CHAP. 1. The Text. The Occasion of the Words. The Doctrine ga [...]hered from it, and proved.

§. 1. THese words were spoken by our Saviour to his Dis­ciples. The occasion of them was this. Certain Persons came, and brought their Children also, to Jesus, desiring that he would touch them, (v. 15. ) that is, as St. Matthew relates it, put his h [...]nds upon them [Page 2] and pray, (Matth. 19. 13. ) This action of theirs was so far disliked of by our Sa­viours Disciples, that they rebuked them, and would have chid them away. But this carriage of his Disciples towards them our Saviour did very much dislike of. Indeed St. Mark tells us, that [...], he was much displeased thereat, (Mark 10. 14.) And in that displeasure, when he had called the Infants unto him, he spake unto his Dis­ciples these words, Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not.

§. 2. So that the words are an Oblique Rebuke given by our Saviour unto his Dis­ciples, for going about to hinder the coming of little Children unto him: and a direct command to permit their coming unto him for the future; and that Command backt with a direct Prohibition, forbidding their ever after hindring of them to come. And they brought unto him also Infants, that he should touch them: but when his Disciples saw it, they rebuked them. But Jesus cal­led them unto him, and said, Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not; for of such is the kingdom of God. From whence I gather this Point, That lit­tle children are to be suffered to come unto Christ, and ought not to be forbidden coming unto him.

§. 3. This Doctrine is so near the very words of our Saviour, and those recorded by three Evangelists, and that with so great concord, that in the Original, there is no difference among them, save in the order of the words, and in the variation of a Tense (St. Matthew using [...], the Aorist, whereas St. Mark and St. Luke use [...], the Present Tense, which difference in shew is really none indeed, the Aorist being or­dinarily used for the Present Tense) that it will not be much needful to prove it by any other medium, than what the Text it self will afford; and that is this. What our Saviour commanded should be permitted, and forbad should be hindred, that ought to be suffered, and ought not to be forbidden. But our Saviour commanded that little chil­dren should be permitted to come, and for­bad they should be hindred from coming to him. Therefore little Children are to be suffered, and ought not to be forbidden to come unto Christ.

§. 4. Yet for the opening of the Point three things I shall endeavour to clear: (1) What we are to understand by the Children that are to be suffered to come unto Christ. (2) Of what children it was that our Saviour gave command that they should be suffered to come to him. [Page 4] (3) What coming of those children unto Christ it is, that is to be suffered, and ought not to be hindred.

CHAP. II.

§. 1. FOr the First, the little Children, that are to be suffered to come to Christ; it is evident that they are Infants. Insantem autem accipi­mus septem annis mino­rem: haec enim aetas quicquid videt ignorat. Wesenbecii Parat. in Pandectas Juris ci­vilis. Digest. lib. 48. Tit. 8. The Original word [...] used in the Text, being a Dimi­nutive from [...], pro­perly signifies a child under seven years of age, as Arraignment of A­nabaptism. p. 44. & 232. Mr. Cragge from Hippocrates and Beza, observes. And indeed it is spoken of our Saviour, at that time when the Wise men came to him, and found him with his Mother at Bethlehem (Matth. 2. 11. ) [...], they found the young child.

§. 2. Again in Mark 10. 16. it is said [Page 5] of these little children, that Jesus took them up in his arms; which is a clear indication of their being children of a small age, as well as stature, very infants.

§. 3. Lastly, it is expressed in the verse before my Text, that they were Infants. [...], One Tran­slation ren­ders it babes. And so in 1 Pet. 2. 2. [...], is new born babes. And they brought unto him al­so Infants, or, even Infants, or, very Infants. Now [...], as Eustathius tells us, is [...], a new born child and brought up at Nurse. So that of Infants we are to understand it that our Saviour spake, when he said, Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not.

CHAP. III.

§. 1. FOr the Second, Of what Children it was that our Saviour commanded, that they should be suffer'd to come to him: it may be a question, whether our Saviour did mean, what he said, only of those particular In­fants [Page 6] then brought to him, but by his Dis­ciples kept back from him; or whether his meaning in those words were not of an in­definite extent, so as that the concernment thereof may reach unto our children, as well as unto them. And to that my An­swer is, that (at least as I conceive) our Saviours words were not a Particular Or­der of concernment only to the then present Infants, but were of a concernment so ge­neral, as to reach down even unto our In­sants also, at this distance from that time and place.

§. 2. For first, Suppose the next day more Infants, or other Infants the same day, had been brought for the same end, that those were, unto Christ, is it imaginable, that the Disciples of our Saviour, would have again rebuked them that brought them, and so have stood in need of a new Rebuke from our Saviour for so dealing with them, and a new Command to suffer them to come to him? If this cannot with any reason be ima­gined, then it is most clear, that the words of our Saviour were of concernment unto more Infants, than those particular Ones, at that time brought unto him. And if they concerned any more besides them, then who can tell how many more besides them they did concern? Yea what can with any colour [Page 7] of reason be said, why the concernment of them should not be universal?

§. 3. But secondly, There is nothing either in the Words of our Saviour, or in the Reason used by our Saviour, restraining the con­cernment thereof unto those Particular In­fants.

§. 4. First there is nothing in the Words of our Saviour. For they are Indefinite: and an Indefinite Enunciation it tantamount to an Universal. There is not an Individua­ting Particle in the whole Speech to deter­mine the concernment thereof to these par­ticular Infants. His Words only are, Suffer little children to come unto me. He doth not say, Suffer only these little children to come unto me. Take the words as they are in the Greek, and they only are [...], little children, not [...] these little children. In St. Mark. 10. 14. the words are, Suffer the little children: but the Par­ticle the here is at most but an Emphatical note, intimating that the littleness of chil­dren should be no hindrance to their coming to Christ: but that even the little, the least of children, should be permitted to come to him as well as elder bigger persons: It is not an Individuating Pronoun singling out these from all others to be the onely children that should be suffered to come to him. And [Page 8] in the Liturgie the words have no such Em­phasis upon them, being onely, Suffer little children to come unto me, just as here the same Greek words in the Text are ren­dred.

§. 5. Secondly, there is nothing in the Rea­son used by our Saviour restraining the con­cernment of his words to those Particular Infants: his words being, not [...] of these but [...] of such as these, is the kingdom of Heaven. Such as th [...]se, is an expression very far from being restrictive exactly unto these. Nothing here then restraineth the concern­ment of our Saviours words unto those Par­ticular Infants: rather here is something that enlargeth the concernment thereof to an Indefinite number of Infants. And that is the Consideration of our Saviours fetching the Reason for the permission of Childrens coming to him, not from some considera­tion, which was of particular concernment to these Children; but from such an Head as was of general concernment unto all other Infants as well as these. He saith not, Suffer little children to come unto me, for they are children of my near kindred, special friends, favoureres, or benefactors, for whom I have a singular respect: but, Suffer little chil­dren to come unto me, for of such is the kingdom of God; q. d. these and all Infants [Page 9] of their age, are so qualified as they ought to be, who are to be the Subjects of my kingdom, into which there is no entrance for any, except they be converted and be­come as little children, (Matth. 18. 3.) and therefore suffer them, and, by a parity of reason, all others too that shall be brought to me, no less than them, to come unto me.

§. 6. Thirdly, there is something in the Context, that clearly shews, that our Savi­ours words are more properly of concern­ment unto other Infants, than to these. And that is the Point of Time, when our Savi­our spake these words: and that was, after he had called the Infants unto him, and not before. For so it is evidently in the begin­ning of the verse, But Jesus [...] having called (i. e. when, or after that he had called) them (i. e. the Infants themselves, and not his Disciples, nor those that brought the Infants) he said, &c. It is [...] in the neuter gender, which agrees with [...] the Infants: not [...] the mascu­culine gender, which it should be if it re­ferred either to [...] the Disciples, or [...] those that brought the In­fants. And therefore Beza renders the Text, Jesus verò quum puerulos advocasset, dixit, [Page 10] But Jesus, when he had called the Infants, said, &c. Now to make the concernment of our Saviours words to be proper to those particular Infants, is to render our Saviours command perfectly needless. For what need were there of his bidding his Disciples to suffer those to come to him, that already were at, and with him. Yea suppose he had onely called them, and they were not yet come, who can imagine, that it were need­ful to give any further command to his Dis­ciples to suffer those to come at him, whom he had but just then called unto him? It is therefore of Infants in general, and not of those particular Infants onely that he spake.

§. 7. Yet Fourthly, Our Saviours speak­ing these words upon that particular oc­casion, doth not necessarily restrain the con­cernment of his words unto those particu­lar Infants. Acts of justice, and acts of Grace, are of general concernment, though the occasions of them be particular; unless there be something in the circumstances of the acts, that may lay a restraint upon their concernment. And the Apostle hath nota­bly taught us to draw general conclusions from particular expressions, (in Heb. 13. 5, 6.) He hath said, I will never leave thee nor for sake thee. So that we may boldly say, [Page 11] The Lord is my helper. The promise of not being for saken of the Lord, was a particular one, made upon a particular occasion, unto a particular person, namely Joshua, (Jos. 1. 5.) And yet saith the Apostle (so ge­neral is the concernment of it, that) we may boldly say, The Lord is my helper. And thus, were the occasion of this Speech of our Saviour never so particular, yet how fairly is this general conclusion drawn there­from? Christ gave order, that little chil­dren, when they were brought, should be suffered to come to him, and not be forbid­den. Therefore little children should now, and at all times, be suffered, and should not be forbidden to come unto Christ: especi­ally since, as there is the same need for our children, that there was for those children, to come to Christ; so there is the same mercy in Christ now, to move him to re­ceive our children, that there was in him then, to move him to receive theirs: and there is no circumstance in all the action de­barring our children of his mercy, and re­straining it unto theirs.

§. 8. But it is time I should proceed to speak to the Third, and shew what coming of little children unto Christ it is, that is to be suffered, and ought not to be hindred.

CHAP. IV.

§. 1. NOw to clear this, we must shew that the Phrase of coming unto Christ is capable of various interpretati­ons.

§. 2. And first it notes an approach, or access of any person unto Christ, as exhi­biting himself corporally present in place. Thus those Saducees came to him, that came to pose him, (Matth. 22. 23.) And this is the ordinary and proper signification of the Phrase. And in this sense those Infants spo­ken of in the Text, did come to Christ. Their being brought to him, was a coming of theirs to him. When the Disciples rebuked those that brought them, our Saviour com­mands that they [the children] should be suffered to come unto him.

§. 3. But in this sense, now, our chil­dren cannot come unto Christ. Christ is no where corporally present upon earth, that children may be carried to him, or in this sense come at him. In Heaven indeed he is [Page 13] corporally present: but thither children cannot be carried, thither children cannot come. Whither I go ye cannot com [...], saith our Saviour, (John 13. 23.) i. e. not till after death; nor then neither, but in spirit, till the resurrection of the dead. For flesh and blood (unchanged) cannot inherit the kingdom of God, (1 Cor. 15. 20.) So that the words taken in relation to children now, are not to be understood properly. And therefore unless we mean not to have our children come at Christ, we must go seek out some other meaning of the Phrase, and find out some other way by which they may come to him.

§. 4. Secondly, therefore the Phrase may be taken Figuratively. And so sometimes in notes a becoming, or a being made a Dis­ciple unto Christ. And so, when our Savi­our saith (Matth. 11. 28.) Come unto me all ye that labour, his meaning is, become disciples to me: for so it follows (in ver. 29.) Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me. Where he offers himself to be a Ma­ster to such as should come to him. And in what other sense than this can we understand that (in John 3. 26.) Behold the same baptizeth, and all men Omnes currunt ad baptismum illius. Alcu. in Aqui. Au. Cat. come unto him. That is, Jesus by Baptism receiveth prose­lytes, [Page 14] and there is great recourse unto him for that end, many persons become his Dis­ciples by receiving his Baptism. And to th [...]s agrees the Paraphrase of Nonnus upon the place. [...]. Non. in loc. All the citizens make hast desiring to partake of his divine washing, i. e. to become his Proselytes, to be made his Disciples by Bap [...]ism. And in accordance with this sense is the same Phrase interpre­table, (John 5. 40.) Ye will not ( [...]) come to me, (i. e. become my disciples, believing on me, and being baptized by me) that ye may have life. And See Dr. Ham. on John 6. 37. Similitudo sumpta à discipulis quos pater magistro tra­dit, quique volen­tes eum frequen­tant. Grot. ap. Poli. Synops. so again (in John 6. 37, 44, 65.) In all which places the phrase of coming unto Christ, implies a be­coming disciples to him, being made his Prose­lytes.

§. 5. So then, to become a Disciple to Christ is in one sense to come to Christ. And if children may be made Disciples to Christ, then there is a way left, whereby they also, as well as elder persons, may come to Christ.

§. 6. And that they may, is very fairly hinted even in this Text: the words which [Page 15] our Saviour useth to express the coming of these Infants to him by, being the very words, as is observed, Dr. Hammond. of which that name is compo­sed, by which such as became Disciples to Christ were anciently called, viz. Proselytes. His words are, Suffer the little children [...] (or, as St. Matthew relates them [...]) [...], to come to me, q. d. to be­come my Proselytes: for so were they cal­led, that from Gentilism did ( [...]) come over unto Judaism before Christs time: and from either Gentilism or Ju­daism came over unto Christianity, in, or after the days of Christ. And by those words of St. Athanasius, wherein he men­tions some other books, besides the Cano­nical ones, that were by the Fathers propo­sed to be read ( [...], i. e.) to those that as yet came to, and were desirous to be catechized, i. e. instru­cted or taught the word of piety, or the principles of true religion, a Proselyte seems to be described. And the word it self ( [...] proselyte) we have indiverse Scriptures. (Matth. 23. 15.) Ye compass sea and land to make one Pros [...]lyte, i. e. to get and gain one Disciple. So Acts 6. 5. & 2. 10. & 13. 43.

§. 7. And it is fully confirmed by the Reason, which our Saviour gives for this his Command of suffering the little children to come unto him, and Prohibition of any mans hindring them from coming, in the latter end of the verse, for of such is the kingdom of God. Which what other sense can it have than this, Little children have in them such qualifications; as ought to be in every one, that belongs to my kingdom, that is, in every Disciple of mine, every Proselyte unto Christianity: and therefore let even them also, as well as others, come to me, be made my Disciples, admitted as Proselytes unto, and received as Subjects into the king­dom of God: it being most reasonable that they should be received into the kingdom of God, who are such as the kingdom of God consisteth of. So then Children may become Disciples of Christ, be made his Proselytes. And if Childrens being brought to Christ was lookt upon by him as their coming to him; why should we not think that their being brought to him to be his Disciples will be lookt upon by him as their coming to him to be his Disciples? Since him that cometh to him he will in no wise cast out, (John 6. 37.)

§. 8. O but, the doubt still remains, which way may our children become, or be [Page 17] made Disciples to Christ. I answer by be­ing baptized in the Name, and with the Baptism of Christ. As Baptism was one Ceremony by which before Christs time Heathens were made Disciples unto Moses, so Baptism was the onely Ceremony by which, both in and after Christs time, both Heathens and Jews were made Disciples un­to Christ. And this is evident as in the for­mer part from what was customary among the Jews: (as we shall see afterwards) whence that Baptism, by which men were admitted Members of the Church of the Jews was called Baptismus ad Proselytis­mum, The Baptism of men for Proselytism, or bringing them into Discipleship: so in the latter part from what is said by our Sa­viour himself (in Matth. 28. 19.) Go ye therefore, and [...], disciple ye, or, make Disciples of all nations, bring in all nations to be my Disciples, baptizing them in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Where the bapti­zing them is expresly laid down as a means of their being made Disciples unto Christ, or Christians. And accordingly the Per­sian Interpreters explain bapti­zing to be making Christians. Bibl. Polyglot. Baptize them, say they, that is make them Christians; who what are [Page 18] they else but Disciples to Christ? And so Tertullian De Bapt. c. 18. says of little children, siant Christiani, let them be made Christians, for let them be baptized, as soon as they shall be able to know Christ. As therefore men were made Disciples to Moses by being ba­ptized into Moses, (John 9. 28. 1 Cor. 10. 2.) so are they made Disciples to Christ by be­ing baptized into Christ. And therefore making and baptizing Disciples go together, John 4. 1. Jesus made and baptized, that is, (as if the words had been [...]) made by baptizing more Disciples than John: accordingly as our Saviour said to his Disciples (Matth. 28. 19.) [...], make Disciples baptizing (i. e. by baptizing) them.

§. 9. And whereas it may be said, that Baptizing is not enough to make a Disci­ple without [...]eaching, because our Saviour joyns Teaching to Baptizing, saying, Go make all nations Disciples baptizing them and teaching them. I answer, that indeed men are made Disciples both these ways, by ba­ptizing, and by teaching: and that there must be both these before one can be a compleat and perfect Disciple; but that by either of these ways alone, without the other, a man may be entred into discipleship, made an [Page 19] initial (if I may so speak) or an imperfect disciple. And there is no necessity from our Saviours words, that there must be both, be­fore one can be a Disciple in any measure or degree. For our Saviour doth not say con­junctly make disciples baptizing and teach­ing: but without any conjunction, bapti­zing them, teaching them. So that where either of these is, there a Person may be­come, or be made a Disciple, though not so compleat and perfect, as where there is both.

§. 10. Forasmuch then as to be made a Disciple to Christ is to come to Christ; and to be baptized with the Baptism of Christ is to be made a Disciple to Christ; and our Children may be baptized with the Baptism of Christ, here is a fair and a clear way opened for our children to come to Christ. And since they cannot any other way but th [...]s come at him, this way they are to be suf­fered to come to him, and ought not to be hindred from so coming: unless we mean to cross our Saviours command, who, not de­termining their coming to this, or that par­ticular way, but leaving it open and free for them to come to him any way that they may come, expresly giveth forth order that little children should be suffered to come to him, and not be forbidden.

CHAP. V.

§. 1. NOw interpret the words any other way, and I cannot imagine how the Reason, which our Saviour gives, why Children should be suffered to come to him, (viz. because they are such as the kingdom of God consisteth of) should not be imper­tinent, either to his Command to suffer them to come, or else to the Occasion of his giving of that Command.

§. 2. First, interpret the words of coming to him by way of bodily approach whilest he was corporally present upon earth: and so indeed those Infants might and did come to him. But how was their being such as the kingdom of God consisted of, a Reason of their being suffered so to come? For if there were any force in that Reason, then by the same Reason, none but such as the Kingdom of God consisted of should have been suffered to come to Christ. Which as it is contrary to Practice; for there were suffered to come to Christ such as the kingdom of God ought not to consist of, viz. such as sought the death [Page 21] and destruction of Christ: so likewise it is contrary to Reason; for how should Christ by his preaching have converted such as were not of his kingdom, considered according to their present state, if they might not have been suffered to come to him, but must have been forbidden coming? So that of a mere bodily access unto Christs corporal pre­sence the words are not interpretable: such an interpretation crossing our Saviours Rea­son that he gives for these words.

§. 2. Again, interpret the words of coming to him where he is now corporally present in heaven: and so, supposing chil­dren may come to him, and supposing them such in some respect, as that Kingdom of God consisteth of, so the Reason will have some pertinency to the Command of our Saviour to suffer them to come; such not be­ing to be denied reception into that kingdom of God, as that Kingdom of God consisteth of. But then how will our Saviours Com­mand be pertinent to the present Occasion of his speech? No question being made by his Disciples at that time about the final estates of children dying in their Infancy; and the whole matter being that they denied admis­sion of some Infants brought by others unto Christ to be touched by the Imposition of his hands, and to be prayed over by him, [Page 22] probably in order to their being made his Proselytes by baptism: at which denial of theirs he being angry, gave order that the children should be suffered to come to him, namely for such purpose as those then came, in all likelihood to be by his Imposi­tion of hands and Prayer consigned over unto Proselytism, and should not be hindred from coming to him.

§. 4. And what were a declaration of childrens capacity for glory, and fitness to come to Christ, when he should be corpo­rally present in Heaven, if they died in their infancy, to this matter? especially at a time when Christ was not corporally present in Heaven, but lived in body here below upon the earth.

§. 5. Again a Command so given, as this was, would suppose an ability in those, to whom it was given, to do contrary unto that Command, namely, to hinder Chil­dren from reception into the Kingdom of God, notwithstanding their greatest capa­city for that kingdom. But that was nei­ther then in the power of his Disciples, nor now is in the power of any man on earth. Supposing children dying in their Infancy to belong to the kingdom of glory, it is needless to command any man to suffer them to come to that kingdom.

§. 6. So that neither of a Spiritual access of these children unto Christ, where he is now corporally present in glory are these words interpretable: such an interpretation of our Saviours words rendring them im­pertinent to the occasion of them. And I hope none will say that our Saviour did at any time speak impertinent words.

§. 7. And therefore not being able to i­magine any other way by which our Chil­dren may come, and yet may be hindred from coming unto Christ, but that One way, which hath hitherto been insisted on, namely by being made Disciples to Christ, by being baptized into the Name and Faith of Christ. I conclude that this way our children ought to be suffered to come to Christ, and ought not to be hindred from so coming.

§. 8. And now, the Point being thus explained, and the Explication thereof thus vindicated, I appeal to Common Reason, whether or no there be not here that, which the Antipaedobaptists of these days do with so much insolency demand of us, viz. a fair and clear Scripture Ground for Infants Baptism. If Children may come to Christ, and must by the command of Christ be suffered to come to him, and there be no other way of their coming to him but by Baptism: what can be more plain, than that [Page 24] in commanding that they should be suffered to come to him, he commanded that they should be suffered to be baptized, and for­bad that they should be hindred from Bap­tism.

§. 9. And by this time I hope it appears with how good judgment our Church hath appointed this passage of Scripture, (which, as H. D. tells us, was cal­led (of old) the Scri­pture Treatise of Bap­tism, pag. 177. Canon for Infants-Baptism, and upon which (as he saith) much stress hath been laid since to prove the same) to be read in the Congregation at the bap­tizing of Infants; namely, as containing in it a fair ground, and a clear proof for Infants Baptism: which I hope you do by this time see to be no such scriptureless thing as our Antipaedobaptists do pre­tend.

§. 10. Yet least any man should think this Collection alone to be too weak a ground to bear that weight we lay upon it, (though by the way I must say, that a Con­sequence from Scripture rightly made is a ground good enough to bear any weight that can be fairly laid upon it, and as valid to all intents and purposes as if it were ex­press Scripture it self, that being eminently contained in the Scripture, what ever it be [Page 25] that may be fairly drawn from it: and that we have no better ground then a Conse­quence from Scripture to build other Points of our Christian Faith upon, every way as weighty and material as Infants Baptism is,) yet, I say, I shall for your better settle­ment in the belief of this Catholick truth, confirm it unto you by this one further Rea­son.

§. 11. That by which Children may have Benefit; for which they have Need; of which they are Capable; and to which they have Right, that they ought to be suffered to have, and ought not to be denied the having of. But Children may have Benefit by Baptism; they have Need for Baptism; they are Capable of Baptism; and they have a Right unto Baptism. There­fore they ought to be suffered to have it, and they ought not to be denied the having of it.

§. 12. That Children ought to be suffe­red to have, and ought not to be denied that, whereby they may be Benefited; for which they have Need; of which they are Ca­pable; and to which they have a Right, I sup­pose it not needful to prove. For Charity will give them that Benefit for which they have need: and Justice will not deny them that Right of which they are Capable. I [Page 26] shall therefore forthwith proceed to make it out unto you, that Children may have Be­nefit by Baptism; have Need for Baptism; are Capable of Baptism; and have a Right unto Baptism. And these things I shall shew you severally and in order, beginning first with the Benefits that Infants may have by Baptism.

CHAP. VI.

§. 1. IT will be found upon search, that Baptism is beneficial unto Children more ways than one.

§. 2. And First, by Baptism they are offered and presented, dedicated and con­secrated unto God. Baptism is a consecra­tion of the Baptized unto God, who are thereby Sanctified to his service. Hence that of St Paul to the Corinthians, (1 Cor. 7. 14.) The unbelieving husband is sancti­fied by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean, but now are they holy, i. e. [Page 27] separate from the common unclean condi­tion of Heathens, and by Baptism admitted into the community and relation, and state of Christians, who are Saints by calling, as being called to be Saints, that is Holy Ones, and by their very 1 Cor. 1. 1. calling consecrated unto God, and obliged by their Naming of the name of Christ, who is named upon them at their baptizing, to depart from iniquity, (2 Tim. 2. 19.)

§. 3. Hence as Beza Nam Baptismo consecramur Deo, quoniam ibi nostra adoptio in Christo per Spiritum San­ctum Sancitur. Bez. in Match. 28-19. [...], just in Martyr. A­polog. of late said, By Baptism we are consecrated unto God, in as much as our Ado­ption in Christ is there ra­tified by the Holy Ghost: so Justine Martyr of old, going to give an account of the primitive way of introducing persons into the Church by Baptism begins his relation thus, Now will I set forth after what manner we did dedicate [or offer up] our selves to God, when we were re­newed through Christ.

§. 4. And as our Church in the ba­ptizing of Infants designes a Dedication of them unto God: so did the Ancient [Page 28] Church too. Whence that Grant that who­soever is here de­dicated unto thee by our Office and Ministry, &c. Of­fice for Infants Ba­ptism. [...]. Greg. Nazian. Orat. 4. de Bapt. Quibus tamen ad Conse­crationem remisio­nemque Originalis peccati prodest eo­rum fides à quibus offeruntur D. Aug. Quinquag. Hom. Serm. 50. advice of Gregory Nazi­anzen; If thou hast an Infant, let not iniquity get time; let it be sanctified in infancy, let it in the tender age be consecrated by the Spirit. Where cer­tainly it is the Baptismal Sanctification and Conse­cration that he speaks of, and by the Spirit he means Christian Baptism: the Spirit, which is one part of Baptism, as Water is the other (which two our Saviour joyns both toge­ther John 3. 5. saying, Except a man be born of Water, and the Spirit, &c. and by both means one thing, viz. Christian Baptism) being put for the whole: even as Water which is the other part of Baptism is by St. Paul (E­phes. 5. 26.) put for the whole, saying, that he might sanctifie and cleanse it by the wash­ing of Water, that is, of Christian Ba­ptism.

§. 5. Now for children, even in their Infancy to become by the designation of [Page 29] their Parents Gods own portion, and to be made Holy unto the Lord, this certainly cannot but be for the childrens good. For as much as being appropriated unto God in a nearer relation, they will be respected by him with a dearer affection.

§. 6. When any Thing is offered unto God in sincerity, God kindly accepts of it. You may see instances in Abels offering the first­lings Gen. 4. 4. of his flock; Noahs offering of every clean Gen. 8. 20, 21. beast and fowl; Davids 2 Sam. 2. 2 Chron. 7. Hagg. 2. designing; Solomons build­ing; and the Jews repair­ing a House to serve God in. So when any Person is offered and con­secrate unto God in integrity of heart, God usually blesseth both the offerer, and offer­ing. You may see in­stances in Abrahams offer­ing Gen. 22. his Son Isaac in sacri­fice to God; in Samsons Judg. 16. being made a Nazarite unto God from his mo­thers womb; and in Han­nahs consecrating her Son 1 Sam. 1. Samuel to the Service of God.

§. 7. So that for our children to be by [Page 30] us offered, and consecrated unto God and his service is the way to intitle them to Gods favour, and to derive on them his blessing. And that's reason enough, were there no more, why we should baptize them, and by so doing intitle God more nearly to them, entring them into the Catalogue of his more peculiar possessions, listing them as Tyros into the number of his souldiers, and en­rolling them into his family as his more im­mediate servants. Whereupon our Church in her Office for the Baptizing of Infants, not onely gives the baptized Infant a Cross in his forehead, as a badge and cognizance of his Profession, and Relation; but also prays to God for him, that he would re­ceive him for his own child by Ado­ption.

§. 8. Not to add, that so early a Con­secration of them unto God, and to his ser­vice, so timely a Dedication of them unto piety and holiness, is not without a great probability of being very influential on them in their future lives, in the way of a pre­servative of them from impierty and iniquity: natural conscience, that light set up in the soul by the Author of Lights, being likely to suggest unto them, in their first approaches to understanding and reason, what a shame it will be for them to give themselves unto [Page 31] wickedness, when they are men, who were dedicated unto holiness, when they were children; to addict themselves in their Age to the Devil, who in their Infancy were consecrated unto God. Whence doubtless it was that Greg. Naz. advised the giving to the [...]. Greg. Naz. Orat. 4. de Bapt. Infant the Trinity (i. e. doubtless, Baptism into the Faith of the Trinity) that great and good phylactery, or preservative: there being no more likely means to preserve them from the after debauches of judgment or conversation, then the sense of a foregoing consecration to Truth and Purity by being baptized into the Faith of the Holy Trinity, early instilled by a Carachetical infusion of the due notices of it into a child in his Infancy; whereby he is as it were prepossessed for God and Good­ness, before any possession can be gotten of him by Satan and wickedness.

CHAP. VII.

§. 1. SEcondly, by Baptism Infants are brought into Covenant with God. Baptism is to us, as Circumcision was to the Jews, a Ceremony of our initiation or en­trance into Covenant with God. And as then all circumcised ones were, so now all baptized ones are brought into Covenant with God, by a mutual stipulation and contract expli­citly or implicitly made between them, and God; whereupon they become Gods, and God becomes Theirs, upon Baptismus signifi­cat nunc in Ecclesia pactum illud, quod primum ab omni Christiano cum Deo initur. Flacci Il­lirici Clavis Script. Voc. Baptismus. See Mr. Servieners Course of Divi­nity. l. 1. par. 1. cap. 40. pag. 193. Sparks Brotherly Pèrswasion to Unity. c. 11. Mr. Hookers Eccl. Pol. l. 5 §. 64. Gr. Naz. tells us that Baptism in brief doth import [...]. Orat. 40. Jam verò is qui baptizatur, secundae vitae meliorisque vivendi rationis & instituti pactum cum Deo init, priori & flagitiosae vitae nuncium remittit— Nicetas in Orat. 40. Greg. Nazianz. Covenant-terms, even the terms of the Gospel which is the New Covenant; they promising God to be His, and he promising them to be Theirs; they to believe, and obey him, and he to pardon, and save them.

§. 2. Hence all along in the Primitive Church, and See Dionys. Ar op. Eccles. Hierarch. ch. 4. Hocker Ec­cles. Polit. l. 5. §. 63. so downward we read of stipulations, promises, con­tracts, covenants made by the Adult persons that were admitted to baptism: and of no ad­mission of any such to be baptized without such stipulating, contra­cting, and covenanting. [...]. D. Basil. l. de Spir. Sancto. c. 12.

§. 3. And because of Parvuli allo profi­tente baptizantur, qui adhuc loqui vel credere nesciunt, Gratian. 3 par. de Consecr. dist. 4. Cum pro parvulis alii respondent, ut implicatur [...]rga eos celebratio sacra­menti, valet utique ad eorum consecra­tionem, quia ipsi pro se respondere non possunt. Id. ib. Hooker Eccl. Pol. l. 5. S. 64 p. 338. the incapacity of Infants to such Covenant in their own persons, Therefore that they might not for want of one circumstance go without all those migh­ty advantages which might amount and accrue to them from their being persons in Covenant with God, they were by the piety and cha­rity of the Church allowed the benefit of having others to transact in that affair for them, and make those stipulations, con­tracts, and covenants in their names, which [Page 34] themselves could not make in their own persons. Prositeor me huic puero suasurum cum intelligere sacra per aetatem poterit, [...]ivinis meis insti­tutionibus, ut & nuncium remittat adversariis, atque ab eis desiciat, & profiteatur exol­vatque divina pro­missa. So Dionys. Areop. expounds the Undertaking of the Surety for the Infant. Eccles. Hier. c. 12. See Dr. Sparks Brotherly Perswasion, ch. 11. Quid enim necesse est sponsores etiam periculo ingeri? Tert. de Bapt. Which Transactors on their be­half were called Sponsores, Susceptores, Fidejussores, i. e. Promisers, Undertakers, Sureties, because of their promising, under­taking, and engaging, that the children should be brought up, in the knowledge of that Faith, into which they were baptized, and, as much as in them lay, to the perfor­ming of that Covenant, into which they were entred at their ba­ptism. And of this en­gaging of Sureties for In­fants in this case Tertullian is a clear witness for his time, whilest, as thinking it better to defer the bapti­zing of Infants for a while, he asks what necessity there was of Sureties being run into hazard upon that ac­count.

And accordingly Vos ante omnia tā mulieres quam vi­ros, qui filios in Baptismate susce­pistis mon [...]o u [...] vos cognoscatis fidejus­sores apud Deum extitisse pro illis, quos visi estis de sacro fonte susci­pere, &c. Gratian. 3 pars dist. 4. Ab hoc igitur qui puerum i [...] sancta vita instituturum se esse pollicetur exi­git pontifex, ut ita dicam, abrenun­ciationum proses­sionem sanctasque professiones- Dion. Areopag. Eccles. Hier. cap. 12. Dr. Sparks Brotherly Perswasion, c. 1 [...]. Gratian put all those, whether Women or Men, who had per­form'd the office of Godfathers and God­mothers [Page 35] to children at their baptizing, in mind, that they had rendred themselves Sureties unto God for them, whom they had done that office for. And Dionys. the Areopag. an Author of great Anti­quity, if not altogether so old as the Apostles days, declaring the manner, as well as ground, of the Churches admitting Infants to Baptism, saith that the Priest requires of the ( [...]) suretie that pro­mises to bring the child up in holiness of life, to make the abrenunciation, and professions (usually made at the admission of Adult Proselytes to baptism); which he makes by saying, Puer abrenunciat & profitetur, The Child renounces and pro­fesses.

§. 4. Now if it be, as it cannot but be, a mighty advantage to be one in Covenant with God; (for so one is intituled to the di­vine protection, and benediction,) then must Baptism, by which our children are brought [Page 36] into Covenant with God, be mighty Bene­ficial to them. For long before they can be able to do any thing on their part towards the per­formance See Hooker Eccl. Polit. l. 5. S. 64. of the Covenant, he is doing his part of it towards them, even pro­tecting Donec voluntatis usum, & faculta­tem deliberandi renatus quisque re­cipiat, à charitate dei separari non po­test. Securus inte­rim degit sub pro­tectione & advo­catione Domini Dei sui. D. Bern. Serm. de Baptismo. them, and blessing them with such blessings as in respect of their state and condition they are capable of; and he continues so to do all the while that they do nothing on their part to the violation and frustra­tion of the Covenant be­tween them.

Hoc [sc. intelligere] quamdiu non potest valebit Sacramentum ad ejus tutelam adversus contrarias pote­states: & tantum valebit, ut si ante rationis usum ex hâc vitâ emigraverit, per ipsum Sacramentum com­mendante Ecclesiae charitate, ab illâ condemnatione, quae per unum hominem intravit in mundum, Christi­ano adjutorio liberetur. D. Aug. Ep. 23. ad Boni­facium.

CHAP. VIII.

§. 1. THirdly, by Baptism Infants are brought under the obligation of a Vow. That vow is the vow of renouncing the Devil and all his works; of believing in God; and serving him.

§. 2. This profession and abrenunciation is altoge­ther Professio & abre­nunciatio in ba­ptismo adultorum prorsus necessaria est. Melanst. Con­sil. Theol. part. 2. p. 327. Tum eum jubet tertio Satanam, ut ita dicam, insuf­flare, & praeterea quae defectionis & abrenunciatio­nis sunt, profiteri: eique ter abrenunciationis so­lennibus verbis propositis cum toties illud conceptis verbis pronunciavit, ipsum orientem transfert. Dio­nys. Hier. Eccles. c. 4. Aquam adituri, ibidem, sed & aliquanto prius in Ecclesiâ sub Antistitis ma­nu contestamur nos renunciare diabolo & pompae & Angelis ejus. Tertull. de Coron. Mil. c. 3. Cum aquam ingressi Christianam fidem profitemur, renunciasse nos diabolo, & pompae, & Angelis e­jus ore nostro contestamur, &c. Tert. de Spect. c. 4. Primùm interrogetur Paganus si abrenunciat dia­bolo, omnibus pompis, & omnibus damnosis ejus operibus atque fallaciis cunctis, ut respuat primum errorem, & sic appropinquet ad veritatem. Gra­tian. 3 part. dist. 4. Communia vota sunt ea, quae in baptismo promisimus, scilicet, ut non peccare­mus, & diabolo & operibus ejus abrenunciemus. D. Bern. de Modo bene Vivendi, Serm. 62. necessary in the ba­ptism of Adult Persons, as Melancthon tells us. And it hath been of Ancient and General use in the Church, as is apparent by the testi­monies given to it by Dio­nysius Areop. Tertullian, and many others.

