The Grounds of Protestant Religion, Part 1 · Chapter 4
CHAP. IV. The Protestant Doctrine of Fundamentals vindicated.
The unreasonableness of demanding a Catalogue of Fundamentals. The Creed contains the Fundamentals of Christian Communion. The belief of Scripture supposed by it. The Dispute concerning the Sense of Christ's Descent into Hell, and Mr. Rogers his Book confessed by T. C. impertinent: With others of the same nature. T. C's. fraud, in citing his Lordships words. Of Papists and Protestants Vnity. The Moderation of the Church of England, compared with that of Rome. Her grounds of Faith justified. Infant-Baptism how far proved out of Scripture alone.
§. 1.THis Chapter begins with a very pertinent Question, as you call it: we might the easier believe it to be so, because it is none of your own proposing; but yet your very calling it, a pertinent Question, renders it liable to suspicion, and upon examination it will be found both unreasonable and impertinent. The Question was, What Points the Bishop would account Fundamental; and that you may shew how necessary this Question was,P. 45. n. 1. you add; For if he will have some Fundamental, which we are bound to believe under pain of damnation; and others not Fundamental, which we may, without sin, question, or deny; it behoves us much to know, what they are. I have ever desired, say you, a satisfactory Answer from Protestants to this Question, but could never yet have it in the sense demanded. An unhappy man you are, who, it seems, have in your time propounded more foolish Questions, than a great many wise men were never able to answer. But, is it not every jot as reasonable, That since your Church pretends to the power of making things necessary to the Salvation of all, which were not so before, we should have from you an exact Catalogue of all your Churches Definitions? If for that, you referr us to the Confession of Faith, at the end of the Council of Trent; so, may not we, with far greater reason, send you back to the Apostolical Creed? there being no objection which will hold against this, being a Catalogue of our Fundamentals, but will hold against that Being a Catalogue of yours. Nay, you assert such things your self concerning the necessity of believing things defined by the Church, as make it impossible for you to assign the definite number of such things, as are necessary for all persons, and therefore it is very unreasonable to demand it of us. For still, when you speak, that the things defined by the Church, are necessary to the Salvation of all, you add, Where they are sufficiently propounded; so that the measure of Fundamentals depends on the sufficiency of the Proposition. Now, will you undertake to assign what number of things are sufficiently propounded to the belief of all persons? Can you set down the exact bounds, as to all individuals, when their ignorance is inexcusable, and when not? Can you tell what the measure of their capacity was? what allowance God makes for the prejudices of Education, where there is a mind desirous of instruction? Will you say, God accounts all those things sufficiently proposed to mens belief, which you judge to be so? or, that all men are bound to think those things necessary to Salvation, which you think so? by what means shall the Churches Power of defining matters of Faith, be sufficiently proposed to men as an Article of Faith? Either by its own Definition, or without? If by its; the thing is proposed to be believed, which is supposed to be believed already, before that Proposition; or else the Enquiry returns with as great force, Why should I believe that Definition more than any other? if without it; then the sufficiency of Proposition, and the necessity of believing depends not on the Churches Definition. These Questions I am apt to think as pertinent and necessary as yours was: and, now you know my sense, and are so discontented you could never meet with a satisfactory Answer from Protestants, prevent the same dissatisfaction in me, by giving a punctual Answer to such necessary Questions. But, if you think the demands unreasonable, because they depend on such things, which none can know but God himself; I pray accept of that as a satisfactory Answer to your own very pertinent Question.
