of Infants be deferred quoting it out of Dr. Taylors Liberty of Prophesy Besides what we have said of Nazianzens judgment that he disswaded not Infant Baptism as unlawful but as conceiving delay for three or four Years more expedient but if there were Aliquid periouli any fear of death then he allowed of it I shall mind the Reader that when the Learned Dr. Taylor brought in Nazianzen against Infant-Baptism he personated an Anabaptist but in his latter discourse you have his Judgment very fully for Infant-Baptism confuting his former piece particularly he quotes the following passage out of Nazianzen for Infant-Baptism viz. What wilt thou say of Children which neither are sensible of the loss nor the grace shall we Baptize them yes by all means in case of urgent danger for it is better to be Sanctified i e Baptized without their knowledg than to dye without it for so it happened to the Circumcised Babes of Israel c. I conclude this with what Vossius saith of him in his Thesis de Baptismo non igitur Nazianzenus c. Nazianzen was not against Infant-Baptism After him comes Ambrose who in his 3d Book de Sacramentis Cap. 2. hath this saying That the Baptized did not only make confession of his Faith but was to desire the same I perceive he is still sick of the old disease for that this Father speaks of the Pagans in what order they were taken into the Church and not in Opposition to the Baptizing Infants needs no other proof than that he himself was for it Quia omnis aetas peccato obnoxia ideo omnis aetas Sacramento idonea i. e Because every Age is Obnoxious to sin therefore every Age is fit for the Sacrament There is one or two more but I will leave them for we have enough of it After this small Shot the Author le ts fly Canons and Decrees of Councils for Baptizing such as were of years of discretion and were able to rehearse the Articles of the Creed as also we have an Enumeration of several persons born of Christian Parents that were not Baptized till they were of Age and able to give account of their Faith To which I Reply first Grant that some Councils were against Infant-Baptism which we shall not yeild yet if we must go by number of Councils we shall carry it He names three which he would have thought to be against Infant-Baptism and I think I shall not exceed in saying we may name ten times three for it and mark Reader he takes the priviledge of citing Councils but if we do it they are slighted and condemned for Popish and Superstitious 2. We conceive those Councils he names had also respect to Pagans in their Decrees and we have good reason for it because the Canon of Neocaesaria speaks plainly of the Children of such Women as come out from amongst Infidels being proselyted to the Christian Religion in their Pregnancy as Mr. Marshal tells Mr. Tombes This is taken out of Mr. Tombes Exercitation and Examen when he Objected the same thing The Author hath taken the whole Story out of him and all the rest upon the matter which follows in this Century is fetcht from his Exercitation and Examen printed 27. years since and Answered by that Reverend Divine Mr. Steven Marshal in his Defence of Infant-Baptism I would make a parallel betwixt the Author I have to deal with and Tombes but that it would be tedious wherefore instead of that I will transcribe the same things out of Tombes which the Author hath brought again upon the Stage If the Reader compare them he will find never two Eggs more alike Mr. Tombes in his Examen Pag. 10. hath it thus Grotius saith he in his Annotation on Matt. 19.14 adds That the Canon of the Synod of Neocaesaria held in the year 315. determins that a Woman with Child might be Baptized because the Baptism reached not the fruit of her womb because in the Confession made in Baptism each ones free choyce is shewed From which Canon Balsomon and Zonaras do infer that an Infant cannot be Baptized because it hath no power to chase the Confession of Divine Baptism This is according to what we have in H. D. to a tittle what impudence then is it to trouble us with this filly and ridiculous Story when Mr. Marshal proved to Tombes that the inference brought from hence against the Baptism of Believers Children was altogether invalid For the Canon there speaks of the Children of Women come out from among Infidels and come over to the Christian Faith during the time they were with Child For Balsomon saith such Women as were with Child and come from the Infidels and what is this to our Question saith Mr. Marshal which is about Children born in the Church of believing Parents and Balsomon the Glossator distinguisheth of Children some in the womb and some born for the first faith he no man can undertake he means in Baptism and for the other they answer by such as undertake for them which words as Mr. Marshal observes are not mentioned by Mr Tombes for he says no more than what he found in Grotius and for the partial relation he is sharply rebuked for wronging the Truth and labouring to deceive people and