§. 3. And this profession and abrenun­ciation, Infants, because they cannot make it in their own Persons, are by the Church al­lowed to make by others in their names. Hence the young Catechumen is taught to say, that his Godfathers and Godmothers did promise and vow three things in his name, First that he should renounce the Devil and all his works, &c. And that Infants, though unable either to repent or believe, are ba­ptized because they promise them both by their sureties. And this hath been an U­sage of long standing in the Church: to be sure 'tis as old as, if not older than Diony­sius's time, as I shewed before. 'Tis men­tioned by Gratian, who saith of little Ones, that they are rightly called believers, who after a manner do confess the faith by the words of them that bear them; and by [Page 39] their words also do renounce Parvuli fideles rectè vocantur, qui fidem per verba gestantium quodammodo consitentur: & per corundom verba diabolo & mundo abrenunciant. Gra­tian. de Baptismo dist. 4. cap. 7. the Devil and the world.

§. 4. And the profession and abrenun­ciation so made by others in the name of In­fants is by the Church looked on, and ac­cepted of, as if made by the Infants them­selves in their own persons. This Child, (saith our Church to the Sureties after the baptizing of the Infant) hath promised by you his sureties, to renounce the Devil and all his works, to believe in God, and to serve him;—and, it is your parts and duties to see that this Infant be taught, so soon as he shall be able to learn, what a solemn vow, pro­mise and profession he hath here made by you. And so it hath been lookt upon anciently. Whence the profession and ab­renunciation made by the Sure­ty Eccl. Hierar. c. 12. in the name of the Infant, is by Dionys. Areop. interpreted, as made by the Infant himself, Puer abrenunciat & profitetur, saith he, The Child renounces and professes. And so Nicolaus de Orbellis saith, When the Surety in the person of the little one answers I believe, the sense is as if the little one had said, I am here ready to [Page 40] receive the Sacraments of the faith (i. e. I suppose, to take upon me the obli­gations Cum patrinus re­spondet Credo, in personâ parvuli, sensus est quod sa­cramenta fidei pra­stò sum recipere, & quum veniam ad adultam aetatem, actu credendo fidei consentiam. Nic. de Orb. 4. Sent. dist. 6. qu. 6. to believe) and when I shall attain to ripe­ness of age I will by an actual belief consent unto the faith.

§. 5. And as it is looked upon as made by them, so also as obligatory unto them. Hence to the Question. Dost thou not think that thou art bound to believe and to do as thy Godfathers and Godmothers have promi­sed for thee? the Catechumen is taught to answer, yes verily, and by Gods help so I will. And in the office of Confirmation, the before baptized Infants being grown up to more maturity, and coming to renew the solemn promise and vow that was made in their name at their baptism, and to ratifie and confirm it in their own persons, do ac­knowledge themselves bound to believe, and to do all those things which their Godfa­thers and Godmothers then undertook for them.

§. 6. And well may a Promise and Vow of that Religious nature with the Baptismal one be looked upon as obligatory; being [Page 41] made under such solemn Fidem Deo dedi­mus in Baptismo, quod quando (que) Pa­tres nonnulli spon­sionem, juramen­tum, promissionem, cautionem, chiro­graphum, professio­nem, contestatio­nem, ejerationem, votum nominave­runt. Lorin. in Ecclesiasten. c. 5. v. 3. and awful circumstances, to the Church, to God, before Saints, before An­gels, with the sacred ad­dress of Publick prayers, supplications, intercessi­ons, and thanksgivings, upon proposal of high temporal, and eternal ad­vantages, that any person of ingenuity, who had any sense of honour in him, coming to under­stand what circumstances he stood in, would be ashamed ever to turn renegado to so sa­cred a Profession, and blush to renounce so solemn an Abrenunciation: which till it be done, and done with a suitable solemnity to that of the first transaction, I humbly con­ceive the Obligees mere silence in the case is to be presumed upon as his consent, and his non-contradiction to be taken for an In­terpretative confirmation.

§. 7. And though the Baptized Infant be under no Scriptural injunction in the case, yet there are many weighty consi­derations, whereby he is obliged, as soon as he comes to understanding, to take upon himself, stand to, and make good in his own person that Promise and Vow made [Page 42] for him and in his name by his Sureties at his baptizing.

§. 8. As first, that he do not disparage the Church his Spiritual Mothers Wisdom, who has contrived this way for bringing him within the number of its Members; and making him a partaker of its Priviledges.

§. 9. Secondly, that he be not refractary to the Churches Authority, who declares him bound to perform this Vow, and ex­pects, and requires from him the perfor­mance of it.

§. 10. Thirdly, that he may shew him­self grateful to the Church for her Charity in admitting him into the enjoyment of the so many advantageous Priviledges of a Church-Member upon the engagement of others for him, when he could not engage for himself, nor understand what was for his own good.

§. 11. Fourthly, that he shew not him­self ungrateful to his Sureties in slighting that so great and important a kindness of theirs to him, as it was in it self, and ought by him (and all baptized Infants) ever to be esteemed, to transact so highly concerning an affair for him, and out of a mere intuition of good to come to him thereby, without the least prospect of advantage from it to them­selves, more then the hope of a reward [Page 43] from God for a charitable work to man, to engage themselves both to God and Man on his behalf.

§. 12. Fifthly, that he do not unwor­thily expose his Sureties to danger on any account before God or the Church, with whom they dealt, contracted, and under­took; and to whom they are Pledges for his Fidelity, and Sureties for his Good Behavi­our; which what, or how great it is, is not my concern here to enquire: but some, it seems, Tertullian thought there was, when in consi­deration Quid enim ne­cesse est Sponsores etiam periculo in­geri? Tertul. de Bapt. thereof he was willing, rather that the ba­ptizing of the Infants should for a while be de­ferred, than they thereunto unnecessarily ex­posed.

§. 13. Sixthly, that he do not ungra­ciously grieve his Parents by a dissolute throwing off so advantageous an engage­ment as their pious care and tender respect to his present and eternal welfare had made them sollicitous to bring him un­der.

§. 14. Seventhly, because to do other­wise would argue him to be a person (malae indolis in Tertullians phrase) of an ill na­ture, of a wicked disposition: for none but [Page 44] persons of evil nature and untoward dispo­sition would be so ungracious, as to disan­nul such a Vow, and violate such an Obli­gation. The foreseen possi­bility whereof made Ter­tullian Quia possunt pro­ventu malae indo­lis falli. Tert. ut supra. hang a little the other way from the bapti­zing of Infants, so early as whilest they should need Sureties, for fear of their Sureties being deceived and endangered by their defection or prae­varication.

§. 15. Eigthly, that by performing the Vow made for him, he may be qualified to receive the Benefit whereto the performance of that Vow doth intitle him: which is so great, that it is at once his happiness to have made it by others, and his interest to perform it by Licet autem nullus per votum alterius obligetur: ca ta­men quae sunt de necessitate potest patrinus pro par­vulo promittere, & sic ipsum obligare, cooperante ad hoc bono quod parvulus recipit per patri­num. Nic. de Orb. 4 Sent. dist. 7. qu. 8. himself. And though no adult person can be obliged by the vow of another, yet (as we are told by that acute Schoolman Nicolaus de Orbellis) those things which are of necessity the Godfather may promise for the Infant, and so ob­lige him, through the co­operation thereunto of that [Page 45] Good which the Infant receives by his God­father; just as the Guar­dian hath power in the In­fancy See Hooker Ec­cles. Polit. l. [...]5. S. 64. pag. 339. of his Pupil to make contracts for him, to which contracts, if made for his advantage, he is obliged to stand; as none can say, but the Baptismal contract made by the Surety for the Infant, is highly ad­vantageous to him. And Sicut parvulus po­test consequi salu­tem ex fide alienâ per Sacramentum Baptismi: sic congruum est ut possit obligari ad ea quae sunt fidei obligatione alienâ. Haec autem fit per Anadochum i. e. patrinum: cui proponuntur rudimenta fidei: & obligatio observandi quae sunt fidei: quae ex personâ pueri respondet, profitetur, & ipsum puerum licet ignorantem & non consen­tieutem obligat. Et hoc quidem fieri potest in his quae sunt de necessitate vitae, & per quae condi­tio parvuli melioratur, & ad quae generaliter om­nes tenentur. Sicut etiam tutor pupilli potest ob­ligare pupillum in his quae sunt necessaria ad con­servationem temporalium secundum leges humanas: multo magis patrinus quasi tutor spiritualis obli­gare potest parvulum in his quae sunt necessaria ad vitam spiritualem aeternam. Secus tamen in his quae non sunt necessitatis, sed supererogationis, si­cut ingressus religionis & peregrinationis. Ad haec enim parentes parvulos obligare non possunt. Nunc autem credere, & quae fidei sunt observare, necessaria sunt ad vitam spiritualem, ad quae om­nes tenentur, qui voluerint salvari, etiamsi ex voto non obligarentur. Ideo ad haec potest parvulus ignorans & non consentiens obligari per alium: quia per hanc obligationem conditio pueri non fit deterior, sed melior. Haec est sententia Alex. & Tho. Gabr. Bicl in l. 4. Sentent. dist. 6. q. 3. l. E. Obligatur autem Tutor pupillo—& hunc vicissim aliis in solidum obligat. Wesenbecii Oeco­nomia Codic. l. 5. p. 529. the same is the judgment of Gabriel Biel also.

§. 16. Ninthly, because without per­formance of the Vow there will be no receiving Parvulus autem qui baptizatur, si ad annos rationa­les veniens non crediderit, nec ab illicitis abstinuerit, nihil ei prodest, quod parvulus ac­cepit, Gratian, de Baptismo d [...]st 4. of the blessing; he forfeit­ing all the advantages of a Covenant, that performs not the condition of the Covenant. So that he is obliged to the performance of this Covenant, though not by a Law, yet by that which hath the force of a Law, even Ne­cessity, not of the Precept, but of the Means, there being no other way of obtain­ing the end without it. For as he that be­lieves, and is baptized, shall be saved: so he that believes not, whether baptized or un­baptized, shall be damned. Mark 16. 16. So that some Obligation there lies on the little one baptized in his Infancy, to make good, when he comes to years of discre­tion, that Vow, which was by his Sureties [Page 47] made for him in his name at his bapti­zing.

§. 17. Now how readily well tutour'd children do set about the performance of this Vow, Deinde ubi adole­verint, eo ad s [...]rium Dei colendi stu­dium non medio­criter stimulantur, à quo in filios so­lenni adoptionis symbolo accepti fu­erint, antequam per atatem eum ag­noscere Patrem possent. Calv. In­stit. l. 4. cap. 16. S. 9. when once they come to the use of Reason, and are made acquainted with it, and their obligations to it, daily experience shews us; whereas were they let a­lone, and left at liberty, unengaged to the under­taking of it, they would not, a great many of them at least, especially as the world goes now, be so easily and so willingly drawn to undertake it. It would not be much less labour to bring the child of a Christian, than of a Heathen to be ba­ptized. And there would need as many, and as earnest exhortations unto Baptism to be made now by our Ministers, as we read to have been formerly made by the Fa­thers.

§. 18. For a child then to be so early as in its Infancy, when it was incapable of all regret or reluctancy, entered into so happy an engagement as the Baptismal Vow is, is sure, to speak modestly in the case, no [Page 48] unbeneficial thing to him. He is bound to liberty; entred into a service which is perfect freedom; engaged to an easie, ra­tional, honourable observance, which shall be rewarded with an infinite, eternal, glo­rious recompence: onely obliged to be ho­ly, that he may be happy; vowed to be Gods, that God may be his.

CHAP. IX.

§. 1. FOurthly, by Baptism Infants are brought under the care of others for their instruction in the Faith of Christ, and education in the Fear of God.

§. 2. What would man be, if left to himself? to be of any, or no religion as himself listed; and if of any, to be of this or that religion, a Christian or a Heathen, a Jew or a Turk, as himself should think good. 'Tis hard to say where he would pitch, what would he be at in such a case; especially by the pravity of a corrupt nature inclined, as well as by the subtlety of a cun­ning Devil tempted, and by the witchery [Page 49] of an alluring world enticed to that which is worst.

§. 3. Happy therefore is he, who, whilst the infancy of his years de­nies him as well discretion Non nihil rursum emolumenti pueri è suo Baptismo ca­piunt, quod in cor­pus Ecclesiae insiti, aliis membris sunt aliquanto commen­datiores. Calvin. Instit. l. 4. c. 16. S. 9. to direct, as power to dis­pose of himself, hath other persons, whom age and experience have taught wisdom, to direct and dis­pose of him; so that he is not left to the wild ram­blings of his own un-or ill­guided fansie, but he is set into, and steered in a right course, by the prudent conduct of others stayed and well govern'd judg­ment, piously educated in the nurture and admonition of the Lord, and solidly in­structed in the true Faith, and right Wor­ship of Jesus Christ.

§. 4 And the more of such pious Tu­tors, and prudent Governors, and judicious Overseers as there are to care for him, the greater happiness it still is to him. For there is the better ground of hope, that he shall be afforded towards his future happi­ness, the present advantages of a religious and vertuous education. And being trained up in the way that he should go, when he is young; it may well be hoped that when he [Page 50] as old, he will not depart from it, Prov. 22. 6.

§. 5. And as the prospect of this was (as we are informed from the Author of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy) one principal ground of the primitive Churches admission of Infants unto Baptism, upon the under­taking of Sureties for them, to whose care and managery for information and instru­ction in faith and manners she did from thenceforth commit them: Aiunt enim, id quod verum est, pueros, si in sancto insti­tuto ac lege insti­tuantur, ad san­ctā animi constitu­tionem perventu­ros esse, ab omni errore solutos ac liberos, & sine ullo impuro vitae periculo. Hoc cum [...]n mentom venisset divinis nostris pra­ceptoribus placuit admitti pueros hoc sancto modo, ut na­turales pueri, qui introfertur, paren­tes, tradant filium alicui corum qui initiati sunt, bono pucrorum in divinis r [...]bus infor­matori: ac deinceps ei puer operam det, ut divino patri, sponsori (que) salutis. Dionys. Areop. Eccles. Hier. c. 12. so the Venetians a wise people in other things, shew not the least of their wisdom in this, that they confine not themselves to the number of three or four Godfathers and Godmo­thers, as with us, but have more, many more, even as many as they list; inso­much that sometimes (as my Author Lewis Lewkenor observations on the Venetian Commonwealth, out of Francisco [...]ansovini. informs me) there have been an hun­dred and fifty at the Chri­stening of the Child toge­ther in the Church.

§. 6. Herein then is a great Benefit that Infants have by being baptized in their In­fancy, that they have thereby the care of se­veral persons engaged for their instruction, and education; not only their Fathers and Mothers, by Nature and Divine Imposi­tion; but also their Godfathers and God­mothers, by Charity and Ecclesiastick in­junction: who when they do their duty to a child, 'tis rare if there be not in some measure a performance of their engagement to him when a man. And if there might be instances of the ineffectualness of this care in some few; yet is it reason all should be brought under that care; since it is effective and beneficial in many, and it cannot be be­forehand told, to what one it will not finally prove to be effective and beneficial.

§. 7. And if ever there was need of Godfathers and Godmothers in the world to be Sureties for childrens pious, and ver­tuous education (unless I take my measures wrong, and judge amiss of the face of affairs) there is need of them now upon that account; and need of as many as (if not more than) there ever were: whilst our chil­dren are like to live in days, which whe­ther they shall be Hal [...]yonian days of peace and tranquillity, or boystrous days of trouble and persecution, is a secret to [Page 52] us: but, to be sure, perillous times, times wherein it will 2 Tim. 3. 1. be a hard thing for a man, much more for a child, to keep upright, and walk with an even foot, without being warped and swayed aside from the ways of Truth and Godliness, one way or o­ther; either corrupted in his Faith by the false perswasions of erroneous Believers, or debaucht in his manners by the evil con­versations of vitious Livers. Which con­sideration I leave to be thought on by those that are wise.

CHAP. X.

§. 1. FIfthly, by Baptism Infants are made members of Christ; united to him as members of his body. Hence the little ba­ptized Catechumen is by our Church taught to say, that therein he was made a member of Christ. Christ is to be considered two ways, Personally, so as he is one in himself, and Mystically, so as he is one with his Church, that Body whereof himself is the Head. In this latter sense Infants are by Baptism made Members of Christ, that is, they are admitted into Fellowship with him, as members [little parts] of his mystical Body, the Church.

§. 2. This benefit Men have by Baptism. For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ, This was the list­ing, espousing, Co­venanting, Ingraft­ing, implanting Ordinance; Believers being expresly said hereby to be planted into Christ, Gal. 3. 27. and baptized into Christ, Rom. 6. 3. And which baptizing and planting into Christ is no other but an orderly entring into the Visible Church or Body of Christ. H. D. Post­script to Treat. of Bapt. p. 44. have put on Christ, Gal. 3. 27. What is it to be ba­ptized [Page 54] into Christ? Why sure to be made partakers of Christian baptism. And what is it to put on Christ? why sure to become u­nited unto Christ, to be joyned to the Lord, (as a man becomes united with, and joyned to that which he put on) to become a mem­ber of Christ. Whence Primasius thus glosseth this Text, Toti ejus membra per baptismi sanctificationem essecti, being whooly made members of him by the san­ctification of Baptism. And St. Chrysostom describing a Baptized per­son, Omnis [...]rgo homo Dei indatus Chri­stum, fuge omnia quae sunt incentiva carnalium libidi num. Non solum autem haec bapti­zatis dissero, & praedico, sed etiam baptizandis praeci­pio. D. Chrys. Hom. de Militia Chri­stianâ. Ad hoc datur ba­ptismus ut aliquis per ipsum regene­ratus incorporetur Christo, factus mem­brum ipsius, Aquin. 3. q. 68. a. 1. does it by the Peri­phrasis of a man of God, that hath put on Christ. Avoid (saith he) O man of God, who hast put on Christ, all the incentives of carnal lusts. Who he means by that Periphrasis appears by what follows. And these things I do not only discourse and preach to them that already are baptized, but injoyn them that are to be baptized. Ac­cordingly Aquinas saith, To this end is baptism given, that a man being regenerated thereby he may be incorporated into Christ, being [Page 55] made a member of him. Because they are members of him that are baptized, saith St. August. Quia membra ejus sant, qui baptiz an­tur. D. Aug. S [...]rm. 119. de Temp. For by one Spirit (as St. Paul saith) are we all ba­ptized into one body, whe­ther we be Jews or Gentiles, bond or free, 1 Cor. 12. 13. One b [...]y. What bodie's that? Why, the mystical body of Christ, the Church. Baptized into that. What's that? why sure, entred or ingraffed into it, made members of it by Baptism: the Spirit as the principal Agent using Baptism as his Instrument for that end. Hence saith [...] Occumen in 1 Cor. 12. 13. Occu­menius on the place, we are made one (that is, one body) by one spirit, and the same laver, or wash­ing; that is, by Baptism. By the Spirit as the princi­pal efficient of, by Ba­ptism as the instrumental Agent in, that Union.

Hence is Baptism by St. August. called, Ecclesiae ja [...]ua, and porta gratiae, & primus introit us D. Aug. de Cate. chizand. rudib. l. 2. c. 1. sanctorum ad aeternam 'Dei & Ecclesiae consuetudi­nem, the gate of the Church, and the door of grace, and the first entrance of Saints to [Page 56] an eternal Society with God and the Church. So St. Bernard calls it Sacramentum initia­tionis & intrantium Christianismum inve­stituram, the Sacrament of Initiation, and the Investiture of such as enter into Chri­stianity. And by the Coun­cil of Florence it is called Primum omnium Sacramentorum lo­cum tenet baptis­mus, quod vitae spi­vitualis janua est [...] per ipsum enim membra Christi, ac de corpore efficimur Ecclesiae. Concil Flor. apud Caranz. sol. 391. the gate of spiritual life, in as much as by it we are made members of Christ, and to be of the body of the Church. And hence very significantly Baptisteries or Fonts are said to have been placed at first with­out, but after within the Church, near the [...] or Porch of the Church, to signifie undoubtedly the Sacra­ment there celebrated, namely Baptism, to be a Rite of initiation, or entrance into the Church, as it were that door, by which they that are baptized are let in, and have admittance unto the priviledges of Christians, which is to be Members of Christ.

§ 3. This benefit, I say, Men have by Baptism. And why not Infants? whom the Scripture no where shuts this door of grace against; whom it no where excludes from this benefit by it. In consideration [Page 57] whereof St. Aug. proceeds to say of the Ba­ptism of Infants, that it is of efficacy, and doth avail Ad hoc valet ba­ptismus, ut baptiza­ti Christo incorpo­rentur. D. Aug. l. 1. de Bapt. Par­vul. Haec gratia bapti­zatos quoque par­vulos suo inserit corpori. D. Aug. l. 1. de Pecc. Me­rit. & Remiss. c. 9. Pueri, sicut adulti, in Baptismo effi­ciuntur membra Christi, Aquin. 3. q. 69. a. 6. Hac de causa insantulos baptizamus—ut ejus membra sint omnes—D. Chrysost. Hom. ad Neophytos. to their incorporation into Christ. And again, that This grace doth ingraft and put in even the little ones that are baptized into his body. So Aquinas, Children, as well as Adult persons, are made mem­bers of Christ in Baptism. And for this cause, saith St. Chrysostom, do we ba­ptize Infants, that they may be members of him, that is, of Christ.

§. 4. And the reason is the same for the one and for the other. Because it is not se­veral Baptisms, but one and the same Ba­ptism, that is administred unto the one, and unto the other. For there is but one Ba­ptism for all. One, as well as the other, Men and Children, all that are baptized, are baptized into Jesus Christ, as the Apostle expresses it, Rom. 6. 3.

§. 5. Now this being so, what can be [Page 58] more visible, than that Baptism is hugely beneficial to Infants. For being by Ba­ptism made Members of Christ they have union with him, as the Members have with the Head: and by that Union much benefit is derived to them.

§. 6. For first there is great honour comes to them thereby. The Members partake of the honour of the Head. To be the Mem­bers of such a Head, as is Head over all things (Ephes. 1. 22. ) the Head of all principa­lity and power (Coloss. 2. 10. ) what an honour must this needs be to them? Like the precious ointment upon the head that ran down upon the beard, even Aarons beard, that went down to the skirts of his garments, so the honourableness of Christ the Head hath a descending influence on his in [...]erior members, so as to render them also in some measure and degree honourable.

By vertue of the Union of Christs natural body with God, there is a great honour comes to that his body: so by vertue of the Union of the mystical body of Christ with Christ its Head, there is a great deal of ho­nour coming also to that body of his. His natural body is not the mere body of a man, but the body of God; so his mystical body is not a mere humane body, but the body of Christ. (2 Cor. 12. 27.) As it is with an [Page 59] imp or scion that is taken off from any stock of a meaner kind, and ingrassed, or inocu­lated into a nobler stock, and partakes with the stock into which it is ingrassed of its ho­nourable appellation: so it is with Christi­ans; though by nature they be wild olive trees, yet being by Baptism ingrafted into Christ the good olive tree, made members of his body, they do partake with Christ in some degree of that honour which is given unto him. They have his name called upon them by others (Acts 11. 26.) He him­self is not ashamed to call them brethren, (Heb. 2. 2. 11. ) Not the least Infant Chri­stian, but is a Brother, a Branch, a Mem­ber of Christ: and so is honourable in its Relation to him, and hath an honourable re­spect due unto it upon account of the U­nion that it hath with him.

§. 7. But secondly they do not only re­ceive honour by Christ, but also influence from Christ, by vertue of their Union with him. The Head hath an influence upon the whole body, and every member of it. Sense and motion is by the animal spirits commu­nicated to the whole body and every mem­ber of it from the head: so hath Christ an influence upon his whole body and every the least member of it. From him by his spiri­tual grace is communicated to his body, and [Page 60] every the least member of it, suitable to the manner and measure of its recep­tivity, a principle of sense of God and Goodness, and of motion to attain the en­joyment of the one by the practice of the other: which, though for a while it give forth no indications of its presence in them, yet will in due time exert its proper efficacy; and in the mean time it lies at the heart, like the sap at the root, predisposing it unto a future fructification. Of his fullness (saith St. John) we have all received, and grace for grace, (John 1. 16. ) There is a fullness of grace in Christ for, and an influence of grace from Christ to, all that are in him. Of his fullness we all receive. By partaking of the root we participate of the fatness of the olive tree, (Rom. 11. 17. ) There goes vertue from him to all that are his. Not the least member of him but has an influence of grace from him. There is from him an emanation of quickening effi­cacy to the smallest Infant member in him: being united to him, it partakes with him according to its condition and capacity; and that seminal grace communicated by him to the Infant at the instant of its beginning to be one in and with him, will in time bring forth its fruit; unless stifled, ere it bud, by the luxuriant rankness of vitious disposi­tions, [Page 61] too thickly growing in a depraved nature, and too early ripened by a cor­rupting education.

§. 8. Thirdly, they are interessed in the care of Christ for them. The head cares for all the body, and for every member of it: so doth Christ the head of his Church, take care for his whole Church, and for every the least person of it. And if ye ob­serve it, the first instance of Christs care for his Church in his charge to St. Peter, was for his Lambs, his little members, that could least care for themselves; and then follows his care for his sheep. He first saith, Feed my lambs: and then after, Feed my sheep, John 21. 15, 16, 17. After whose example St. John his bosome disciple begins his Epistle with little children; and then goes on to fathers and young men, 1 John 2. 12, 13.

§. 9. And sure 'tis worth something, and that no small matter neither, to have such a one as Christ taking care for our Infants; and taking such a care for them, as a head takes care for the members of that body that is united to it. Oh how they are con­tinually in his eye, and in his heart! what tender regard he has to them! what melt­ing affections for them! How kind he was to little children, and how careful of them [Page 62] whilst on earth is set forth with an illustri­ous splendour, here in the Text, and Con­text. He called them to him, he commanded access for them, he rebuked those, (though the darlings of his affections his disciples) that would have kept them from him; and because he had them much in his heart, he took them near to it, in his arms; he gave them the Imposition of his hands, and the Benediction of his mouth, would have both hand, tongue and all, concern'd, and be active too, in the promoting of their spiri­tual interest. And can we think, he, that had so much kindness for them on earth, hath no care for them now in heaven? Did he throw off all respect to them, when he removed hence from them? Did he lose the affectionateness of his humanity by the glo­rification of it? Is he less good, for being more great? If nothing of this, not the least apex of it may be imagined, we may then be secure of his care for our children. And if to be under the care of so discerning an eye, so wise a head, so strong a hand, so tender a heart, as Jesus Christ is, be a fe­licity, as most undoubtedly it is, and that a great one, considering the infinite advan­tages consequent thereunto for protection, preservation, provision, improvement of natural faculties, endowment with spiri­tual [Page 63] abilities, initiation in grace, and con­summation in glory, then the beneficialness of Baptism to Infants, who are thereby brought under all this care, is beyond dis­pute: and there is reason enough in that, if there were nothing else to move us to it, to baptize our Infants. If we would have Christ to have this care for them, it should then be our care to baptize them.

§. 10. Fourthly, they are interested in the care of the Church for them. They that are united to the Head, are united to the Body. They that are united to Christ, are united also to the Church. Communion with the Church follows Union with Christ. And as it were to intimate this, we are some­times said to be baptized into the head, and sometimes into the body; sometimes into Christ, and sometimes into the Church: for as much as all comes to one; because Christ and his Church, the Head and the Body are all one; and he that is united to, and hath communion with either, is united to, and hath communion with the other.

§. 11. Hence our Church in her office of Baptism declares the baptized Infant to be grafted into the body of Christs Church; and gives thanks to God for incorporating him into his holy Church; as she had prayed before that he might be received into the Ark of Christs Church.

§. 12. And as the Head takes care for all the members; so the members also take care one for another, (1 Cor. 12. 25.) they rejoyce, and suffer one with another, and have the same ca [...]e one for another, and they most especially are cared for by the rest, who are in least capacity to take any care for themselves.

§. 13. Now as to the case in hand, great truly is the care of our Church for her little members, her baptized Infants. She cares for their maintenance, cares for their inhe­ritance, cares for their education, cares for their instruction, that they may be vertu­ously brought up to lead a godly and a Chri­stian life; in order whereunto she not only gives both so grave an admonition to the Sureties for children at their baptizing, to remember that it is their parts and duties to see that the Infants be taught, so so [...]n as they shall be able to learn, what a solemn vow, promise, and profession they had there made by them, and so strict a charge to call upon them to hear Sermons, and provide that they may learn the Creed, the Lords Prayer, the Ten Commandments, and all other things, which a Christian ought to know and believe to his souls health, and be ver­tuously brought up, that the Sureties some­times are apt to think there is too much of [Page 65] this care taken by the Church, because so much is laid upon them; and they are ready to be at Tertullians question, Quid necesse est sponsores periculo ingeri? and ask, what necessity is there for the Godfathers being so deeply charged? but also lays severe in­junction upon the Curates of every Parish diligently upon every Sunday and Holy day to instruct the children sent to them in a Cate­chism That most excel­lent Catechism in the Liturgy Dr. Hammond, of I­dolat. §. 67. En verò & Cate­chismum: brevem quidem illum, sed in cujus brevitate nihil desideres. B. Andrews in his Opera Posth. p. 86. of her providing for that purpose, and that a most excellent one for that use, short indeed in it self, yet wanting in nothing ne­cessary or fit to be known for instruction to salva­tion; and that under the heaviest penalties that are in her power to inflict, a sharp reproof for the first offence, Sus­pension for the second, and excommunica­tion for the third: and under the like pe­nalties takes care that Parents shall send their children, servants, and apprentices, to the Church at the times appointed, and that they also do then come thither, to be instru­cted in that Catechism; and by such instru­ction fitted and prepared for Confirmation, at which time they are with their own mouth [Page 66] and consent openly before the Church to ra­tifie and confirm what their Godfathers and Godmothers promised for them in their Baptism: which excellent course were it regularly and conscientiously on all hands observed, the Primitive Discipline would return again into the Church, and there would not be occasion for such outcries of the Antipaedo baptists against Infants Ba­ptism.

§. 14. Now if to have not only the Natural Parents of a child, but Godfathers and Godmothers also, who are a kind of spiritual Parents, Fathers and Mothers in God, to it; nor them only, but the Mini­sters also of the Parish; nor him only, but the whole Parish also; nor that only, but the Bi­shop See Dr. Jackson, Tom. 3. l. 10. c. 50. §. 6. of the Diocess, and even the whole Church en­gaged, and that not by mere nature, or cha­rity, but by office and duty, to a respective care for it, be not for the benefit of it, I would be taught what is. And being so, it is a fur­ther instance of the beneficialness of Ba­ptism unto Infants, and still a stronger in­ducement to us to bring our Infants unto Baptism.

§. 15. Yet fifthly, by vertue of this Union of Infants with Christ and his Church [Page 67] his Body by their being baptized thereinto, they are interested in all the Intercessions of Christ for his Church, and in all the Suppli­cations of the Church unto God. Whether Christ pray to his Father for his Church, or the Church pray to God for her self, In­fants that cannot pray for themselves, are prayed for thereby. Christ excludes not baptized Infants from the benefit of his In­tercessions: for he intercedes for his Body, and they are members of it. Nor doth the Church exclude them from the benefit of her Supplications: for she prays for all her Mem­bers, Publica est nobis & communis ora­tio: & quando o­ramus, non pro uno, sed pro populo toto oramus, quia totus populus unum su­raus D Cyprian. de Orat. Dom. Unusquisque cret Dominum non pro se tantum, sed & pro omnibus sratribue, sicut Dominus Jesus orare nos docuit, ubi non singulis privatam precem mandavit, sed communi & concordi prece orare pro omnibus jus­sit. D. Cyprian. l. 4. Ep. 4. and they are some of them. Not a Christian in the world that says Our Father, but prays at the same time for every ba­ptized Brother.

§. 16. Now this sure must needs be a Benefit to them to be pray'd, and so pray'd for. O the potency, I had almost said the omnipotency of prayer! what can it [Page 68] not do with? what can it Mane ergo & ora dilecta, multum e­nim oratio potest, D. Chrysost. de Poenitentia. Hom. 9. Preces, quae cum rectae sint inessica­ces esse non pos­sunt. Boeth. de Cons. Phil. l 5. pros. 6. Inter om­nia quae humana fragilitas faccre potest unde placcre Deo valeat, ple­runque valet ora­tio, si cum pura conscientia & cor­dis humilitate siat. Hugo de S. Vi [...]ore Allegor. l. 10. c. 4. not obtain from God? St. James tells us, [...], it avails, prevails, can do much, and that whilst it is but the single prayer [...] of a (that is, one) righteous man, Jam. 5. 16. With that key Elias shut and open'd heaven, first against, and then for rain, Jam. 5. 17, 18. This we are sure of from Sacred History. And, if Ecclesi­astick History may be cre­dited, by Prayer Greg. B. of Neocaesaria Euseb. Eccles. Hist. l. 7. c. 24. ex Intepret. Rusfini. turned a Pool of water into dry ground, and removed a mountain to make a plain. By prayer James B. of Nisibis Histor. Tripartit. l. 5. c. 45. overcame a power of armed men; and, what is more, Aaron and Phi­ne as encountred and con­quer'd even an angry God, Numb. 16. Psal. 105. Whereupon St. Hierom Quod autem dicit, & non obsistas mihi, illud osten­dit, quod preces sanctorum Dei irae possunt resistere. D. Hieron. in Je­rem. 7. 16., observes, that the prayers of Saints are able to withstand the wrath of God. And [Page 69] St. Ambrose Qui rectè vivunt juxta Evangolium facilè poterunt im­petrare quae postu­lant, D. Ambros. in 1 Thess. 5. 25. concludes that they that lead a right Gospel-life, may easily have, what they will ask. Which is but St. John in other words, who saith, Whatsoever we ask, we receive of him, be­cause we keep his commandments, and do those things that are pleasing in his sight, 1 John 3. 22.

§. 17. And if it be thus powerful, when single; what is it, when social? when there is a pious conspiracy of fervent pray­ers from consenting hearts and concurring tongues, all at once making as it were assault upon the Almighty, with the holy violence of a strong importunity to extort a petition from him. He loves to be thus wrestled with, and worsted, if I may so say. 'Tis an ac­ceptable force that this way is put upon him: and he is not able , The Prince and People of Niniveh (saith Mr. Hooker) assembling themselves as a main army of Suppli­cants, it was not in the power of God to withstand them. I speak no otherwise concerning the force of publique Prayer in the Church of God, then be­fore me Tertullian hath done. Apol. 1. 39. We come by troups to the place of Assembly, that being ban­ded as it were together, we may be supplicants e­nough to besiege God with our prayers. These forces are unto him acceptable. Eccl. Pot. l. 5. §. 24. be­cause not willing to deny any thing that is thus [Page 70] sought of him. Our Saviour saith (Matth. 18. 19.) If two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shal ask, it shall be done for them, of my Father which is in heaven. Hereupon St. Ignatius [...] as! Ign. Ep. ad 1 phes. argues, If the prayer of one or two be of so great preval [...]ncy, how much more will the prayer of the Bishop and the whole Church be preva­lent! St Augustin Impossibile est ut multorum pre­ces non exaudian­tur. D. Aug. Ser. 44. ad Fr. in Ere­mo., and St. Ambrose Multi enim mi­nimi dum congre­gantur unanimes siunt magni, & multorum preces impossible est ut non impetrent. D. Ambros. in Rom. 15. 30. and after them Aquinas Pro justis est orandum triplici ratione. Primo quidem quia multorum preces facile exaudiuntur: unde super illud, Rom. 15. Adjuveritis me in orationibus vestris, dicit Gloss. Bene rogat Apostolus minores pro se orare, Multi enim minimi dum congregantur unanimes siunt magni: & multorum preces impos­sibile est quod non impetrent, illud scilicet, quod est impecrabile. Aquin. 22 dae. q. 83. a. 7. ad ter­tium. Vid. D. Cyprian. de Simpl. Praelat., conclude it impossible that such prayers should fail of au­dience, and acceptance, and not obtain what they peti­tion for, provided they do but petition for what is possible to be obtained.

