Article of her Doctrine That the Baptism Baptismus parvulorum omnino in Ecclesid retinendus est ut qui cum Christi institutione optimè congraut Artic. Relig. 27. of young children is in any wiâ—e to be retained in the Church as most agreeable with the institution of Christ so it hath provided in her Liturgy a double Office for the Baptizing of Infants the one fitted for Publick Solemnity the other adapted to Private Necessity and hath ordered the Curates of every Parish to be often admonishing the people that they defer not the baptizing of thâ—ir children longer than the first or second Sunday next after their Bâ—rth or other Holy day falling between unless upon reasonable cause which must be great too and to be approved by the Curate What the Church then not onely allows and permits them to have but ordains and appoints their having of that by the Constitution of the Church they have a Right unto and they cannot without injustice to them be deprived of it unless perhaps any shall think it no injury to wrong them of any spritual advantage whereas it is a great one to rob them of any temporal one when as contrarily if the one be a robbery the other is a sacriledge § 3. But because the present Church is a Party and will not be allowed to be a Judge by her Opposers therefore I will proceed to shew a second Right that children have unto Baptism and that is by Prescription from the Custom and Practice of the Catholick Church of Christ And sure they that will not be Members of our Particular Church will yet be willing to be Members of Christs Catholick Church And if so they be then sure they will not oppose nor gainsay but submit unto and be regulated by the Custom and Practice of it unless they mean to become guilty of Schism in separating from that Church whereof they pretend themselves to be Members § 4. Now as to Church custom and practice 't is in that as in other customs and practices It hath the obligation of a Law Common usage we say is common Law in England So 't is in civil Customs and so too in Ecclesiastical Where Authority from the Scripture fails there the Custom of Ubi Authoritas deficit ibi Consuetudo maâ—orum pro lege tenenda est D. Aug. ad Casulan In rebus de quibus nihil certi statuit Scriptura divina mâ—s populi Dei vel instituta majorum pro lege tenenda D. Aug. Ep. 86. Consuet ido autem etiam in civilibus rebus pro lege suscipitur cum deficit lex nec differt Scriptura an ratione consistat quando legem ratio commendet Tert. de Coron Mil. In iis quae Scriptura nec jubet nec prohibet illud est sequendum quod consuetudo roboravit Id. Ib. Exigis ubi scriptum sit in actibus Apostolorum etiamsi Scripturae auctoritas non subesset totius Orbis in hac parte consensus instar praecepti obtinet Nam multa alia quae per traditionem in Ecclesiis observantur auctoritatem sibi scriptaelegis usurpârunt veluti in lavacro ter mergitare caput c. D. Hieron advers Luciferan Quis quis Catholici dogmatis moris sensum divinitus per loca tempora omnia dispensatum contemserit non hominem contemnit sed Deum Vincent Lilinens the Church is to be held as a Law So St. Augustine saith and so have others of the Ancients both thought and said Whence that conclusion of the Council of Nice that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the ancient usages should continue in force And if so then Infants will have a Right to Baptism as good as any ever had to any thing on this account § 5. And that it should be so namely that the Custom and Practice of the Church should have the force of a Law either to justifie a Church Practice or to give Right unto a Church Priviledge will be no wonder sure to him that considers that the Apostle both hath made the Custom of the Church a Rule for Church-members to walk by 1 Cor. 14. 40. in saying Let all things be done decently and in order For by Decency there he means agreeableness to the custom of the Church which as our Learned Paraphrast saith is the rule of decency and hath also himself made use of Church custom as an argument for the refutation of such as should contend for the decency of womens publick praying that is being present at and joyning in the ivine service with their heads uncovered 1 Cor. 11. 16. But if any man seem to be contentious we have no such customs nor the Churches of God Which words of his we may sitly use to Opposers of Infants Baptism They contend for the deferring of the Baptizing of Infants even of all Infants though they be the children of believing Parents till they be grown men and hold it unlawfull for any to be baptized before But that is a novel opinion and practice of their own We have no such either opinion or custom nor the Churches of God § 6. And the stronger still will Infants Right unto Baptism from the Custom of the Church be which Custom yet must needs be granted to have a great force when an Apostle that could impose by an Authority Divine would argue from a Custom of the Church if it shall appear that this Custom of the Church hath been grounded upon Apostolical Tradition or Practice especially being the Apostle hath given express order to stand fast to and hold the Apostolical Traditions whether by word or by writing 2 Thess 2. 