But if the Question be propounded not concerning what things are Fundamental and necessary to particular persons, §. 2.which on the reasons formerly given, it is impossible to give a Catalogue of, but, of such things which are necessary to be owned for Christian Communion, as I have shewed this Question of Fundamentals ought only to be taken here; then his Lordship's Answer was more pertinent than the Question, viz. That all the Points of the Creed were such: For, saith he;P. 42. sect. 11: n. 1. Since the Fathers make the Creed the Rule of Faith; since the agreeing sense of Scripture, with those Articles, are the two Regular Precepts, by which a Divine is governed about the Faith; since your own Council of Trent decrees, That it is that principle of Faith, in which all that profess Christ, do necessarily agree, & Fundamentum firmum & unicum, not the firm only, but the only Foundation; since it is Excommunication ipso jure, for any man to contradict the Articles contained in that Creed; since the whole body of Faith is so contained in the Creed, as that the substance of it was believed even before the coming of Christ; though not so expresly as since, in the number of the Articles: Since Bellarlarmin confesses, That all things simply necessary for all mens Salvation, are in the Creed and Decalogue, What reason can you have to except? Thus far his Lordship: though from hence it appears, what little reason you have to except; yet because of that, I expect your Exceptions the sooner: and therefore very fairly passing by the sense of the Fathers, you ask concerning the Council of Trent; What if, that call the Creed the only Foundation? Are you come to a What if, with the Council of Trent? But, I suppose, it is not from disputing its Authority, but its meaning; for you would seem to understand it only of prime Articles of Faith, and not of such as all are bound upon sufficient Proposition expresly to believe; for that is all the sense I can make of your words. But, whoever was so silly, as to say, That all such things which are to be believed on sufficient Proposition that they are revealed by God, are contained in the Creed? When you seem to imply, That this was the sense the Question was propounded in, it is a sign you little attend to the Consequence of things: when it is most evident, that the Question was started concerning the Greek Church, and therefore must referr only to such Fundamentals, as are necessary to be owned in order to the Being of a true Church. And when you can prove, that any other Articles are necessary to that, besides those contained in the Creed, you will do something to purpose, but not before. But, you suppose them to take the Creed in a very large sense, who would lap up in the folds of it all particular Points of Faith whatever: and I am sure, this is not the sense it is to be taken in here, nor that in which his Lordship took it. He saith indeed, That if he had said, that those Articles only which are expressed in the Creed, P. 44.are Fundamental, it would have been hard to have excluded the Scripture, upon which the Creed it self in every Point is grounded. For nothing is supposed to shut out its own Foundation. And this is built on very good reason. For the things contained in the Creed are proposed as matters to be believed; all Faith must suppose a Divine Testimony revealing those things to us, as the ground on which we believe them; this Divine Testimor is never pretended to be contained in the Creed; but that it is only a summary Collection of the most necessary Points which God hath revealed; and therefore something else must be supposed as the ground and formal reason why we assent to the truth of those things therein contained. So that the Creed must suppose the Scripture, as the main and only Foundation of believing the matters of Faith therein contained. But say you, If all the Scripture be included in the Creed, there appears no great reason of scruple, P. 42. n. 2.why the same should not be said of Traditions, and other Points; especially of that for which we admit Scripture it self. But, do you make no difference between the Scripture being supposed as the ground of Faith, and all Scripture being contained in the Creed? And doth not his Lordship tell you, That though some Articles may be Fundamental, which are infolded in the Creed, it would not follow, that therefore some unwritten Traditions were Fundamental; for, though they may have Authority, and use, in the Church, as Apostolical, yet are they not Fundamental in the Faith. And as for that Tradition, That the Books of Holy Scripture are Divine, and Infallible in every part; he promises to handle it, when he comes to the proper place for it. And there we shall readily attend what you have to object to what his Lordship saith about it.