§. 18. And no marvel the social prayers of unanimously consenting, and fervently competitioning Supplicants should be so powerful with God, when they have one among them, and concurring in the petition with them, whom God always hears, even the Son of his own love, the Lord Jesus Christ, the head of his Church, which he is always with, and always will be, even un­to the end of the world, and even where two or three of them are gathered together in his name. And indeed his presence with them himself assignes for the reason of their pre­valency with his Father, (Matth 18. 20.) Again I say unto you, that if two of you shall agree on earth, as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is heaven. For where two or three are gathered together in my Name, there am I in the midst of them. The prevalency of the Churches prayers is from the concurrency of Christs petitioning with them, when they pray.

§. 19. Now hereupon it follows, that it cannot but be a mighty benefit to Christi­ans, each to have the prayers of other, and all the prayers of the Church for them all. And hence are our desires both of one ano­thers private prayers, and also of the Churches publick prayers, especially upon [Page 72] any extraordinary emergency. And if we, who can pray for our selves, do think the prayers of others beneficial to us, as we do think them, or else we should not desire them, how can we then but think they are beneficial to our children? who have the more need of the prayers of others, as they are the less able to pray for themselves; and for whom the prayers of others are by so much the more likely to be effectual, as they do the less to hinder their effectualness.

§. 20. Prayer then being so powerful a deriver of all manner of blessings on the parties prayed for; and Baptism being the means of bringing our children within the Communion of so many and such prayers; we cannot but think Baptism highly benefi­cial to them; even to that measure and de­gree, as upon that one account alone, if there were no other besides, to be induced to ba­ptize our children.

CHAP. XI.

§. 1. SIxthly, by Baptism Infants are made children of God. This sense our Church hath of it. Hence immediately after the Baptizing of the Infant it renders thanks to the heavenly Father, for that it hath plea­sed him to receive that Infant for his own child by Ad [...]ption. And in her Catechism teaches the little Catechumen to say, that in his Baptism he was made the child of God.

§. 2. The Apostle St. Paul speaking to the Galatians, whom he had declared to be the Sons of God, (Gal. 3. 26.) saith unto them, At many of you as have ( [...], who­soever ye are, whether men or children, for as he names neither, so he excepts not either that have) been baptized into Christ, have put on Christ (ver. 27.) And he saith it as a Reason of what was said before, even of their Sonship. Ye are all the children of God by Faith in Jesus Christ, For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ, have put on Christ. His reasoning seems to lie thus. They that put on Christ, that is re­ceive Christ, they are the children of God. [Page 74] Those that are baptized into Christ, they put on Christ, and do receive him. There­fore they that are baptized into Christ are the children of God.

§. 3. It is Faith indeed that qualifies for Baptism. The Adult is qualified by his own Faith; [...] D. Basil. de Spir. Sancto, c. 12. Tom. [...]. [...]. Just. Mart. Resp. ad Orthod. q. 56. Infants by the Faith of those that bring them to, and undertake for them at their baptizing. They are vouchsafed the good things that come by baptism through the faith of those that bring them to be ba­ptized, saith the Author of the Answers to the Or­thodox in Just. Martyr, speaking of Infants. And upon the account of their faith, were the Infants an­ciently admitted to ba­ptism, and baptized as Be­lievers Non quod vel ipsi quando baptizan­tur fide careant, sine qua impossibile est vel ipsos placere Deo: sed salvan­tur & ipsi per fi­dem non tamen su­am, sed alienam. Dignum nempe est, & ad dei spectat dignitatem, ut qui­bus fidem aetas de­negat propiam gratia prodesse conced at alienam, &c. D. Bern. Ep. 77. ad Hug. de S. Victore. Absit ut ego dicam non credentes infantes. Jam superius disputavi. Credit in altero, quia peccavit in altero: dicitur credit, & valet; & inter fideles baptizatos computatur, &c. D. Aug. Serm. 14. de Verb. Apost.. But as many as, whether upon the account of their own, or others faith, are baptized into Christ, whether they be men or children, they are [...] the sons of God.

§. 4. And this sense the Ancients had of this thing, namely the efficacy of ba­ptism for the regenerating of the baptized and putting them into the state of children of God. Hence Dionys. Areop. calls the Font, wherein per­sons De Eccl. Hier. were baptized [...] Exhort. ad Bapt. [...] the mother of A­doption; and calls our ba­ptism Orate patrem ba­ptismate nostrum. [...] a birth of, or from God; as D. Ambros. in 1 Cor. 6. 11. Illic omnibus peccatis depositis abluitur credens, justifica­tur domini nomine, & per spiritum Dei nostri Deo fi­lius adoptatur. Id. Ad cujus [sc. di­vini operis] po­tentiam referen­dum est, quod dum homo exterior ab­luitur, mutatur in­terior, & fit nova creatura de veteri, vasa irae in vasa misericordiae trans­feruntur, & in corpus Christi con­vertitur caro pec­cati. De impiis justi, de captivis liberi, de filiis ho­minum fiunt filii Dei. Ep. 84. l. 10. St. Basil also calls it [...] baptism of Adoption, & [...] the grace of Adoption. Sedu­lius exhorts to pray unto God under the notion of our Father by Baptism. There (saith St. Ambrose speaking of baptism) the believer is washed, all his sins being laid aside, he is justified in the name of the Lord, and by the Spirit of [Page 76] our God he is adopted to be a Son unto God. And again to the power of that divine work (saith he) it is to be referred, that whilst the outward man is washed, the inward man is changed, and made a new creature of an old, vessels of wrath are translated into vessels of mercy, and a body of sin converted into into the body of Christ. Of wicked they are made righteous, of captives they are made free, and of sons of men they are made the Sons of God.

§. 5. St. Cyprian saith it was foretold of God by his Prophet Isaiah (c. 43. v. 18, 19, 20, 21.) that among the Gentiles in places Praenunciavit illic per Prophetam De­us, quod apud Gen­tes in locis, quae inaquosa prius fu­issent, flumina postmodum redun­darent, & electum Deigenus, id est per regenerationem ba­ptismi filios Dei factos adaequarent. D. Cypr. l. 2. Ep. 3. where before there was no water, rivers should a­bound and wter the elect generation of God, that is, (saith he) those who by Ba­ptismal regeneration are made the children of God. And to this sense some of the Ancients interpret the forecited Text, (Gal. 3. 26, 27.) In his confirmation he shows (saith [Page 77] Theophylact) how we are the Sons of God, namely by [...]. Theoph. in Gal. 3. 27. baptism. And so Primasius, having put on the Son of God, and being wholly made mem­bers of him by the sanctifi­cation of Baptism Filium Dei in­duti, & toti [...] membra per baptis­mi sanctificationem effectis, filii Dei fi [...]is necesse est. Primas. in Gal. 3. 26. ye must needs be the Sons of God.

§. 6. This being then one effect of Ba­ptism, that by it those that are baptized be­come the children of God; and it being as able to effect this in children as in men, as producing its effects not by any natural [...]. D. Basil. 81. § 5. c. 15 See Dr. Jackson. Tom. 3. l. 10. c. 50. Sect. 4. ef­ficiency, but by a superna­tural efficacy, which can take place in children also, and not in men only; and children being no way de­barred from having this effect wrought on them thereby, as being no where exempted therefrom by the Author of this Holy Institution, we do, and may well hence conclude that our children are by Baptism [Page 78] put into a state of Adopti­on Hâc de causâ & [...]am infantulos ba­ptizamus, ut non sint coinquinati peccato, ut eis ad­datur san [...]litas, justitia, adoptio. D. Chrysost. Hom. a [...] Neophytos. of children unto God.

§. 7. Now this being so, an ordinary understanding will be able to conceive how beneficial baptism must needs be unto Infants in this respect. For it interests them in the fatherly love of God to them, and care for them. God loves them, and cares for them, and loves and cares for them as for his chil­dren, as for his sons.

§. 8. Now of this love and care of God, to, and for them, the effects cannot but be many and good, as well in what he at pre­sent bestows on them, as in what for future he provides for them. Let what will, or can, come at, or of earthly friends or parents, Baptized Infants can never be wholly either friendless or fatherless. When they have neither Father, nor Friend on earth, they have still both a Friend and Father in hea­ven: Such a Friend and such a Father, as knows their needs, and will not suffer them to be too much under wants; such a Friend and such a Father, as looks after them, whilst they are not able to look after themselves, [...]ay nor him neither; such a Friend and such [Page 79] a Father, as lays up in them an early stock of Grace, and lays up for them an eternal stock of Glory.

§. 9. O the happiness of being an A­dopted Son to God! 'Tis a Relation big with felicities: both the Indies in one for richness and sweetness. 'Tis an honour be­yond that of being of the blood of Nobles, the kindred of Princes, the sons of Kings, the heirs of Emperors. 'Tis a Magazine of stores for all manenr of provisions for this and for a better life; for earth, and for heaven. 'Tis a Tower of strength for safe­ty and protection from the power, and ma­lice of foes; from harm, danger, and fear of enemies. 'Tis a breast of Consolation under all adverse providences, sweetning every the bitterest cup, and sharpest stroke; turning our gall into honey, and filling our wounds with balsome. 'Tis a foun­tain of pleasure perpetually emptying it self into our bosoms in streams of the most soul ravishing delights and content­ments. 'Tis heaven in Epitome, beatitude in quintessence; an interest in, and an ear­nest of an eternal inheritance.

§. 10. Baptism then putting the Bapti­zed into this state of Adoption of Sons to God, which appellation belongs to no un­baptized Person, and giving them also the [Page 80] spirit of Adoption, where­by they are enabled to [...]. Chrys. Hom. 1. de Poenit. call God Father; this con­sideration, even alone and of it self, were sufficient to move any man, whose heart were not made all of rock, but had some, though the least regard to the good of his child, to baptize it, that so he might thereby both bring it into so glori­ous a relation, and intitle it unto so pre­cious advantages. And yet there is more.

CHAP. XII.

§. 1. FOr Seventhly, Infants are by Ba­ptism made Heirs of the kingdom of heaven. And this follows upon the for­mer. For Heirship follows Sonship. Gods sons are all Heirs. So the Apostle rea­sons it, Rom. 8. 17. & Gal. 4. 7. If sons, then heirs, heirs of God, and joynt heirs with Christ. By the means that we become sons, we become heirs. Infants therefore [Page 81] being made sons by Baptism, are by Baptism also made heirs. But heirs of what? why, of a kingdom, and even of that kingdom whereof Christ is an inheritor: for the sons of God are [...], coheirs with Christ, heirs to the same kingdom, whereof he is an inheritor, and that is the kingdom of heaven. And accordingly St. Paul saith, According to his mercy he saved us by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost, which he shed on us abun­dantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour, that being justified by his grace we should be made heirs according to the hope of eter­nal life, Tit. 3. 5, 6, 7.

§. 2. This Instrumental efficiency to­wards the giving of entrance and admission into the kingdom of heaven, the Fathers do in the general ascribe unto Baptism. St. Basil saith it is that whereby we are [...]. D. Basil. exhort. ad Bapt. carried to heaven, and entertain'd into that kingdom. Greg. Nazianz. saith it is that chariot [...]. Greg. Naz. Or. 40. or vehicle, where­by we are carried unto God. St. Aug. saith, when a man goes forth from ba­ptizing then the Quando homo de baptismo egreditur tune & [...]anua coele­stis aperitur. D Aug Serm. 29. de Temp. Felix sacra­mentum aquae no­strae, qua abluti delictis pristinae caecitatis in vitam aeternam liberamur, [...]ert, de Bapt. c. 1. of our water, whereby being washed from the de­linquencies of our former blindness, we are freed unto eternal life. And by Greg. Nazianz. 'tis cal­led [...] Greg. Naz. Orat. 40. gate of the kingdom of heaven is opened to him. Tertullian [Page 82] calls it the happy Sacra­ment the key of the kingdom of heaven. So that it not on­ly sends Aqua baptismatis baptizatos ad reg­num coeleste mittit, Greg. in Evang. hom. 17. the Baptized to, but lets them into that kingdom.

§. 3. And from a well-grounded con­fidence hereof undoubtedly it is, that our Church not only prays for the Infant to be baptized, Office of Publ. Bapt. of Infants. that he may come to the land of everlasting life, and to the eternal kingdom which God hath promised; and be made an heir of everlast­ing salvation, and an inheritor of Gods e­verlasting kingdom; but also gives assu­rance to the Sureties for the Infant, upon the word and promise of our Saviour, that he will give unto him the blessing of eternal life, and make him partaker of his everlast­ing kingdom, even the kingdom of hea­ven.

§. 4. And in this her sense she agrees [Page 83] with the sentiment of the Ancient Church. For St. Chrysostom saith, For this cause do we ba­ptize Hac de causâ infantulos ba­ptizamus ut eis addatur, sancti­tas, justitia, ado­ptio, haereditas. D. Chrysost. Hom. ad Neoph. [...]. D. Athan. q. ad An­tioch. 114. Tom. 2. p. 377. Infants that there may be added unto them holiness, righteousness, a­doption, and an inheri­tance. And Athanasius grounding his inference on two Scripture-Texts, the one the words of our Sa­viour in my Text, Suffer little children to come unto me, for of such is the kingdom of heaven, the o­ther the words of St. Paul, but now are your chil­dren holy, saith, That the baptized Infants of Believers do as undefiled and believing enter into the kingdom of heaven.

§. 5. Yea so highly conducing unto an entrance into heaven both for Infants and others was [...]. D. Chrysost. Hom. 1. de Poenit. Quum vero prae­scribitur nemim sine [...] Baptismo competere salutem ex illa maxi­me pronunciatione Domini qui ait, Nisi natus ex a­quâ quis erit, non habet vitam, subo­riuntur scrupulosi, &c. Tertull. de Bapt. Lex e­nim tingendi imposita est, & forma praescripta, Ite inquit, docete nationes tingentes eas in no­mine patris, & filii, & spiritus sancti. Huic legi collata definitio illa, Nisi quis renatus fuerit ex aqua & spiritu, non intrabit in regnum coelo­rum, obstrinxit fidem ad baptismi necessitatem. Itaque omnes exinde credentes tingebantur. Id. ib. Nisi enim quis renatus fuerit ex aqua & Spiritu Sancto non potest introire in regnum Dei. Uti (que) nullum excipit, non infantem, non aliqua praeven­tum necessitate. D. Ambros. de Abrah. Patriarcha, l. 2. c. 11. Sine baptismo mortuos periisse non dubium est. Id. de Voc. Gent. l. 2. c. 8. [...]. Greg. Nyssen, de Bapt. Baptism anciently thought, that it was the opinion of some, that there was no entrance for either in thi­ther without that; and this opinion of theirs was grounded on our Savi­ours [Page 84] saying, that Ex­cept a man be born of wa­ter and of the Spirit he cannot enter into the king­dom of God.

§. 6. And even our own most modest and moderate Church can­not Beloved, ye hear in this Gospel the express words of our Saviour Chirst, that Except a man be born of water— whereby ye may perceive the great necessity of this Sacrament, where it may be had, Office of Bapt. of those of riper years. but upon the same ground conclude some, and that a great necessity of Baptism in order to en­trance into the kingdom of God.

§. 7. And truly though, Whitaker Praele­ction de Eccles. Ca­thol. qu. 1. c. 4, 5. D. Bernard Ep. 77. ad Hugon. de San­cto Victore. with Dr. Whitaker, and others, I do believe, that the mere want of baptism, where it cannot be had, is not absolutely exclusive of all unbaptized ones out of heaven, but only the contempt of it, where it may be had; yet two things may be observed from that Text (of John 3. 5.) which carry it high for a necessity of Infants baptism, at least so far as to be an excuse for those, who gathered therefrom an absolute necessity of it.

§. 8. The first is this, That the king­dom of God here, in the notion of it in­cludes, not only Gods spiritual kingdom on earth, or the visible Church (which is all that the Anabaptists will have it to signi­fie; and upon this design, because they would by this distinction avoid the force of the Argument hence for Infants Baptism, for whose salvation they conclude it not neces­sary, that they be made members of the vi­sible Church, as having devoted them all, without exception of any, to be eternally saved, if dying in infancy, though dying un­baptized) but it doth also in the notion of it include Gods eternal kingdom in heaven. Because the kingdom here that a man cannot [Page 86] enter into except he be born of water and of the spirit, is the same kingdom that (in ver. 3.) a man cannot see except he be born again. Now it is not true of Gods kingdom on earth, that a man cannot see it, except he be born again of water and of the spirit, that is, baptized: for it is there­fore called the visible Church, because it is a Church that may be seen, And seen it may be of such as desire to come to it, & joyn with it, before they be of it: for how else shall they desire to come to it? Seen also it is, and may be, of such as are of it; and even of those that do oppose, & fight against it. But of the kingdom of God in heaven it is most true, that except a man be born of water and of the spirit he cannot see that. Therefore that kingdom which a man cannot enter into ex­cept he be born of water, and of the spirit doth in the notion of it include the kingdom of God in Heaven.

§. 9. And if the Kingdom of God here (in John 3. 3. 5.) be the same with that which is called (in Matth. 19. 14.) the kingdom of heaven; which again St. Luke (in my Text) renders by that very same expression in St. John, the kingdom of God, then we shall find the Anabaptists, when it is for their turn, interpreting it of Gods kingdom in heaven. For that very Text do [Page 87] they alledge to prove that Confess. of Faith, Art. 10. not any Infant dying in In­fancy before the Commis­sion of actual sin, shall suffer eternal punish­ment in hell for Adams sin: for of such (as they please to speak) belongs the king­dom of God. And if it must be inter­preted there (in John 3. 5.) of the visible Church, then it must be here also, in Luke 18. 16. and Matth. 19. 14. And so then children will be such as belong to the Church Catholick, as members of it, of whom it is: and then why should they not be ad­mitted into it, that belong unto it?

§. 10. And if any thing be objected a­gainst this, because it is not said, of these, but of such as these, is the kingdom of God; the same will be objected against their com­ing into the kingdom of glory, which they intitle them to, (from Matth. 19. 14.) be­cause it is not there said, of these, but of such as these is the kingdom of heaven. And so it will follow, even by their own way of ar­guing, either that such as they, men resem­bling them in humility and innocence shall enter into the kingdom of glory, but not they: or that, if the such as they, hinder not but that they may enter into heaven, then the such as they cannot hinder, but that they may enter into the Church.

§. 11. The second thing to be observed from this Text is this, That our Saviour in his expression of himself, useth such a word as can no way be restrained from reaching even unto Infants, and even unto the least of them; He saith not [...] nor [...], except a man, that is, a man of years and understanding be born again (for so those words may be capable of being ren­dred; and even the latter of them, which is of the more extensive signification is so to be interpreted in 1 Cor. 11. 28. where the subjectum recipiens, or person that is to receive the Lords Supper is spoken of, Let a man, that is a man of years and under­standing examine himself, &c) but he saith here, [...], except one, any one, be it who it will be, man, woman, or child, be born again, that is baptized, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

§. 12. Heaven then being the region of light, the paradise of pleasure, the habitation of joy, the mansion of peace, the seat of bliss, the rest of the Saints, the country of Angels, the court of God, a kingdom of glory, an inheritance incorruptible and undefiled, and that fadeth not away, where our solaces shall be pure, our happiness compleat, and our life eternal: and Baptism being so high­ly conducible, if not absolutely necessary, [Page 89] to an entrance into heaven, the ready way for our selves, and the only way that we know for our Infants, to get admission in­to that city of our God, and joy of our Lord; it necessarily follows, that Baptism must be highly beneficial to our Infants; and that we, if not upon the account of sin in them, with the Orthodox Christians, yet at least for entrance into the kingdom of heaven, with the Hete­rodox Pelagians Parvulos etiam negant secundum Adam carnaliter natos contagium mortis antiquae prima nativitate contrahere. Sic enim eos sine ullo peccati originalis vinculo asserunt nasci, ut prorsus non sit quod eis oporteat secunda nativitate dimitti: sed eos prop­terea baptizari. ut regeneratione adoptati admittan­tur ad regnum Dei, de bono in melius translati, non ista renovatione ab aliquo malo obligationis veteris absoluti, &c. D. Aug. de Haeres. c. 88., should be moved to baptize them.

CHAP. XIII.

§. 1. YEt eighthly, to shew the Bene­ficialness of Baptism to Infants, Baptism is a means of Grace to them: an instrument of conveying unto them, and making them partakers of the Grace of God; that is, so far, and in such manner, and measure, as they are capable of it.

§. 2. To signifie Baptism to be a means of Grace, Grace is one of the Names by which Baptism is called in the Writings of the Fathers. Whether out of a certain strange kind of joy (saith Gr Na.) [...], Gr. Naz. Orat. 40. [...]—Id. ib.— [...], Gr. Nyssen. de Baptismo. or whether in consideration of the manifold benefits of it, we give it many names, we call it Gift, Grace, Ba­ptism, Ʋnction, Illumi­nation, &c.

§. 3. Now that Infants are in some degree and measure capa­pable, if not also sensible, of [...]. Just. Mart. Resp. ad Or­thod. 13. Gods grace and of divine impressions by the Holy Ghost, sure none doubts, that reads of John Baptists being filled with the Holy Ghost (that sure, signifies some Gifts and Graces of the Holy Ghost) from his Mothers womb, Luke 1. 15. [...]. Just. Mart. Resp. ad Or­thod. 13. nay of his [...] leapings for joy in the womb of his Mother, Luk. 1. 44. which sure could come from nothing but some divine impression made on his soul by the Holy Ghost, wherewith his Mother being at that time filled, it may well be thought he was not wholly empty, especially after so sensi­ble an indication of it. Nor surely does any doubt, that what effect and operation Baptism hath upon elder persons, it hath also upon Infants according to their mea­sure of capacity: inasmuch as they do not any thing to hinder its operation upon them: and there is nothing said, that [Page 92] deprives them of the benefit of its opera­tion.

§. 4. To the point in hand then. There is a twofold Grace of Gods imparted, and communicated in Baptism: first, there is the Grace of Justification; and secondly, there is the Grace of Sanctification. The Grace of Justification is Gods remitting to us the guilt of our sins. The Grace of San­ctification is Gods cleansing us from the corruption and pollution of our Natures and Persons, and enabling us to do acts of Righteousness and Holiness.

§. 5. Now for the first of these, the Grace of Justification, that that is commu­nicated in Baptism, is evident from the speech of Ananias unto Paul (Acts 22. 16.) bidding him, arise and be baptized, and wash away his sins, calling on the name of the Lord. And from Peters exhorting the Jews (Acts 2. 38.) to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, i. e. that they might thereby obtain the for­giveness of their sins.

§. 6. Then for the second the Grace of San­ctification, that that also is communicated in Baptism is evident from that of the Apostle (in Tit. 3. 4, 5.) After the kindness of God our Saviour towards man appeared, not by works of righteousness which we have done, [Page 93] but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost, i. e. by the Grace of Sanctification, which is a work of the Holy Ghost, usually begun in Baptism, and con­stantly wrought by it, in some measure in the party baptized, at least so far as amounts to the putting into him the first principle of it, whereby he is in time, and by degrees brought to a newness of condition, actually regenerated into a new creature.

§. 7. Hence Peter unto the convert Jews (Acts 2.) promises upon their Baptism the gift of the Holy Ghost (v. 38.) Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. For the promise is made to you, and to your children, &c. The promise. What pro­mise? Why, the Promise of the gift of (that implies sure, if any thing more, yet howe­ver sanctification by) the Holy Ghost. By what means? why, by Baptism: for 'tis expresly said, Be baptized, and ye shall receive.

§. 8. In 1 Cor. 6. 11. we have both these Graces together set down as the Con­sequents of Baptismal washing. And such were some of you; but ye are washed (the means in Baptism that laver of regeneration) [Page 94] but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of of Lord Jesus, and by the spirit of our God. As if he had said, ye are now new creatures, other men than formerly ye were: for ye have been baptized, and in your baptism have had conferred upon you both the Grace of Ju­stification, by the Name of the Lord Jesus; and the Grace of Sanctification, by the spi­rit of our God.

§. 9. And perhaps the same is intimated in that of the Apostle to the Ephesians. Husbands love your wives, even as Christ loved the Church, and gave himself for it, that he might sanctific and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, that he might present it unto himself a glorious Church, not having spot or wrinkle, or any such thing, but that it should be holy and without blemish, (Ephes. 5. 25, 26, 27.) Here cleansing may note Justification: that Grace being expressed by that very word (1 John 1. 7.) where the blood of Jesus Christ is said to cleanse, that is to justifie us from all sin. And then the Church of Christ, which consists of Persons of all sorts and ages, small and great, old and young that have been baptized into Jesus Christ, will have both Justification and Sanctifica­tion communicated and conveyed to it by the [Page 95] washing of water with the word, that is by Baptism, the water whereof is sanctified to that use by the word of God. And that will make it a glorious Church indeed, to be both justified, not having spot or wrinkle upon it or any such thing; and to be sancti­fied, being holy and without blemish.

§. 10. And this sense of the thing our present Church hath: whilst in her office of Publick Baptism she prays for the Infant to be baptized, that he may receive remission of his sins, and be sanctified by the Holy Ghost; and in her Catechism she teaches the Baptized Catechumen, that hereby, that is, by Baptism, we are made children of grace, that is gracious children, acceptable to, and accepted of by God; accepted by the grace of Justification, and made acceptable by the grace of Sanctification.

§. 11. And this sense of it the Primitive Church of Christ also had. First, as to the Grace of Justification. Hence the Nicene Fathers in their Creed [...]. acknowledge one Ba­ptism for the remission of sins. The Council of Flo­rence saith Hujus Sacra­menti effectus est remissio omnis culpae originalis & actualis, Con­cil. Flor., The effect of this Sacrament of Baptism is the remission of all sin, whether Original or A­ctual. [Page 96] St. Cyprian saith Omnes, qui ad divinum munus & patrimonium ba­ptismi sanctifica­tione perveniunt, hominem illic ve­terem gratiâ lava­cri salutaris ex­ponunt, & inno­vati spiritu sancto à sordibus conta­gionis antiquae iteratâ nativitate purgantur, D. Cy­prian. de Habitu Virgin. Conside­rantes ac scientes, quod templa Dei sint membra no­stra ab omni faece contagionis anti­quae lavacri vita­lis sanctificatione purgata, Id. ib. Unde genitalis auxilio superioris aevi labe detersâ in expiatum pectus ac purum desuper se lumen infudit, D. Cypr. l. 2. Ep. 2. In aquae baptismo percipitur pecca­torum remissio. D. Cyprian. Praef. ad l. de Exhor. Mart. In aquae baptismo percipitur pecca­torum remissio, D. Cyprian. Praef. ad lib. de Exhort. Martyr., Our members are the tem­ples of God, being pur­ged by the sanctification of the vital laver from the dregs of the old contagion. St. August. saith In Baptismo om­nia debita, i. e. peccata prorsus dimittuatur nobis. D. Aug. 135 serm. de Temp. Ecce venturi estis ad fontem sanctum, diluemini in ba­ptismo salutari la­vacro regenera­tionis. Renova­bimini, eritis sine ullo peccato; a­scendentes de illo lavacro, omnia quae vos peccata persequebantur, i­bi delebuntur, D. Aug. Serm. 119. de Temp. Bapti­zati sunt, deletis­que omnibus pec­catis ex hâc vitâ emigrarunt, D. Aug. lib. 13. de Civ. Dei, c. 7.—Ut hortandi sint homines tunc se potius interimere, cum lavacro san­ctae regenerationis abluti universo­rum remissionem acceperint peccatorum. Tunc enim tempus est cavendi omnia futura peccata, cum omnia sint deleta praeterita, D. Aug. de Civ. Dei, l. 1. c. 27. In Ba­ptism all debts, that is sins, are forgiven us. St. Hie­rom Quod [sc. baptisma] sicut priora peccata dimittit, sic in futurum servare non potest, nisi baptizati omni custodiâ servaverint cor suum, D. Hieron. contra Haeres. Jovin. c. 33. Om­nia scorta, & publicae colluvionis sordes, impietas in De [...]m, parricidium in parentes, incestus, atque ex­traordinariae voluptates utriusque sexûs mutatâ na­turâ Christi fonte purgantur, D. Hieron. Ep. 50. ad Oceanum. Omnia nobis in baptismate condonata sunt crimina—Id. ib. saith, that Baptism doth remit the former sins, though for the future it cannot save, unless the ba­ptized do with all diligence keep their hearts. Ter­tullian Felix Sacramentum a quae nostrae quâ abluti delictis pristinae caecitatis in vi­tam aeternam liberamur, Tertull. de Bapt.—deletâ morte per ablutionem delictorum, Id. ib.—baptismi carnalis actus, quòd in aquâ mergimur, spiritalis effectus, quòd delictis liberamur, Id. ib. calls Baptism that happy Sacrament of wa­ter, wherein being wash­ed from the faults of our former blindness we are delivered into eternal life. St. Chrysostom [...], Chrys. Hom. 40. in Genes. Vel potius quod om­nia remiserit per lavacrum regenerationis, Id. E­nar. in Psal 7. Hinc ostenditur dogma magnum quòd perfectè purgantur à peccatis, qui baptizan­tur, Id. Hom. 40. in Acts 1. 19. calls Ba­ptism a Circumcision not made with hands, wherein no labour is undergone, but the burdens of sins are laid down, and there is found forgiveness of all the sins, which have been com­mitted in the whole time of [Page 97] our life. St. Bernard Quae est gra­tia, unde per baptismum investimur? Utique pur­gatio delictorum, D. Bern. Serm. 1. in Coen. Do­mini. asks, what is the Grace where­with we are invested in Baptism? and answers, that it is the purging, (that is the pardoning) of our sins. Athanasius [...]. D. Athan. Apolog. 2, pro Christian. [...], Id. Dict. & Interpret. Parab. Script. q. 94. [...] [sc. [...]. Id. Respons. ad Orthod. q. 44. saith, one end of Baptism is, that in [or by] the water we may obtain the remission of former sins. Greg. Nazianz. [...]. Gr. Nazian. Orat. 40. [...]. Id. ib. saith, that this Laver hath the vertue to blot out sins. St. Am­brose saith Illic enim omnibus peccatis depositis abluitur credens, justificatur domini nomine, & per spiritum Dei no­stri Deo filius adoptatur. D. Ambros. 1 Cor. 6. 11., that there (i. e. in baptism) the Believer is washed, all his sins being put away, he is justified in the Name of the Lord, and adopted a Son to God by the Spirit of our God. And [...], &c. D. Basil. Exhort. ad Baptism. St. Basil, (to name no more) saith, it is to captives re­demption, remission of debts, &c. And these may suffice to report the Churches sense as to the matter of Justification, which stands in the re­mission [Page 98] of sins: though others also Beatos exi­stimat, qui absque labore peccatorum remissionem acceperunt, quod sola baptismatis gratia largiri potest, Theodoret. in Psal. 50. Pollicetur peccato­rum veniam, quae per sanctum baptism [...] mortalibus datur.—Theod l. 7. de Sacrificiis. Non reddit parentum peccata in filios, quia cum ab originali culpa per baptismum liberamur, jam non parentum culpas, sed quas ipsi committimus habemus, D. Greg. Mag. Expos. Moral. l. 15. c. 31, in 21 cap. Job. Sciendum est autem eos, qui post lavacrum in peccata incidunt, eos esse qui castigantur. Quae enim prius facta sunt dimittuntur, Quae autem postea fiunt expurgantur, Clemen. Alexandr. Stro­matum, l. 4. Justificamur enim pe [...] Sanctum ba­ptismum; mortem Christi annunciantes, & simul resurrectionem ejus confitentes, Cyril. Alexan [...]. Apolog. ad Theodes. Ad peccati namque ablutio­nem sufficit salutare, & sacrum lavacrum, abster­git (que) superiorum delictorum maculam, Cyril. Alex. l. 1. in Isai. cap. 1. do attest the same.

§. 12. Then as to the Grace of Sanctifi­cation, whereby we are purged from the corruptions of our nature, and endued with inward holiness, let St. Chrysostom [...], &c. D. Chrys. Hom. 40. in Gen. Divinae autem gratiae lavacrum non corporis, sed animae maculam fordesque mun­dare consuevit, D. Chrysost. ad Ba­ptizandos. speak, and he will tell you, that the grace of Baptism heals without pain, brings us good things without number, and fills us with the grace of the Holy Ghost. And that the Laver of divine grace useth to cleanse not the spot and filthiness of the body but of the soul. St. Cyprian Per Baptismum Spiritus Sanctus accipitur, D. Cy­prian. l. 2. ep. 3. saith, By ba­ptism is received the Holy Ghost; i. e. in the gifts and graces of it: a thing frequently happening cer­tainly in visible effects, and undoubtedly in invisible graces, to persons bapti­zed by the Apostles. Ter­tullian Igitur omnes a­quae de pristinâ originis praeroga­tivâ Sacramentum sanctificationis con­sequuntur invoca­to Deo. Super­venit enim statim spiritus de coelis, & aquis superest sanctificans eas de semetipso; & ita sanctificatae vim sanctificandi com­bibunt, Tertull de Baptismo. saith, that the wa­ters of baptism being san­ctified by the Holy Ghost do conceive a sanctifick vertue. Primasius Fi­lium Dei induti, & toti ejus membra per Baptismi san­ctificationem ef­fecti, filii Dei sitis necesse est, Pri­mes. in Gal. 3. 27. saith, Having put on the Son of [Page 101] God, and being wholly made members of him by the sanctification of Ba­ptism, ye must needs be the sons of God. And Greg. Nazianz. calls Ba­ptism [...], Gr. Naz. Orat. 40. [...], &c. Greg. Naz. ib. [...] the purgation of the soul; and the waters of Baptism he calls [...] lustral or cleansing waters, saying that they were more clean­sing than hyssop, than the blood under the Law, or the ashes of an heifer.

§. 13. Baptism then being a means of making the baptized partakers of so excellent Graces of God, as the Justification of their Per­sons, and the Sanctification of their Na­tures, and so putting them out of a state of wrath and damnnation, into a state of grace and salvation, must needs be concluded to be highly beneficial to those that partake of it. What thing indeed in all the world can in the least come in competition for [Page 102] worth and excellency, for advantageous­ness and beneneficialness, with either of these two divine Graces? Who that under­stood what the Guilt of sin is, and what the Punishment of damnation is, would not give the world, if it were his, to be acquitted from that guilt, whereby he should he obli­ged unto that punishment? And who that understood the just worth of internal holi­ness, or the true value of eternal happiness, would not think all the Jewels in the world, though all the pebles and sands in the world were jewels, too mean a price for such a purchase as that grace, that should intitle unto that glory?

§. 14. And that being so, what an in­ducement is here (O what inducement can be greater? what perswasion more for­cible? what argument more strong? what obligation more powerfull?) to draw us to the baptizing of our Infants? what can we do better for them? what can we do so good for them? as to get them justified? as to get them sanctified? and to get them baptized? that they may both be justified, and sancti­fied.

CHAP. XIV.

§. 1. BUt Ninthly, every Grace it self doth not carry immediately and fully into Prime enim resur­rectio, de [...]ine reg­num. Tertull a [...]v. Marcion. l. 5. 1 Cor. 15. 50. Glory. There must be a rising before a reigning. Flesh and blood, in the con­dition it is here in, corru­ptible and mortal, cannot inherit the king­dom of God. There must therefore inter­vene a Resurrection from death, before there can be had a full Admission into life.

