Letter of Resolution to Six Queries, Query 4 (2 of 2)

Letter of Resolution to Six Queries · Query 4 (2 of 2)

p. 244§. 71 But I conceive it is yet farther distant p. 245distant from the truth, and that by the fire, which John tells the Jews they shall be baptized with by Christ, after the coming of the holy Ghost in tongues as of fire, and being contemned by them, was (as was before noted) meant the destruction of the obdurate Crucifiers. For so the two verses immediately incompassing those words, do seem to incline it, The ax is laid to the root of the tree, therefore every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down and cast into the fire, v. 10. that sure is a fire of destruction among the Jews, and upon that [I indeed baptize with water &c.] a quenching as well as a cleansing element, and if you repent timely, I assure you from God the impendent ruine shall be averted; [but he that cometh after me is mightier then I] and may in reason be expected to do more then I have done, baptize you with the holy Ghost, use all powerful means to bring you to repentance by the Apostles preaching over all your cities, after your crucifying the Messias, and if all that do no good, then baptizing you with fire also, immersing and overwhelming you over head and ears in that fiercer element (as afflictions are elswhere described by foreign, being baptized, Mat. 20.22.) and accordingly it follows, v. 12. whose fan is in his hand, and he shall throughly purge his floor, p. 246that is the previous work of the Spirit, to purge, and separate the penitent from the impenitent, but the chaff shall he burn with unquenchable fire. And if, as the context inclines, and the event was agreeable, so that be resolved to be the meaning of the baptizing them with fire, then, as it may belong to the Jews indefinitely, i. e. the impenitent Jews of all sorts, so will it take away all appearance of validity to the objection. And I shall be content to conclude thence, that as the Infants of the beleivers were then to be baptized with water, so the unbeleivers, or obdurate, should pass through, or rather perish in the fire also. But this ex abundanti.

§. 72 And whereas the argument proceeds to acquire more strength from S. Peter, who when he had said, that Baptism saves us, addes by way of explication, not the washing of the flesh, but the confidence of a good conscience toward God, plainly saying, that it is not water, or the purification of the body, but the cleansing of the Spirit that does that, &c. I conceive the conclusion to be much larger then the premises: For all that S. Peter saith, is either to deny, and exclude the external sacramental Baptism from being available to salvation, without the addition of a good conscience, (which I do not pretend it is) or to define that baptism, p. 247which is available, to be compounded of an inward, substantial performance, as well as an outward s…gnificative rite, or to attribute more to the good conscience, or the foreign of that (not the confidence, but the enquiring, or seeking to God, as hath been shew'd) then to the bare outward washing, which still is no way of prejudging the use of that ceremony (any more then the precept in Joel, of rending the hearts, & not the garments, was a prohibition or interdict of that outward expression of mourning, the rending of the garments) but onelyonly the due preferring of the more substantial part, and requiring that we do not leave out, through over-valuing the ceremony, the more precious, inward part of that Sacrament.

And therefore if our Saviours speech to §. 73 Nicodemus be supposed to be expounded, by analogy to this of Peter (by the way, it hath already appeared, that that other of being baptized with fire, is far from any necessity of passing for such a parallel) it will no way be consequent from thence, what is pretended [that it can conclude for no man, that he is obliged to the rite of baptism,] nor will the same be at all made probable by Christs speaking those words, Joh. 3. before baptism was ordained. For, first, though baptism being supposed an Institution of Christ, p. 248cannot safely be neglected by those, that have received the faith of Christ; yet we do not think, that it will be available to him that doth not obey that Doctrine (which is the sum of S. Peters words) and secondly, Baptism being before this time, even among the Jews, the rite or ceremony of receiving Proselytes, and so of a metaphorical new birth (and therefore Christ wonders at Nicodemus a ruler in Israel, that he understood not those words of his) It is no way improbable, that our Saviour having before those words Joh. 3. received Proselytes, called, and entertained disciples, had accommodated this ceremony of the Jews thereto, and received them by baptism. For so we see it (Joh. 4.) spoken, as of a thing past, that the Pharisees had heard, that Jesus made, and baptized more disciples then John, whose title yet it was to be the Baptizer. And though it be added v. 2. that Jesus baptized not, but his disciples: yet certainly what they now did, was by Commission from him, as his officers, and ministers, and therefore though at his departure from the world the Commission was given them in a larger manner, as far as extended to all the world, Gentiles, as well as Jews, yet 'tis evident that ceremony was already ordained by Christ, as the rite of receiving beleivers into the Church, and conveying remission p. 249of Sins unto them, and being so used by the disciples of Christ, might very properly be mentioned to Nicodemus, as every ones duty, that would enter into the kingdome of God, though not so, as to exclude any that were not guilty of the neglecting of it, or as to avail any that were not inwardly purified, as well as externally baptized.

And when 'tis added in the same Num. §. 74 that the words of Christ to Nicodemus, do no more infer a necessity to give Infants baptism, then those other words, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye shall not enter into the kingdome of heaven, infer a necessity to give them the holy Communion, and that thereupon the ancient Church did with an equal opinion of necessity give them the communion] To this I answer, by these degrees; First, that those words Joh. 6.59. of eating the flesh of the Son of man, &c. do no way appear to belong to the Sacrament of the Eucharist, it being apparent, that at the speaking of those words that Sacrament was not instituted, nor till long after (the night before his crucifixion) and therefore that they are not at all appliable to this matter.

And indeed from the whole context, §. 75 Christs comparing and preferring himself before the Jews Manna, in respect of the miraculousness of the descent, and p. 250efficacy to nourish their souls, it is so unavoidably inferred, that their feeding on his flesh, is their beleiving his doctrines, and nothing else, that the Romanists, whose pretensions for the flesh and blood of Christ in that Sacrament, would be much favoured by this interpretation of this Text, do yet (the learnedst of them) disclaim it: and indeed S. Chrysostomes way of interpreting the 63 verse, It is the spirit that quickeneth, &c. is most clear, that as the soul is that which enlivens, and not the body, so 'tis not the fleshly hearing that profits any, but his doctrine received into their hearts, and not onelyonly into their ears, that will quicken them into a spiritual life here, and that prove a foundation of eternal life hereafter.

§. 76 Secondly, supposing what the objection doth not prove, but suppose, that the place did belong to the Sacrament of the Eucharist, and that the words were exclusively set, as those others of baptism, that whosoever received not that Sacrament, were not capable of eternal life, yet seeing many circumstances are necessary to be taken in, to discern the full importance of any obscure place, it will appear in many respects very reasonable to make some difference between the persons to whom those Sacraments belong. For first, Baptism being founded in the Jewish rite of receiving Proselytes, may p. 251reasonably be thought to belong to all, that among the Jews were usually baptized, i. e. (as it hath already appeared) to the Infant-children of Proselytes, & agreeably it hath been deduced f…om the Apostolical practise, that Infants were baptized, whereas on the other side, that other Sacrament being instituted in their postcoenium, in all reason was to belong to none, but such as those that were at that, or are usually presumed to come thither, and those are not wont to be Infants, but onelyonly those of full age: Or if the Eucharist were supposed answerable to the eating of the Paschal Lamb (as indeed it is not, it being the commemorative Passover onelyonly, in the close of which this was instituted, and the Lamb not eaten till the evening after Christ our Passover was sacrificed for us) yet Infant children cannot be supposed partakers of that, because they could not come up to Jerusalem, where onelyonly this Lamb was eaten, no more then they could eat standing, which was a rite of that Paschal Supper. And lastly, the Eucharist being ordained to be observed in remembrance of Christ, the Infants could not be due partakers of that, as in Baptism (supposing it the Sacrament of initiation into the Church) 'tis manifest they might be then initiated, that age being as capable of receiving such benefits, as it is of food, p. 152but no more capable of performing actions of piety, commemorating of Christ, &c. then it is of acting, or speaking, &c.

§. 77 And therefore, thirdly, if in any age of the ancient Church, that custome prevailed, of communicating Infants, it is apparent, that, as that was without any obligation from that place, Joh. 6. (and yet in all probability from a misunderstanding of that place) so the universal Church of Christ, which afterwards discerned that mistake, and disused that practise, did still continue that other of baptizing Infants. And if they that did thus, did so punctually define and distinguish in this matter, and were not at all moved by the arguments upon which they left off communicating of Infants, to leave off the baptizing of Infants, (but were rather more strict in observing it) Then what reason can be brought from hence, why they that desire to make use of the practise of that Church in the one, the leaving off to communicate Infants, should not think themselves obliged to observe it in the other; or indeed, that they that neither follow that age, nor that Church, where children were both baptized and communicated, nor that, wherein communicating Infants being upon reason laid down, baptizing them was thought sufficient, should yet think fit to draw arguments p. 153against us from the practise of the Church, whereby they will not themselves be obliged, and never consider what the Church hath done, to imitate it, but onelyonly to furnish themselves with pleas to divide from it?

