsum enim membra Christi ac de corpore efficimur Ecclesiae Concil Flor. apud Caranz sol 391. the gate of spiritual life in as much as by it we are made members of Christ and to be of the body of the Church And hence very significantly Baptisteries or Fonts are said to have been placed at first without but after within the Church near the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Porch of the Church to signifie undoubtedly the Sacrament there celebrated namely Baptism to be a Rite of initiation or entrance into the Church as it were that door by which they that are baptized are let in and have admittance unto the priviledges of Christians which is to be Members of Christ § 3. This benefit I say Men have by Baptism And why not Infants whom the Scripture no where shuts this door of grace against whom it no where excludes from this benefit by it In consideration whereof St. Aug. proceeds to say of the Baptism of Infants that it is of efficacy and doth avail Ad hoc valet baptismus ut baptizati Christo incorporentur D. Aug. l. 1. de Bapt. Parvul Haec gratia baptizatos quoque parvulos suo inserit corpori D. Aug. l. 1. de Pecc Merit Remiss c. 9. Pueri sicut adulti in Baptismo efficiuntur membra Christi Aquin. 3. q. 69. a. 6. Hac de causa insantulos baptizamus ut ejus membra sint omnes D. Chrysost Hom. ad Neophytos to their incorporation into Christ And again that This grace doth ingraft and put in even the little ones that are baptized into his body So Aquinas Children as well as Adult persons are made members of Christ in Baptism And for this cause saith St. Chrysostom do we baptize Infants that they may be members of him that is of Christ § 4. And the reason is the same for the one and for the other Because it is not several Baptisms but one and the same Baptism that is administred unto the one and unto the other For there is but one Baptism for all One as well as the other Men and Children all that are baptized are baptized into Jesus Christ as the Apostle expresses it Rom. 6. 3. § 5. Now this being so what can be more visible than that Baptism is hugely beneficial to Infants For being by Baptism made Members of Christ they have union with him as the Members have with the Head and by that Union much benefit is derived to them § 6. For first there is great honour comes to them thereby The Members partake of the honour of the Head To be the Members of such a Head as is Head over all things Ephes 1. 22. the Head of all principality and power Coloss 2. 10. what an honour must this needs be to them Like the precious ointment upon the head that ran down upon the beard even Aarons beard that went down to the skirts of his garments so the honourableness of Christ the Head hath a descending influence on his inâ—erior members so as to render them also in some measure and degree honourable By vertue of the Union of Christs natural body with God there is a great honour comes to that his body so by vertue of the Union of the mystical body of Christ with Christ its Head there is a great deal of honour coming also to that body of his His natural body is not the mere body of a man but the body of God so his mystical body is not a mere humane body but the body of Christ 2 Cor. 12. 27. As it is with an imp or scion that is taken off from any stock of a meaner kind and ingrassed or inoculated into a nobler stock and partakes with the stock into which it is ingrassed of its honourable appellation so it is with Christians though by nature they be wild olive trees yet being by Baptism ingrafted into Christ the good olive tree made members of his body they do partake with Christ in some degree of that honour which is given unto him They have his name called upon them by others Acts 11. 26. He himself is not ashamed to call them brethren Heb. 2. 2. 11. Not the least Infant Christian but is a Brother a Branch a Member of Christ and so is honourable in its Relation to him and hath an honourable respect due unto it upon account of the Union that it hath with him § 7. But secondly they do not only receive honour by Christ but also influence from Christ by vertue of their Union with him The Head hath an influence upon the whole body and every member of it Sense and motion is by the animal spirits communicated to the whole body and every member of it from the head so hath Christ an influence upon his whole body and every the least member of it From him by his spiritual grace is communicated to his body and every the least member of it suitable to the manner and measure of its receptivity a principle of sense of God and Goodness and of motion to attain the enjoyment of the one by the practice of the other which though for a while it give forth no indications of its presence in them yet will in due time exert its proper efficacy and in the mean time it lies at the heart like the sap at the root predisposing it unto a future fructification Of his fullness saith St. John we have all received and grace for grace John 1. 16. There is a fullness of grace in Christ for and an influence of grace from Christ to all that are in him Of his fullness we all receive By partaking of the root we participate of the fatness of the olive tree Rom. 11. 17. There goes vertue from him to all that are his Not the least member of him but has an influence of grace from him There is from him an emanation of quickening efficacy to the smallest Infant member in him being united to him it partakes with him according to its condition and capacity and that seminal grace communicated
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 be so long in Adam as till it be enrolled in Christ and so long defiled as it is unenrolled contracting the sully of sin from its society with the flesh Athanasius saith i 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 D. Athan. cont Arianos Orat. 10. when Adam transgressed his transgression passed unto all men Origen k Sciebant enim illi quibus mysteriorum secreta commissa sunt divinorum quia essent in omnibus genuinae sordes peccati quae per aquam spiritum ablui deberent Origen l. 5. in Rom. Hom. 14. in Luc. speaks of it as a thing known to those whom the secrets of the divine Mysteries were committed to that there are in all the genuine pollutions of sin which ought to be washed away by water and the spirit and himself affirms that there is none clean from pollution no if he be but of a days age Gratian l Firmissime tene nullatenus dubites omnem hominem qui per concubitum viri mulicris concipitur cum originali peccato nasci impietati subditum mortique subjectum c. Gratian. de Consecrat Distinct 4. bids believe it firmly and doubt not in the least of it that whosoever is conceived by the concumbency of man and woman is born with Original sin c. Yea Vincentius Lirinensis asks m Quis ante prodigiosum discipulum eâ—us Coelestium reatu praevaritationis Adae omne genus humanum negavit astrictum Vinc. Lirinens advers Hares c. 34. who ever before Caelestius the prodigious Disciple of Pelagius denied that all mankind was bound under the guilt of Adams transgression § 11. And if all mankind be bound under it then Infants sure no small part of mankind are not free from it No not they nor any else are free in the judgment of the Fathers but all guilty Jesus Christ alone excepted whom God sent not in sinful Solus per omnia ex natis de foemina Sanctus Dominus Jesus qui terrenae contagia corruptelae immaculati partûs novitate non senserit coelesti majestate depulerit D. Ambros Com. in 2 Luc. Profectâ—o peccatum etiam major fecisset sc Christus si parvulus habuisset Nam propterea nullus est hominum praeter ipsum qui peccatum non fecerit grandioris aetatis accessu quia nullus est hominum praeter ipsum qui peccatum non habuerit infantilis aetatis exortu D. Aug. contr Julian Pelag. l. 5. c. 9. Sine quo generalis velamine confusionis nemo filiorum hominum intravit in hanc vitam uno sane excepto qui ingreditur sine maculâ Emanuel is est D. Bern. super Cantic Serm. 78. Solus enim Deus sine peccato solus homo sine peccato Christus quia Deus Christus Tertull. de Animâ flesh but only in the likeness of it Rom. 8. 3. and who thence is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the thing born holy holy in its very birth Luk. 1. 35. § 12. Children then having so great a Malady upon them as Original sin is and Baptism being that Remedy yea the onely ordinary one by which they may be freed * For if there be no Salvation for Infants in the ordinary way of the Church but by Baptism and this appear in Scripture as it doth then out of all doubt the consequence is most evident out of that Scripture That Infants are to be baptized that their Salvation may be certain For they which cannot help themselves must not be left onely to extraordinary Helps of which we have no assurance and for which we have no warrant at all in Scripture while we in the mean time neglect the ordinary way and means commanded by Christ A. B. Laud. Confer §. 15. Num. 4. from this Malady how can it then be but that Children must have need of Baptism § 13. And truly with the Ancient Christians this consideration was of very great weight and force Upon this account to be sure what ever they did upon other accounts they baptized their Infants Why saith Critobolus the Pelagian are Infants baptized St. Hierom a Quare infantuli baptizantur Ut eis peccata in baptismate dimittantur D. Hier. Ep. 17. Tract 2. par 1. answers that their sins may be remitted unto them in Baptism So Origen b Per baptismum nativitatis sordes deponuntur propterea baptizantur parvuli Orig. Hom. 14. in Levit. By baptism the filth of our birth is taken away therefore are even Children also baptized And saith St. Chrysostom c Praedicat Ecclesia Catholica ubique diffasa debere parvulos baptizari propter Originale peccatum D. Chrysost Hom de Adam Eva. It is a thing which the whole Catholick Church every where diffused doth preach namely that Infants ought to be baptized because of Original Sin But what stand I upon the testimony of single Doctors when we have it from a Council that upon the account of that Rule of Faith as the Fathers in the Milevitane Council d Item placuit ut quicunque parvulos recentes ab uteris matrum baptizandos negat aut dicii in remissionem quidem peccatorum eos baptizari sed nihil ex Adam trahere originalis peccati quod regenerationis lavaero expietur unde sit consequens ut in cis forma baptismatis in remissionem peccatorum non vera sed falsa intelligatur anathema sit quoniam non aliter intelligendum est quod ait Apostolus Per unum hominem peccatum intravit in mundum per peccatum mors ita in omnes homines pertransit in quo omnes peccaverunt nisi quemadmodum Ecclesia Cathelica ubique diffusa semper intellexit Propter hanc enim regulam fidei etiam parvuli qui nihil peccatorum in semetipsis adhuc committore potuerunt ideo in peccatorum remissionem veraciter baptizantur ut in cis regeneratione mundetur quod generatione traxerunt Concil Milevitan Canon 2. apud Caranz call that Text of the Apostles Rom. 5. 12. By one man sin entred into the world c. understood as they say the Catholick Church of Christ every where diffused did always understand it of Original sin are Infants which could as yet commit no sin of themselves truly baptized into the remission of sins that that may be cleansed in them by Regeneration which they have drawn upon themselves by Generation And therefore St. Augustine saith e Non est superfluus baptismus parvuloram ut qui per generationem illi condemnationi obligati sunt per regenerationem ab eadem liberentur D. Aug. Ep. 89. The baptism of Infants is not superfluous and then sure there is some need of it that they who by generation are obliged to that condemnation which came by Adam may by Regeneration be freed from the same § 14. Unless then we will say with the Pelagian Hereticks that children have not in them the Malady of sin or will contradict our Saviour and say that
the sick have no need of a Physician that is of a remedy for their malady or will not allow Baptism to avail towards remission of Sin contrary to the Scripture and the Fathers I say unless we will run upon some or all of these absurdities we must needs grant that Infants have need of being baptized and so ought upon the account of that need to be admitted unto Baptism CHAP. XVIII Childrens need of Baptism further shown from the consideration of the evil nature and evil consequents of Original Sin § 1. ANd truly he that rightly understands the nature of the Malady will never dispute the need of a Remedy Why what 's the matter What so great evil is there in Original sin or comes by it to those in whom it is that there should be such need of baptizing our children to disengage them from it What why let our Church speak to this in her Ninth Article and she will tell you that it is the fault and the corruption Vitium est depravatio naturae cujusâ—ibet hominis ex Adamo naturaliter propagati Art 9. of the nature of every man that naturally is engendred of the ofspring of Adam § 2. So then by her doctrine there is a fault chargeable on and a corruption diffused in every one till he be freed therefrom by Baptism every natural descendent from Adam is guilty of a fault even of that first fault whereby man fell from his innocency and happiness from the happiness of his innocency and so is liable to the curse of God and he is also depraved and corrupted in his nature vitiated with irrectitude and deficiency in the very principles of his composition § 3. Now by this means as our Church saith it comes to pass that man is far gone from original righteousness far departed from Ab originali justitia longissime distet ib. that righteousness which he was created in when his mind and will and affections and actions were all agreeable to the will of God also that he is enclined unto evil even of his own nature Ad malum naturâ suâ propendoat ib. prone and forward to it even by the genuine bent and proper sway of his own natural inclination and also that his flesh is ever lusting against the spirit refusing resisting Caro semper adversus spiritum concupiscat ib. and rebelling against the suggestions motions and dictates of it § 4. Now the Consequent hereof is that in every person born into the world iâ— deserveth In unoquoque nascentium iram Dei atque damnationem meretur ib. Gods wrath and indignation exposing every man to the curse of God and rendring him liable unto Firmissimè tene non solum homines ratione utentes verum etiaem parvulos qui sine Sacramento baptismi de hoc seculo transeunt sempiterno igne paniendos quia 〈◊〉 peccatum propriae actionis nullum habent originalis tamen peccati damnationem carnali conceptione ex nativitate traxerunt Gratian. de Consecrat dist 4. eternal damnation § 5. And well may this be when First the Guilt of this fault is such as to oblige all men to death Death saith the Apostle passed upon all men for that all have sinned Rom. 5 12. viz. in Adam in whom all were at his sinning Whence we are even by nature children of wrath Ephes 2. 3. under a judgment or sentence unto condemnation Rom. 5. 18. as being made sinners by our first fathers disobedience Rom. 5. 19. § 6. And secondly when the corruption of our Nature the evil consequent of that first sin is such that it is a law in our members warring against the law of our mind and bringing us into captivity 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to that law of sin which is in our members Rom. 7. 23. So that when we 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 adjacet Hier. would do good evil is present with us at hand as it were ready for us to be done by us Rom. 7. 