§. 2. Now Baptism consignes the Ba­ptized, and that whether Men, or Infants, (for there is no distinction, no exception made in this point of, or against, either, or other) unto a Resurrection; and that so effectually, that at present they are made ca­pable, and hereafter, if they forfeit not the grace of their Baptism, they shall be parta­kers of it.

§. 3. And in the sense and hope of this, our Church prays for the new baptized In­fant, [Page 104] that as he is made Publ. Baptism of Infants. partaker of the death of Christ, he may also be par­taker of his resurrection, so that finally with the residue of Gods holy Church he may be an inheritour of Gods everlasting king­dom.

§. 4. And the same sense of it the Anci­ent Church also had. This is sufficiently evident from Si autem quidam baptizantur pro mortuis; videbi­mus an ratione; certè illâ praesum­ptione hoc cos in­stituisse contendit, quâ al [...]i etiam carni, ut vicarium baptisma, profu­turum existima­rent ad spem re­surrectionis; quae nisi corporalis non aliâs fic baptismati obligaretur. Quid & ipsos baptizari, ait, si non quae ba­ptizantur corpora resurgunt? Tert. de Resurrect. car. nis. the practice of those men (whom St. Paul speaks of, in 1 Cor. 15. 29.) who were baptized for the dead. For that practice of theirs argues thus much, that they thought that vi­carious baptism (as Ter­tullian calls it) of theirs for the dead would be of advantage to the dead in order to their rising again. And that thought must be grounded on an opinion, that those bodies that were baptized, should be raised. Now this Ground the A­postle goes not about in the least to confute; but argues from their practice grounded on it to prove a resurrection: and to them doth [Page 105] it unanswerably. For if they thought their being baptized for others did conduce to the rising of those others, they must needs much more think that they that were baptized for themselves must be raised: now neither they that had been baptized by proxy, nor they that were baptized in their own persons, could possibly rise, if there were no resur­rection. So that their Practice was a con­firmation of the Apostles Doctrine.

§. 5. Now this effect Baptism hath on the Baptized, by making them partakers of the Resurrection of Christ. In respect whereof we are said by the Apostle to be risen with him in Baptism (Coloss. 2. 12.) whence Baptism is called by St. Basil [...], D. Basil. Exhort. ad Bapt. a power to the resurrection, and by Theodoret [...]., a par­ticipation of the Lords re­surrection. And well it may, inasmuch as by it we are made partakers of the Lords death. Whence we are said, (in the same place) to be buried with him in Baptism; and (Rom. 6. 3.) to be baptized into his death. And if we have been planted to­gether in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resur­rection, (Rom. 6. 5.) In contemplation [Page 106] whereof Greg. Nazianz. [...]. Gr. Naz. Orat. 40. An ignoratis, quod quicunque in Chri­stum tincti sumus, in mortem ejus tincti sumus: con­sepulti [...]rgo illi sumus per baptis­mum in mortem, ut quemadmodum sur­rexit Christus à mortuis, ita & nos in novitate vita incedamus. Ac ne de istâ tantum vitâ dictum putes, quae ex fide per ba­ptisma in novitate vivenda est, providentissimè ad­struit: Si enim complantati fuerimus simulacro mor­tis Christi, ita & resurrectionis crimus, Per [...]simula­crum enim morimur in baptismate, sed per veritatem resurgimus in carne, [...]icut & Christus, Tertull. de Resurrect. Carnis Edit Rigalt. p. 415. We re­ceive hereby a promise of resurrection unto life: though we by going into the water profess that we are willing to take up the cross and die for Christs sake; yet on Gods part this action of going into and coming out of the water again, did signifie that he would bring such persons to live again. See this and much more in Dr. Patrick's Discourse of Baptism, pag. 32, 33, &c. elegantly cries out, Let us then be buried together with Christ by baptism, that we may be also raised up with him; let us de­scend with him, that we may be also exalted with him; let us ascend with him, that we may also be glorified with him. And from this Sacramental con­formity of ours to Christ by baptism in his death, Tertullian argues a real conformity that we shall have with Christ in our flesh in his resurrection.

§. 6. Resurrection then, which is the hope of the living, and the comfort of the dying Chri­stian, Et tamen non u­tique carni defen­dimus Dei regnum, sed resurrectionem substantiae suae, quasi januam regni per quam aditur, Tertull. Advers. Marcion. l. 5. being, as Tertullian calls it, janua regni, that gate of the kingdom that lets us into the actuality of enjoyment of all those in­visible and incomprehensi­ble, immortal, and im­marcessible glories, which are laid up, and kept for us in heaven: and Baptism being that Ordinance of God, whereby he con­signes men unto a Resurrection; whereby they have a title given to it, and are put into a capacity for it, and a certainty of it, so they shall infallibly obtain it, if they do not through the default of their own Infide­lity or Apostasie fall from the grace of it, we cannot but think it highly beneficial to our children to be partakers of it. And that consideration of the Beneficialness of it even in that respect to them, should be a motive of weight and force with us, to perswade us to procure it for them.

CHAP. XV.

§. 1. TEnthly and lastly, by Baptism In­fants are saved.

§. 2. Salvation is such a thing, that whatsoever doth effect that, or is but in any measure conducible to the effecting of that, must needs be acknowledged beneficial to them that are saved. Besides God the great Saviour of all men, there are several things to which a saving efficacy is ascribed: as Faith, the Word of Faith, the Ministers of the Word, Prayer, and amongst the rest Baptism. Whence are we Christians? 'Tis a question that St. Basil asks. To which, saith he, [...], [...]. Basil. de Spir. Sancto, c. 10. any body will answer through faith. But how are we saved? Why, by being regenerated through the grace conferred in ba­ptism; or (as his words are well enough capable of being rendred) through grace by Baptism.

§. 3. Now this salvifick efficacy of Ba­ptism not for men, but infants also, might easily be inferred from the foregoing parti­culars: in as much as salvation consists but in the obtaining, and enjoying that mercy, Grace, and Glory, which Baptism qualifies them for, consigns, and intitles them to; and which they, upon due perseverance in the grace thereof, shall be made partakers of.

§. 4. But there is a nearer way to be taken than such a repetition of particulars. Our Church saith, It is certain by Gods word, that Children which are baptized, dying before they commit actual sin are un­doubtedly saved. Children dying before the commission of actual sin are capable of no other means of salvation but Baptism, and, that which is joyned with it, Prayer. There­fore by Baptism with the Prayer of Faith they are saved.

§. 5. But is this certain by the word of God? Yes surely, by good argument drawn from it. For baptisin being the ap­plication of the blood of Christ to the par­ty baptized for the taking away of that sin whereof he stands charged; and Infants be­ing chargeable with no sin but that sin of the world, which is taken away by the blood of the lamb of God applied to them in ba­ptism; [Page 110] it must follow, that being freed from that, they must be saved.

§. 6. But we will go to Scripture-Text it self for proof. Our Saviour hath said, (Mark. 16. 16.) He that believeth, and is baptized shall be saved. Here we have sal­vation promised upon two performances; the one by us, the other upon us: that by us is Faith; that upon us is Baptism. Now as he that hath both these, is certainly saved: so no doubt at all of his salvation, that hath but either of these, so it be not his fault that he hath not the other. And if our bapti­zed Infants have not the one, which is Faith, yet they have the other, which is Ba­ptism.

§. 7. Put case one believe, and be in no possibility of being baptized, who doubts now of his salvation? even just so, in case one be baptized, and be in no capacity to believe, there cannot reasonably be any doubt made of his being saved.

§. 8. Our Saviour wrought many sal­vations for their bodies, who by themselves had made no application to him in a way of prayer or faith, upon the faith and prayer of others. And what doubt but he is as ready to work salvation for the souls of our Infants, though in no capacity of applying themselves to him by prayer or faith, even [Page 111] upon the faith and prayer of those that bring them to baptism? Had Christ mercy only for bodies? Or hath he not it much more for souls? Or hath he mercy only for the souls of men? and not also for the souls of Infants? And who ever restrained the efficacy of Faith and Prayer in the use of Means to bodily salvation, that it cannot pre­vail also for the saving of souls? theirs espe­cially who as they can do nothing of them­selves to advance it, so they do nothing of themselves to hinder it. All possible proper means then being used for their salvation, which is their baptizing with the prayer of faith, there is no reason to doubt of their being saved. And therefore our Church having, after the recital of the Gospel ap­pointed on that occasion, which contains this order of Christs to suffer the little Children to come Doubt yo not therefore, but ear­nestly believe, that he will likewise favourably receive this present In­fant, that he will embrace him with the arms of his mercy, that he will give unto him the blessing of eternal life, and make him par­taker of his everlasting kingdom, Pub. Bap. of Infants. unto him, descanted a while on the good will of our Saviour to those chil­dren, proceeds from thence to exhort the bringers of the Infant unto Baptism, not to doubt of the salva­tion of it.

§. 9. But further, as our Saviour said, He that believeth, and is baptized shall be saved, so one of our Saviours Apostles said of him, that according to his mercy he saved us by the washing of regeneration, and re­newing of the Holy Ghost, (Tit. 3. 5.) that is by Christian Baptism, which consists of those two parts, the washing of Regenera­tion, and the renewing of the Holy Ghost. The words are a Merismus, a Rhetorical Figure of Speech, wherein instead of any Totum or whole thing, is set an enumera­tion of its parts. As when for the world, which God in the beginning did create, it is said, In the beginning God created the hea­ven and the earth, Gen. 1. 1. As the heaven and the earth, the two constituent integral parts of the world are put for the world there: so here the washing of regeneration, and the renewing of the Holy Ghost the two constituent integral parts of Christian Ba­ptism, are put for Baptism. Just as when our Saviour (John 3. 5.) said to Nicode­mus, Except a man be born of water and of the spirit he cannot enter into the king­dom of God, by naming the two constitu­ent integral parts of Baptism water and the spirit, he meant Christian Baptism, which consists of those two parts, without which in the ordinary way of salvation, as far as [Page 113] that is revealed unto us, and without tying God in extraordinary cases unto ordinary means, there is no entrance into the king­dom of God.

§. 10. And another of his Apostles doth positively and expresly say that Baptism doth now save us, (1 Pet. 3. 21.) Not that it hath any Physical vertue in it self in the way of a Natural Cause to effect our Salvation, but that it hath a saving efficacy for such end communicated unto it by God the Ordainer of it, who works the effect of it by the Co­operation of his Spirit with it, and that it doth exert its efficacy, and hath that effect, upon all such, as do not frustrate the grace of God bestowed on them, and wrought in them, in, and by it: which certainly our Children before the Commission of wilfull actual sin do not do. And what is said more than so, of Faith, or the Word, or Prayer, or any other Grace or Means, which we call saving?

§. 11. Nor let any here tell me, that the Apostle doth expresly deny this efficacy to that part of Baptism, which is the only part which Infants are capable of, namely the putting away the filth of the flesh, or the external washing with water.

§. 12. For first, (not in the least to al­low the external washing to be the only part [Page 114] of Baptism, which Infants are capable of; for who can tell in what manner the Holy Spirit can, or in what measures he doth insi­nuate himself, and communicate his grace, and exert his efficacies in very Infants? or who can deny any thing of all this to them!) the Apostle was a Jew; and wrote this Epistle to the Jews; and his meaning plainly is this, to deny (if he do deny any thing) the saving effi­cacy of that Baptism he speaks of, to any legal Jewish [...], Just. Mart. Diolog. cum Tryph. p. 231. Edit. Paris. 1615. [...], &c. D. Chry­sost. ad Illuminand. p. 854. l. 4. Tom. 6. Edit. Eton. [...]. Naz. Orat. 40. Baptism, all the efficacy whereof was the putting away the filth of the flesh, a ceremonial purgation from legal pol­lution, and to ascibe it unto the Evangelical Christian Baptism; which, from its being usually administred upon such Inquiry and An­swer, [Page 115] as was made by, or exacted of, such as in those days offered themselves unto Ba­ptism, who had no inducement to bring them to it, but the prompting of a good conscience, persecution for it being the only visible consequences of it, the Apostle ele­gantly calls (by a word that signifies both Inquiring and Answering) [...], the Inquiry or [...]. Greg. Naz. Orat. 40. p. 638. Dehinc ter mergitamur, amplius aliquid responden­tes, &c. Tertull. de Corona Mil. p. 121. Edit. Rig. Quae ideo dicitur interrogatio, quod sicut in contra­ctibus emens aut comparans sibi aliquid commodi cer­ta ratione ac formulis interrogat emptorem, ac stipu­latur ab eo quaerendo, An hoc aut illud mihi vendis ac tradis, & hac conditione ac precio, &c. cui con­tra venditor respondens affirmat: sic igitur etiam in Baptismo, cum Deus interrogando stipulatur ac obligat nos nostramque fidem & obedientiam, tum vicissim nos stipulando per fidem obligamus ejus pa­ternum favorem ac gratiam. Flac. Illirici Clavis. v. Baptismus. This form of interrogation seems to have been very ancient in the Church, and the A­postle justly thought to refer to it when he stiles Baptism the answer of a good Conscience towards God, &c. Dr. Cave Primit. Christian, part. 1. ch. 10. p. 315. Answer of a good conscience to­ward God: or the good consciences Question or Answer unto God.

§. 13. Secondly however, if what he saith were to be understood of the external washing with water in Baptism, yet his meaning is not to deny that saving efficacy he speaks of to that, but not to appropriate it unto that only; but to communicate it with that, whatever it be that he calls [...] whether Inquiry, or Answer of a good conscience towards God. When our Saviour said, My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me; John 7. 16. his meaning was not to say, that his doctrine was not his at all, but not h [...]s alone, but his Fathers also which sent him. So when he said, He that believeth on me, believeth not on me, but on him that sent me, John 12. 44. his meaning was not to deny that he that believed on him, did not believe on him: but to affirm, that he that did believe on him, did not believe on him only, but also on him that sent him. So the Apostles meaning here is not to deny, that the putting away the filth of the flesh doth save us (viz. in its order, degree, and measure) but that not that only, or alone doth save us; but that, together with the Answer of a good consci­ence towards God made by, or for the Ba­ptized.

§. 14. And now after all this, what need I, or what can I add more, that may set [Page 117] forth the Beneficialness of Baptism to those that are Baptized, whether Infants or O­thers. What greater benefit than Salvation? What more beneficial than that that saves? If then to baptize our children be a means to save our children (and indeed that with our faith and prayer be all the means we can use in order to their saving) how should not the consideration hereof, if we desire (as how can we but desire?) they should be saved, move us to baptize them? Yea, how shall we free our selves from the accu­sation of great uncharitableness, that I say not injustice, towards the offspring of our own bowels, if we may have, and do despise, or neglect the procuring for them this so be­ficial a means of their salvation?

And thus I have dispatcht the first Branch of my Argument: and have shewn you, that Infants may have Benefit by Baptism, and what is the Benefit that they may have by it.

CHAP. XVI.

§. 1. I Now go on to the Second, the Need which Children have for Baptism. And in the shewing of that I will begin with that, which Children have with them at their beginning, and is derived to them from their beginning, and that is, as it is u­sually called, Original Sin. And if it do appear, that Children are born infected with that Epidemical Malady of Original Sin; and that Baptism is a Means (the only ordinary Instrumental Means) by which they may be healed of that Malady, then certainly it will not by any reasonable man be denied, that Infants do stand in need of Baptism: unless haply it can be supposed, what yet is utterly unsupposeable, that one that is sick of a disease, whereof he will die without cure, hath no need of that Phy­sick which is the only remedy by which he may be cured. We will first see what ver­tue there is in this Physick for the healing of that Malady; and then see how Children are infected with that Malady, that is to be healed with this Physick.

§. 2. Now for the first what healing vertue there is in Baptism, by the Institution of its Ordainer, for the taking away of sin and In Sacramentis no­vae legis, quae deri­vantur à Christo gratia causatur in­strumentaliter qui­dem per ipsa sa­cramenta, sed prin­cipaliter per virtutem Spiritus Sancti in Sacramentis operantis, Aquin. 12dae. q. 112. 1. Sacramenta ex sui institutione habent quod conferant gratiam, Aquin. 3. q. 66. 2. Conclus. Baptismus autem ab ipso Christo virtutem habet justificandi, Id. ib. 1. ^m. guilt, I will give you an account of it, both from the Scriptures, and from the Fathers.

§. 3. I begin with the Scriptures. And the first I take notice of to this purpose is that exhortation of St. Peter to the con­verted Jews, (Acts 2. 38.) where he speaks unto them to repent and be baptized every one of them in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission (that is, the forgiveness) of sins. From whence it is clear, that Ba­ptism is a Sacrament, whereby Christ be­stoweth and conveyeth remission of sins to those that are baptized. For else, why should he exhort them to be baptized for that end? Why should he exhort them to be baptized for remission of sins, if remis­sion of sins were not given in and by Ba­ptism?

§. 4. And of so known an efficacy to this purpose was Baptism in the Apostles days, that Ananias (Acts 22. 16.) ha­stens Saul upon his conversion to be bapti­zed for this end. And now (saith he) why tarriest thou? Arise and be baptized, and wash away thy sins calling on the name of the Lord. Be baptized and wash away thy sins, that is, in order to the cleansing thee from thy sins use the means which God hath ordained for that end, be baptized.

§. 5. And hence sure it is, and as having an apprehension, not to say experience, which every body must needs know St. Paul had of the vertue and efficacy of Baptismal washing towards this cleansing, that chosen vessel tells us (Ephes. 5. 25, 26.) that Christ gave himself for the Church, that he might sanctifie and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word. By cleansing the grace of Justification is understood (1 John 2. 7.) where the blood of Jesus is said to cleanse us from all sin, that is, to ju­stifie us, to purchase for us, and procure to us the pardon of our sins. And so un­questionably it here signifies: especially being set in contradistinction to sanctifica­tion; and more so in the Original than in the Translation, which is, not, that he might sanctifie and cleanse it: but that [Page 121] he might sanctifi it, having cleansed it: that is, that having forgiven its sins by the grace of justification, he might render it holy by the grace of sanctification, the one as well as the other being applied, conveyed, or communicated to it [...] by the washing of water with the word, that is by Baptism, Mundatum lava­cro, hoc est baptis­mate. Theophy­lact. Oecumen. the washing here spoken of. Now this, the clean­sing, that is the remitting or taking off the guilt of sin from the Church being here by the Apostle ascribed unto Baptism, and that as the Instrument used by Christ for that end, who is there­fore said to cleanse the Church by that wash­ing, it is evident that by Baptism, as by an Instrument ordained and used by Christ for that end, the Grace of justification is conveyed and communicated to the party baptized. Thus the Scriptures of God say.

§. 6. And thus say the Fathers of the Church also. St. Chrysost. saith Divinae autem gratiae lavacrum non corporis, sed animae maculam, sordesque [...]munda­re consuevit. D. Chrysost. Hom. ad Baptizandos., It is the use of the Laver of the divine grace to cleanse the spots and filth not of the body, but of the soul. And that they are perfectly purged from sins, who are baptized. [Page 122] Theophylact saith [...], &c. Theo­phyl. in John 5. 4., that though the water of ba­ptism [...]. Chr. Hom. 40. in Act. be simply water, yet when the grace of the Holy Ghost comes thereto, through calling upon God, it looses the diseases of the soul. And these we know are sins and corruptions. St. Cyprian, speaking of his own baptism Scis ipse profe­cto & mecum pa­riter recognoscis, quid detraxerit nobis, quidve con­tulerit, mors ista criminum, vita virtutum, D. Cy­prian, l. 2. Ep. 2., calls it that death of sins, and life of vertues. Baptism is the Death of sins by the Grace of Justification, and the Life of vertues by the Grace of Sanctification. We are washed, saith Lavamur igitur in Baptismo, quia deletur chirogra­phum damnatio­nis nostrae, & gra­tia haec nobis con­fertur nè nobis jam concupiscen­tia noceat, si ta­men à consensu abstineamus. D. Bern. Serm. 1. in Coen. Dom. St. Bernard, in Baptism, be­cause therein the handwri­ting of our damnation is blotted out, [that is, our sin is pardoned,] and this grace is given us not to be hurt of concupiscence un­less we consent unto it. St. Augustin Quam causam si voluerimus ad­mittere, eo usque progressu proveniet, ut hortandi sint homines, tum potius se interimere, cum lava­cro sanctae regenerationis abluti universorum re­missionem acceperint peccatorum. D. Aug. de Civ. Dei, l. 1. c. 27. Quod utique si fecissent [sc. ut Christum negarent] etiam hoc eis in illo lavacro dimitteretur, quod timore mortis negaverint Chri­stum; in quo lavacro etiam illis facinus tam im­mane dimissum est, qui occiderant Christum, Id. ib. l. 13. c. 7. tells us, that if that be admitted, which some contend for, that it were ones advantage to kill himself to pre­vent [Page 123] his falling into sin through pleasure or grief, it would come to this, that men were to be exhorted, then above all other times to kill themselves, when being washed in the laver of holy regeneration they had received remission of all sins. In which laver he saith, that sin, even that great sin of killing Christ himself was remit­ted. Hence Juvencus calls the waters of Baptism Pergite & ablutos homines purganti­bus undis Nomine sub sancto Patris, Natique la­vate, &c. Javenc. purging waters: and La­ctantius Cum primùm caepit ado­lescere, tinctus est [sc. Christus] à Johanne Pro­pheta in Jordane flumine, ut lavacro spiritali pec­cata, non sua, quae utique nulla habebat, sed carnis, quam gerebat, aboleret: ut quemadmodum Ju­daeos suscepta circumcisione, sic etiam Gentes ba­ptismo, id est purifici roris perfusione salvaret. Lactant. Instit. l. 4. c. 15. calls the act of baptizing the pouring on of the purifying dew; which by the way is a good instance of baptizing by way of persusion or pouring on of water, so early as within three hun­dred years of Christs time.

§. 7. These instances, not to tire you with more sayings, either of the same, or other Fathers to this purpose, are enough to secure you of the Catholickness of this Doctrine, which being found in, and foun­ded on the Scriptures, hath been generally held by all Orthodox Writers. And there­fore, having shewn you, what efficacy there is in Baptism for the taking away of sin from the Baptized. I shall now proceed to shew, that Infants are under the guilt of sin.

§. 8. Only by the way let me observe, that the Scriptures and Fathers, which I have alledged, do not speak restrictively, either as to the sins remitted in baptism, but so as extending the remitting efficacy thereof unto all sin, Original, as well as A­ctual: or as to the Persons whose sins are in baptism remitted, but so as comprehend­ing all Persons, to whomsoever sin may be imputed, whether Men or Infants.

CHAP. XVII.

§. 1. NOw as to the Point of Infants be­ing under the guilt of sin, this also, as the former, I shall shew, first from the Scriptures, and then from the Fathers.

§. 2. The Scriptures that speak to the Point are many. Amongst them that of St. Paul (Rom. 5. 12.) is very notable. By one man sin entred into the world, and death by sin, and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned. The one man here mentioned is the Father of all mankind, Adam. The World into which sin entred by this one man is mankind: so then, if In­fants be any part of mankind, any of the natural descendents from Adam, then by Adam hath Omnes enim unus fuerunt, D. Aug. 7 Serm. de Verb. Apost. Ecce pri­mus homo totam massam damnabi­lem facit, Id. ib. sin entred on, and passed through even to them: they through the imputa­tion of his fault are con­cerned in his guilt, as ha­ving all been in him, when he sinned. A­gain, ver. 14. it is said, Death reigned [Page 126] from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adams transgression, that is, (who can it be else but?) Infants, who die, not upon the ac­count of any actual sin of their own, but upon the account of Adams first sin. Again, ver. 15. Through the offence of one many be dead. Many? [...], the many, i. e. even all. Again, by the offence of one, i. e. Adam, judgment, i. e. a sentence, came upon all men, and so on Infants, to condemnation. Again, ver. 19. By one mans disobedience many [ [...], the many, i. e. even all] were made sinners: and so Infants, being no way excepted, are included; the sin of their first father being by imputation made theirs, and they accounted of as having sinned in him.

§. 3. And unless all had sinned in Adam, what account of it can be given that all should die in Adam? 1 Cor. 15. 22. If Infants partake not in Adams fault, why should they partake in Adams Quod si nullum es­set [sc. primi pecca­ti originale conta­gium] profecto nul­li malo parvuli ob­stricti nihil mali vel in corpore vel in anima sub tan­ta justi. Dei potestate paterentur. D. Aug. Cont. Julian. Pelag. l 3. c. 5. punishment? Why should they have paid unto them the wages of sin, who were no way concerned in the work of sin?

§. 4. And if all Infants be not conceived in sin, how then came David to be so con­ceived? was it only his particular mishap to be born under the guilt of his forefathers sin? Or rather is it not the common condi­tion of all mere men that are born into the world?

§. 5. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, John 3. 6. that is, such flesh as that is that it was born of; sinful flesh of flesh that is sinful; as that was of which we were all born: it being in his own likeness, not in the likeness Fatendum est pri­mos quidem homi­nes ita fuisse insti­tutos, ut si non peccavissent, nul­lum mortis experi­rentur genus: sed eosdem primos pa­rentes ita fuisse morte mulctatos, ut etiam quicquid eo­rum stirpe esset ex­ortum, eâdem poenâ teneretur obnoxium. Non enim aliud ex eis, quam quod ipsi fuerant nasceretur: pro magnitudine quippe culpae illius naturam damnatio mutavit in pejus: ut quod poenaliter praecessit in pec­cantibus hominibus primis etiam naturaliter sequere­tur in nascentibus c [...]teris.—Quod est autem parens homo, hoc est proles homo.—Et quod homo factus est, non cum crearetur, sed cum peccaret, & puniretur, hoc genuit, quantum quidem attinet ad peccati & mortis originem, &c. D. Aug. de Civ. Dei, l. 13. c. 3. of God, that our first father begot us; in his own like­ness as vitiated and defiled by his transgression; not in Gods likeness, the spot­less purity, and unstained integrity of his first crea­tion.

§. 6. And if there be not one, that can bring a clean thing out of an unclean, (Job 14. 4.) how then can man be justified with God? or how can he be clean, that is born of a woman? Job 25. 4.

§. 7. So then we must conclude with that of the Apostle (Rom. 3. 13) that all have sinned [all, young and old; Fathers and Children; Adam and his Posterity; He in himself, his Posterity in him; he actually, they Originally, nay and actually too, if living till capable of adding sin unto sin, actual to original] and so are come short of the glory of God, not only of that glory to which God had ordain'd us, the glory of happiness, but also of that glory in which he did create us, the glory of holiness.

§. 8. And thus you see, that, (as the Apostle saith, Gal. 3. 22.) the Scripture hath concluded all under sin, Infants them­selves not excepted; who dying before the commission of actual sin, would have had no need Nam quis [...] dicere, non esse Christum Infantum salvatorem, nec re­demptorem? Unde autem salvos facit, si nulla in cis est originalis aegri­tudo peccati? D. Aug. de pecc. merit. & remiss. l. 1. c. 23. Quid necessarium habuit Infans Christum, si non aegrotat? D. Aug. Serm. 10. de Verb. Apost. of Christ to save them, were they not under the guilt of so much sin as might condemn them.

§. 9. Thus speak the Scriptures to the Point: let us now again see what the Fa­thers say to it.

§. 10. Primasius saith, Cum peccato con­cipimur, cum pec­cato nascimur, Pri­mas. in Heb. 4. 15. With sin we are concei­ved, and with sin we are born. St. Ambrose saith (and cites Psal. 51. 5. to prove it) Omnes homines sub peccato nasci­mur, quorum ipse ortus in vitio est, D. Amb. de Poenit. l. 1. c. 11. that all men are born in sin, and our very birth is in fault. Chryso­logus saith, Per peccatum pri­mi hominis natura lethale vulnus ac­cepi [...], & caepit esse origo mortis, quae erat initium vitae, Petr. Chrysolog. Serm. 143. Nature got a deadly wound by the sin of the first man, and that began to be the original of death, which was the be­ginning of life. St. Cy­prian saith Prohiberi [à baptismo] non de­bet infans, qui re­cons natus nil peccavit, nisi quod secundum Adam carnaliter natus, contagium mortis antiquae prima na­tivitate contraxit, D. Cyprian. l. 3. Ep. 8., The Infant ought not to be denied ba­ptism who being new born, hath no way sinned, but that it hath contracted the contagion of the old death by its first birth, that is, is guilty of Original sin. St. Gregory saith Quia à statū re­ctitudinis primus ho­mo peccando corru­it, peccati poenam ad filios misit, D. Greg. in Psal. 51. 5. Peccatum quippe originale à paren­tibus trahimus, & nisi per gratiam baptismatis solva­mur, etiam paren­tum peccata porta­mus, quia unum adhuc cum illis su­mus.—ex origina­li peccato anima polluitur prolis, D. Greg. Expos. in c. 21 Job. l. 15. c 31., Because the first man fell by sinning from his state of Integrity, he derived the punishment of his sin upon his children. [Page 130] St. Bernard saith Dixi saepius vobis, nec mente excidere debet, quoniam in casu primi hominis cecidimus omnes, &c. D. Bern. Serm. in Coen. Dom. de Bapt. & de Sa­cram. Altar. & de Ablut. Pedum. A planta pedis usque ad verticem, non e­rat in nobis sanitas: erraveramus ab u­tero: in utero dam­nati antequā nati, quia de peccato & in peccato concepti, D. Bern. Serm. 2. in die Pentecostes., In the fall of the first man we all fell, and thereupon were damn'd ere born, because conceived of and in sin. St. Augustin Nos certe cau­sam, cur sub dia­bolo sit qui nasci­tur, donec renas­catur in Christo, peccati ex origine dicimus esse conta­gium, D. Aug. contr. Julian. Pelag. l. 3. c. 5. saith, Why he that is born should be under the power of the De­vil, till he be new born in Christ (i. e. baptized) the cause, we say, is the con­tagion of sin by his birth, that is Original sin. Ter­tullian Ita omnis ani­ma co usque in Adam censetur donec in Christo re­nascatur; tamdiu immunda, quamdiu recenseatur. Peccatrix autem quia immunda recipiens ignominiam ex carnis societate, Tertull. de Anima, c. 39. reckons every soul to be so long in Adam, as till it be enrolled in Christ; and so long defiled, as it is unenrolled; contracting the sully of sin from its society with the flesh. Athanasius saith [...], D. Athan. cont. Arianos, Orat. 10., when Adam trans­gressed, his transgression passed unto all men. Origen Sciebant enim illi, quibus mysteriorum secreta com­missa sunt divinorum quia essent in omnibus genuinae sordes peccati, quae per aquam & spiritum ablui de­berent, Origen. l. 5. in Rom. & Hom. 14. in Luc. speaks of it as a thing known to those, whom the secrets of the divine Myste­ries were committed to, that there are in all the ge­nuine pollutions of sin, which ought to be washed [Page 131] away by water and the spirit; and himself affirms, that there is none clean from pollu­tion, no, if he be but of a days age. Gratian Firmissime tene, & nullatenus dubites omnem ho­minem, qui per concubitum viri & mulicris conci­pitur, cum originali peccato nasci impietati subdi­tum, mortique subjectum, &c. Gratian. de Conse­crat. Distinct. 4. bids believe it firmly, and doubt not in the least of it, that whosoever is conceived by the concumbency of man and woman, is born with Original sin, &c. Yea, Vincentius Lirinensis asks Quis ante prodigiosum discipu­lum e [...]us Coelestium reatu praevaritationis Adae omne genus humanum negavit astrictum? Vinc. Lirinens. advers. Hares. c. 34., who e­ver before Caelestius the prodigious Disciple of Pe­lagius denied, that all man­kind was bound under the guilt of Adams transgres­sion?

§. 11. And if all mankind be bound under it, then Infants sure, no small part of mankind, are not free from it. No, not they, nor any else are free, in the judgment of the Fathers, but all guilty, Jesus Christ alone excepted: whom God sent, not in sinful Solus per omnia ex natis de foemina Sanctus Dominus Jesus, qui terrenae contagia corrupte­lae immaculati par­tûs novitate non senserit, & coelesti majestate depulerit. D. Ambros. Com. in 2 Luc. Profect [...]o peccatum etiam major fecisset [sc. Christus] si parvulus habuisset. Nam propterea nullus est ho­minum praeter ipsum, qui peccatum non fecerit, gran­dioris aetatis accessu: quia nullus est hominum praeter ipsum, qui peccatum non habuerit infantilis aetatis exortu. D. Aug. contr. Julian. Pelag. l. 5. c. 9. Sine quo generalis velamine confusionis nemo filiorum ho­minum intravit in hanc vitam, uno sane excepto qui ingreditur sine maculâ. Emanuel is est. D. Bern. super Cantic. Serm. 78. Solus enim Deus sine pec­cato, & solus homo sine peccato Christus, quia & Deus Christus, Tertull. de Animâ. flesh, but only in the like­ness of it, Rom. 8. 3. and who thence is called [...] the thing born holy, holy in its very birth, Luk. 1. 35.

§. 12. Children then having so great a Malady upon them as Original sin is; and Baptism being that Remedy, yea the onely ordinary one by which they may be freed For if there be no Salvation for Infants in the or­dinary way of the Church, but by Baptism, and this appear in Scripture, as it doth, then out of all doubt the consequence is most evident out of that Scripture That Infants are to be baptized, that their Salvation may be certain. For they which cannot help themselves, must not be left onely to extraor­dinary Helps, of which we have no assurance, and for which we have no warrant at all in Scripture, while we in the mean time neglect the ordinary way, and means commanded by Christ. A. B. Laud. Confer. §. 15. Num. 4. from this Malady; how can it then be, but that Children must have need of Baptism?

§. 13. And truly with the Ancient Christians this consideration was of very great weight and force. Upon this account to be sure, what ever they did upon other accounts, they baptized their Infants. Why, saith Critobolus the Pelagian are Infants baptized? St. Hierom Quare infantuli baptizantur? Ut eis peccata in ba­ptismate dimittan­tur, D. Hier. Ep. 17. Tract. 2. par. 1. answers, that their sins may be remitted unto them in Baptism. So Origen Per baptismum nativitatis sordes deponuntur, pro­pterea baptizantur & parvuli, Orig. Hom. 14. in Levit., By baptism the filth of our birth is taken away, there­fore are even Children al­so baptized. And saith St. Chrysostom Praedicat Eccle­sia Catholica ubi­que diffasa debere parvulos baptizari propter Originale peccatum, D. Chry­sost. Hom de A­dam & Eva., It is a thing which the whole Catholick Church every where diffused doth preach, namely that Infants ought to be baptized because of Original Sin. But what [Page 134] stand I upon the testimony of single Do­ctors, when we have it from a Council, that upon the account of that Rule of Faith, as the Fathers in the Milevitane Council Item placuit ut quicunque parvu­los recentes ab u­teris matrum ba­ptizandos negat, aut dicii in remis­sionem quidem pec­catorum eos baptizari, sed nihil ex Adam trahere ori­ginalis peccati, quod regenerationis lavaero expietur, unde sit consequens ut in cis forma baptismatis in re­missionem peccatorum non vera sed falsa intelligatur, anathema sit; quoniam non aliter intelligendum est, quod ait Apostolus, Per unum hominem peccatum in­travit in mundum, & per peccatum mors, & ita in omnes homines pertransit, in quo omnes peccave­runt: nisi quemadmodum Ecclesia Cathelica ubique diffusa semper intellexit. Propter hanc enim regu­lam fidei, etiam parvuli, qui nihil peccatorum in semetipsis adhuc committore potuerunt, ideo in pec­catorum remissionem veraciter baptizantur, ut in cis regeneratione mundetur, quod generatione traxe­runt, Concil. Milevitan. Canon. 2. apud Caranz. call that Text of the Apostles (Rom. 5. 12.) By one man sin entred into the world, &c. un­derstood, as they say the Catholick Church of Christ every where diffused did always understand it, of Original sin, are Infants, which could as yet commit no sin of them­selves, truly baptized into the remission of sins, that that may be cleansed in them by Regeneration, which they have drawn upon themselves by Generation. And therefore St. Augu­stine saith Non est superfluus baptismus parvuloram, ut qui per generationem illi condemnationi obligati sunt, per regenerationem ab eadem liberentur. D. Aug. Ep. 89., The baptism of Infants is not superflu­ous [and then sure there is some need of it] that they who by generation are obliged to that con­demnation, which came by Adam, may by Rege­neration be freed from the same.