yet the Author I conflict with persists in the same course Next the Author speaks big words telling us That in farther Assurance and Confirmation of this great Truth we have most remarkable Instances of several of the most Eminent persons of this Century that were not Baptized till Aged though the Ofspring of Believing Parents viz. Bazil Gregory Nazianzen Ambrose Chrysostom Austin Constantine This also is Mr. Tombes again Examen p. 9. And that People may not be startled with these great names Reply Tombes his Examen P. 9. and be made to think that Childrens Baptism was not practised in the Church in those days wherein they lived I shall acquaint the Reader out of Mr. Marshal upon what grounds Christians heretofore deferred their Baptism namely sometimes they would do it in imitation of Christ who was not Baptized till about thirty years of Age. Constantine the Great put off his Baptism till he came to the River Jordan in which Christ was Baptized some deferred it till they had contracted a great deal of sin out of an erroneous conceit that by Baptism it would be all washed away Much more we have of this in Marshal's Defence of Infant-Baptism Pag. 27. Now for the Instances I find Tombes begins with Constantine and then comes on Nazianzen but the Author here ends with Constantine This argues nevertheless it was taken thence I shall trouble my self no further to seek after any other reason why the Baptism of these men was delayed than what Mr. Marshal gives Tombes For Constantine the Great though the Son of Helena who is reported to have been a zealous Christian not Baptized till he was Aged it doth not appear that his Mother was
that in time will produce its proper Actions It is certain that they can receive the new birth and are capable of it The effect of it is salvation if infants can receive this effect then also the new-birth without which they cannot receive the effect and he illustrates the point by a Similitude thus As the reasonable soul and all its faculties are in children Will and Vnderstanding Passions and Powers of Attraction and Propulasion yet these faculties do not operate or come abroad till time and art observation and experience have drawn them forth into action So may the spirit of grace the principle of Christian life be infused and yet lie without action till in its own day it is drawn forth and then he goes on Who is he that understands the Spirit so well as to know how or when it is infused and how it operates in all its periods and what it is in its Being and proper Nature or how or to what purpose God in all varieties does dispense it Then again if Nature saith he hath in Infants an evil principle which operates when the child can choose but is all the while within the soul Why cannot Infants have a good principle through Grace though it works not till its own season as well as an evill principle 4. Though Infants are uncapable of performing such duties as are incumbent upon professing men and women yet this hinders not but that they may be Church-Members Pray tell us what duties could those Israelitish Babes perform who notwithstanding their incapacity were asis before Members of the Church with their Parents And though they answer not all the Characters Christ gives his Adult Disciples which the Author objects against them yet they are capable of union to the Church and Fellowship in the priviledges thereof They are capable of her prayers and other pious offices and for whom the Church hath a more special care and obligation of tenderness for their souls than for others that are Without and why should this seem strange since they are Members of the Common-wealth and of the family and are capable of union with both estates and the priviledges thereof and yet cannot perform obedience to the State and Orders of either In like sort Infants are admitted Tenants but the Fealty or Homage is respited till they are of age 5. Lastly Christ himself as Mr. Baxter notes was head of the Church according to his humane nature in his infancy and this proves that the nonage of Infants makes them not uncapable of being Members And let any judge whether it be his will that no Infants should be Members For my part saith he when I consider that Infant State of Christ our head and the honour done to him therein it strongly perswades me that they know not his will who say they will not have Infants to be visible Members He farther Objects the Church of England who in their 19th Artiele do acknowledge that the visible Church is a number of Christians by profession This is down right Mr. Tombs's Examen part 3. pag. 41. only Tombes hath more charity for the Infants of Believers though not without some contradiction For he there acknowledgeth that in facie Ecclesiae visibilis Infants of believers are to be accounted Gods to belong to his Family and Church and not the Devils And what do any of us say more But mark Reader how Mr. Tombs doth esteem them such why saith he it is so as being in a near possibility