mocked Acts 17. 32. But as wise and pious persons will not be jeer'd out of a practice that is solemn and serious and of weighty concern by the raillery of a few aieny-brain'd phantasticks so it is beside the question in hand and if any have thought fit to defer it on that account that is no argument of the unlawfulness of it § 9. Some perhaps imagining the Contract made by the Persons themselves though never so young but three or four years old so they could but answer themselves to what was to be required of them in order to their baptizing would afterwards be accounted by themselves the more obligatory and have stronger impressions upon them than if made by others have thought it fitter to defer it for a while I dispute not the prudentiality of the consideration but onely say that the prudency be it never so great of its deferring longer can infer no unlawfulness on its doing sooner And it seems to me that there are more weighty considerations inclining to and pressing for the hastening of it than that or any I have yet met with for the deferring because the generality have this way shew'd themselves inclined by baptizing their children whilest Infants § 10. And since we have so many weighty considerations moving to hasten it being we are assured by a late learned Father of our B. Gawden Eccles Angl. Suspir p. 299. Church that there is not any one of the Ancients that doth deny its lawfulness I see no reason why any suggestions or pretences of inconveniency unnecessariness or novelness in that practice by an inconsiderable number of persons either of elder or later times should sway us against the vogue of the Catholick Church to deposite a Constiâ—ution in which we see there is so much conveniency for which we see there is so great necessity of which we see there is so great antiquity antiquity reaching up both unto and also into the Apostles Age as being delivered unto the Church by them CHAP. XXXV The Argument from the sixth Article of our Church answered § 1. YEa but is it not the express Doctrine of our Church that Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation Yes And what then Is Infants Baptism therefore unlawfull No such matter It follows not I hope there are more things lawfull than what are either necessary to salvation or are contained in holy Scripture § 2. But what then follows Why this That supposing Infants baptism were neither read in Scripture nor could be proved thereby it were not to be believed as an Article of the Faith nor were the belief of it to be thought necessary to salvation But sure a thing is not therefore unlawfull because it is not to be received as an Article of the Faith or because its belief is not necessary to salvation And so this Article even on that supposition fights not with the lawfulness of Infants Baptism § 3. But we deny the supposition and say that Infants Baptism is contained in the Holy Nullum dari potest dogma ad salutem obtinendam cognitu necessarium quod in Scripturâ non contineatur express è vel implicitè analogiâ—e ità uâ— per consequentiam legitimam inde elici possit Wendelin Theolog. Proleg c. 3 Thes 7. Cum dico perspicuè intelligo vel in se vel per se vel in suis principiis per aliud Hier. Zanch. de Sacrâ Script q. S. prop. 1. pag. 194. Etsi enim non extet expressum praeceptum hac de re sc de baptizan â—is infantibus fidelium liberis colligitur tamen perspicuè ex suis principiis hoc est ex causis propter quas conferendus sit alicui baptismus c. Id. ib. pag. 195. Scriptures in that manner as other things are that are not expressed in it but yet may be deduced from it namely eminently though not formally implicitly though not expresly so as all Points of Faith are contained in the Creed that are not expressed in it or as all Duties are contained in the Decalogue or all Petitions are contained in the Lords Prayer that are not particularly and formally expressed therein § 4. And that it may be proved thereby I hope this Discourse hath already given a sufficient evidence And before I conclude I will yet add one further proof of it and that such an one as though some think not conclusive of the Point yet that acute Divine as well as Heroick prelate A. B. Laud thought to be a direct proof and neer an expression in Scripture it self 'T is Acts 2. 38 39. Then Peter said unto them Repent and be baptized every one of you in the Name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost For the promise is unto you and to your children c. But how doth this prove Infants Baptism Why let that learned Man tell you in his own words For when St. Peter had ended that great Sermon of his Acts 2. he applies two comforts unto them ver 38. Amend your lives and be baptized and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost And then ver 39. he infers For the Promise is made to you and to your children The Promise what Promise What why the Promise of Sanctification by the Holy Ghost By what means Why by Baptism For 't is expresly Be baptized and ye shall receive And as expresly This promise is made to you and to your children And therefore A. C. may find it if he will That the Baptism of Infants may be directly concluded out of Scripture § 5. But Infants are not named here True Yet Children are But those children might be men Yes and they might be Infants also I conceive the word is exclusive of neither but inclusive of both Unless any will say that the Infants were no children or that the promise that was made to the children as well as persons of the then present hearers was made onely to such of