§. 14. Unless then we will say with the Pelagian Hereticks, that children have not in them the Malady of sin; or will contra­dict our Saviour, and say, that the sick have no need of a Physician, that is of a remedy for their malady; or will not allow Ba­ptism to avail towards remission of Sin, con­trary to the Scripture and the Fathers, I say, unless we will run upon some or all of these absurdities, we must needs grant, that In­fants have need of being baptized, and so ought, upon the account of that need, to be admitted unto Baptism.

CHAP. XVIII.

§. 1. ANd truly he that rightly under­stands the nature of the Malady, will never dispute the need of a Remedy. Why? what's the matter? What so great evil is there in Original sin, or comes by it to those in whom it is, that there should be such need of baptizing our children to dis­engage them from it? What? why let our Church speak to this in her Ninth Article, and she will tell you, that it is the fault, and the cor­ruption Vitium est depra­vatio naturae cuju­s [...]ibet hominis ex Adamo naturali­ter propagati, Art. 9. of the nature of every man that naturally is engendred of the of­spring of Adam.

§. 2. So then, by her doctrine, there is a fault chargeable on, and a corruption diffused in, every one, till he be freed therefrom by Baptism: every natural de­scendent from Adam is guilty of a fault, even of that first fault, whereby man fell from his innocency and happiness (from the [Page 137] happiness of his innocency) and so is liable to the curse of God; and he is also depra­ved and corrupted in his nature, vitiated with irrectitude and deficiency in the very principles of his composition.

§. 3. Now by this means, as our Church saith, it comes to pass that man is far gone from original righteous­ness; far departed from Ab originali ju­stitia longissime distet. ib. that righteousness, which he was created in, when his mind, and will, and affections, and actions were all agreeable to the will of God; also that he is enclined unto e­vil even of his own na­ture; Ad malum naturâ suâ propendoat, ib. prone and forward to it even by the ge­nuine bent and proper sway of his own na­tural inclination; and also, that his flesh is ever lusting against the spirit, refusing, resisting, Caro semper adver­sus spiritum concu­piscat. ib. and rebelling against the suggestions, motions, and dictates of it.

§ 4. Now the Consequent hereof is, that in every person born into the world i [...] deserveth In unoquoque na­scentium iram Dei atque damnationem meretur, ib. Gods wrath and indigna­tion; exposing every man to the curse of God, and [Page 138] rendring him liable unto Firmissimè tene non solum homines ratione utentes, ve­rum etiaem parvulos, qui—sine Sacramento baptis­mi—de hoc seculo transeunt, sempiterno igne pa­niendos: quia [...] peccatum propriae actionis nullum habent, originalis tamen peccati damnationem carnali conceptione ex nativitate traxerunt Gratian. de Con­secrat. dist. 4. eternal damnation.

§. 5. And well may this be, when (First) the Guilt of this fault is such as to oblige all men to death. Death (saith the Apostle) passed upon all men, for that all have sinned, (Rom. 5 12.) viz. in Adam, in whom all were at his sinning. Whence we are even by nature children of wrath; (Ephes. 2. 3.) under a judgment (or sen­tence) unto condemnation, (Rom. 5. 18.) as being made sinners by our first fathers dis­obedience, (Rom. 5. 19.)

§. 6. And secondly, when the cor­ruption of our Nature, the evil conse­quent of that first sin is such, that it is a law in our members warring against the law of our mind, and bringing us into captivity [...] to that law of sin which is in our members, (Rom. 7. 23.) So that when we [...], adja­cet. Hier. would do good, evil is pre­sent with us, (at hand as [Page 139] it were, ready for us, to be done by us) Rom. 7. 21. and every imagination of the thoughts of our hearts is onely evil continually; ac­cording to that representation which is given of mans depraved disposition, by him that the best knew what was in man, Gen. 6. 5. And when the mind is car­nal, and so inimicitious as Rom. 8. 6, 7, 8. to be even enmity against God, to such a height and degree, that it neither is, nor can be brought to be subject to the law of God, then they that are in the flesh cannot please God; and then no mar­vel if that carnality of their mind be in the consequent of it death to them. That any man is tempted so far as to be an actor in evil, and [...], Jam. 1. 14. every man is so, it is from his being drawn away (e­ven haled out) of his own lust, the innate corruption of his carnal affection; and however if not violently forced, yet at least cunningly en­ticed, and allured away, with some bewitch­ing bait presented to him with all the best advantages, and under the most winning cir­cumstances by it. Now when once the teeming womb of lust hath [...], ib. v. [...]5. [Page 140] conceived, and is become impregnated, it will not be long ere it bring forth, and make it self the mother of sin: and that, the right daughter of such a mother, presently be­comes bigbellied too, and brings forth death, James 1. 14, 15.

§. 7. Now what can any man stand more in need to be freed from, than such a Guilt upon his Person, as obligeth him unto death? than such a Corruption of his Na­ture, as inclineth him unto all those evils that deserve and bring upon him damna­tion?

§. 8. If Children were not under that Guilt, or had not in them this Corruption, then indeed in these respects Baptism were not needfull for them. But for as much as every age, (as Omnis aetas pec­cato obnoxia, ideo omnis aetas Sacra­mento idonea, D. Amb. de Abrah. Patr. l. 2. c. 11. St. Am­brose saith) is obnoxious to sin, inclinable to the commission, and liable to the punishment of it, there­fore it is that [...], D. Basil. Ex­hort. ad Bapt. every age (infancy and all) is pro­per for, and hath this Sa­crament administred to it. Yea, and it hath a need of it: (for there is a need to be baptized, as there was a need to be cir­cumcized; else why did John the Baptist [Page 141] say to Christ, that he had need to be baptized of him) and a need to be baptized, is more than a fitness for, or a capableness of ba­ptism. Yea, for as much as there is no time of mans life free from fault, as the same St. Ambrose saith, there being deficiencies in our Nullum tempus vi­tae culpa vacuum, ergo nullum tempus vacuum debet esse tutclae. Id. ib. compleatest performances, irregularities in our most regular actings, aversion from God in our first movings, therefore no time of our life ought to be without that guard from sin and temptation, which is by this Sacrament communicated in the grace of it to the party baptized. Hence that of Greg. Nazianz. If thou hast an Infant, let not iniquity get time [nor [...], Gr. Nazianz. Orat. 40. Ideo vivus oportet etiam infans ba­ptizetur, ne obsit animae societas car­nis peccati, quae participatâ fit ut nihil possit anima infantis secundum Spiritum sapere. D. Aug. de Ge­nes. ad Lit. l. 10 c. 14. A quo [Sa­cramento, sc. Ba­ptismo] nisi adju­tus etiam juvenis carnalem concupi­scentiam non do­mabit, Id. ib. Hoc [sc. intelligere] quandi [...] non potest, valebit Sacramen­tum ad ejus tute­lam adversus contrarias potestates. D. Aug. Ep. 23. Bonifacio. strength by that] let it be sanctified in its intancy, let it in its tender age be con­secrated to [or by] the spirit. And that of St. Aug. Therefore ought the lively infant to be baptized, lest the fellowship of sinful flesh be a prejudice to the soul of the Infant, hindring it from favouring any thing according to the Spirit. [Page 142] And, that, without the help of that Sacrament carnal concupiscence will be too strong to be tamed by him in his youth. And that, till he come to understanding, the Sacrament, (that is the power and strength of the Grace communicated by it) will be able to defend it against the contrary pow­ers.

§. 9. What a cruelty then is it, consi­dering these things, in those Parents towards the fruit of their own bodies, that suffer their little children to live in a sinful, and die in a damnable estate, not doing what in them lies, and God has put into their power to free them from the guilt of that sin, and deliver them from the power of that corru­ption, that they were born with. Is not the damnation of their Persons a thing to be feared? Is not the corruption of their Na­tures a thing to be lamented? Is not a rescue from the one, and a remedy against the o­ther, a thing to be desired? O how can they find in their hearts to let them live under [Page 143] the tyranny of a rampant corruption, and let them die under an obligation to an eternal damnation! Surely if they had not lost even humanity in the midst of their boasts of high Christianity, they would have com­passion for their tender ones, and let them have that relief against their Guilt, and that remedy against their Corruption, which God, who sees their need, in his pity to them, has ordain'd and provided for them.

CHAP. XIX.

§. 1. TO talk of what God in his extra­ordinary grace can (and it may be hoped will) do for Infants dying unbapti­zed is a vain story. For though God can do all he wills, yet it fol­lows not that he will do all We hold the same Necessity of Baptism, that the Fathers held, which is viâ ordi­nariâ: yet non al­tigando gratiam Dei ad media, no more than the Schoolmen do. B. Andrews Answ. to Perron. he can. And though he hath not tied himself to means, yet he hath tied us. And though to expect the end, when we have desired, and sought the means, but cannot have it, may be an act of hope, yet when we may have the means, and do despise it, or neglect, still to hope the end cannot but be an act of presumption.

§. 2. And it may be that God, having in his word declared the guilt that lies upon all, hath said nothing as to the case of In­fants dying unbaptized, on purpose the more [Page 145] strongly to oblige parents Non autem latet quantum cordibus fidelium desidiae gigneretur, si in ba­ptizandis parvulis nihil de cujusquam negligentiae, nihil de ipsorum esset mortalitate metu­endum, D. Ambr. de Voc. Gent. l. 2. c. 8. to baptize their children for the taking off that guilt from them; since their own reason will tell them, that in a case of doubtful­ness it is wisdom to take the surer side (as the ba­ptizing of them in this case must needs be) not know­ing by what sudden providence they may be taken away unbaptized, if the baptizing of them be neglected.

§. 3. And be it that God in his extraordinary grace may save them, which yet is more then any can positively say (and there have been some, & they no mean ones, that have thought the contrary; and however, that if they did escape the torments of the damned, yet they did not partake of the enjoyments of the blessed) yet sure it is safer, and much more prudent, to take a way that is revealed for their salva­tion, Nisi enim quis na­tus fuerit ex aqua & spiritu sancto non potest introire in regnum Dei. U­tique nullum exci­pit, non infantem, non aliqua praeven­tum [...] necessitate, D. Ambr. de Abrah. Patriarch. l. 2. c. 11. Neque credi fas est eos qui regenerationis non adepti sunt Sa­cramentum ad ullum beatorum pertineri consortium, D. Ambr. de Vocat. Gent. l. 2. c. 8. Sanè infan­tes quia hanc prohibente aetate non possunt habere fi­dem, hoc est cordis ad Deum conversionem, conse­quenter nec salutem, si absque baptismi perceptione moriuntur, D. Bern. Ep. 77. ad Hug. de S. Victore. [...] [i. e. non baptizatos infantes] [...]—Gr. Nazi­anz. Orat. 40. [...]. Just. Mart. Qu. & Resp. ad Orthod. q. 56. [...]. D. Athanas. q. 1. 4. ad Antio­chum. than to venture their salvation on an unrevealed way; and whilest we neg­lect the ordinary means, to expect the [...]r being saved by extraordinary grace.

§. 4. Did I say neglect the means? I doubt I should rather have said contemn the means. For how in this case to distinguish between the neglect and the contempt passes my understanding: especially when I find the use of it both in word and writing look'd upon as ridiculous, and accordingly derided and contemned by neglecters of it; who may very well go to hell for their contempt of the means, though their children suffer nothing for the want of it: God being more merciful to their children than themselves are, and not suffering the children to perish through their parents neglect. Which yet [Page 147] methinks, they should have little hope of, when they remember, how in the time of Circumcision the parallel to baptism, the manchild was to suffer excision, cutting off from his people, that is from the Church of God, and that as being a breaker of Gods Covenant, who was not at eight days old circumcised, Gen. 17. 14. who yet might be as little guilty of his Parents fault in neg­lecting to circumcise him, as ours can be of any neglect of ours to baptize them. For what could a Jews child do at eight days old towards his own circumcision, more than the child of a Christian can at the same age do towards his baptism? I suppose the severity then threatned to the child, was designed chiefly to oblige the parent. And doubt­less it would have been a great punishment to the parent to have his child through his neglect cut off from the communion with the Church, and from the means of grace, and from the hope of glory, if not forthwith from life it self: and no less would it be to us to have our children undone for ever through our neglect. O how must it not needs make our own hell the more hot, to find our unbaptized children there, if through our neglect of the means ordain'd by God to preserve them from thence, they should go thither? as, who is infallibly ascertain'd that they shall not?

§. 5. And however it may prove at last, that our children be saved, though they die unbaptized, yet since we have no assu­rance of that, but rather some reason to fear the contrary, we shall be guilty of their un­doing and damning, though they be saved, since as to what was to our selves, we let them be undone and damned.

§. 6. I will evidence this by a parallel case. There is said to be a thing called an Extasie or Trance, into which people do often fall, sometimes involuntarily, and sometimes at their own will; whereof Bodinus Bodin. Theatrum Naturae, lib. 4. gives several instances. Now all the time that one is in an Extasie he seems to be no other but dead, no sense, no mo­tion either of pulse or heart being perceiva­ble in him. Whereupon some have been carried forth to burial as dead, who yet were not indeed dead, but in an extasie, and have revived at, or after their burial; and one instance hereof is given in that famous Scho­lar Joha [...]nes Duns Scotus, who was buried in an extasie, and revived after burial, though killed after his reviving by his strugling in his coffin for life. Now whilest one is in an Extasie he is not sensible of any woundings, burnings, or tearings, so that some of those things, that would at other times take away [Page 149] life, do not kill, such as drowning or hang­ing. An instance of the latter whereof hap­pened not many years ago at Oxford, in a Maid recovered to life af­ter hanging, and some o­ther A particular ac­count whereof was given in a Narra­tive set forth at that time. violences used to her for her dispatch after her cutting down. Now put case a man is in danger of death by hanging or drowning, and I may, if I will preserve him from either; (in which case that act of charity becomes my duty) if I do not my duty to preserve him, I shall be guilty of destroying him, even though it please God in that instant (as I have read it hath happened in both these cases) to cast him into an Extasie, and pre­serve him. He might have been hanged or drowned to death for me, who would do nothing, when I might have done some­thing (and ought to have done any thing, that reasonably I could) to have saved him; and so I am guilty even of his death, that did not die: just as Esther should have been of the Jews destruction, had she not done what she could to preserve them, though they had not been destroyed, but inlarge­ment and deliverance had arisen to them from another place, (Esther 4. 14.) And just so, it being in our power to use a means [Page 150] for the preserving of our children from damnation, if we neglect it, we shall be guilty of their damning, though they be not damned. Because though it were Gods mercy they should be saved, yet damned they might have been, and damned they had been for all us, who would make no use of the means ordained by God for their salva­tion.

§. 7. And by this time I hope it suffici­ently appears, that as upon the account of the Benefits coming to children by Baptism there is Reason for their baptizing, so upon account of the Danger they are in by Ori­ginal Sin, and the evil Consequents of it, from which they are wholly, or in a great measure rescued by Baptism, there is Need to baptize them.

CHAP. XX.

§. 1. ANd yet there are other accounts, which I shall name, and not much more than name, upon which Infants have need to be baptized.

§. 2. And first, considering that there are Benefits derived to us, and descending upon us from Christ our Head by vertue of our Union with him as Members of him, which we, and our children have need of, and we cannot hope otherwise to obtain ei­ther for our selves or for our children than by Baptism, Baptism seems to be in this re­spect a thing which both we and our chil­dren have a very great need of.

§. 3. To instance but in his Influences upon, Care over, and Intercession for his Members. How shall we partake of those Influences of Grace, which flow from Christ to all his Members by vertue of their Union with him, if we be not united to him? How shall we come to be any thing bettered by the care of Christ over his Members, if we have no fellowship with him as Members [Page 152] of him? How shall we be concerned in Christs Intercessions for his Body, if we be not incorporated into it as members of it?

§. 4. What need then our Children have of Membership with Christ in order to their partaking of those Benefits that are derived from him to his Members; that need have they of being baptized into Christ, that by their Baptism they may be made the Members of Christ.

§. 5. Again, our children being by na­ture born in sin, and conse­quently children of wrath, —In my Baptism, wherein I was made the child of God—Cat. of Ch. of Eng.— Being by nature born in sin, and the children of wrath, we are hereby made the children of grace. Ib. how can it but be needfull that by some means they should be made children of grace? That by Baptism our children are made children of grace, and chil­dren of God, our Church has told us. But how they shall become children ei­ther of God, or Grace, otherwise than by Baptism, we are not told. If any thing, the quite [...]. Chry­sost. Hom. 1. de Poenitentia. contrary. The name of Son is given to none but such as are baptized, if St. Chry­sostom say true. What need [Page 153] then our Infants have to become Sons of God, that need have they to be baptized, that they may become his Sons.

§. 6. Further Heirship follows Son­ship. Whereby then we are made Sons, thereby we are —Baptism where­by I was made an inheritor of the kingdom of hea­ven. Church Cate­chism. [...] Just. Martyr. Resp. ad Orthodox. 44. made Heirs. That as our Church hath taught, and I have proved, is done by Baptism. Whereupon it follows, that if we will be Heirs, we must be Sons, and if we will be Sons, we must be baptized. No baptism then, no Son of God, and then no Heir of his. Where­upon [...] Chrys. Hom. 1. de Poenit. Qui ad divinum munus & patrimo­nium baptismi san­ctificatione porve­niunt—D. Cyprian de Hab. Virgin. St. Chrysost. saith, that before baptism there is no receiving of patrimony, nor getting of inheritance. What need then our In­fants have of getting an in­heritance from God, that need have they to be bapti­zed, that they may become his heirs.

§. 7 Yet again, Baptism is the door of entrance into Gods kingdom. Whence [Page 154] St. August. Quando homo de baptismo egreditur tunc ei janua regni coelestis aperitur. D. Aug. Serm. 29. de Temp. Ex a­qua & spiritu san­cto oportet ut nas­catur [homo] pro­pter regnum Dei. D. Aug. 12. Tract. in Evang. Johan­nis. saith, when a man goes forth from baptizing, then the gate of heavens kingdom is opened to him. And, that man must be born of water and the Holy Ghost for the kingdom of God. And this is grounded on what our Saviour saith, (John 3. 5.) Except a man be born of water and the Spirit, that is, be baptized, he cannot inherit the kingdom of God. Whence Obstrinxit sidem ad baptismi neces­sitatem. Tertull. de Baptismo. Scripsit Augustin. duos li­bros de infantibus baptizandis contra haresin vestram, per quam vultis as­serere baptizari in­fantes, non in re­missionem peccato­rum, sed in reg­num coelorum. D. Hieron. Dialog. 3. advers. Pelagia­nos. Forasmuch as all men are conceived and born in sin, and that our Saviour Christ saith, None can enter into the kingdom of God, except, &c. Ch. of Engl. Publ. Bapt. of Infants. So Bapt. of those of riper years. That Baptism is necessary to the salvation of Infants (in the ordinary way of the Church, without binding God to the use and means of that Sacrament, to which he hath bound us) is express in St. John 3. Except a man be born again of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. So, no Baptism, no Entrance. Nor can Infants creep in any other ordinary way. And this is the received Opinion of all the Ancient Church of Christ. A. B. Laud. Confer. Sect. 15. Num. 4. Ter­tullian inferred a necessity of baptism to all believers. And others have extended that necessity unto Infants; to whom the Pe­lagians themselves have allowed it, though not upon the account of Original Sin, yet for en­trance into the kingdom of heaven: whereas our Church takes in both those considerations, as the Ca­tholick Church ever did, in her admission of them unto Baptism, and grounds their baptizing upon both, strengthened with Christs command here in the Text to suffer little children to come unto him. So that no baptism, no entrance, even for Infants, into the kingdom of heaven; that [Page 155] is none according to the ordinary way, whatever there may be extraordina­rily. What need then our Infants have of entring in­to the kingdom of God, that need they have of be­ing baptized, that they may have entrance into that kingdom.

§. 8. Fifthly, by baptism we are saved, (1 Pet. 3. 21.) But by what Baptism? Not any Jewish Baptism, which was onely the putting away of the filth of the flesh; But the Christian Baptism, which washeth away the filth of the Spirit, to the enabling of the baptized with a good conscience to seek af­ter [Page 156] God. Now this for the saving efficacie of it is compared to the Ark of Noah. By the one, as by a means ordained of God for that end a few were saved from among the rest of mankind that perished for sin: and by the other, as a means of Gods ordaining for that end, a few are saved from amongst the rest of the Sons of men that perish in sin. And as, we are sure, none then were saved without In aquâ nascimur, nec aliter quàm in aquâ permanendo salvi sumus. Tert. de Bapt. See A­quin. 3. q. 68. a. 1. the Ark; so are none now, that we are sure of, saved without Baptism. As then none were, so none, that we know of, now are saved, but by water. What need then In­fants have to be saved, that need they have of baptism for their salvation.

§. 9. Lastly, Grace is necessary unto Glory. For without holiness no man shall see the Lord, Heb. 12. 14. Holiness is the operation of the Spirit of God, who sanctifies all the elect peo­ple Catechism. of God, as our Church teacheth us. The spirit of holiness is by Baptism communicated unto Infants in or­der to their regeneration; for baptism is a birth not of water onely, but of the spirit too, John 3. 5. Whence our Church prays that God would give his holy spirit to the [Page 157] Infant to be baptized that he may be born a­gain, and gives thanks to God for the In­fant that is baptized, that it hath pleased him to regenerate that Infant with his holy Spirit. Office of Publ. Bapt. of Infants. [...] Marc. Ere­mita. [...] D. Atha­nas. in illud E­vang. Quicunque dixerit. [...] —D. Basil. Exhort. ad Ba­ptism. Omnes quidem, qui ad divinum munus & patrimonium baptismi sanctificatione perveniunt, ho­minem illie veterem gratiâ lavacri salutar is expo­nunt, & innovati spiritu sancto à sordibus conta­gionis antiquae, itcratâ nativitate purgantur. Sed nativitatis it [...]ratae vobis major sanctitas & veritas competit, quibus desideria jam-carnis & corporis nulla sunt. D. Cyprian de Habitu Virg. Per ba­tisma enim Spiritus sanctus accipitur—D. Cyprian, l. 2. cp. 3. Sed postquam undae genitalis auxilio superioris aevi labe detersâ, in expiatum pectus ac purum desuper se lumen infudit, post quam caelitùs spiritu buusto in novum me hominem nativitatis se­cunda reparavit, mirum in modum protinus confirmare se dubia, patere clausa, lucere renebrosa, &c. D. Cyprian, l. 2. ep. 2. Quippe qui ne vim quidem aspiciendi sacra habeat ab ortu à Deo, sive baptismo, qui lucis & principium est & praebotor. Dionys. A­reop. Eccles. Hierarch. c. 12. [...]. Chry. ad Demet. de compunct. cordis Hom. Ed. Savil. Tom 6. pag. 148. Cum ergo innovamur baptismi lavacro, per virtutem ab originis nostrae peccatis atque autori­bus separamur— D. Hilar, in Math. Can. 10. Omni homini renascenti aqua baptismatis instar est uteri virginalis, eodem spiritu sancto replente fontem, qui replevit & virignem— D. Leo Serm. 4. in Nativ. Domini. Ardoris vero spiritum dicimus, gratiam in Sacro sancto Baptismo, non absque spiritu nobis in­generatam. Baptizati aeutem & loti sumus, non aquâ nudâ, sed nec cinere vituli emundati sumus, ad sc­lam carnis purificationem, quemadm. B. Paulus, sed spiritu sancto, & igne divino ac intelligibli, qui sor­des vitiositatis in nobis deterit & absumit, & pec­cati inquinationem liquat & excoquit. D. Cyril. Alexand. l. 1. in Isa. c. 9. Whereupon Baptism is an effectual means of grace, as that must needs be, where­by is communicated the Spirit of grace, who where he is, is a principle of new life, infusing holy habits, and gracious dispositions, enabling to crucifie affe­ctions, to mortifie lusts, and to put forth acts of righteousness, and holiness. What need then our In­fants have of Grace, that they may have Glory, that need they have of Baptism, that they may have grace.

§. 10. And now these things considered, (not to add any thing more to the same pur­pose from other considerations; as either of the care that is taken for baptized In­fants, not onely by those particular persons that bring them, but by the Church also that receives them to baptism, and by God him­self, to whom the Church doth by that a­ction offer and consecrate them; or of that early Vow to, and Covenant with God to be his, which to their mighty advantage they are thereby brought into) it appears plainly enough that the baptizing of Infants is so far from being a superfluous Non est super­fluus baptismus par­vulorum, ut qui per generationem illi condemnationi obli­gati sunt, per rege­nerationem ab ea­dem liberentur. D. Aug. Ep. 89. Consuetudo matris Ecclesiae in bapti­zandis parvulis ne­quaquam spernenda est, nec ullo modo superslua deputanda. D. Aug. l. 10. de Genes. ad Literam, c. 23. Dic mihi obsecro te, parvulis bapti­zatis Christus aliquid prodest, an nibil prodest? Ne­cesse est ut dicat prodesse. Premitur mole matris Ec­ clesiae. D. Aug. de Verb. Apost. Serm. 14. † Primo igitur modo necessitatis [sc. sine quo non potest haberi finis] sunt tria sacramenta necessaria: due quidem personae singulari, baptismus quidem simpliciter; & absolute— Aquin. Sum. 3. q. 65. ar. 4. Manifestum est quod omnes ad baptismum tenontur, & sine eo non potest esse salus hominibus. Id. ib. q. 68. ar. 1. Quibus [sc. infantibus] propterea est Christi gratia necessaria, ut in Christo vivisicentur, qui in Adam mortui sunt: ut quia inquinati sunt generatione, pur­gentur regeneratione. D. Aug. de Verb. Apostol. Serm. 7. need­less, useless thing, as the Antipaedobaptiss, contrary to the judgment of the Ca­tholick Church, do con­tend it to be, that it is, if not absolutely necess­ary†, yet highly expedi­ent, useful to and needfull for them: and therefore with little justice, and less charity is it by any detain­ed from them.

And thus I have dispatcht the Second branch of my Argument for Infants baptism. Wherein I have shewn you, both that In­fants have need for Baptism, and in what respects they have need for it.

CHAP. XXI.

§. 1. I Now go on to the Third, which is Infants Capableness of baptism. Now a man may be in need of a thing, whereof yet in some respect he is incapable. But it is not so with Infants as to Baptism. As they have need for it, so are they also capable of it.

§. 2. If they were incapable of it, it must be in regard of something either in Themselves, or in the Thing, or in the Law of God, that might hinder them. But in no one of these respects are they incapa­ble, as I shall shew in every particular seve­rally.

§. 3. And first there is nothing in the Infants themselves to render them incapable of Baptism.

§. 4, It is true they are many times very weak of Body. Yet are they never so weak, but that they may be baptized. Nothing is there for them to suffer in Baptism, but what experience shews they may well enough en­dure.

§. 5. They may, if healthfull and strong, be well enough dip­ped into water (as the And then naming it after them (if they shall certifie him that the child may well endure it) he shall dip it in the water—Office of Pub. Bapt. of Infants. Si quis Episcopus, aut Presbyter, non trinam mersionem unius mysterii ce­lebret, sed semel mergat in baptis­mate, quod dari videtur in Domini morte, damnetur. Canon. Apo­stolorum, 49. In aquâ mergimur. Tertull. de Bapt. Nam nec semel, sed ter, ad singula nomina in perso­nas singulas tinguimur. Tertull. advers. Praxeam.—Debinc ter mergitamur. Tertull. de Corona Militis. Ter quidem illum demergit [Hierarcha] atque in tribus ejus de mersionibus emersionibusque trium divinae beatitudinis personarum nomina appellat & invocat. Dionys. Areop. Eccles. Hierarch. [...]. D. Athanas. q 94. de Interpret. Parab. Scriptur. Quamvis tutius sit baptiz are per modum immersionis, quia hoc habet communior usus, potest tamen fieri baptismus per modum aspersionis, &c. Aquin. 3. q. 66. a. 7. Church appoints) without any hurt or danger to them; but that the softness of this delicate age, makes us so full of vain fear, that we dare not venture the tryal of that, which in for­mer ages was the more common practice, and as adjudged the safer too, though it were to do it thrice.

§. 6. And if they be weak and sickly, [Page 163] so as not to be able to endure dipping either thrice or once, (which, to avoid offence, I could wish more practiced where there is no just necessity to decline it) yet however they may have some water poured on them (as the But if they certifie, that the child is weak, it shall suf­fice to pour water upon it—Offic. of Publ. Bapt. of Infants. Church in that case allows) as was anciently done on persons converted in their sickness, and baptized in their beds, and no hurt at all come to them thereby. And so they are not incapable of Baptism in that respect.

§. 7. Yea, if any thing, their weakness should rather conduce to the hastening of their Baptism: lest they be, as sometimes they are prevented by death. What (saith Greg. Nazianz.) will you say concerning chil­dren, [...]. Gr. Naz. Otat. 40. that neither know the loss, nor are sensible of the grace of baptism? shall we also baptize them? Yes, by all means, in case of urgent danger. It is bet­ter they should be sancti­fied, (that is, baptized) when they have no sense of it, than that they should die unsealed and uninitia­ted. [Page 164] And so Aquinas, If they be children that are to be baptized, their baptizing must not be Si pueri sint bapti­zandi non est dif­ferendum baptis­ma. Primo quidem, quia non expecta­tur in eis major in­structio, aut etiam plenior conversio. Secundo propter periculum mortis, quia non potest eis alio remedio sub­veniri, nisi per sa­cramentum baptis­mi. Aquin. q. 68. c. 3. Quarto, ut parvull si infirmari contin­gat, eodem [...]die, quo na [...]i sunt, bapti­zentur. Concil. Ge­rund. Cant. 4^to. D. Cyprian, l. 3. ep. 8. deferred. And of two rea­sons that he brings the dan­ger of death is one: be­cause the Sacrament of ba­ptism is the onely remedy provided for their help. It was decreed by the Council of G [...]runda, that Infants in case of weakness, should be baptized the same day that they were born. And whereas Fidus a Presbyter was of opini­on, that Infants were not to be baptized the second, nor third day after their birth, nor indeed till the eighth day, because till that day they were not ancient­ly circumcised, St. Cyprian shews him, that not himself onely, but a whole Council as­sembled together with him were of a far other mind, judging that baptism was not to be denied to any of the sons of men, and so not to any Infant, how young soever, but that they were to be admitted to it as soon as born.

§. 8. Again, it is true, Infants cannot of themselves come to baptism. Why but yet they may be brought to it by others. Rather than that shall keep them away, St. Aug. tells us, our Mo­ther the Church will lend Accommodat illis mater Ecclesia a­liorum pedes, ut veniant D. Aug. Serm. 10. de Ver­bis Aposteli. them other mens feet to come withall. And such is the mercy of our Savi­our, that he looks upon them as coming to him, that are but brought to him by others. Suffer (saith he) the little children to come unto me. And yet they came to him no o­ther way, but even as our Infants may come, that is by being brought to him. So long then as Infants may be brought to be ba­ptized, so long they have a way of coming unto Baptism: and so they are not incapable of it in that respect neither.

§. 9. It is true again, that they can nei­ther seek after, nor desire their own ba­ptism; a thing anciently expected from, and performed by adult Persons. But yet they can receive it, when, upon others de­sire, and seeking of it for them, it is admi­nistred to them. And so they are not, for that, incapable of it. There is nothing said in all the Scripture, that I know of, by which the inability of a subject to seek after, or de­sire, [Page 166] that, or any other mercy, renders him incapable of receiving it. Yea, it is part of the Gospels grace, that God therein is found of those that seek him not; that Christ, un­sought [...]. D. Chrysost. in Heb. 2. 16. Hom. 5. to for it, came, and sought, and found, and saved that which was lost, pursuing after and taking hold on mans nature, when it was fast and far flying away from him towards its own perdition.

§. 10. When our Saviour enlarg [...]d his Apostles Comm [...]ssion to the taking into Dis­cipleship, not the nation of the Jews onely, but all the nations of the world, he did not put it into this form, stand ye here still, and be ready to admit into discipleship all of all nations that shall come to you, and seek to you for baptism; but go ye, and disciple all nations, baptizing them (q. d.) Depart ye hence into and amongst the Heathen nations of the world, and make them disciples by baptizing them, admitting so many of them unto baptism, as shall accept that favour, and not refuse that grace, to be thereby made my disciples.

§. 11. The children here in the Text that came, that is, were brought unto Christ, desired nothing at all of him in their [Page 167] own names. It were strange indeed that In­fants, such as they were, should have any requests to make to him. And their not de­siring of a mercy was no hindrance to their receiving of one. They came to him for entrance into the kingdom of God by ba­ptism: as we gather from what he alledges as a reason why he would have them suffered to come to him. And he prepares them for such en­trance, D^r. Hammond Quaere of the Bapt. of Infants Sect. 22. & De Confirmat. c. 2. S. 5. by vouchsasing them the Ceremonies lead­ing on unto baptizing; he laid his hands upon them and blessed them: whereupon in all proba­bility followed his Disciples baptizing of them.

§. 12. And if such infirmities and impe­diments were real hindrances unto mercy stood in need of, how many of those that our Saviour in the Gospel had mercy on, and healed, had gone with­out their Cure? Then per­sons See Gilberti Voc­tii Theolog. Polit. part. [...]. l. 2. Tract. 2. cap. 2. qu. 6. born deaf, and dumb, or fools, though the chil­dren of parents in Cove­nant, should never be baptized, because they could never understand it, never speak for it, never desire it: which I think no so­ber Christian will say.

CHAP. XXII.

§. 1. FUrther, it is true, that they have Sin in them. But that is so far from being any real hindrance to their baptizing, that it should rather be a motive to it, as in­deed it is a reason for it; namely, that they may have their sin remitted by it. Baptism being a Sacrament especially ordained for the Sacramentum ad hoc specialiter in­ [...]tutum, ut per ipsum peccatorum sordes mundentur. Aquin. 3. q 68. a. 4. c. cleansing away of the filth of sin, as Aquinas saith, and is further confirmed both by Peter's exhorting the Jews to be baptized for the remission of sins, Acts 2. 38. and Ana­nias exhorting Saul to be baptized and wash away his sins, Acts 22. 16.

§. 2. Sin indeed in persons resolved not to forsake their sins, but to persist in sinning, may be an hindrance: but not in those that are not so resolved. And of Peccatoribus vo­luntatem peccandi, & in p [...]ccato perse­verandi propositum habentibus baptismus minime conferendus est. Aquin. Sum. 3. q. 68. a. 4. 2. Infants it cannot be said that they are so.

§. 3. And if the forepast sins, many and great sins, of mens own acting be no hinderance to their baptizing, as we see by the Persons baptized in the Scripture, of whom some had been Idolatrous Heathens, others Christ-killing Jews, &c. much less can that one sin, under the guilt whereof Infants do lie, not acted personally by them, but judicially imputed to them, hinder them from Baptism, as St. Cy­prian reasons the case in Porro autem si e­tiam gravissimis delictoribus & in Deum multum ante peccantibus, cum postca crediderint, remissio peccatorum datur, & à baptismo, atque gra­tia nemo probibe [...]ur: quanto magis probiberi non debet infans, qui recens natus nil peccavit, nisi quod secundum Adam carnaliter natus contagium antiquae mortis primâ nativitate contraxit? Qui ad remissam peccatorum accipiendam hoc ipso facilius accedit, quod illi remittuntur, non propria, sed aliena peccata. D. Cyprian, l. 3. Ep. 8. their behalf. And so nei­ther in this respect are In­fants incapable of Baptism.

