what is forbidden be forborn But it doth not reach to the making of every thing unlawfull to be done which is not particularly prescribed in the Gospel Because there is a great dispaâ—ity between the Legal and Evangelical Dispensation in this case § 28. In the Legal Oeconomy particular order was given for all the circumstantial as well as substantial parts of Gods service But in the Oeconomy of the Gospel no such particular Order has been given And so the case is not equal And therefore the Argument from the one to the other from a compleatly setled administration to an administration not compleatly setled is not good § 29. Find us in the Gospel so compleat a Platform not onely for all Substantials but also for all Circumstantials as was under the Law and we shall not think fit upon the account of the equity that is pleaded from those Texts to add any thing thereto But till then we shall neither think it unfit for the Governours of the Church to whom Christ hath * Act. 1. 8. 15. 28. 1 Cor. 14. 26 40. 2 Cor. 12. 19. Eph. 4. 11 12. Tit. 1. 5. left the power of ordering Church affairs to order such things as are unordered by the Gospel nor for those that are under government to be conformable unto their Orders and consequently to baptize Infants though theâ—r baptizing had not by the Gospel been ordered § 30. And by this time I hope it appears that even their own sense of these Texts supposed which yet I do not grant that whole way of reasoning of theirs from the prohibitions of additions to the commands under the Law to the not doing of any uncommanded thing under the Gospel is inconsequent and of no force against Infants Baptism § 31. Yea but say they still there is as full and clear a Text against adding to the word of God in the Gospel as there was any under the Law Is there so I pray where Why in Revel 22. 18. If any man shall add unto these things God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this Book Well what of this Why then Infants Baptism being not written in the Gospel is an addition to the Gospel and so unlawfull § 32. Not so For the adding here spoken of hath reference onely to this one Book of the Revelation and not to the Gospel as that is one intire volume containing all the Books of the New Testament For they were not put altogether into one Book till some years after the death of the Author of the Revelation it being long ere sundry of the Books now in the Canon were received into it Yea there be that affirm the Gospel of this Evangelist Euseb Hist l. 6. cap 22. It is certain that he was banished into Patmos where he wrote his Revelation and after his Return to Ephesus his three Epistles and Gospel which was published by Gaius his host and Deacon Bp. Prideaux Introduct to Histor p. 60. According to Bucholcer in his Chronology pag. 635. he was banished Anno Christi 96 to Patmos where he writ his Revelation Anno Christi 98 he returned from banishment to Ephesus where in Anno 99 he wrote his Gospel for which he quotes Hierom-Cum publico edicto edito jussisseâ— omnes Christianos maxime praedicatores Evangelii pelli in exilium profugere Joannes coactus est in Pathmon insulam ubi dicitur Apocalypsin scripsisse si modo illius autor est hic Joannes Tandem trucidato Domitiano permissa est Christianis libertas redeundi itaque reversus est Joannes ad Ecclesiam suam Ephesinam tranquillitatem nactus scripsit contra Ebionitas Marcionem Cherintum Cerinthum haereticos Evangelium suum Herman Bonnus Farrag Exemplor fol. 7. See also Isaacksons Chronology and Hutcheson upon John pag. 1. The same may be further confirmed from several other Chronologies as that of Regino Prumiensis Hermannus Contractus Marianus Scotus the Compilatlo Chronologica published by Joannes Pistorius the Pantheon of Gotsridus Viterbiensis and Wâ—rner Roleâ—inks Fasciculus Temporum also from Spondanus's Epitome of Baronius Anno Christ 97 99. to have been written after his Revelation And therefore what is here said could have reference to it self onely and not to the other Books which were written by others or to be written by himself § 33. And however that the reference of it is onely unto it self is evident by what goes before and after in this and the following verse For I testifie saith the Author of this Book unto every man that heâ—reth the words of the Prophesie of this Boâ—k If any man shall add unto these things God shall add unto him the plagues that are writtâ—n in this Book This Book What Book Why that sure enough that himself was then a writing the Book of the Revelation containing those Prophesies which God was pleased to impart unto him and appoint him to write in a book Rev. 1. 11. Which book even whilest he was a writing of it he frequently makes reference unto as where he mentions the Words of this Prophesie and the things which are written therein Rev. 1. 3. and the sayings of the prophesie of this book the sayings of this book and the words of the prophâ—sie of this book and the words of the book of this prophesie Rev. 22. 7 9 10 18 19. All expressions intimating the book he spake of to be that book which himself was then writing containing the prophesies and predictions of the things that were to come and the most of them in a short time whence the sayings of the prophesie of this book were not to be sealed the time being at hand Rev. 22. 