their children as were men and not Infants which is easilier said than proved For the Apostle says to your children that is all of them not onely some of them all of them being capable of the thing promâ—sed and none of them being exempted from the benefit of the promise And where God has enlarged the bounds why should man enclose the Common where God has made a restriction Where God has been kind why should Man become cruel and shut out Infants from the benefits of a promise when God has opened a door wide enough to let them in to it § 6. It is true the word Children is not always to be understood of Infants but sometimes of Men and as true it is that it is not always to be understood of Men but sometimes of Infants and as true again it is that sometimes it includes both For when the children of Israel went into the midst of the sea upon the dry ground Exod. 14. 22. Were
Infants being no way excepted are included the sin of their first father being by imputation made theirs and they accounted of as having sinned in him § 3. And unless all had sinned in Adam what account of it can be given that all should die in Adam 1 Cor. 15. 22. If Infants partake not in Adams fault why should they partake in Adams Quod si nullum esset sc primi peccati originale contagium profecto nulli malo parvuli obstricti nihil mali vel in corpore vel in anima sub tanta justi Dei potestate paterentur D. Aug. Cont. Julian Pelag. l 3. c. 5. punishment Why should they have paid unto them the wages of sin who were no way concerned in the work of sin § 4. And if all Infants be not conceived in sin how then came David to be so conceived was it only his particular mishap to be born under the guilt of his forefathers sin Or rather is it not the common condition of all mere men that are born into the world § 5. That which is born of the flesh is flesh John 3. 6. that is such flesh as that is that it was born of sinful flesh of flesh that is sinful as that was of which we were all born it being in his own likeness not in the likeness Fatendum est primos quidem homines ita fuisse institutos ut si non peccavissent nullum mortis experirentur genus sed eosdem primos parentes ita fuisse morte mulctatos ut etiam quicquid eorum stirpe esset exortum eâdem poenâ teneretur obnoxium Non enim aliud ex eis quam quod ipsi fuerant nasceretur pro magnitudine quippe culpae illius naturam damnatio mutavit in pejus ut quod poenaliter praecessit in peccantibus hominibus primis etiam naturaliter sequeretur in nascentibus câ—teris Quod est autem parens homo hoc est proles homo Et quod homo factus est non cum crearetur sed cum peccaret puniretur hoc genuit quantum quidem attinet ad peccati mortis originem c. D. Aug. de Civ Dei l. 13. c. 3. of God that our first father begot us in his own likeness as vitiated and defiled by his transgression not in Gods likeness the spotless purity and unstained integrity of his first creation § 6. And if there be not one that can bring a clean thing out of an unclean Job 14. 4. how then can man be justified with God or how can he be clean that is born of a woman Job 25. 4. § 7. So then we must conclude with that of the Apostle Rom. 3. 13 that all have sinned all young and old Fathers and Children Adam and his Posterity He in himself his Posterity in him he actually they Originally nay and actually too if living till capable of adding sin unto sin actual to original and so are come short of the glory of God not only of that glory to which God had ordain'd us the glory of happiness but also of that glory in which he did create us the glory of holiness § 8. And thus you see that as the Apostle saith Gal. 3. 22. the Scripture hath concluded all under sin Infants themselves not excepted who dying before the commission of actual sin would have had no need * Nam quis 〈◊〉 dicere non esse Christum Infantum salvatorem nec redemptorem Unde autem salvos facit si nulla in cis est originalis aegritudo peccati D. Aug. de pecc merit remiss l. 1. c. 23. Quid necessarium habuit Infans Christum si non aegrotat D. Aug. Serm. 10. de Verb. Apost of Christ to save them were they not under the guilt of so much sin as might condemn them § 9. Thus speak the Scriptures to the Point let us now again see what the Fathers say to it § 10. Primasius saith a Cum peccato concipimur cum peccato nascimur Primas in Heb. 4. 15. With sin we are conceived and with sin we are born St. Ambrose saith and cites Psal 51. 5. to prove it b Omnes homines sub peccato nascimur quorum ipse ortus in vitio est D. Amb. de Poenit. l. 1. c. 11. that all men are born in sin and our very birth is in fault Chrysologus saith c Per peccatum primi hominis natura lethale vulnus accepiâ— caepit esse origo mortis quae erat initium vitae Petr. Chrysolog Serm. 143. Nature got a deadly wound by the sin of the first man and that began to be the original of death which was the beginning of life St. Cyprian saith d Prohiberi à baptismo non debet infans qui recons natus nil peccavit nisi quod secundum Adam carnaliter natus contagium mortis antiquae prima nativitate contraxit D. Cyprian l. 3. Ep. 8. The Infant ought not to be denied baptism who being new born hath no way sinned but that it hath contracted the contagion of the old death by its first birth that is is guilty of Original sin St. Gregory saith e Quia à statuÌ„ rectitudinis primus homo peccando corruit peccati poenam ad filios misit D. Greg. in Psal 51. 