together they do not amount to any tolerable degree of probability much less unto a presumption especially if they be put in the ballance against the early and universal practice of the Catholick Church Had not the Church been always in possession of this practice or could any time be shewed on this side the Apostles when it began Nay could it be proved that any one Church in the World did not Baptize Infants or that any considerable number of Men otherwise Orthodox did decline the Baptizing of them upon the same Principles that these Men do now then I should suspect that their Arguments are better than really they are and that Infant-Baptism might possibly be a deviation from the rule of Christ But since it is so universal and ancient a practice that no body knows when or where it began or how from not being it came to be the practice of the Church since there was never any Church Antient or Modern which did not practise it it must argue a strange partiality to think that it could be any thing less than an Apostolical Practice and Tradition or the Original use of Baptism in its full Latitude under the Gospel which it had under the Law Had the * Ecâ—uid verisimise est tot ac tantae in unam fidem erraverint Nullus inter multos eventus unus est Exitus variasse debuerat error doctrinae Ecclesiarum Quod autem apud multos unum invenitur non est erratum sed traditum Tertull. de praescriptione Haeret. c. 28. Churches erred they would have varied saith Tertullian but what is one and the same amongst them all proceeds not from error but Tradition Or as St. †De Baptismo contra Donat. l. 4. c. 24. Augustine saith upon this Subject That which the Universal Church doth hold and was never instituted by Councils but was always retained in the Church we most rightly believe to have descended from nothing less than Apostolical Tradition * Cassand advers Anabapt p. 675. Menno one of the most learned of the Anabaptists about the time of the Reformation was so pressed with this way of arguing that he acknowledged Infant-Baptism to be as old as the time of the Apostles but then he said it proceeded from false-Apostles and false-Teachers in the Apostles times But if it came first from false Apostles and false-Teachers in the time of the Apostles how came it to pass that we heard nothing of that Innovation in the Writings of the Apostles or of their Companions and Contemporaries such as St. Clement St. Ignatius St. Polycarp c How came St. John who survived unto the latter end of the first Century to pass it over in silence or how came the Spirit in the Revelations which by his Pen reproved so many abuses in the Churches not to censure this It is very strange that none of the Pen-men of the Holy-Ghost nor none of their Assistants and Companions should animadvert upon so scandalous an abuse of the Holy-Ordinance of Baptism which in a short time would fill the Church with sham Christians and destroy the Essence thereof In like manner if it came in by false Teachers in the next Age to the Apostles how came it to pass that none of the famous Saints and Martyrs who flourished then opposed it as a dangerous Innovation nor gave us any account thereof They wrote against the Heresies of Simon Menander Saturnus Cerinthus Ebion Valentinus Basilides Marcion c. but we find nothing in them against Infant-Baptism though we are sure from * Omnes enim venit Christus per semet ipsum salvare omnes inquam qui per eum renasountur ad deum infantes parvulos pueros juvenes seniores i. e. Christ came to save all by himself all I say who by him are born again to God Infants and little Ones and Boys and Young and Old In the Ancient Writers Baptism is called Regeneration and Baptized Persons are said to be Regenetate or born again according to the Scripture which calls it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the washing of Regeneration Tit. 3.5 Hence saith Just Mart. Apol. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So hath Phavorinus observed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Holy Baptism is called Regeneration and those who would see more proofs of it may consult Suicerus in the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Dr. Ham. on Matth. 19.28 John 3.5 Selden de jure l. 2. c. 4. But if after all this evidence any Anabaptist will say that renascuntur in this place of Irenaeus doth not signifie Baptized or born again of Water then it must signifie Regenerated or born again of the Spirit and if Infants and little Ones can be born again of the Spirit then they are capable of being born again of Water or of being Baptized as Vossius argues disp de Baptismo p. 181. Irenaeus and †De Baptismo Where what he speaks about deferring the Baptism of Infants shews that it was the practice of the Christians in that Age Pro cujusque personae conditione ac dispositione etiam aetate cunctatio Baptismi utilior est praecipuè tamen circa parvulos Quid enim necesse est si non tum necesse sponsores periculo ingeri Quid festinat innocens a tas ad remissionem peccatorum But this Opinion of his that it was more convenient to defer the Baptism of Infants was his own singular opinion as much as that was of deferring the Baptism of Virgins and Widows till they were Married which follows in the next words Non minore de causà innupti procrastinandi c. And he shews the same cause why he would have the Baptism of Children and un-married Women deferred for fear they should be tempted to renounce Christ after Baptism Siqui pondus intelligant Baptismi magis timebunt consecutionem quam dilationem fides integra secura est de salute But then how absolutely necessary he thought Baptism for Infants in case of extream danger is evident from other Passages as Cap. 13. Quum vero praescribitur nomini sine Baptismo competere salutem and Cap. 17. Sufficiat scilicet in necessitatibus utaris sicubi aut loci aut temporis aut personae conditio compellit Tunc enim constantia succurrentis excipitur quoniam reus erit perditi hominis si supersederet praestare quod liberè potuit So likewise in his Book de anima Cap. 39. Adeo nulla fermè Nativitas munda est Ethnicorum Alioquin meminerat dominicae definitionis nisi quis nascatur ex aquâ Spiritu non ibit in regnum Dei i. e. Non erit Sanctus Ita omnis anima eousque in Adam censetur donec in Christo recenseatur tamdiu immunda quamdiù recenseatur Tertullian that it was practised in that Age. Ignatius Polycarp Papias who were all the * Act. Mart. Ignat. Scholars of St. John as likewise Justin Martyr Athenagoras and Hegesippus were all
under the Gospel was no accepter of Persons So he was no accepter of Ages but that Infants might be Baptized as soon as they were born to wash away their Original Sin The African Church was one of the most flourishing strict and pious of the Primitive Churches and this resolution of the Council which as St. Augustin observed an 100 Years after was not novum decretum supposeth that Infant-Baptism had been the Original and immemorial practice of that Church This Council sat about the middle of the third Century 150 Years or thereabouts after the Death of the last surviving Apostle and about the middle of the fourth Century we find Gregory Nazianzen speaking thus c Orat. 40. in Sanct. Baptisma 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hast thou a Child Let not Sin get the advantage but let him be sanctified from his Infancy and consecrated by the Spirit from his tender Years But it may be thou art afraid to have him consigned because of the weakness of his Nature what a silly Mother art thou and how weak in Faith Anna promised Samuel to God before he was born and not fearing any thing of Humane Weakness but trusting in God Consecrated the Child to the Priest-hood almost as soon as he saw the Light Thou wilt have no need of Superstitious Charms and Amulets for him in which the Devil steals to himself from silly Souls the Honour which is due to God but call upon him the name of the Holy Trinity which is the most safe and excellent of Charms And afterwards a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so for the Baptism of those who desire Baptism but what shall we say of Infants who are sensible neither of the gain nor loss of it shall we Baptize them Most certainly if they be in danger for it is better that they be Sanctified without the Sense of it than that they dye uninitiated and unconsigned and my reason is taken from Circumcision which was administred on the Eighth Day unto Infants that had no Reason to which I may add the saving of the First-Born in Goshen by the sign of the Blood on the Lintel of the Door and the two Side-Posts The Brevity which I design in this Treatise will not permit me to recite many more Authorities which are very b Vid. testim Veter Script de Baptism apud Cassand Gerhard Joh. Voss disp 14. de Baptismo numerous out of Chrysostom Ambrose Jerom Augustin c. But I shall rather superadd some Considerations which confirm this Ancient Tradition of Infant-Baptism and are sufficient to induce any considerate and impartial Man to believe that so Ancient and universal a Practice was as old as the Planting of Churches by the Apostles and originally derives its Authority from them For first if Infant-Baptism was not the Practice of the Apostles but an Innovation it is very hard to imagine that God should suffer his Church to fall into such a dangerous Practice which would in time Un-Church it while Miracles were yet Extant in the Church The same Holy Spirit that was the guide of the Apostles into all Truth was the Author of Miracles too but the first four Witnesses which I have produced for Infant-Baptism to wit Irenaeus Tertullian Origen and Cyprian do all likewise assure us that Miracles were then not extraordinary in the Church c Adversus haereses l. 2. cap. 56 57. Euseb Hist Eccles l. 5. cap. 7. Irenaeus tells us that the true Disciples of Christ did then dispossess Devils and had the Gift of Tongues and of Praescience and Praediction and of healing the Sick and that the whole Congregation meeting together did by Fasting and Prayer often raise the Dead and that many so raised were then alive in the Church Nay he tells us that the number of Spiritual Gifts were innumerable which the Church all the World over then received from Christ and I truly confess it cannot enter into my heart to believe that God should suffer the Church to Embrace such a pernicious Error as Infant-Baptism was if it was not of Apostolical Tradition and fill the Christian World with Mock-Christians while he bore them Witness with Signs and Wonders and divers Miracles and Gifts of the Holy Ghost Tertullian in his a Et ad Scapulam c. 2. Apologetic tells us that the Christians had then power to make the Gods of the Heathen confess themselves to be Devils Nay he Challenges the Heathens to bring any one of those that were acted and inspired with any one of their Gods and Goddesses whom they worshipped and if that Daemon God or Goddess not daring to tell a Lye before any Christian should not confess it self to be a Devil then they should shed the Blood of that Christian upon the Place Origen in his Answer to Celsus frequently appeals to the Miracles which the Christians wrought in his Days particularly in the first b Cambridge Edition p. 34. Book he saith that they exorcised Daemons healed the Sick and foresaw Future Events And in the c p. 334. See also p. 62 80 124 127 376. seventh Book he proves that Christians did not their Miracles by any curious Magical Arts because Idiots or illiterate Men among them did by nothing but by Prayers and Adjurations in the Name of Jesus banish Devils from the Bodies and Souls of Men. d In Epist ad Donatum vid. Epist ad Magnum ad Demetrianum p. 202. Ed. Rigalt St. Cyprian tells us that the Christians in his days had power to hinder the Operation of deadly Poisons to restore Mad-men to their Senses to force Devils to confess themselves to be so and with invisible strokes and Torments to make them cry and howl and forsake the Bodies which they possessed These are the first four Witnesses which I have produced for the Practice of Infant-Baptism and let any man judge whether the Church could yet run into a Church-destroying Practice within such an Holy and Miraculous Period as this But secondly If Infant-Baptism was not an Apostolical Tradition or were derivable from any thing less than Apostolical Practice how came the a Vid. Vossii hist Pelag. l. 2. pars 2. Thes 4. 13. disp de Bapt. Thes 18. disp 14. Thes 4. Cassand praefat ad Duc. Jul. p. 670. Testim veterū de Bapt. parvulorum p. 687. Pelagians not to reject it for an Innovation seeing the Orthodox used it as an Argument against them that Infants were guilty of Original Sin It had been easie for them had there been any ground for it to say that it was an Innovation crept into Practice since the time of the Apostles or that it was brought up by false-False-Apostles and False-Teachers in the Apostles Times but then they were so far from doing this which they would have been glad to do upon any colourable Pretence that they practiced it themselves and owned it for an Apostolical Tradition and as necessary for Childrens obtaining the