21. and every imagination of the thoughts of our hearts is onely evil continually according to that representation which is given of mans depraved disposition by him that the best knew what was in man Gen. 6. 5. And when the mind is carnal and so inimicitious as Rom. 8. 6 7 8. to be even enmity against God to such a height and degree that it neither is nor can be brought to be subject to the law of God then they that are in the flesh cannot please God and then no marvel if that carnality of their mind be in the consequent of it death to them That any man is tempted so far as to be an actor in evil and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Jam. 1. 14. every man is so it is from his being drawn away even haled out of his own lust the innate corruption of his carnal affection and however if not violently forced yet at least cunningly enticed and allured away with some bewitching bait presented to him with all the best advantages and under the most winning circumstances by it Now when once the teeming womb of lust hath 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ib. v. â—5 conceived and is become impregnated it will not be long ere it bring forth and make it self the mother of sin and that the right daughter of such a mother presently becomes bigbellied too and brings forth death James 1. 14 15. § 7. Now what can any man stand more in need to be freed from than such a Guilt upon his Person as obligeth him unto death than such a Corruption of his Nature as inclineth him unto all those evils that deserve and bring upon him damnation § 8. If Children were not under that Guilt or had not in them this Corruption then indeed in these respects Baptism were not needfull for them But for as much as every age as †Omnis aetas peccato obnoxia ideo omnis aetas Sacramento idonea D. Amb. de Abrah Patr. l. 2. c. 11. St. Ambrose saith is obnoxious to sin inclinable to the commission and liable to the punishment of it therefore it is that * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 D. Basil Exhort ad Bapt. every age infancy and all is proper for and hath this Sacrament administred to it Yea and it hath a need of it for there is a need to be baptized as there was a need to be circumcized else why did John the Baptist say to Christ that he had need to be baptized of him and a need to be baptized is more than a fitness for or a capableness of baptism Yea for as much as there is no time of mans life free from fault as the same St. Ambrose saith there being deficiencies in our Nullum tempus vitae culpa vacuum ergo nullum tempus vacuum debet esse tutclae Id. ib. compleatest performances irregularities in our most regular actings aversion from God in our first movings therefore no time of our life ought to be without
no where has enjoined them repentance in order unto baptism nor alledged their inability to repent as a bar to their admission thereunto § 5. Indeed we have Scriptures where grown men are exhorted to both together to repent and be baptized and where signs of repentance were shewed by such as received baptism Acts 2. 38. Matth. 3. 6. But still the Persons both exhorted unto and shewing repentance were of age both to commit actual sins needing repentance and to act that repentance that was needfull for their baptizing But what is this to the case of Infants who as they are not guilty of actual sin so they are in no ability for repentance Where there is no general rule an argument from particulars is no farther argumentative than to particulars under the same circumstances which cannot be betwixt men and Infants so as that what is injoyned to or performed by the one must be necessarily required of and performed by the other And so some mens being exhorted unto Repentance and Baptism both at once and other mens confessing their sins as a token of their Repentance when they were baptized is no argument that therefore all Infants must do so too or else not be baptized and so no Infants baptized because none can so do The case 't is plain is not the same And so whatever want of Repentance or Non-profession of it may do to hinder Men from being baptized it can do nothing to render Infants incapable of Baptism Who as they have the guilt of sin brought upon them by anothers disobedience without their knowledge so they have that guilt taken off from them by the obedience of another without their repentance which pardon is not onely signed and sealed but exhibited also and given to them in and by Baptism § 6. And as to the Church it is true indeed that of Adult sinners it requires a Personal Profession of Repentance before it admit them to Baptism But for Infants that have not sinned after the similitude of Adams transgression it admits them to Baptism without any such Personal Profession So there be but a Promise made of it for the future against the time that it shall be necessary by Sureties for the Infants in the Infants names as the Scripture doth not require so much so the Church doth not stand upon more And so Infants Ab hac poenitentiâ— cum baptizantur soli parvuli sunt immunes Nondum enim uti possunt libero arbitrio quibus tamen ad consecrationom remissionem que originalis peccati prodest cotum fides à quibus offeruntur ut quascunque maculas dâ—lictorum per alios ex quiâ—â—s sunt nati contraxerunt aliarum 〈◊〉 incerrogatione ac responsione purgentur T Aug. Quiaquag Homil. Serm. 50. are not incapable of Baptism in this respect neither CHAP. XXIII Children not incapable of Baptism in regard of their not Believing § 1. YEa but still it is objected that Infants do not believe and therefore they ought not to be baptized § 2. To this Objection if St. Augustin were to answer he would deny the Antecedent and say that Infants do believe and so would St. Bernard too But how Not by any Sed absit ut ego dicam non credentes Infantes Jam superius disputavi credit in altero quia peccavit in alâ—ero dicitur credit valet inter fideles bapti zatos computatur c. Credunt infantes Unde credum quomodo credunt Fide paâ—entum c. D. Aug. Serm 14. de Verb. Apost Accommodat illis Mater Ecclesia allorum pedes ut veniant aliorum cor ut credant Id. ib. Serm. 10. Non quod vel ipsi sc Infantes quando baptizantur fide omnino careant sine quâ impossibile est vel ipsos placere Deo sed salvantur per fidem non tamen suam sed alienam Dignum nempe est ad Dei spectat dignitatem ut quibus fidem aetâ—s denegat propriam gratia prodesse concedat alienam Nec enim omnipotentis justitia propriam putal ab his exigendam fidem quos novit propriam nullam habere culpam Porro alienâ opus est fide cum sine sorde non nasâ—antur alienâ D. Bern. Ep. 77. Nemo mihi dicat quia non habet infans sidem cui mater Ecclesia impertit suam Magna est Ecclesia sides Id. Serm. 66 super Cant. In Ecclesia salvateris per alios parvuli credunt sicut ex aliis quae in baptismo remlttuntur peccata traxerunt Gratian. 3 part de Conseerat dist 4. faith in themselves but by the faith of others their Parents or the Church Nor would they think it any more absurd to say that they believe through the Faith of another than it is to say that they have sinned through the sin of another or that they are made righteous through the obedience of another § 3. But though the Faith of the Parents or Sureties who are Believers may be enough and is to qualifie Infants for an admission into Church-membership by Baptism yet because I think it not enough to speak them Believers antecedently to Baptism however they be reckoned in the number of the Faithfull after they be baptized and that their immediate Parents saith shall no more be imputed unto them and reckon'd theirs than their sins as not having been by Almighty God made Trustees in this behalf for their Children as Adam was for his therefore I shall not stand upon this § 4. Some others would answer that Infants have Faith in themselves and that in the act And truly as the Scripture no where denies this expresly See Alting Problem Theolog. part 1. Probl. 22. Becan Manual Controver l. 2. c. 2. Phil. Melancthon Consil Theolog. part 1. pag. 255. Hooker Eccl. Pol. l. 5. Sect. 64. so it also affords an instance of little ones 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 very little ones that are said to have believed Mat. 18. 6. and that by one who knew their hearts and could not be deceived in them even our Saviour himself § 5. Other some again would answer that Infants have Faith in themselves though not in the Act yet in the Habit or rather the seed and principle of it § 6. And truly that as God is able to infuse so the soul of an Infant is capable to receive divine impressions and illuminations I think is a truth none will question And if any should the filling of John Baptist with the Holy Ghost from his Mothers womb and his leaping for joy at the approach of his Saviour in his Mothers womb Luke 1. 15 44. would put it out of doubt Now this being so who can tell but that the Infants of believers may through the grace of Sicut ergo ille in quo omnes vivificabuntur praeterquam quod se ad â—ustitiam exemplum omnibus praebuit dat etiam sui spiritus occultissimam fidclibus gratiam quam latenter infundit parvulis sic D. August l. 1. de
Peccat Merit Remiss c. 9. God obtained for them by the prayers not onely of their Paren's in particular but of the Church in general have a principle of Faith inspired into them by the secret operation of that invisible Spirit of grace who works how and where and when and how far himself pleaseth And where it is so in any one who dares deny that person sufficiently qualified in point of Faith for Baptism Can any man forbid water that these should not be baptized which have received the Holy Ghost as well as w◠Acts 10. 47. And of what Infant of any one Believer can any man say that it is not so with him And if there be never an Infant of any one believer of whom it can be absolutely affirmed that he is in respect of a divinely infused inwardly working principle of Faith utterly unqualified for Baptism then why should any one be denied Baptism of whom it cannot be said but that he is in some degree and measure qualified for it § 7. But being under no necessity for the supporting of the cause I maintain to assert these grounds I shall no further insist thereon but to the Objection against Infants capableness of baptism founded in their want of Faith give my Answer that their not believing is no hindrance to their baptizing § 8. It is no hindrance to their salvation even in the judgment of our Anabaptists who declare it as one Article of their Faith That all children dying in Infancy that is before they can act faith in their own persons and be believers qualified for baptism according to their account having not actually transgressed against the Law of God in their own persons are onely subject to the first death and that not any one of them dying in that estate shall suffer for Adams sin eternal punishment in hell which is the second death It is no hindrance then to their salvation in their judgment that they believe not And why then should it be a hindrance to their Baptism Is more required to their baptism than to their salvation to the means than to the end § 9. But to make short work where or by whom is faith required of Infants in their own persons to render them capable of baptism What one Text is there in all the Bible that saith either in particular that Infants shall not be baptized because they believe not or in generall that no persons whatsoever whether capable or incapable of believing shall be baptized but those that believe Let the Adversaries of Infants baptism produce the place and the controversie I believe will quickly be ended We all Paedobaptists will readily yield all that shall of right be fit to be yielded to it or unto them from it But if the Scripture say no such thing either in words or in sense then for ought that as yet appears our Infants will be capable of Baptism though they do not believe § 10. Why but doth not our Saviour say in Mark 16. 16. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved but he that believeth not shall be damned § 11. Yes And what then must not therefore our Infants be baptized because they do not believe or not till they believe No such matter What is here said that makes believing a condition necessarily antecedent unto Baptism It is neither said negatively he that believeth not shall not be baptized nor so much as affirmatively he that believeth shall be baptized But believing and being baptized are made conditions not the one of the other but both of being saved And now in the name of God what is here that can possibly exclude Infants from baptizing for want of believing § 12. Yea but believing is set before baptizing He doth not say he that is baptized and believeth but he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved And what then Why then believing must go before baptizing and none must be baptized but those that first believe § 13. To this I answer that if the order of things must universally answer to that order of words wherein the Scripture sets them down then Repentance which is a Fruit of Quomodo aget poenitentiam homo qui necdum credit D. Hieron advers Lucifer Faith must go before Faith whose Fruit it is because our Saviour set repenting before believing saying first repent ye and then believe the Gospel Mark 1. 15. Then the outward baptism of water must always go before the inward baptism of the spirit because our Saviour said Except a man be born first of water and then of the spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God John 3. 5. Whereas the contrary hereto fell out in the family and company of Cornelius Acts 10. 44. which drew from Peter that question in ver 47. Can any man forbid water that these should not be baptized who have received the Holy Ghost as well as we Then the Ruler in Luke 18. 22. must have given nothing to the poor till he had sold all he had because our Saviour saith first set all that thou hast and then distribute to the poor § 14. But to shew the weakness of this way of Arguing it may be proved by this same Argument and from the same Text that Infants ought to be baptized And then let them judge what strength there is in this way of Arguing For as our Saviour sets believing before baptizing so he sets baptizing before being saved And if none must be baptized but he that believes because believing is set first then none must be saved but he that is baptized because baptizing is set first And then what better argument can be made for Infants baptism They must be baptized if we will have them saved because they cannot be saved without being baptized for baptizing goes before saving And yet from the same Text and by the same way of a guing it may be proved contrary to what the Anabaptists say of the Universal salvation of all Infants dying before the commission of actual sin that no Infants are saved but those that believe because believing is set before being saved and not onely so but whereas it is not said he that believeth not shall not be baptized it is said he that believeth not shall be damned § 15. And this may suffice to shew tho absurdity of this way of arguing to the order of things from the ordering of the words § 16. As to the thing it self I think it will be granted them that in Persons capable of believing or disbelieving the Gospel faith or at least a profession of it is to go before baptizing § 17. This we gather from the Apostles baptizing no adult persons that we read of without some evidence given of their believing § 18. Thus it was with the Converts in Acts 2. 41. with the Samaritans Acts 8. 12. with the Eunuch Acts 8. 37. with Cornelius his family Act. 10. 44. with Lydia and the Gaoser Acts 16. 14 33.