§. 3.But yet you say, His Lordship doth not answer the Question, as far as it was necessary to be answered; we say, he doth. No, say you: For the Question arising concerning the Greek Churches errour, whether it were Fundamental or no; Mr. Fisher demanded of the Bishop, What Points he would account Fundamental: P. 46.to which he answers, That all Points contained in the Creed, are such, but yet not only they; and therefore this was no direct Answer to the Question; for, though the Greeks errour was not against the Creed, yet it may be against some other Fundamental Article not contained in the Creed. This you call fine shuffling. To which I answer, That when his Lordship speaks of its not being Fundamentum unicum in that sense, to exclude all things not contained in the Creed from being Fundamental; he spake it with an immediate respect to the belief of Scripture, as an Infallible Rule of Faith: P. 43. n. 2.For, saith he, The truth is, I said, and say still, That all the Points of the Apostles Creed, as they are there expressed, are Fundamental. And herein I say no more than some of your best learned have said before me. But, I never said, or meant, that they only are Fundamental; that they are Fundamentum unicum, is the Council of Trent's, 'tis not mine. Mine is, That the belief of Scripture to be the Word of God and Infallible, is an equal, or rather a preceding Principle of Faith, with, or to, the whole body of the Creed. Now, what reason can you have to call this, shuffling, unless you will rank the Greeks errour equal with the denying the Scripture to be the Word of God? otherwise, his Lordship's Answer is as full and pertinent, as your cavil is vain and trifling. His Lordship adds, That this agrees with one of your own great Masters, Albertus Magnus, who is not far from the Proposition, in terminis. To which your Exceptions are so pitiful, that I shall answer them, without reciting them; for he that supposeth the sense of Scripture, joyned with the Articles of Faith, to be the Rule of Faith, as Albertus doth, must certainly suppose the belief of the Scripture as the Word of God, else how is it possible its sense should be the Rule of Faith? Again, it is not enough for you to say, That he believed other Articles of Faith, besides these in the Creed; but, that he made them a Rule of Faith together with the sense of Scripture. 3. All this while here is not one word of Tradition, as the ground on which these Articles of Faith were to be believed. If this therefore be your way of answering, I know none will contend with you for fine shuffling. What follows concerning the right sense of the Article of the Descent of Christ into Hell; since you say,P. 46. n. 4. You will not much trouble your self about it, as being not Fundamental either in his Lordships sense, or ours; I look on that expression as sufficient to excuse me from undertaking so needless a trouble, as the examining the several senses of it; since you acknowledge, That no one determinate sense is Fundamental, and therefore not pertinent to our business. Much less is that which follows concerning Mr. Rogers his Book and Authority; in which, and that which depends upon it, I shall only give you your own words for an Answer, That truly I conceive it of small importance to spend much time upon this subject; and shall not so far contradict my judgement as to do that, which, I think, when it is done, is to very little purpose. Of the same nature is that of Catharinus; for it signifies nothing to us, whether you account him an Heretick or no, who know, Men are not one jot more or less Heretick, for your accounting them to be so or not.
You call the Bishop, your good friend, in saying, That all Protestants do agree with the Church of England in the main Exceptions, §. 4.which they joyntly take against the Roman Church, as appears by their several Confessions. P. 48. n. 6.For (say you) by their agreeing in this, but in little or nothing else, they sufficiently shew themselves enemies to the true Church, which is one, and only one, by Vnity of Doctrine; from whence they must needs be judged to depart, by reason of their Divisions. As good a friend as you say his Lordship was to you, in that saying of his, I am sure you ill requite him for his Kindness, by so palpable a falsification of his words, and abuse of his meaning. And all that Friendship you pretend, lyes only in your leaving out that part of the Sentence, which takes away all that you build on the rest. For where doth his Lordship say, That the Protestants only agree in their main Exceptions against the Roman Church, and not in their Doctrines? Nay, doth he not expresly say, That they agree in the chiefest Doctrines, P. 50. n. 1.as well as main Exceptions, which they take against the Church of Rome, as appears by their several Confessions. But you, very conveniently to your purpose, and with a fraud suitable to your Cause, leave out the first part of agreement in the chiefest Doctrines, and mention only the latter, lest your Declamation should be spoiled as to your Unity, and our Disagreements. But we see by this, by what means you would perswade men of both, by Arts and Devices, fit only to deceive such, who look only on the appearance and outside of things; and yet even there, he that sees not your growing Divisions, is a great stranger to the Christian world. Your great Argument of the Vnity of your party, because, whatever the private Opinions of men are, P. 47. n. 4.they are ready to submit their judgements to the censure and determination of the Church; if it be good, will hold as well (or better) for our Unity, as yours, because all men are willing to submit their judgements to Scripture, which is agreed on all sides to be Infallible. If you say, That it cannot be known what Scripture determines, but it may be easily what the Church defines: It is easily answered, that the event shews it to be far otherwise; for how many Disputes are there, concerning the Power of determining matters of Faith? to whom it belongs, in what way it must be managed, whether parties ought to be heard in matters of Doctrine, what the meaning of the Decrees are, when they are made, which raise as many Divisions as were before them, as appears by the Decrees of the Council of Trent, and the latter of Pope Innocent relating to the five Propositions: So that upon the whole it appears, setting aside force and fraud (which are excellent principles of Christian Vnity) we are upon as fair terms of Vnion as you are among your selves.