5. Peccatum quippe originale à parentibus trahimus nisi per gratiam baptismatis solvamur etiam parentum peccata portamus quia unum adhuc cum illis sumus ex originali peccato anima polluitur prolis D. Greg. Expos in c. 21 Job l. 15. c 31. Because the first man fell by sinning from his state of Integrity he derived the punishment of his sin upon his children St. Bernard saith f Dixi saepius vobis nec mente excidere debet quoniam in casu primi hominis cecidimus omnes c. D. Bern. Serm. in Coen Dom. de Bapt. de Sacram Altar de Ablut Pedum A planta pedis usque ad verticem non erat in nobis sanitas erraveramus ab utero in utero damnati antequaÌ„ nati quia de peccato in peccato concepti D. Bern. Serm. 2. in die Pentecostes In the fall of the first man we all fell and thereupon were damn'd ere born because conceived of and in sin St. Augustin g Nos certe causam cur sub diabolo sit qui nascitur donec renascatur in Christo peccati ex origine dicimus esse contagium D. Aug. contr Julian Pelag. l. 3. c. 5. saith Why he that is born should be under the power of the Devil till he be new born in Christ i. e. baptized the cause we say is the contagion of sin by his birth that is Original sin Tertullian h Ita omnis anima co usque in Adam censetur donec in Christo renascatur tamdiu immunda quamdiu recenseatur Peccatrix autem quia immunda recipiens ignominiam ex carnis societate Tertull. de Anima c. 39. reckons every soul
to be so long in Adam as till it be enrolled in Christ and so long defiled as it is unenrolled contracting the sully of sin from its society with the flesh Athanasius saith i 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 D. Athan. cont Arianos Orat. 10. when Adam transgressed his transgression passed unto all men Origen k Sciebant enim illi quibus mysteriorum secreta commissa sunt divinorum quia essent in omnibus genuinae sordes peccati quae per aquam spiritum ablui deberent Origen l. 5. in Rom. Hom. 14. in Luc. speaks of it as a thing known to those whom the secrets of the divine Mysteries were committed to that there are in all the genuine pollutions of sin which ought to be washed away by water and the spirit and himself affirms that there is none clean from pollution no if he be but of a days age Gratian l Firmissime tene nullatenus dubites omnem hominem qui per concubitum viri mulicris concipitur cum originali peccato nasci impietati subditum mortique subjectum c. Gratian. de Consecrat Distinct 4. bids believe it firmly and doubt not in the least of it that whosoever is conceived by the concumbency of man and woman is born with Original sin c. Yea Vincentius Lirinensis asks m Quis ante prodigiosum discipulum eâ—us Coelestium reatu praevaritationis Adae omne genus humanum negavit astrictum Vinc. Lirinens advers Hares c. 34. who ever before Caelestius the prodigious Disciple of Pelagius denied that all mankind was bound under the guilt of Adams transgression § 11. And if all mankind be bound under it then Infants sure no small part of mankind are not free from it No not they nor any else are free in the judgment of the Fathers but all guilty Jesus Christ alone excepted whom God sent not in sinful Solus per omnia ex natis de foemina Sanctus Dominus Jesus qui terrenae contagia corruptelae immaculati partûs novitate non senserit coelesti majestate depulerit D. Ambros Com. in 2 Luc. Profectâ—o peccatum etiam major fecisset sc Christus si parvulus habuisset Nam propterea nullus est hominum praeter ipsum qui peccatum non fecerit grandioris aetatis accessu quia nullus est hominum praeter ipsum qui peccatum non habuerit infantilis aetatis exortu D. Aug. contr Julian Pelag. l. 5. c. 9. Sine quo generalis velamine confusionis nemo filiorum hominum intravit in hanc vitam uno sane excepto qui ingreditur sine maculâ Emanuel is est D. Bern. super Cantic Serm. 78. Solus enim Deus sine peccato solus homo sine peccato Christus quia Deus Christus Tertull. de Animâ flesh but only in the likeness of it Rom. 8. 3. and who thence is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the thing born holy holy in its very birth Luk. 1. 35. § 12. Children then having so great a Malady upon them as Original sin is and Baptism being that Remedy yea the onely ordinary one by which they may be freed * For if there be no Salvation for Infants in the ordinary way of the Church but by Baptism and this appear in Scripture as it doth then out of all doubt the consequence is most evident out of that Scripture That Infants are to be baptized that their Salvation may be certain For they which cannot help themselves must not be left onely to extraordinary Helps of which we have no assurance and for which we have no warrant at all in Scripture while we in the mean time neglect the ordinary way and means commanded by Christ A. B. Laud. Confer §. 15. Num. 4. from this Malady how can it then be but that Children must have need of Baptism § 13. And truly with the Ancient Christians this consideration was of very great weight and force Upon this account to be sure what ever they did upon other accounts they baptized their Infants Why saith Critobolus the Pelagian are Infants baptized St. Hierom a Quare infantuli baptizantur Ut eis peccata in baptismate dimittantur D. Hier. Ep. 17. Tract 2. par 1. answers that their sins may be remitted unto them in Baptism So Origen b Per baptismum nativitatis sordes deponuntur propterea baptizantur parvuli Orig. Hom. 14. in Levit. By baptism the filth of our birth is taken away therefore are even Children also baptized And saith St. Chrysostom c Praedicat Ecclesia Catholica ubique diffasa debere parvulos baptizari propter Originale peccatum D. Chrysost Hom de Adam Eva. It is a thing which the