Fourthly, if the ancient Church, having §. 78 no Precept from Christ, nor Practise from the Apostles, were so tender, lest they should deprive Infants of any the most improbable part of their due, that they communicated them, and cannot truly be charged of a crime, though perhaps of a misunderstanding of an obscure Scripture in so doing, (for sure to give them bread or wine, was an indifferent ceremony, and as much in the power of the Church to use, as the giving them milk or honey) then what shall be said in excuse of an uncharitable age, that will rather venture to unravel all, to oppose an universal custome at least, nay an Apostolick practise, and, as we have all reason to think, an institution of Christ, then retain an harmless innocent ceremony, of bringing their children into the bosome of the Church, to receive those benefits, of which they are capable at the present (such acknowledgedly is Christs benediction) and to be in a posture of receiving all others, as soon as ever they are capable?

Fifthly, to speak yet somewhat more §. 79 particularly of the ancient Churches p. 254communicating of Infants, As it is certain that S. Augustine, interpreting that passage of Christs, Joh. 6. literally of the Sacrament, founded on it the necessity of exhibiting it to Infants newly baptized, and pressed the Pelagians with this, as Ecclesiae totius dogma, the opinion of the whole Church: So these two things are observable of it, First, the original, from whence this was first derived to Infants, viz. the custome (very proper and laudable) of administring the Lords Supper to all adulti, or grown men and women, presently (the same day at least) after their baptism, from whence it came by degrees to Infants also. But then secondly, this was done with a considerable difference: Those of age received that Sacrament, sub utra{que} specie, under both kindes, both of bread and wine, but Infants onelyonly under that of the wine, l. 1. de Sacr. c. 20.if Hugo de Sancto Victore may be credited (Pueris recens natis sacramentum in specie sanguinis est ministratum) adding that reason for it, quia tales naturaliter sugere possunt, because such are naturally able to suck. Thirdly, that when this of communicating Infants was left off, yet the custome of giving the Sacrament to the Adulti immediately upon Baptism, lasted longer in the Church, and is mentioned by Theophylact on the 10 of Luke: and so as this came in by mistake, it was deliberately, p. 255and upon grounds of knowledge left off again. Fourthly, that even in the ages wherein this was used, and with some earnestness urged by S. Augustine against his adversaries, it is yet by him mentioned but as a dogma or opinion of the Church (such are all the ceremonies of the Churches constituting) and neither as a Doctrine of Scripture, nor Tradition from the Apostles, as by the same S. Augustine, and those which are ancienter then he, the baptizing of Infants is affirmed to be.

Lastly then, I conceive, that the giving §. 80 of wine to the baptized Infants, differs much from admitting them to that Sacrament, and was at the most but an occasion of allowing them the Prayers of the Church, that they might be partakers of the death of Christ, and all the benefits thereof, which still was but the kindeness and charity of the Church toward them. But then it is evident, that beside this, there is much more in that Sacrament, and particularly the offering to God our reasonable sacrifice, and plighting of our charity one to another, and of taking up Christs Cross, and so communicating with with his sufferings. And to this it is not pretended that Infants were admitted, either by themselves or their Sureties (as in Baptism they are personally admitted to the benefits of the Covenant, p. 256and by their proxies they vow the duties of the Covenant) nor consequently that they were brought to the Lords Table at the usual times of those administrations, but onelyonly were allowed some minute parts of the holy wine, in imitation of what was solemnly done to the adulti on the day of their Baptism, and in compliance with the literal sound of the words of Christ, Joh. 6.53. And on the other side, througn the most flourishing ages of the ancient Church; we know that those that had been baptized in their infancy, but were not yet sufficiently instructed, were solemnly dismist out of the Church when the Lords Supper was to be celebrated, most strictly interdicted to be present to see, or approach those holy mysteries, As is known by the Ite missa est, the yonger sort were to depart, when the offertory-services began.

§. 81 In the next place Num. 19. is attempted the disproving of all argument brought in defence of Paedobaptism from Peters words, Act. 2.39. The Promise is made to you, and to your children.] To which I answer, That if any have made use of that very unconcludent argument, I have nothing to say in defence of them, I think the practise is founded on a better basis then so, and that the word children there, is really the posterity of the Jews, and not peculiarly their Infant children.

p. 257As for the answer that Num. 20. is §. 82 rendred to that place (on which I acknowledge to lay some weight) 1 Cor. 7, 14. [but now are your children holy] I am obliged to examine that, and view it in its utmost force. The answer is, That [those words signifie nothing but that they are holy by designation, just as Jeremy and John Baptist were sanctified in their mothers womb, i. e. designed and appointed for holy ministeries, but had not the Promise of the Father, the gift of the holy Ghost for all that sanctification, and just so the children of Christian Parents are sanctified, i. e. designed to the service of Jesus Christ, and the future participation of the Promises.] The invalidity of this answer will be discerned, First, by the method of the Apostles arguing in that place, for the cohabiting of the beleiving wife with the unbeleiving husband, &c. because the unbeleiving husband hath been sanctified by the beleiving wife, or else were your children unclean, but now are they holy: That must needs be this, Unless there were some hope that the cohabiting of a beleiver, should be a means to bring an unbeleiver to the faith, 'twould certainly follow, That their children were unclean. Now I demand of this pretended interpretation, Whether it be possible that S. Pauls argument should conclude, being understood in this sense? p. 258Suppose Jeremies, or John Baptists parents had been one a beleiver, and the other an unbeleiver, could it of them be concluded, if they did not, upon the hope of doing good one upon the other, cohabit, their children could not be sanctified by God, i. e. secretly designed to any holy ministery? This were absolutely to confine Gods designations, and predestinations of this kinde, to none but the chilcren of beleivers, as if the childe of parents, either, or both heathen, could not by God be made use of to his highest ministeries, as well as a blaspheming and persecuting Paul, who yet, we know, when such, was so predestinate.

§. 83 It is known that Jeremies and Johns sanctification, or designation to holiness, was a work onelyonly of Gods, and that depends not upon such accidental conditions, as is the cohabiting of the parents, and therefore cannot have place in this matter. And if it be said, that the meaning of the word is, that the children of such are not actually holy, but onelyonly by designation, meaning by that, the designation of the Church, as Ieremy was sanctified by the designation of God, and that the [as] is to be extended no farther, then to compare them in respect of designations, and not in respect of those, by whom they were designed, then indeed as this is the onelyonly way I can think of, to avoid the p. 259former absurdity, so it is in effect the confession of what we pretend to be the force of these words. For all that we understand by holy in that place, is, holy by designation of the Church, i. e. by Baptism, to which when they are brought by the Congregation, and admitted by the Minister, they are thus consecrated, and devoted to God; and if this be the onelyonly way of avoiding our conclusion from that Text, the conclusion will be the more established, in stead of being weakned by it.

And herein it is farther to be observed, §. 84 That in fitting the parallel betwixt the holiness of the children in S. Paul, and of Ieremy or the Baptist, this difference is acknowledged, that they two were designed to holy Ministeries, and these to the service of Iesus Christ, and the future participation of the Promises] which again seeing it cannot be said of Gods secret designation (for sure he may design those to this end, whose parents are neither of them Christian) must needs be applyed to the designation of the Church, and then that is the very thing I mean by bringing, and receiving them to baptism (which is the designing, or devoting them to the service of God, and future participation of the Promises) and is all that I pretend to conclude from that place.

p. 260§. 85 There is but one thing in which that answer can be thought to be useful to the Anabaptists purpose, viz. that as Ieremy's being sanctified in the womb, was his being designed onelyonly to receive, and not his having actually received the gift of the holy Ghost: So the ordinary Infants being sanctified, is onelyonly his being designed to the grace of God, not his having actually received it. To which I answer, That this conclusion with some limitation (and that equal on both parts of the comparison) will be safely acknowledged by us, viz. that as Ieremy, and the Baptist had not from the womb the gift of the holy Ghost, necessary for their Prophetick office, as being at that time, through want of understanding, uncapable of exercising it, but yet had at that time that special favour of God (vouchsafed to, though unknown by them) of being designed to that special office of dignity, so the Christian Infant-children have not the gift of faith, &c. infused into them, as long as they are uncapable of exercising it, but yet have the favour from Christ and his Church, the favour of being designed to the participation of that, and other the like graces necessary for their state, as soon as they are capable of receiving them, unless they by satisfying their part of the Covenant, disengage God of performing his part of it.

p. 261To the answer (insisted on Numb. 21.) §. 86 to the words of S. Peter [be baptized, and ye shall receive the holy Ghost] viz. that the receiving the holy Ghost there, was receiving the rite of Confirmation, and that not as an effect of Baptism, but onelyonly a consequent of it] I shall make this return, That if the whole arguing be admitted, and granted by us, and so the conclusion from it, That those words recited, are incompetent to prove that the holy Ghost (which is there mentioned as consequent to) is received in Baptism, this will be far from assisting the Anabaptists against us: For first, we must have leave to take notice, That by this answer, the rite of Confirmation, and that intitled a mystery, is asserted from S. Peters words (though baptismal grace be not asserted) and I shall believe, that the acknowledgement of the Apostolicalness of that rite, may stand the Church in as much stead against the Anabaptists, as any other advantage, that could be pretended to from those words. For certainly, if the holy Ghost be given in Confirmation in that richer latitude, (as the state of the person confirmed is more capable) Then nothing hinders, but that by Baptism (an institution of Christ himself, which is thereby to have the precedence of Confirmation that pretends onelyonly, though from, and under Christ, yet no otherwise p. 262then as by Apostolical institution) such lower graces may be given as that lower state is capable of: Or however the very receiving into Covenant, and being made capable of such superinvestitures, as this of Confirmation is, and with it of the holy Ghost, of which without Baptism they are not in that Text supposed capable, is a gift and benefit, and so a grace of baptism, very well worth the valuing. Secondly, that which of Baptism is not proved by those words there repeated, may yet (as far as by our former answers it appears to be asserted by us) be proved by other Texts, either single, or in conjunction with one another, as by that of the childrens being holy, in respect of their baptism, by that title of baptism that it is the laver of regeneration, compared with Christs words, Except ye be born again of water and the spirit, &c.