§. 5.You tell us, That your Church doth Anathematize only such persons as are obstinate;P. 48▪ n. 6. but who are they whom she accounts obstinate? even all who dissent from her in any punctilio. And therefore this is a singular piece of Moderation in your Church. And, you believe the troubles of Christendom rather come from too great freedom taken in matters of Faith, than from any severity in the Church of Rome. The truth is, you have excellent waies of ending Controversies, much like perswading men to put out their Eyes, to end the Disputes about the nature of Colours; and if they will not hearken to such prudent counsel, they are pronounced obstinate and perverse, for offering to keep their Eyes in their Heads. And if men will not say, that White is Black, when your Church bids them do it, these men are the troublers of Israel, and the fomenters of the Discords of the Christian world. But if your Church had kept to the primitive simplicity and moderation, and not offered to define matters of Faith; the occasion of most of the Controversies of the Christian world, had been taken away. Believe what you will, and speak what you list; there are none who consider what they believe or speak, but easily discover whence the great Dissentions of the Christian world have risen, viz. from the Ambition and Vsurpation of the Church of Rome, which hath not been contented to have introduced many silly Superstitions into the publick exercise of Devotion; but, when any of these came to be discovered, thought it her best course to defend her corruptions with greater; by inforcing men to the belief of them, and thereby rendring a Separation from her Communion unavoidable by all those who sought to retrieve the Piety and Devotion of the Primitive Church. And yet this must be call'd Schism, and the persons attempting it Hereticks, by that same Pious and tender-hearted Mother of yours, who loves her Children so dearly, that if they do but desire any reformation of abuses, she takes all possible care they shall complain no more. As though the only way to prevent quarrelling in the world, were to cut out peoples Tongues, and cut off their Arms; Such a kind of Vnity hath your Church shewed her self very desirous of, where ever power and conveniency have met for the carrying it on. But, I hope, you will give us leave, not to envy the Vnity of those, who therefore agree in the Church, because, as soon as they do in the least differ from it, they are pronounced not to be of it, for opposing the determinations of it. And yet, notwithstanding, the violence and fraud used in your Church to preserve its Vnity, the world is alarm'd with the noise of its Dissentions, and the increase of the differing parties, who manage their Contests with great heats and animosities against each other, under all the great pretences of your Vnity. I cannot but therefore judge it a very prudent expression of his Lordship, That as the Church of England is not such a Shrew to her Children, P. 50 n. 1.as to deny her blessing, or denounce an Anathema against them, if some peaceably dissent in some particulars remoter from the Foundation: So, if the Church of Rome, since she grew to her greatness, had not been so fierce in this course, and too particular in determining too many things, and making them matters of necessary belief, which had gone for many hundred of years before, only for things of pious Opinion; Christendom (I perswade my self) had been in happier Peace at this day, then, I doubt, we shall ever live to see it. And it is an excellent reason you give,P. 49, why the Church of Rome doth impose her Doctrine on the whole world, under pain of damnation; because it is not in her power to do otherwise. There is little hopes then of amendment in her, if she thinks so. But, you tell us, Christ hath commanded her to do it. What hath he commanded her to do? to add to his Doctrine by making things necessary, which he never made to be so? Is it in that place, where he bids the Apostles, to teach all that he commanded them, that he gives power to the Church, to teach more than he commanded: But this is a new kind of Supererogation, to make more Articles of Faith, than ever men required to make. Where still is this Command extant in Scripture? Not sure any where, but in that most apposite place produced to that, and all other good purposes which have nothing else to prove them; even Dic Ecclesiae, If he will not hear the Church, let him be to thee as a Heathen and a Publican; therefore the Church of Rome is commanded by Christ, to impose her Doctrine on the whole Church, upon pain of damnation. Sure you will pronounce men obstinate, that dare in the least question this, after so irrefragable a demonstration of it. And you may well cry, Scripture is not fit to decide Controversies, when you consider the lame Consequences you, above all men, derive from it.