Kingdom of Heaven tho they denied that they were Baptized for the Remission of Original Sin But thirdly If Infant-Baptism were not in Practice from the first Plantation of Christian Churches or were derivable from any other Cause than Apostolical Tradition let the Opposers of it tell us any other probable way how it came to be the uniform practice of all Churches not only of such as were Colonies of the same Mother-Church or had Correspondence with one another by their Bishops and Presbyters but of such as were Original Plantations and betwixt which there was likely none or but very little Communication by reason of the vast distance and want of intercourse betwixt the Countries where b Brerewoods Enquiries c. 23 Cassand exposit de auctor Consult Bapt. Infant p. 692. they lived Among these of the latter sort are the Abassin-Church in the further Ethiopia and the c Osor l. 3. de rebus gest Eman cit à Vossio in disp 14. de Baptismo Brerewoods Enquiries c. 20. Indian Church in Coulan and Crangonor and about Maliapur Planted by St. Thomas both which practice Infant-Baptism tho in all probability they never had it one from the other or both from any third Church It is very incredible that God should suffer all Churches in all the Parts of the World to fall into one and the same Practice which certainly is a Church-destroying Practice if the Apostles and their Assistants did not Baptize Infants but only grown Persons One may easily imagine that God might suffer all Churches to fall into such an harmless Practise as that of Infant Communion or that the Fathers of the Church might comply with the Religious fondness of the People in bringing their Children to the Sacrament as we do with bringing them to Prayers but that God should let them all not preserving any one for a Monument of Apostolical Purity fall into a Practice which destroys the Being of the Church is at least a thousand times more Incredible than that the Apostles without a Prohibition from Christ to the contrary and no such Prohibition is Extant in the New Testament should Baptize Infants according to the Practise of the Jewish Church But in the fourth Place what Account can rationally be given why the Jewish Christians who were offended at the neglect of Circumcision should not have been much more offended if the Apostles had refused to initiate Children under the New Testament which had always been initiated under the Old Is it reasonable to believe that those who complained so much meerly because the Apostles Taught the Jews which lived among the Gentiles that they should not Circumcise their Children would not have complained much more if they had not Baptized them but quite excluded them like the Infants of Unbelievers from Admission into the Church It must in all probability have galled them very much to see their Children Treated like the Children of meer Strangers and to have had no visible difference put between the Infants of those that Embraced and those that resisted the Faith For they always looked upon Pagan Children as Common and Unclean but upon their own as Separate and Holy and St. Paul makes the same distinction between them 1 Cor. 7.14 But had the Apostles taught that the Children of those who were in Covenant with God had no more right unto Baptismal Initiation than the Children of Idolaters who were out of the Covenant they had Taught a Doctrine which certainly would have offended them more than all they Preached against Circumcision and keeping the Ceremonial Law Wherefore since we never read among their many Complaints upon the alteration of the Jews Customs that they complained of their Childrens not being initiated by Baptism it is a greater presumption that the Apostles and their Assistants Baptized their Children then the want of an Express Example of Infant-Baptism in the New Testament is that they Baptized them not Having now shewed first that Infants are not uncapable of Baptism Secondly That they are not excluded from it by Christ but that on the contrary we have very convincing Reasons to presume that the Baptism of Infants as well as of grown Persons was intended by him Let us now proceed to make a fair and impartial enquiry upon the Third Question Quest III. Whether it is lawful to separate from a Church which appointeth Infants to be Baptized And this considering what I have said upon the former Questions must be determined in the Negative Whether we consider Infant-Baptism only as a thing lawful and allowable or as a Thing highly requisite or necessary to be done I know very well that my Adversaries in this Controversie will be apt to deny this distinction betwixt Lawful and Necessary as acknowledging nothing in Religious matters to be lawful but what is necessary according to that common Principle imbibed by all sorts of Dissenters That nothing is to be appointed in Religious matters but what is commanded by some Precept or directed unto by some special Example in the Word of God Hence they ordinarily say Can you shew us any Precept or Example for Baptizing Infants in the New Testament if you can we will grant that the appointment of it is lawful but if you cannot we disallow it as unlawful nay as an Usurpation and will never be of a Church which so Usurpeth it over the Consciences of Men. This way of Arguing is plausible to the Vulgar and would be very good were there such a Principle in the Scripture as this from whence they Argue viz. That nothing is to be appointed in Religious matters but what is warranted by Precept or Example in the Word of God Wherefore as the Men with whom I have to deal in this Controversie are generally Persons of good natural Understandings So in the First place I beg them to consider that there is no such Rule in the Scripture as this and therefore those who teach it for a Scripture-rule or Precept do themselves impose upon Mens Consciences as bad as Papists and like them and the Pharisees of old teach the Traditions of Men for Doctrines of God On the contrary the Gospel tells us that Sin is the Transgression of a Law and that where there is no Law there is no Transgression and according to this plain and intelligible Rule though the Baptizing of Infants were not commanded in the Scriptures yet the Church would have Power and Authority to appoint it upon supposition that it is not forbid Secondly I desire them to consider the absurdity of this pretended Scripture-rule in that it takes away the distinction betwixt barely lawful or allowable and necessary and leaves no Negative mean betwixt necessary and sinful but makes things forbidden and things not commanded to be the very same Thirdly I desire them to consider what a slavish Principle this is and how inconsistent it is with the free and manly nature of the Christian Religion under which we should be in a far more servile
the Trinity and the Deity of the Holy Ghost may be fairly and sufficiently proved from those Texts which the Orthodox bring for them without Ancient Tradition though without it they could not be demonstrated from them because they do not assert it in express words But then as those Texts in Conjunction with Tradition do put those Doctrines out of all reasonable doubt So do the other which I have cited in Conjunction with the Practice of the Ancient Church put the requisite necessity of Infant-Baptism out of Question because the Church in the next Age unto the Apostles practiced Infant-Baptism as an Apostolical Tradition and by consequence as an Institution of Christ In like manner as the Intrinsecal Arguments taken rom the Style Sanctity Dignity and Efficacy of the Holy Scriptures and the perpetual Analogy and Conformity of the several Books contained in them are by themselves but probable and no demonstrative reasons that all the Books contained in the Canon and no other are the Word of God but in conjunction with the Testimony and Authority of the Ancient Catholick Church amount to a Demonstration So though the Texts which I have cited are of themselves but probable Arguments for the requisite necessity of Infant-Baptism yet in concurrence with such a Comment upon them as the Practice of the next Age unto the Apostles and all Ages since from one Generation to another they amount to such a demonstration as is called in Logick Demonstratio ducens ad absurdum and are a violent Presumption that Children ought to be Baptized I might run on the Parallel as to the other Instances of Episcopal Government the admitting of Women to the Communion and the Observation of the Lord's day and therefore let the Adversaries of Infant-Baptism consider well with themselves Whether rejecting of it after a Concurrence of such Texts and such a Tradition to establish it they do not teach others especially Atheists pure Deists and Sabbatizers to which I may add Scepticks Socinians and Quakers a way to deny all the rest Thus much I have said concerning the requisite necessity of Infant-Baptism to shew that it is not lawful to separate from a Church for appointing of Infants to be Baptized when there are such cogent reasons arising from the concurrence of Scripture and Antiquity to presume that Infant-Baptism was an Apostolical Tradition and an Institution of Christ And I have designedly called it a requisite to distinguish it from an absolute necessity lest the Reader should think I were of St. Augustin's Opinion who thought Baptism indispensibly necessary to the Salvation of Infants so that a Child dying unbaptized through the carelesness or Superstition of the Parents or through their mistaken Belief of the unlawfulness of Infant-Baptism were * Potest proinde rectè dici parvulos sine Baptismo de corpore exeuntes in damnatione omnium mitissimâ futuros Multum autem fallit fallitur qui eos in damnatione praedicat non futuros dicente Apostolo Judicium ex uno delicto August de peccat merit remiss contra Pelag. l. 1. c. 16. Vid. contra Julianum Pelag. l. 5. c. 8. infallibly damned No I intended no such severe Conclusion because we ought not to tye God to the same means to which he hath tied us but only to shew that the Baptism of young Children is antecedently necessary and †Articles of Religion Artic. 27. in any wise to be retained in the Church as being most agreeable with the Holy Scripture the Apostolical Practice and the Institution of Christ And to set this way of arguing more home upon the Consciences of those who Dissent from the Church upon the account of Infant-Baptism I appeal unto them Whether Scripture and Antiquity standing against Infant-Baptism in the same posture of evidence that they now stand for it it would not be unjustifiable for any sort of Men to separate from the Church for not Baptizing Infants as they do now for Baptizing of them Let us suppose for Example That the Disciples of Christ instead of rebuking those that brought little Children unto him had brought them to him themselves and he had been much displeased at them for it and said I suffer not little Children to come unto me for the Kingdom of God is not of such Let us put the case That two Evangelists had recorded this supposed Story and accordingly we had been assured by the Writers of the two next Ages to the Apostles that then there was no Baptizing of Infants and that the Apostles Baptized them not and that there never was any Church in after Ages which did practise Infant-Baptism Upon this Supposition I appeal unto them Whether it would not be highly unreasonable to separate from all the Churches in the World for not allowing of Infant-Baptism against the Concurrence of such a Text to the contrary and the sence and practise of the Catholick Church The case which I suppose one way is the real case the other only with this difference that the supposed case would have but the benefit of one Text whereas the real hath the benefit of many in Conjunction with Tradition and therefore seeing there are so many Texts and such a cloud of Witnesses for Infant-Baptism Why should it not be looked upon as one of the common Notions of Christianity like the Parallel Doctrines above-mentioned though it be not commanded especially when as I have shewed there was no need of commanding of it in express Words I know the Dissenters of all sorts and especially those for whose sake I am now writing are bred up in great prejudice and sinister Suspicions against Tradition declaiming against it as very uncertain and against the use of it as very derogatory to the sufficiency of the Word of God But as to the first part of their Objection against the certainty of Tradition I desire them to take notice that there is a certain as well as an uncertain an undoubted as well as a pretended Tradition as there are true certain and undoubted as well as pretended and uncertain Scriptures and that there are sure ways whereby ingenious and inquisitive Men may satisfie themselves which is one and which is the other The way then to find out true and undoubted Tradition as * Advers Haeres c. 3. Vincentius Lirinensis teacheth is to try it by these three Tests Universality Antiquity and Consent First By Universality If all the Churches wheresoever dispersed or how different soever in their Languages and Customs do believe or practice such a Doctrine Secondly Antiquity If what all the Churches all the World over doth so believe or practice was no innovation but Believed and Practiced in the Ages next to the Apostles when such Fathers governed the Churches or such Famous Men lived in them as knew the Apostles and conversed with them or lived near unto those or with those Apostolical Men who so knew them or conversed with them or lived near unto them Thirdly