of being Members of the Church of God by an act of opinion grounded on probable hopes for the future But to make them actual members of the visible Church is to overthrow the definitions of the visible Church that Protestant writers give particularly the Church of England Art 19. To which Mr. Marshall answers If overthrows it not at all for they all include the Infants of such Professors as Infants Male and Female too least you say that Circumcision made them Members I add also saith he Baptisme now as well as Circumcision of old is a real though implicite profession of the Christian Faith Next we have Dr. Owen whom he cites no less than four times in what follows in this Chapter whose judgement is sufficiently known to be against our Opposites And notwithstanding the misinterpretation the Author puts upon some passages in the Doctors Catechisme we have a particular account of his judgment in Print in a Book called A Declaration of the Faith and Order owned and practised in the Congregational Churches agreed upon and consented unto by their Elders and Messengers in their meeting at the Savoy Octob. 12. 1658. where to my knowledge he was present and the principal man of that Assembly and concerning the point before us we have it chap 29. Art 4. thus exprest viz. Not only those that do actually profess Faith in and obedience unto Christ but also the Infants of one or both believing Parents are to be Baptized and those only And in complyance herewith we have the judgment of the Synod of Elders Assembled at Boston in New-England appointed by the Court 1662. who strongly maintain by several Arguments in that printed piece That the Insant Seed of Believers are Church-Members and that being according to Scripture Members of the visible Church they are consequently the Subjects of Baptism See also the Presbyterian judgement upon the point in the larger Catechisme of the Assembly of Divines Baptisme say they is not to be administred to any that are out of the visible Church and so strangers to the Covenant of promise till they profess their Faith in Christ and obdeience to him But Infants descending from Parents either both or but one of them professing Faith in Christ and obedience to him are in that respect within the Covenant and to be Baptized we see here who they take to be of the visible Church and within the Covenant and to be baptized As for the Authority of particular Authors we have them on our side in great abundance Piscator hath it thus on the 28. of Matthew Porrò ad Ecclesiam pertinent non solùm adulti fidem profitentes sed etiam ipsorum liberi Not only grown persons who profess the Faith appertain to the Church but also their Infants Theodore Beza in his Absters Cat. Heshuii pag. 333. hath this passage Meritò arbitramur Infantes fidelium in peculio domini censeri We rightly judge the Infants of the faithful to be of the Lords Flock and he speaks of them there before Baptisme And in our Margent Bible we have this Note upon the first of Corinthians 7.14 They that are born of either of the Parents faithful are also counted Members of Christs Church because of the Promise Act. 2.39 Peter Martyr loc Commun cl 4. c. 8. p. 821 823. Non excludimus eos Infantes ab Ecclesia sed ut ejus partes amplectimur c. We exclude not Infants from the Church but imbrace them as parts John Calvin to whom
of a Dictionary No doubt he learnt this good Doctrine from the Schoolmen who maintain that Baptism conferrs grace We may know the mind of them all by that passage of Suarez Suarez in tertiam partem Thom Tom. 3. quest 68. Disp 24. Art 4. sect 2. pag. 250. Per Baptismum datur gratia si aliquis est rectè dispositus ad effectum Baptismi consequendum in instanti quo receperit Baptismum recipiet gratiam By Baptisme grace is given if any man be rightly disposed to receive the effect of Baptisme in the instant that he receives Baptism he shall receive grace These men speak as if they were acquainted with the Cabinet Councel of Heaven They can tell if you will believe them the Punctum temporis the very moment when the spirit will breathe and quicken a soul And then again the Doctor is as peremptory in that which follows Grace saith he never follows Baptism which at first found is enough to scare tender souls from medling with it for if the Doctor says true you that are for Dipping upon the profession of Faith look well to your selves for if you have not grace when you are baptized you are never like to have it afterward grace saith he never follows it you are like to live and die graceless This we deny not but God may if he please make use of Baptism to confer grace but look upon it as a Popish errour that grace is in separably annext to it and a grosser one that Baptisme confers grace ex opere operato The Ancients themselves as highly as they speak of it did not hold that grace was an inseperable companion of it Austin lib. 4. contra Donatistas hath this saying Quid prodest Baptismum c. What profits Baptism to them that receive