their Sureties the Infants are doubly obliged First by the infinite advantages that come to them by it which unless they be fools or mad they will hasten all that ever they can as soon as they know it further to assure unto themselves by a personal engaging in it Secondly by the forfeiture of all benefits by it besides many other obligations before mentioned upon their disavowing and disclaiming of it § 18. No profession then beâ—ng required from themselves and a sufficient one being made for them by others they are not uncapable of entring into Covenant with God on this account neither § 19. And thirdly that their want of understanding renders them not incapable of entering into Covenant with God is evident by one instance beyondexception in Deut. 29. 10 11 12. Ye stand this day all of you before the Lord your God your Captains of your tribes yâ—ur Eldâ—rs and your officers with all the men of Israel your little ones your wives and thy stranger that is in thy camp from the hâ—wer of thy wood unto the drawer of thy water That thou shouldst enter into Covenant with the Lord thy God and into his Oath which the Lord thy God maketh with thee this day See! even the little ones as well as Elders and Officers were capable of entring and did actually enter into Covenant with God and into the Oath of God their want of years and understanding to know the condition of the Covenant and Oath which they entred into or to make profession of entring into it not at all withstanding So that want of years and unâ—erstanding cannot render children incapable of entring into Gods Covenant And then much less can it render them uncapable of receiving the sign or seal of his Covenant § 20. And however that it cannot is evident because the Jewish Infant was capable as of the Covenant it self as we have seen before so of Circumcision the sign and seal of the Covenant which to receive at eight days old he was bound upon pain of excision He that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you every man-child in your generations And the uncircumcised man-child whose flesh of hâ— foreskin is not circumcised that soul shall be cut off from his people he hath broken my Covenant Deut. 17. 12. What he was so bound to receive surely he was capable of Now why the child of a Christian should be less capable of receiving one seal of a Covenant than the child of a Jew was of another I am yet to learn § 21. And so there is nothing in Baptism it self rendring Infants uncapable of being baptized CHAP. XXV Children not incapable of Baptism by any Text of Scripture that forbids it either directly or by consequence § 1. ADmit Infants never so capable of Baptism in all other respects yet if the Scripture do forbid it then it becomes unlawfull for them to have it and they upon that account become uncapable of it § 2. Thirdly therefore and lastly I affirm that upon the diligentest search that I was ever able to make I could never find any Scripture that forbad it Search the Scripture from end to end and not one Text appears wherein it is forbidden As the Antipaedobaptists call but for one Scripture that commands it and upon that say they will yield to it so on the other hand the Paedobaptists call for a Scripture that forbids it and upon that say they will not contend for it But there is none no not one it would else have been shewn ere this being so much and so long called for § 3. Yea though there be never a Scripture that expresly and in terms forbids it yet if there be but one wherein by direct and evident consequence it is forbidden though our adversaries will yield nothing to all the many Scriptures from whence we do by good consequence deduce it because we produce not a Text that doth in express terms command it let it be shewn and we shall pay all due respect unto it the Contest will instantly be given over by us who seek not victory without truth but truth whether with or without victory we shall believe the baptizing of our Infants unlawfull and upon the account of its unlawfulness believe them uncapable of it § 4. But if there be no such Text in all the Scripture as doth so much as by consequence forbid the baptizing of Infants we must then beg to be excused if we hold the baptizing of them lawfull and upon the account of that lawfulness think them not uncapable of it § 5. For if sin be a transgression of the law as St. John defines it 1 John 3. 4. and where there is no law there is no transgression as St. Paul determines it Rom. 4. 15. then can it be no sin either to Infants to be baptized or to others to baptize Infants because no law is by either †For therefore any thing is unlawful because it transgresseth a law W. Penn. Eng. Present Interest p. 24. transgressed there being none that either forbids them to be baptized * It is an evidence that Infants are not to be excluded from Baptism because there is no divine Law which doth prohibit their admission into the Church by it Dr. Stilling fleet Irenic p. 7. or forbids others to baptize them therefore their baptism is lawfull and they upon the account of its lawfulness are capable of it § 6. And put case we should grant that there were no Text in Scripture whereon to ground it yet would it not follow thence that it were unlawfull For the mere uncommandedness of a thing doth not infer the unlawfulness of it a thing is not therefore unlawfull onely because it is not commanded To make a thing necessary indeed there must be a law for it and to make a thing unlawfull there must be a law against it But to make a thing onely lawfull it is not necessary there be any law for it it is sufficient that there be no law against it If then we cannot prove it necessary because the Antipaedobaptists say we have no law for it they cannot prove it unlawfull because we are sure they have no law against it It remains therefore that it be lawfull and that our children upon the account of the lawfulness of it be capable of it § 7. Why but our Saviour sets Teaching before Baptizing Matth. 28. 19. saying to his Disciples when he commissionated them to be his Apostles to all the nations of the world for the gathering of a Church out of it Go ye therefore and teach all nations baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost Well and what then Why then saith the Antipaedobaptist none must be baptized before he be taught and so taught as that they do learn And this because Infants are incapable of therefore they are uncapable of baptism § 8. This Argument of theirs is like that former which they
drew from our Saviours setting believing before baptizing which how weak it was I hope I need not so soon remember you And granting all they can fairly pretend to from this Text it will not hence follow that Infants are uncapable of Baptism as I shall hope to make appear upon a due and through consideration of the words § 9. Our Saviour here enlarges his Disciples Commission to go and preach and make Disciples not in one nation only as formerly but in all nations teaching and baptizing them suppose we read the words so Well what can this mean other than that those of the nations that were capable of teaching should be taught and baptized not excluding from baptizing those that for the present were onely capable of so much discipulation if I may so speak as was performed by baptizing but as yet were not capable of any teaching And what makes this against Infants Baptism There is not an exclusive Particle in the whole Text. § 10. But to proceed this we will grant that if the order of Teaching and Baptizing See Dr. Stillingflcets Vindic. A. B. of Cant. p. 107. be considered in their reference to the conversion of all nations or any one whole particular nation unconverted teaching is to go before baptizing But this is not from the naked consideration of the setting of the words Teaching and Baptizing as if the order of the words were inviolably to be observed in the order of things and if any have so thought and argued I cannot in that excuse them from a shortness of discourse but it is from the otherwise unpracticableness of the things * Non enim potest fieri ut corpus baptismi recipiat Sacramentum nisi ante anima fidei susâ—eperit veritatem D. Hieron in Matth. 28. 29. themselves For as no Adult person will be brought to be baptized before he be taught what baptism means and why he should be baptized so the Church will admit no Infants to baptism but those that are the children of baptized persons or at least are undertaken for by such as are baptized Suppose our Saviour had set baptizing before teaching as he might had he pleas'd and said Go ye therefore and baptize all nations in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost teaching them what I have commanded they should know and do who would have scrupled to begin his work with teaching notwithstanding the order of the words as imagining that none that understood themselves would ever be baptized before they were taught It is therefore not from the order of the words but from the orderliness of the things which cannot otherwise be effected but in this way and order that this course is and must in such case be taken Now if so then the whole force of the Antipaed obaptists argument from the mere consideration of the order of these words teaching set before Baptizing which yet is all they have in this point to urge from them is utterly vanished § 11. But when once some in a nation have been taught and have received the faith and have been baptized into it then it follows not that the same course must necessarily still be taken with every siâ—le person in it that was proper for and was taken with the whole of it but that all that any way and in any degree are capable of baptism may respectively according to their capacity be admitted to it though they be wanting in some thing which others of greater capacity have and is requisite in them to make them capable of it And to argue from what is requisite in Men before the conversion of a nation to what is requisite in children after the nation is converted is fallacious For it does not follow Thus it was with the Adult Men of the nation before any of it were converted therefore thus it must be with the Infant Children of the Nation after the conversion of their Fathers more being required of Men than of Children of Men that can receive or reject the Gospel than of Children that can neither reject it nor receive it Men are not to be admitted to baptism but upon those accounts in respect whereof they are to be qualified for it Children are to be admitted to baptism upon those accounts in respect whereof they are qualified for it and not to be rejected upon those accounts in respect whereof they are not qualified for it unless it had been positively and particularly required of them that they should be so qualified or not be baptized Why should any require from Infants so much as is required of Men to qualifie them for baptism when the Scripture hath not required of them so much Why should any make Infants entrance into the kingdom of Heaven straiter than God himself hath made it Why should any keep them out whom God has a mind to let in Why should any keep them from coming to Christ whom Christ hath commanded should be suffered to come unto him § 12. Our Saviour saith Go teach all nations baptizing them but he doth not say Baptize none of those nations before they be taught Some must be first taught that all may be baptized not none baptized but those that are first taught He saith teach all nations baptizing them but he doth not say whether the teaching or the baptizing shall be first No he determines neither to be first or second but according as their discretion should think fit He says not so much as Teach and Baptize but only Teach baptizing Which therefore enforceth neither to be first but according as the nature of the things may require and the condition of the persons admit Suppose he had said Go ye therefore and convert all nations preaching to them my Gospell who would ever have imagined it to have been his command that the Apostles should first convert the nations and then preach the Gospel to them and that because the words were so set converting before preaching therefore none were to be preached to but those that were first converted St. Bâ—sil gives the Text this gloss he commanded Tà 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 D. Basil adv Euâ—omium l. 5. the Gentiles that had believed and had been taught to be baptized in the name of the Trinity Can any man from the order of the words here believed set before taught gather hence that St. Basil thought persons were first to believe and then to be taught or that none were to be taught but they that first believed It is unimaginable And if this way of arguing be most fallacious and absurd as it is then such is that of the Antipaedobaptists whereto this is exactly parallel and every way the same when they argue from the order of the words to the order of the things But what will they say to Gregory Nazianzene who inverts the order of our Saviours words sets Baptizing before Teaching * Greg. Nazianz. Orat. 40. p. 670 677. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
side contritione accedunt Gabriel Biel in 1 Sentent d. 4. discoursing of the different effects of baptism in persons of different age and disposition concludes thus All Infants rightly baptized receive the thing and the Sacrament but those he means adult ones that come feignedly and without faith and contrition receive onely the Sacrament 'T were lost time to stand upon it hence to prove his being for Infants Baptism § 14. But before either him or De Orbellis flourished Thomas Waldensis who died Anno 1430. And saith he who ever we be that are baptized into Quicunque baptizati sumus in Christo Jesu in morte ipsius baptizati sumus Ergo parvuli qui baptizantur in Christo quoniam in morte ipsius baptizati sunt peccato moriuntur Tho. Walden de Sacram Tom. 2. q. 101. Fol. 104. Col. 2. Quod parvuli ad baptismum delati si praeveniantur morte peribunt Id. ib. q. 99. Fol. 101. Col. 3. Jesus Christ are baptized into his death Therefore even the Infants that are baptized into Christ because they are baptized into his death do die to sin The same Author holds that Infants brought to baptism yet dying before they be baptized do perish § 15. Yea and even in the beginning of it about Anno 1401 flourished Nicolaus Gorranus And he delivers his sense as to this matter in the words of Beda and the Ordinary Gloss Treating on Mark 7. 29. Vade exiit daemonium Go thy way the devil is gone out of thy daughter he saith And as saith Beda hence we have an example that as that daughter was healed by the faith of her Mother as the Centurions servant Matth. 8. by the faith of his Master so are Infants by the faith of their Parents Whence saith the Gloss Here we have an example of the Catechizing and baptizing of Infants because by the Faith and Confession of the Parents in baptism little ones who are neither able to understand nor act any thing either of good or evil are freed from the devil The Catechizing here 't is plain is no other but that we have newly spoke of And by the way if Walafridus Strabo were the Collector of the Ordinary Gloss as Isaackson from Trithemius and Trifingensis affirms then it is apparent that how much soever his Authority is pretended against Infants Baptism either he was not against it or if he were he was against himself Which further appears from what Mr. Obed Wills in his Answer to Infant Bapt. Asserted c. 7. pag. 24. Henry Danvers shews namely that declaring his own opinion upon the matter he saith that it was a sign of the growth of Religion after a diligent search to take up the practice of Infant Baptism and amongst other Testimonies citeth the Fathers in generall for it in opposition to the prolonging of Austins Baptism till he was Adult And concludes at last thus Wise Christians baptâ—zed their Infants being not as some heretical persons opposing the Grace of God and contend that Infants are not to be baptized So that by the way here we have gleaned up a witness for the Ninth Century before we come at it even Walâ—fridus Sâ—rabo the man so much cried up by our Antipaedo baptists for a propugner of their opinion and an impugner of Infants Baptism § 16. We will now step on to the Fourteenth Century And in the very first year of it Anno 1300 appears * Cum secundum Scripturam sidem parvuli trahant originale peccatum ad ejus deleâ—ionem quia necessaria est ad salutem sunt baptizandi par vuli quia tempore legis Evangelicae baptismus institutus est in remedium contra illam culpam Ad illud argumentum Qui non crediderit condemnabitur Respon Quod potest intelligi de adultis per illud quod prâ—eccdit Qui crediderit baptizatus fuerit Vel potest dici quod qui non crediaerit noc actu nec habitu condemnabitur Par euli auâ—em etsi non possune habere actum credendi possunt tamen habere habitum Joh. Duns Scot. in l. 4. Sententiar Dist 4 qu. 1. Johannes Duns Scotus a witness for Infants Baptism And saith he whereas according to Scripture and Faith Infants bring along with them original sin for the blotting out thereof because that is necessary unto salvation are Infants to be baptized because in the time of Gospel baptism is instituted as a remedy against that guilt And to the Argument from Mark 16. 