Age. These are all the Authorities for Infant-Communion that I know of till St. Augustin's time whereas besides the authority of St. Cyprian which is the first they have for Communicating Infants we have the authority of a whole Council of Fathers in which he presided and of Origen Tertullian and Irenaeus who was the Scholar of St. Polycarp and the Grand-Scholar of St. John And then whereas among the Writers of the 4th Century there are but the two above-cited who make mention of Infant-Communion we have St. * See them all cited at large in Walker's Plea for Infant-Baptism from p. 266. to p. 275. Hierom St. Ambrose St. Chrysostom St. Athanasius Gregory Nazianzen and the Third Council of Carthage who all speak of Infant-Baptism as of a thing generally practised and most of them as of a thing which ought to be practised in the Church Furthermore none of the four Testimonies for Infant-Communion speak of it as of an Apostolical Tradition as Origen doth of Infant-Baptism not to mention that the Pelagians never owned the necessity of Infant-Communion as they did of Infant-Baptism All which things considered shew that there is nothing near the like Evidence in Antiquity for the practice of the one as there is for that of the other And as there is not the like evidence for the constant successive and general practice of Infant-Communion that there is for Infant-Baptism So there is not the like Reason for the practice of it First Because Baptism is the Sacrament or Mystery of Initiation of which Persons of all Ages are capable it being instituted chiefly for an initiatory Sign to solemnize the admission of the Baptized Person into the Church and to Seal all the Blessings of the Gospel unto him as a Member of Christ This is the Substance or Chief end of Baptism which as I have shewed upon the Second and Fourth Questions is equally answered in the Baptism of Children as well as of professing Believers Confession of Faith as well as Confession of Sins being but accidental Circumstantials which are necessary with respect to the State of the Person to be Baptized but not to Baptism it self But on the contrary the Holy Eucharist or Communion is the Sacrament of Perfection and Consummation in the Christian Religion being primarily and chiefly instituted for a Sacrificial Feast in remembrance of Christ's Death and Passion which being an act of great Knowledge and Piety Children are not capable to perform But Secondly There is not the like Reason for Baptizing and Communicating Infants because that is grounded upon the Authority of many Texts of Scripture which without the Concurrence of Tradition are fairly and genuinely interpretable for it but this is grounded only upon one Text John 6.53 Except ye eat the Flesh of the Son of Man and drink his Blood ye have no life in you which it is doubtful whether it is to be understood of the Holy Eucharist or no because it cannot be understood of it but in a proleptical sence the Lord's Supper having not been yet instituted by him or if it be to be so understood yet the sence of it ought to be regulated by the Chief end of its Institution contained in those words of our blessed Saviour do this in remembrance of me and this do ye as oft as ye drink it in remembrance of me Wherefore though this Text were literally to be understood of the Holy Eucharist as St. Augustine first interprets it yet it ought not to be strained to Infant-Communion because Infants cannot partake of the Holy Banquet in remembrance of Christ And therefore though the Custom of Communicating Infants prevailed by Degrees in some Ages of the Church yet the Western Churches discerning the mistake upon which it was grounded have long since laid it aside though they still continue the practice of Infant-Baptism as fully answering the Chief end of Baptism and as being founded upon more and clearer Texts of Scriptures and a much more noble Tradition than Infant-Communion is But Thirdly There is not the like reason for Baptizing and Communicating Infants because the Correspondent practice of the Jewish Church in Infant-Circumcision and Infant-Baptism answered as a Pattern unto that under the Law but there was nothing of a Pattern under it which answered so to Infant-Communion because a Child never partook of the * Exod. 12.26 27. Passover before he was old enough to take his Father by the hand and to go up from the Gates of Jerusalem unto the Mount of the Temple and to enquire about the meaning of the Service and was capable of understanding the nature of it as it was done in remembrance of their Deliverance out of Egypt And in like manner when the Children of Christians are old enough to be instructed in the nature of the Holy Communion and to understand that then they may partake of it be it as soon as it will if they are Baptized and Confirmed though it is true that Christian Children are usually much older than the Jewish were before they Communicate which is merely accidental because it requires a riper reason to understand the Mystery of the Holy Eucharist which is done in remembrance of our Spiritual Deliverance by the Sacrifice of Christ both God and Man upon the Cross than to understand the plain and easie meaning of the Passover which was annually kept in remembrance of the Temporal Deliverance of the Jews But to speak yet more fully of Infant-Communion the practice of it is so far from prejudicing the Cause of Infant-Baptism that it mightily confirms it because none were or could be admitted to partake of the Holy Communion till they were validly * Theodoret. Therapeut Serm. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Baptized and therefore the practice of Infant-Communion is a most emphatical Declaration that all the Churches wherein it ever was or a As in the Greek Russian and Abyssin Churches and among the Christians of St. Thomas in the Indies still is practised were of Opinion that the Baptism of Infants was as lawful and valid as that of professing Believers can be As for the Original of this custom it is not known when it began probably it came in by degrees from the ancient and laudable custom of administring the Lord's Supper to grown Persons presently after their Baptism and if so many of the ancient Churches were so tender towards Infants as to bring them to the Communion rather than deprive them of the least shadow of right what shall be said in excuse of those uncharitable Men who will rather destroy all the Churches in the World than bring their Children unto Baptism of which they are capable and to which they have a Right so highly probable if not certain and infallible as I have proved above The Second Objection against Infant-Baptism which I took no notice of but reserved for this place is taken from their incapacity to engage themselves in Covenant unto God For say these Men
THE CASE OF Infant-Baptism In Five QUESTIONS I. Whether Infants are uncapable of Baptism II. Whether Infants are excluded from Baptism by Christ III. Whether it is lawful to separate from a Church which appointeth Infants to be Baptised IV. Whether it be the Duty of Christian Parents to bring their Children unto Baptism V. Whether it is lawful to Communicate with Believers who were Baptized in their Infancy LONDON Printed by T. Hodgkin for Tho. Basset at the George in Fleet-Street Benj. Tooke at the Ship in St. Paul's Church-Yard 1685. THE CASE OF Infant-Baptism The Previous Discourse THE better to prepare the mind of my Reader for what I shall say in this Discourse about Infant-Baptism I think it requisite to premise a short Introduction First Concerning the Original And Secondly Concerning the Nature of the Jewish Church Thirdly Concerning the initiatory Sacrament into it and the Persons that were capable of Initiation And Lastly Concerning the alteration of it from the Mosaic into the Christian Oeconomy or to express my self more plainly in the * Heb. 2.5 6 Scripture-phrase concerning the alteration of the House of Moses into the House of Christ As for the Original of the Jewish Church it is to be referred unto Abraham the †Rom. 4.11 Father of the Faithful purely considered as a Church But if it be considered as a Common-wealth or as a Church under such a Political Regulation then it is to be referred unto Moses who was called even by Heathen Writers the * Dionys Longin 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sect. 7. Legislator of the Jews These two Considerations of the Jewish Church purely as a Church and as a Common-wealth or as a Church under such a mixture with a Common-wealth ought heedfully to be distinguished 1. Because there is ground for such a distinction in the nature of the thing 2. Because this distinction is made by the Apostle who was of the Seed of Abraham an Hebrew of the Hebrews and by consequence very well qualified to understand the difference betwixt the Jewish Oeconomy as a Church and as a Common-wealth First I say there is a Ground for such a distinction in the Nature of the thing as is evident to any Man who is capable of considering the difference betwixt the Church-Christian before and after its Union with the Empire Before its Union with the Empire it subsisted by it self purely as a Church above three hundred years in a State of Persecution from Christ unto Constantine the Great and just so the Jewish Church for above four hundred years subsisted by it self in a State of Peregrination and Captivity from Abraham unto Moses who brought them out of Egypt and gave them the Law But Secondly As there is ground for this distinction in the nature of the thing so is it in effect made by the Apostle Gal. 3.17 This I say that the Covenant that was before confirmed of God with Abraham in Christ the Law which was four hundred and thirty years after cannot disannul that it should make the Promise to Abraham of none Effect Here is a plain difference made between the Covenant or Promise which God made with Abraham and his Seed when he separated him from the World unto himself and that Political one which he afterwards made with the Jews when he gave them the Law And this difference is also observed Rom. 4.13 The Promise that he should be the Heir of the World was not given to Abraham or to his Seed through the Law but through the Righteousness of Faith For if they which are of the Law be Heirs Faith is made void and the Promise is of no effect From these words which distinguish so plainly between the Covenant which God made with Abraham or the Promise which he made unto him and the Law it is evident that the beginning of the Jewish Church purely considered as a Church is to be dated from the Covenant which God made with Abraham and therefore in the second place the way to find out the nature of the Abrahamical or pure Jewish Church is to consider the nature of the Covenant or Promise upon which it was founded and if we examine the Scriptures we shall find that it was an Evangelical Covenant For substance the same with that which is since made betwixt God and us through Christ This will appear upon a Review of those Scriptures which teach us That Faith was the Condition of this Abrahamical Covenant that it was made with * Fide autem stare justitiā illic esse vitam praedictā est apud Habbaccuc Justus autem ex fide vivet Inde Abraham pater Gentium credidit In Genes credidit Abraham Deo deputatum est ei ad justitiam Item Paulus ad Galatas Abraham credidit Deo deputatum est ei ad justitiam Cognoscitis ergo qui ex fide sunt hi sunt filii Abrahae providens autem Scriptura quia ex fide c. Cyprian advers Judaeos Judaeos à Deo recessisse successisse vero in eorum locum Christianos fide Dominum promerentes de omnibus Gentibus ac toto orbe venientes Cyprian ad Quirin Testim L. 3. Abraham as the Father of the Faithful and in him with all Believers with his Spiritual as well as Carnal Seed proceeding from him by Spiritual as well as Natural Generation and that the Blessings or Promises of this Covenant belonged unto them upon the same Account of their Faith To this purpose speaketh the Apostle in the Fourth Chapter of his Epistle to the Romans from the 9th to the 15th Verse Cometh then this Blessedness of Justification by Faith upon the Circumcision only or upon the Uncircumcision also For we say that Faith was reckoned to Abraham for Righteousness how was it then reckon'd When he was in Circumcision or in Uncircumcision Not in Circumcision but in Uncircumcision and he received the Sign of Circumcision a Seal of the Promises made to the Righteousness of Faith which he had being yet uncircumcised that so believing before Circumcision he might be the Father both of all them that believe tho' they be not circumcised that righteousness might be imputed unto them also as his Children and the Father of Circumcision to them who are not of the Circumcision only but who also walk in the Steps of that Faith of our Father Abraham which he had being yet uncircumcised for the Promise that he should be the Heir of the World in his Posterity was not to Abraham or his Seed through the Righteousness of the Law but through the Righteousness which cometh of Faith For if they only which are of the Law be Heirs his Faith so much celebrated is made void and the Promise made to it of no effect So Gal. 3. from the 5th to the 10th Verse He therefore that ministreth unto you the extraordinary Gifts of the Spirit and worketh Miracles among you doth he it by the works of the Law or by the Faith
