Church has been made of him both in the times he lived in and in those that succeeded as may appear by what Gr. Nazianzen saith in his Oration of him and what Baronius and others record concerning him in memory of whose pious life and glorious death Temples were built an Altar erected and a Festival observed And this with men of Reason and Modesty may suffice to have been said in Vindication of those Primitive Witnesses and their Testimonies He that is not satisfied herewith may find more for his satisfaction in Mr. Wills of Inf. Bapt Part. 2. ch 3. p. 125 c. One thing more I shall beg the favour of saying and then conclude the Readers trouble and that is that I have not urged all the Arguments that are or might be insisted on in this dispute so that if all I have said on these grounds should chance to signifie nothing yet still is the cause neither desperate nor deplorable there being behind Reserves of other Auxiliary forces for its succour and support But why then did I not insist on them Partly because I thought what I have said to be enough and was loth to be troublesome with more and partly because those Arguments have already Mr. Baxter Stephens Sydenham Geree Wills c. been managed by other Writers with great diligence and dexterity so that it seemed needless for me to concern my self in them As for those I have used they are the same mostly that were used by Dr. Taylor and Dr. Hammond which because I thought very good yet as delivered by them not so well adapted to vulgar capacities by reason of the too much abstruseness of the language of the one and too much floridness of the style of the other as to do that good on ignorant souls which they intended therefore I have sent them abroad again in a vulgar dress and country habit accommodated for language and style as near as I could and the matter would bear to mean capacities so as to be intelligible by the ignoranter sort who have most need of instruction as being most liable to temptation and whose information conviction and satisfaction I have chiefly and even almost solely aimed at in these Papers yet Adding withal some things of my own and somewhat Improving what was theirs And if I have at any time exalted my Pen it has been merely for the refreshment of some Readers who would else have been tyred with too long a continuation of one strain and that too but the dull hum of a Country drone and for that if it be criminous I beg and hope the Readers pardon Et jam defessus lampada trado FINIS A Table of the Contents CHAP. 1. THe Text. The occusion of the words The doctrine gathered from it and proved Pag. 1 Chap. 2. Of the children that are to be suffered to come to Christ Infants 4 Chap. 3. What children are to be suffered to come unto Christ 5 Chap. 4. What coming of little children unto Christ is to be suffered 12 Chap. 5. The interpretation of the Text vindicated 20 Chap. 6. Baptism beneficial unto children in regard of their early consecration there by unto God 26 Chap. 7. Baptism beneficial unto children in regard of their being brought thereby into Covenant with God 32 Chap. 8. Baptism beneficial unto children in regard of the Vow they are brought under by it 37 Chap. 9. Baptism beneficial unto children in regard of the care that by others is taken of them upon it pag. 48 Chap. 10. Baptism beneficial unto children in regard of their being thereby united unto Christ 53 Chap. 11. Baptism beneficial unto children in regard of their being made thereby the children of God 73 Chap. 12. Baptism beneficial unto children in regard of their being made thereby Heirs of Heaven 80 Chap. 13. Baptism beneficial unto children in regard of their being thereby made partakers of grace 90 Chap. 14. Baptism beneficial unto children in regard that by it they are consigned unto a resurrection 103 Chap. 15. Baptism beneficial unto children in regard they are saved by it 108 Chap. 16. Childrens need of baptism in râ—gard of its efficacy to take off the guilt of original sin 118 Chap. 17. Childrens need of baptism in regard of their being under the guilt of sin 125 Chap. 18. Childrens need of baptism further shewn from the consideration of the evil nature and evil consequents of original sin 136 Chap. 19. Childrens baptism not to be neglected upon presumption that God can or will save them without their being baptized pag. 144 Chap. 20. Childrens need of baptism shewn from six other considerations 151 Chap. 21. Children not incapable of baptism in regard of their bodily weakness 161 Chap. 22. Children not incapable of baptism in regard of their having sin in them 168 Chap. 23. Children not incapable of baptism in regard of their not believing 172 Chap. 24. Children not incapable of being baptized in regard of any thing required of them in baptism 184 Chap. 25. Children not incapable of baptism by any text of Scripture that forbids it either directly or by consequence 194 Chap. 26. Childrens Right to baptism by the constitution of this Church and custom of the Catholick Church 219 Chap. 27. The Catholick Churches custom to baptize Infants 224 Chap. 28. Infants baptism a Tradition Apostolical 287 Chap. 29. Infants baptism an Apostolical Practice 292 Chap. 30. Childrens right to baptism by the Institution of Christ 303 Chap. 31. Infants baptism lawfull though there were neither Command for it nor Example of it pag. 331 Chap. 32. Infants baptism no addition to the Word of God The Scriptures objected on that account considered cleared 340 Chap. 33. The Scriptures silence no proof of our Saviours not commanding the baptizing of Infants 368 Chap. 34. The Scriptures silence no proof of the Apostles baptizing no Infants 375 Chap. 35. The Argument from the sixth Article of our Church answered 384 Chap. 36. A Reply to an Answer made by H. D. to the Objection from the no express Command or Example in Scripture of Womens receiving the Lords Supper referring to Chap. 31. Sect. 9. 396 Chap. 37. The Conclusion of this Discourse with a Reprehension Caution and Exhortation 403 A Postscript 409 The END