§. Yea, but they do not repent them of their sin, Nor is it required of them that they should. The Scripture no where has enjoined them repentance in order unto baptism; nor alledged their inability to repent as a bar to their admission there­unto.

§. 5. Indeed we have Scriptures where grown men are exhorted to both together, to repent and be baptized; and where signs of repentance were shewed by such as recei­ved baptism, Acts 2. 38. Matth. 3. 6. But still the Persons both exhorted unto, and shewing repentance, were of age both to commit actual sins needing repentance, and to act that repentance that was needfull for their baptizing. But what is this to the case of Infants, who as they are not guilty of actual sin, so they are in no ability for repen­tance. Where there is no general rule, an argument from particulars is no farther ar­gumentative, than to particulars under the same circumstances: which cannot be be­twixt men and Infants, so as that what is injoyned to, or performed by the one, must be necessarily required of, and performed by the other. And so some mens being ex­horted unto Repentance and Baptism both at once, and other mens confessing their sins (as a token of their Repentance) when they were baptized, is no argument, that therefore all Infants must do so too, or else not be baptized: and so no Infants bapti­zed, because none can so do. The case, 'tis plain is not the same. And so whatever want of Repentance, or Non-profession of it may do to hinder Men from being bapti­zed, [Page 171] it can do nothing to render Infants in­capable of Baptism. Who as they have the guilt of sin brought upon them by anothers disobedience, without their knowledge, so they have that guilt taken off from them by the obedience of another, without their re­pentance: which pardon is not onely signed and sealed, but exhibited also, and given to them in and by Baptism.

§. 6. And as to the Church, it is true indeed that of Adult sinners it requires a Personal Profession of Repentance before it admit them to Baptism. But for Infants that have not sinned after the similitude of Adams transgression, it admits them to Ba­ptism without any such Personal Profession. So there be but a Promise made of it for the future against the time that it shall be necessary, by Sureties for the Infants in the Infants names, as the Scripture doth not re­quire so much, so the Church doth not stand upon more. And so In­fants Ab hac poenitenti [...] cum baptizantur soli parvuli sunt immunes. Nondum enim uti possunt libero arbitrio: quibus tamen ad consecrationom re­missionem que originalis peccati prodest cotum fides, à quibus offeruntur: ut quascunque maculas d [...]lictorum per alios ex qui [...]s sunt nati contraxerunt, aliarum [...] incerrogatione ac responsione purgentur. T Aug. Quiaquag Homil. Serm. 50. are not incapable of Baptism in this respect nei­ther.

CHAP. XXIII.

§. 1. YEa but, still it is objected that In­fants do not believe, and therefore they ought not to be baptized.

§. 2. To this Objection if St. Augustin were to answer, he would deny the Ante­cedent, and say that Infants do believe; and so would St. Bernard too. But how? Not by any Sed absit ut ego di­cam non credentes Infantes. Jam su­perius disputavi: credit in altero, quia peccavit in al­ [...]ero: dicitur cre­dit, & valet, & inter fideles bapti zatos computatur, &c. Credunt in­fantes. Unde cre­dum? quomodo cre­dunt? Fide pa­ [...]entum &c. D. Aug. Serm 14. de Verb. Apost. Accommo­dat illis Mater Ecclesia allorum pedes, ut veniant; aliorum cor, ut credant. Id. ib. Serm. 10. Non quod vel ipsi [sc. Infantes] quando baptizantur, fide omnino careant, sine quâ impossibile est vel ipsos placere Deo: sed salvantur per fidem, non tamen suam, sed alienam. Dignum nempe est, & ad Dei spectat dignitatem, ut quibus fidem aet [...]s denegat propriam, gratia prodesse concedat alienam. Nec e­nim omnipotentis justitia propriam putal ab his exi­gendam fidem, quos novit propriam nullam habere culpam. Porro alienâ opus est fide, cum sine sorde non nas [...]antur alienâ. D. Bern. Ep. 77. Nemo mihi dicat, quia non habet [infans] sidem: cui mater [Ecclesia] impertit suam. Magna est Ecclesia si­des. Id. Serm. 66 super Cant. In Ecclesia salvate­ris, per alios parvuli credunt, sicut ex aliis, quae in baptismo remlttuntur peccata traxerunt. Gratian. 3 part. de Conseerat. dist. 4. faith in themselves, but by the faith of others, their Parents, or the Church. Nor would they think it any more absurd, to say that they believe through the Faith of another, than it is to say that they have sinned through the sin of another, or that they are made righteous through the obedience of another.

§. 3. But though the Faith of the Pa­rents, or Sureties, who are Believers, may be enough, and is to qualifie Infants for an admission into Church-membership by Ba­ptism: yet because I think it not enough to speak them Believers antecedently to Ba­ptism, however they be reckoned in the num­ber of the Faithfull, after they be baptized; and that their immediate Parents saith shall no more be imputed unto them, and reckon'd theirs, than their sins, as not having been by Almighty God made Trustees in this behalf for their Children, as Adam was for his; therefore I shall not stand upon this.

§. 4. Some others would answer that Infants have Faith in themselves, and that in the act. And truly as the Scripture no [Page 174] where denies this expresly, See Alting. Pro­blem. Theolog. part. 1. Probl. 22. Becan. Manual. Controver. l. 2. c. 2. Phil. Melancthon. Consil. Theolog. part. 1. pag. 255. Hooker Eccl. Pol. l. 5. Sect. 64. so it also affords an instance of little ones ( [...]) very little ones that are said to have believed, Mat. 18. 6. and that by one who knew their hearts, and could not be deceived in them, even our Saviour himself.

§. 5. Other some again would answer, that Infants have Faith in themselves, though not in the Act, yet in the Habit, or rather the seed and principle of it.

§. 6. And truly that as God is able to infuse, so the soul of an Infant is capable to receive divine impressions and illuminations, I think is a truth none will question. And if any should, the filling of John Baptist with the Holy Ghost from his Mothers womb, and his leaping for joy, at the approach of his Saviour, in his Mothers womb, (Luke 1. 15, 44.) would put it out of doubt. Now this being so, who can tell but that the Infants of believers may through the grace of Sicut ergo ille, in quo omnes vivifi­cabuntur, praeter­quam quod se ad [...]ustitiam exem­plum omnibus praebuit, dat etiam sui spiritus occultissi­mam fidclibus gra­tiam, quam laten­ter infundit & parvulis, sic—D. Au­gust. l. 1. de Pec­cat. Merit. & Re­miss. c. 9. God obtained for them by the prayers, not onely of their Paren's in particular, but of the Church in ge­neral, have a principle of [Page 175] Faith inspired into them by the secret operation of that invisible Spirit of grace, who works how, and where, and when, and how far himself pleaseth. And where it is so in any one, who dares deny that person sufficiently qua­lified in point of Faith for Baptism? Can any man forbid water that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost, as well as w [...]? Acts 10. 47. And of what Infant of any one Believer can any man say that it is not so with him? And if there be never an Infant of any one believer of whom it can be absolutely affirmed that he is in respect of a divinely infused inward­ly working principle of Faith utterly unqua­lified for Baptism, then why should any one be denied Baptism, of whom it cannot be said, but that he is in some degree and mea­sure qualified for it?

§. 7. But being under no necessity for the supporting of the cause I maintain, to assert these grounds, I shall no further insist thereon: but to the Objection against In­fants capableness of baptism founded in their want of Faith, give my Answer, that their not believing is no hindrance to their baptizing.

§. 8. It is no hindrance to their salva­tion, even in the judgment of our Anaba­ptists, who declare it as one Article of their Faith, That all children dying in Infancy (that is before they can act faith in their own persons, and be believers qualified for baptism according to their account) having not actually transgressed against the Law of God in their own persons are onely subject to the first death, and that not any one of them dying in that estate shall suffer for A­dams sin eternal punishment in hell, which is the second death. It is no hindrance then to their salvation in their judgment, that they believe not. And why then should it be a hindrance to their Baptism? Is more requi­red to their baptism, than to their salvation? to the means, than to the end?

§. 9. But to make short work, where, or by whom is faith required of Infants in their own persons to render them capable of baptism? What one Text is there in all the Bible that saith either in particular, that In­fants shall not be baptized, because they be­lieve not; or in generall that no persons whatsoever (whether capable or incapable of believing) shall be baptized, but those that believe? Let the Adversaries of Infants baptism produce the place, and the contro­versie, I believe, will quickly be ended. [Page 177] We, all Paedobaptists, will readily yield all that shall of right be fit to be yiel­ded to it, or unto them from it. But if the Scripture say no such thing either in words, or in sense, then for ought that as yet ap­pears our Infants will be capable of Ba­ptism, though they do not believe.

§. 10. Why, but doth not our Saviour say, (in Mark 16. 16.) He that believeth, and is baptized, shall be saved: but he that believeth not shall be damned?

§. 11. Yes. And what then? must not therefore our Infants be baptized because they do not believe? or not till they believe? No such matter. What is here said that makes believing a condition necessarily ante­cedent unto Baptism? It is neither said ne­gatively, he that believeth not shall not be baptized, nor so much as affirmatively, he that believeth shall be baptized. But be­lieving, and being baptized are made condi­tions, not the one of the other, but both of being saved. And now, in the name of God, what is here, that can possibly ex­clude Infants from baptizing, for want of believing?

§. 12. Yea, but believing is set before baptizing. He doth not say, he that is ba­ptized and believeth, but he that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved. And what [Page 178] then? Why then believing must go before baptizing; and none must be baptized, but those that first believe.

§. 13. To this I answer, that if the or­der of things must universally answer to that order of words, wherein the Scripture sets them down, then Repen­tance, which is a Fruit of Quomodo aget poe­nitentiam homo, qui necdum credit? D. Hieron. advers. Lucifer. Faith, must go before Faith, whose Fruit it is: because our Saviour set repenting before believing, saying first repent ye, and then believe the Gospel, (Mark 1. 15. ) Then the outward baptism of water must always go before the inward baptism of the spirit, because our Saviour said, Except a man be born (first) of water and (then) of the spirit, he can­not enter into the kingdom of God, John 3. 5. Whereas the contrary hereto fell out in the family and company of Cornelius, Acts 10. 44. which drew from Peter that question in ver. 47. Can any man forbid water that these should not be baptized, who have re­ceived the Holy Ghost as well as we? Then the Ruler (in Luke 18. 22. ) must have given nothing to the poor, till he had sold all he had, because our Saviour saith, (first) set all that thou hast, and (then) distri­bute to the poor.

§. 14. But to shew the weakness of this way of Arguing, it may be proved by this same Argument, and from the same Text, that Infants ought to be baptized. (And then let them judge what strength there is in this way of Arguing. ) For as our Saviour sets believing before baptizing; so he sets baptizing before being saved. And if none must be baptized, but he that be­lieves, because believing is set first; then none must be saved, but he that is baptized, because baptizing is set first. And then what better argument can be made for In­fants baptism? They must be baptized if we will have them saved: because they cannot be saved without being baptized: for ba­ptizing goes before saving. And yet from the same Text, and by the same way of a guing, it may be proved, contrary to what the Anabaptists say of the Universal salvation of all Infants dying before the commission of actual sin, that no Infants are saved but those that believe, because be­lieving is set before being saved; and not onely so, but whereas it is not said, he that believeth not shall not be baptized, it is said, he that believeth not shall be dam­ned.

§. 15. And this may suffice to shew tho absurdity of this way of arguing to the or­der [Page 180] of things from the ordering of the words.

§. 16. As to the thing it self, I think it will be granted them, that in Persons capa­ble of believing or disbelieving the Gospel, faith, or at least a profession of it, is to go before baptizing.

§. 17. This we gather from the Apostles baptizing no adult persons that we read of, without some evidence given of their be­lieving.

§. 18. Thus it was with the Converts in Acts 2. 41. with the Samaritans, Acts 8. 12. with the Eunuch, Acts 8. 37. with Cornelius & his family, Act. 10. 44. with Lydia and the Gao­ser, Acts 16. 14, & 33. with Crispus, and his house, Acts 18. 8. And is to be supposed it was so with others, of whose believing before their baptizing we read not, as of Gaius and Stephanas, 1 Cor. 1. 14, 16. And this at this day is, and ever hath been, the way of the Churches dealing with adult per­sons.

§. 19. But the Argument will not hold from Men to Children. It follows not that because men that are capable of believing or disbelieving the Gospel are not baptized except they make profession of faith; that therefore Infants who are neither capable of believing nor disbelieving must profess faith, [Page 181] or not be baptized. Faith being required of the one, but not of the other.

§. 20. When the Apostle commanded the Thessalonians, that if any would not work, neither should he eat, (2 Thess. 3. 10. ) did he mean the Infants should not eat, that could not work? 'Tis plain he required working onely of those, that were able to work, not of those that were unable. So in the case in hand, 'tis apparent that Be­lieving is onely required of men able to un­derstand and believe, not of Infants neither able to believe nor understand. For by the words immediately foregoing, preach the Gospel to every creature, it is most evident, that it is of such persons onely as the Go­spel may be believed or disbelieved by, upon the preaching of it to them, that it is said, He that believeth, and is baptized shall be saved: but he that believeth not shall be damned: not of such persons, as the Gospel cannot rationally be preached to, in order to the bringing them to believe by the preaching of it, in regard of their incapa­city to understand it, and inability to believe or disbelieve it. And so Infants are utterly unconcern'd in this Text. And as from it we plead nothing for them, so from it can nothing rationally be pleaded against them.

§. 21. I have read that Men must be converted, and become as lit­tle Matth. 18. 2. children, (I suppose for humility and innocency,) that they may en­ter into the kingdom of God. But I have not read that little children must be conver­ted and become as Men (for understanding or Faith) before they can have entrance in Gods kingdom. A profession of faith by persons of understand [...]ng in the names of the Infants is required by the Church: and up­on that profession it baptizes them. But that understanding and faith which is requi­red in Adult persons as praevious to their baptism, is not by the Church required in Infants as necessa [...]y to their baptizing. Nor can it be proved that ever it was by Christ, or any Apostle of his, exacted of them; as it cannot be proved, that ever Christ, or any Apostle of his, ordered the delay of their baptizing till it might be in them.

§. 22. And lastly, if Infants baptism be an Apostolical Tradition, that is a thing delivered down to the Church to be pra­cticed in it by the Apostles, and Apo­stolical Persons, and as practiced also by themselves, as there is better ground to be­lieve it, than there is evidence against it, then the thing is out of question. They would never have baptized themselves, nor [Page 183] taught others to baptize, such as wanted faith, because incapable of believing, if mere want of faith, notwithstanding such in­capacity to believe, did render them incapa­ble of baptizing. And if not believing did not in the Apostles Age and the Ages suc­ceeding it make Infants incapable of Ba­ptism: then can it not make them so in ours: there being no more reason for the one, than for the other.

§. 23. And so here is nothing in the In­fants themselves that renders them uncapa­ble of being baptized.

CHAP. XXIV.

§. 1. SEcondly, There is nothing in Ba­ptism required of, or to be done unto Infants, which hinders them from it, or renders them incapable of it.

§.2. Not the Thing signifying, Water, with the application of it by way of Immer­sion or Assusion. They may be dipped in­to water in case of strength; or they may have water poured on them, in case of weak­ness.

§. 3. Not the Thing signified, The Blood of Christ, and the Grace of the Spirit. For what can hinder why they may not be sprinkled from the guilt of the sin of their Birth by the blood of Christ in the Grace of Justification? Cannot the blood of Christ satisfie for that guilt that lies upon Infants? Or cannot God apply the satisfa­ction made by the blood of Christ unto In­fants? And what can hinder why they may not be cleansed from the corruption of their nature by the Power of the Spirit in the [Page 185] Grace of Sanctification? Cannot the Holy Spirit mortifie those dis­positions unto evil, which Parvulis datur gratia operans & cooperans per ba­ptismum, sicut a­dultis: sed parvu­lis in munere non in usu. G. Biel in 4 l. Sent. dist. 4. are in Infants? Or can he not infuse dispositions to goodness, into Infants? Is not the spirit of grace able to inoperate the grace of the spirit in Infants? Is not he able to give them a temper of heart capa­ble to receive his Infusions? Is not he able to make Infusions of grace into their hearts suitable to their temper? No incapableness of Baptism then in Infants on these ac­counts.

§. 4. Again, may not children as well as elder persons, be taken into Ʋnion with Christ? May not they be incorporated into him? What? no lambs in his flock, but all old sheep? No little members in his body, but all great ones? No babes in Christ, but all strong men? Cannot the water do the same for them? Cannot the spirit do the same in them, to unite them unto Christ, that is done by it either for elder persons to­wards their Union with him? Surely the application of the Water of Baptism to their Bodies, does as well signifie and declare; and the infusion of the Spirit of Christ into their souls, does as well operate, and effect, [Page 186] their Union with him, as the Union of elder persons. For what should hinder? No incapableness then of Baptism in Infants on this account neither.

§. 5. Again, look upon Baptism as the Door of entrance into the kingdom of Hea­ven, and so far are they from being incapa­ble of that, that they are made a kind of standard to the capacity of others for it. For our Saviour not only saith, that of such [as infants] is the kingdom of heaven, (Matth. 19. 14.) which implies that they themselves are qualified for it, and have all things required in them for entrance into it: but also he saith (Matth. 18. 3.) Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven: which again implies, that Infants are duly qualified for an entrance into the kingdom of heaven (for why else must others be converted, and become as they are, that they may enter into it?) and not only so, but that none shall have entrance into it, but those that are so qualified for it as they are. And why they that are qualified for entrance into Heaven, should be unqualified for that which gives entrance into it, I see not. Is more required to Baptism, than to salva­tion? If not, then no uncapableness as yet appears in Infants for Baptizing.

§. 6. Further, Look upon Baptism as the Note and Badge of a Christian, and lit­tle children are as capable of wearing that as elder persons. They have witnesses of their baptizing as well as others. They are received into the same Militia of the Lord Jesus, and have the same press-mark (if I may so say) that others have for his ser­vice. They have his name named upon them, and have their names enrolled with the rest that are called by his name. And no incapacity is there in them for any thing of this; and so none in these respects for Ba­ptism.

§. 7. Lastly, look upon Baptism as the Seal of a Covenant entred into betwixt them and God, and they are not uncapable of it in that respect neither. If they be not incapable of the Covenant, then sure they are not incapable of the seal of the Cove­nant. He that has not denied them the greater thing, is it imaginable he should de­ny them the less? As the Apostle from Gods having given Christ for us argues to his giving all things else to us; (Rom. 8. 32.) so surely may we argue in this case, that if God have not made our children uncapable of his Covenant, then he has not made them incapable of the Seal of it. Why man then should be more severe to poor harmless [Page 188] babes, than God is, I cannot see; nor why man should with-hold from them what God has not denied to them.

§. 8. But perhaps it will be said, that they are uncapable of entring into the Co­venant: and therefore uncapable of receiving the Seal of it.

§. 9. Uncapable of entring into the Co­venant? Now God forbid. But why so? Be­cause they can neither set any Seal to it; nor engage themselves by any promise to it; nor do so much as understand any thing of it, especially at the years, or rather days, that they are now usually baptized at.

§. 10. But none of these hinders their entring into Covenant with God.

§. 11. First not their inability to seal. For Contracts are not always sealed by both parties at the same time. We see it ordinarily in contracts made not onely by Princes at greater distances of place, but by private per­sons at lesser distance. The contract is ne­vertheless interpretatively entred by both, at the sealing of the first, and continues firm and binding to the first all the while till the second have sealed also, he in the mean time acting nothing to the frustrating of it; and there is no new sealing required from the first at the sealing of the second. Be it then that Infants cannot personally set their [Page 189] seal to the Covenant at their Baptizing, nor till their Consirming, may not God there­fore set his seal to it in the mean time? May not God take them into Covenant with him, and make his promise to them, and set his seal to that promise, and bind himself to them for the present, because they cannot back again do the like at present to him, but must stay either till they can do that (and some will never be able to do it) or else there must be no Covenant betwixt them? sure no man of reason will say so. O, what a blessing 'tis to have God to have given his Covenant to our children, and to have so­lemnly sealed it, and to be acting pursuant to it for the good of our children in the mean time till they can personally seal to their own part themselves! And O, what a cruelty would it be to shut the door against so great a blessing to our children! And yet they do what can be expected from persons of their condition; they come, and are pre­sent at the sealing, and if they do not seal to God, yet they are sealed to, and also are sealed by God. And O the felicity of be­ing one whom God hath sealed for his, or hath sealed himself to be his.

§. 12. And yet their very coming to, and receiving the seal, in the charitable construction of the Almighty a [Page 190] sealing of theirs. He that takes their being brought to him for a coming of theirs to him, why may we not think he accepts of their receiving of his Seal as a counter seal­ing of theirs.

§. 13. And besides, what cannot be done by them, is as much in this as in any o­ther the like case, done by others for them: and so there is no incapacity in them on this account.

§. 14. Secondly, their inability to stipu­late for themselves hinders not.

§. 15. It is true, they cannot explicitly in their own persons make that profession that is re­quired Why then are In­fants baptized, &c. Because they pro­mise them both by their Sureties: which when they come to age, themselves are bound to perform. Ch. Catechism. See D^r. Stilling­fleets Vindic. of A. B. of Cant. p. [...]07. of Adult persons. And as true it is, that such a personal explicit profes­sion is no where required of Infants. But what they cannot do of themselves they may, I hope, do by others. And done it they have: and that doing of it is, and hath been allowed of by the Church for many ages, even from the very beginning for ought I know that any man hath to say a­gainst it.

§. 16. And this contracting by others, is but [Page 191] what is ordinary in the affairs of mankind. The Tutors of Infants do it: whether appointed by the See above, ch. 8. Sect. 15. Wills of Parents, or assigned by order of Law, And pity it were that for want of an Authentical Trustee to trans­act for them, they should miss of those ad­vantages which by any beneficial contract m [...]ght accrue unto them. And as their own interest will lead them to espouse and own those contracts that are made for their ad­vantage; so if a A Parent may contract with God on his childs be­half, no otherwise then a Guardian doth in the behalf of a Minor, or one under age, which he cannot after­ward retract when he is out of his Pupillage without injustice, and be­ing lyable to the Law, if the con­tract be judged to be to his behoof and benefit. D^r. Patricks Discourse concerning Ba­ptism, pag. 46. See the place and context both be­fore and after. Parent may contract with God on his childs behalf, as a Guar­dian doth in the behalf of a Minor; he will be bound in justice to espouse the contract, it being for his advantage. Yea, I am told the Law will compell them, to make good even those also that prove to be for their disadvantage, pro­vided the contracts were made (bona fide) and no fraudulent dealing were u­sed by the Contractors in the making of them.

§. 17. Now to the making good of the Baptismal Contract made for Infants by their Sureties, the Infants are doubly obli­ged. First by the infinite advantages that come to them by it: which, unless they be fools or mad, they will hasten all that ever they can, as soon as they know it, further to assure unto themselves by a personal enga­ging in it. Secondly, by the forfeiture of all benefits by it (besides many other obliga­tions before mentioned) upon their disavow­ing and disclaiming of it.

§. 18. No profession then be [...]ng requi­red from themselves, and a sufficient one be­ing made for them by others, they are not uncapable of entring into Covenant with God on this account neither.

§. 19. And thirdly, that their want of understanding renders them not incapable of entering into Covenant with God is evident by one instance beyondexception, in Deut. 29. 10, 11, 12. Ye stand this day all of you before the Lord your God, your Captains of your tribes, y [...]ur Eld [...]rs and your officers, with all the men of Israel, your little ones, your wives, and thy stranger that is in thy camp, from the h [...]wer of thy wood unto the drawer of thy water, That thou shouldst enter into Covenant with the Lord thy God, and into his Oath, which the Lord thy God [Page 193] maketh with thee this day. See! even the little ones, as well as Elders and Officers were capable of entring, and did actually enter into Covenant with God, and into the Oath of God; their want of years and un­derstanding to know the condition of the Covenant and Oath which they entred into, or to make profession of entring into it, not at all withstanding. So that want of years and un [...]erstanding cannot render children incapable of entring into Gods Covenant. And then much less can it render them unca­pable of receiving the sign or seal of his Covenant.

§. 20. And however that it cannot, is evident, because the Jewish Infant was ca­pable, as of the Covenant it self, as we have seen before, so of Circumcision the sign and seal of the Covenant, which to receive at eight days old he was bound upon pain of excision. He that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man-child in your generations. And the uncircumci­sed man-child whose flesh of h [...] foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people, he hath broken my Cove­nant, Deut. 17. 12. What he was so bound to receive, surely he was capable of. Now why the child of a Christian should be less capable of receiving one seal of a [Page 194] Covenant, than the child of a Jew was of another, I am yet to learn.

§. 21. And so there is nothing in Ba­ptism it self rendring Infants uncapable of being baptized.

CHAP. XXV.

§. 1. ADmit Infants never so capable of Baptism in all other respects, yet if the Scripture do forbid it, then it be­comes unlawfull for them to have it, and they upon that account become uncapable of it.

§. 2. Thirdly therefore and lastly I affirm, that upon the diligentest search, that I was ever able to make, I could never find any Scripture that forbad it. Search the Scripture from end to end, and not one Text appears, wherein it is forbidden. As the Antipaedobaptists call but for one Scri­pture that commands it, and upon that say, they will yield to it: so on the other hand the Paedobaptists call for a Scripture that [Page 195] forbids it, and upon that say, they will not contend for it. But there is none, no not one: it would else have been shewn ere this, being so much, and so long, called for.

§. 3. Yea, though there be never a Scripture that expresly, and in terms for­bids it, yet if there be but one, wherein by direct and evident consequence it is forbid­den, (though our adversaries will yield no­thing to all the many Scriptures, from whence we do by good consequence deduce it, because we produce not a Text, that doth in express terms command it) let it be shewn, and we shall pay all due respect unto it: the Contest will instantly be given over by us, who seek not victory without truth, but truth, whether with, or without victo­ry; we shall believe the baptizing of our Infants unlawfull, and upon the account of its unlawfulness, believe them uncapa­ble of it.

§. 4. But if there be no such Text in all the Scripture, as doth so much as by consequence forbid the baptizing of Infants, we must then beg to be excused, if we hold the baptizing of them lawfull, and upon the account of that lawfulness, think them not uncapable of it.

§. 5. For if sin be a transgression of the law, as St. John defines it, (1 John 3. 4. ) [Page 196] and where there is no law, there is no trans­gression, as St. Paul determines it, (Rom. 4. 15. ) then can it be no sin, either to In­fants to be baptized, or to others to baptize Infants, because no law is by either For therefore any thing is unlawful, because it trans­gresseth a law. W. Penn. Eng. Present Interest, p. 24. trans­gressed; there being none, that either forbids them to be baptized It is an evidence that Infants are not to be excluded from Baptism, because there is no divine Law, which doth prohibit their ad­mission into the Church by it. D^r. Stilling fleet. Irenic. p. 7. , or forbids others to baptize them; therefore their baptism is lawfull, and they upon the account of its lawfulness are capable of it.

§. 6. And put case we should grant, that there were no Text in Scripture where­on to ground it, yet would it not follow thence, that it were unlawfull. For the mere uncommandedness of a thing doth not infer the unlawfulness of it: a thing is not therefore unlawfull, onely because it is not commanded. To make a thing necessary in­deed, there must be a law for it; and to make a thing unlawfull, there must be a law against it. But to make a thing onely law­full, it is not necessary there be any law for [Page 197] it, it is sufficient that there be no law against it. If then we cannot prove it necessary, because the Antipaedobaptists say we have no law for it, they cannot prove it unlawfull, because we are sure they have no law against it. It remains therefore that it be lawfull; and that our children, upon the account of the lawfulness of it, be capable of it.

§. 7. Why but our Saviour sets Teach­ing before Baptizing (Matth. 28. 19. ) say­ing to his Disciples, when he commissiona­ted them to be his Apostles to all the nations of the world, for the gathering of a Church out of it, Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Well, and what then? Why then, saith the Antipaedobaptist, none must be baptized before he be taught, and so taught as that they do learn. And this because In­fants are incapable of, therefore they are un­capable of baptism.

§. 8. This Argument of theirs is like that former, which they drew from our Sa­viours setting believing before baptizing; which how weak it was I hope I need not so soon remember you. And granting all they can fairly pretend to from this Text, it will not hence follow, that Infants are unca­pable of Baptism: as I shall hope to make [Page 198] appear upon a due and through considera­tion of the words.

§. 9. Our Saviour here enlarges his Dis­ciples Commission to go and preach, and make Disciples, not in one nation only, as formerly: but in all nations; teaching and baptizing them (suppose we read the words so) Well: what can this mean other, than that those of the nations, that were capable of teaching, should be taught and baptized: not excluding from baptizing, those that for the present were onely capable of so much discipulation (if I may so speak) as was performed by baptizing, but as yet were not capable of any teaching. And what makes this against Infants Baptism? There is not an exclusive Particle in the whole Text.

§. 10. But to proceed, this we will grant, that if the order of Teaching and Bapti­zing See D^r. Stilling­flcets Vindic. A. B. of Cant. p. 107. be considered in their reference to the conversion of all nations, or any one whole particular nation unconverted, teach­ing is to go before baptizing. But this is not from the naked consideration of the setting of the words, Teaching, and Bapti­zing; as if the order of the words were in­violably to be observed in the order of things (and if any have so thought and ar­gued, [Page 199] I cannot in that excuse them from a shortness of discourse) but it is from the otherwise unpracticableness of the things Non enim potest fieri ut corpus ba­ptismi recipiat Sa­cramentum, nisi ante anima fidei sus [...]eperit verita­tem. D. Hieron. in Matth. 28. 29. themselves. For as no A­dult person will be brought to be baptized before he be taught what baptism means, and why he should be baptized: so the Church will admit no Infants to baptism, but those that are the children of baptized persons, or at least are undertaken for by such as are baptized. Suppose our Saviour had set baptizing be­fore teaching (as he might, had he pleas'd) and said, Go ye therefore and baptize all nations in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, teaching them what I have commanded they should know and do; who would have scrupled to begin his work with teaching, notwith­standing the order of the words? as ima­gining that none that understood themselves, would ever be baptized before they were taught. It is therefore not from the order of the words, but from the orderliness of the things, which cannot otherwise be effe­cted, but in this way and order, that this course is, and must, in such case, be taken. Now if so, then the whole force of the An­tipaed [Page 200] obaptists argument from the mere con­sideration of the order of these words (teach­ing set before Baptizing) which yet is all they have in this point to urge from them, is utterly vanished.

§. 11. But when once some in a nation have been taught, and have received the faith, and have been baptized into it, then it follows not, that the same course must ne­cessarily still be taken with every si [...]le per­son in it, that was proper for, and was taken with the whole of it: but that all that any way, and in any degree, are capable of ba­ptism, may respectively according to their capacity be admitted to it, though they be wanting in some thing, which others of greater capacity have, and is requisite in them, to make them capable of it. And to argue from what is requisite in Men before the conversion of a nation, to what is requi­site in children after the nation is converted is fallacious. For it does not follow, Thus it was with the Adult Men of the nation be­fore any of it were converted: therefore thus it must be with the Infant Children of the Nation after the conversion of their Fa­thers: more being required of Men, than of Children; of Men that can receive, or re­ject the Gospel, than of Children that can neither reject it, nor receive it. Men are [Page 201] not to be admitted to baptism, but upon those accounts, in respect whereof they are to be qualified for it. Children are to be admitted to baptism upon those accounts in respect whereof they are qualified for it; and not to be rejected upon those accounts in respect whereof they are not qualified for it: unless it had been positively and particularly required of them that they should be so qualified, or not be baptized. Why should any require from Infants so much as is required of Men to qualifie them for baptism, when the Scri­pture hath not required of them so much? Why should any make Infants entrance into the kingdom of Heaven, straiter than God himself hath made it? Why should any keep them out, whom God has a mind to let in? Why should any keep them from coming to Christ, whom Christ hath commanded should be suffered to come unto him?

§. 12. Our Saviour saith, Go teach all nations baptizing them: but he doth not say, Baptize none of those nations before they be taught. Some must be first taught, that all may be baptized; not none baptized but those that are first taught. He saith, teach all nations baptizing them: but he doth not say, whether the teaching, or the baptizing shall be first. No, he determines neither to be first or second, but according as their discretion should think fit. He says [Page 202] not so much as Teach and Baptize, but only Teach baptizing. Which therefore en­forceth neither to be first, but according as the nature of the things may require, and the condition of the persons admit. Sup­pose he had said, Go ye therefore and con­vert all nations preaching to them my Go­spell: who would ever have imagined it to have been his command, that the Apostles should first convert the nations, and then preach the Gospel to them? and that because the words were so set (converting before preaching) therefore none were to be preached to, but those that were first converted? St. B [...]sil gives the Text this gloss, he com­manded Tà [...]. D. Basil. adv. Eu­ [...]omium, l. 5. the Gentiles that had believed, and had been taught, to be baptized in the name of the Trinity. Can any man from the or­der of the words here (believed set before taught) gather hence that St. Basil thought persons were first to believe and then to be taught, or that none were to be taught but they that first believed? It is unimaginable. And if this way of arguing be most falla­cious and absurd, as it is, then such is that of the Antipaedobaptists; (whereto this is exactly parallel, and every way the same) when they argue from the order of the [Page 203] words to the order of the things. But what will they say to Gregory Nazianzene, who inverts the order of our Saviours words, & sets Baptizing before Teaching: Greg. Nazianz. Orat. 40. p. 670, 677. [...]. Had this Father un­derstood of any force in the order of our Saviours words to signifie the order of the things, he would not have inverted it: or had he intended any such force in the order of his own words, that is, had he intended by setting teaching after bapti­zing, to express such teaching as was to come after baptizing; he would then have put the word [...] not onely after [...] but after the whole sentence [...]. There cannot be any force therefore in ar­guing from the order of the words to the order of the things: and yet in this argu­ment of twisted hairs doth the great strength of these our Samsons lie.

§. 13. Yet further, if this Argument have any force in it, then it is clearly for us, and against them. For you plainly read here in the 19 th verse the word Ba­ptizing. And the first word of the 20 th verse following is Teaching. So then if the things, must go according to the order of [Page 204] the words, then Baptizing must go before Teaching. And so this Text is so far from making against Infants baptism, that it makes clearly for it, even by the Antipaedobaptists own way of arguing.

§. 14. By which way of arguing, if al­lowed for good, it were easie to prove that John the Baptist did first baptize his Disci­ples before he taught them; because (in Mark 1. 4.) his baptizing is set before his preaching. For so 'tis expresly there said, John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the re­mission of sins. See, first he baptized, and then he preached; and so by his example, especially according to their way of arguing, men may at least, if yet they ought not to be baptized, before they be taught.

§. 15. And so, whereas it is said, that those that John did baptize, were such as confessed their sins, yet it may be said, that his baptizing (at least according to their way of arguing) went before their confes­sing. For so it follows (in ver. 5th) There went out unto him all the land of Judea, and they of Jurusalem, and were all baptized of him in the river of Jordan confessing their sins. See [...] first ye have his Baptizing, and after, their confessing. Which that it was really the Holy Baptists order of pro­ceeding, [Page 205] though it be not concluded from the order of the words, yet may seem probable from what was the custom of the Jews, as the learned in their customs say, namely, See Dr Lightfoots Horae Hebraicae, pag. 41. to admit men unto Prose­lytism or Discipleship by Baptizing them. Either way our business is done. For if he did not baptize them be­fore he had preached to them, and they had confessed to him; then the Argument from the order of the words to the order of the things is not good. But if he did baptize them before his preaching and their confes­sing, then here is a Scripture instance of Baptizing before Teaching and confessing, which justifies our practice, and gives an utter overthrow to the whole Hypothesis of the Antipaedobaptists in this matter.