under the Law Hence it comes to pass that the Church-Christian is called in the New Testament the New and Supernal Jerusalem to let us know that Christianity is nothing but Spiritual Judaism the same City new reformed constituted upon a new Charter blessed with more noble and ample Priviledges than formerly and every way better built and more August than it was Thus in Rev. 3.12 Unto him that overcometh saith the Son of Man I will write the Name of my God and the Name of the City of my God which is New Jerusalem which is come down out of Heaven from my God that is I will acknowledge him that holds out to the end for a person truly godly and for a true Member of the pure Catholick Christian-Church which is the Spiritual Jerusalem descended from above And so Chap. 21. 2. I saw the Holy City New Jerusalem coming down from God down out of Heaven prepared as a Bride adorned for her Husband meaning Jesus Christ So in Gal. 4. Jerusalem which is from above or the Supernal Jerusalem is a free City which is the Mother of us all Hence also it comes to pass that St. Peter in his first General Epistle calls the Christians by those proper Titles and Appellations which God gave unto the Jews as unto his peculiar People viz. a chosen Generation a Royal Priesthood an Holy Nation a peculiar People which must needs imply that the Christian Church is fundamentally and radically the same with the ancient Church of the Jews Accordingly St. Paul tho' he was the Doctor of the Gentiles yet compared the calling of them to the engrafting of the wild Olive-Tree into the old Olive-Trees Stock It some of the Branches saith * Rom. 11. he unto them be broken off through Unbelief and thou being a wild Olive Branch was grafted in amongst them and with them partakest of the Root and Fatness of the Ancient Olive-Tree boast not against the Branches so cut off but if thou boast remember that thou bearest not the Root but the Root thee and afterwards If thou wert cut off from the Olive-Tree which is wild by Nature and wert grafted contrary to thy wild Nature into a good Olive-Tree how much more shall these unbelieving Jews which be the natural Branches be re-grafted into their own Olive-Tree From this Comparison it is plain that the Jewish and Christian Church are the same in the Root and Stock And from this radical Argument that is betwixt them it proceeds that St. John in his Symbolical way of Writing in the Apocalyps calls the Christians Jews Behold I will make them of the Synagogue of Satan which say they are Jews but are not Rev. 3.9.2.9 Indeed as Judaism was nothing but mystical Christianity so Christianity is nothing but reformed Judaism which made our Saviour who was the Reformer of it say unto the Jews Think not that I am come to destroy the Law and the Prophets I am not come to destroy but to perfect and fulfil And unto his Disciples who under him were to be Master-Builders of his House he said That a Scribe or Doctor rightly instructed unto the Kingdom of God was like a Man that is an Housholder who bringeth out of his Store-house things both new and old Thereby shewing as Irenaeus observes L. 4. c. 21. 43. that he must be a very skilful Scribe in the Old Testament that was fit to make a Workman of the new The Old Testament and legal Oeconomy was to be his Magazine and Storehouse out of which he was to fetch many serviceable pieces for the new Building and accordingly our Saviour tho' in reforming the House of Moses he was fain to pull it down that it might be enlarged yet both he that began the Reformation and his Apostles who finished it like Men that were House-holders used much of the Old Timber and Materials and conformed it too as much as they could after the manner of the old * Dr. Hammond of Infant-Baptism They introduced as much of Judaism into the Christian Religion as the nature of the Reformation would well bear and adhered as much as they could to the old both in the Matter and Form of the new Oeconomy and laid by few Jewish Rites and Customs but such as were fulfilled in Christ and Christianity as the Antitype and Substance of them or else such as were inconsistent with the Nature of the Church-Christian as it was to be a manly free and universal Church These were the two reasons for which Christ and his Apostles so much altered the Face of the Church from what it was under the Mosaical Oeconomy First because very many of the Jewish Rites and Ceremonies were †Ac primò ita his in rebus comparatur ut antitypus in typi locum succedat eumque adeo loco moveat ut simul atque antitypus adsit nullus deinceps typo locus nullus usus reperiatur Outramus de Sacrificiis Lib. 2. c. 16. p. 204. fulfilled in Christ and Christianity and Secondly because many of them were inconsistent with the nature of a manly free and universal Church such as Christ intended his should be First Then many of the Ecclesiastical rites and usages of the Jews were laid aside at the time of Reformation because they were fulfilled in Christ as the Antitype and Substance of them as is plain from the words of the Apostle Col. 2.16 Let no man judge you in Meat or in Drink or in respect of an Holyday or of the New Moons or of the Sabbath days which are a Shadow of things that are to come to pass but the Body is Christ that is to say Let no Man impose upon you the Doctrine of Mosaical Abstinence or condemn you for eating and drinking things prohibited by the Jewish Religion or for not observing their Feasts New Moons and Sabbaths which are but Types of Christianity and therefore ought to be laid aside The like he doth shew in his Epistle to the Hebrews concerning the Temple Priesthood Altar Sacrifices and the whole Temple-Service as is plain from many Passages whereof I shall recite some The Priesthood being changed there is made also of necessity a change in the Law Chap. 7. 22. The Holy Ghost this signifying thereby that the way into the holiest of all was not yet made manifest while as the first Tabernacle was yet standing which was but a Figure for the time then present in which were offered both Gifts and Sacrifices that could not make him that did the Service perfect and cleansed as pertaining to the Conscience which stood or consisted only in a certain use of Meats and Drinks and divers Washings and other carnal Ordinances imposed on them as Types until the time of Reformation by Christ Chap. 9.8 9 10. So vers 24. Christ with the Blood of his Sacrifice is not entred into the Holy Places made with Hands which are the Figures of the true And after all Chap. 10. 1. the Law
beginning or Original of the Jewish Church Secondly Concerning the Nature of it Thirdly Concerning the initiatory Sacrament into it and the Persons that were capable of Initiation And Lastly Concerning the alteration of it from the Legal into the Evangelical Dispensation wherein I have briefly shewed the true grounds of that blessed Reformation and how tender Christ and his Apostles were of Altering or rejecting more than was necessary or of receding more than was needful from the Jewish Church All these things I thought necessary to be discoursed as Praecognita to fit and prepare the Reader 's mind to understand the State of the Controversie about Infant-Baptism as it is proposed in these five Comprehensive Questions 1. Whether Infants are uncapable of Baptism 2. Whether they are excluded from Baptism by Christ 3. Whether it is lawful to separate from a Church which appointeth Infants to be Baptized 4. Whether it be the duty of Christian Parents to bring their Children unto Baptism 5. Whether it is lawful to Communicate with believers who were Baptized in their Infancy The whole merit of the Controversie about Infant-Baptism lies in these five Comprehensive Questions and I shall presently proceed to the stating of them after I have shew'd that Circumcision was a Sacrament of equal Significancy Force and Perfection with Baptism and that Baptism succeeded in the room of it not as the Antitype succeeded in the place of the Type but as one positive Institution succeeds in the place of another and this also is necessary to be foreknown by the Reader because the Anabaptists endeavour to shift off the force of many good Arguments which otherwise are not to be evaded by saying that Circumcision under the Old Testament was a Type of Baptism under the New Now to shew that Circumcision was not a Type but only the Fore-runner of Baptism we must note that strictly and properly speaking there was the same difference betwixt the Type and the Antitype as betwixt the Shadow and the Substance or betwixt a Man and his Picture in a Glass * Deinde quod maximè advertendum id inter Antitypum Typum interest quod quae revera in Antitypo vis in est ea non nisi specie tenus aut gradu longè exiliori in Typo extiterit Enimvero quamâ—is Typus nonnunquam rem aliquam cum Antitypo suo communem habuerit ea tamen res multò minùs in Typo quà m in Antitypo semper valet ita ut vis rei adumbrantis virtutis in adumbratâ repertae nil nisi Symbolica quaedam Species aut tam exilis gradus fuerit ut pro umbrâ quâdam haberi possit Outramus de Sacrif l. 2. c. 18. insomuch that what was really literally and properly in the Antitype and of perfect Efficacy and Power was generally but Symbolically and representatively in the Type and figurative of something which did in a more noble perfect eminent and efficacious manner belong to the Antitype than it did to it Thus the blood of the Legal Sacrifices were but Shadows and Representations of the Blood of Christ and the purging and cleansing Virtue in their Blood serving to the purifying of the Flesh was also but a faint and umbratical resemblance of the more noble and efficacious cleansing Virtue of his Blood which purges the Conscience from dead works So the Brazen Serpent was but a Shadow or Symbol of Christ upon the Cross and the healing Virtue which belonged to it was but a figure or shadow of that more eminent and powerfully healing Virtue which was in Jesus Christ But the case is not so betwixt Circumcision and Baptism because Circumcision hath no Symbolical likeness with Baptism nor any thing belonging to it common with Baptism which doth not as literally properly fully and eminently belong unto it as unto Baptism it self For First Is Baptism a Sacrament of initiation into the Covenant of Grace under the Gospel So was Circumcision before and under the Law Is Baptism now a Seal of the Righteousness of Faith So was Circumcision then Doth it properly and effectually confirm and establish the Covenant betwixt God and us now So did Circumcision then as it is written you shall Circumcise the Flesh of your Fore-skin and it shall be a Token of the Covenant betwixt me and you Baptism doth nothing under the Gospel which Circumcision did not as properly and effectually under the Law This was then as absolute and real a Sacrament as that now is This did then as really initiate true Believers as that now doth It never was an Umbraticall Sacrament or shadow of another Sacrament it never did Umbratically initiate Believers or Umbratically and in shew and Similitude only confirm the Covenant betwixt God and the Seed of Abraham and therefore could not be a Type of Baptism no more than the Broad Seal of England 300 Years ago was a Type of this Accordingly it is never mentioned in the New Testament as a Type of Baptism nor Baptism as the Antitype of it but on the contrary the only Typical Adumbrations which are found of it in the Gospel are such things which have some Symbolical likeness with it and were fitted upon that account to be Types thereof The First Is the Baptizing of the Israelites in the * Mare autem illud Sacramentum Baptismi fuisse declarat beatus Apostolus Dicens nolo enim vos ignorare Et addidit dicens haec autem omnia figurae nostrae sunt Cyprian Ep. 69. Ed. Ox. Red-Sea 1 Cor. 10.2 Where the Red-Sea is a Type of the Water of Baptism their passing through it when they were delivered from Pharaoh and his Host a Type of our passing through that and of our deliverance thereby from the Devil and his Angels and their Captain and Deliverer Moses a Type of our Saviour Christ The Second Is the saving of Noah and his Family in the Ark the like figure whereunto saith the Apostle even Baptism doth also save us †Item Petrus ipse quoque demonstrans c. Cyprian Ep. 74. ad Pompeium contra Epist Stephani in Firmilian Ep. contra eandem Epist ad Cyprian in Ep. 69. Quod Petrus ostendens unam Ecclesiam esse c. 1 Pet. 3.21 Here it is plain that the Waters of the Flood were a shadow of the Waters of Baptism the Ark a Type of the Church and that the passing of the Ark through the Waters did prefigure our passing through the Waters of Baptism in the Ark of the Church But as for Circumcision it hath nothing in it Symbolical of Baptism nor was it an Umbratical but a real Consignation of the Covenant of Grace every way as real and substantial an Ordinance as Baptism now is and therefore succeeded in the room of it not as the Antitype did in the place of the Type but as one absolute Ordinance or positive Institution doth in the place of another according to the Apostle who saith unto the Colossians In whom also ye are