10. § 34. Now let our Antipaedobaptists here have his own sense of Adding let it import the doing of something not commanded And what will then follow Why that nothing is lawfull to be done now in the time of the Gospel but that which is contained in this Book the Book of the Revelation But that he will tell you cannot be For so we shall have no Baptism at all because none is commanded in the Revelation § 35. What then is the Adding here spoken against Plainly this and no more the putting of some word or words to this Book This is evident by that which is not to be taken away For contraries laâ—d together do illustrate each the other Now that the taking away is meant of any of the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Si quis abstulerit de Verbis libri Versio interlinearis si quis diminuerit de verbis Vers Vulg. Syriac Si quis detraxerit ex verbis Prophetiae quae continentur in hoc libro Vers Arab. of it For so it is in ver 19. If any man shall take away from the words of the book of this Prophesie God shall take away his part out of the book of life c. What I pray can be taken away from the words of a book but words or some
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
11. And what hath been said of this Text will serve in answer to other Texts of the same import Such as Deut. 12. 32. where it is said What thing soever I command you observe to do it thou shalt not add thereto nor diminish from it What thing soever that is as the Septuagint render it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 every word that I injoyn you every word of command that I give you that shall you be carefull to observe to that shall you pay an uniform obedience forbearing to do the things that I forbid and doing the things whatsoever they be that I command and to my words ye shall add no words of your own ye shall put into my Law no commands that I never gave you you shall not take from my Law any of the commands that I have given you ye shall not change the Rule I have set down for you â—o walk by either in whole or in part by imposing on your selves either more severe or more easie performances than I have required from you instead of those that I have required but ye shall do fully that which I have commanded and ye shall do it faithfully as I have commanded it § 12. And this is agreeable to those Texts where this uniform observance of the then setled rule is more explicately set down As in Deut. 5. 32. ye shall observe to do therefore as the Lord hath commanded you you shall not turn aside to the right hand or to the left And Deut. 28. 14. Thou shalt not go aside from any of the words which I command thee this day to the right hand or to the left to go after other gods to serve them And Joshua 1. 7. Be thâ—u strong and very couragious that thou mayst observe to do according to all the Law which Moses my servant commanded thee turn not from it to the right hand or to the left § 13. Now what is this to Infants Baptism supposing it utterly uncommanded How is the baptizing of an Infant a not doing as the Lord hath commanded or a going aside from any of his words or a turning from them to the right hand or the left What one word of our own or anies else have we added to his to bring it in what one word of his have we left out that else might have given a stop to our doing of it what one word of his have we changed to make the easier way for its introduction or continuation what one thing required by him have we turned from and let alone unperformed that we might do that in the stead of it yea on the contrary how doth not our doing of it hold proportion with his word and so can be no violation of his word In short when it can be made appear that the baptizing of Infants is the putting of words into Moses's Law then we shall and till then we shall not yield that it is that adding to the word of God which God by Moses in this Text for bad § 14. Such again is that saying of Agur Prov. 30. 6. Add thou not unto his words lest he reprove thee and thou be found a liaâ— What can this mean other than that no man ought to add any of his own or others words to the word of God as if God had spoken them whereas he never spake word of them This whosoever he be that doth he must needs be found a liar when God comes to reprove him But what reproof can he be liable to for adding to his words that hath added nothing to them Or how can he be found a liar upon the account of adding to Gods words who doth not affirm God ever said one word more than he hath said § 15. And now what is this Text or any thing that can be inferred from it to our pleading for Infants baptism Have we for the introducing or defending that practice inserted into the word of God any words of our own pretending them to be his words Let the book be searcht and the words produced and let the shame of such adding light upon the doers of it But if we do no such thing if we have added no one word concerning this to Gods Words then can this Text make nothing at all against us who have done nothing of that which is forbidden by it § 16. Indeed from such words of God as are expressed in Scripture we draw such Consequences as naturally flow from them being rightly interpreted But this is no adding to the words of God This is but what we are enabled to by the example of our Saviour and his Apostles who prove things not expressed in Scripture by Consequences deduced from Scripture and by such proving justifie a rational collection from the word to be no culpable addition to the word which is the thing that this Text forbids § 17. Yea but do we not find the Jews severely reproved again and again for performing uncommanded acts of worship of which saith God I commanded thâ—m not neither came it into my heart or mind Jer. 7. 