§. 87 But I shall not need to go farther then this Text it self, when it is recited intire, as now it was useful to the Anabaptists pretensions that it should be mutilated. For S. Peters words are, Act. 2.38. Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of the Lord Jesus to the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the holy Ghost: where, though the persons to whom he spake are not imagined to be Infants, but those that were pricked at the heart, v. 37. yet to this point, of Baptism p. 263being the means to convey the Promises, for which the argument sets indistinctly the holy Ghost, meaning thereby not all, but some graces of the holy Ghost, these words are a pregnant evidence. For leaving the foreign, ye shall receive] in the future, to the rite of Confirmation, yet still at present this baptism is foreign, to remission of Sins; That pardon of Sins, which is certainly a principal Promise, and a special and most valuable gift of God, is set down as an effect of baptism. And though for actual and habitual sins, such as are there spoken of, Repentance be also required, as to prepare for baptism, so to make capable of remission; yet in children that are not guilty of those sins, nor capable of that repentance, there is little appearance of reason from that place either to exact repentance, to qualifie for remission, or to doubt, but, as habitual sins may be remitted by repentance and baptism, so, Original sin may be remitted by baptism alone without repentance, the very receiving into the Covenant of Grace, the Evangelical Covenant, which is the effect of baptism, being interpretatively the quitting us from that debt, and setting us right in the favour of God, and giving us title to the peculiar custody and protection of Angels, Matthew 18.10. till by our wilfull breaches and perjuries, p. 264we again forfeit our Tenure.

§. 88 I cannot discern any thing more in this 21. Num. which looks like an advantage against us, and may consequently want any reply. For that they that are capable of the same grace, are not alway capable of the same sign, as females among the Jews, that were not capable of Circumcision] is of no force against us, who know that females were initiated among them by Baptism, and that that is the thing for which we contend: and again, that beside the capacity of the grace, the Institution of the sign is also required to make any thus capable of the sign, and consequently that though they, for whom a s…gn is not instituted, are not capable of that sign, yet of another sign they are capable, which was instituted for them.

§. 89 And so likewise, that [God doth not alwayes convey his graces in the same manner, but to some mediately, to others immediately,] 'tis not our interest to question, who contend onelyonly for the Christians observance of the Institutions of Christ, and so for the bringing all to Baptism, who are allowed to be admitted to it, and not for the confining the graces or mercies of Christ within any limits of ours, or the annexing them to the ministery of others so inseparably, that they that are not involved in the guilt, shall be p. 265involved in the sufferings or punishments of their neglects.

To the 22. Num. which supposes the §. 90 assertors of Paedobaptism to complain against God, and not to be content with him, unless they may baptize their children, taking exceptions that God did more for the children of the Jews] the answer will be brief, That there is no such complaint made by any of us, nor imaginable cause for such complaint, in case it were true (as we pretend it most false) that God had excluded our children from baptism. For truly, we look upon Gods In…titutions not as natural, but as mo…al instruments, and consequently no farthe necessary to us, then God hath will'd the hould be, and therefore conclude that God, who instituted Circumcision among the Jews, a seal of their Covenant, but not instituted it to us, will make good his richest Promises to us, though we be not circumcised. All our complaint is of men, not of God, in respect of him we look upon it as a mercy, not an unkindeness, that our children are not obliged to such a bloody rite, as Circumcision was, & should confess our selves an adulterous generation indeed (though we conceive Christs words do little belong to that matter) if we should seek after that sign. But of men, who being freed from a bloody ceremony (by the blood of Christ, who was himself circumcised, p. 266and therein shed blood, but soon after nail'd that to his Cross) will not yet allow Christ to continue a much more gentle rite, and that also of old required of them, while they were under that heavier yoke, and who being so guilty themselves, complain of us for complaining. Of these, I say, though it be not very seasonable to complain, we may have leave to request this one favour, That we may not be deemed their enemies, because we tell the truth, and have no other design imaginable in this dispute, but to reduce them to a due value of, and obedience to Christs Institution.

§. 91 For the other particulars in that 22. Num. which make a difference between Circumcision and Baptism, in respect of the remanency of the sign in the flesh, but not of this, &c. we have already spoken sufficiently. But when in the close it is pretended, That we are guilty of the greatest vanity in the world, in affirming, that unless the mercies of God be consigned in baptism, we shall want the comfort of it; I must, as formerly I have done, answer this, by disclaiming the Argument which the Paedobaptist is supposed to use, and to which this is justly objected. For, as in respect of God, if it were granted; That his Promises were made without any sign at all, we could absolutely relye on his Word, and never think he could falsifie p. 267that, and so want no comfort in respect of that, so now that we are perswaded, he hath instituted this sign, we shall never be deprived of our comfort, by being deprived of the sign, unless when it is done by our own default, and so we are deprived of our innocence also. For if through the presentness of danger, we are intercepted the liberty of calling for the minister, from him regularly to receive this sign, or when by his unkindness, or neglect of his duty, or by an inrode of Schism we are deprived of, and denyed that privilege of bringing our Infants to baptism, we can very comfortably depend on the Promise of God, that our infelicities shall not be our guilts, much less the injustices of others, the betraying of those innocents, and so we shall not want comforts, either when we look on our unbaptized children, or reflect on our selves, who diligently sought it for them. All the uncomfortableness of our condition is, to see the Institution of Christ laid aside, the practise of the Apostles, the perpetual usage, and Canons of the Church despised, and our selves scoffed at, as Formalists, or Impostors, that desire to reduce our brethren to the unity of the Church, from whence they are departed, and to the obedience of Christ, in all his Ordinances and Institutions, which is a part of that meekness, and charity, and peaceableness, that p. 268was so passionately by Christ recommended to his disciples, and without which no man hath right to that appellation.

§. 92 The 23. Num. begins thus, Now since there is no strength in the doctrinal part, the practise and precedents Apostolical and Ecclesiastical, will be of less concernment, if they were true, as is pretended, because actions Apostolical are not alwayes rules for-ever. That the Practise Apostolical should not be of much concernment in this matter, will appear strange to any, that remembers but this one thing, That Baptism is a Sacrament, that Sacrament an Institution of Christs, that Institution not founded in any reason of immutable truth, but onelyonly in the pos…tive Will of Christ, and so that there is nothing considerable in this question (or any of this nature) but how it was delivered by Christ. And when any question arises of that, or such like fact, and that not fully determined by the words of the Institution set down in the story of Christ, Is there, or can there be any thing of so much concernment imaginable, as the Apostles practise; and, after that, the Precedents Ecclesiastical? When, concerning the other Sacrament of the Eucharist, any question is made of the meaning of the words of the Institution in the Gospel, can there be any better way of judging, then by knowing p. 269the Apostles sense of such words; or surer way of discerning that, then by their practise, especially if it be set down by themselves? Certainly, this is not a matter for Reason to judge in, unless it be by deducing consequences from Christs words, or the Apostles, or one or both of their practises. For matters of fact, as these are, Testimonies are our onelyonly Arguments of probation: And of them, whose Testimonies are authentick, and who cannot be deemed to have regulated their practise by any rule, but that of Christs Institution, nor to have been deceivable, or fallible in judging of that, Practise is the most lively, and infallible Interpreter.