15. and to mark them which walked so as they had the Apostles for an example Phil. 3. 17. I will therefore first shew that the Practice of this Particular Church to baptize Infants has been the Practice of the Catholick Church and then proceed to shew that Practice of the Church to have been grounded on the Tradition of the Apostles and put fair to shew it to have been the Practice of the Apostles also CHAP. XXVII The Catholick Churches Custom to Baptize Infants § 1. NOw to shew that it hath been the Custom and Practice of the Universal Church of Christ to baptize Infants as it will be usefull unto you and also delightfull because you will see that what we hold and do in this case is no other but what hath been held and done in and by the Catholick Church in all the ages of it ever since that first wherein the Apostles lived so it shall neither be irksome nor unpleasing to my self because I shall hope thereby to contribute something toward the conviction and satisfaction of those that are doubters and dissatisfied in the point Wherein my progress shall be retrogressive beginning below and carrying my Catalogue upwards to the Primitive Times from the Present whereas other usually begin above and bring it downward to the Present from the Primitive it being not material which way it
Propheticae Apostolice interpretationis linea secundum Ecclesiastici Catholici sensus normam dirigatur In ipsa item Catholica Ecclesia magnopere cur andum est ut id tene amus quod ubique quod semper quod ab omnibus creditum est hoc est etenim vere proprieq Catholicum c Vinc. Lirin advers baeres cap. 1. 2 3. cause I maintain not onely with the authority of divine Law but also with the tradition of the Catholick Church And even the Antipaedobaptists themselves are willing enough to flourish their writings with humane testimonies and to plead tradition too if for them Indeed I observe none to be against tradition but those that think it to be against themselves or to reject the evidence of humane testimony who do not fear to be condemned by it And because the judgments or rather fancies of men as to Authors are so infinitely various that one esteems that as gold which another despises as dross and values as wheat what another rejects as chaff therefore I have endeavoured to obviate that variety of judgments with a diversity of Authors producing those of the Middle and Modern ages as well as those of the Ancient and Primitive Schoolmen as well as Commontators Historians as well as Fathers Civilians as well as Divines and Polemiâ—al as well as Didactical Writers So that the Readers which do not like of all may please themselves with what they have most fancy too leaving the liberty which themselves make use of unto others who as being of different tasts may think their leavings as good as their takings and relish that best which they disrelish most And because there is no one Prejudice that holds a stronger possession of our Antipae dobaptists than that which arises from that bright evidence which they have of the baptizing Adult Persons in all the Ages of the Church and of many's deferring either to be baptized Themselves or to baptize their Infants in several Ages of it and those especially that were nearest to the Primitive Times and the removal of that Prejudice may be a fair Introduction to their depositing of all the rest therefore I will endeavour in my entrance to remove that And if I can shew that the Delays of Baptism which they so speak of in the Ancient times were upon other Grounds and on different Accounts from those that our Antipaedobaptists alledge in the case then that plea of theirs from the practice of baptizing Adult Persons and deferring the Baptism of Infants will neither serve their Hypothesis nor disserve ours The Grounds as I understand on which our Antipaedobaptist refuse to baptize their Infants and defer their baptizing to ripeness of Age are because as they suppose there is no command in Scripture for it And because there is no example in Scripture of it either of which if there found they would hold it lawfull and because they find neither of them there they hold it unlawfull Now if it appear that the unlawfulness to baptize Infants for want of a Scripture command or Example for it was none of the Grounds on which the Ancients did defer their baptizing and that never any such thing was in the Primitive Times pretended or pleaded by any to justifie or excuse that delay then I hope the case will be clear that their delays of Baptism on other Grounds can asford no protection to the Hypothesis our Antipaedobaptists who deny Baptism to Infants upon the Account of the unlawfulness of it That never any such pretence or plea was made by any in the primitive times