16. Qui non crediderit He that believeth not shall be damned he answers that may be understood of adult ones in as much as there goes before it Qui crediaerit He that believeth and is baptized Or it may be said He that believes neither in act nor in habit shall be condemned But Infants though they cannot have the act of believing yet they may have the habit of saith § 17. Go we now on to the Thirteenth Century And here we have Bonaventure about Anno 1260 giving witness to the baptizing of Hoc quotidie contingit in pueris qui baptizantur qui se ante annos diseretionis moriantur in altcrius side gratiam suscipiunt qua per meriâ—um Christi salvantur Bonaventura de Vita Chrsti c. 23. Infants in this Age. For speaking of believing by the Faith of others he saith This is a thing which falls out daily in the children that are baptized who if they die before they arrive at years of discretion do by the faith of another receive that grace whereby they are saved through the merit of Christ § 18. Here also we have Aquinas about Anno 1255 giving a full and clear witness For unto the Sed contra est quod Dionys dicit ult cap. Eccl. Hierarâ—h Divini nostri duces scilicet Apostoli probaverunt insantes recipi ad baptismum Aquin. Sum. 3. q. 68. Artic. 9. Pucri baptizandi sunt cum sint originali peccato obnoxii ut à pueritia enutriti in religione Christiana firmiùs in ea perseverent Id. ib. Conclus Ipse autem Dominus dicit Joh. 3. Quod nisi quis Vnde necessarium fuit pueros baptizari c. Id. ib. Corp. Artic. question whether Infants are to be baptized he answers assirmatively that they are And his opinion he grounds on the Authority of Dionys Areop affirming that the Apostles did allow of it that Infants should be admitted unto baptism Which he also confirms from the Need they have of it by reason of their obnoxiousness to original sin from the Necessity there is of it in order to their obtaining of salvation because of Christs having said Nisi quis renatus fuerit That except a man be born of Water and of the spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God and lastly from the Conveniency of it in order to their being brought up to and persevering in the Christian Faith § 19. In this Century Pope Greg. the Ninth who was elected about Anno 1227
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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
suit notus usâ—tatus frequens â—â— nâ—hil fere notius usitatius frequentius 1 Non opus erat ut aliquâ— pracepto robâ—rarâ—tur cum Baptismus jam in Sacramentum evaderet â— van elicuâ—â— Nam Christus Baptismum in manus suis atque 〈◊〉 Evangelicum suscepit qualem in 〈…〉 hoc solâ—m dito quod ad digniorem finem atque largiorem usum promoveret Novit satis gens universa parvulos solitos baptizari illud praecepto opus non habuit quod communi usu semper invaluerat Si prodiret â—am edictum regale in haec verba Recipiat se unusquisque die Dominico ad publicum conventum in Ecclesia insaniet certe ille quiâ—unque olim hinc argueret non celebrandas esse die Dominico in publicis conventibus preces conciones psalmodias co quod nulla in edicto de iis mentio Nam cavit edictum de celebratione deel Dominicae in publicis conventibus in genere de particularibus autem divini cultus speciebus ibidem celebrandis non opus erat ut esset mentio cum istae ante datum edictum cum daretur semper ubique notae essent in usu assiduo Ipsissimo hoc modo res st habuit cum Baptismo Christus eum instituit in Sacramentum Evangelicum quo in professionem Evangelii omnes admitterentur ut olim in Prosâ—lytismum ad religionem Judaicam Particularia â—ò spectantia modus scilicet baptizandi atas baptizanda sexus baptizandus c. regula definitione opus non habuerunt eo quod haec vel lippis tonsoribus satis nota erant ex communi usu 2 E contra ergo plana aperta prohibitione opus erat ut insantes parvuli non baptizarentur si eos baptizandos nollet servator Nam cum per omnia secula praecedentia usitatissimum esset ut baptizarentur parvuli si adoleri istam consuetudinem vellet Christus aperte prohibuisset Silentium ergo ejus Scripturae hac in â—e Paedobaptismum firmat propagat in omnia secula Dr. Lightfoot Horae Hebraicae in Matth. 3. 6. pag. 44 45. to be being already so well known by the former practice of it as the Learned Dr. Lightfoot excellently argues § 13. And now what can any mortall man that hath not addicted himself a slave to prejudice judge any other but this that in as much as our Saviour made no alteration in this particular in the Jewish Baptism therefore Infants are by his Institution to be baptized And that in all those passages of Scripture which speak of admitting any to be disciples to Christ or of any's being admitted by baptism to be his Disciples there if Infants be not by some Circumstance necessarily excluded they are in the design and by the Institution of our Saviour to be included § 14. As for instance when our Saviour enlarging his Disciples former Commission saith to them Go and make Disciples of all nations baptizing them who that remembers but what persons were admitted to be made Disciples before our Saviours time namely Infants as well as others and considers but withall that since his time also Infants as well as others were in the first Ages of the Church and ever since admitted to Discipleship by Baptism who I say that but remembers and considers this can judge any other but that our Saviour did in his design extend his words to all those that he did not exclude even to Infants also as well as to others and that his Disciples did also accordingly so understand him and baptize Infants and deliver Infants Baptism down as a thing to be for ever retained in the Church even by his Institution of which their so doing there can no other probable account or reason be given § 15. Put case whereas of three things formerly in use for the admitting of Disciples viz. Circumcision Sacrifice and Baptism our Saviour did lay aside the two former Circumcision and Sacrifice and did continue onely the later namely Baptism put case I say he had continued Circumcision to be the onely Ceremony to be used in his Church for the admitting of Disciples and had laid aside Sacrifice and Baptism and in stead of saying Go ye therefore and make Disciples of all nations baptizing them c. had said Go ye therefore and make Diseiples of all nations circumcising them c. who that remembred that Infants as well as others See Dr. Stillingfleets Vindicat. of the A. B. of Cant. p. 107. had usually in that case been circumcised would ever have interpreted his words to the excluding of Infants from Circumcision or ever have once imagined or phansied any other but that children should now and henceforth as well as formerly be circumcised Even so now our Saviour having discontinued Circumcision and Sacrifice and continued Baptism alone to be the Sacrament of the Initiation of Disciples into his Church who that remembers that it was the use before our Saviours time to admit Infants into the Church by Baptism can imagine any other but that his mind was that they should still be so admitted or but rationally phansie that in saying make disciples of all nations baptizing them he meant to exclude Infants from Baptism If Infants should have come in had he said Circumcising them as undoubtedly they would who would ever once have disputed it or made any question of it then they ought to come in now that he hath said Baptizing them For the case is equall on both sides one as well as the other being a Ceremony of admission of Disciples to Proselytism before his saying those words and there being as much reason for the one as for the other the very same for both Which one consideration if reason might take place were enough to end the controversie and carry the Cause for Infants Baptism § 16. And thus again when in the present Text our Saviour saith Suffer little Children to come unto me and forbid them not in as much as the coming he there speaks of is a coming to be his Proselytes a becoming his Disciples as appears by what he adds as a reason why Adduxerunt ergo aliqui è credentibus infantes suos ut peculiari recognitione Christus eos in discipulatum suum cooptaret ac pro suis sua consignaret be nedictione Dr. Lightfoot in Matth. 19. 13. Horae Hebraicae pag. 221. they should be suffered to come to him viz. because of such is the kingdom of God which intimates that their coming to him was for entrance into that kingdom and to be made members of his Church and his command to suffer them to come to him was to suffer them to have entrance into Gods kingdom so to come to him as Proselytes of his kingdom to become members of his Church it is most evident that he appoints they should have all things permitted to them and that performed for them which was necessary to their so coming to him and was usually done to such
his Disciples to baptize he laid his hands upon them and blessed them and by those actions did as it were consign them unto baptism mark them for and deliver them up to his Disciples to baptize and that according to the former and then present manner of receiving even Infants as well as elder persons unto Proselytism by Baptism § 24. And thus when we read of a whole City as Samaria or a Family as the Jaylors and Crispuses and Stephanas's baptized though none be expressed to be baptized but those that believed yet what other can be thought but that even the children aâ—so of those Believers if they had any in their town or family were baptized Since it was agreeable with the Jewish Baptism wherein our Saviours was founded and from which in that particular it is never said in the least to have differed to receive to Proselytism by Baptism the Infants of those that were converted and baptized as well as the Converts themselves And if in so many whole Families as are reported in Scripture to have been baptized there was never a child which yet cannot be saâ—d and 't is hard to believe yet sure in Samaria a great City there were some And why any that were converted and baptized themselves should not desire baptism for their children as well as for themselves since their children were by the Institution of Christ as capable of it as themselves were is not easie to say And on the contrary that those that were converted did desire the baptism of all theirs as well as of themselves is most evident because we read of the baptizing of whole Houses consequent to the conversion of the single Master or Mistress of those Houses for instance the Jaylor and Lydias Acts 16. § 25. And touching this latter the house of Lydia it may not be amiss to make one observation before we pass namely that though it be said that the houshold of Lydia was baptized yet it is not said that they or any of them beside Lydia her self believed professed or ever so much as once heard the Gospel preached to them Now hereupon I would ask our Adversaries whether we may receive any thing as a Divine Truth that is not written in the Divine Word or we may not § 26. It is their interest to say we may not that being the main if not the whole of all the strength they have against our Plea for Infants Baptism that it is not said in the Scriptures that Infants should be baptized or were baptized whence they weakly infer that Infants Baptism is not either in the Doctrine or Practice of it to be received Now if in pursuance of their Interest they shall say we may not then I shall infer from the same ground that it is not to be received as a Divine Truth that the Houshold of Lyâ—ia dâ—d ever believe profess or hear the Gospel preached to them before they were baptized because no such thing is written of them And so here will be a Scripture Example of Persons baptized without any either belief or profession or knowledge or so much as hearing of the Gospel their believing professing knowing or hearing of it being not to be received as a Divine Truth because it is not written in the Divine Word And then a Persons not believing professing or knowing the Gospel will be no hindrance to his baptizing And so our Infants cannot be denied baptism upon that account Why man not our Infants be baptized though they neither believe nor profess nor know the Gospel upon the undertaking of believers for them as well as the House of Lydias was who for any thing that appears in Scripture to the contrary nei her believed nor professed nor had any the least knowledge of the Gospel before they were baptized but as it may be supposed were admitted to baptism through the Mistress of the Familie's undertaking for them and becoming a Godmother as it were unto them § 27. If to avoid the sorce of this Inference they say we may receive something as a Divine Truth which is not written in the Divine Word then I infer on the other side that it can be no hindrance to our receiving Infants Baptism as a Divine Truth that it is not written in the Scripture For if we may receive it as a Divine Truth that the Family of Lydia had both heard and did believe and at least make a profession to believe the Gospel before they were baptized and if they did not then let the Antipaedobaptists tell us if they can upon what account or ground they were baptized though no one syllable of all this be written of them in the Divine Word then may we as well receive it as a Divine Truth either that there were Infants among those baptized ones or that the Apostles did baptize other Infants though their baptizing be as much passed over in silence and unmentioned as the hearing believing or professing of Lydias Family before they were baptized here is especially being there are such other positive grounds as we have shewn whereupon to receive it § 28. And here I must profess my self too short sighted to be able to foresee what shift our Adversaries can find out to evade and avoid the force of this Dilemma by which their whole way of arguing against us a non scripto from our having as they pretend no Scripture for what we profess and practice in this case seems to be broken and overthrown § 29. And by this time hope it is evident to every one that not onely by the Constitution of this particular Church but also by Prescription from the Custom and Practice of the Catholick and Primitive Church and also by the Institution of Christ himself our Infants have a Right to be baptized And if so then they cannot without injury and injustice to them not to say also disobedience to the Order of this present and particular Church Separation from the practice of the Catholick and Primitive Church disagreement with the institution of Christ and resistance to the Command of Christ be denied Baptism For what else can it be to hinder those from coming to him whom he hath commanded to be suffered to come § 30. And so I have dispatcht the Fourth and last Branch of my Argument for Infants Baptism and have said all I intended to say by way of Confirmation of the Point What remains to be said will be matter of Use and Application CHAP. XXXI Infants Baptism Lawfull though there were neither Command for it nor Example of it § 1. BY what I have said in the former part of this Discourse I hope I have sufficiently evidenced the Lawfulness at least of Infants Baptism I will now go on to consider and answer Objections against it and that will still be a further confirmation of it and that being but obtained the Need they have of it and the Benefit they may have by it will be sufficient inducements to their baptizing
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
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
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