And if the rule be not universal, that §. 93 All actions Apostolical are alwayes rules for ever: yet when the actions are of such a sacred, and publick nature, that all the succeeding world are as much concerned in them as they, and when it is the action not of one Apostle alone, upon some private impellent, but of all in conjunction, doing the same thing, and when in a matter of divine Institution, wherein to do any thing contrary to the intention of Christ, is to violate that trust reposed in them, as Proxies, and Commissaries; and lastly, when there is no character in the action, nor propriety in the circumstances of it, to conclude their practise a temporary p. 270practise, designed for the present onelyonly: When, I say, all these concurre, (and when nothing interposes to the contrary) to make their practise a rule for the future Church, there is little gained by pretending against us, that actions Apostolical are not alwayes rules for ever; when the practise is once granted (and in this part of the discourse it is supposed) then to render it unconcludent, or no rule for ever, it would be necessary to shew the grounds of doing it, proper to those circumstances, and not competible with others, and not to throw off, upon a bare possibility or probability, that it may, that which no way appears to have been designed temporarily. Nay, that which was done by the Apostles, if it were not a rule for ever, was yet an effect of such a rule formerly given by Christ, and interpretable by this practise to be so, there cannot be a better way to prove, then the constant practise of the following Church, who, if it were but a temporary Institution, cannot be deemed ignorant of that, or fit to be instructed by us in it, and who cannot be imagined to have universally joyned in a conspiracy, to retain that for ever, which they knew to be otherwise designed by those, from whose practise they took it.

§. 94 One reason or motive is offered us in that 23. Num. why the baptizing of Infants p. 271might be convenient in the Apostles times, till they had engaged a considerable party, and not after, because 'twas then the new-spring of Christianity, and so it might be useful, by this means to make them parties against the Gentile-superstition, and, by praeoccupation, to ascertain them to their sect, when they came to be men. And truly, if this were a motive for the Apostles to baptize Infants at that time, to keep them by this early praeoccupation from being heathens; then, First, there is to be acknowledged some use of baptizing Infants, though they understand not then what is done to them, nor yet have any remanent durable quality impressed on their flesh (which was formerly argued against:) And secondly, 'tis evident, That that reason is still as perfectly in force, as ever it was, the danger being ever since as great among us, that vicious practises (as contrary to the Law of Christ, and irreconcileable with the Promises, as the heathen superstition was) will earnestly, and irresistibly insin…cate themselvs, if there be not early means used to prevent them. And the vow of Baptism is as distinctly opposed to these, and the Grace of Christ (implored and bestowed there) as effectual to the preventing, or supplanting of them, as of heathen superstitions it could be supposed to be.

And for any other reason not transmitted §. 95 p. 272to us] I confess not to be moved with such remote, and onelyonly possible fears, nor to apprehend (any more then I can be bound to answer) the force of a reason, before it be made known to me. And the rather upon this confidence, that if this reason in the Clouds, this reason not transmitted to us, had yet been transmitted to former ages, and by those accounted to be of any weight, It is not imaginable, that through all time, that reason would have been opposed by the contrary practise of the purest, as well as less pure ages, and never have prevailed with any, till it met with an handful of men in these last and worst dayes, to whom also 'tis supposed in the argument, that the reason was not transmitted, to which it is consequent, that it did not come down to them.

§. 96 In the close of that 23. Num. 'tis again interposed, that the question of fact it self is not sufficiently determined, and the precept of baptizing all nations doth as little advantage to prove it, as any of the rest, because other parallel expressions of Scripture, expound themselves to a sense that includes not all absolutely, but onelyonly those that are of a capable condition, as [Worship God, and, Sing to him all the nations] To which I answer, First, that I do not beleive, or pretend that that precept of Christ doth necessarily infer p. 273(though it do as little deny) that Infants are to be baptized, and so this argument thus produced for the Paedobaptist, is another of the blinde and the lame, that are of more use to betray and loose, then defend and secure that fort, in which they are placed. Secondly, it is less reasonably pretended, that we should think this place, which is onelyonly a Precept, to be a Proof of the fact, as that signifies (and so it must) the practise Apostolical: And yet thirdly, the instance that is produced to hinder this Text from concluding, is very infirm also: for though in a command to Sing and Worship, given to all nations, they that can do neither, cannot be supposed included, yet in a command of doing that to others, of which all others are equally capable from those, to whom the command is given (as sure 'twas as easie for the Apostle to baptize the Infant as the grown man) there is no reason to determine or restrain it. And that is the case in hand, where the command is not given to all nations to seek, or prepare for Baptism, but to the Apostles to gather and baptize them, and of being carryed and washed the childe is cap… ble, though of acting and adoring it be not capable.

To the answer Numb. 24. rendred to a §. 97 like argument, pretended to be urged by us from the mention of Stephana…'s family p. 274[that it is but a conjecture at the best] I return my explicit consent, and think it unreasonable that the Apostles bare mention of baptizing his houshold, 1 Cor. 1.16. should be thought competent to conclude, that Infants were baptized by him, when it is uncertain, whether there were any such at all in his house. What use is to be made of such testimonies as these hath formerly been set down, so as to yield them unconcludent to this matter; and therefore I shall not need to say any more of that, but that inconcludent arguments are more advantageous to the enemy, then to any man else, and are the most favorable account that can be given of the Anabaptists Schism from the Church, that seeing some such arguments insisted on, which they justly beleived to be of no force, they likewise perswaded themselves, that others of greater strength, were of as little, and though not by them, were yet by some other as easily to be avoided, and answered also.

§. 98 The 25. Num. proceeds to consider Tradition in this matter; and, First, to disclaim all value of that allegation, Tradition being rejected by the Reformed Churches: And secondly, to demand how, if the Topick from the Tradition were good, Tradition could be truly pretended for this? To both of these the answer must be joyntly given, first, by p. 275defining, then by distinguishing of Tradition.

For first, the word Tradition signifying §. 99 no more then delivering, Of Tradition.and that metonymically taken by S. Paul for the thing delivered, i. e. either for practises or doctrines delivered by word of mouth, or by Epistle, and yet farther brought by custome of speech, to denote those peculiarly, that were delivered by word of mouth, though not by writing. It is evident that what is thus truly delivered, is of the same authority with that which is truly written, supposing the person that speaks or writes, and the deliberation used by him to be the same in both cases, Thus it is certain, that what is spoken, and so delivered by S. Paul, is as truly the doctrine of S. Paul, and also that what is spoken by him, hath all the authority that belongs to him, as much, as what is written by him.

A Tradition then being thus defined, §. 100 that it is either a practise, or doctrine delivered by word of mouth, it must in the next place be distinguished, and that, first, in respect of the persons, whose practise or doctrine it is pretended to be; and secondly, in respect of the means, by which it appears to be truly his, whose it is pretended to be. In the first respect it may be either the doctrine, or practise of Christ, or of his Apostles, or of p. 276some following Governors of the Church, or of some other either later, or inferior to them. In the second respect, it may be either sufficiently, or else insufficiently testified, to be the practise, or doctrine of those, whose it is pretended to be.

§. 101 This definition and distinction being thus premised, and it being most improvident to define any one thing of that, which contains things so distant under it, it, will be as unreasonable to make use or the authority and practise of the Reformed Churches, to abandon or cast-off Tradition in general, and without discrimination, all Traditions, as to conceive that they that rejected errors for appearing to be such, resolved, whensoever they should finde truths miscalled by that name, to re…ect them also.

§. 102 The first question then will be, What sort of Trad…tions have been rejected by the Reformed Churches? and then, Whether the baptizing of Infants be of that sort? and if it be, to give over all farther pleading for it.

§. 103 First then, I shall suppose, that whatsoever doth sufficiently appear to be the practise or doctrine of Christ, or his Apostles, howsoever it appear, or by what way of conveyance soever it come to us, will not by the Reformed Churches be rejected under the notion of Tradition. For this I am sure was wont to be the question p. 277betwixt the Reformed and the Roman Church, not whether that were to be received, as Christs, &c. which did sufficiently appear to be his, though it were not written, but whether many things were not falsly affixed to him, and the Apostles, as delivered by them, which did not sufficiently appear to descend from them. Or again, in matters of inferior nature, Whether that which is by the Romanists affirmed to be the practise or doctrine of the Governors of the Church, the Apostles successors in the Primitive times, can sufficiently be approved to come from them; or whether it be not of some inferior or later original, to whom that authority and reverence is not due, which is acknowledged, and willingly paid to the former.

And therefore, having no necessity to §. 104 descend to any more minute considerations, the whole matter will be resolved into this one enquiry, Whether the baptizing of Infants doth sufficiently appear to be of the institution of Christ, or Practise Apostolical? and if it do, we have all that we pretend to upon the score of Tradition; and if it do not, we are obliged to disclaim that means of maintaining our plea, or inferring our Conclusion.