His Lordship shews the Moderation of the Church of England, even in that Canon which A. C. looks on as the most severe,§. 6. where she pronounces Excommunication on such as affirm,P. 51. n. 2. that the Articles are in any part superstitious or erronious, &c. by these things. 1. That it is not meant of mens private judgements, but of what they boldly and publickly affirm. 2. That it is one thing to hold contrary to some part of an Article; and anotherp, ositively to affirm, That the Articles in any part are superstitious or erronious. 3. The Church of England doth this only for thirty nine Articles; but the Church of Rome doth it, for above a hundred in matter of Doctrine. 4. The Church of England never declared, That every one of her Articles are Fundamental in the Faith; but the Church of Rome requires, that all be believed as Fundamental, when once the Church hath determined them. 5. The Church of England prescribes only to her own Children, and by those Articles provides but for her own peaceable consent in those Doctrines of Truth. But the Church of Rome severely imposes her Doctrine upon the whole world, under pain of damnation. To all these very considerable Instances of our Churches Moderation, your Answer is, The Question is not, P. 49. n. 8.Whether the English Congregation, or the Roman Church be more severe; but, Whether the English Protestants Severity be not unreasonable; supposing she be subject to errour, in defining those Articles. For after many words, to the same, i. e. little purpose, the reason you give for it, is, That every just Excommunication inflicted for opposing of Doctrine, must necessarily suppose the Doctrine opposed to be infallibly true, and absolutely exempt from errour; otherwise the Sentence it self would be unreasonable and unjust, as wanting sufficient ground. From whence you charge Protestants with greater Tyranny and Injustice towards their people, than they can with any colour or pretence of reason, charge upon the Roman Church, which excommunicates no man, but for denying such Doctrine as is both infallibly True, and also Fundamental, at least as to its formal Object. This is the strength of all you say, which will be reduced to this short Question, Whether the proceedings of that Church be more unreasonable, which excommunicates such as openly oppose her Doctrine, supposing her Fallible; or of that Church, which excommunicates all who will not believe whatever she defines to be Infallibly true. This is the true State of the Controversie, which must be judged by the resolving another Question, Whether it be not a more unreasonable Vsurpation, to bind men upon pain of damnation hereafter, and excommunication here, to believe every thing Infallible which a Church defines, or to bind men to peace to a Churches Determinations, reserving to men the liberty of their judgements, on pain of Excommunication, if they violate that peace. For it is plain on the one side, where a Church pretends Infallibility, the Excommunication is directed against the persons for refusing to give Internal Assent to what she defines: But, where a Church doth not pretend to that, the Excommunication respects wholly that Overt Act, whereby the Churches Peace is broken. And if a Church be bound to look to her own Peace, no doubt she hath power to excommunicate such as openly violate the bonds of it; which is only an Act of Caution in a Church, to preserve her self in Vnity; but where it is given out, that the Church is Infallible, the Excommunication must be so much the more unreasonable, because it is against those Internal Acts of the mind, over which the Church, as such, hath no direct power. And thus, I hope, you see how much more just and reasonable the proceedings of our Church are then of yours; and that, eo nomine, because she pretends to be infallible, and ours doth not.
His Lordship shews further in Vindication of the Church of England, and her grounds of Faith, §. 7.that the Church of England grounded her Positive Articles upon Scripture; P. 52. sect. 15. n. 1.and her Negative do refute there, where the thing affirmed by them, is not affirmed by Scripture, nor directly to be concluded out of it. And this (he saith) is the main principle of all Protestants, that Scripture is sufficient to Salvation, and contains in it all things necessary to it. The Fathers are plain, the Schoolmen not strangers in it. And Stapleton himself confesses as much. Nay, and you dare not deny it, as to all material Objects of Faith, and your formal here signifies nothing. And when A. C. saith, That the Church of England grounded her Positive Articles upon Scripture, P. 53. n. 2.if themselves may be Judges in their own cause. His Lordship answers, We are contented to be judged by the joynt and constant belief of the Fathers, which lived within the first four or five hundred years after Christ, when the Church was at the best, and by the Councils held within those times, and to submit to them in all those Points of Doctrine. This Offer you grant to be very fair, and you do, for your selves, promise the same, and say, You will make it good upon all occasions. P. 51.Which we shall have tryal of before the end of this Book. To what his Lordship saith, concerning the Negative Articles, That they refute where the thing affirmed by them is either not affirmed in Scripture, or not directly to be concluded out of it. A. C. replies, That the Baptism of Infants is not expresly (at least not evidently) affirmed in Scripture, nor directly (at least not demonstratively) concluded out of it. Here two things his Lordship answers. 1. To the Expression. 2. To the thing.