Preach the Gospel to every Creature saying He that believeth and is Baptized shall be saved I say seeing Children are capable of the benefits of Baptism and the Apostles who received this Commission knew them to be capable of it and to have had both Circumcision and Baptism administred to them in the Jewish Church how should they or any others imagine from the tenure of such a Commission which was given unto them as Planters of Churches but that it was Christ's intention that Children as well as grown Persons were to be Baptized Should God in the days of David or Solomon have called eleven or twelve Prophets and given them the same Commission which Mutatis Mutandis Christ gave to his Apostles bidding them go and Teach all Nations the Law Circumcising and Baptizing of them in the Name of the God of Abraham and teaching them to do whatsoever he had commanded them I say should he have sent them out to Preach the Law to every Creature saying He that believeth aad is Circumcised and baptized shall be saved but he that believeth not shall be damned would a Commission so worded have been of it self a sufficient ground for them to think that it was God's intention to restrain Circumcision and Baptism to adult Persons contrary to the practice of the Jewish Church Or if in a short History of their Mission and Undertaking we should have read that they Circumcised and Baptized as many Proselytes as gladly received their word would this have been an Argument that they did not also Circumcise and Baptize the Infants of those believing Proselytes according to the Laws and Usages of their Mother-Church No certainly such a Commission to Proselyte Strangers to the Jewish Religion could not in reason have been strained to prejudice the customary right of Infants to Circumcision and Baptism and therefore in parity of reason neither could the Apostles so understand their Commission without other Notices as to exclude Infants from Sacramental Initiation into the Church The plain truth is their Commission was a direction how they should proselyte Strangers to Christianity according to the nature of propagating a new Religion in strange Countries as it is set forth by the Apostle Rom. 20.14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed And how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard And how shall they hear without a Preacher And how shall they Preach unless they be sent Accordingly they were sent out to Preach or to Disciple Men and Women by Preaching and to Baptize as many of them as should upon their Preaching Believe and Repent But though the Order of Nature required that they should proceed in this Method with grown Persons as the Jews were wont to do with Proselytes to the Law yet it did not hinder that they who had been born and bred Jews should initiate the Infants of such Proselyted Persons according to the usage of the Jewish Church What need Christ have said more unto them when he sent them out than to bid them Go and teach all Nations Baptizing them in the Name of the Father c. Or to Preach the Gospel to every Creature and tell them that he that would believe the Gospel and be Baptized should be saved But then the respective sence of these words could only concern adult Persons and their qualification for Baptism but could in no reason be construed by them to exclude Infants but only unbelieving Men and Women whereof none were to be admitted into the Church by Baptism before they were taught Christianity and had confessed their Faith and Sins Should God as I said before call twelve Men of any Church where Infant-Baptism had been the constant and undoubted practice and bid them go and Preach the Gospel in the Indies to every creature and to say He that believeth the Doctrine which we Preach and is Baptized with the Baptism which we Administer shall be Saved I appeal to any Dissenter upon the account of Infant-Baptism whether he thinks that these Men bred up to the practice of Infant-Baptism could in probability so interpret this Commission as to think that it was God's intention that they should exclude the Infants of believing Proselytes from Baptismal admission into the Church The Professors against Infant-Baptism put the greatest stress upon these words of our Saviour He that believeth and is baptized shall be Saved But if they would well consider the next words they would find that Infants are not at all concerned in them because it follows but he that believeth not shall be Damned The same want of Faith which here excludes from Baptism excludes also from Salvation and therefore it cannot be understood of Infants unless they will say with the * The Petrobusians vid. Cassandri praefat ad Duc. Jul. Cli. praefat advers Anabaptistas Original Anabaptists that the same incapacity of believing which excludes them from Baptism excludes them from Salvation too Wherefore it is plain that the believing and not believing in that Text is only to be understood of such as are in capacity of hearing and believing the Gospel that is of grown Persons just as the words in Joh. 3.36 He that believeth on the Son of God hath Everlasting Life and he that believeth not shall not see Life but the Wrath of God abide thou him Thus far have I proceeded to shew how inconclusively and absurdly the Anabaptists go about to prove that Infants ought to be excluded from Baptism from the fore-mentioned Texts which speak of the Order of Proselyting grown Persons and their Qualifications for Baptism and as little success have they with some others which they bring to shew how unprofitable Baptism is for Infants as that in 1. Pet 3.21 Where the Apostle tells us that external Baptism of putting away the filth of the Flesh of which Infants are only capable signifies nothing but the answer of a good Conscience towards God of which say they Infants are altogether uncapable to which the answer is very easie that another Apostle tells us that external Circumcision of which Infants were only capable profited nothing without keeping the Law which Infants could not keep nay that the outward Circumcision of which Infants were only capable was nothing but that the inward Circumcision of the heart and in the spirit was the true Circumcision and yet Infants remaining Infants were utterly uncapable of that so that their way of arguing from this and such like Texts proves nothing because it proves too much and stretches the words of the Apostles unto undue consequences beyond their just Meaning which was only to let both Jews and Christians know that there was no resting in external Circumcision or Baptism but not that their Infants were unprofitably Circumcised and Baptized So weak and unconcluding are all the Arguments by which the Anabaptists endeavour from Scripture to prove that Christ hath limited the Subject of Baptism unto grown Persons put them all
contemporary with Irenaeus who was a Ep. Irenaei ad Florinum advers Haeres l. 3. cap. 3. l. 5. c p. 33. the Disciple of Polycarp and who as he tells us in several places of his Works conversed with several Antient b Epist ad Florinum advers Haeres lib. 2. cap. 39. Presbyters that had lived in the Apostles times of whom he had enquired after the Apostles practices and yet this inquisitive Father says nothing against Infant-Baptism though we are sure from him and his contemporary Tertullian that it was then of general practice in the Church What meaned all these Men to let such a pestilent practice pass uncondemned which in a short time would leave none in the Church but Mock Christians and so prevail against the Catholick Church which our Lord promised the Gates of Hell should not prevail against What would not the Holy Ghost preserve so much as one Church among so many from such a dangerous error but suffer them all to embrace it without Opposition * Nunc omnes Ecclesiae erraverint deceptus sit Apostolus de Testimonio reddendo Nullam respexerit Spiritus Sanctus uti eam in veritatem deducerer ad hoc missus à Christo ad hoc postulatus de patre ut esset doctor veritatis Neglexerit Officium Dei villicus Christi Vicarius sinens Ecclesias aliter interim intelligere aliter credere quam ipse per Apostolos praedicabat Ecquid verisimile est tot ac tantae in unam fidem erraverint Tertul. de praescript Haereticorum c. 28. Would he suffer them all so soon to Apostatize and to practise and believe otherwise than Christ had taught and the Apostles preached No! It is impossible that they should all consent in such a dangerous error or that they should all peaceably and tamely submit to it without opposition or that such an alteration should be made without Observation no body can tell how or when Wherefore these Dissenters are very unreasonable in charging the Church universal with apostasie from Christ upon the account of Infant-Baptism and in striving to throw her out of the possession of such an ancient and general practice merely by such indirect and consequential Arguments from the Scriptures as the Ancient Fathers never drew from them nor we can admit against their general practice and consent Certainly those places of the * Neque verò ignota fuerunt Ecclesiae priscis Ecclesiae patribus Evangelicae Apostolicae Scripturae loca in quibus poenitentia fides unà cum Baptismo requiri videntur Sciebant enim probe haec ad adultos Cassand Praefat advers Anabapt New Testament which require a Profession of Faith and Repentance in grown Persons before Baptism were understood by the Ancient Fathers they undoubtedly had well read and considered the History of Baptism in the Acts of the Apostles but yet they never drew this absurd Consequence from them that because Faith and Repentance were to go before Baptism which is an Institution of Latitude in Adult Persons that therefore Baptism was not to go before Faith and Repentance in Children and Minors as both Circumcision and Baptism in the like Case were wont to go before them in the Jewish Church They knew the difference betwixt the admission of actual and potential Believers See Dr. Taylor of Baptizing Infants great Exemplar Sect. 9. part 2. and also knew it was a very great inconsequence to argue from the Qualifications which the Gospel requires in those to the Exclusion of these I freely acknowledge to them that no Arguments are equal to the Scriptures when the Interpretations of them are not doubtful yet when they are so I appeal to any sober Dissenter of this or any other Perswasion whether the harmonious practice of the Ancient Churches and the undivided consent of Apostolical Fathers be not the most sure and authentical Interpreters that can be betwixt Men and Men. They thought Infant-Baptism lawful and valid and no abuse of the Ordinance of Baptism and let any modest and moderate Man judge whether so many Famous * Hanc desipuere praeterita saecula ut tot millibus parvulorum per mille eo amplius annos illusorium Baptisma â—ribuerent à Christi temporibus usque ad vos non veros ei Christianos sed Phantâ—sticos crearent Siccine caecatus est orbis terrarum tantaque huc usque caligine â—â—volâ—â—a 〈◊〉 ad aperiendos oculos suos ad tam diuturnam noctem illustrandam post tot Patres Martyres Pontifices universalem Ecclesiarum Principes vos tamdiu expectarit Petrus Abbas Cluntacens apud Cassandr Saints and Martyrs so near the Apostles times should fall into such a Delusion as to conspire in the practice of Mock-Baptism and of making so many Millions of Mock-Christians and Mock-Churches or that a little Sect which must have separated from all the Ancient as well as Modern Churches that were ever yet discovered should be in a great and grievous Error themselves Let them begin with the first Testimonies about the practice of Infant-Baptism viz. at the latter end of the second and beginning of the third Century and take the pains to consult the successive Writers of the Church St. Irenaeus as I have observed was the Disciple of St. Polycarp who was the Disciple of St. John and Tertullian was contemporary with the last days of St. Irenaeus and the next Writer in whom we find Infant-Baptism mentioned as an a In Ep. ad Rom. l. 5. pro hoc Ecclesia ab Apostolis traditionem suscepit etiam parvulis Baptismum dare quia essent in omnibus genuinae sordes peccati quae per aquam Spiritum ablui deberent In Lucam Homil. 14. Parvuli baptizantur in remissionem peccatorum in lib. Homil. 8. quia per Baptismi Sacramentum nativitatis sordes deponuntur propterea baptizantur parvuli Apostolical and Universal Practice I mean Origen flourished within fifteen years after Tertullian's Death St. Cyprian was Contemporary with the latter days of Origen and his Epistle to Fidus the Presbyter is such an account of Infant-Baptism that it alone is enough to Convince any Soul where Prejudice doth not reign that it always was the practice of the Church Fidus had written unto him to let him know that he thought it was not lawful to Baptize Children before the Eighth Day according to the Law of Circumcision to which he returned this Answer b Quantum autem ad causam Infantum pertinet quas dixisti intra secundum vel tertium diem quo nati sunt constitutos Baptizari non oportere considerandam esse legem Circumcisionis antiquae ut infra octavum diem eum qui natus est Baptizandum Sanctificandum non putares longe aliud in Concilio nostro omnibus visum est Ep. 58. p. 95. Ed. Rigalt That he and the Council which consisted of 66 Bishops were of another Opinion having determined that as God