those children all men Had they no Infants among them Did they leave them any where behind them I think it will not be said In as much then as no distinction is here made it includes the Infant as well as Men children of Isâ—ael And the rather because where God would have it to signifie Men exclusively as to children himself makes a restriction As in Exod. 12. 37. And the children of Israel journeyed from Ramesis to Succoth about six hundred thousand on foot that were men beside children No distinction then being made of the children into Men children and Infant children it is by Analogy of Scripture as well as Judgment of Reason to be understood of both And if it be to be understood of both then what right the men had to Baptism by this Text the Infants had the same and were to be baptized for the remission of sins and reception of the Holy Ghost as well as they And admit we say you and your children does intend the then present Jews and their posterity yet sure none can think the Apostle meant that the promise did belong to their posterity onely and not to their present children also For why should it belong to those that after should be their children and not to those that then were Why should these be skipt over and the other taken in And would not their after children be once in a state of infancy as well as their present Would they not be children before they could be men And at what period of their age must their right to the pomise first commence When must they begin to be receptive of the Holy Ghost Here 's no restriction or limitation made as to times any more then as to persons to shew that both then and afterward to all that were or should be their children as soon as ever and as long as ever any should be in that relation the promise did belong § 7. Again admit we interpret the children as meaning onely such of their children whether then or after as were in that capacity that the persons then present with the Apostles and to whom St. Peter spake were still the business will be done and effectually For St. Peter spake to that whole multitude that was come together upon the noise of what was happened unto the Apostles And to them he said be baptized every one of you So then every one of the then present multitude was capable of baptism Now is it imaginable that so great and so confused a multitude coming together on a sudden accident could consist all of persons qualified for age and understanding in principles of Christianity according to the Antipaedobaptistical measures of capability to receive baptism What were they all Adult persons no children no infants at least of three four five or six years old among them We may make an estimate of the matter by what we daily see amongst our selves on like occasions Where is it possible to find a Fair or Market or other solemn convention of any remark in which some of age under the Antipaedobaptists standard of capacity for baptizing shall not be immixed especially if that convention be sudden and tumultuary as this was when a whole Town flocks together as when a fire happens or any sray is fought or game is plaid or show is seen What running is there on such occasions of mothers and servants after their children to secure them from the injuries of the multitude and save them from being trodden under foot And we can imagine nothing less then a miracle in it if this assembly were not such And if such it were then what would we have more than an exhortation of the Prince of the Apostles with the concurrence of all his Coapostles to such a multitude to be baptized every one of them What is this less than a Precept for Infants baptism And though none of them were sucklings yet if any of them were Infants infancy is a state of some latitude though able to run about and play yet unable rationally to profess repentance towards God and Confession of Faith setforth by Anabaptists Anno 1660. pag. 6. faith towards our Lord Jesus Christ the case is all one as to the difference between us and the Antipaedobaptists and Infants baptism will hence be established § 8. Yea but these words are spoken to persons capable of repenting And they onely are bidden to be baptized who are capable of so doing § 9. I answer First it is plain the words were spoken to a confused multitude and it cannot be proved that there were none in it but such as were so capable no demonstration can be made of it that there were no Infants mixed with it And therefore when the Apostle says to that multitude be baptized every one of you it cannot be proved that he had those onely of them to be baptized which were capable of repenting § 10. Secondly the words were spoken of Persons capable of receiving the Holy Ghost but their children were capable of that and therefore of baptism the means to make them partakers thereof And sure their inability to repent could not render them incapable unless they had been persons that * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Greg. Naz. Orat. 40. p. 658. Edit Paris needed repentance and of whom it had been required that they should repent 'T is hard-heartedness sure and that to a high degree for want of that duty which they have not need nor ability to perform to deprive them of that benefit which they have need of and capability to receive to deny them the means of being made partakers of the Holy Ghost who as they do not act repentance so they need not to repent and need not to repent because they act no sin § 11. Thirdly the Reason inducing the Jews to be baptized is applied to their children as well as to themselves which were needless if their children were not capable of baptizing as well as themselves Be baptized every one of you Why For the promise is made to you and to your children No need of mentioning the childrens right to the Promise if that did not give them a right to the Means The Argument as applied to the Parents lies thus If the promise belong to you then the means But the former does belong to you Therefore the latter And therefore be baptized which is the means that you may receive the Holy Ghost which is the Promise And lies it not just so as applied to their Children If the promise belong to your Children then the means also belongs to them But the Promise belongs to them for it is made to them as well as unto you Therefore the means also belongs to them And therefore let your children have the means that they may not want the grace let them be baptized that they may receive the Holy Ghost § 12. Again that which he would have them baptized for namely remission of sins is sufficiently I
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
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
that he brings the danger of death is one because the Sacrament of baptism is the onely remedy provided for their help It was decreed by the Council of Gâ—runda that Infants in case of weakness should be baptized the same day that they were born And whereas Fidus a Presbyter was of opinion that Infants were not to be baptized the second nor third day after their birth nor indeed till the eighth day because till that day they were not anciently circumcised St. Cyprian shews him that not himself onely but a whole Council assembled together with him were of a far other mind judging that baptism was not to be denied to any of the sons of men and so not to any Infant how young soever but that they were to be admitted to it as soon as born § 8. Again it is true Infants cannot of themselves come to baptism Why but yet they may be brought to it by others Rather than that shall keep them away St. Aug. tells us our Mother the Church will lend Accommodat illis mater Ecclesia aliorum pedes ut veniant D. Aug. Serm. 10. de Verbis Aposteli them other mens feet to come withall And such is the mercy of our Saviour that he looks upon them as coming to him that are but brought to him by others Suffer saith he the little children to come unto me And yet they came to him no other way but even as our Infants may come that is by being brought to him So long then as Infants may be brought to be baptized so long they have a way of coming unto Baptism and so they are not incapable of it in that respect neither § 9. It is true again that they can neither seek after nor desire their own baptism a thing anciently expected from and performed by adult Persons But yet they can receive it when upon others desire and seeking of it for them it is administred to them And so they are not for that incapable of it There is nothing said in all the Scripture that I know of by which the inability of a subject to seek after or desire that or any other mercy renders him incapable of receiving it Yea it is part of the Gospels grace that God therein is found of those that seek him not that Christ unsought 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 D. Chrysost in Heb. 2. 16. Hom. 5. to for it came and sought and found and saved that which was lost pursuing after and taking hold on mans nature when it was fast and far flying away from him towards its own perdition § 10. When our Saviour enlargâ—d his Apostles Commâ—ssion to the taking into Discipleship not the nation of the Jews onely but all the nations of the world he did not put it into this form stand ye here still and be ready to admit into discipleship all of all nations that shall come to you and seek to you for baptism but go ye and disciple all nations baptizing them q. d. Depart ye hence into and amongst the Heathen nations of the world and make them disciples by baptizing them admitting so many of them unto baptism as shall accept that favour and not refuse that grace to be thereby made my disciples § 11. The children here in the Text that came that is were brought unto Christ desired nothing at all of him in their own names It were strange indeed that Infants such as they were should have any requests to make to him And their not desiring of a mercy was no hindrance to their receiving of one They came to him for entrance into the kingdom of God by baptism as we gather from what he alledges as a reason why he would have them suffered to come to him And he prepares them for such entrance Dr. Hammond Quaere of the Bapt. of Infants Sect. 22. De Confirmat c. 2. S. 5. by vouchsasing them the Ceremonies leading on unto baptizing he laid his hands upon them and blessed them whereupon in all probability followed his Disciples baptizing of them § 12. And if such infirmities and impediments were real hindrances unto mercy stood in need of how many of those that our Saviour in the Gospel had mercy on and healed had gone without their Cure Then persons See Gilberti Voctii Theolog. Polit. part â— l. 2. Tract 2. cap. 2. qu. 6. born deaf and dumb or fools though the children of parents in Covenant should never be baptized because they could never understand it never speak for it never desire it which I think no sober Christian will say CHAP. XXII Children not incapable of Baptism in regard of their having sin in them and yet not repenting of it § 1. FUrther it is true that they have Sin in them But that is so far from being any real hindrance to their baptizing that it should rather be a motive to it as indeed it is a reason for it namely that they may have their sin remitted by it Baptism being a Sacrament especially ordained for the Sacramentum ad hoc specialiter inâ—â—â—tutum ut per ipsum peccatorum sordes mundentur Aquin. 3. q 68. a. 4. c. cleansing away of the filth of sin as Aquinas saith and is further confirmed both by Peter's exhorting the Jews to be baptized for the remission of sins Acts 2. 38. and Ananias exhorting Saul to be baptized and wash away his sins Acts 22. 16. § 2. Sin indeed in persons resolved not to forsake their sins but to persist in sinning may be an hindrance but not in those that are not so resolved And of Peccatoribus voluntatem peccandi in pâ—ccato perseverandi propositum habentibus baptismus minime conferendus est Aquin. Sum. 3. q. 68. a. 4. 2. Infants it cannot be said that they are so § 3. And if the forepast sins many and great sins of mens own acting be no hinderance to their baptizing as we see by the Persons baptized in the Scripture of whom some had been Idolatrous Heathens others Christ-killing Jews c. much less can that one sin under the guilt whereof Infants do lie not acted personally by them but judicially imputed to them hinder them from Baptism as St. Cyprian reasons the case in Porro autem si etiam gravissimis delictoribus in Deum multum ante peccantibus cum postca crediderint remissio peccatorum datur à baptismo atque gratia nemo probibeâ—ur quanto magis probiberi non debet infans qui recens natus nil peccavit nisi quod secundum Adam carnaliter natus contagium antiquae mortis primâ nativitate contraxit Qui ad remissam peccatorum accipiendam hoc ipso facilius accedit quod illi remittuntur non propria sed aliena peccata D. Cyprian l. 3. Ep. 8. their behalf And so neither in this respect are Infants incapable of Baptism § Yea but they do not repent them of their sin Nor is it required of them that they should The Scripture
institution of baptism but onely an insinuation by Deed that we should be baptized aâ— his saying to Nicodemus Joh. 3. Except a man be born again c. was an Insiâ—uation of it by Word And Mr. Calvin * In co jam plusquam puâ—riliter labintur quâ—d primam Baptismi institutionem inde derivant quem ab exordio praedicationis suae Apostolis Christus administrandum manâ—averat Calvin Inst l. 4. c. 16. S. 27. saith Christ commanded his Apostles to administer it form the very beginning of his own preaching and that it is a great piece of childishness to fetch the Institution of baptism from those Texts And truly though the precise hour of its institution be not infallibly to be declared from the Gospel yet from the Gospel it is most evident that it was instituted by Christ before his resurrection or passion and then those words in Matth. 28 aâ—d Mark 16 cannot be its institution And that of John 4. 1. will put it out of doubt where long before our Saviours Resurrection or â—eath even while John Baptist was yet alive we read of our Saviours making and baptizing disciples that is receiving disciples by Baptism Which Ceremony yet he himself did not after the taking in of his Apostles to be his Disciples administer by himself but by his Disciples Now certainly they did it not of themselves but by his Institution which is nothing else but his prescribing and appointing the use of it to that end whereto it was to be used Whence it is said of those whom his Disciples baptized that he baptized them that being reckoned as done by him that was done by his appointment Now if it were practiced by the Disciples of our Saviour and by his appointment in his life then could not those words in Matth. and Mark be the Institution of it which were not spoken by him till after his death But that must be the time when ever it was when our Saviour instructed empowred and appointed his Disciples to baptize and the words what ever they were whereby he did instruct empower and appoint them to do it must be the words of Institution And accordingly the learned Gabriel Biel decides the Case saying that Baptism was not instituted Institutus est ergo baptismus prius quando baptizandi officium discipulis commissum fuerat licet quan â—o ubi determinatè ex Scriptura non sit certum Gab. Biel. when Christ was baptized nor in that saying of his to Nicodemus Except a man be born again nor in the last of Matihew when he commanded his Disciples to Go teach all Nations c. nor in 4 lib. Sent. dist 3. qu. unica in the last of Mark when he said He that believeth and is baptized nor on the Cross when out of his side came blood and water nor when he sent his disciples by two and two preach but before when the office of baptizing was committed to his Disciples though when and where that was done is not determinately certain out of the Scripture And so those Texts can be of no force in the world against Infants Baptism so Sed propugnaculum omnium munitisimum in ipsa Baptismi institutione se habere gloriantur quam ex capite Matthaei ultimo petunt c. Calvin Inst l. 4. c. 16. S. 27. Inexpugnabilis baec ratio qua tantopere considunt Id. ib. S. 28. as to gather thence that by the Institution of our Saviour Infants are excluded from Baptism And then one of the Antipaedobaptists strongest supports of their Error is fallen to the ground § 4. Well but what were those words then I answer they were a Confirming of that Commission which the Discâ—ples of our Saviour Baptismi Confirmatio fuit facto quando non solum sanguis sed aqua exivit de latere ejus Verbo quando post resurrectionem misit eos dicens Deceteâ—omnes gentes baptizames eos c. Guillerm Vorrilong sup l. 4. Sent. dist 3. art 3. fol. 123. b. col 1. Caterum Apostoles non jam ad solâ—s Jâ—â—â—os mictit sâ—d ad omâ—â—â— genâ—â— Theophyl in loc had formerly received and an Enlarging of it to a giving of them power to become his Apostles Legates or Embassadors to forreign Nations so as that whereas in his life they were onely to go to the people of the Jews Matth. 