1. To the Expression; That he is no way satisfied with A. C. his addition (not expresly, P. 54. n. 1.at least not evidently:) for (saith he) What means he? If he speak of the l…tter of Scripture, then whatsoever is expresly, is evidently in the Scripture, and so his addition is in vain. If he speak of the meaning of Scripture, then his addition is cunning. For many things are expresly in Scripture, which yet in their meaning are not evidently there. And, as little satisfied his Lordship declares himself, with that other (nor directly, at least not demonstratively,) because many things are directly concluded, which are not demonstratively. To the first you answer, That a Point may be exprest, yet not evidently exprest; otherwise there could be no doubt concerning what were exprest in Scripture, P. 51. n. 9,since men never question things that are evident. Now, say you, the Baptism of Infants must not only …e exprest, but evidently exprest, to prove it sufficiently, i. e. undeniably, by Scripture alone. But the Question being concerning matters of Doctrine, and not meer words, those things are expresly affirmed, which are evidently, and no other: For it is one thing for words to be expresly in Scripture, and another for Doctrines to be so. For these latter are no further expresly affirmed there, than as there is evidence, that the meaning of such words doth contain such a Doctiine in them. As to take your own Instance, This is my Body, we grant the words to be express; but we deny, that which he had then in his hands was his real Body; (for his hands were part of his real Body) Now, we do not say, That the Doctrine of Transubstantiation is expresly, but not evidently contained here; for, we say, The Doctrine is not there at all, but only that those are the express words; This is my Body; as it is in other figurative expressions in Scripture. But that which causeth this litigation about words, is, That you look upon that which is evident and undeniable to be all one, whereas there may be sufficient evidence, where all men are not perswaded by it. And so you would put his Lordship to prove out of Scripture, Infant-Baptism evidently and demonstratively, i. e. undeniably; whereas his Lordship supposeth it enough for his purpose, to prove it by such sufficient evidence, as may convince any reasonable man. And this was all his Lordship meant, when he said, That our Negative Articles do refute, where the thing is not affirmed in Scripture, or not directly concluded out of it. And, if you will stand to the strict sense of these words, you will be forced to prove all those Doctrines of your Church, which ours denies to be true, so evidently and demonstratively, i. e. undeniably, as you would put him upon for the proof of Infant-Baptism.
To leave therefore this verbal dispute, and come to the thing: His Lordship saith, That it may be concluded directly out of Scripture, §. 8.That Infants ought to be baptized, &c. For which,P. 55. n. 4. he insists on two places of Scriture, Joh. 3.8. Except a man be born again of Water, and of the Spirit, &c. which being interpreted according to the sense of the Fathers, and the Ancient Church, and as your own party acknowledge it ought to be interpreted, do evidently assert Infant-Baptism. By which,P. 52. n▪ …, your exception of a Pelagian Anabaptist, who denies Original sin, and from thence saith, That Infants cannot be born again, is taken away; for the same Tradition of the Ancient Church, which from hence inferrs the Baptism of Infants, doth it upon that ground, because they are guilty of Original sin, as you might have seen by his Lordship's Citations to that purpose. The other place he insists on, is, Act. 2.38, 39. which, by the acknowledgement of Ferus and Salmeron, P. 56▪holds for Infant-Baptism. But, when you say, That you would not weaken the Argument, from Joh. 3. for Infant-Baptism; because you only would shew, that it cannot be proved demonstratively from Scripture alone, against a perverse Heretick: You seem not much to consider what those perverse Hereticks (as you call them) hold as to Infant-Baptism, which is, not meerly that Infant-Baptism is not commanded in Scripture, but that it is a thing unlawful, as being a perverting of the Institution of Christ, as to the subject of Baptism. For the main Question between us and the Antipaedobaptists, is not, concerning an absolute and express command for Baptizing Infants; but whether our Blessed Saviour hath not by a positive Precept so determined the subject of Baptism; viz. adult persons professing the Faith, that the alteration of the subject, viz. in Baptizing Infants, be not a deviation from, and perversion of the Institution of Christ in a substantial part of it; or in short thus, whether our Saviour hath so determined the subject of Baptism, as to exclude Infants. And although, the question being thus stated, the proof ought to lye on those who affirm it, yet taking in only the help of Scripture and reason, it were no difficult matter to prove directly and evidently, that Infants are so far from being excluded Baptism by the Institution of Christ, that there are as many grounds as are necessary to a matter of that nature, to prove that the Baptizing them is suitable to the Institution of Christ, and agreeable to the state of the Church under the Gospel. For, if there were any ground to exclude them, it must be either the incapacity of the subject, or some express precept and Institution of our Saviour. But neither of these can be supposed to do it.