and Childish condition then the Jews were under the Law which as it is evident from the Feast of Purim and from the Institution of Baptism among the Jews allowed private Persons to practice and the Church to appoint things of a Religious nature which God had not commanded to be done Lastly I entreat them to consider how utterly impracticable this pretended Principle is as might be proved from the contrary Practice of all those who advance it against Ecclesiastical Authority and particularly from their own Practice in Baptizing grown Persons who were bred up from Infants in the Christian Religion and in admitting Women to the Lords-Supper who were not admitted to the Passover nor Paschal-cup of Blessing without any Precept or President for so doing in the Word of God This little well considered is enough to obviate all Objections against my first Assertion viz. That it is not lawful to separate from a Church which appointeth Infants to be Baptized upon supposition that Infant-Baptism is barely lawful and allowable but if any man desire further satisfaction as to this point he may have it abundantly in the case of indifferent things to which I refer him it being more my business to shew here that Infant-Baptism is at least a lawful and allowable thing To prove this I need but desire the Reader to reflect upon the State of the two first Questions For if Infants be as capable of Baptism under the Gospel as they were of Circumcision under the Law and if Christ have not excluded them from it neither directly nor consequentially Otherwise if Baptism be an Institution of as great Latitude in its self as Circumcision its Fore-runner was and Christ hath not determined the administration of it to one Age more than one Sex Once more if Children may be taken into the Covenant of Grace under the Gospel as well as under the Law and Christ never said nor did any thing which can in reason be interpreted to forbid them to be taken in In a word If they are capable of all the Ends of Baptism now that they were of Circumcision then and of having the Priviledges of Church-Membership and the Blessings of the Covenant consigned unto them and Christ neither by himself nor by his Apostles did forbid the Church to satisfie and fulfil this their capacity Or last of all If Christ hath only appointed Baptism instead of Circumcision but said nothing to determine the Subject of it then it must needs follow that Infant-Baptism must at least be lawful and allowable because it is an indifferent and not a forbidden or sinful thing But upon this supposition that it were left undetermined and indifferent by Christ it might like other indifferent things be lawfully appointed by any Church from which it would be a Sin to separate upon that account For in this case Churches might safely differ in their practice about Infant-Baptism as they do now in the Ceremonies of Baptism and those who lived in a Church which did practice it ought no more to separate from her for appointing of it then those who lived in another Church which did not practise it ought to separate from her for not appointing thereof Thus much I have said I hope with sufficient moderation upon supposition that all I have written upon former Questions doth but satisfactorily prove that Infant-Baptism is only lawful and not highly requisite and necessary but then if it be not only lawful but highly requisite and necessary so that it ought to be appointed then it must needs be much more sinful to separate from a Church which appointeth Infants to be Baptized Now as to the requisite necessity of Infant-Baptism supposing that my Reader bears in memory that I have said upon the last Question to make it appear with the highest degree of credibility that Christ instituted Baptism for Infants as well as grown Persons and that the Apostles and their Companions Practised Infant-Baptism I must here entreat him further to observe that there is a two-fold necessity in matters of Christian Faith and practice one which proceeds from plain dictates of natural reason or from plain and express words of the Gospel where the sense is so obvious and clear that no sober man can mistake it or doubt of it and another which proceeds from the general Scope and Tenour of the Gospel or from doubtful places in it so or so understood and interpreted by the unanimous voice and practice of the ancient Catholick Church The first degree of necessity is founded on ostensive certainty and demonstration wherein there is no room left for Objection And the Second is founded upon violent presumption where the Objections on one hand are insufficient to move or at least to turn the Ballance if put in the Scale against the other which is weighed down Mole universatis Ecclesiae with the authority of the Universal Church And because this Rule like others is not so intelligible without an Example I will add some Instances of things which are necessary to be believed and practised by every good Christian under both these Notions of necessity that they may be better understood According to the First Notion of it it is necessary to believe that Jesus Christ is the Messias and the Son of God because it is delivered in express words of Scripture And according to the Second Notion of it it is necessary to believe that he is of the same substance with the Father and equal unto him and that there are three distinct and coequal Persons in the God-head which are all but one God because these Doctrines though they are not to be found in express words in the Gospel yet they are to be collected from several places of it which were always so interpreted by that ancient Catholick Church Again according to the First Notion of necessity it is necessary for all Men to believe the Word of God whether spoken or written because natural reason teacheth us so to do And according to the Second Notion of it it is necessary to believe the Books contained in the New Testament to be the Word of God and no other how Divine and Orthodox and Ancient soever they may be because they and they only have been received for such by the ancient Catholick Church In like manner as to matter of Practice by the First sort of Necessity it is necessary for Christians to assemble together to Worship God because Reason and Scripture plainly teach them so to do And by the Second fort it is necessary that they should assemble themselves periodically to Worship God on every first day of the Week because the Observation of the Lords Day appears to be a Duty from several places of the New Testament as they are interpreted to this sence by the universal Practice of the ancient Catholick Church To proceed according to the First Notion of Necessity Church-Government is necessary because it is enjoyned by the Dictates of Common reason and most express
Consent If it appear that such a Doctrine was the consentient belief or practice of all the Fathers in those Ages or of all except a very few who had no proportion to the rest To which I will add First That this Tradition must be written and not Oral And Secondly That it must be proved in every Age from Books that were written in it and whose Authors whether under their own or under borrowed Names had no interest to write so And therefore though the Testimonies for Infant-Baptism in the Constitutions going under the name of * L. 6. c. 19. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Baptize your Infants educate them in the Discipline and Admonition of God for saith our Lord Suffer little Children to come unto me and forbid them not Clemens Romanus and the Book of Ecclesiastical Hierarchy bearing the name of a C. 7. Where arguing for Infant-Baptism he saith Of this we say the same things which our Divine Ministers of Holy things instructed by Divine Tradition brought down to us Dionysius the Areopagite are of no authority as to the first Century when St. Clement and St. Denis lived yet they are most excellent authorities for the third and fourth Century when they were written because they had no interest to write for Infant-Baptism The like I may say of the Testimony which the b Quaest respons 56. Where he saith That there is this difference betwixt Baptized and unbaptized Infants that Baptized Infants enjoy the good things of Baptism which those that are not Baptized do not enjoy and that they enjoy them by the Faith of those who offer them to Baptism Ancient and Judicious Author of the Answers to the Orthodox concerning some Questions gives of Infant-Baptism it is of no authority as for the second Century when Justin Martyr whose name it bears flourished but being a disinteressed writer it is of excellent authority for the third when it was written So much for the Test whereby to try certain and undoubted from uncertain and doubted Tradition and happy had it been for the Church of God if all Writers at the beginning of the Reformation had made this distinction and not written so as many of them have done against all Tradition without any discrimination whereas Tradition as I have here stated it is not only an harmless thing but in many cases very useful and necessary for the Church It was by Tradition in this sence that the Catholicks or Orthodox defended themselves in the fourth Century against the Arians and the Church of Africk against the Donatists and the Protestants defend themselves as to the Scripture-Canon and many other things against the Innovations of the Papists And therefore in answer to the Second part of their Objection against Tradition as detracting from the Sufficiency of the Scriptures I must remind them that the Scriptures whose sufficiency we admire as well as they cannot be proved to be the Word of God without Tradition and that though they are sufficient where they are understood to determine any Controversie yet to the right understanding and interpretation of them in many points Tradition is as requisite as the * Lex currit cum praxi practice of the Courts is to understand the Books of the Law This is so true that the Anabaptists themselves cannot defend the Baptizing of such grown Persons as were born and bred in the Church merely from the Scriptures in which the very Institution of Baptism hath a special regard unto Proselytes who from Judaism or Gentilism would come over unto the Christian Faith Accordingly they cannot produce one Precept or Example for Baptizing of such as were born of Christian Parents in all the New Testament but all the Baptized Persons we read of in it were Jews or Gentiles and therefore they cannot defend themselves against the Quakers who for this and other Reasons have quite laid aside Baptism without the Tradition and Practice of the Church Quest IV. Whether it be a Duty incumbent upon Christian Parents to bring their Children unto Baptism To state this Question aright I must proceed in the same order that I did upon the last First In arguing from the bare lawfulness and allowableness of Infant-Baptism And Secondly From the necessity thereof As to the lawfulness of it I have already shewn upon the last Question That there is no necessity of having a Command or Example for to justifie the practice of Infant-Initiation but it is sufficient that it is not forbidden to make it lawful and allowable under the Gospel Nay I have shewed upon the Second Question that of the two there is more reason that Christians should have had an express command to leave off or lay down the practice of Infant-Initiation because it was commanded by God in Infant-Circumcision and approved by him in Infant-Baptism which the Jewish Church added to Infant-Circumcision under the Legal State Commands are usually given for the beginning of the practice of something which was never in practice before but to justifie the continuation of an anciently instituted or anciently received practice it is sufficient that the Power which instituted or approved it do not countermand or forbid it and this as I have shewn being the case of Infants-Initiation the Initiation of them by Baptism under the Gospel must at least be lawful and allowable and if it be so then Parents and Pro-parents are bound in Conscience to bring them unto Baptism in Obedience unto the Orders of the Church For the Church is a Society of a People in Covenant with God and in this Society as in all others there are Superiors and in Inferiors some that must Order and some that must observe Orders some that must Command and some that must Obey and therefore if the Catholick Church or any Member of it commands her Children to observe any lawful thing they are bound by the Common-Laws of all Government and by the Precepts in the Gospel which regard Ecclesiastical Order and Discipline to observe her Commands Obey them saith the * Heb. 13.17 Apostle who have the Rule over you and submit your selves unto them for they watch for your Souls Accordingly we read that St. †Act. 16.4 Paul as he went through the Grecian Cities delivered the Christians the Decrees which the Apostles had made at Jerusalem to keep but I think I need not spend more time in the Proof of a thing which all Dissenters will grant me for though they differ from us as to the Subject of pure Ecclesiastical Power yet they all agree that there is such a Power and that all lawful Commands proceeding from it ought to be Obey'd Wherefore if Infants are not uncapable of Baptismal Initiation as is proved under the first Question nor excluded from it by Christ as is proved under the Second but on the contrary there are very good Reasons to presume that Christ at least allowed them the benefit and honour of Baptism as well as