A Modest Plea FOR INFANTS BAPTISM Wherein the Lawfulness of the Baptizing of INFANTS is defended against the ANTIPAEDOBAPTISTS And the Infants Need for it Benefit by it Capableness of it and Right unto it Is fairly shown from Grounds of Scripture the Tradition of the CHURCH and the Institution of CHRIST With Answers to Objections By W. W. B. D. Commendaverim Charitati vestrae causam eorum quâ— pro se loqui non possunt D. Aug. Ser. 8. de Verb. Apost CAMBRIDGE Printed by John Hayes Printer to the University and are to be sold by Henry Dickinson Bookseller 1677. To the Right worshipful Mr. Robert Cole Alderman of Grantham And to the worshipful The Twelve Comburgesses his Brethren And to all the worthy Commoners of that ancient Corporation WILLIAM WALKER Wisheth all temporal Prosperity and eternal Felicity Right Worshipful c. THe singular Favours Which you have shewed to me do merie a gratefull acknowledgement from me In testimony therefore of my obligations I dedicate unto you this Treatise May it prove what I design it a lasting monument of your generosity and my gratitude Through Gods blessing on the conjoyn'd erdeavours pious care and prndent conduct of Magistrate and Ministir your Corporation now is as Jerusalem of old was as a City that is at unity in it self A rare blessing that at all times but especially in dividing times Few Corporations in England cawboast the like God continue that happiness to you and to yours after you from generation Thereto if these Papers of mine be in any measure contributory as I do most sincercly wish it so I shall most heartily rejoyce at it as being one who takes a great pleasure in the Prosperity of your Corporation and no less in being serviceable in any manner or measure to it So begging your kind acceptance of my good meaning in this Dedication and wishing a perpetuation and inorease of Vnity and Amity and all the blessed Consequents thereof among you I present these Papers to your favour and remain Grantham School Aug. 1. 1676. Your most humble Servant WILLIAM WALKER The Preface to the READER OF all Dissenters from the Church of England none seem to lie under stronger Prejudices than the Antipaedobaptists as having so seemingly fair Pleas to make both for Themselves and against their Opponents and that both from Scripture Text and Ecclesiastick Practice as few of their fellow Dissenters can parallel With the more favour and kindness in my thoughts are their Persons precisely considered as such to be treated and with the more fairness and clearness ought those Endeavours which are undertaken for the removal of their Prejudiees to be managed And this may be a sufficient Account for that Prolixity which some may think there is and for that Plainness which I have studied there should be in these ensuing Papers especially if I shall add thereto this Consideration that the Persons lying under these Prejudices and whose rescue from under the captivity of Errour is the wish of all good Christians are mostly such as are to be spoke to in Vulgar language and Familiar speech as not having had those advantages of a learned education which should make them capable to sound the depths of profound performances unravel the windings of intricate discourses and keep pace in understanding with a high tide of big words and a rolling torrent of strong lines in which way to him that speaketh they will be but as Barbarians and he that speaketh shall be but a Barbarian unto them Whence by the way I shall take occasion to admonish those that read Books onely for the elegance of the language and cannot relish the wholsome food of soâ—â—â— matter unless it be served up in the savoury sauce of a piquant Phrase and set out with the specious garnish of a florid style to proceed no further as being not likely to find herein that sparkling briskness of Expression nor pleasing flavour of Elocution which suits the Tasts of their delicate palates as also to advise others of deeper learning and profounder knowledge not to expect from me new discoveries of hitherto unrevealed mysteries and fresh-sprung mines of as yet unravish'd and unrifled notions whose design in these Papers is not at all to teach the Learned but to instruct the Ignorant and that in all humility and submission as being conscious to my self of my manifold ignorances and imperfections and seeing even what I see but through a glass and that darkly And further to prevent any man's sinning against God by rashly judging or uncharitably censuring me about the quorations in these Papers which are many and large I declare that my ends in making them were to give strength and credit to the cause I maintain by shewing it espoused by persons of reputation for learning and judgment in their several ages and to free my self from the imputation of novelty and singularity in any thing maintained by me and that I made them so large partly to prevent suspicion of insincerity in my dealings and partly to furnish some with apposite testimonies Who may not have those conveniences of consulting Authors that I have had And let not any one think these quotations needless because the Antipae do baptists reject all authority but that of Scripture For I write not onely for the conviction and conversion of them but also for the satisfaction and confirmation of others Of whom some may have such a value for tradition as to be much confirmed by it others may think it so necessary as not to be satisfied without it And for their sakes according to the advice in Vincent Lirinensis I have been willing to fortifie the â—ape igitur magno studio sumkind attentione perquirens à quam pluribus sanctitate doctrinâ prastantibus viris quonam modo possim certa quâdam quasi generall ac regulari viâ Catbolicae fidei veritatem ab haereticae pravitatis falsitate discernere bujusmodi semper responsum ab omnibus fere retuli Quod five ego sive quis alius vellet exurgentium baereticorum fraudes deprehendere laqueosque vitare in fide sanâ sanus integer permanere duplici modo munire fidem suam Domino adâ—uvante deberet Primò scilicet divine leg is authoritate tum deinde Ecclesiae Catholicae traditione Hic forsitan requirat aliquis cum sit perfectus Scripturarum Canon sibique ad omnia satis superque sufficiat quid opus est ut ei Ecclesiasticae intelligentiae jungatur autoritas Quia videlicet scripturam sacram pro ipsâ suâ altitudine non uno codemq sensu universi accipiunt sed ejusdem eloquia aliter atq aliter alius atque alius interpretatur ut pene quot homines sunt tot lllinc sententiae erui posse videantur Aliter namque illam Novatianus aliter Photinus aliter Sabellius aliter Donatus exponit c. atq idcirco multum necesse est propter tantos tam varii error is ansractus ut
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
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
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
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
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
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