whole Catholick Church every where diffused doth preach namely that Infants ought to be baptized because of Original Sin But what stand I upon the testimony of single Doctors when we have it from a Council that upon the account of that Rule of Faith as the Fathers in the Milevitane Council d Item placuit ut quicunque parvulos recentes ab uteris matrum baptizandos negat aut dicii in remissionem quidem peccatorum eos baptizari sed nihil ex Adam trahere originalis peccati quod regenerationis lavaero expietur unde sit consequens ut in cis forma baptismatis in remissionem peccatorum non vera sed falsa intelligatur anathema sit quoniam non aliter intelligendum est quod ait Apostolus Per unum hominem peccatum intravit in mundum per peccatum mors ita in omnes homines pertransit in quo omnes peccaverunt nisi quemadmodum Ecclesia Cathelica ubique diffusa semper intellexit Propter hanc enim regulam fidei etiam parvuli qui nihil peccatorum in semetipsis adhuc committore potuerunt ideo in peccatorum remissionem veraciter baptizantur ut in cis regeneratione mundetur quod generatione traxerunt Concil Milevitan Canon 2. apud Caranz call that Text of the Apostles Rom. 5. 12. By one man sin entred into the world c. understood as they say the Catholick Church of Christ every where diffused did always understand it of Original sin are Infants which could as yet commit no sin of themselves truly baptized into the remission of sins that that may be cleansed in them by Regeneration which they have drawn upon themselves by Generation And therefore St. Augustine saith e Non est superfluus baptismus parvuloram ut qui per generationem illi condemnationi obligati sunt per regenerationem ab eadem liberentur D. Aug. Ep. 89. The baptism of Infants is not superfluous and then sure there is some need of it that they who by generation are obliged to that condemnation which came by Adam may by Regeneration be freed from the same § 14. Unless then we will say with the Pelagian Hereticks that children have not in them the Malady of sin or will contradict our Saviour and say that
that he brings the danger of death is one because the Sacrament of baptism is the onely remedy provided for their help It was decreed by the Council of Gâ—runda that Infants in case of weakness should be baptized the same day that they were born And whereas Fidus a Presbyter was of opinion that Infants were not to be baptized the second nor third day after their birth nor indeed till the eighth day because till that day they were not anciently circumcised St. Cyprian shews him that not himself onely but a whole Council assembled together with him were of a far other mind judging that baptism was not to be denied to any of the sons of men and so not to any Infant how young soever but that they were to be admitted to it as soon as born § 8. Again it is true Infants cannot of themselves come to baptism Why but yet they may be brought to it by others Rather than that shall keep them away St. Aug. tells us our Mother the Church will lend Accommodat illis mater Ecclesia aliorum pedes ut veniant D. Aug. Serm. 10. de Verbis Aposteli them other mens feet to come withall And such is the mercy of our Saviour that he looks upon them as coming to him that are but brought to him by others Suffer saith he the little children to come unto me And yet they came to him no other way but even as our Infants may come that is by being brought to him So long then as Infants may be brought to be baptized so long they have a way of coming unto Baptism and so they are not incapable of it in that respect neither § 9. It is true again that they can neither seek after nor desire their own baptism a thing anciently expected from and performed by adult Persons But yet they can receive it when upon others desire and seeking of it for them it is administred to them And so they are not for that incapable of it There is nothing said in all the Scripture that I know of by which the inability of a subject to seek after or desire that or any other mercy renders him incapable of receiving it Yea it is part of the Gospels grace that God therein is found of those that seek him not that Christ unsought 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 D. Chrysost in Heb. 2. 16. Hom. 5. to for it came and sought and found and saved that which was lost pursuing after and taking hold on mans nature when it was fast and far flying away from him towards its own perdition § 10. When our Saviour enlargâ—d his Apostles Commâ—ssion to the taking into Discipleship not the nation of the Jews onely but all the nations of the world he did not put it into this form stand ye here still and be ready to admit into discipleship all of all nations that shall come to you and seek to you for baptism but go ye and disciple all nations baptizing them q. d. Depart ye hence into and amongst the Heathen nations of the world and make them disciples by baptizing them admitting so many of them unto baptism as shall accept that favour and not refuse that grace to be thereby made my disciples § 11. The children here in the Text that came that is were brought unto Christ desired nothing at all of him in their own names It were strange indeed that Infants such as they were should have any requests to make to him And their not desiring of a mercy was no hindrance to their receiving of one They came to him for entrance into the kingdom of God by baptism as we gather from what he alledges as a reason why he would have them suffered to come to him And he prepares them for such entrance