10. 5 6. after his death they were to go unto the Gentiles even into all the world to preach the Gospel to the whole creation and make Disciples of all nations § 5. But where then is the Institutioin of Baptism set down and in what form of words was it instituted I said before it was no where particularly set down in Scripture when the Institution of Baptism was Nor is it that I can meet Institutio autem baptismi fuit 1 Facâ—o quan do Christus venit in in Juâ—â—am Joh. 3. baptizaâ—â—â— 2 Verbo quando misit disciâ—â—los pradicare ut creâ—itur baptizare Luc. 10. Guiller Vorrilong in 4. l. Sâ—nt dist 3. art 3. fol. 123. with how ever Guillerm Vorrilong say it was instituted by Deed when Christ came into Judea and baptized Joh. 3. By Word when Christ sent his Disciples to preach and as it is believed to baptize Luk. 10. in which latter he is contradicted by Gabriel Biel. And in what Form of words it was instituted is more than I or I think any man living can tell The Scriptuâ—e is not nor was ever meant to be a compleat Register of all either the words or actings of Christ how absurdly soever some will not allow of any thing as said or done by him but what is expresly written there how credibly soever it may be otherwise shewn to have â—een said or done by him And if the Form of words whereby our Saviour did institute Baptism be no moreâ—k own then the Time of its institution then can there no Argument be drawn from thence whereby Infants can be excluded from Baptism § 6. But how then shall we know what the Institution of Christ was and so judge by that what Persons are to be baptized I answer very well and by the consideration of two things The first is what was in use among the lews before our Saviours time The second is what has been the use among Christians since the time of our Saviour And if we find the oâ—e agreeing with the other and answering to it as face answers to face in water then there can be no other judged but that as the one did agree with the other so our Saviour did ordain it should be appointing that what was in use before should be still in use as it was save where he did improve or alter any thing therein Now whether we look at what was in use among the Jews before our Saviours time or what has been in use among Christians since hâ—s time we shall find all making for Infants Baptism § 7. And by the way you are
as so came became Proselytes to and entred into Gods kingdom and that was to baptize them for he that commands the end doth even without naming them command the means His word Mâ—tth 28. 19. is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 make them Disciples baptizing them i. e. admit them to Discipleship by the Ceremony of Baptism let them come to me into my Church by Baptism that door of their Admission that Sacrament of their Initiation thereinto § 17. And in that it is not said that our Saviour did baptize them but onely took them up into his arms and laid his hands upon them and blessed them it will not hence follow that he did neither baptize them nor appoint nor allow of their baptizing For to argue that he did not do nor appoint nor allow of this or that because it is not said that he did do or appoint or allow of it is not good there is no consequence at all in it For he might allow of appoint and do more than is written that which is written of his sayings and doings being exceedingly short of comprehending and reporting all he said and did which were so many that St. John that modest Disciple is fain to use an Hyperhole to set out the numerousness of them saying that if they should be written every one he supposed that even the world it self could not contain the Books that should be written Jâ—ha 21. 25. § 18. Who doubts but Jesus primo ad te mpus baptizavit non quoslibet sed suos discipulos propria manu quo facto commisit e is baptizandi officium ipse vacabat doctrinae Dionys Carchus in Joh. 4. that the Tnelâ—e Disciplâ—s of our Saviour were baptized by him Dionysius Carthusianus affirms it that he baptized them and with his own hand And yet as Tertullian de Baptismo saith tinctos non invenimus we do not find their baptizing in Scripture it is no where expressed that he did baptize them or any of them As therefore it doth not prove that his Disciples were not baptized because it is not written that he did baptize them so it doth not prove that he did not baptize these Infants because his baptizing of them is not written § 19. Again who doubts but that our Saviour himself was circumcised And yet it is no where expressed in Scripture that he was circumcised It is said indeed that when eight days were accomplished for the circumcising of the Child his name was called Jesus Luke 2. 21. But it is not said that upon the eighth day when it was come he was circumcised As therefore it doth not prove that our Saviour was not circumcised because his being circumcised is not written so doth it not prove that these Infants were not baptized because it is not written that they were baptized by him § 20. Lastly who doubts but that our Saviour did at his last Supper communicate with his Disciples eat the bread and drink the cup with them And yet it is no where written that he did so It is said indeed that he blessed the bread and brake it and gave it to his Disciples and said to them Take cat But it is not said that he himself did eat it Iâ— is said that he likewise gave the cup to them and said Drink ye all of it But it is not said that he drunk of it himself And his saying Matth. 26. 29. that he would not thenceforth drink of the fruit of the Vine does but give reason to suppose it and is no affirmation of it As therefore it doth not prove that our Saviour did not communicate with his Disciples because it is not expressed in Scripture that he did it so it doth not prove that he did not baptize these Infants because it is not written that he did baptize them § 21. Rather the very great favours that he is written to have shewed these Infants as to take their part against his own Dâ—sciples even so far as for their sakes to rebuke them to call the Infants to him to take them up iâ—to his arms to lay his hands upon them and bless them should argue that he did vouchsafe them all the favours that they came to him for more than is expressed And it is evident that the baptizing of them was one in as much as Baptism is as it were the door of entrance into that kingdom into which they came to him for entrance and into which he commanded they should when they came or were brought be admitted in saying Suffer the little children to come unto me and forbid them not And would he deny them that one that had vouchsafed to them all the rest § 22. And if he did not baptize them himself that is no wonder For he did not constantly baptize himself all that he admitted to be his Disciples Though from John Baptists saying I have need to be baptized of thee I may suppose that he did baptize some and if no more yet at least his Twelve disciples by whose hands after that he had baptized them he did baptize others Whence it is said John 4. 2. that Jesus himself baptized not but his Disciples Though he made Disciples which imports his admitting men to be Disciples and receiving them to proselytism by the Ceremony thereof which was Baptism whence he is as well said to have baptized as to have made more disciples than John i. e. to have made by baptizing yet the particular act of baptizing them was a thing which he did most usually if if not constantly transact by the hands of his Disciples And by their hands he might baptize these Infants though he did not use his own hands to that work § 23. And besides what hath been said upon other accounts to shew the probability of it his vouchsafing to them Imposition of hands that Ceremony which that renowned Champion of the Church of England Dr. Hammond saith in the ancient Church was preparatory Quaere of the Baptizing of Infants Sect. 22. Explanatâque eidem divinâ vitâ ut ita dicam conversatione ex eo praeterea quaerit num ita instituat vivere cum promisit manum â—jus capiti admovetâ—t signoque edito Sacerdotibus imperat ut viri atque sponsoris nomina perseribant c. Dionys Areop Hierarch lib. c. 4. and antecedent to Baptism is a strong argument for if not a clear evidence of his admitting them to Baptism What can be thought but that he did vouchsafe them that who did admit them unto all foregoing that and that was preparatory unto that What other can be imagined but that he gave them over to his Disciples to be baptized with their hands who had vouchsafed them the Imposition of his own hands For though it be not said he baptized them yet it is said he did that that was the next to it and the utmost that he can be conceived to have done to any whom he did not baptize himself but gave over to
though they had no positive Right unto Baptism § 2. The Antipaedo baptists main ground on which they build their Opinion of the Unlawfulness of Infants Baptism taken in its full strength lies thus That which no one Text in all the Scriptures either commands or gives example of that it Unlawfull But in all the Scripture there is no one Text that either commands or gives an example of Infants Baptism Therefore it is Unlawfull § 3. In contradiction to this ground and to shew the falseness of it I thus argue against the first part of it If nothing be lawfull to be practiced but what some Text of Scripture doth command or give example of then nothing will be lawfull to be believed but what some Text of Scripture doth affirm For it is as necessary that we should have a Scripture Affirmation for what we believe as a Scripture Command or Example for what we practice And this I think no Antipaedo baptist will deny And if so then many things that we now believe and practice and shall become Hereticks and Schismaticks if we do not believe and practice them shall become unlawfull to us because there is in all the Scriptures no one Text that affirms the one or commands or gives example of the other as I shall shew in both particulars § 4. And first in matters of Faith First that the Son as God is equall to the Father this we believe and I hope the Antipaedobaptists do not disbelieve it And yet there is no one Scripture that doth expresly affirm it So that as Man he was circumcised this we believe and our Antipaedobaptists do not deny and yet as we have already noted there is no one Scripture that doth expresly affirm it § 5. Again that the Holy Ghost is God this we believe and I would hope our Antipaedobaptists did believe it too And yet there is no one Scripture that doth expresly affirm it Also that the Holy Ghost proceedeth from the Father and the Son this we believe and our Antipaedobaptists do not that I know deny it And yet there is no one Text of Scripture that doth expresly affirm it § 6. Thirdly that the Three Persons in the Trinity the Father the Son and the Holy 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 D. Basil de Spir. Sancto cap. 27. p. 213. Ghost are but One God this we believe and our Antipaedobaptists have not that I know of declared themselves to deny it And yet there is no one Scripture that doth expresly affirm it § 7. Fourthly even but this to add no more that it is the duty of Children to love their Parents this we believe and sure the Anabaptists will not deny it And yet where is there one Text in all the Scripture that doth expresly affirm it § 8. Now if we do and may believe these things and ought to believe them having sufficient ground for our belief of them even good Consequence drawn from some one or more Texts of Scripture compared together though no one Text of Scripture doth singly and alone in terms affirm them then may we as well practice some things which no one Text of Scripture doth expresly command or exemplifie so long as we can deduce that practice from any one or more Texts of Scripture compared together And the contrary Doctrine which is the Antipadobaptists ground for the Unlawfulness of Infants baptism is erroneous and absurd § 9. Again in matters of Practice That Women as well as Men ought to receive the Si quid valerent id genus argumenta mulieres pariter Coena Domini interdicendae essent quas Apostolorum seculo ad cam fuisse admissas non legimus Calvin Instit l. 4. c. 16. S. 8. Sacrament of the Supper of the Lord this we believe and practice and the Antipaedobaptâ—sts too And yet there is no one Text of Scripture that any more expresly commands or exemplifies that than Infants baptism is commanded or exemplified § 10. So that the weekly Lords day is to be sanctified or kept holy this we believe and practice and the Antipaedobaptists too And yet there is no one Text of Scripture that commands it Nor is there in the Scripture any example of its sanctification but what may agree to any other besides it It may indeed be shown that some where they did meet on that day and perform holy duties but it may also be shown that other where they did meet and perform holy duties on other days and if one conclude for the one then will the other conclude for the other and so we shall either have all holy days or none and then not that for any either command that enjoyns it or example that infersit § 11. So that Men or Women may be baptized either naked or cloathed we believe and the Church hath practiced And the Anabaptists I suppose do believe and have practiced both ways And yet there is no one Text of Scripture that commands baptizing either way neither is there an example of any persons being either way baptized extant in Scripture Of the going of some into the water of their being baptized therewith we find mention but of their going into it or being baptized with it naked or clothed there is nothing mentioned So that let the Antipaedobaptist say which way men and women should be baptized whether naked or clothed yet still here will be a circumstance at least in practice allowed and used by them as well as by our selves without any Scripture Command for it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 D. Bas de Sp. Sanâ—to c. 27. or Example of it So that men may be dipped either once or thrice at their baptizing we believe and it hath in the Church been practiced both ways But what Scripture command or example have we to determine that circumstance either way § 12. Now if both we and the Antipaedobaptists do rightly believe and lawfully practice what we believe of and practice in these things without any Scripture command or example to enjoyn or direct us then their assertion of the Unlawfulness of what is neither commanded nor exemplified in Scripture is erroneous and full of absurdity Which yet I shall further make to appear upon other accounts § 13. I think any rational man will grant that there is no more necessity of having a Divine Command for every thing we take up into our practice then there is of having a Divine Countermand for the laying down of any thing practiced by a Command Divine Yea of the two there is more reason we should have an express command from God to leave off what himself had once commanded than there is to have a command for the beginning of a practice never commanded by him For that which he never expressed any command for may yet be agreeable to his secret will and so not only lawfull but acceptable to him And this may be shewn in sundry cases and particularly in the Jews ordaining and keeping the Feasts of