And because the way of satisfying this §. 105 enquiry, is but the saying over again all that hath been formerly said on this p. 278subject, this whole discourse having laid the weight of all upon this one basis, the Institution of Christ, and Practise of the Apostles, It will be unreasonable to do this any farther, save onelyonly upon a brief recapitulation, to refer it to the judgement of any sober Christian, Whether first, by Christs founding of the Institution of this Sacrament in the Jewish custome of baptizing of Proselytes, which appears to have belonged to the Infant-children of the Proselytes; and secondly, by his being so far from excepting against the age of children as a prejudice, or hindrance to their coming to him (i. e. to their Proselytism) that he affirms them to be the pattern of those, of whom his kingdome is to be made up, and though he be not affirmed in the Gospel to baptize such (when indeed Jesus baptized not at all, but his disciples) yet he took them into his arms, and laid his hands upon them, and blessed them, Mar. 10.16. (which being the ceremony usual in the Church for those that were fitted for Baptism, and distinctly preparative to it, they that were by Christ afforded that, cannot be thought by him less capable of Baptism then of that;) And thirdly, by the express words of the Apostle, that their children are holy, interpreted by the context, so as to infer from the Apostle's way of arguing, That it was the custome of those p. 279Apostolick times to baptize the children of the Christian parents, and so interpreted by the Christian writers of the first and purest ages; And fourthly, by the Testimonies of all the Ancients, that are found to speak of this matter, without any one pretended to dissent, that this was the practise of the Apostles: Whether, I say, these four things being put together (the truth of each of which hath been before more largely evinced) it be not sufficiently evident, that the baptizing of children is of the Institution of Ch…ist and Practise Apostolical. If it be not, I desire to know what is farther necessary to sufficient conviction in a matter of this nature, and whether by any more (or equally) competent arguments, the contrary may be evinced to be the Practise of the Apostles, i. e. that they refused to baptize the children of their Proselytes.

But if it be, I shall not need to take §. 106 notice of the other branches of that Num. 25. For first, by the Testimonies already produced out of Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, as well as Origen, and then by the express words of the Author of the Ecclesiastick Hierarchy, and of the Constit…tions, and of S. Cyprian, (to which might be added S. Jerom and S. Ambrose) as well as S. Augustine, it is clear, That the Authority for the Tradition, p. 280depends not wholly on the Testimony of Origen, as the one person from whom S. Augustine had it. And secondly, there be other arguments to joyn (and which are in force by their conjunction) with these Testimonies for the Tradition, so far, that although it were yielded, that Justins and Irenaeus's, as well as Origens affirmation might be fallible, that baptism of Infants is by Tradition from the Apostles; and again, that S. Augustine might have it from Origen, and be fallible also, yet when those other circumstances concur with that, which is affirmed by Origen, and no testimony or circumstance in the Institution be producible against it. And Augustine, and the following Church, which condemned all Origens errors, doth yet appear to agree with Origen in asserting this, as truth, certainly the aspersing of Origen in other respects, will not invalidate, or weaken his Testimony in this.

§. 107 So again, when it follows, that the nec ssity of Paedobaptism was not determined in the Church till the eighth age after Christ; this will be of little importance against us, supposing the meaning of that to be, the desining it absolutely necessary to the salvation of the childe. For we do not pretend it to be thus necessary, necessi…ate meaii, but derive the necessity of it from the Institution and p. 281Practise of Christ, and his Apostles, and charge that onelyonly upon the parents, and the Congregation, whose guilt it is, if the ordinance be neglected, or despised, but not on the Infants, whose want of understanding renders them uncapable of contumacy, and wilful sin, though not of being baptized or brought to Christ.

And thirdly, it being granted by the §. 108 objecter, that Paedobaptism was by Canon established in the Milevitan African Councel, Ann. Ch. 418. yet, as long as it is also confessed, that it was practised in Africa before, there will be little concluded against us. For what stood by Apostolical practise, and known custome, needed not to be prescribed by Canon, as that which prevails by force of a greater, need not be assisted by a weaker authority. And indeed, while the footsteps of so authentick a Tradition were so lively, and no adversary, or disputer started up, no question, or opposition yet made against a Common Usage, 'twere ridiculous for Councels to convene, and fortifie it by Canons. And so the onelyonly thing reasonably deducible from the lateness of those Canons, is, that all that while it was universally received without opposition: I mean not, that no Infant of any Christian was unbaptized, through the space of those first Centuries, but that the extending of the Institution to Infants was p. 282not opposed in the Church, till about Pelagius's dayes, whose opinion of Original sin (utterly denying the guilt of it on Adams posterity) was such, as might consequently produce some change in his opinion of Paedobaptism. But of that I have formerly spoken §. 46. As for the saying of Ludovicus Vives, Neminem nisi adultum antiquitus solere baptizari, it is not of such weight, as that I should here stop to examine the truth, or grounds of that citation, the book being not present by me to do so: I suppose it belongs to the Infants of heathens.

§. 109 But Num. 26. the undertaking is somewhat more considerable, viz. that there is very good evidence from Antiquity, that Infants ought not to be baptized: Whether this be justly suggested, it will concern us to enquire warily. For it is affirmed to be clear in the sixth Canon of the Councel of Neo-Caesarea. The words of that Canon are these, foreign. A woman with childe may be baptized when she please: for the mother hath nothing to do with the childe, because it is each ones will or resolution, which is expressed or signified in the confession (or profession, which is wont to be made in baptism.) This certainly is far enough p. 283removed from a clear affirmation of what was undertaken to be proved by it, viz. that children ought not be baptized. For as for the latter part of the words, which is conceived to do so, it is no more then this, that the confession, or profession of a woman, that being with childe is baptized; doth onelyonly belong to her self, not to the childe, and consequently that her baptism belongs onelyonly to her self also. The words being a proof of what is immediately antecedent to them, that the parent hath nothing to do with the childe, foreign, hath nothing common with him, but hath foreign, a will or choice peculiar to her self, (as foreign is opposed to foreign, peculiar, or proper to common) And so all that can be concluded from hence, is, that the childe of such a parent, that was baptized, when that was in her womb, must, when it is born, have a baptism for it self, and the baptism of the parent not be thought to belong to it. And this in opposition to the conceit of some Jewish Rabbins, (taken up, it seems, by some Christians) who say, Si gravida fiat proselyta, adeo{que} lavaero suscipiatur, proli ejus baptismo opus non est, that if a woman great with childe become a proselyte, and be baptized, her childe needs not baptism when 'tis born.

As for the giving demonstration of election §. 110 or choice required in the baptismal p. 284confession, of which the childe is supposed incapable, this place doth no farther affirm of it, then it is known to be acknowledged by us, viz. that no baptism ought to be administred but upon condition, and supposition of a vow to be undertaken then, and after to be performed on the part of the baptized, which, as in those of full of age, it must be done by themselves; so that in Infants it is not sufficient to be done by proxies and undertakers, is no way affirmed, or intimated by that Canon, which belongs quite to another matter.

§. 111 And for the known custome of interrogating the Cate…humeni in baptism, and the pretended egregious prevarication in asking questions of them, who are known to be uncapable of giving answers; this is of no farther force then the usual exceptions against Godfathers, and that custome hath**Pract. Cat. l. VI. §. 2. elswhere been sufficiently vindicated, and as far as the present objection presses us, is justified abundantly by the capableness of the sureties, or proxies that free the action from all prevarication, and the obligation that from thence devolves upon the childe, assoon as he comes to years of understanding, which will make up and supply what other defect soever can be imagined in that matter.

§. 112 This of the unreasonableness of supplying p. 285the childes incapacity by the answer of the Godfather, and no sensible account to be given of it] is farther insisted on Num. 27. And the means to prove this unreasonable, are these, 1. That the pretence of the Roman custome of stipulation performed by Tutors in the name of their pupils, is an absolute vanity.] To this I answer, That the Tutors being, by reasonable men, and by the Roman Law, allowed to stipulate, and bargain for his pupil, as it is perfectly agreeable to the case in hand (the Infant exactly parallel to the Pupil, his real no-will, to the others no-will in Law) so it is an example which will justifie this practise from the censure of unreasonable, and egregious prevarication, and to that it will be consequent, not that God must be tyed, and Christian Religion transact her mysteries by proportion and complyance with the Roman Laws, but that it may without prevarication (in any degree) or unreasonableness, be thus appointed and transacted by them in this case, as in other kindes of stipulations it hath been without danger of such Censure.

For as to the case of a notable benefit §. 113 accrewing to the minor, wherein Stipulation is said by indulgence to be permitted; First, this is not true in any circumstance. Secondly, if it were, 'twere as reasonable in Baptism, as in any other case: First, p. 286tis not true that was a permission by indulgence, for it was a known distinct Law, the Tutor may stipulate for the minor as freely, and in all cases, wherein the man of full age may stipulate for himself, and not onelyonly in case of notable benefit accrewing to the minor, but in case of ordinary and equal bargain. And secondly, if it were but an indulgence, and permission of grace, why should not the Christian childe be as well, and as kindely treated by Christian Religion, as the minor by the Laws of those heathen Romans? And be the benefit accrewing to the minor, never so notable, yet being supposed but a temporal benefit of this life, sure the favour of admission into the Church, to be a member of Christ, to the grace of present pardon, and right to all the benefits of the Covenant, as soon as they are capable of them, may deserve to be compared with that notable benefit, that the minor is supposed to be concern'd in. And though again God can, and, I doubt not, will bestow those benefits and advantages on that childe, whose fault is not, that they are not so consigned to him, this still is a mercy of his, which will no way justifie them, who contemn the use of this Sacrament.