Dr. Hammond Quaere of the Bapt. of Infants Sect. 22. De Confirmat c. 2. S. 5. by vouchsasing them the Ceremonies leading on unto baptizing he laid his hands upon them and blessed them whereupon in all probability followed his Disciples baptizing of them § 12. And if such infirmities and impediments were real hindrances unto mercy stood in need of how many of those that our Saviour in the Gospel had mercy on and healed had gone without their Cure Then persons See Gilberti Voctii Theolog. Polit. part â— l. 2. Tract 2. cap. 2. qu. 6. born deaf and dumb or fools though the children of parents in Covenant should never be baptized because they could never understand it never speak for it never desire it which I think no sober Christian will say CHAP. XXII Children not incapable of Baptism in regard of their having sin in them and yet not repenting of it § 1. FUrther it is true that they have Sin in them But that is so far from being any real hindrance to their baptizing that it should rather be a motive to it as indeed it is a reason for it namely that they may have their sin remitted by it Baptism being a Sacrament especially ordained for the Sacramentum ad hoc specialiter inâ—â—â—tutum ut per ipsum peccatorum sordes mundentur Aquin. 3. q 68. a. 4. c. cleansing away of the filth of sin as Aquinas saith and is further confirmed both by Peter's exhorting the Jews to be baptized for the remission of sins Acts 2. 38. and Ananias exhorting Saul to be baptized and wash away his sins Acts 22. 16. § 2. Sin indeed in persons resolved not to forsake their sins but to persist in sinning may be an hindrance but not in those that are not so resolved And of Peccatoribus voluntatem peccandi in pâ—ccato perseverandi propositum habentibus baptismus minime conferendus est Aquin. Sum. 3. q. 68. a. 4. 2. Infants it cannot be said that they are so § 3. And if the forepast sins many and great sins of mens own acting be no hinderance to their baptizing as we see by the Persons baptized in the Scripture of whom some had been Idolatrous Heathens others Christ-killing Jews c. much less can that one sin under the guilt whereof Infants do lie not acted personally by them but judicially imputed to them hinder them from Baptism as St. Cyprian reasons the case in Porro autem si etiam gravissimis delictoribus in Deum multum ante peccantibus cum postca crediderint remissio peccatorum datur à baptismo atque gratia nemo probibeâ—ur quanto magis probiberi non debet infans qui recens natus nil peccavit nisi quod secundum Adam carnaliter natus contagium antiquae mortis primâ nativitate contraxit Qui ad remissam peccatorum accipiendam hoc ipso facilius accedit quod illi remittuntur non propria sed aliena peccata D. Cyprian l. 3. Ep. 8. their behalf And so neither in this respect are Infants incapable of Baptism § Yea but they do not repent them of their sin Nor is it required of them that they should The Scripture
no where has enjoined them repentance in order unto baptism nor alledged their inability to repent as a bar to their admission thereunto § 5. Indeed we have Scriptures where grown men are exhorted to both together to repent and be baptized and where signs of repentance were shewed by such as received baptism Acts 2. 38. Matth. 3. 6. But still the Persons both exhorted unto and shewing repentance were of age both to commit actual sins needing repentance and to act that repentance that was needfull for their baptizing But what is this to the case of Infants who as they are not guilty of actual sin so they are in no ability for repentance Where there is no general rule an argument from particulars is no farther argumentative than to particulars under the same circumstances which cannot be betwixt men and Infants so as that what is injoyned to or performed by the one must be necessarily required of and performed by the other And so some mens being exhorted unto Repentance and Baptism both at once and other mens confessing their sins as a token of their Repentance when they were baptized is no argument that therefore all Infants must do so too or else not be baptized and so no Infants baptized because none can so do The case 't is plain is not the same And so whatever want of Repentance or Non-profession of it may do to hinder Men from being baptized it can do nothing to render Infants incapable of Baptism Who as they have the guilt of sin brought upon them by anothers disobedience without their knowledge so they have that guilt taken off from them by the obedience of another without their repentance which pardon is not onely signed and sealed but exhibited also and given to them in and by Baptism § 6. And as to the Church it is true indeed that of Adult sinners it requires a Personal Profession of Repentance before it admit them to Baptism But for Infants that have not sinned after the similitude of Adams transgression it admits them to Baptism without any such Personal Profession So there be but a Promise made of it for the future against the time that it shall be necessary by Sureties for the Infants in the Infants names as the Scripture doth not require so much so the Church doth not stand upon more And so Infants Ab hac poenitentiâ— cum baptizantur soli parvuli sunt immunes Nondum enim uti possunt libero arbitrio quibus tamen ad consecrationom remissionem que originalis peccati prodest cotum fides à quibus offeruntur ut quascunque maculas dâ—lictorum per alios ex quiâ—â—s sunt nati contraxerunt aliarum 〈◊〉 incerrogatione ac responsione purgentur T Aug. Quiaquag Homil. Serm. 50. are not