the practice of it doth prevent such shameful and scandalous Neglects of Baptism which to the great prejudice of Christianity as Experience hath taught us would otherwise arise in the Church Thus much upon enquiry into the lawfulness and expediency of Infant-Baptism to shew Christian Parents what an indispensable Obligation lies upon their Consciences to bring their Children to be Baptized in Obedience to the Church which hath appointed Infant-Baptism but then if Infant-Baptism be not only necessary because the Church hath appointed it but the Church hath appointed it because it is necessary and in any wise to be retained then this Antecedent sort of necessity doth yet lay a stronger Obligation upon the Consciences of Parents to initiate their Children as being most agreeable to the practice of the Apostles and the Intention and Will of Christ First As being most agreeable to the practice of the Apostles who it is highly to be presumed authorized the practice of Infant-Baptism because it was practised in the next Age unto them And Secondly As being most agreeable to the Intention and Will of Christ who it is to be presumed would have forbidden and countermanded the Jewish practice of initiating Infants if he had not had a mind they should be Baptized Wherefore * Nam quum paedo-Baptismus in Ecclesiâ Judaicâ in admissione Proselytorum ita fuit notus usitatus frequens ut nihil ferè notius usitatius frequentius non opus erat ut aliquo praecepto roboraretur Nam Christus Baptismum in manus suas atque in usum Evangelicum suscepit qualem invenit hoc solùm addito quod ad digniorem finem atque largiorem usum promoverit Novit satis gens universa parvulos folitos Baptizari Illud praecepto opus non habuit quod Communi usu semper invaluerat Si prodiret jam edictum regale in haec verba Recipiat se unusquisque die dominico ad publicum conventum in Ecclesia insaniet certè ille quicunque olim hinc argueret non celebrandas esse die dominico in publicis conventibus preces conciones Psalmodias eo quod nulla in edicto de lis mentio Nam cavit edictum de celebratione diei dominicae in publicis conventibus in genere de particularibus autem divini cultûs speciebus ibidem celebrandis non opus erat ut esset mentio cum istae ante datum edictum cum daretur semper ubique notae essent in usu assiduo Ipsissimo hoc modo res se habuit cum Baptismo Christus cum instituit in Sacramentum Evangelicum quo in professionem Evangelii omnes admitterentur ut olim in Proselytismum ad Religionem Judaicum Particularis eò spectantia modus scilicet Baptizandi aetas Baptizanda sexus Baptizandus c. regulâ definitione opus non habuerunt eo quod haec vel lippis tensoribus nota erant ex communi usu E contra ergo planâ apertâ prohibitione opus erat ut Infantes parvuli non Baptizarentur si eos Baptizandos nollet servator Si aboleri istam consuetudinem vellet Christus aperte prohibuisâ—et Silentium ergo ejus Scripturae paedo-baptismum sirmat propagat Lightfoot Horae Hebraitae in Marth 3.6 his very not repealing of that practice is a sufficient Demonstration that it was his pleasure it should be continued it was the practice of the Jewish Church before he came and the practice of the Church Christian not long after he departed and we find the practice of it in the one harmoniously answering to the practice of it in the other and therefore what was before and what was after this time we may well presume was continued in the interim during the time of the Apostles as his presumed Will and Intention who never did or spoke any thing that can reasonably be interpreted that he would have the Jewish custom of admitting Infants into the Church laid aside and therefore his silence and the silence of the Scriptures are so far from being Arguments against Infant-Baptism that considering the Antecedent usage of it they are very strong Presumptions for it as the Learned Author in the Margin foregoing doth excellently prove To this purpose also have I discoursed above upon the Second and Third Questions and therefore if Christ in the Reformation of the Church from the Law into the Gospel did not repeal the Ancient practice of Infant-Baptism but left Baptism to be administred in the same Latitude as before his time then it must needs be concluded that there lies the same Obligation upon Parents abstracting from the Commands of the Church to desire Baptism for their Children as for grown Profelytes to desire it for themselves For what authority soever enacts any thing concerning Children or Persons under the years of discretion doth lay at least an implicite Obligation upon Parents and Pro-parents to see that act be performed As if for Example an Act of Parliament should be made that all Persons whatsoever Men Women and Children should pay so much an Head unto the King the Act by the nature of it would oblige Parents and Pro-parents to pay for their Children and the Minors in their custody as well as for themselves Or if in the time of a general Contagion the Supream Power should command that all Men Women and Children should every Morning take such an Antidote that Command would oblige Parents to give it unto their Children as well as to take it themselves Just so the Ordinance of Baptism being intended or instituted by our Saviour in its ancient Latitude for Children as well as grown Persons it must needs lay an Obligation upon Parents and Pro-parents to bring them to the Holy Sacrrament otherwise the Divine Institution would in part be made void and frustrated of the Ends for which it was instituted as if it did not also lay an Obligation upon Adult Persons to offer themselves unto the Holy Sacrament it would be of no force at all To sum up all in short When our Lord first appointed Baptism and afterwards said Go and Proselyte all Nations Baptizing them c. either he intended that Children should be Baptized as well as Grown Proselytes or he did not if he did not intend they should be Baptized Why did he not plainly discover that Intention Nay Why did he not plainly forbid them to be Baptized as they were wont to be but if he intended they should be Baptized according to the ancient custom in the Jewish Church Parents are as much bound to offer them unto Baptism as Adult Believers Men and Women are bound to offer themselves What I have here said about the Obligation which lies upon Parents to bring their Children unto Baptism concerns all Pro-parents to whose care Children are committed as Guardians Tutors and Church-Wardens and lest any should ask as some Sceptically do at What time they are bound to bring them unto Baptism As soon as they are born or the
Christ ye are Circumcised with a Circumcision which is without hands when ye put off the body of sin of the Flesh by the Circumcision of Christ being buried together with him through Baptism Behold Paul calleth Baptism the Circumcision of a Christian Man which is done without hands not that Water may be ministred without hands but that with hands no Man any longer ought to be Circumcised albeit the Mystery of Circumcision do still remain in Faithful People To this I may add That the Servants of God were always ready to minister the Sacraments to them for whom they were instituted As for an Example we may behold Joshua Jos 2. who most diligently procured the People of Israel to be Circumcised before they entred into the Land of Promise but since the Apostles were the Preachers of the Word and the very Faithful Servants of Jesus Christ who may hereafter doubt that they Baptized Infants since Baptism is in place of Circumcision Item The Apostles did attemperate all their doings to the Shadows and Figures of the Old Testament Therefore it is certain that they did attemperate Baptism accordingly to Circumcision and Baptized Children because they were under the Figure of Baptism for the People of Israel passed through the Red Sea and the bottom of the Water of Jordan with their Children And although the Children be not always expressed neither the Women in the Holy Scriptures yet they are comprehended and understood in the same Also the Scripture evidently telleth us That the Apostles baptized whole Families or Housholds But the Children be comprehended in a Family or Houshold as the chiefest and dearest part thereof Therefore we may conclude that the Apostles did Baptize Infants or Children and not only Men of lawful age And that the House or Houshold is taken for Man Woman and Child it is manifest in the 17. of Genesis and also in that Joseph doth call Jacob with all his House to come out of the Land of Canaan into Egypt Finally I can declare out of ancient Writers that the Baptism of Infants hath continued from the Apostles time unto ours neither that it was instituted by any Councels neither of the Pope nor of other Men but commended from the Scripture by the Apostles themselves Origen upon the Declaration of St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans expounding the 6. Chapter saith That the Church of Christ received the Baptism from the very Apostles St. Hierome maketh mention of the Baptism of Infants in the 3. Book against the Pelagians Heb. 11. and in his Epistle to Leta St. Augustine reciteth for this purpose a place out of John Bishop of Constantinople in his 1. Book aganst Julian Chap. 2. and he again writing to St. Hierome Epist 28. saith That St. Cyprian not making any new Decree but firmly observing the Faith of the Church judged with his fellow Bishops that as soon as one was born he might be lawfully Baptized The place of Cyprian is to be seen in his Epistle to Fidus. Also St. Augustine in writing against the Donatists in the 4. Book Chap. 23. 24. saith That the Baptism of Infants was not derived from the authority of Man neither of Councels but from the Tradition or Doctrine of the Apostles Cyril upon Leviticus Chap. 8. approveth the Baptism of Children and condemneth the iteration of Baptism These Authorities of Men I do alledge not to tie the Baptism of Children unto the Testimonies of Men but to shew how Mens Testimonies do agree with God's Word and that the verity of Antiquity is on our side and that the Anabaptists have nothing but Lies for them and new Imaginations which feign the Baptism of Children to be the Pope's Commandment After this will I answer to the sum of your Arguments for the contrary The first which includeth all the rest is It is Written Go ye into all the World and Preach the glad Tidings to all Creatures He that believeth and is Baptized shall be Saved But he that believeth not shall be Damned c. To this I answer That nothing is added to God's Word by Baptism of Children as you pretend but that is done which the same Word doth require for that Children are accounted of Christ in the Gospel among the number of such as believe as it appeareth by these words Matth. 18. He that offendeth one of these little Babes which believe in me it were better for him to have a Milstone tyed about his Neck and to be cast into the bottom of the Sea Where plainly Christ calleth such as be not able to confess their Faith Believers because of his mere Grace he reputeth them for Believers And this is no Wonder so to be taken since God imputeth Faith for Righteousness unto Men that be of riper Age For both in Men and Children Righteousness Acceptation or Sanctification is of mere Grace and by Imputation that the Glory of God's Grace might be praised And that the Children of Faithful Parents are Sanctified and among such as do believe 1 Cor. 7. is apparent in the 1 Cor. 7. And whereas you do gather by the order of the words in the said Commandment of Christ that Children ought to be taught before they be Baptized and to this end you alledge many places out of the Acts proving that such as Confessed their Faith first were Baptized after I answer That if the order of words might weigh any thing to this Cause we have the Scripture that maketh as well for us St. Mark we read that John did Baptize in the Desart Mark 1. Preaching the Baptism of Repentance In the which place we see Baptizing go before and Preaching to follow after And also I will declare this place of Matthew exactly considered to make for the use of Baptism in Children for St. Matthew hath it written in this wise Matth. 28. All Power is given me saith the Lord in Heaven and in Earth therefore going forth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is Disciple ye as I may express the signification of the Word that is make or gather to me Disciples of all Nations And following he declareth the way how they should gather to him Disciples out of all Nations baptizing them and teaching by baptizing and teaching ye shall procure a Church to me And both these aptly and briefly severally he setteth forth saying Baptizing them in the Name of the Father and of the Son and the Holy Ghost teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you Now then Baptism goeth before Doctrine But hereby I do not gather that the Gentiles which never heard any thing before of God and of the Son of God and of the Holy Ghost ought to be Baptized neither they would permit themselves to be Baptized before they knew to what end But this I have declared to shew you upon how feeble Foundation the Anabaptists be grounded And plainly it is not true which they imagine of this Text that the Lord did