it unless they be inwardly changed And yet though it may not profit at the present yet it may for the future and not only the Adult but Infants too may receive good by it To conclude this I shall oppose to what the Doctor speaks in derogation of Infant-Baptism the judgement of a more Orthodox Divine viz. Mr. Daniel Rogers who speaks more warily thus I see no cause to deny that even in and at and by the Act of Baptisme the Spirit may imprint grace on the soul of an Infant CHAP. VI. Containing his sixth Argument That Believers Baptism is the only true Baptism from the constitution of the Primitive Churches which were not saith he formed of ignorant Babes but professing men and women with an answer thereunto LEst we should contend in the dark it is necessary we agree upon the terms By Constitution must be meant the essential nature of the primitive Church and in this I suppose we are one and whereas he saith these Churches were not formed of ignorant Babes that is of those alone for so we must understand him in regard of the Antithesis which follows viz. but of Men and Women it is very true the primitive Churches were not of this make that is formed only of ignorant Babes for if they had they would have been but sorry Churches But whatever sence his words may bear we know his meaning is that Children are not included as Church-Members in the Constitution of the New Testament-Churches these being formed as he imagines altogether of professing men and women which he attempts to prove by Christs Commission where Teaching goes before Baptizing By the practice of the Apostles in planting Churches and by the Dedications and Contents of the Epistles c. To which I reply 1. That we must mind the Author with what is before said in the first chapter namely That the import of Christs Commission to his Apostles was de Ecclesia colligendâ to direct them how and in what manner they should gather Churches they being at first sent out to preach only to such as were Aliens in respect of the New Administration And we acknowledge all persons under such a Circumstance are to be Taught before they are to be Baptized or admitted into the Church But in Ecclesia collectâ a Church actually gathered wherein there are Infants the Case alters for such are to be esteemed as Portions of their Parents as being one with them in a moral account and belonging to the Church of which their Parents are Members And to avoid repetition the same answer may serve for what is urged from the example and practice of the Apostles in planting the New Testament-Churches at Jerusalem Acts 2.41 Samaria Act. 8.12 Caesarea Act. 10.47 48. Philippi Acts. 16.14 and elsewhere But I must follow him having to deal with a sort of people who take all of theirs which is not particularly answered for unanswerable By which Scriptures saith he it manifestly appears that the New Testament-Churches were formed only of Baptized Believers wherein we neither find one ignorant Babe c. But what demonstration doth he bring to make this good The Argument if he had us'd any must have run in form thus viz. If we have no examples of any other that were Members of Churches under the New Testament-Dispensation but professing believers then no others are to be accounted Church-Members but such But we have no examples of any other c. Ergo. The consequence of the Major proposition is unsound and the Minor proposition is false 1. The consequence is not sound for suppose it be granted under the Gospel the Scripture makes no mention of any childrens being Church-Members Yet to conclude from thence there were none is no good argumentation Because mention is made of the Apostles taking in professing men and women into the Church Act. 8.12 to argue thence that therefore the children of such belonged not to the Church is childish arguing But this is a more Masculine or Logical way of argumentation namely The children of the faithful were Members of the Church before Moses time before the law and why not after Moses now under the Gospel God took them into his Covenant with their Parents and for the space of 2000 years from Abraham to Christ they were Church-Members and since Christ is come in the flesh we find not this gracious Ordinance repealed There is not the least hint of any such thing in the New Testament therefore it is not repealed and the children of Believers continue Members still 2. The Minor also is false for we have intimation given us that the children of Believers are Church-Members and the Apostle writes to them as such as appears Eph. 6.1 2 3. Col. 3.20 And to make this yet more evident I shall produce an Argument or two The first shall be that of Mr. Baxter in his plain Scripture-proof of Infant Church-Membership and Baptism viz. If God have repealed the ordinance and revoked this merciful gift of Infants Church-Membership then it is either in mercy or in justice either for their good or for their hurt But he hath neither repealed it in mercy for their good nor in justice for