incapable of Baptism in this respect neither CHAP. XXIII Children not incapable of Baptism in regard of their not Believing § 1. YEa but still it is objected that Infants do not believe and therefore they ought not to be baptized § 2. To this Objection if St. Augustin were to answer he would deny the Antecedent and say that Infants do believe and so would St. Bernard too But how Not by any Sed absit ut ego dicam non credentes Infantes Jam superius disputavi credit in altero quia peccavit in alâ—ero dicitur credit valet inter fideles bapti zatos computatur c. Credunt infantes Unde credum quomodo credunt Fide paâ—entum c. D. Aug. Serm 14. de Verb. Apost Accommodat illis Mater Ecclesia allorum pedes ut veniant aliorum cor ut credant Id. ib. Serm. 10. Non quod vel ipsi sc Infantes quando baptizantur fide omnino careant sine quâ impossibile est vel ipsos placere Deo sed salvantur per fidem non tamen suam sed alienam Dignum nempe est ad Dei spectat dignitatem ut quibus fidem aetâ—s denegat propriam gratia prodesse concedat alienam Nec enim omnipotentis justitia propriam putal ab his exigendam fidem quos novit propriam nullam habere culpam Porro alienâ opus est fide cum sine sorde non nasâ—antur alienâ D. Bern. Ep. 77. Nemo mihi dicat quia non habet infans sidem cui mater Ecclesia impertit suam Magna est Ecclesia sides Id. Serm. 66 super Cant. In Ecclesia salvateris per alios parvuli credunt sicut ex aliis quae in baptismo remlttuntur peccata traxerunt Gratian. 3 part de Conseerat dist 4. faith in themselves but by the faith of others their Parents or the Church Nor would they think it any more absurd to say that they believe through the Faith of another than it is to say that they have sinned through the sin of another or that they are made righteous through the obedience of another § 3. But though the Faith of the Parents or Sureties who are Believers may be enough and is to qualifie Infants for an admission into Church-membership by Baptism yet because I think it not enough to speak them Believers antecedently to Baptism however they be reckoned in the number of the Faithfull after they be baptized and that their immediate Parents saith shall no more be imputed unto them and reckon'd theirs than their sins as not having been by Almighty God made Trustees in this behalf for their Children as Adam was for his therefore I shall not stand upon this § 4. Some others would answer that Infants have Faith in themselves and that in the act And truly as the Scripture no where denies this expresly See Alting Problem Theolog. part 1. Probl. 22. Becan Manual Controver l. 2. c. 2. Phil. Melancthon Consil Theolog. part 1. pag. 255. Hooker Eccl. Pol. l. 5. Sect. 64. so it also affords an instance of little ones 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 very little ones that are said to have believed Mat. 18. 6. and that by one who knew their hearts and could not be deceived in them even our Saviour himself § 5. Other some again would answer that Infants have Faith in themselves though not in the Act yet in the Habit or rather the seed and principle of it § 6. And truly that as God is able to infuse so the soul of an Infant is capable to receive divine impressions and illuminations I think is a truth none will question And if any should the filling of John Baptist with the Holy Ghost from his Mothers womb and his leaping for joy at the approach of his Saviour in his Mothers womb Luke 1. 15 44. would put it out of doubt Now this being so who can tell but that the Infants of believers may through the grace of Sicut ergo ille in quo omnes vivificabuntur praeterquam quod se ad â—ustitiam exemplum omnibus praebuit dat etiam sui spiritus occultissimam fidclibus gratiam quam latenter infundit parvulis sic D. August l. 1. de
very practice of the Church to baptize Infants as we have shewn it to be doth make it credible For it is not easily imaginable how such a practice should come up so early and so universally into the Primitive Church if the Church had not received it from the Apostles as a command of Christs to baptize Infants § 3. Who that understood it to have been our Saviours command to teach all nations to observe all things whatsoever he had commarded them Matth. 28. 19 20. and observed the Apostles teaching by word or practice the baptizing of Infants could judge any other but that the Baptism of Infants was one of those things which he had commanded them to teach all nations to observe Though I have also shown that even our Saviours silence in the case not excluding Infants from that which it had been the use of the Church before his time to administer to them when he did institute Baptism to be the Ceremony of admitting into Discipleship to him is a sufficient indication of his mind that it was his will they should be admitted especially when it is remembred and considered that the same use that was before his Institution was continued still after it which makes it evident that he made no alteration in it § 4. Not to add that this very Text of mine was anciently lookt upon as a ground and even as a command of our Saviours for Infants Baptism And therefore St. Augustine having exhorted the Pelagian to Quare contradicis quare novie disputationibus antiquam fidei regulam frengere conaris Quid est enim quod dicis Parvuli non babent omnino vet originale peccatum Quid est enim quod dicis nisi ut non accedant ad Jesum Sed tihi clamaâ— Jesus Sinite pueros venire ad me D. Aug Serm. 8. de Verb. Apost baptize his Infant expostulates with him for contradicting and going abour