§. 114 But it is farther inforced, that though 'tis true, God might, if he would, have appointed Godfathers to give answer in behalf p. 287of the children, yet we cannot finde any authority or ground that he hath; and if he had, 'tis to be supposed he would have given them Commission to have transacted the solemnity with better circumstances, and given answers with more truth, then to say in the childes name, I do beleive, in present, when the Infant is uncapable of beleiving. For answer to this, it must be recounted, what was the original practise in this matter. Among the Jews, saith theaaTit. Cherub. c. 1. Gemara Babyl. the Infants used to be baptized foreign upon the profession, or confession of the house of judgement, the Consistory; and the Glosse saith, the Triumviri are set over baptism, and are necessary to it, foreign, and so they become to him a father: andbbTit. Isuri Bia, c. 13. Maimonides, foreign he must be baptized before the Triumviri. By this it appears, that among the Jews, from whom Christ was pleased to transcribe this sacred rite of Baptism, this custom also was to be found of the Congregation, or Rulers thereof, to answer for the Infant, according to that forecited from S. Augustine, that the Church lends them others feet, and heart, and tongue, to come, to beleive, to profess, &c.

Among the first Christians in the Apostles §. 115 age, the same use seems to be continued: For the custome then being to p. 288baptize those of age, onelyonly by proposing to them the faith of Christ, and reformation of life, and baptism in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, Acts 2.38. and whole multitudes, 3000. on a day, receiving the faith on these terms, and being baptized, v. 41. without any greater formality of question and answer; nay the word foreign, 1 Pet. 3.21. noting not an answer, but a question (such as is mentioned Act. 2.37.) on his part that is baptized, and so a coming to God as to the Oracle, seeking, making address to him, desiring upon Christs terms to be received by him, there is no difficulty to understand how children being brought by others, that were themselves baptized, were baptized also upon their request, and upon this general declaration of the ends of Baptism before the Congrega…ion, which were the terms on which the Infant was supposed to enter into that Covenant. But soon after, when the Church was formed into standing Congregations, and the vow of Baptism was contrived into a setled form, then, as every Catechumen or instructed Proselyte answered for himself, so every one that was not able to do so, was by some persons of the Congregation (in this particular representing the whole) brought to the foreign, or font, and the questions being asked in the baptism p. 289of the adulti, those that brought them, and so helpt them to legs, were their proxies also, and helpt them to tongues, and so answered in the present tense, i. e. in the same form, wherein the adulti did answer, which signifies not their affirmation, that those Infants did then actually beleive (which is the thing charged of untruth) any more then a Tutor stipulating, as the proxy of his Pupil, can truly be said to affirm, that the pupil makes such a bargain, of which he knows that he knows nothing. All that is understood by such speeches of the Godfathers is, that this is the manner of proxies stipulating for others, and that unless those others, when they come to full age, think fit to perform in their persons what was thus stipulated by their proxies, they shall reap no benefit of that Covenant.

And this is all that is chargeable on §. 116 these answers, far from any degree of untruth, if truly understood, (sor the Godfather bearing a double person, is supposed to say truly in his own, that he doth beleive, and as the others proxy, he desires that his profession may be in Law accepted for the other, so far as to make him capable of baptism, the sign of Gods Promises) no more indeed then most ceremonies, and forms of Law may be said to be, the designs of which are sufficiently p. 290known by sober men, and accordingly the words are to be interpreted, I beleive, i. e. This childe stands bound by these presents to beleive, and is not to expect any benefit of this Covenant, except, when he comes to years, he do actually (and de praesenti then) beleive all the articles of the Christian faith, &c. for which we that do beleive them all have now in his behalf, and to his benefit, undertaken it.

§. 117 And whereas it is added as the advice of Tertullian, that, Cunctatio baptismi utilior est, praecipuè circa parvulos, that delaying of baptism is more profitable, especially about Infants, and, quid enim necesse est sponsores periculo ingeri, &c. What need is there that the Godfathers should be put upon dangers? and then that Gregory Nazienzene makes mention of some, to whom baptism was not administred foreign, by reason of infancy, and that the parents of S. Austine, S. Hierome, and S. Ambrose, although they were Christians, yet did not baptize those their children before they were thirty years of age. This heap of exceptions will neither singly any one of them, nor all in conjunction, conclude any thing against us. Not that of Tertullian, which pretends to conclude no more, but that in his opinion it was, in some respect, advantageous to make some stay of baptism, and p. 291that especially in the case of little ones, which if it were granted, yet will not that advantage of delay, conclude the baptizing of Infants unlawful, or wholly inconvenient, any more then the baptizing those of age, where delay, in his opinion, might be useful also. But on the contrary, 'tis a clear testimony of the practise in his time of baptizing children, as well as others, and hath been so applied by us, in the former part of this discourse among the testimonies producible in this matter. And so likewise is the other passage for the usage of Godfathers, or sponsores in the Church in Tertullians dayes. What the utility was, which Tertullian had in his view, or how well grounded his advice, I shall not need now to enquire, his words being a plain proof of the usage in his time, and therefore not producible against us.

And for Gregory Nazianzene, who is §. 118 acknowledged to be for hastning of baptism in case of necessity, and so to acknowledge a necessity of giving Infants baptism in some cases (which is more then sufficient to our pretensions) If in his time there be mention of some, who were not baptized foreign (granting that to be tenderness of years, and so infancy, whereas it may be otherwise, ignorance, or want of instruction in those of elder years, foreign is foreign, p. 292an ignorant, or weak person of small understanding, as well as foreign, in Hesychius) yet sure this will conclude nothing against us, who are able to make the same relations in these times, of some that have done more then so, absolutely withheld baptism from their dying children, and yet know that the doctrine of the Church in this age is contrary to those singular practises. And that it was so in Gregory Nazianzens time, may be demonstrated by his doctrine in this matter, foreign. Orat. 40. What wilt thou say of children, which neither are sensible of the loss, nor the grace? shall we baptize them? Yes, by all means, in case of urgent danger. For it is better to be sanctified, i. e. baptized, without sense of it, then to dye unsealed, unbaptized. And not onelyonly in case of danger, but absolitely, saith he, foreign. Hast thou a yong childe? let not wickedness receive the advantage of time, let it be baptized from an Infant, let it be early consecrated by, or to the Spirit, ibid.

p. 293And for the example of the parents of §. 119 those three Fathers, it will not be producible against us, unless it be also assented to, and approved by them that urge it, and so it be defined exemplary, and imitable not to baptize any before that age of thirty. That baptism in those Fathers times, and before their birth, was afforded children, is too well known, to want proving. And S. Augustines doctrine is confessed to be extremely contrary to the Anabaptists pretensions: And the grounds of deferring the baptism of some in that age, were not such as were allowed by the then present Church, but effects of an opinion of the greater (not of the less) necessity of baptism, and so the unfittest evidence, that could have been pitched on, to infer the desired conclusion.

For the Clinici, we know, would not §. 120 be baptized, till their death-beds; and the reason was, because being to be baptized but once, and attributing so extremely much to that ceremony, and hoping so little for pardon of sin from any other instrument, they durst not be baptized too early, lest they should sin again, and have no remedy, And the deferring baptism till thirty or forty years old, was but a spice of this fancy, attributing so hugely much to baptism, and so nothing to any thing else. But then they that did so, were the most impatient of any to p. 194miss baptism, when they thought they were near their last, and would never sin so far against their hypothesis, as to let any Christians Infant dye without that viand, and so doing what they did upon a score so contrary to the Anabaptists, it were strange if it should be producible in favour of them.

§. 121 For the 28. Num. which is the proving Paedobaptism to be against the perpetual analogy of Christs doctrine, the first offer of a reason is, because Christ never gave precept to baptize them, nor ever himself nor his Apostles (that appears) did baptize any of them. To this the answer is already given, that Christs baptism being founded in the Jews custome of baptizing of Proselytes, and the custome among them being known to be this, to baptize the Proselytes, and their children, the indefinite command of baptizing all nations, was all that was needful to comprehend the children also of those, that received the faith of Christ, especially when Christ, by a special expression of his pleasure concerning Infants, assured his disciples, that they were capable of solemn benediction, which by parity of reason will conclude, they were not uncapable of baptism also.

§. 122 As for Christs not baptizing any, that will equally be of force against all baptism, for the Text is plain, Christ baptized not, but his disciples, Joh. 4.2. And p. 295for the Apostles, 1. the negative argument will be of as much force for us, that the Apostles (that appears) never rejected any from baptism, (nor probably durst, after they had been rebuked by their Master for somewhat of that kinde, Mar. 10.14.) as it can justly be deemed against us, that they did not baptize any. The truth is, neither of them is argumentative. But then 2. that in the Apostles times children were baptized, seems plain by that place to the Corinthians, and then there will be little reason to doubt, but the Apostles did baptize such, at least (which is all one) hat they confirmed and approved that practise.