§. 16. And as for the word Teaching, which goes before Baptizing (in the 19 th verse) several very learned Persons They mistran­slate the words: for Christ saith not, Go teach all nations—for his words are [...], &c. Go make Disciples a­mong all nations. do affirm, that it is not so properly there rendred Teaching. The word that properly signifies Teaching comes after baptizing (in the 20 th verse) and is [...] from [...] to teach, whence [...] do­ctrine or teaching, and [Page 206] [...] a Doctor or Teacher. But the word D^r. Featly, Dip­pers dipt, pag 40. The Phrase which is there used in the original, is a singular one, not duly expressed by our English Teach. It is [...] make Disciples, or re­ceive into Disci­pleship all nati­ons—D^r. Ham­mond Quaere of the Baptizing of Infants, pag. 196 See his Defense also, p. 46. [...], i. e Discipulos facite. Introducite per Baptismum ut doceantur. D^r. Lightfoot, Horae Hebraicae, p 323. [...], Discipulate, aut discipulos reddite, Vatablus. Discipulate, i. e. dis­cipulos reddite, Lucas Brugensis. [...], non est docere, sed discipulum facere, Wendelin Thcolog. l. 1. c. 22. Explic. Thes. 11. Teach them, that is, make them my Disciples, &c. Mr. Perkins, cited by H. D. pag. 4. Edit. 1. [...]. Locutio est Hebraica: nam [...] est [...] discipulus: unde formant verbum [...] facere discipulum & [...] sicri discipulum Thus Cameron declares the propriety of the word, though he is not of opinion that it is used in that propriety here, but saith simpliciter [...]; docere; and so makes a Tautology in the words, which yet he endeavours afterward to salve by a distinction; but in vain. that (in the 19th Bapti­zing, and is rendred teaching, is another word, namely [...], which coming from [...] a disciple (as that from [...] to learn) accord­ing to its variety of con­struction signifies to be a Disciple to another, or to make another a Disciple.

§. 17. With a Dative case of the Person it signifies to be a Disciple to ano­ther. Plutarch in the life of Isocrates speaking of Theopompus and Ephorus's be­ing Isocratess's Scholars, so expresseth it, [...], &c. But Disciple or Scholar unto him was The pom­pus, and Ephorus. St. Matthew expresses Josephs being a Disciple to Jesus by the same Phrase, Matth. 27. 57.—There came a rich man of Arimathea, named Joseph, who also himself [...] was Jesus dis­ciple, i. e. Disciple or Scholar to Jesus. So Justin M [...]rtyr in his second Apology speaks of some of sixty, and seventy years old, [...] from their infancy, or ever since they were chil­dren, had been disciples to Christ. Yea, and in the forenamed place of Plutarch, with­out any Dative case expressed, but abso­lutely set, it signifies to be a Disciple. And I, saith he, will teach you my whole art, [...], if you will be my Scho­lar, or will learn.

§. 18. But with an Accusative Case of the Person it is used to signifie to make ano­ther a Disciple. So Justin Martyr speak­ing of the Gentiles, which before the coming of Christ, were like an unbroken colt, that had never born either saddle or yok [...], saith, [Page 208] that when Christ was come Discipulos suos ab­legavit, & per ip­sos eas in discipli­nam suam recepit. The Lat. Translat. of Justin. [...]; he sent by his Disciples, and Discipled them, or made them Disciples. And ac­cording to this import of the verb active [...] with an Accusative Case to enter one into Discipleship, the Passive verb [...] with an Accusative Case, and the Preposition [...] doth signifie to be entred into Discipleship, to be taken in to be, or to become Disciples. Hence Justin Martyr speaks of Dialog. cum Try­phone Judaeo Sei­ons indies adhuc nonnullos discipli­nam suscipere in nomen Christi sui & viam seductio­nis relonquere, La­tin. Translat. Gods deferring his judg­ment now as of old he did in the days of Elias, [...], as knowing that daily some were entred into discipl [...]ship to the name of his Christ, (i. e. became Christians) and for sook the way of errour. With a Dative case also put without a Preposition St. Ba­sil useth the word, [...] to become a disciple to the Lord. But we need not Basil. de Bapt. l. 1. seek so far an instance of this interpretation of the word, when [Page 209] the elegant Evangelist in his History of the Acts of the Apostles (cap. 14. vtr. 21.) has given us one; And when (saith he there) they had preached the Gospel to that city, [...], and had made a good many Disciples, they returned again to Lystra—. Our Translation I very well know renders it, had taught many: but that (with humblest reverence to the Tran­slators) I conceive not to be so right a rende­ring of it. For that sure, teaching, was expres­sed before in the word preaching. For what is that [...] to preach the Gospel, but to publish, declare, and teach it? And if the word be so rendred, the sense will a­mount to thus much; and when they had taught that city the Gospel, and had taught many; which is a mere tautology. The meaning then plainly is, that after they had taught the word of the Gospel to that city in their preaching, and by that had prevailed with a good many of them to undertake the profession of the Gospel and become Disc [...]ples unto Christ, they accordingly made Disciples of them by baptizing them, and perhap, nay probably, some more besides the very persons taught, even the children, and servants of those that had been taught, as was usuall before with those that became proselytes to the Jews [Page 210] religion. And so our Saviours word here (in Matth. 28. 19.) is to be rendred as if he had said, ye have formerly made disci­ples onely of Jews, now enlarge your pains to the making disciples of Heathens also, and those of all the nations of the world; make even all heathens disciples. That must be all of them which should in any measure be capable of being made Dis­ciples. And such, 'tis known by the rules and practices of the Jews, amongst whom our Saviour lived, and to whose customs and practices he very much conformed, were not onely men of years, and understanding, but their children also upon the undertaking of others for them. And so by our Savi­ours order the Apostles were to make disci­ples not onely of the grown men of the Heathens, if they should offer themselves to discipleship, but also their little children too, if they would bring them also to be disciples to him. And disciples to Christ they might be, by being brought by their parents to Christs School, and en­tred into the relation of his Scholars, though they neither knew their Master as yet, any more than any of ours, whom we put to a strange School, do at first know their Ma­ster, whom they never saw before; or whom we put to a Master, whom they have [Page 211] never seen at all, by agreeing first with him for their teaching, and so entring them into the number of his Scholars, and then, after, sending them to be taught; nor knew any thing of that which they were to learn of him, any more then any of our chil­dren, that are put to a first, or a strange Master, do know what he will learn them, till he have set them a lesson; whose Disci­ples or Scholars yet they are in respect of their relation to him, though as yet they have learnt nothing from him. Or as he becomes a Member of a Colledge, and a Pupil to a Tutor, who goes not personally up to the University, but has his name onely sent up, and entred in there, as a Pupil to that Tutor, and a Member of that Colledge.

§. 19. Yea, 'tis the observation of a Person very learned in the manners and customs of the Jews, that among them, as among us, and all Nations, men are not therefore taught, that they may be made Disciples, but are therefore made disciples that they may be taught. An instance whereof he cites out of Bal Schabb. fol. 31. 1. which is of a certain Heathen, that came to Hillel the great, saying unto him, Make me a Proselyte, that you may Proselytum me fac, ut me doceas. Dr. Lightfoot, Horae Hebr. on Matth. 28. 19. teach me.

§. 20. And yet a little further to mani­fest the impropriety of rendring the Verb [...] here in this place by Teach, first let it be considered, how improperly it is followed first by the Participle [...], and then by the Participle [...].

§. 21. First, [...] how improperly is that rendred, Teach ba­ptizing? What must that mean? Teach by baptizing? But how shall they be taught by baptizing, who have not first been taught what baptizing means? Or must it mean teach and baptize? Then it must also, when we come to [...], be rendred, teach and teach. Must it be teach when ye ba­ptize? That's the best of it. But then also it must be, when ye come to [...], teach when ye teach. How improper is every way! But [...], [...] make Disciples baptizing them, teach­ing them, or by baptizing them, and by teaching them; what can be more proper? baptizing and teaching being the two things by which men are made Disciples.

§. 22. Secondly, let it be considered, that if [...] must signifie teaching, then there will be a needless Tautology com­mitted in so few words. Go ye therefore and teach all nations—and teaching them. One might have served, and the first is per­fectly [Page 213] needless. But not so, but highly im­portant if it be rendred, dis ipulate, or make Disciples.

§. 23. 'Tis frivolous to make a distin­ction between the Verbs, and their signifi­cations, as if the first sign fied to teach the faith, and the second to teach manners; the Verbs having no such distinct imports in their significations. They that have such a distinct use of the words ought to shew that use in Authors. Till then it must go but for a novel device of their own. And that it is no better may appear from [...]. Ac Edoctus Evangeli­um regni continud fidem in cordis pe­netralibus conce­pit D. Basil. Ex­hort. ad Baptism. Tom. 1. p. 483. that of St. Basil, where [...] is used for the teaching be­fore baptism, and particu­larly the baptism of the Eunuch by Philip, and comprehends all the teach­ing he is read to have had. Yea, and in this place of St. Matthew what e­ver can be implied in the first Verb, is expressed in what follows in the second Verb, which reaches to all things whatsoever Christ had commanded them. Unless any will say that [...] imports the teaching of somewhat that Christ never commanded his Apostles, something that [Page 214] neither concerns faith nor manners: for these were the things that Christ commanded his Disciples to act themselves, and to teach others the acting of.

§. 24. So again, to make such a distin­ction between the Verbs, as if [...] must signifie, teach those that are not Dis­ciples to make them so; and [...] must signifie teach them that are Disciples after they are made so, is also frivolous. For put [...] and [...] to­gether so signifying, and so distinguished: and what will they amount to? why thus much. Teach those, that are not Disci­ples to make them so teaching (or, by teach­ing) these that are Disciples after they are made so. How uncouth, if intelligible, a construction is this! and how unpra­cticable the thing in it self, when understood! How should a single Apostle travelling all alone into a strange place teach those that had never heard of the Gospel by his teach­ing those that had received it? or must he carry Disciples always along with him to, and set up School in every strange nation, that Heathens hearing him teach Christians, might by such hearing become Christians also? How is this imaginable to have been the meaning of our Saviour? How impra­cticable in the Apostles first onsets on the [Page 215] Heathen nations to make them become Chri­stians? When Churches were setled, then indeed something of this might be (though none sure ever thought that to be the design of our Saviour in his commission) but how this could be before any Church were either setled, or so much as begun to be gathered, (and there must be a first beginning to ga­ther before there could be a Church) is past imagination. And besides the Histories of those times shew the course was otherwise. But now [...] make disciples of Heathens, or make Heathens disciples, teaching (or by teaching) them to observe all things that I have commanded you; how clear is the interpretation! how genu [...]ne the sense! how practicable the thing in all times and places! how agreeable to the design in his commission! how nothing else but the very mind of Christ in his word!

§. 25. In a word, admit the word that comes here before baptizing were the same with that, which doth come after it, namely, [...] teach, or did here properly signi­fie teaching, as it doth not; how easily may it hence be gathered, That baptism may be either before, or after teaching, according to the condition of the Person to be bapti­zed; after it in those that are capable to be [Page 216] first taught; before it in those that are not as yet capable of teaching: after it to men, before it to children.

§. 26. And in confirmation hereof it might be said, that this hath been the very way of the Church of [...]hrist in all the ages of it, first to teach men, and then to baptize them: but first to baptize Children, and af­ter teach them: letting them at present have that means of grace, which at present they are capable of, and affording them after­ward what rema [...]ned, assoon as they should become capable of it.

§. 27. But having no authority to change any word in the Text of our Saviour, nor reason to be over liberal in my concessions, I abide by what was said before, having ad­ded this ex abundan i, more then was need­full, to shew the weak [...]ess of the Antipaedo­baptists way of arguing, even upon the ut­most advantage they can desire to be given them.

§. 28. And by this time I hope it ap­pears, that there is nothing in the word of God which renders Infants uncapable of be­ing baptized.

§. 29. And if so, then we have enough, though we had no more, for Infants ba­ptism. For Baptism being that, by which our children may have so much good as we [Page 217] have shewn they may have, in the first branch of our Argument; and being that, whereof they have so much need, as we have shewn they have, in the second branch of it; with what either charity or justice can they be denied it? being they are so capable of it, as we have now shewn them to be in the handling of this third branch. Sure children are not the only persons in the world that may neither have acts of justice nor charity shewn towards them? And what should hinder us from doing for them this good, for which they have so much need? Neither is the pains so great, nor the trouble so much, nor the charge so hea­vy, but we may afford it them. What will we do for them, that will not do so little as this comes to, to baptize them? Are we not free and at liberty to do it, if we will? Is there any restraint laid upon us from doing it by the Law either of God, or Man? If neither spake for it, as indeed both do, yet to be sure neither speaks against it, and so we may do it, if we will. And what can be pretended against doing so much good, where we see there is so much need?

§. 30. Do it then, Brethren, for your Children, because it is so much for their good. Do it, because that of that good they have so much need. And do it, be­cause [Page 218] it is an act both of Justice, and Cha­rity, which they are as capable of receiving, as you at liberty for performing. Never stand hunting for Scripture for it, so long as there is no Scripture against it: but reckon it your duty to bring them to Christ, whom Christ hath permitted to come unto him, and whose coming to him Christ hath forbidden any man to hinder, saying, Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not.

§. 31. And more then this I need not say to move any reasonable man to the do­ing of it.

§. 32. And yet above and beyond all this, I shall shew you in the fourth and last place a Right that Children have unto Ba­ptism, and then it cannot but be a wrong to hinder them from being baptized. A Right, I say, our Children have unto Baptism; and that upon a threefold account; the Con­stitution of this Church; the Custom of the Catholick Church; and the Institution of Christ; as I shall shew in order.

CHAP. XXVI.

§. 1. I Begin with our Childrens right to [...]aptism by the first, the Constitu­tion of this present particular Church.

§. 2. And as that hath told us in her 27th Article of her Do­ctrine, That the Baptism Baptismus parvu­lorum omnino in Ecclesid retinendus est, ut qui cum Christi institutione optimè congraut. Artic. Relig. 27. of young children is in any wi [...]e to be retained in the Church, as most agreea­ble with the institution of Christ: so it hath provi­ded in her Liturgy a dou­ble Office for the Baptizing of Infants, the one fitted for Publick Solemnity, the other adapted to Private Necessity; and hath or­dered the Curates of every Parish to be of­ten admonishing the people, that they defer not the baptizing of th [...]ir children longer than the first or second Sunday next after their B [...]rth, or other Holy day falling be­tween; unless upon reasonable cause, which must be great too, and to be approved by [Page 220] the Curate. What the Church then not onely allows, and permits them to have, but ordains and appoints their having of, that by the Constitution of the Church they have a Right unto; and they cannot, with­out injustice to them, be deprived of it; unless perhaps any shall think it no injury to wrong them of any spritual advantage, whereas it is a great one to rob them of any temporal one, when as contrarily, if the one be a robbery, the other is a sacriledge.

§. 3. But because the present Church is a Party, and will not be allowed to be a Judge by her Opposers, therefore I will proceed to shew a second Right that chil­dren have unto Baptism, and that is by Pre­scription from the Custom and Practice of the Catholick Church of Christ. And sure they that will not be Members of our Par­ticular Church, will yet be willing to be Members of Christs Catholick Church. And if so they be, then sure they will not oppose, nor gainsay, but submit unto, and be regulated by, the Custom and Pra­ctice of it; unless they mean to become guilty of Schism, in separating from that Church, whereof they pretend themselves to be Members.

§. 4. Now as to Church custom and practice, 'tis in that, as in other customs [Page 221] and practices. It hath the obligation of a Law. Common usage, we say, is common Law in England. So 'tis in civil Customs, and so too in Ecclesiastical. Where Au­thority from the Scripture fails, there the Custom of Ubi Authoritas de­ficit, ibi Consue­tudo ma [...]orum pro lege tenenda est. D. Aug. ad Ca­sulan. In rebus de quibus nihil certi statuit Scriptura divina, m [...]s populi Dei, vel instituta majorum pro lege tenenda, D. Aug. Ep. 86. Consuet ido autem etiam in civilibus rebus pro lege sus­cipitur, cum defi­cit lex: nec dif­fert, Scriptura an ratione consistat, quando & legem ratio commendet. Tert. de Coron. Mil. In iis quae Scriptura, nec ju­bet, nec prohibet, illud est sequendum, quod con­suetudo roboravit—Id. Ib. Exigis ubi scriptum sit in actibus Apostolorum; etiamsi Scripturae auctoritas non subesset, totius Orbis in hac parte consensus instar praecepti obtinet. Nam & multa alia quae per tra­ditionem in Ecclesiis observantur auctoritatem sibi scriptaelegis usurpârunt, veluti in lavacro ter mergi­tare caput, &c. D. Hieron. advers. Luciferan. Quis—quis Catholici dogmatis & moris sensum, divinitus per loca & tempora omnia dispensatum contemserit, non hominem contemnit, sed Deum. Vincent. Lili­nens. the Church is to be held as a Law. So St. Augustine saith; and so have o­thers of the Ancients both thought and said. Whence that conclusion of the Council of Nice, that [...] the anci­ent usages should continue in force. And if so, then Infants will have a Right to Baptism, as good as any ever had to any thing on this account.

§. 5. And that it should be so, namely, that the Custom and Practice of the Church should have the force of a Law, either to justifie a Church Practice, or to give Right unto a Church Priviledge, will be no won­der sure to him that considers that the Apo­stle both hath made the Custom of the Church a Rule for Church-members to walk by, (1 Cor. 14. 40.) in saying, Let all things be done decently, and in order. (For by Decency there he means agreea­bleness to the custom of the Church, which, as our Learned Paraphrast saith, is the rule of decency:) and hath also himself made use of Church custom as an argument for the refutation of such as should contend for the decency of womens publick praying, that is, being present at, and joyning in the i­vine service, with their heads uncovered, 1 Cor. 11. 16. But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such customs, nor the Churches of God. Which words of his we may sitly use to Opposers of In­fants Baptism. They contend for the de­ferring of the Baptizing of Infants, even of all Infants, though they be the children of [Page 223] believing Parents, till they be grown men; and hold it unlawfull for any to be baptized before. But that is a novel opinion, and practice of their own. We have no such either opinion or custom, nor the Churches of God.

§. 6. And the stronger still will Infants Right unto Baptism from the Custom of the Church be (which Custom yet must needs be granted to have a great force, when an Apostle, that could impose by an Au­thority Divine, would argue from a Custom of the Church) if it shall appear that this Custom of the Church hath been grounded upon Apostolical Tradition, or Practice: especially being the Apostle hath given express order to stand fast to, and hold the Apostolical Traditions, whether by word or by writing, 2 Thess. 2. 15. and to mark them which walked so, as they had the Apostles for an example, Phil. 3. 17. I will therefore first shew, that the Practice of this Particular Church to baptize Infants has been the Practice of the Catholick Church: and then proceed to shew that Practice of the Church to have been ground­ed on the Tradition of the Apostles, and put fair to shew it to have been the Practice of the Apostles also.

CHAP. XXVII.

§. 1. NOw to shew that it hath been the Custom and Practice of the U­niversal Church of Christ to baptize In­fants, as it will be usefull unto you, and also delightfull, because you will see that what we hold and do in this case, is no other but what hath been held and done in and by the Catholick Church in all the ages of it, ever since that first wherein the Apostles lived: so it shall neither be irksome nor unpleasing to my self, because I shall hope thereby to contribute something toward the conviction and satisfaction of those that are doubters, and dissatisfied in the point. Wherein my progress shall be retrogressive, beginning below, and carrying my Catalogue upwards; to the Primitive Times from the Present; whereas other usually begin above, and bring it downward to the Present from the Primi­tive: it being not material which way it is done, but suiting better with my design to have it done this way.

§. 2. And for this present Seventeenth [Page 225] Century now current, we need no o­ther but our own eyes to be our witnesses of the daily Practice to baptize Infants, both in our Church at home, and other Churches abroad, as well Protestant as Po­pish.

§. 3. And as little need almost have we to seek for witnesses in the Century next fore­going, there being many no doubt yet living, who were baptized Infants themselves with­in the compass of that Century, if they do not also remember the baptisms of others. However at home our Articles of Religion first agreed on in the reign of Q. Elizabeth, Anno 1562, declaring that Infants baptism is in any wise to be retained in the Church as most agreeable to the Institution of Christ; and our Liturgy compiled before in the reign of K. Edward the Sixth, Anno 1549, wherein is contained the office for the pub­lick baptizing of Insants is to us a sufficient evidence for it, without seeking further. To which for neighbourhood sake, we may add the Confession of the Faith of Scotland, in the year 1582, wherein they confess and acknowledge that baptism appertaineth as well to the Infants of the Faithfull, as unto them that be of full age and discretion.

§. 4. And for the Churches abroad their Confessions shew their belief and practice [Page 226] in this case. The Council of Trent in the fifth and seventh Session of it (Anno 1546, & Anno 1547) Si quis parvulos recentes ab utcris matrum baptizan­dos negat—Ant­thema sit. Concil. Trident. Sess. 5. apud Caranzam. Si quis dixerit par vulos, co quod a­ctum credend [...] non habent, susccpto ba­ptismo inter fideles [...]omputandos non esse—Anathema sit. Id. ib. Sess. 7. con. 13. anathematizes those that either say that chil­dren ought not to be ba­ptized; or that being ba­ptized they ought not to be reckoned amongst belie­vers; or that it is better wholly to let their bapti­zing alone, than that, not believing by any proper act of their own, they should be baptized upon the account of the faith of the Church. And that gives sufficient evi­dence for the Church of Rome.

§. 5. Then for the Protestant Churches, the Harmony of the Con­fessions of Helvetia, Bo­hemia, Printed at Cam­bridge 1586. Belgia, Auspurge, Saxony, Wittemberg, We condemn the Anabaptists who deny that young Infants born of faithful parents are to be bapti­zed. For accord­ing to the doctrine of the Gospell, Theirs is the king­dom of God. And they are in the Covenant of God. And why then should not the sign of the Cove­nant be given to them? The latter Confession of H [...]lvetia. In which holy Font we do therefore dip our Infants, because that it is not lawful for us to reject them from the company of the people of God, which are born of us—Former Confess. of H [...]lvetia.—Young children also who are reckoned in the number of Gods people in like sort are by this Ministery to be benefited towards the attaining of salvation, that they likewise may be consecra­ted, and dedicated to Christ, according to his commandment, when he saith, Suffer ye the little ones— For these causes do our Ministers without any doubt, and boldly baptize children—Bohemie.—Seeing that God doth together with the Parents account their posterity also to be of the Church, we assirm that Infants being born of holy Parents, are by the Authority of Christ to be ba­ptized. French Confess.—We by the same reason do believe that they [Infants] ought to be ba­ptized, and sealed with the sign of the Covenant, for the which in times past the Infants amongst the Israelites were circumcised, that is by reason of the same promises made unto our Infants, that were made unto others. Confess. of Belgia. They teach that young Infants are to be baptized.—They condemn the Anabaptists, which allow not the baptism of Infants—Confess. of Auspurge. We also baptize Infants, because it is most certain, that the promise of grace doth pertain also to In­fants.—Confess. of Saxony. We acknowledge that Baptism is to be ministred as well to Infants, as to those that are grown to full age. Confess. of Wittemberge. Seeing that Baptism is a Sacrament of that Covenant, which God hath made with those that be his, promising that he will be their God, and the God of their seed—therefore our Preachers do teach, that it is to be given to In­fants also—Confess. of sweveland. Sweveland, with the French Confession, all u­nanimously declaring for Infants baptism, though some on one ground, and some on another, evidently enough shews what was [Page 227] believed and practiced by those parts of the Church in that age.

§. 6. To these I shall add the Confes­sion of the Churches of the Valleys of Pie­mont assembled in Angrogne (Anno 1532) in the 17 Artic. whereof they say,—we have but two Sacramental Signs left us by Jesus Christ; the one is Baptism, the other is the Eucharist, which we receive, to shew that our Sir Sam. Morland History of Pie­mont. p. 41. perseverance in the Faith is such, as we promised when we were baptized being little children. Also a Confession presented to Ladislaus K. of Bohemia (Anno 1508) by his Subjects, falsly called Waldenses; and after to Ferdinand Id. ib. pag. 53. K. of Bohemia, (An­no 1535) in the 12 Artic. whereof, They likewise teach, that children are to be ba­ptized unto salvation, and to be consecrated to Christ, according to his Word, Suffer little children, &c. And whereas the Wal­denses are charged to have rejected the ba­ptism [Page 229] of little Infants, they in their Book intituled the Luthers Forerun­ners, l. 1. c. 4. p. 10. & 15. of part 1. spiritual Almanack, sol. 45. quit themselves (as my Author faith) from this imputation as followeth. The time and place of those that are to be baptized is not ordained, but the charity and edification of the Church and Congregation must serve for a rule therein, &c. And therefore they to whom the chil­dren were nearest allied brought their In­fants to be baptized, as their parents, or any other whom God had made charitable in that kind. Again, in the Book of the Do­ctrine of the Waldenses and Albingenses (ch. 3.) Id. ib. part 3. pag. 43. their iudgment and Pra­ctice is thus delivered, And for this cause it is that we present our chil­dren to Baptism; which they ought to do, to whom the children are nearest, as their parents, and they to whom God hath given this charity. It is confessed that they did in process of time grow to deser the bapti­zing of their Infants for some while: but that was not from any o­pinion of the unlawfulness Id. ib. part 1. pag. 15. of Infants Baptism: but partly because their own Ministers were many times abroad imployed [Page 230] in the service of their Churches; and partly out of detestation of some humane inventions held by them to be pollutions added to that Sacrament as administred by the Priests of the Church of Rome, by whom for some cer­tain hundreds of years they had been con­straind to suffer their children to be baptiz'd.

§. 7. So that it is needless to appeal for further evidence to the Conference at Mom­pelgu [...]t; Anno 1529. or the Articles of Smalkald, Anno 1536. or book of Concord; Anno 1580. much less to the testimonies of single persons, though men of note and eminence in their generation, such as Luther, Melan­cthon, Calvin, Zan [...]hy, or any other of the many writers on this Subject in that Age. Who were by so much the more moved to write on this Subject in regard of an Oppo­sition then made to Infants Baptism by the Anabaptists, who as Me­lancthon saith were then Melancthon loc. Comm. de Bapt. nuper nati, newly come up, whereas before there was great quietness in the Church about that Point.

§. 8. Yet, to shew that Infants Baptism was not the practice of the more Western parts of Europe onely, but of the Eastern too, and of those that followed the Greek [Page 231] Church, as well as those that followed the Latine, I will give two or three evidences of th [...]s practice among the Russians, Ruthens, and Moscovians.

§. 9. In an Epistle written to David Chy­traeus (dated 8 Kal. Aug. Anno M. D. LXXVI.) De Russorum, Mos­covitarum & Tar­tarorum Religione, pag. 240. the Author relating the manner of baptizing a­mong the Russians, saith the Priest useth to pour a whole gallon of water upon the Infant. A­lexander Gaguin saith of Ib. pag. 232. the Ruthens, that they ba­ptize their Infants by immersion. These receiving the Faith about the year 942, and retaining it firmly ever since, are an Instance of Infants Baptism, not for this Century only, but for all the time from their first conversion. And the same is testified of them by Johannes Sacra­nus, Canon of Cracow, Ib. pag. 193. who writing his Book in the year 1500, is a witness in this case as well for the foregoing, as present Century. And Johannes Faber wri­ting to Ferdinand King of Ib. pag. 176. the Romans Anno 1525) concerning the Moscovites, who, as them­selves say, received their religion from [Page 232] St. Andrew, and are very firm to what they have once received, saith that they baptize their Infants by a threefold immersion, if he be strong, else by pouring on of water. Now this Relation, if true, and why it may not be so I cannot tell, speaks not only for the Century, the Relator writ in, but for time before; how much 'tis uncertain, but for ought I know, for all the time since their first conversion, which reaches up to the very Apostles days.

§. 10. And to shew that Infants baptism was not the practice onely of Europe but of other parts of the world, and so hint at (that which some other better read in History may be able sully to make out) a Catho­lickness of it in respect of C [...]un [...]ries profes­sing Christianity as well as Times, I will give you a brief tast from Mr. Brerewoods Enquiries, how it was about this Century, and God knows how many Centuries be­fore, whether from the beginning or no, in this Point with the Eastern and Southern parts of the world where Christianity is professed. And to begin with the Christi­ans of St. Thomas so cal­led, as being supposed to Chap. 20. have been by his preaching converted to the Christian Religion, inha­biting in India in great numbers about Cou­lan, [Page 233] and Cranganor, Maliapur, where St. Thomas is supposed to lie buried and Ne­gapatan. These baptize their Infants, though not indeed till they be forty days old, except in danger of death. Next the Jacobites are a sort of Christians who inhabit in Chap. 21. Syria, Cyprus, Mesopota­mia, B [...]bylon, Pal [...]stine, and under other titles are said to be spread abroad in forty kingdoms. And these all baptize their In­fants, signing them first with the sign of the Cross, which they imprint into their face or arm with a burning iron. Then the Co [...]hti or Christians in Aegypt, where Religion was plan­ted Chap. 22. in the Apostles days, these baptize their children, though not a­fore the fortieth day, [...]o not in case of death. The Hab [...]stine Christians inhabiting the Chap. 23. midland of Africa do also baptize their Infants: but their Males not till forty days after their birth, and their Females not till eighty, except in peril of death. The Armenian Christians are spread in Chap. 24. multitudes over the Tur­kish Empire, but chiefly in the Armenia's the Greater and Lesser, and in Cilicia. And [Page 234] these also baptize their Infants. Lastly, the Maronites are a sort of Christians inhabiting Chap. 25. Aleppo, Damascus, Tri­poli of Syria, Cyprus, and mount Libanus. And these too baptize their Infants, but their Males not till forty days after their birth, and their Females not till eighty days after it. So that from all the Quarters of the world where Christianity is professed wit­nesses come for Infants baptism.

§. 11. But not more fruitful was this Century for Testifiers to this Truth, then some of the foregoing are barren; not from the rarity of the practice, or opinion of men against it, but from the scarcity of Writers in those Ages, whose works are extant, and from the little or no opposition made to it. Yet in the barrenest and dark­est of Ages, we shall find a sufficiency of light and evidence, to carry up this Practice through them to the Primitive Times.

§. 12. In the middle of the Fifteenth Age (about Anno 1452) we find Ni­colaus de Orbellis giving his testimony to this Truth. Yist. 4. 4 Libri Sent. qu. 5. For to the question whe­ther the effects of baptism be alike in all, he answers by way of Di­stinction; say [...]ng that the Baptized are ei­ther [Page 235] Infants or Adult: and that if the Com­parison be of an Infant with the Adult, the effect is unequal, the advantage on the A­dults side. And upon the question, whe­ther the Infants of Infidels may be baptized against the Ib. qu. 7. wills of their parents, he determines that though a private person may not compell in that case, yet a Prince may. And also he gives reasons why the Infants to be ba­ptized Ib. qu. 8. should be Catechi­zed, though they be not able to apprehend any instruction, which is a sufficient indica­tion both of his opinion and of the Churches Practice in that age. As for the Catechi­zing he speaks of, that none trip at that, it is nothing but the asking and answering to the questions solemnly used in bapti in by the Godfathers. For he tells ye what the Godfather means, when in the Person of the Infant he answers, I believe. And the Reasons for this he draws partly from the Church, partly from the Godfathers, and partly from the Infants.

§. 13. Towards the latter end of this Century, about the year 1487 flourished Gabriel Biel; and he as the Author newly mentioned, Omnes parvulirite baptiza [...]i rem & Sacramentum sus­ cipiunt: sed Sa­cramentum tantum qui fictè, & sine side & contritione accedunt. Gabriel Biel, in 1 Sentent. d. 4. discoursing of the different [Page 236] effects of baptism in per­sons of different age and disposition, concludes thus. All Infants rightly baptized receive the thing and the Sacrament: but those (he means adult ones) that come feignedly, and without faith and contrition receive onely the Sacrament. 'Twere lost time to stand upon it hence to prove his being for Infants Baptism.

§. 14. But before either him, or De Or­bellis, flourished Thomas Waldensis, who died Anno 1430. And saith he, who ever we be that are baptized into Quicunque bapti­zati sumus in Christo Jesu, in morte ipsius bapti­zati sumus. Ergo & parvuli qui ba­ptizantur in Chri­sto, quoniam in morte ipsius bapti­zati sunt, peccato moriuntur. Tho. Walden de Sa­cram. Tom. 2. q. 101. Fol. 104. Col. 2. Quod parvuli ad baptis­mum delati si praeveniantur morte peribunt. Id. ib. q. 99. Fol. 101. Col. 3. Jesus Christ are baptized into his death. Therefore even the Infants that are baptized into Christ, be­cause they are baptized in­to his death, do die to sin. The same Author holds that Infants brought to ba­ptism yet dying before they be baptized, do perish.

§. 15. Yea, and even in the beginning [Page 237] of it, (about Anno 1401) flourished Ni­colaus Gorranus. And he delivers his sense as to this matter in the words of Beda, and the Ordinary Gloss, Treating on Mark 7. 29. Vade, exiit daemonium, Go thy way, the devil is gone out of thy daughter, he saith, And as saith Beda, hence we have an example, that, as that daughter was healed by the faith of her Mother, as the Centurions servant (Matth. 8.) by the faith of his Master, so are Infants by the faith of their Parents. Whence saith the Gloss, Here we have an example of the Ca­techizing and baptizing of Infants: because by the Faith and Confession of the Parents in baptism, little ones who are neither able to understand nor act any thing either of good or evil, are freed from the devil. The Catechizing here, 'tis plain, is no other but that we have newly spoke of. And by the way if Walafridus Strabo were the Collector of the Ordinary Gloss, as Isaackson from Tri­themius and Trifingensis affirms, then it is apparent, that, how much soever his Au­thority is pretended against Infants Baptism, either he was not against it, or if he were, he was against himself; Which further ap­pears from what Mr. Obed Wills in his Answer to Infant Bapt. Asser­ted, c. 7. pag. 24. Henry Danvers ‘shews, [Page 238] namely, that declaring his own opinion upon the matter, he saith, that it was a sign of the growth of Religion (after a diligent search) to take up the practice of Infant Baptism; and amongst other Testimonies citeth the Fathers in generall for it, in opposition to the prolonging of Austins Baptism, till he was Adult: And concludes at last thus—Wise Chri­stians bapt [...]zed their Infants, being not as some heretical persons, opposing the Grace of God, and contend that Infants are not to be baptized.’ So that by the way here we have gleaned up a witness for the Ninth Century before we come at it; even Wal [...]fridus S [...]rabo, the man so much cried up by our Antipaedo baptists for a pro­pugner of their opinion, and an impugner of Infants Baptism.

§. 16. We will now step on to the Fourteenth Century. And in the very first year of it (Anno 1300) appears Cum secundum Scripturam & si­dem parvuli tra­hant originale [peccatum] ad e­jus dele [...]ionem, quia necessaria est ad salutem, sunt baptizandi [par­ vuli]: quia tem­pore legis Evan­gelicae baptismus institutus est in remedium contra illam culpam.—Ad illud argumen­tum Qui non cre­diderit, condem­nabitur. Respon. Quod potest intel­ligi de adultis, per illud quod pr [...]ecc­dit Qui credi­derit & baptiza­tus fuerit. Vel po­test dici, quod qui non crediaerit noc actu nec habitu condemnabitur—Par euli au [...]em etsi non possune habere actum credendi, possunt tamen ha­bere habitum Joh. Duns Scot. in l. 4. Sententiar. Dist. 4 qu. 1. Johan­nes Duns Scotus a witness for Infants Baptism. And saith he, whereas according to Scripture and Faith In­fants bring along with them original sin, for the blotting out thereof, because that is necessary unto sal­vation, [Page 239] are Infants to be baptized, because in the time of Gospel baptism is instituted as a remedy a­gainst that guilt. And to the Argument from Mark 16. 16. Qui non credide­rit—He that believeth not shall be damned, he an­swers, that may be under­stood of adult ones, in as much as there goes before it, Qui crediaerit—He that believeth and is bapti­zed. Or it may be said, He that believes neither in act nor in habit shall be condemned—But Infants, though they cannot have the act of believing, yet they may have the habit of saith.