with new disputes to break the old Rule of Faith namely in the point of the baptizing of Infants upon the account of Original Sin in them For whereto saith he tends your saying that children have no not so much as original sin but to this that they might not come to Jesus that is to be baptized that being the thing which he before had pressed him to But saith he Jesus crieth to thee that sure is as much as if he had commanded Suffer the little children to come unto me that is to be baptized as is evident by the design of the Father in that place § 5. And accordingly Tertullian who lived within two hundred years of our Saviours birth De Baptismo pag. 264. Edit Rigalt thinking this Text to oppose his Opinion which was for the delaying of the Baptism of Infants for a while yet not as unlawfull but as more profitable as he phansied propounds this Text as an Objection against his Opinion and labours to answer it Which shews however that even so early as his time this Text was lookt upon as a Precept for Infants Baptism § 6. And what saith he to it Why by way of Concession he saith Our Lord doth indeed say Do not hinder them from coming to me And what then Why then let them come when they are grown up to ripeness of years Yea but if they must stay so long before they be baptized they will not be little ones when they come to baptism and so will not be concern'd in this Text which speaks of the coming not of Adult persons but of young children unto Christ He saith not Suffer those that are Adult but Suffer little children to come unto me And his saying Suffer little children to come unto me imports his mind to have them come and his readiness to receive them at their coming to him even when and whilst they are little children And what man of judgment would ever have interpreted our Saviours saying Suffer the little children to come unto me and forbid them not at a time when little children were brought to him and hindred for being brought to him so little as if he had by so saying meant Suffer these which now are little children to come to me hereafter when they shall be men that is as much as to say Suffer them not to come to me now which is to command the very same thing which at the very same time he rebuked his Disciples for going about to do and contrary to his present acting who even then turn'd them not away from him but took them up into his arms and laid his hands upon them and blessed them A gloss this that contradicts and corrupts the Text. § 7. Again saith he Veniant dum discunt c. Let them come when they have learned and are taught whither to come But those whose coming to Christ occasioned this speech and according to whose then present condition the speech is to be understood were not such nor so taught not such as had learned or could be taught how to come to Christ but were Infants brought to him by others by reason of their inability to come to him of This passage of Tertullian because it is much stood upon see further spoken to und more fully answered by B. Gauden Eccles Anglic. Suspiria l. 3. c. 13. p. 299. And by Mr. Wills Infant Baptism Asserted Par. 2. chap. 7. themselves and of them then and of such as they then were are his words now to be understood and accordingly have been understood in all the ages of the Church to be sure as early as Tertullians time else why did he dispute against it § 8. But if there were neither this nor any other Text that was or lookt like a Precept for Infants Baptism in the whole Bible yet there might have been one given though none were written And what probability there is of it that one was given if none of those Texts that are written were by the practice of the Church interpreted to be such I have now shown CHAP. XXXIV The Scriptures silence no proof of the Apostles baptizing no Infaâ—ts § 1. SEcondly as it follows not that our Saviour gave no express precept for Infants baptism because none is written that is none is written so expresly as to be acknowledged for such by the Antipaedobaptists though my Text as I have shewn you is so express as to have been taken for such in St. Augustines time and in Tertullians time fourteen hundred and fifteen hundred years ago and for ought I know or any man living can prove to the contrary from the beginning so it doth not follow that the Apostles did baptize no Infants because it is not expresly written in the Scriptures that they did baptize any though I have shewn you from the Scripture a very pregnant proof of such practice even by the Apostles themselves in their own times did not prejudice so blind the eyes of our Adversaries that they will not see it For they might baptize Infants though it were
not expressed in their extant writings that they did so § 2. Aâ—e all things written in the Scriptures that all the Twelve Apostles did in all places where they came and preached gathered and setled Churches Yea how little is there written of what was done by any of them And how many are there of them of whom there is nothing written at all neither what they did nor whither they went nor what became of them Did they nothing of whose doings nothing is written who are at least one half of the whole number of the Apostles And if they did any thing as sure enough they would be doing they might as well do that baptize Infants as any thing else for any thing that is written And where we find Infants Baptism in a Church planted by an Apostle as in Musâ—ovia Christianized by St. Andrew or in India by St. Thomas Why may we not think that planted there by that Apostle as well