The next proof of the proposal, is §. 123 from Christs and the Apostles requiring such previous dispositions to baptism, of which Infants are not capable, viz. faith and repentance, as appears by that one place, Mar. 16.16. He that beleives and is baptized, shall be saved, but he that beleiveth not, shall be damned. To which I answer, First, that in those that are capable of faith and repentance, both those are thus previously required, and in those that, through invincible defects, are uncapable at the present, they are again required so far, that if, when they are capable, they have them not, baptism will stand them in little stead. And this is all that can be concluded from that place of Mark: For sure that sentence of damnation p. 296shall not sall on him that beleives not, unless he were capable of beleiving. Nay, secondly, it is evident from the words, that Christ doth annex beleif to Baptism, as a necessary adjunct to it, at that present, for he saith not [He that is baptized and beleiveth] but onelyonly addes Baptism to Beleif, [He that beleiveth and is baptized] and so belongeth not to this matter.

§. 124 But because in the progress of that Num. there is, I see, no more concluded from that Text, then that if children are excused from a necessity of faith, so that the want of that does not regularly damn them, then 'twill be sottish to say the same incapacity of reason and faith shall not excuse from the actual susception of Baptism. I shall need reply no farther, being perfectly reconciled to the conclusion, as far as concerns the excusing of the childe, and not having the least fear, that the child shall ever suffer for anothers negligence in this matter. But then still the childe having a capacity of susception of Baptism, i. e. of being baptized, though not of faith or repentance, or neglecting or seeking of baptism; they that deny the childe that privilege, of which it is susceptive or capable, may become uncapable of that excuse, when the innocent Infant stands in no need of it.

§. 125 As for the question, Whether Infants p. 297have faith, Num. 29. I shall profess to be none of those, who are concern'd in it, I freely confess to beleive faith to be so necessarily founded in understanding, that they that have not understanding, cannot have faith, whether actual or habitual; and when the Apostle saith, that faith cometh by hearing, I suppose he hath fully stated that question. For whatsoever can be said of infused habits, those must suppose the subjects capable of them, or by being infused, render them so. As the gift of strange tongues, when 'tis supernaturally infused, must either suppose the subject predisposed with understanding, and ability of speaking some language, or must make him so by that infusion. And besides, what graces are imaginable to be infused into Infants, will in reason be concluded to be infused at Baptism, or as effects and consequents of that, and so will be equally unfit to qualifie for Baptism (which is to be done by previous dispositions) as if there were no such habits acknowledged.

And so the reason taken from the Infant §. 126 sent to the Mahumedane Province] is yet stronger, then is pretended. For, unless the Infant, that is to be baptized, be before his Baptism so imbued by divine overshadowing, or infusion, that, if in stead of being carryed to the font, he should be carryed to a Priest of Mahomet, p. 298and there circumcised, and instructed in the Turkish principles, he would yet, as he came to years of understanding, produce acts of Christian faith, there will be little reason to affirm, that Infants of Christians have habitual faith, previous to their Baptism.

§. 127 The same inconveniences, I suppose, will lye against seminal faith in Infants, First, because if that be taken in, as a suppletory, to give the childe capacity of baptism, it must then be supposed previous to, and not bestowed in, or after baptism: and secondly, 'tis apparent that the seeds of faith are sown in instruction, or catechizing (and so, as faith cometh by hearing, so doth hearing by the word of God) and they grow not up, till they have been thus sown.

§. 128 As for the imputative faith, I suppose they that speak of it, mean no more then thus, that the children of Christian Parents, though they have not faith actually, habitually, seminally, may yet lawfully be admitted to Baptism, because their Parents being Christian, and they likely to be brought up in a Christian society, this may so far stand them in stead, that upon presumption of the care of the Parents (who desire Baptism for them) that they shall be brought up in the faith of Christ, and upon the present undertaking of the Godfathers (which are by the Congregation p. 299appointed to represent the childe, and stipulate in his name) they may (though they are at the present uncapable of faith, or new vows) be admitted to Baptism, and so pre-engaged, before any rival lust, or false profession be able to sollicite them. And it this be the meaning, then, though it cannot be said, that they have imputative faith, for they have not faith themselves, and other folks faith will never be imputed to them so, that they shall be thought to have it, yet it may truly be affirmed, that they are look'd on to this purpose as kindely, and are as fit to be hospitably received by the Church, i. e. to be baptized, as if they had faith, the extreme probability of the hope at present, that they will be competently instructed, when they come to years (and that secured as well, as humanely it can be) being sufficient to found their Baptism upon, though it be not certain that they will ever beleive; As the profession made by one of full age is his sufficient qualification, though the Church is not sure that he is not an hypocrite at that minute, or that he will not be an Apostate the next, and, when persecution arises for the Word, be straightway scandalized.

The 30. Num. demands, If baptism be §. 129 necessary to the salvation of Infants, upon whom is the imposition laid? upon p. 300the parents, or the children? Not the children, for they are not capable of a Law; not the Parents; for then God hath put the salvation of innocent babes into the power of others. To this I answer, by renouncing the whole hypothesis affixt, by this way of arguing, to the maintainers of Paedobaptism. For we do not at all pretend it necessary to the salvation of Infants, upon the very ground that the disputer presumes it unnecessary, because it being acknowledged by all that it is not the omission, but contempt of Baptism, that damns, these two are not distinguishable in children, who can no more be said to omit, then to contemn it. All the necessity we pretend to in this matter of Infants, is praecepti, not medii, not that it is a means, without which they cannot be saved, for then the argument would hold that they might be damned, or not saved by anothers default, without their own, but that, first, having foundation in the institution of Christ (as that being founded in the Jews baptizing of Proselytes, belonged consequently to their yong children also) and secondly, authorized farther by the Apostles Practise, and thirdly, used through all ages of the Church accordingly; and fourthly, when the perversness of heretical men questioned and opposed it, defined by Councels; and fifthly, at length commanded p. 301by the Church. From hence, I say, the necessity results, and not from any other principle. And this being understandable onelyonly by men of age, is not supposeable to be given to any others, and so the guilt in this matter is acknowledged to lye onelyonly on those, i. e. either on the Parents that refuse, or neglect it, dislike, or seek it not for their children, or on the Ministers, who refuse to give Baptism, or on the disputers, that infuse these scruples unnecessarily into mens heads, or on the factious, that break the unity of the Church on such causless dislikes as these, and in stead of returning to the Church, exclude all regular obedient sons thereof from their communion.

The 31. Num. proposes some inconveniences, §. 130 which the baptizing of Infants rushes men upon: The found…tion of which is laid in this dilemma, Either Baptism produces spiritual effects, or it produces them not, &c. To prevent all force of thus arguing, I say, that if by spiritual effects are meant grace and glory, Baptism of Infants produces not such effects, and consequently they are not the nearer to heaven, if they are (i. e. as an effect from a cause, by their being) baptized, nor, if it be neglected, the farther off. And consequently the argument that supposed without all peradventure, that all Paedo-baptists p. 302would say, that their baptism did produce spiritual effects, is presently at an end. All that we say of Baptism is, that it is a foederal ceremony of Christs Institution, to wash away Original guilt, and to admit us Proselytes unto himself, by his Church, the conduit by which Christ is pleased to convey grace, and so gives us a solemn legal seizure of the advantages and benefits of the Covenant (all that at the present they are, or for the future shall be capable of) on condition they perform on their part (as soon as they are able to perform it) what on their part is promised in their names: wherein if they do not willingly fail, as, in case they dye in infancy, 'tis certain they do not, there is no question, but the mercies consigned in Baptism, may by Gods gracious supplies belong unto them. And it being as certain, that when, without any fault of theirs, they are unbaptized, that defect will never be charged upon them for evil, it must be resolved, that those advantages that are consigned in Baptism, are not effects produced by it, and consequently that the inconveniences or rocks imagined in that arguing, have been without that admonition very cautiously foreseen, and avoided by us.

§. 131 As for the sum of the argument compacted into little, that either Baptism is a meer ceremony, or it impl…es a duty on our p. 303part: if a ceremony onelyonly, how does it sanctifie? if it implies a duty, how can children receive it, who cannot do duty at all? I answer, that it is a sacred ceremony, which contains in it a duty to be performed on our part, assoon as we are able to perform it, but requires it not of us, whilest we are unable. And this is a perfect answer to all that follows in that Number, charging us to make Baptism a meer outward duty, a work of the Law, &c. which is all unjustly imputed to us, who do as verily beleive it an inward duty, shadowed by the outward ceremony, when 'tis used to an Infant (and that, the being baptized into Christs death, and the crucifixion of the old man, &c.) as when 'tis used to the grown man; onelyonly with this reserve, that it is no sooner, nor farther required of either, then they are capable of performing it.