Dedication and of Purim But the leaving off to do what God hath once commanded cannot but be against his revealed will and so neither acceptable to him nor lawfull unless there be good and competent ground for the What may be a sufficient ground in this case See Dr. Stilling fleets Irenic part 1. c. 1. S. 3. p. 12 13. leaving it off and a sufficient evidence of the ceasing of that obligation to it which was once by vertue of a Divine command upon it If then there may be any thing shewn which was once expresly commanded by God and practiced in obedience to that command whose practice is now left off and by the Anabaptists themselves without any express command to the contrary and yet lawfully then it will follow and convincingly I hope that there may be something practiced by us which yet never was in Scripture expresly commanded us and so Infants Baptism may be lawfull enough though never expresly in Scripture commanded Now I instance in the Sanctification of the seventh day and in the Circumcision of Infants at eight days old both expresly commanded both accordingly practiced and both now left off to be observed and yet without any express command for the disobserving of either I speak all this while of things sacred and not merely civill or naturall And say an express command because I find nothing else will satisfie Else enough hath long enough and often enough been offered to shew the lawfulness of Infants Baptism Which if nothing else had been offered is sufficiently proved by this Argument following which they are as far from being ignorant of as they are from being able to answer § 14. That which is no sin cannot be unlawfull Infants Baptism is no sin Therefore it is not unlawfull That Infants baptism is no sin either to the Baptizer or Baptized is plain because it is no transgression of any Law For that which is no transgression of a Law is no sin Infants Baptism is no trangression of any Law Therefore it is no sin That that can be no sin which is no transgression of any Law is most evident not onely because St. John hath positively defined sin to be the transgression of a law 1 John 3. 4. but also because St. Paul hath concluded negatively that where no Law is there is no transgression Rom. 4. 15. And these men that conclude Infants baptism unlawfull which must needs signifie its being sinfull I wonder how or whence they come to know it and conclude it Sure they do not know more than St. Paul did And his Rule to know sin by and so what is lawfull and what unlawfull was the Law For saith he by the Law is the knowledge of sin Rom. 3. 20. And I had not known sin but by the Law for I had not known lust i. e. had not known it to be a sin except the Law had said Thou shalt not covet Rom. 7. 7. So then Infants Baptism being no transgression of any law because there is no law against it for there can be no transgression of a law which is not it must follow that it can be no sin and so cannot be unlawfull § 15. The Scripture I say being laid down to be the Rule of Lawfull and Vnlawfull in sacred Things as that which the Scripture commands is not onely lawfull but necessary and that which the Scripture forbids is not onely unnecessary but also sinâ—full so that which the Scripture neither commands nor forbids is neither necessary nor yet sinfull but of a middle nature betwixt both and that is Lawfull So that though the Scripture had never spoke word either in particular or in general of Infants baptism yet it must have been granted lawfull and could not have been concluded unlawfull because neither in particular nor in general hath the Scripture spoke any one word or title against the baptizing of Infants CHAP. XXXII Infants Baptism no Addition to the Word of God The Scriptures objected on that account considered and cleared § 1. YEa but argues the Antipaedobaptist Nothing is lawfull that is not commanded in Scripture Infants Baptism is not commanded in Scripture Therefore it is unlawfull But why is nothing lawfull that is not commanded in Scripture Because the doing of any uncommanded thing is an Adding to the word all additions to the word are forbidden by the Word and so unlawfull Now the Scriptures that forbid all additions to the word are many Deut. 4. 2. Deut. 12. 32. Prov. 30. 6. Isa 1. 12. § 2. But what if not every doing of an uncommanded thing be an adding to the word Or what if the baptizing of an Infant suppose it never so much uncommanded be no such addition to the word as is forbidden Why then Infants Baptism for all its supposed uncommandedness may be no sin And so the whole force of the Argument falls to the ground But because the best trial hereof will be a particular view of the Scriptures objected on this account I will therefore instantly address my self to the consideration of them and from that view I shall hope to find as that not all doing of a thing beside the word is an addition to the word so that Infants baptism is none of those culpable additions to the Word which are forbidden by it § 3. And the first is that in Deut. 4. 2. Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you neither shall you diminish ought from it that you may kâ—ep the Commandments of the Lord your God which I command § 4. To this I answer first that the Adding here forbidden cannot possibly be so understood as to make it unlawfull to do any thing even appertaining to the worship of God which is not expresly commanded in the word of God And that will be enough to overthrow their ground and secure Infants Baptism from the guilt of unlawfulness For it is evident that the word here commanded to Israel to which they were not to add and from which they were not to diminish are the Statutes and the judgments which Moses taught them to do ver 1. namely in this Book of Deuteronomy and the several chapters and verses of it and however in the whole book of the Mosaical Law Now it is most certain that those Statutes and judgments as they lie dispersed in the whole book of Moses Law do reach unto all sorts of duties of common life towards our selves and towards our brethren as well as of worship towards God If then all doing any uncommanded thing be an adding to the word and that adding to it which is here forbidden by it then all other uncommanded actions as well as uncommanded acts of worship and service towards God must hereby be forbidden and so be unlawfull and we must no more do any action of common life than any act of worship and service towards God but what is expresly commanded in the word for fear of incurring the guilt of adding to the
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
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
birth is to be read in the Câ—ntinuator of Sigebert § 29. From hence let us take another step upwards into the Eleventh Century And in that Age the Centuriators tell us they baptized Cent. 11. cap. 6. Col. 260. Infants even presently after their birth if weak And then instance from Schatnaburgensis in the Emperesses Son baptized within three days after his birth by reason of his weakness and the fear of his death as also in a Son of the Queen of Moguntia who was baptized presently after his birth and died presently after his baptism and was buried at Hartisburg And to the baptizing of Infants St. Anshelm * About An. 1086. Hinc ostendimur mortui esse peccato quia in Christe morte baptizati sumus profecto parvuli qui baptizantur in Christo peccato meriuntur qui in morte ipsius baptizantur D. Anshelm in 6. ad Rom. Nec parâ—uli de quibuslibet sanctis justisque procreati originalis peccati reatu absoluuntur nisi in Christo fuerint baptizali Id. in cap. 7. Iae ad Corinth Per sidem scilicet confessionem parentum in baptismâ— liberantur aâ—iabolo parvuli qui necdum per se capere vel ali quid bâ—ni mali possunt facere Id. in 15 cap. Matth. in that Age gives testimony saying that even the little ones truly who are baptized into Christ do die unto sin because they are baptized into his death § 30. Hence advance we to the Tenth Century And in that the Centuriators also tell us Cent. 10. c. 10. Col. 292 293 294 295. they baptized Infants And they instance from Bonsinius in Stâ—phen the Son of Geysa Duke of Hungary who had Theodatus Prince of Apulia for his Godfather whom the Infant afterward called Tata which signifies Father Also from Helmoldus they tell us of the Emperor Othos being Godfather to a little Son of Herold King of Denmark at his baptizing and from Vincentius of a bastard got by Edgar King of England on a Nun and baptized an Infant though not till the seven years penance imposed by Dunstan on his Father were ended And of Infants being held in the right arms at their anointing after Baptism And to the baptizing of Parvulos baptizandos Smaragdus docet Sinite parvulos venire ad me talium est enim regnum coelorum Hanc enim sanctam puram innocentem infantiam per baptismi gratiam casta mater gignit Ecclesia Smarag in Ep. Pet. c. 2. ap Centuriat cent 10. c. 4. Col. 188. Hoc verbum fidei tantum valet in Ecclesia ut per ipsum credentem offerentem benedicentem tingentem etiam tantillum mundet infantem quamvis nondum valentem corde credere ad justitiam ore confiteri ad salutem Id. ibid. Col. 187. Infants Smaragdus about Anno 990 gave witness grounding his opinion as they tell us on our Saviours words in my Text Suffer little children to come unto me for of such is the kingdom of God and saying further that this holy pure and innocent infancy is begot by the chast Mother the Church through the grace of Baptism § 31. From the Tenth ascend we to the Ninth Century And here we have Hincmarus Bishop of Rheims severely rebuking another Cen. 9. c 4. Col 40. Hincmarus Archiepiscopus Rhemenfis Scribit Anno 860. Alsted Theol. Polem Hincmarus Bishop of Laudum to whom he was Uncle for denying baptism to Infants The account on which he denied it that Cent. 9. cap. 4. Col. 443. none stumble at that was not any opinion of the unlawfulness of Infants Baptism But as the Centuriators tell us he did it ob suas privatas injurias stirred up thereto by his private injuries for which he excommunicated all the Priests of his Church and interdicted them the saying of Masses baptizing of Infants absolving all Penitents and burying the dead For which he was condemned in a Synod Cent. 9. c. 9. Col. 443. at Acciniacum called by Carolus Calvus Anno 870 and forced under his own hand to promise obedience to his Sovereign and Metropolitan After which by the Synod of Trecas Ib. Col. 447. called by Pope John the the Ninth under Carolus Crassus he was restored Anno 878 However the Bishop of Rheims resented the other Interdicts it seems he most highly resented the interdiction of Baptism to Infants pleading for it from Scriptures both of the Old and New Testament and in particular this Text of mine Suffer little children to come unto me and then expostulates with his Cousin saying And do you hinder little ones to be offered unto the Lord Ait illis Sinite parvulos venire ad me nè prohibi critis eos Et tu prohibes offeri domino parvulos Cent. 9. c. 4. Col. 140. And then tells him how from the time of the Nicene Council he had never any where heard of such a thing done and that he ought to have been afraid to do that alone which never any Christian had dared to do And then he backs the practice of baptizing Infants with the Authorities of Pope Siricius the African Council St. Leo and St. Gregory § 32. In the same Century flourished Haymo Bishop of Halberstad Anno 850. Alsted Theol. Polem Parculi in baptismate mundantur Ilaymo super 5. ad Rom. ap Cent. 9. c. 4. Col. 143. Cousin to Bede and Scholar to Alcuinus And he expresly saith that little children are cleansed in Baptism § 33. Somewhat before him Anno 830 flourished Rabanus Maurus first Abbot of Fulda Alsted Theol. Polem and then Bishop of Ments a man of such learning that as Alsted saith neither had Italy any like him nor Germany any equal to him And this so learned a man gives testimony in this Age for Infants baptism saying Plainly no man ought to doubt but that in Baptism before the Infant rise from Sic planè nemo duâ— bitare debet quod in alveo baptismi priusquam Infans 〈◊〉 fonte surgat Spiritus Sanctus in cum qui nascitur adveniat etsi non videatur Raban de Sacram. Euchar. c. 10. apud Centur. 9. c. 4. Col. 144. the Font the Holy Spirit comes into him that is born though his coming be invisible § 34. In this Century about Anno. 850 flourished also Walafridus Strabo really a witness for Infants Baptism how much soever he be appealed unto as a witness against it His testimony I have before produced in the Fifteenth Century and therefore shall not here repeat it but shall conclude this Century with what I find of this matter in Sir Roger Twisdens Historical Vindication of the Church of England namely that whereas it had been formerly ordained by the Laws of Ina that children should be baptized within 30 days after birth and some Priests were negligent performers of that duty therefore by the Laws of Ed. and Guthrun it was ordained That such Guthrun about Anno 880. as were not prepared or denied the baptizing
born till he be baptized into Christ and a child of wrath through the uncleanness of his natural birth till he be made a child of grace by baptismal regeneration Can we think but he was for the baptizing of Infants who saith it is praescribed that none is capable of salvation without baptism especially being the Lord hath positively said Except a man be born of water he has not life and who from a comparison of this Definition of our Saviours with that Law which he gave for the discipling of nations by baptizing them gathers a necessity of baptism to salvation upon the account of which necessity believers were baptized And if they were baptized themselves and upon the account of a necessity of baptism unto salvation then surely they would have so much charity for their children as to baptize them and not leave them in a state of perdition It is plain therefore that he was rather for than against Infants Baptism § 79. And as he was for the baptizing of Infants so was also Irenaeus in the same Age but before him one that had been an Auditor of Polycarp Bishop of Smyrna and is by St. Hierom lookt on as a man of the Apostolical times and so a most competent witness as Dr. Hammond argues of the Apostolical Def. of Inf. Bapt. c. 4. §. 2. pag. 96. doctrine and practice especially being as Tertullian saith a most accurate searcher of all doctrines and one that sealed his belief with his blood being martyred at Lyons in the year 197. And what saith he Why he saith that Christ came to save all by himself all Omnes enim venit per semetipsum salvare omnes inquam qui per eum renascuntur in Deum infantes parvulos pucros juvenes seniores D. Irenaei advers Haeres l. 2. c. 39. p. 192. See Dr Haem Bapt. of Inf. Sect. 40. I say who are born again unto God by him Infants and little ones and children and young men and elder men Here it is plain that Infants and little ones and children are in the number of those that are born again unto God through Christ Now that by being born again unâ—o God is meant by being baptized I suppose none doubts that has read and understands as the Catholick Church hath ever understood that of our Saviour John 3. 