1. Not incapacity as to the ends of Baptism: for clearing which, these two things must be premised: 1. That the rule and measure, as to the use and capacity of Divine Institutions, is to be fetched from the end of them. For, this was the ground of the Circumcision of the Proselytes under the Law: and this was the way the Apostles did interpret Christs Commission for Baptizing all Nations, as to the capacity of the subjects of it, Acts 10.47. Can any man forbid water, that these should not be Baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost, as well as we: where the question was concerning the subject of Baptism. For it might be made evident, that the Apostles at first did interpret their Commission of Baptizing all Nations, only of the Jews of all Nations: for after that, St. Peter looked on the Gentiles as unclean: and the Disciples at Jerusalem charged St. Peter with it, as a great fault, for going in to men uncircumcised, Acts 11.3. Therefore we see when the question was concerning the subject of Baptism; the only Argument is drawn from the design and ends of it; that they who were capable of the thing signified ought not to be denyed the use of the sign. And thus by a parity of reason built on equal grounds, those who are capable of the great things represented in Baptism and confirmed by it, viz. Gods pardoning grace, and acceptation to eternal life, ought not to be denyed the external sign, which is Baptism it self. And therefore, 2. Where there is a capacity as to the main ends of an Institution, an incapacity as to some ends doth not exclude from it. As is most evident in the Baptism of our Blessed Saviour, in whom was a greater incapacity as to the main ends of Baptism, then possibly can be in Infants; for his Baptism could not at all be for the remission of sins. Now we see, although there were but one end, and that a very general one mentioned, That he might fulfill all righteousness, Matth. 3.15. yet we see, that was sufficient to perswade John to Baptize him. Whereby we see evidently in this practise of our Saviour built on a general and common ground, that a capacity as to one end of a positive Institution, is sufficient to make such a practice lawful, and in some cases a duty.
These two general Principles being laid down; it were easie to shew, 1. That what incapacity there is in Infants, §. 9.is not destructive of the main ends of Baptism; which is chiefly thought to be the incapacity of understanding the nature or ends of the Institution; and if that exclude, it must either be, that it is a thing repugnant to reason, that any Divine Institution should be applyed to persons uncapable of understanding the nature and ends of it, which would highly reflect on the wisdome of God in appointing Circumcision for Children eight dayes old, who were certainly as uncapable of understanding the ends of that, as our Children are of Baptism; or else, that there is some peculiarity in the Institution of Baptism, which must exclude them from it under the Gospel: which that there is not, will appear presently.
2. That there is a capacity in Infants as to the main ends of Baptism, which have either an aspect from God to us, in regard of its Institution, or from us to God, in regard of our undertaking it. Now the chief ends of a Divine Institution as such, are such as respect Gods Intention in it towards us, in which respect it is properly a sign; but as it respects God from us, it is properly a Ceremony betokening our profession and restipulation towards God. Now the ends of it as a sign, are to represent and exhibit to us the nature of the grace of the Gospel as it cleanseth and purifieth, and to confirm the truth of the Covenant on Gods part, and to enstate the partakers of it in the priviledges of the Church of God; now as to all these ends, there is no incapacity in Infants to exclude them from Baptism, because of them. So that nothing can seem wanting of the ends of Baptism, but that which seems most Ceremonial in it, which is the personal restipulation, which yet may reasonably be supplyed by Sponsors, so far as to make it of the nature of a solemn Contract and Covenant in sight of the Congregation. Thus far it appears from Scripture and Reason, that no incapacity in Infants doth exclude them from Baptism.