31. 19. 5. 32. 35 Yes verily And what then Why then uncommanded acts of worship and service are unlawfull And so Infants Baptism will upon that account also be unlawfull as being an uncommanded thiâ—g § 18. So the Anabaptists indeed reasons from these Texts but without any reason yea against all reason For the acts spoken of in those Texts as not commanded are acts of devotion to and worship of false gods building high pâ—aces to Baal and causing their sons and daughters to pass through the fire to Molech Now in the name of God doth this follow Israel were repâ—oved for performing uncommanded acts of devotion and Idolatrous worship to false gods therefore it is unlawfull for Christians to perform uncommanded acts of devotion and religious worship to the true God Or because it was unlawful for them to cause their sons and daughters to pass through the fire to Molech therefore it must be unlawfull for us to cause our sons and daughters to pass through the water to Jesus Christ May not we baptize our Infants and so consecrate them unto God because they may not burn their Infants and so sacrifice them to the Devil What an absurd What a wild and irrational consequence is this § 19. But let us a while consider the expression which I commanded them not nor speake it neither came it into my heart or mind What is this but a Meiôsis intimating in a milder expression a severer interdiction which I commanded not that is which I have most strictly forbidden as abhorring it and abominating it in my heart And were not these things forbidden strictly enough both in general in the first and second Commandment of the Decalogue and particularly in Levit. 18. 21. where it is expresly said Thou shalt not let any of thy sâ—ed pass through the fire to Molech neither shalt thou profane the name of thy God And again Levit. 20. 1
the happy Sacrament the key of the kingdom of heaven So that it not only sends ‖ Aqua baptismatis baptizatos ad regnum coeleste mittit Greg. in Evang. hom 17. the Baptized to but lets them into that kingdom § 3. And from a well-grounded confidence hereof undoubtedly it is that our Church not only prays for the Infant to be baptized Office of Publ. Bapt. of Infants that he may come to the land of everlasting life and to the eternal kingdom which God hath promised and be made an heir of everlasting salvation and an inheritor of Gods everlasting kingdom but also gives assurance to the Sureties for the Infant upon the word and promise of our Saviour that he will give unto him the blessing of eternal life and make him partaker of his everlasting kingdom even the kingdom of heaven § 4. And in this her sense she agrees with the sentiment of the Ancient Church For St. Chrysostom saith For this cause do we baptize Hac de causâ infantulos baptizamus ut eis addatur sanctitas justitia adoptio haereditas D. Chrysost Hom. ad Neoph. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 D. Athan. q. ad Antioch 114. Tom. 2. p. 377. Infants that there may be added unto them holiness righteousness adoption and an inheritance And Athanasius grounding his inference on two Scripture-Texts the one the words of our Saviour in my Text Suffer little children to come unto me for of such is the kingdom of heaven the other the words of St. Paul but now are your children holy saith That the baptized Infants of Believers do as undefiled and believing enter into the kingdom of heaven § 5. Yea so highly conducing unto an entrance into heaven both for Infants and others was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 D. Chrysost Hom. 1. de Poenit. Quum vero praescribitur nemim sine 〈◊〉 Baptismo competere salutem ex illa maxime pronunciatione Domini qui ait Nisi natus ex aquâ quis erit non habet vitam suboriuntur scrupulosi c. Tertull. de Bapt. Lex enim tingendi imposita est forma praescripta Ite inquit docete nationes tingentes eas in nomine patris filii spiritus sancti Huic legi collata definitio illa Nisi quis renatus fuerit ex aqua spiritu non intrabit in regnum coelorum obstrinxit fidem ad baptismi necessitatem Itaque omnes exinde credentes tingebantur Id. ib. Nisi enim quis renatus fuerit ex aqua Spiritu Sancto non potest introire in regnum Dei Utique nullum excipit non infantem non aliqua praeventum necessitate D. Ambros de Abrah Patriarcha l. 2. c. 11. Sine baptismo mortuos periisse non dubium est Id. de Voc. Gent. l. 2. c. 8. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Greg. Nyssen de Bapt. Baptism anciently thought that it was the opinion of some that there was no entrance for either in thither without that and this opinion of theirs was grounded on our Saviours saying that Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God § 6. And even our own most modest and moderate Church cannot Beloved ye hear in this Gospel the express words of our Saviour Chirst that Except a man be born of water whereby ye may perceive the great necessity of this Sacrament where it may be had Office of Bapt. of those of riper years but upon the same ground conclude some and that a great necessity of Baptism in order to entrance into the kingdom of God § 7. And truly though Whitaker Praelection de Eccles Cathol qu. 1. c. 4 5. D. Bernard Ep. 77. ad Hugon de Sancto Victore with Dr. Whitaker and others I do believe that the mere want of baptism where it cannot be had is not absolutely exclusive of all unbaptized ones out of heaven but only the contempt of it where it may be had yet two things may be observed from that Text of John 3. 