5. Except a man Quod verbum Christi ad Nicodemum intendie aquam sensibilent is a position of Thom. Waldens de Sacramentis Tom. 2. q. 102. fol. 104. col 2. be born again of water and of the spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God or is acquainted with the Scripture notion of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 regeneration the laver whereof is Baptism § 80. In the same Age flourished Hyginus Bishop of Rome and about the same time being martyred Anno Dom. 144 And he as Platina affirms out of the ancient Records Voluit unum saltem Patrimum unamque Matrimam baptismo interesse sic enim eos appellant qui infantes tenent dum baptizantur Platina in Vitâ Hygini appointed that there should be at least one Godfather and one Godmother present at Baptism Now who he meant by Godfather and Godmother Platina informs us while he tells us that so they call those that hold Infants when they are baptized Godfathers and Godmothers appointed to be at the baptizing of Infants supposes Infants baptized § 81. Lastly Justin Martyr or who ever wrote that Ancient piece intituled Quaest Respons ad Orthâ—dox stating the difference 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 S. Just Martyr Quaest Resp. ad Orth. 56. pag. 424. Edit Paris 1615. between Infants dying baptized and unbaptized saith it is this that the baptized obtain the good things that come by baptism but the unbaptized obtain them not A proof this clear and full as can be desired of the baptizing of Insants in that Age the age wherein that Author lived the very next to that of the Apostles if Justin Martyr were that Author To which it is not now needfull I should add any thing unless I should add what follows in the same Author touching the Baptized Infants namely that they are vouchsafed the advantages of baptism through the faith of those that bring them to be baptized § 82. And thus I have shewn you that it hath been the Custom and Practice of the Universal Church of Christ in all the Ages thereof from the present to the Primitive Times even up to that very Age wherein the Apostles lived to baptize Infants CHAP. XXVIII Infants Baptism a Tradition Apostolical § 1. I Am now to examine how this could come to be practice of the Universal Church And truly it can be no other but the Authority of the Apostles Tradition or Practice in their own Age. The Apostles some way by word or writing taught Vniversa Ecclesia quae Apostolicam proximè secuta est infantes baptizavit Igitur dubium non est quinmota Scripturae authoritate praxi Apostolicâ hoc secerit Wendelin Thelog Christ l. 1. cap. 13. Explic. Thess 11. others so to do or did so themselves and so made themselves an example for others to do the like or both or else it is not imaginable how such a practice should not onely be received so generally into the Church and so early too but continue also in it through all Ages down from their time to our own without interruption I will therefore speak of both And first of Tradition § 2. Tradition notes the delivery of a thing to be received into our belief or practice See Dr. Ham. Bapt of Inf. Sect. 99 100. That where 't is genuine and Apostolical is of mighty moment in religious concerns And that if any is truly such which hath been received and owned for such by the Church in all the Ages of it from the primitive to the present times either openly in profession or tacitly in practice § 3. To this is referred the Sanctification of the Lords day To this is referred the admission of Women to the Lords Table To this is referred the Canon of Scripture And to this is referred the Baptizing of Infants § 4. Let no man whisper you in the ear saith St. Augustin with any other doctrines a Quid de parvulis pueris si ex Adam aegroti Nam ipsi portantur ad Ecclesiam Nemo ergo vobis susurret doctrinas alienas Hoc Ecclesia semper habuit semper tenuit hoc a ma orum fide percipit buâ— usqâ—â— in sinâ—m perseâ—â—renter â—â—â—â—dit D. Aug. Serm. 10. de Vâ—â—v Apost This the Church hath always had hath always held this from the Faith of our Fore elders it hath received and this it keeps perseveringly unto the end And for as much as the Universal Church doth maintain it being always held in the Church and not brought into it by any Councils decree b Quod uniâ—â—rsâ—z tâ—nâ—t â—â—â—lâ—sia noc Conciliis institutum sed semper
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
hope proved to be needful for children as well as parents And where there is the same need why should we not think he designed the same help When he bad the Parents be baptized for the remission of sins can it be thought his meaning was that the children should rather go without remission than have baptism as if he had some compassion indeed for the parents but none for the children § 13. But if he meant their childâ—en as well as themselves should be baptized why did he not say Be baptized both you and your children but onely be baptized your selves without any mention of their children I answer It was needless so to say because as one that well understood the Genius of that people he knew that they would look upon their children as heirs of the promise as well as themselves and so to be as capable of and to have as good right to the means that would make them partahers of the promise as themselves and because he intended particularly to urge that reason for their baptizing which would be as appliable to their children as to themselves and which they accordingly observing the custom He that would see this Text further open'd and urged may consult Mr. Nathaniel Stephen's Precept for the Baptism of Infants of their nation to circumcise and baptize the children as well as parents would apply unto them § 14. And thus I have shewn the Practice of this Church to baptize Infants not to be inconsistent with that Article of the Church which is urged against it And I hope I have sufficiently answered the Antipaedo baptists Arguments against the Lawfulness of Infants baptism and defended it against them CHAP. XXXVI A Reply to an Answer made by H. D. to the Objection from the no express Command or Example in Scripture of Womens receiving the Lords Supper referring to Chap. 31. Sect. 9. Obj. THe Objection saith H D that is usually brought under this Head is That there is no express Command or Example for Womens receiving the Lords Supper yet who doubts of a good ground from consequential Scripture for their so doing Answ In answer whereto you 'll find there is both Example and Command for the Practice viz. 1. From Example Acts 1. 14. where we read that Mary and other women were gathered together and that these women together with the rest of the Disciples were altogether in one place and continued stedfastly in the Apostles Doctrine and Fellowship and breaking of Bread and Prayers chap. 2. 42 44. It being expresly said That all that believed were together 2. It appears from Command 1 Cor. 11. 28. Let a man examine himself and so let him eat The Greek word signifieth a Man or a Woman the word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a word of the Common Gender as appears 1 Tim. 2. 4 5. There is one Mediator betwixt God and Man and Woman there is the same word used Gal. 3. 2. There is neither Male nor Female but ye are all one in Christ Let but as good proof appear from Command and Example for Infants Baptism and it shall suffice Thus far H. D. Edit 2. p. 95 96. Having my self with others made this Objection and finding nothing replied by Mr. Wills to this Answer made thereto I think it convenient to take away the force thereof by the ensuing Reply And first I say that the Allegation that Mary and other Women were gathered together Acts 1. 14 will not prove that there is express example for womens receiving the Lords Supper For though the Apostles continuing with one accord in prayer and supplication with the women and Mary the Mother of Jesus be mentioned there yet is no mention there made of their continuing or so much as being with them at the Sacrament of the Supper of the Lord. Nor is it there or any where expresly said that these women together with the rest of the Disciples were altogether in one place and continued stedfastly in the Apostles Doctrine and Fellowship and breaking of Bread and Prayers It is said indeed Acts 1. 15. That in those days Peter stood up in the midst of the Disciples But how does it appear that any Women were among them at that Assembly They are not mentioned And the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Disciples does not necessarily by the force of its literal import imply them For that is the proper word for male or he-disciples there are two other words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for female or she-disciples and if the she-disciples had been intended why was not one of the words proper for them used to include them But further the Apostles address is expresly to men and not to women His words are not so much as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which might be thought to take in the women but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 men in a word whose literal import excludes women and brethren So that unless by Men and Brethren must be meant and expresly too or else all is nothing women and sisters here will be no room for the women here Again in Acts 2. 1. They that were all-with one accord in one place are mentioned 〈◊〉 word of the masculine gender 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So in ver 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So in ver 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So in ver 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 again So in ver 7. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So in ver 13. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So in ver 15. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 again So in ver 37. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all expressions necessarily implying men but not necessarily implying women if not necessarily excluding them And who was it that continued stedfastly in the Apostles Doctrine and Fellowship and breaking of Bread and Prayer ch 2. 42. the women It is not so expressed But 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 expresly the Males that gladly received his word which 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 continued stedfastly in the Apostles Doctrine c. To whom before their conversion the Apostle addresses his speech as to Men not Women 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that 's his word ver 29. Men and Brethren And to and of whom after their conversion he still speaks as to persons of the male sex as far as we can guess by the gender of his words Ver. 38. Peter said unto them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and again 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 every one of you i. e. in the literal import every male of you Nor does it prove it that it is said ch 2. 44. That all that believed wore together For still they are persons of the male sex that there expressly are spoken of if 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 words all of the masculine gender denote any such thing of which gender still are all the words that denote their persons to the end of the Chapter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ver 46. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 v. 47. I might add that its being said that all that believed were together does not prove that the whole multitude of believers men and women were always all together never asunder but all in all places and at all times and in all actions still together 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 will not enforce that I might add also that it is not demonstrable that the breaking of bread here is infallibly meant of the Holy Sacrament for some understand it otherwise though it is ordinarily so understood And then where 's all the force of the Argument from Example gone Nothing here said by H. D. has proved it And much of the same rate is the proof for Command from 1 Cor. 11. 28 Let a man examine himself and so let him eat Here saith H. D. the Greek word signifieth a man or woman the word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a word of the common gender as appears 1 Tim. 2. 4 5. There is one Mediator betwixt God and Man and Woman To which I Reply Admitting the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be as he saith of the common gender and that whilest it continues undetermined to either sex by any distinguishing note it may be allowed to comprehend both sexes in it as in 1 Tim. 2. 5. where we have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without any article of either masculine or feminine gender to confine it to either sex and exclude the other yet where it is determined by distinguishing notes to either sex how doth it follow that the excluded sex is necessarily implied under that note that excludes it The nature of common words being such that before their determination by any masculine or feminine adjective they are applicable to either sex but after their determination to either they are no longer common to both Had it been said to be of the doubtfull gender something might have been inferred from that But as the word is not of that gender so H. D. expresly saith it is of the common gender Now look but into 1 Cor. 11. 28 and it is most evidently apparent that the signification of the common word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is determined to the male sex by the very next word that follows it viz. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 himself which is of the masculine gender and not of the feminine and in propriety of speaking denotes the male and not the female sex So that that Text which is onely express for mens receiving the Sacrament can be no express command for womens receiving it also And whereas he saith there is the same word used in Gal. 3. 28. First it signifies nothing if it were there unless it were so used as expresly under a determination of sex by gender to intend a sex excluded by such determination But secondly it is not true that it is there for there is no such word used in that Text but to take in both the sexes there are two words each distinctly belonging to its several sex 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the first for male and the second for female And so that Text is nothing to the purpose And now having shewed that there is no proof from either the Example or Command produced by H. D. from Scripture for womens admission to the Sacrament of the Lords Supper I may conclude that the proof for Infants Baptism is as good as for womens Communion and wish it might as H. D. saith it shall suffice CHAP. XXXVII The Conclusion of this Discourse with a Reprehension Caution and Exhortation § 1. THe remaining part of this Discourse wherein I will not be long shall be spent in a threefold address by way of Reprehension Caution and Exhortation Reprehension of such as baptize not their Infants Caution against the seductions of Antipaedobaptists and Exhortation to the baptizing of Infants § 2. And first if it be so that little children are to be suffered to come to Christ and ought not to be hindred from coming to him then do they deserve a sharp rebuke that will not suffer them to come but hinder their coming Hath Christs so much tenderness of heart towards your Infants hardened your own hearts against them What a cruelty is this to them to debar them from and deprive them of that Remedy for their native Infirmity which the Physician of souls hath provided for them Do ye love to see them wallowing in the blood of their nativity unwashed therefrom in the Laver of Regeneration Is natures filth so amiable in the eye of any pretending to be Christian What a presumptuousness is this in you to let them live and venture their dying in a damnable estate And if they be not damned they have more to thank the mercy of their God then the care of their Parents they might have been damned for all you you resolved to venture both theirs and your own damnation too rather than have them baptized though you knew baptism to be the means the onely ordinary means there is whereby they might be saved What shall I call it in you pride or perverseness that you so contumaciously and contumeliously oppose and confront your private novel conceit to the judgment and practice of Christs whole Catholick Church Yea what is it cross-grainedness or rebelliousness against the Lord Christ himself to have no regard to his word no respect to his reason but opposing your resolution against his reason and your will against his word to hinder little children from coming to him and forbid their coming though he hath said Suffer the little children to come unto me and forbid them not § 3. Secondly are little children to be suffered to come to Christ and ought they not to be forbidden coming to him then my Brethren beware of giving ear to the contrary Infusions of Antipaedobaptistical Seducers O let no man whisper into you any doctrine that contradicts the Command of Christ disagrees with the Institution of Christ and crosses the practice of the Universal Church of Christ O consider not what they say now but what Christ so long ago hath said and let his word be of more prevalency with you than the words of any heretical Seducer O regard not what they do now but what the Church of Christ hath ever done and let her judgment be of more power with you than the Opinion of any Schismatical Separatist O think not that an upstart generation of men not heard of in the world till many hundreds of years after Christianity had been planted and setled in the world are the onely men in the world that have the priviledge of discerning the truth But stand ye in the ways and see and ask for the old paths where â—s the good way and walk therein and ye shall find rest for your souls Jer. 6. 16. § 4. Lastly are little Children to be suffered to come to Christ and ought not their coming to be forbidden Suffer then
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
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