2. That there is no direct or consequential prohibition made by our Blessed Saviour to exclude them. For granting that he had the power to limit and determine the subject of Baptism, the question is, Whether he hath so far done it as to exclude Infants? And nothing of that nature is pretended, before the last Commission given to the Apostles, of Teaching and Baptizing all Nations, Matth. 28.19. And that by this expression there is no exclusion of Infants will appear; 1. If our Saviour had intended the gathering of Churches among the Gentiles according to the Law of Moses, he could hardly have expressed it after another manner then thus, Go Proselyte all Nations, Circumcising them. Now I appeal to any mans judgement and reason, whether in such words it could be imagined, that the Infants of such Gentile-Proselytes should be excluded Circumcision; and what reason can there be then from these words to imagine, that our Saviour did intend to exclude the Infants of Gentile-Converts from Baptism? 2. We must consider, what apprehensions those whom our Saviour directed these words to, viz. the Apostles, had concerning the Church-state of such as were in an external Covenant with God, which they measured by the general reason of that Covenant which God made with the Jews; Can we then think, that when our Saviour bid the Apostles gather whole Nations into Churches, they should imagine the Infants were excluded out of it, when they were so solemnly admitted into it, in that dispensation which was in use among them? 3. The Gentiles being now to be first Proselyted to Christianity, the order of the words was necessary: for whoever imagined, but that such as were wholly strangers to Christianity, as those were whom Christ there speaks of, were to be first taught, or discipled, before they were to be Baptized? For suppose, it should be said to such persons among whom Infant Baptism is the most used, Go and Disciple the Indians, Baptizing them, &c. Could any one conceive the intention of such a Commission was to exclude the Infants of all those Indians from Baptism, when it was well known that Infant-Baptism was used among those who came with that Commission? And therefore neither these words here, nor those Mark. 16.16. He that believeth and is Baptized, &c. can in reason be so interpreted as to exclude Infants, when the meer order of nature, and necessity of the thing, requires that those who first own Christianity by being Baptized, ought, before such Baptism, not only to believe, but to make profession of that Faith; but this reacheth not at all to the case of such Infants as are born of those persons. For if any one had said to Abraham, He that believes, and is circumcised, shall be saved, Could it have been so interpreted, that the intention was to exclude his Children from Circumcision? No more ought these words of our Saviour be strained to a greater prejudice of the right of Infants to Baptism, then those other to their right of Circumcision. And thus far we see there is no ground from Scriptures, or Reason, why Infants should be excluded.
And, were it not too large a Digression, I might further shew how suitable the Baptism of Infants is to the administration of things under the Gospel;§. 10. but I shall only propound some considerations concerning it. 1. That if it had been Christs intention to exclude Infants, …here had been far greater reason for an express prohibition; then of an express command, if his intention were to admit them: because this was suitable to the general grounds of Gods dispensation among them before. 2. It is very hard to conceive that the Apostles thought Infants excluded by Christ, when after Christs Ascension they looked on themselves as bound to observe the Jewish customes, even when they had Baptized many thousand people. 3. If admission of Infants to Baptism were a meer Relick of Judaism, it seems strange that none of the Judaizing Christians should be charged with it, who yet are charged with the observation of other Judaical rites. 4. Since the Jewish Christians were so much offended at the neglect of Circumcision, Acts 21.21. Can we in reason think they should quietly bear their Childrens being wholly thrown out of the Church; as they would have been, if neither admitted to Circumcision nor Baptism? 5. Had it been contrary to Christs Institution, we should not have had such evidence of its early practice in the Church as we have. And here I acknowledge the use of Apostolical Tradition to manifest this to us; In which sense I acknowledge what St. Austin saith, That the custom of our mother the Church is not to be contemned or thought superfluous, neither is it to be believed but as an Apostolical Tradition. For that the words are to be read so, (and not, as you translate them, nor at all to be believed unless it had been an Apostolical Tradition, from thence inferring, that Infant-Baptism were not to be believed at all, but for Tradition) appears by three ancient Manuscripts at Oxford, as well as the course of the sentence, and St. Austins judgement in other places, viz. that it ought to be read, Nec omninò credenda nisi Apostolica traditio esse, and not esset. But we grant that the practice of the Church from Apostolical times is a great confirmation, that it was never Christs intention to have Infants excluded from Baptism. And thus much may suffice to shew, what evidence we have from Scripture and Reason, without recourse wholly to Tradition, or building upon any more controverted places, to justifie the Churches practice in Infant-Baptism, which is as much as is necessary for us to do. What follows concerning the founding Divine Faith on Apostolical Tradition, will be fully considered in the succeeding Controversie concerning the resolution of Faith, to which we now hasten.