5. which carry it high for a necessity of Infants baptism at least so far as to be an excuse for those who gathered therefrom an absolute necessity of it § 8. The first is this That the kingdom of God here in the notion of it includes not only Gods spiritual kingdom on earth or the visible Church which is all that the Anabaptists will have it to signifie and upon this design because they would by this distinction avoid the force of the Argument hence for Infants Baptism for whose salvation they conclude it not necessary that they be made members of the visible Church as having devoted them all without exception of any to be eternally saved if dying in infancy though dying unbaptized but it doth also in the notion of it include Gods eternal kingdom in heaven Because the kingdom here that a man cannot enter into except he be born of water and of the spirit is the same kingdom that in ver 3. a man cannot see except he be born again Now it is not true of Gods kingdom on earth that a man cannot see it except he be born again of water and of the spirit that is baptized for it is therefore called the visible Church because it is a Church that may be seen And seen it may be of such as desire to come to it joyn with it before they be of it for how else shall they desire to come to it Seen also it is and may be of such as are of it and even of those that do oppose fight against it But of the kingdom of God in heaven it is most true that except a man be born of water and of the spirit he cannot see that Therefore that kingdom which a man cannot enter into except he be born of water and of the spirit doth in the notion of it include the kingdom of God in Heaven § 9. And if the Kingdom of God here in John 3. 3. 5. be the same with that which is called in Matth. 19. 14. the kingdom of heaven which again St. Luke in my Text renders by that very same expression in St. John the kingdom of God then we shall find the Anabaptists when it is for their turn interpreting it of Gods kingdom in heaven For that very Text do they alledge to prove that Confess of Faith Art 10. not any Infant dying in Infancy before the Commission of actual sin shall suffer eternal punishment in hell for Adams sin for of such as they please to speak belongs the kingdom of God And if it must be interpreted there in John 3. 5. of the visible Church then it must be here also in Luke 18. 16. and Matth. 19. 14. And so then children will be such as belong to the Church Catholick as members of it of whom it is and then why should they not be admitted into it that belong unto it § 10. And if any thing be objected against
of St. Basil where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used for the teaching before baptism and particularly the baptism of the Eunuch by Philip and comprehends all the teaching he is read to have had Yea and in this place of St. Matthew what ever can be implied in the first Verb is expressed in what follows in the second Verb which reaches to all things whatsoever Christ had commanded them Unless any will say that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 imports the teaching of somewhat that Christ never commanded his Apostles something that neither concerns faith nor manners for these were the things that Christ commanded his Disciples to act themselves and to teach others the acting of § 24. So again to make such a distinction between the Verbs as if 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must signifie teach those that are not Disciples to make them so and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must signifie teach them that are Disciples after they are made so is also frivolous For put 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 together so signifying and so distinguished and what will they amount to why thus much Teach those that are not Disciples to make them so teaching or by teaching these that are Disciples after they are made so How uncouth if intelligible a construction is this and how unpracticable the thing in it self when understood How should a single Apostle travelling all alone into a strange place teach those that had never heard of the Gospel by his teaching those that had received it or must he carry Disciples always along with him to and set up School in every strange nation that Heathens hearing him teach Christians might by such hearing become Christians also How is this imaginable to have been the meaning of our Saviour How impracticable in the Apostles first onsets on the Heathen nations to make them become Christians When Churches were setled then indeed something of this might be though none sure ever thought that to be the design of our Saviour in his commission but how this could be before any Church were either setled or so much as begun to be gathered and there must be a first beginning to gather before there could be a Church is past imagination And besides the Histories of those times shew the