even for five hundred years against Infants Baptism I rationally presume because I see none yet produced by any of the Learnedst of our Antipaedobaptists who have I believe search'd through and through all the writings of the Fathers and Primitive Historians and ransack'd every page and rifled every passage in them for some patronage to their Hypothesis And as they are quick sighted enough to have espied it so they would have been carefull enough if there had been any to have produced it And upon the most curious search that I have been able to make for it my self as far as the circumstances I am under would permit me I sincerely profess I have not been able to find any What I have found urged or but binted at as a ground or reason for any ones delaying either his own or any Infants baptizing I shall fairly give an account of and then leave the Reader to judge what advantage our pleaders against Infants Baptism upon the account of the unlawfulness of it can make therefrom or rather what a miserable fallacy they put upon themselves and others whilest they alledge the Primitive Practice of deferring Infants Baptism in justification of their denying Baptism to Infants upon the account of the unlawfulness of it for want of a Command or Example in Scripture whereas it was never in the Primitive Times denied to any Infant upon that account nor was that ground ever urged or alledged by any in those days as a reason or so much as pretence for their deferring to baptize their Infants nor did any ask as our Antipaedobaptists now do What Scripture have you for it Where did Christ ever command it or where did any Apostle practice it Now in order to the shewing on what Accounts Baptism was in Ancient Times so oft and so long deferred I must premise that some did voluntarily defer their own baptizing and some had their Baptism deferred by others the former were Adult the later Infants And of the Reasons or Occasions of both I will speak distinctly And First Those that delayed their own baptizing had severall Reasons and Pretences for it 1. Some did it out of a fear of sinning after baptism and so forfeiting the grace of it and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Gr. Naz. Orat. 40. p. 647. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Id. ib. p. 649. Sed mundus rursus delinquit quo male comparetur diluvio it aque igni destinatur sicut homo qui post baptismum delict a restaurat Tertull. de Bapt p,259 ed. Rigalt 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Gr. Nyssen de Baptismo p. 221. Indeed 't was very usuall in those times notwithstanding the Fathers did solemnly and smartly declaim against it for persons to defer their being baptized till they were near their death out of a kind of Novatian principle that if they fell into sin after Baptism there would be no place for repentance mistaking that place of the Apostle where 't is said that if they who have been once enlightened 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which the Ancients generally understand of Baptism sall away 't is impossible to renew them again unto repentance Dr. Cave Prim. Christian par 1. ch 10. pag. 309. being certainly damned without â—hope of recovery even by repentance especially when they considered the pronenese of their own nature to sin and the occasions and temptations to sinning that they should meet withall in
born till he be baptized into Christ and a child of wrath through the uncleanness of his natural birth till he be made a child of grace by baptismal regeneration Can we think but he was for the baptizing of Infants who saith it is praescribed that none is capable of salvation without baptism especially being the Lord hath positively said Except a man be born of water he has not life and who from a comparison of this Definition of our Saviours with that Law which he gave for the discipling of nations by baptizing them gathers a necessity of baptism to salvation upon the account of which necessity believers were baptized And if they were baptized themselves and upon the account of a necessity of baptism unto salvation then surely they would have so much charity for their children as to baptize them and not leave them in a state of perdition It is plain therefore that he was rather for than against Infants Baptism § 79. And as he was for the baptizing of Infants so was also Irenaeus in the same Age but before him one that had been an Auditor of Polycarp Bishop of Smyrna and is by St. Hierom lookt on as a man of the Apostolical times and so a most competent witness as Dr. Hammond argues of the Apostolical Def. of Inf. Bapt. c. 4. §. 