as other Christian Customs or Constitutions though in the Scripture there be a deep silence as to the whole Story And there is as good proof that they did not any thing else of all those things which our Saviour commanded them as that they did not that because no more is written of any thing else that they did than of that which is just nothing at all § 3. And they of whose doings any thing is written did they no more than just what was written Were they so exact in keeping and publishing Diaries of all their actions Not a word said not a deed done but what was book'd down How many persons do you read of that were baptized by Paul in all that time that he continued preaching the Gospel and planting the Church of Christ at Rome And do ye think none were baptized by him or at his command all the while Can there be a Church founded and formed up without baptism And if any were baptized where is it written in Scripture who what or how many they were Again do ye think the Saints at Rome did never commemorate the death of Christ in the celebration of the Eucharist If yea what mention is there of it in Scripture In what book chapter verse is it to be read No doubt both the one and the other Sacrament was by Pauls instructing and ordering received there and yet is the Scripture profoundly silent as to any such thing And who now will be so silly as from the Scriptures silence to draw a negative conclusion and say no such thing was done there because the Scripture says nothing of the doing of it The like may be said of other Apostles and the Churches planted by them § 4. Unless therefore that which is written were a perfect register of all that was done by all and every one of the Apostles as it is not of the doings of either all or one half or any one of them it cannot be proved that no one of them did any thing or appointed any thing to be done for instance to baptize Infants because it is not extant in those few scanty memoires and intimations rather than relations of some actions of some few of them written for the most part occasionally which are come to our hands that any one of them dâ—d it They might therefore do it though their doing of it be not expresly written in the Scriptures § 5. And that they did it or however so far delivered their mind concerning it that done it was and upon the account of their authority is most credible Because the Practice thereof is and has been looked on in all the Ages of the Church succeeding that wherein they lived as a Tradition of theirs And that Tradition from them is as credibly avouched to us as their writing those several Fpistles and Gospels which we receive for their writings and look upon as the word of God And we may as well receive the one upon that Tradition as the other and with as good reason reject the one as the other We have the Testimony of the Church for the one and we have but the Testimony of the Church for the other And if we may believe the Church when it tells us the Apostles wrâ— those Books why may we not as well believe it when it tells us the Apostles ordered that thing And if it be of no credit in the latter let our adversaries consider whether they do not by so saying derogate from and destroy all its credit in the former And so the matter is at last come to this that either we must have no new Testament Scriptures or else we must have Infants baptism The new Testament and this Sacrament of it must for ought I see ever stand and fall together both standing upon one bottom Catholick Tradition which must bear up both or neither not being able to support the one if it cannot support the other also § 6. I will not say but that some few one or two for many hundreds of years may have thought it not necessary to be administred so soon as in the prime of Infancy unless in case of death But their not thinking it necessary then is a sufficâ—ent evidence of their opinion of its lawfulness at other times For what is not lawfull at other times cannot be necessary even then § 7. And what ever reason we find any of the Ancients had to think it fitter to defer it I am of opinion we shall never find the unlawfulness of it to have been any of their reasons Tertullian thought the deferring of it Quid enim necesse est Sponsores etiam periculo ingeri quia ipsi per mortalitatem destituere promissiones suas possunt proventu malae indolis falli Tert. de Bapt. was more profitable but not the doing of it unlawful to be sure he does not say so And what 's his reason against the necessity of it That the Godfathers might not be brought into danger of failing in their undertaking by their own mortality or the Infants untowardness The deferring of it might then be prudential but that makes not the doing of it unlawfull And if he thought it prudential to defer it others as judicious as he have thought it no less prudence to hasten it And so his opinion in that case signifies nothing as to our present concern § 8. Perhaps some might think it prudence to defer it to avoid the exposing of so sacred an administration to the jeers of profane scoffers Dionysius the Areopagite mentions Eccl. Hier. c. 12. some such in his days as jeer'd at the Sureties being interrogated and answering in the Infants name And no doubt there are now such in our days as think that practice ridiculous enough But still be it as ridiculous as any has imagined it that renders it not unlawfull And if every thing must be laid by that any will think ridiculous we shall have little left either of our Worship or Doctrine When some heard of the Resurrection they