course was otherwise But now 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 make disciples of Heathens or make Heathens disciples teaching or by teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you how clear is the interpretation how genuâ—ne the sense how practicable the thing in all times and places how agreeable to the design in his commission how nothing else but the very mind of Christ in his word § 25. In a word admit the word that comes here before baptizing were the same with that which doth come after it namely 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 teach or did here properly signifie teaching as it doth not how easily may it hence be gathered That baptism may be either before or after teaching according to the condition of the Person to be baptized after it in those that are capable to be first taught before it in those that are not as yet capable of teaching after it to men before it to children § 26. And in confirmation hereof it might be said that this hath been the very way of the Church of â—hrist in all the ages of it first to teach men and then to baptize them but first to baptize Children and after teach them letting them at present have that means of grace which at present they are capable of and affording them afterward what remaâ—ned assoon as they should become capable of it § 27. But having no authority to change any word in the Text of our Saviour nor reason to be over liberal in my concessions I abide by what was said before having added this ex abundan i more then was needfull to shew the weakâ—ess of the Antipaedobaptists way of arguing even upon the utmost advantage they can desire to be given them § 28. And by this time I hope it appears that there is nothing in the word of God which renders Infants uncapable of being baptized § 29. And if so then we have enough though we had no more for Infants baptism For Baptism being that by which our children may have so much good as we have shewn they may have in the first branch of our Argument and being that whereof they have so much need as we have shewn they have in the second branch of it with what either charity or justice can they be denied it being they are so capable of it as we have now shewn them to be in the handling of this third branch Sure children are not the only persons in the world that may neither have acts of justice nor charity shewn towards them And what should hinder us from doing for them this good for which they have so much need Neither is the pains so great nor the trouble so much nor the charge so heavy but we may afford it them What will we do for them that will not do so little as this comes to to baptize them Are we not free and at liberty to do it if we will Is there any restraint laid upon us from doing it by the Law either of God or Man If neither spake for it as indeed both do yet to be sure neither speaks against it and so we may do it if we will And what can be pretended against doing so much good where we see there is so much need § 30. Do it then Brethren for your Children because it is so much for their good Do it because that of that good they have so much need And do it because it is an act both of Justice and Charity which they are as capable of receiving as you at liberty for performing Never stand hunting for Scripture for it so long as there is no Scripture against it but reckon it your duty to bring them to Christ whom Christ hath permitted to come unto him and whose coming to him Christ hath forbidden any man to hinder saying Suffer little children to come unto me and forbid them not § 31. And more then this I need not say to move any reasonable man to the doing of it § 32. And yet above and beyond all this I shall shew you in the fourth and last place a Right that Children have unto Baptism and then it cannot but be a wrong to hinder them from being baptized A Right I say our Children have unto Baptism and that upon a threefold account the Constitution of this Church the Custom of the Catholick Church and the Institution of Christ as I shall shew in order CHAP. XXVI Our Childrens Right to Baptism by the Constitution of this Church and Custom of the Catholick Church § 1. I Begin with our Childrens right to â—aptism by the first the Constitution of this present particular Church § 2. And as that hath told us in her 27th
word and doing that which is unlawfull And then there will be Absurdities enow following hereupon as has upon Mr. Hooker Eccl. Politie Dr. Hammond Will-worship c. several accounts and occasions been shown by sundry of our Divines But if the Prohibition of adding to the word here be not for the absurdities consequent thereunto to be extended unto the actions of common life then it is not to be extended to the actions of religious service For the same addition that is not to be made to the one is not to be made to the other and the same diminution that is not to be made from the one is not to be made from the other There being no distinction in this case made betwixt the one and the other it must be applied to both or to neither And either there shall no uncommanded actions of common life be lawfull or else some actions of religion may be lawfull though not commanded and the doing of them no addition to the word And if so then Infants Baptism may be lawfull enough notwithstanding any thing that here is said to the contrary and not be found