only command such to be Baptized whom the Apostles had first of all taught Neither here verily is signified who only be to be Baptized but he speaketh of such as be of perfect age and of the first Foundations of Faith and of the Church to be planted among the Gentiles which were as yet rude and ignorant of Religion Such as be of Age may hear believe and confess that which is Preached and taught but so cannot Infants therefore we may justly collect that he speaketh here nothing of Infants or Children But for all this they be not to be excluded from Baptism It is a general rule He that doth not Labour must not Eat But who is so barbarous that might think hereby that Children should be Famished The Lord sent his Apostles at the beginning of the setting up his true Religion unto all Nations unto such as were both ignorant of God and were out of the Covenant of God and truly such Persons it behoved not first to be taught and after baptized If at this day we should go to the Turks to Convert them to the Faith of Christ verily first we ought to teach them and afterward Baptize such as would yield to be the Servants of Christ Likewise the Lord himself in times past did when first he renewed the Covenant with Abraham and ordained Circumcision to be a Seal of the Covenant after that Abraham was Circumcised But he when he perceived the Infants also to pertain to the Covenant and that Circumcision was the sealing up of the Covenant did not only Circumcise Ismael his Son that was 13 years of Age but all other Infants that were born in his House among whom we reckon Isaac Even so Faithful People which were Converted from Heathen Idolatry by the Preaching of the Gospel and Confessing the Faith were Baptized when they understood their Children to be counted among the People of GOD and that Baptism was the Token of the People of GOD they procured also their Children to be baptized Therefore as it is written Abraham Circumcised all the Male Children of his House Semblably we read in the Acts and Writings of the Apostles that after the Master of the House was turned to the Faith all the whole House was baptized And as concerning those which of old time were compelled to Confess their Faith before they received Baptism which were called Catechumeni they were such as with our Fore-Fathers came from the Gentiles to the Church who being yet rude of Faith they did instruct in the Principles of their Belief and afterward they did Baptize them but the same Ancient Fathers notwithstanding did Baptize the Children of Faithful Men as I have already partly declared And because you do require a hasty answer of your Letter of one that is but a dull Writer I am here enforced to cease particularly to go through your Letter in answering thereto knowing that I have fully answered every part thereof in that I have already written although not in such order as it had been meet and as I purposed But forasmuch as I understand that you will be no Contentious Man neither in this matter neither in any other contrary to the judgment of Christ's Primitive Church which is the Body and fulness of Christ I desire you in the intire love of him or rather Christ desireth you by me that your joy may be perfect whereto you are now called to submit your Judgment to that Church and to be at Peace and Unity with the same that the Coat of Christ which ought to be without Seam but now alas most miserably is torn in pieces by many dangerous Sects and Damnable Opinions may appear by you in no part to have been rent neither that any giddy Head in these Dog-days might take an ensample by you to dissent from Christ's true Church I beseech thee Dear Brother in the Gospel follow the steps of the Faith of the Glorious Martyrs in the Primitive Church and of such as at this day follow the same decline from them neither to the Right Hand nor to the Left Then shall Death be it never so bitter be more sweeter than this Life then shall Christ with all the Heavenly Hierusalem triumphantly imbrace your Spirit with unspeakable Gladness and Exaltation who in this Earth was content to joyn your Spirit with their Spirits according as it is commanded by the Word That the Spirit of Prophets should be subject to the Prophets One thing ask with David ere you depart and require the same that you may dwell with a full accord in his House for there is Glory and Worship And so with Simeon in the Temple embracing Christ 1 Cor. 14. depart in Peace To the which Peace Christ bring both you and me and all our loving Brethren that love GOD in the Unity of Faith by such ways as shall please him to his Glory Let the bitter Passion of Christ which he suffered for your sake and the Horrible Torments which the Godly Martyrs of Christ have endured before us and also the inestimable Reward of your Life to come which is hidden yet a little while from you with Christ strengthen comfort and encourage you to the end of that Glorious Race which you are in Amen Your Yoke-fellow in Captivity for the Verity of Christ's Gospel to live and die with you in the Unity of Faith JOHN PHILPOT FINIS
places of Scripture And according to the Second Notion of it it is necessary to believe the Books contained in the New Testament to be the Word of God and no other how Divine and Orthodox and Ancient soever they may be because they and they only have been received for such by the Ancient Catholick Church In like manner as to matter of Practice by the First sort of Necessity it is necessary for Christians to assemble together to Worship God because Reason and Scripture plainly teach them so to do And by the Second sort it is necessary that they should assemble themselves periodically to Worship God on every first day of the Week because the Observation of the Lords Day appears to be a Duty from several places of the New Testament as they are interpreted to this sence by the universal Practice of the Ancient Catholick Church To proceed according to the First Notion of Necessity Church-Government is necessary because it is enjoined by the Dictates of Common reason and most express places of Scripture And according to the Second Notion of it it is necessary that the Church should be governed by Bishops where they can be had distinct from and Superiour to Presbyters because this Government appears to be instituted by Christ from several Passages of the New Testament as they are explained by the uniform Practice of the Primitive Catholick Church Furthermore according to the first sort of necessity it is necessary to administer the Lords Supper because our Saviour hath commanded it in express words And according to the Second which is also an indispensable degree of Necessity it is necessary to administer it to Women though they never were admitted to the Passover or Paschal Postcaenium which answered unto it because we can prove from some probable places of the New Testament that they were admitted unto it as those places are in equity to be interpreted by the universal Practice of the Ancient Primitive Church To conclude according to the former Notion of Necessity it is necessary to Baptize because our Lord hath commanded it in express words And according to the Second It is in like manner necessary to Baptize Infants because we can prove their Baptism from the Scope and Tenor of the Gospel and from many Passages of it as they are interpreted according to the Practice of the Ancient Primitive Church First From the Scope and Tenour of the Gospel which it is reasonable to presume would extend the Subject of Baptism as far as the Jewish Church extended the Subject both of Circumcision and Baptism And Secondly From many Passages in the Gospel whereof I shall recite some Except a Man be Born again of Water and of the Spirit he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God John 3.5 Suffer the little Children to come unto me and forbid them not for of such is the Kingdom of God Mark 10.14 The three noted places which inform us that the Apostles baptized whole Housholds as of Stephanas 1 Cor. 1.16 Lydia Acts 16.15 and the Jaylor Acts 16.33 The Unbelieving Husband is Sanctified by the BELIEVING Wife and the unbelieving Wife is Sanctified by the BELIEVING Husband else were your Children Common or Unclean but now they are Holy 1 Cor. 7.14 And were all Baptized unto Moses in the Cloud and in the Sea 1 Cor. 10.2 The requisite necessity of Infant-Baptism may be fairly concluded from these Texts For the First seems to make Purgation by Water * Alioquin meminerat dominicae definitionis nisi quis nascatur ex Aquâ Spiritu non introibit in Regnum Dei id est non erit Sanctus ita omnis anima usque eo in Adam censetur donec in Christo recenseatur tamdiu immunda quamdiu recenseatur Tertull. de Animâ cap. 39 40. Pro hoc Ecclesia traditionem suscepit ab Apostolis etiam parvulis Baptismum dare quia essent in omnibus genuinae sordes peccati quae per aquam spiritum ablui deberent Orig. in Ep. ad Rom. l. 5. in Luc. Hom. 14. Propterea Baptizantur parvuli nisi enim quis renatus c. Omnes venit Christus per semetipsum salvare omnes inquam qui per eum renascuntur in Deum Infantes parvulos pueros juvenes seniores Irenaeus l. 2. c. 39. and the Spirit equally necessary for all 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 unless one be born again c. From the * Tertullian de Bapt. ait quidem dominus nolite prohibere illos ad me venire This he saith by way of Objection which shews that this Text was in his time understood for Infant-Baptism but then because it was his present Opinion that Cunctatio Baptismi praecipue circa parvulos was utilior he answers Veniant dum adolescunt veniant dum discunt dum quò veniant docentur Second it is reasonable to conclude that little Children are capable of Proselytism or entring into the Covenant after the Jewish manner when they are brought unto it by others First Because they are declared a Cassandr de Baptism Infant p 730. capable of the Kingdom of God And Secondly Because b Dr. Ham. of Infant-Baptism Sect. 22.28 the Original words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are the same with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from whence the Word Proselyte doth come From the Third it is reasonable to conclude That they Baptized the Children upon the Conversion of the Parents after the Custom of the Jewish Church c Tertul. de anima c. 39. Hinc enim Apostolus ex Sanctificato alterutro sexu Sanctos procreari ait tam ex seminis praerogativâ quà m ex institutionis disciplinâ Caeterum inquit immundi nascerentur quasi designatos tamen sanctitatis per hoc etiam salutis intelligi volens fidelium filios ut hujus spei pignora Matrimoniis quae retinenda censuerat patrocinaretur Alioqui meminerat From the Fourth it is reasonable to believe That the Foederal Holiness of Believers Children makes them Candidates for Baptism and gives them a right unto it And the Fifth makes it reasonable to conclude from the Type to the Antitype that if the Jews with their Children were umbratically Baptized unto Moses in the one that Christians and their Infants should be really Baptized in the other To all which may be added d Rom. 5. Psal 51.5 Rom. 3.23 24. Joh. 3.5 6. 2 Cor. 15.21 22. 2 Cor. 5 14 15. Job 14 4. Vid Voss hist Pelag. l. 2. part 2. other Texts which have been alledged by the Ancients both * Voss hist Pelag p. 1. Thes 6. before and after the Pelagian Controversie to prove the Baptism of Infants necessary to wash away their Original Sin which makes them obnoxious to Eternal Death I say the requisite necessity of Infant-Baptism might be fairly concluded from these Texts without the Tradition of the Ancient Church though without it I confess it could not be demonstrated from them as the Doctrines of