2. pag. 96. doctrine and practice especially being as Tertullian saith a most accurate searcher of all doctrines and one that sealed his belief with his blood being martyred at Lyons in the year 197. And what saith he Why he saith that Christ came to save all by himself all Omnes enim venit per semetipsum salvare omnes inquam qui per eum renascuntur in Deum infantes parvulos pucros juvenes seniores D. Irenaei advers Haeres l. 2. c. 39. p. 192. See Dr Haem Bapt. of Inf. Sect. 40. I say who are born again unto God by him Infants and little ones and children and young men and elder men Here it is plain that Infants and little ones and children are in the number of those that are born again unto God through Christ Now that by being born again unâ—o God is meant by being baptized I suppose none doubts that has read and understands as the Catholick Church hath ever understood that of our Saviour John 3. 5. Except a man Quod verbum Christi ad Nicodemum intendie aquam sensibilent is a position of Thom. Waldens de Sacramentis Tom. 2. q. 102. fol. 104. col 2. be born again of water and of the spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God or is acquainted with the Scripture notion of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 regeneration the laver whereof is Baptism § 80. In the same Age flourished Hyginus Bishop of Rome and about the same time being martyred Anno Dom. 144 And he as Platina affirms out of the ancient Records Voluit unum saltem Patrimum unamque Matrimam baptismo interesse sic enim eos appellant qui infantes tenent dum baptizantur Platina in Vitâ Hygini appointed that there should be at least one Godfather and one Godmother present at Baptism Now who he meant by Godfather and Godmother Platina informs us while he tells us that so they call those that hold Infants when they are baptized Godfathers and Godmothers appointed to be at the baptizing of Infants supposes Infants baptized § 81. Lastly Justin Martyr or who ever wrote that Ancient piece intituled Quaest Respons ad Orthâ—dox stating the difference 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 S. Just Martyr Quaest Resp. ad Orth. 56. pag. 424. Edit Paris 1615. between Infants dying baptized and unbaptized saith it is this that the baptized obtain the good things that come by baptism but the unbaptized obtain them not A proof this clear and full as can be desired of the baptizing of Insants in that Age the age wherein that Author lived the very next to that of the Apostles if Justin Martyr were that Author To which it is not now needfull I should add any thing unless I should add what follows in the same Author touching the Baptized Infants namely that they are vouchsafed the advantages of baptism through the faith of those that bring them to be baptized § 82. And thus I have shewn you that it hath been the Custom and Practice of the Universal Church of Christ in all the Ages thereof from the present to the Primitive Times even up to that very Age wherein the Apostles lived to baptize Infants CHAP. XXVIII Infants Baptism a Tradition Apostolical § 1. I Am now to examine how this could come to be practice of the Universal Church And truly it can be no other but the Authority of the Apostles Tradition or Practice in their own Age. The Apostles some way by word or writing taught Vniversa Ecclesia quae Apostolicam proximè secuta est infantes baptizavit Igitur dubium non est quinmota Scripturae authoritate praxi Apostolicâ hoc secerit Wendelin Thelog Christ l. 1. cap. 13. Explic. Thess 11. others so to do or did so themselves and so made themselves an example for others to do the like or both or else it is not imaginable how such a practice should not onely be received so generally into the Church and so early too but continue also in it through all Ages down from their time to our own without interruption I will therefore speak of both And first of Tradition § 2. Tradition notes the delivery of a thing to be received into our belief or practice See Dr. Ham. Bapt of Inf. Sect. 99 100. That where 't is genuine and Apostolical is of mighty moment in religious concerns And that if any is truly such which hath been received and owned for such by the Church in all the Ages of it from the primitive to the present times either openly in profession or tacitly in practice § 3. To this is referred the Sanctification of the Lords day To this is referred the admission of Women to the Lords Table To this is referred the Canon of Scripture And to this is referred the Baptizing of Infants § 4. Let no man whisper you in the ear saith St. Augustin with any other doctrines a Quid de parvulis pueris si ex Adam aegroti Nam ipsi portantur ad Ecclesiam Nemo ergo vobis susurret doctrinas alienas Hoc Ecclesia semper habuit semper tenuit hoc a ma orum fide percipit buâ— usqâ—â— in sinâ—m perseâ—â—renter â—â—â—â—dit D. Aug. Serm. 10. de Vâ—â—v Apost This the Church hath always had hath always held this from the Faith of our Fore elders it hath received and this it keeps perseveringly unto the end And for as much as the Universal Church doth maintain it being always held in the Church and not brought into it by any Councils decree b Quod uniâ—â—rsâ—z tâ—nâ—t â—â—â—lâ—sia noc Conciliis institutum sed semper
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 §