any addition to the word § 5. Secondly I answer that this way of Interpreting this Text so as to render all uncommanded either civil or sacred actions unlawfull being overthrown there are other commodious rendrings of the Text which may fully speak the sense of it and yet render Infants Baptism not unlawfull § 6. One is that of Hugo Grotius who saith To diminish is not to do that which is bidden Diminuere est non facere quod jubetur addere aliter quam est jussum facere Grot. in loc To add is to do otherwise than 't is bidden To do what otherwise Why that sure which is forbidden His word is not aliud another thing as if the doing of any other thing than what was bidden were in his sense that adding to the word which is forbidden but it is aliter otherwise clearly shewing his sense of the Adding here forbidden to be the doing of what was bidden otherwise than it was bidden to be done Now what is this to Infants Baptism How can our doing of it be a doing otherwise than is commanded and so an adding in his sense to the word if in the word there be nothing at all commanded that concerns it And if it be not all commanded how is it possible we should do it otherwise than 't is commanded and so be guilty of adding to the word in his sense by the doing of it § 7. Another is that of Dr. Hammond who makes the paying of an Uniform Obedience to God by Defence of Superstition pag. 15. 16. the Jews according to the Law of Moses to be the meanâ—ng of the not adding nor diminishing mentioned in this Text. Now what is this you shall fulfill all my commandments and not disobey any of them either by doing what I forbid or by leaving undone what I command or by doing any thing that I have commanded otherwise than I have commanded otherwise than I have commanded it to the business of Infants Baptism What one either Affirmative or Negative Law of God touching his worship and service given to the Jews by Mosâ—s is violated and disobeyed thereby And if none then for any thing yet here said it must remain lawfull § 8. A third is that of theirs with whom I agree that interpret the not adding here forbidden of not adding any thing to the word of God as the word of God which was never spoken by God The word Add is explain'd by the word Diminish To diminâ—sh any thing from the word of God is properly to rob God of any part of it This is done two ways First by wholly destroying it as if it had never been spoken at all And this is a thing that they were guâ—lty of whoever they were by whom any book or part of any book of Gods word hath been lost if ever any were as is to be suspected some things being spoken of as written which are not to be found amongst the writings that are extant Secondly it is done by diminishing the Authority of it reckoning that for merely Humane which is Divine This is a thing which we are wrongfully charged by the Papists to be guilty of because we own not the Apocryphal Books as the divinely inspired word of God but as the writings of uninspired men But they are justly guilty of it that look upon the Scripture as a dead letter and Caspar Swenckfeldius docuit vocale verbum tanquam literam ocsidentem rejiaiendum esse solo spiritu nos contentos esse debere Alsted Prolegom Theolo Polem Sensum literalem aiunt Weigeliani esse umbram sonum Antichristianum sapientiae expertem spiritu vacuum fundamentum arenosum saluti noxium ambiguum in verbis imperfectum in doctrinâ mortuum inefficacem in literâ ineptum ad consolationem Wendelin Theolog. Christian Epist Dedicator a useless thing to be laid by as out of date now in the times of the effusion of greater light This is the Doctrine of the Swenckfeldians and Weigelians and espoused I doubt by too many of our English Enthusiasts § 9. And accordingly to Add to the word of God is to foist in and obtrude words upon God pretending them to be delivered and spoken by him though he never spake them nor gave any man order to speak them from him And this is done two ways First by adding words to the word of God This he should be guilty of that should put any words into the Bible more than Originally were there or should put into the Translation of the Bible more then is in the words or sense of the Original And this they are guilty of that affirm any thing to be spoken by God which he neveâ— spake And this Nicholas Stock and John of Leiden Ringleaders amongst the Dr. Feaâ—ley Dippers dipt p. 225. c. Germane Anabaptists formerly have been charged with And I could wish none of our English Enthusâ—sts were chargeable with it Secondly it is done by giving a divine authority to words not spoken by a divine inspiration This we accuse the Papists to be guilty of in making the Apocryphal Books of equal Authority with the Canonical Which yet cannot be proved to have been written by a Divine Inspiration nor to have been given by God as a Law of Faith but onely written by Men as a Direction for Life § 10. If then for the Baptizing of Infants we pretend no word of Gods not spoken by him if into his word we have put no words of our own or any mans else nor have given to any thing not written by him an equal Authority with his word then we are not we cannot be guilty of that Adding to the word of God which here is prohibited None sure is so weak as to think the baptizing of a child to be the adding of words to the word of God §
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