As for the syllogism, that whosoever §. 132 are baptized into Christ, have put on the new man, Gal. 3.27. But to put on the new man, is to be formed in righteousness, and holiness, and truth, Eph. 4.24. therefore they who are not formed new in righteousness, &c. they who remaining in the present incapacities, cannot walk in newness of life, &c. they have not been baptized into Christ. The answer is obvious, that in the major Proposition, the words of the Apostle [have put on Christ] must necessarily p. 304be interpreted not of actual putting him on, for 'tis certain that many men that have been baptized, have not actually done so, It is clear in Simon Magus, Act. 8.21. and in all that bring not (as Cyril saith in Praefat. Cat. p. 1.) foreign, a genuine purpose along with them to the baptistery, and 'tis certain, that the Apostle could not so understand it of any of those Galatians, to whom he then wrote, whom he acknowledged to be foolish (foreign, without understanding, and if that be not as great, 'tis yet a more desperate incapacity, then being foreign babes) and bewitched, or seduced not to obey the Gospel of Christ; but so onelyonly, as to note the obligation that lay upon them from their Baptism, and from thence the presumption of the Apostle; that they had undertaken and resolved it. As many as were baptized into Christ, have put on Christ, i. e. are most strictly obliged thereby, and are presumed to have resolved, and undertaken to put on Christ, and the new man. This is all that is deducible from those words, (unless I farther adde, that they have the prohibens, the obstacle which kept Christ from them or them from Christ (i. e. original guilt) removed) and that is as truly affirmed of the Infant, as of the grown man, with the same reserve again, when he shall be able to perform it; as the foreign p. 305foreign, as Arian calls it, the Promise of every reasonable creature, when he hath first leave to become such, the foreign, the oath inessentiate with us, i. e. the obligation that our Creation layes upon every childe of Adam, is actually required of those onelyonly that are of age to perform it, but may be in the mean time presumed even in the womb of the Mother to be undertaken by us; This by our being designed to the use of reason, as that by our being Proselytes to Christianity.

The same answer suffices for that which §. 133 is brought from S. Peters definition of the saving Baptism, that 'tis not onelyonly the washing with water, but the foreign of a good conscience. For this is as true of that Baptism which belongs to children, as to any other, onelyonly the duty of it is not required, till they come to years, and ability to perform it, and then, if they keep not a good conscience, it will be little available. And if this be of any force against baptizing Infants, it will have been of the same force against circumcising them, since S. Paul, Rom. 2.28, 29. doth as much invalidate the external part of Circumcision, as S. Peter here doth that of Baptism.

It is added in the close of that Numb. §. 134 that vows made by persons under others names, stipulations made by minors, are p. 306not valid, till they by a supervening act, after they are of a sufficient age do ratifie them. But this is not exactly true, as it is set, and as far as it is true, 'tis not prejudicial to our Pretensions. For first, Stipulations made by minors, or by the Tutor in the minors name, are valid by law, as long as he continues in minority, and when he comes out of that, then it is in his power to rescind, or annul the bargain, or on the other side to confirm it, and if he do so, it needs not to be by way of new stipulation (which is a matter of more solemnity in law) a bare confirmation under hand and seal, gives it a perpetual unretractable validity. And just so it is in this case; The Covenant is entred into at Baptism, the stipulation made by the Godfather in the name and behalf of the Infant, and remains valid to all uses, so long as the childe remains so. Afterward, when he comes to choose for himself, if he like not the bargain that is made for him, he may rescind it, and turn heathen again, or he may ratifie it, and then by undertaking the vow of Baptism deliberately, and upon judgement, in his own name, he is capable of Confirmation. And this is so far from proving that which is for the Anabaptists turn, that it is fully satisfactory to all his pretensions against it. For whatsoever defect he complains of in Paedobaptism, p. 307or entring into the Covenant by Proxy, is supplyed and repaired by Confirmation, which is the renewing the vow of Baptism in his own name, and being superstructed on Baptism, is the performing all that, which in the childe is supposed wanting to the consummation of that Sacrament.

And therefore when it is demanded, §. 135 Why the Infants (i. e. I suppose, children catechized) may not as well make the vow de novo, as de novo ratifie that which was made for them ab antiquo, when they come to years of choice; I answer, that the reason is, first, in respect of the matter, because it is unnecessary, and wholly useless; Confirmation will serve the turn as well. And that being granted, a second reason will be taken from the Authority of the Church, and express Canons of Councels, and, I suppose, from the Apostolick institution of Confirmation. All which are sure of such weight to any obedient son of the Church, that in a matter so perfectly lawful on that side, that the institution lyes, It is not onelyonly safe to comply (and that is enough against the Anabaptist, who pretends it unlawful) but matter of obedience, and Christian duty, which obliges us to submit to those, that are set over us, at the least, not to separate from any for no other crime, but of obedience to these parents of ours, in p. 308such lawfull (perfectly lawfull) Commands.

§. 136 Num. 32. proceeds to prove the Anabaptists way the surer, and the onelyonly medium is, that it is most proportionable to an act of reason and humanity, and it can have no danger. For to say that Infants may be damned for want of Baptism, is to affirm that of God, which we dare not say of any wise and good man. To this I answer, that I am absolutely resolved, that no childe shall be damned for want of Baptism, and that upon the very reason rendred, because it is not a thing in their power to acquire, they being persons not yet capable of a law, and consequently not capable of transgressing it. But this doth not yet conclude it the surer course, nor yet so sure, as the contrary, because that which hurts the Parents, or those, whose soever the duty is to bring the children to Baptism, cannot be said to be innocent. And indeed, the very supposition, that the Infants incapacity of the command secures him from receiving hurt by the omission of Baptism, implies, that, if it were imputable to him, it would do him hurt, and therefore must be deemed to do so to those, that being capable (and now offered matter of conviction by this Paper, both from the institution of Christ, and Practise of the Apostles, and the usage, and (at length, when it was needful) p. 309commands of the Church, not to deny it to Infants) do still with contumacy reject, and vilifie it. And for proportionableness to acts of humane Reason, it is certainly most so, in providence to take the surest for all sides, That in case there be any necessity of it, more then we are aware of, in case any blessing of a present benefit, either from the Protection of Angels, or from preparing and predisposing grace to the childe, accompanying the Parents obedience, or the benediction of the Church, then by bringing the childe to Baptism, we make sure of it, but make no such provision by omitting it.

Numb. 23. is a congeries of charges, §. 137 every one of great weight, but without offer of proof of any one of them, I suppose, upon a presumption, that they are proved before in the former arguments, which if it be a due presumption, then by the same reason I may flatter my self, that they are not to be causes of new trouble to us, now that the precedent reasons, which are thought to infer those odious conclusions, are each of them answered in the premises.

OnelyOnly to the last branch, that they that §. 138 baptize Infants invocate the holy Ghost in vain; the addition of these words [doing as if one should call on him to illuminate a stone or a tree] being reducible to some shew of a reason, why it should p. 310not be done, My answer is, that an Infant, that hath the first power, or faculty of reason in him, which a stone or a tree hath not, is truly capable of receiving benefit by this prayer, if not while that first power is not reduced into act, yet afterwards, whensoever it is, and if it may be but one minute the earlier illuminated, or one dram the more effectually indued with preventing and inciting grace, in answer to those prayers of the Church, this sure will be a testimony and evidence, that the prayer is not in vain. And if that may not be, it will be hard to affirm, and prove, that any thing else may be advanced, or wrought by that means, and then all other prayers (if the Anabaptist will allow any) shall be concluded to be vain also.

§. 139 I have passed through all the several heads of arguments, that are here proposed, and considered them, as nicely as I could, so as not to let fall one word that seemed to me to have any shew of validity in it, or in the consequence of it, and must consent to the truth of the Authors observation, that the Anabaptists have been encouraged in their error more by the accidental advantages given them by the weakness of those a…guments, that have been brought against them, then by any truth of their cause or excellency of their wit. And indeed, though against the arguments p. 311premised by this Author, in behalf of Paedobaptism, the contrary arguments have seemed unto many, to have been successful and victorious, yet against the grounds, which have here been briefly laid for this practise, in the beginning of this discourse, and against the practise, as 'tis stated and maintained by us, it will, I beleive, be soon discerned, that neither any, nor all of them, will be applyable with any advantage or success.

If I had the sagacity to foresee, or had §. 140 been so diligent, as to observe any other head of Objection, or exception against this practise of the Church, I should now farther enlarge this Paper to consider it, but being not sure, that I have any reason to do so, and having shew'd how farre Christ, and his Apostles, and the Church have gone in this business, and how little excuse any intelligent person can probably have, in rejecting the uniform result of all these, I shall joyn fraternally and cordially in the conclusion, and be no forwarder, nor no more peremptory to prescribe to others, then these Authorities will justifie me to be (certainly not so forward as the Anabaptists, or Antipaedobaptists are to prescribe to us, and to charge on us things of some weight (if Num. 33. say true) the polluting the blood of the everlasting Covenant, &c.) And God forbid, we that desire to reduce dissenters to p. 312the unity of the Church, and cannot probably have any other design or aim in that endevour, but the eternal good of others, should ever think of damning, killing, or persecuting any that dissent in this or any other particular.

§. 141 Our desire is that of Ignatius, foreign, to allay the sharp humor, by applying the soft Word, and to cure by embrocation, not by causticks or excision. And I think it but duty to pray against that treacherous prosperity, which should be able to infuse any greater degree of unkindeness, or roughness into the mindes of men, whether sons, or fathers of the Church, then what I here avow to be strict duty in every Christian.