§. 17. Go we now on to the Thirteenth Century. And here we have Bonaventure (about Anno 1260) giving witness to the baptizing of Hoc quotidie con­tingit in pueris qui baptizantur, qui se ante annos disere­tionis moriantur, in altcrius side gratiam suscipi­unt, qua per me­ri [...]um Christi sal­vantur. Bonaven­tura de Vita Chr­sti, c. 23. Infants in this Age. For speaking of believing by the Faith of others, he saith, [Page 240] This is a thing which falls out daily in the children that are baptized, who if they die before they arrive at years of discretion, do by the faith of another re­ceive that grace, whereby they are saved through the merit of Christ.

§. 18. Here also we have Aquinas (about Anno 1255) giving a full and clear witness. For unto the Sed contra est, quod Dionys. dicit ult. cap. Eccl. Hierar [...]h. Divini nostri du­ces scilicet Apo­stoli probaverunt insantes recipi ad baptismum Aquin. Sum. 3. q. 68. Artic. 9. Pucri baptizandi sunt, cum sint originali peccato obnoxii, & ut à pueritia enu­triti in religione Christiana firmiùs in ea perseverent. Id. ib. Conclus. Ipse autem Domi­nus dicit, Joh. 3. Quod nisi quis—Ʋnde necessarium fuit pueros bapti­zari, &c. Id. ib. Corp. Artic. question, whether Infants are to be baptized, he an­swers assirmatively, that they are. And his opinion he grounds on the Autho­rity of Dionys. Areop. af­firming that the Apostles did allow of it, that Infants should be admitted unto baptism. Which he also confirms from the Need they have of it by reason of their obnoxiousness to ori­ginal sin; from, the Neces­sity there is of it in order to their obtaining of salva­tion, because of Christs having said, Nisi quis re­natus fuerit— That except [Page 241] a man be born of Water and of the spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God; and lastly from the Conveniency of it in or­der to their being brought up to, and perse­vering in the Christian Faith.

§. 19. In this Century Pope Greg. the Ninth, who was elected about Anno 1227, and died Anno 1241, de­clares, that the Sacrament Sacramenium ba­ptismi utiliter con­fertur parvulis; licet non credant, nec intelligant, &c. Greg. 9. De­cret. l. 3. Tit. 41. De Baptismo & ejus effectu, cap. 3. fol. 296, 297. of Baptism is usefully given to Infants, though they be defective both in faith, and understanding. He also both answers objections a­gainst Infants Baptism, and lays down grounds for it. Circumcision is one; and Except a man be born again, &c. is ano­ther.

§. 20. In the same Century (about Anno 1251) the Centuriators of Mag­deburg quote a Synodal Constitution, writ­ten by the Bishop of Nemans, wherein 'tis ordained, that in case of such danger of death, that Et in libro Syno­dali ab Episcopo Nemansensi con­scripto dicitur: Praecipimus itaque utinfans quam cito natus fueris, si pe­ [...]iculum sibi mortis ammineat, ita quod Presbytero nequeat praesentari à cir­cumstantibus mas­culis baptizetur, &c. Cent. 13. c. 6. Col. 594. the new born babe cannot be presented to a Priest, he shall be baptized by any Man that is present, and if no man be present, then [Page 242] by any woman present, and at last by the Father or Mother, if there be no bo­dy else to baptize it.

§. 21. They cite also for this Age Ecclesia orat pro parvulis baptiza­xis, non quia dubi­um sit ipsos sal­vari sed ut innua­ [...]ur quod boc non habent ex suis me­ritis vel natura, sed de sola gratiâ. Hug. in Psal. 27. Hu­go saying, That the Church prays for the baptized In­fants, not as doubting of their salvation, but as in­timating that they have not this from their own either merits or nature, but from grace onely.

§. 22. As also Guli [...]lmus Pucris verd pro­pter periculum onortis est statim dandus: nec est disserendus, quia [...]ton potest [...]is aliter subveniri. Guliel­mus. De Tempore baptizandi. Sed tertius est baptis­mus fluminis five aquae, quo sid [...]les quotidie & pucri baptizantur & re­generantur. Id. de Baptismo & ejus partibus, cap. 2. Quandoque datur per immersionem, ita quod totus puer immergitur in a­qua. Quandoque etiam datur per aspersionem, quan­do puer aspergitur. & super eum aqua infunditur. Id. de ritu bapti­zandi, cap. saying, That by reason of danger of death baptism is instant­ly to be administred to children, and not to be de­ferred, because there is no other way of affording them help. Which same Author speaking of the three sorts of Baptism, viz. that of the Spirit, that of Blood, and that of Wa­ter, saith of this last. That is it, wherewith daily Be­lievers [Page 243] and Infants are ba­ptized and regenerated. As also speaking of the seve­ral ways of baptizing, he saith, sometimes the whole child is dipped in water, and sometimes water is sprink­led upon him.

§. 23. And the Synod of Colonia Statuimus ut ills qui baptizat, dicat haec verba, Petre, &c. Item Saccrdos [...]andem formans doceat mares & foeminas observare; cum in necessitate baptizant infan­tes, etiam parentes si alii defuerint. Synod. Colon. sub Rudolpho, Cont. 13. c. 9. Col. 944. un­der the Emperor Rudolphus orders the Priest both in what form he shall baptize himself, and teach others, whether Men or Women, or Parents themselves for want of others, to baptize Infants in case of necessity.

§. 24. Ascend we now one step higher unto the Twelfth Century. And here we find Peter Lombard the Master of the Sen­tences a Witness for Paedo­baptism. All little ones Sacramenium & rem simul suscipi­unt omnes parvuli, qui in baptismo ab originali mundan­tur peccato. Nam (que) quod omnibus in baptismo remitti­tur peccatum per baptismum Au­gust. evidenter di­cit, In Enchirid. c. 43. P. Lom­bard, l. 4. dist. 4. (Anno 1145.) (saith he) receive at once both the Sacrament and the [Page 244] thing, who are cleansed in baptism from Original Sin. And to countenance his assertion he cites St. Au­gustin as speaking to this purpose. And again (in his 8 Book on Ch. 13. of Revel. as he is quoted by Mr. Wills, p. 144.) All that are baptized (saith he) whether little ones or great ones, receive in their foreheads the sign of the Cross. Little ones then as well as great ones were in his time baptized.

§. 25. Here also we have Gratian (a­bout Anno 1140) telling us, That Infants may be baptized upon the Aliorum side & professione parvuli baptizentur. Gra­tian. De Conse­crat. dist. 4. Par­vulis in baptismate offerentium pro­dest sides. Id. ib. Aliorum fides in baptismate parvu­los salvat. Id. ib. Praeter baptisma Christi parvulis nulla salus promit­titur. Id. ib. account of the Faith and Profession of others. That the Faith of those that bring Infants to baptism is profi­table to them. That the faith of others saves Infants in Baptism. That but by the Baptism of Christ no salvation is promised to In­fants. And by these and other like passages, which he quotes from August. Isidor. Leo, &c. he shews both his own [Page 245] opinion o [...] Infants Baptism; and the Practice of the Age he lived in to be for it.

§. 26. Here comes in also Petrus Clu­niacensis (about Anno 1130). And saith he by way of question; The Infants of the Jews are Salvantur parvuli Judaeorum Sacra­mento Circumcisio­nis: & non sal­vabuntur parvali Christianorum Sa­cramento baptis­matis? Petr. Clu­niac. l. 1. contra Pe­trobrusianos, Ep. 2. Unde quia non potuit u [...]bra cor­pore, fig [...]ra veri­tate aliquo pa [...]io excellentior appa­rere, necessario vos op [...]riet consite­ri Christianorum parvulos salvari baptismate: cum fateamini Judaeo­rum parvulos salvari Circumcisione, Id. ib. saved by the Sacrament of Circumeision: and shall not the Infants of Christi­ans be saved by the Sacra­ment of Baptism? And a­gain, Because the shadow could not by any means ap­pear more excellent than the body, nor the figure than the truth; ye must needs confess that the Infants of Christians are saved by Ba­ptism, when ye confess that the Infants of the Jews were saved by Circumci­sion.

§. 27. Higher up in this Century (a­bout Anno 1120) flourished St. Bernard: and his very complaining Irrident nos, quia baptizamus infan­tes, &c. D. Bern. super Caat. Serm. 66. Col. 996. k. &c. of some mens scoffing at the baptizing of Infants, without adding what he [Page 246] pleads on their behalf, is a sufficient evidence of his opinion, and the Churches practice in that Age.

§. 28. After all which it is needless to tell you from the Centuriators of Magde­burg. how Tyrius (l. 22. c. 7.) makes mention of Centuriat. Magd. Cent. 12. cap. 6. Col. 872. lin. 53. &c. the baptizing of Infants; or how An [...]onius (l. 5. c. 57.) relates Lewis King of France's causing his new born Son Philip to be presently baptized; or how the bapti­zing of El [...]nor and Joan the little daugh­ters of the Queen of England presently af­ter their birth, is to be read in the C [...]ntinua­tor of Sigebert.

§. 29. From hence let us take another step upwards into the Eleventh Century. And in that Age the Cen­turiators tell us they bapti­zed Cent. 11. cap. 6. Col. 260. Infants, even present­ly after their birth, if weak. And then instance, from Schatnaburgensis, in the Emperesses Son baptized within three days after his birth by reason of his weak­ness, and the fear of his death; as also in a Son of the Queen of Moguntia who was baptized presently after his birth, and died presently after his baptism, and was buried at Hartisburg. And to the baptizing of [Page 247] Infants St. Anshelm About An. 1086. Hinc ostendimur mortui esse pecca­to, quia in Christe morte baptizati su­mus: profecto & parvuli qui bapti­zantur in Christo, peccato meriuntur. qui in morte ipsius baptizantur. D. Anshelm in 6. ad Rom. Nec par [...]uli de quibuslibet sanctis justisque procreati originalis peccati reatu absoluuntur, nisi in Christo fuerint baptizali. Id. in cap. 7. Iae ad Co­rinth.—Per sidem scilicet & confessionem parentum in baptism [...] liberantur a [...]iabolo parvuli, qui necdum per se capere, vel ali quid b [...]ni mali possunt fa­cere. Id. in 15 cap. Matth. in that Age gives testimony, saying that even the little ones truly who are bapti­zed into Christ do die unto sin, because they are bapti­zed into his death.

§. 30. Hence advance we to the Tenth Century, And in that the Centuriators also tell us Cent. 10. c. 10. Col. 292, 293, 294, 295. they baptized Infants. And they instance from Bonsi­nius in St [...]phen the Son of Geysa Duke of Hungary, who had Theodatus Prince of A­pulia for his Godfather, whom the Infant afterward called Tata, which signifies Fa­ther. Also (from Helmoldus) they tell us of the Emperor Othos being Godfather to a little Son of Herold King of Denmark at his baptizing; and from Vincentius, of a bastard got by Edgar King of England on a Nun, and baptized an Infant, though not [Page 248] till the seven years penance imposed by Dun­stan on his Father were ended. And of In­fants being held in the right arms at their a­nointing after Baptism. And to the baptizing of Parvulos bapti­zandos Smaragdus docet: Sinite par­vulos venire ad me, talium est enim regnum coelorum. Hanc enim san­ctam, puram & in­nocentem infanti­am per baptismi gratiam casta ma­ter gignit Eccle­sia. Smarag. in Ep. Pet. c. 2. ap. Cen­turiat. cent. 10. c. 4. Col. 188. Hoc ver­bum fidei tantum valet in Ecclesia, ut per ipsum cre­dentem, offerentem, benedicentem, tingentem, e­tiam tantillum mundet infantem, quamvis nondum va­lentem corde credere ad justitiam, & ore confiteri ad salutem. Id. ibid. Col. 187. Infants Smaragdus (about Anno 990) gave witness, grounding his opinion (as they tell us) on our Savi­ours words in my Text, Suffer little children to come unto me, for of such is the kingdom of God; and saying further, that this holy, pure, and innocent infancy is begot by the chast Mother the Church through the grace of Ba­ptism.

§. 31. From the Tenth ascend we to the Ninth Century. And here we have Hinc­marus Bishop of Rheims severely rebuking another Cen. 9. c 4. Col 40. Hincmarus Archie­piscopus Rhemen­fis Scribit. Anno 860. Alsted. Theol. Polem. Hincmarus Bishop of Laudum to whom he was Uncle for denying baptism [Page 249] to Infants. The account on which he denied it (that Cent. 9. cap. 4. Col. 443. none stumble at that) was not any opinion of the un­lawfulness of Infants Baptism. But as the Centuriators tell us he did it ob suas priva­tas injurias, stirred up thereto by his pri­vate injuries, for which he excommunicated all the Priests of his Church; and interdi­cted them the saying of Masses, baptizing of Infants, absolving all Penitents, and bury­ing the dead. For which he was condemned in a Sy­nod Cent. 9. c. 9. Col. 443. at Acciniacum called by Carolus Calvus (Anno 870) and forced under his own hand to promise obedience to his Sovereign and Me­tropolitan. After which by the Synod of Trecas Ib. Col. 447. called by Pope John the the Ninth under Carolus Crassus he was re­stored (Anno 878). However the Bi­shop of Rheims resented the other Inter­dicts, it seems he most highly resented the interdiction of Baptism to Infants, pleading for it from Scriptures both of the Old and New Testament, and in particular this Text of mine, Suffer little children to come unto me: and then expostulates with his Cousin, saying, And do you hinder little ones to be [Page 250] offered unto the Lord? Ait illis Sinite parvulos venire ad me, & nè prohi­bi critis eos. Et tu prohibes offeri do­mino parvulos? Cent. 9. c. 4. Col. 140. And then tells him how from the time of the Nicene Council he had never any where heard of such a thing done: and that he ought to have been afraid to do that alone, which never any Christian had dared to do. And then he backs the practice of baptizing Infants with the Authorities of Pope Siricius, the Afri­can Council, St. Leo, and St. Gregory.

§. 32. In the same Century flourished Haymo Bishop of Halber­stad Anno 850. Alsted. Theol. Polem. Parculi in baptis­mate mundantur. Ilaymo super 5. ad Rom. ap. Cent. 9. c. 4. Col. 143. Cousin to Bede, and Scholar to Alcuinus. And he expresly saith, that little children are cleansed in Baptism.

§. 33. Somewhat before him (Anno 830) flourished Rabanus Mau­rus, first Abbot of Fulda, Alsted. Theol. Po­lem. and then Bishop of Ments, a man of such learning, that as Alsted saith, neither had Italy any like him, nor Germany any equal to him. And this so learned a man gives testimony in this Age for Infants baptism, saying, Plainly no man ought to doubt, but that in Baptism, [Page 251] before the Infant rise from Sic planè nemo du [...] bitare debet, quod in alveo baptismi. priusquam Infans [...] fonte surgat, Spiri­tus Sanctus in cum qui nascitur adve­niat, etsi non videatur,— Raban. de Sacram. Euchar. c. 10. apud Centur. 9. c. 4. Col. 144. the Font, the Holy Spirit comes into him that is born, though his coming be invi­sible.

§. 34. In this Century (about Anno. 850) flourished also Walafridus Strabo. really a witness for Infants Baptism, how much soever he be appealed unto as a wit­ness against it. His testimony I have before produced in the Fifteenth Century: and therefore shall not here repeat it: but shall conclude this Century with what I find of this matter in Sir Roger Twisdens Historical Vindication of the Church of England; namely, that whereas it had been formerly ordained by the Laws of Ina, that chil­dren should be baptized within 30 days af­ter birth, and some Priests were negligent performers of that duty, therefore by the Laws of Ed. and Guthrun, it was ordained, That such Guthrun about Anno 880. as were not prepared, or denied the baptizing of them should be punished.

§. 35. From the Ninth let us now step [Page 252] up to the Eighth Century. And in this Age the Centuriators quote Carolus Magnus for a Cent. 8. c. 4. Col. 219. witness to Infants Baptism. And with honour may such an Emperor be quoted, as Plosc. Histor. p. 231. was esteemed Imperii sui fortissimus & doctissimus, the learnedest Scholar as well as stoutest Souldier in his Empire. And saith he, we hold one baptism, which is to be celebrated in the same Baptisma unum icnemus, quod iis­dem Sacramenti verbic in infanti­bus, quibus etiam in majoribus est celebrandum. Ca­rol. Mag. l. 3. de Imaginib. cap. 1. Cent. 8. c. 6. Col. 347. Apud Chri­stianos fidelium quotidie baptizan­tur filii. Daniel Ep. ad Bonif. Gra­tia fidei renatos in fonte baptismatis etiam parvulos, atque ipsa parvula aetate desunctos superna ad gaudia perducit. Beda, l. 4. in Cantic. Canti­cor. ap. Cent. 8. c. 4. Col. 218. l. 40, &c. words of the Sacrament at the baptizing of Infants as of elder persons.

§. 36. In this Age also they quote an Epistle of one Daniel to Boniface, wherein that Author saith, That among the Christians the children of the Faithful are baptized every day.

§. 37. Also from Bede (l. 4. in Cantic. Canticor.) they quote this saying of his, That the Grace of Faith doth bring to the joys of Heaven even the little children that are born again in the baptismal Font, and [Page 253] that die in their very in­fancy.

§. 38. From Regino they tell us how the Saxons coming to Lippa, were baptized by Saxones ad Lip­pam venientes, una cum uxoribus & parvxlis caterva­tim in nomine Tri­nitatis baptizantur. Regino, l. 2. ap. Cent. 8. c. 6. Col. 344. l. 19, &c. troops together with their wives and little children in the name of the Trinity.

§. 39. Lastly, they tell us that baptized In­fants were carried home from their baptizing by their own mothers. And instance in Maria the Em­press Baptizati infan­tes à suis matribus demum reporta­bantur. Sic Maria Augusta, Uxor Leonis, una cum baptizato filio suo in aulam ex tem­plo redit, & in itinere paupcribus munera projicit. Diaconus, l. 21. Rer. Roman. ap. Cent. 8. c. 6. Col. 34. l. 46. wife of Leo, who returned from the Temple to the Court with her ba­ptized Son, and by the way as she went bestowed lar­gesses on the poor.

§. 40. These are sufficient evidences for Infants Baptism in this Century.

§. 41. Pass we on to Century the Se­venth, and in that Age also we have evidences of Infants Baptism. For the Centuriators [Page 254] tell us that in the Eighth Council of Toledo, and in the Sixth Council of Constantinople, there is mention made of the baptizing of Infants; and among other things there are these expressions to that purpose, we ba­ptize Infants even before they be capable of reason. Infantes etiam nondum rationis capaces baptiza­mus. Et, Parvulo agrotanti nullo modo baptismus denegetur: si quis neglexcrit ejus morientis animam, ille pro ea reddet Deo rationem. Concil. Tolet. & Constantinop. ap. Cent. 7. c. 6. Col. 146. Exceptis his qui propter aetatem lo­qui nondum pos­sunt. 1. l. ib. Lin. 38. And, by no means let ba­ptism be denied to a sick little one: if any shall neg­lect the soul of him dying, he shall give an account for the same unto God. They tell us also that in that Council of Constantinople, it was ordained that none should receive either Chrysin or Baptism, till he could say without Book the Creed and the Lords Prayer, except such as by reason of age were not a­ble to speak.

§. 42. Before both these Councils, it was decreed (according to the determination of Greg. 1.) by the Fourth Council of Toledo (Anno 681) that whether an Infant were dipped in Concil. 4 Toletan. Can. 5. Caranz. fol. 235. baptism thrice or once, he should be accounted bapti­zed; [Page 255] the third appearing of the Infant from under the water being expressive of the Resurrection after three days, and signifi­cative of the Trinity; and the single immer­sion giving an intimation of the Unity of Substance in the Trinity of Persons.

§. 43. They tell us of Priests killed in the temple together with In­fants at baptism, from Sa­bellicus. Foro Popilii quoq [...] in templo trucidat [...] leguntur Sacerdo­tes cum infantibus inter baptizandum. Sabellicus Enneadis octavae, l. 6. pag. 180. apud Cent. 7. c. 6. Col. 145.

§. 44. And as Pope Leo granted that in case of necessity baptism might be administred on Leo Pap [...] tamen concessit necessitate urgente, omni die baptizari, ut refert Hareman Schedel, atate sexia, pag. 176. Sic quadra­gesima post par­tum, quosdam in­fantes baptizatos legimus, ut Dago­berti filium in Galliis. Regino, l. 10. Quinquages­sima verò Heduini filiam, quae nata fuit, in die Paschatis, & baptizata in die Pentecostes, Beda l. 2. c. 9. ap. Cent. 7. c. 6. Col. 145. any day, so they tell us of Infants which they had read were baptized on the for­tieth day after their birth; and instance in the Son of Dagobert in France; and to that from Beda mention a Daughter of Heduins born on Easter day, and baptized on Whit sunday.

§. 45. And as Heribert was Godfather to Dagoberts Son at his baptism; so was King Lo­tharius. Idem [sc. Rex Lo­tharius] & Me­roveum, Regis Theoderici filium, infantem de ba­ptismo suscepit. Nauclerus generatione, 21. Heribertus Dago­berei filium. Regino, lib. 1. Magdeb. Cent. 7. c. 6. Col. 147. Godfather to Me­roveus Son of King Theo­deric baptized an Infant.

§. 46. And now supposing enough said for this Age, I shall close it up with the Law of Ina before mentioned, whom I take to have flou­rished Leg. Inae, c. 2. p. 1. cited by S^r Roger Twisden, Vindic. of Ch. of Engl. p. 97. from Jor­valens. c. 2. Col. 761. in this Century (a­bout Anno 689), which was, That children should be baptized within 30 days after birth.

§. 47. A scend we now to the Sixth Cen­tury. And in the end of this appears as a witness for Infants Baptism, Pope Greg. 1. who was chosen Pope Anno 590, and died Anno 604. and so, as several more who have lived within the compass of two Cen­turies, may pass as a witness for both. And he, as the Centuriators tell us, witnesseth that it is free to baptize Infants the same hour they are born in case of danger of [Page 257] death. He also forbids Item liberum esse infantes mox in ipsâ horâ, si est pe­riculum mortis ba­ptizare, Grego­rius testatur, l 12. Epist. 10. apud Magd. Cent. 6. c. 6. Col. 367. l. 21. Presbyteri baptizatos infantes signare bis in fronte Chrysmate non praesumant. Id. l. 3. c. 9. Priests to presume to sign baptized Infants twice in their foreheads with Chrysm.

§. 48. In the second Synod of Matis­con (Anno 599) it being observed, that Christians Decernimus ut ex­tra tempora decre­ta baptismi nullus filios suos bapti­zet, nisi infirmitas nimia, vel dies ex­tremus compulerit filios suos baptis­mum suscipere. Conc. Matisc. c. 3. Omnes omnino [...] die quadragesimo cum infantibus suis ad Ecclesiam ob­servare praecipimus ut impositionem manus, &c. Synod. Matisconensis, ap. Magdeb. Cent. 6. c. 9. Col. 613. did not observe the solemn set day for baptizing of their children, but baptized them at other times, so that there were scarce found above two or three to be baptized at Easter, that custom was prohibited, un­less in case of extream in­firmity, and necessity, and an order was given for the attendance of all with their Infants at the Church on the solemn festival to re­ceive their imposition of hands, Chrysm and Ba­ptism.

§. 49. The Second Council of Bracca­rum (Anno 580) ordered the Bishops to signifie throughout their Churches, that if they that Placuit, ut unus­quisque Episcopus per Ecclesias suas hoc praecipiat, ut hi qui infantes suas ad baptismum offerunt, si quid voluntarè pro suo offerunt voto, sus­cipiatur ab eis, &c. Concil. Bracarense, Can 7. ap. Magd. Cent. 9. Col. 354. & Caranz. fol. 250. brought their Infants to baptism pleased to offer any thing voluntarily, it should be accepted, but that nothing should be ex­torted from those whose poverty rendred them una­ble to make any offering; lest thereby they should be discouraged from bringing their children unto baptism, and they dying unbaptized their loss should be required at their hands through whose violence this was occasioned. This Synod placed by Alsted in the year above mentioned, is placed by the Magde­burgenses in the seventh Century (Anno 610); and so if it witness not for this Century, it will for that. And the Coun­cil of Vivense ordained the very same, as H. D. informs us from Vossius de Bapt. p. 179.

§. 50. Isidor Hispalensis whose time is placed by Alsted, about Anno (596) is of this judgment touching Infants dying without baptism, That for Original Sin alone newly [Page 259] born Infants do suffer pains Pro solo peccato originis luune in inferno nuper nati infantuli poenas, si renovati per lava­crum non fuerint. Proinde pro hac causa nuper natus damnatur infans, si non regeneratur, quia originis noxi­tate perimitur. I­sidor. de sum. bo­no. cap. 23. apud Magd. Cent. 7. c. 4. Col. 98. Mag. Cent. 6. c. 6. Col. 331. in hell if they be not re­newed by baptism. What his judgment was as to the baptizing of Infants is not to be questioned, when this was his judgment of those that died unbaptized. He is quoted by the Mag­deb. for the Seventh Cen­tury; but placed by Al­sted in the Sixth: and so will serve for the one or the other. The Centu­riators tell us that some having in the time of Gre­gory made some change in the dippings of Infants, Isidore notes that Gregory did ear­nestly reprove them for not dipping them but once, or else thrice.

§. 51. Justinus the Emperor, who reigned about Anno 570, Ordained (as H. D. tells us) concerning the chil­dren, which in regard of Treat of Bapt. 2 Edit. p. 112. their years cannot receive Divine Doctrine, that they shall without delay be made wor­thy or partakers of Baptism. And Justi­nian the Emperor who reigned about Anno 530, Ordained, That children [Page 260] should be admitted to Ba­ptism, Justinian. Novel. Institut. 44. ap. 11. Danvers Tre at. of Bapt. p. 112. Edit. 2. and that those that were come to their full growth, should be taught before they were baptized.

§. 52. Johannes Maxentius a Monek and Priest of Antioch, (Anno 520) thus writes, in the Confession of his Faith: There­fore do we believe that lit­tle children newly born are Propterea & re­centes ab utero parvulos, non tan­tum ut adoptionem mereantur filio­rum, aut propter regnum Coelerum (sicut Pelagii, & Caelestii sive The­odori Mansuestini disciputi, &c.) sed & in remissionem peccatorum eos credimus baptizari, nè pereant in aeter­num, Maxent. ap. Magdeb. Cent. 6. c. 6. Col. 227. l. 4, &c. baptized not onely that they may obtain the ado­ption of sons, or for the kingdom of Heaven (like the Disciples of Pelagius, & Coelestius) but for remis­sion of sins also, that they may not perish for ever.

§. 53. The Council of Gerunda (about Anno 517, or 520 as some) de­creed, That little children Ut parvuli, si in­firmari contingat, codem die quo nati sunt, baptizentur. Concil. Gerund. Can. 4. ap. Caranz. fol. 179. in case of weakness should be baptized the same day that they were born.

§. 54. Not to be endless in testimonies, the Magdeburgenses tell us from Adon, and Gaguin, how Androvera wife of Chilperic was forced upon a surprize to be both Witness and Adon in Com­ment. 4 aetatis, & Gaguinus, l. 2. narrant, Andro­veram Chilperici uxorem infidiis cir­cumventam, ipsam natae suae filiolae baptizandae testem & commatrem extitisse. Cent. 6. cap. 6. Col. 332. lin. 28, &c. Godmother at the baptism of her own little daughter. And thus much for this Age.

§. 55. Go we on to the Fifth Century. And here we meet with plenty of evidences of Infants Baptism.

§. 56. The Council of Milevis (Anno 418) in the time of Pope Innocent, and the Emperor Arcadius (as the Centuriators tell us) Item placuit, ut quicunque parvu­los recentes ab u­teris matrum ba­ptizandos negat: aut dicit in remis­sionem quidem pec­catorum eos bapti­zari, sed nihil ex Adam trabere O­riginalis peccati quod regeneratio­nis lavacro expic­tur: unde sit con­sequens ut in cic forma baptismatis, in remissionem peccatorum non ve­ra, sed falsa intel­ligatur, anathema sit. Quoniam non aliter intelligen­dum est quod Apo­stolus ait: Per u­num hominem pec­catum intravit in mundum, & per peccatum mors, & ita in omnes homi­nes portransiit, in quo omnes pecca­verunt: nisi quem­admodum Ecclesia Catholica ubique diffusa semper in­tellexit. Propter hanc regulam fidei, etiam parvuli, qui nihil peccatorum in semetipsis committere potue­runt, ideo in peccatorum remissionem veraciter ba­ptizantur, ut in cis regeneratione mundetur, quod generatione traxerunt. Synod. Milevitana ap. Mag­deb. Cent. 5. c. 9. Col. 835. Caranza fol. 123. decreed, an Anathema to him that should deny ba­ptism to new born Infants. The ground of their decree they make to be Original Sins being drawn from A­dam by all, and death by sin, and that according to that sense, which the Catho­lick Church diffused every where, ever had of that say­ing [Page 262] of St. Pauls, By one man sin entred into the world, and death by sin, and so death passed upon all men; for that all had sin­ned. For which rule of Faith even little ones (say they) which in themselves were uncapable as yet of committing of any sin, are therefore baptized into the remission of sins, that what they have drawn upon them by generation, may be cleansed in them by rege­neration.

§. 57. In like manner say the Fathers in the Fifth Council of Carthage in the same Century, whosoever denies that Infants are by the baptism of Christ freed from perdition, and Quicunque negat parvulos per ba­ptismum Christi à perditione liberari, & salutem perci­pere sempiternam anathema sit. Con­cil Carthag. 5. ap. Magdeb. Cent. 5. c. 9. Col. 825. receive life eternal, let him be Anathema. And in this Council St. Augustin was [Page 263] President, as at the Former he was present, a Bishop in it.

§. 58. Pope Innocent the First con­firmed the Decree of the Milevitan Council from Illud verò quod eos vestra fraternitas asscrit praedicare, parvulos aternae vitae proemiis etiam sine baptismatic gratia posse donari, persatuum est.—verum ut super­fluorum hominum prava doctrina ce­leri veritatis possit ratione discindi, proclamat hoc Dominus in Evangelio dicens, Sinite infantes, & nolite eos prohibere à me: talium enim est reguum Coelorum. Innocent. Rom. pontif. pa­trib. Concil. Milev. apud Magdeb. cent. 5. c. 9. col. 844, 845. our Saviours saying, Suffer little children to come unto me, &c. and saith, that their opinion, who held that children might obtain e­ternal life without being baptized, was a very foolish one. This Pope died An­no 417.

§. 59. Theodoret, who flourished about Anno 430, asks, if this were the onely effect of ba­ptism, Si enim hic solus esset baptismi effe­ctus, cur pueros ba­ptizamus, qui pec­catum nondum gu­starunt? Theo­doret. 2 Tom. Di­vin. Decret. Epit. l. 5. pag. 407. why do we baptize Infants, who have not as yet tasted of sin? Why do we baptize them? is a clear proof of their baptizing them.

§. 60. Pope Leo advanced to the Pa­pacy, about the year 440 was for having the solemn times for ba­ptizing observed, yet so as Non interdicta li­centia, qua in ba­ptismo tribuendo quolibet tempo­re periclitantibus subvenitur.—Ut in mortis periculo in obsidionis discri­mine, in persecu­tionis angustiis, in timore naufragii, nullo tempore, hoc vere salutis sin­gulare remedium cui quam denegemus. Leo. Ep. De­vret. 4. cap. 6. pag. 15, 16. not to interdict the liberty granted of baptizing those that were in danger of death at any time; for at no time to any such would he have baptism de­denied.

§. 61. Isidore the Pelusiot, about the year 410, in consideration of the Angel coming to kill Moses be­cause of the childs not be­ing Isid. l. 1. Ep. 125. ap. Dr. Ham. Def. of Inf. Bapt. c. 1. p. 4. circumcised, concludes [...], Let us make hast to baptize our children.

§. 62. Paulinus flourished about the year 420, and he Poetically describing the effects of baptism on the baptized Infant, saith, Then Inde parens sacro ducens de fonte Sacerdos, Infantes niveos corpore, corde, habitu. the Priest brings the In­fants out of the Font white as Snow, in body, in heart, in habit.

§. 63. I will conclude this Century with St. Augustine, who lived in the be­ginning of it, and in the latter end of that next before it, and so may witness for both, as also may St. Hier. and St. Chrys. whom some reckon in the one, and some in the other century, I suppose because they lived in part of both. And this Father is so copi­ous in his testimonies that 'tis hard to know where to begin, or when to make an end of enumerating them: but I will be spa­ring.

§. 64. In his fourteenth Serm. de Verb. Apost. he saith, Let no man doubt but that Infants are to be baptized, when it is not doubted of Baptizandos esse parvulos nemo du­bitet, quando nec illi hinc dubitant. qui ex altera parte aliqua contradi­cunt. Sed nos di­cimus eos aliter salutem & vitam aeternam non habi­turos nisi bapti­zentur in Christo: illi autem dicunt non propter salu­tem, non propter vitam aeternam: sed propter regnum Coelorum. D. Aug. even by those that in some respect speak against it. He means the Pelagians, who would not allow, that Infants should be baptized for Salvation, as having done nothing that deserved damnation, but yet allowed it for entrance into the king­dom of Heaven. Which riddle of theirs was a no­velty never heard of in the Church before, as he there saith. Indeed it had been [Page 266] a dangerous thing in St. Au­gustines Serm. 14. de Verb. Apostoli. Timetis dicere, non bapti­zentur, ne non so­lum facies vestrae sputis oblinerentur virorum, verum c­tiam capita sanda­liis muliercularum committigarentur. D. Aug. contr. Julian. Pelag. l. 3. c. 5. Infantes autem propterea baptizantur, cum sint innocentes, ut anima rulis nata in corpo [...]e signum habeat mortis evictae nè possit ab ea teneri. D. Aug. Quaest. ex Nov. Test. Tom. 4. q. 56. Ideo vivus oportet etiam insans baptizetur, nè obsit animae socie­tas carnis peccati, &c. D. Aug. l. 10. de Genes. ad literam, c. 24. Tom. 3. fol. 138. A. Ideo non est supersluus baptismus parvulorum, ut qui per genera­tionem illi condemnationi obligati sunt, per genera­tionem illi condemnationi liberentur. D. Aug. Hilario Ep. 89. fol. 78. B. C. Tom. 2. Nam pro­pter illas cupiditates, cum quibus nati sumus bapti­zantur infantes, ut solvantur à reatu propaginis malae quam habuerunt. D. Aug. Serm. 45. de Temp. Vide eund. l. 4. contra Donatistas. c. 24. fol. 88. Tom. 7. & Bonifac. Ep. 23. Tom. 2. fol. 18. K. & Enchirid. c. 42. Vide & Magdeburg. Cent. 4 Col. 658. l. 10. & Col. 655. lin. 6. & Cent. 5. c. 4. Col. 375. time for any one to have denied Infants ba­ptism for fear of having the men spit in his face, and the women beat their sandals about his ears.

§. 65. And now being so near let us step up from St. Augustine, to his Contem­poraries in the Fourth Century, St. Hierom, St. Ambrose, St. Chrysostom, &c.

§. 66. St. Hierome (to begin with him) [Page 267] being asked, why Infants Critob. Dic quaeso. & me omni liberae quaestione, quare infantuli bapti­zantur? Attic. Ʋe eis peccata in ba­ptismate dimittan­tur. D. Hieron. l. 3. contra Pelag. Nisi forte existimas Christianorum filtos, si baptisma non receperint, ipsos tanium reos esse peccati, & non etiam scelus referri ad cos qui dare noluerint, maxime illo tempore quo contradicere non poterant, qui accepturi crant, sicut è regione sa­lus insantum majorum lucrum est. D. Hieron. Ep. ad Laetam. Baptisma unum tenemus: quod iisdem sa­cramenti verbis in infantibus quibus etiam in ma [...]ori­bus asserimus esse celebrandum. D. Hieron. Exposit. Fideiad Damasum. Ep. 42. were baptized, answers, that their sins might be for­given them. He was born Anno 332, and died An­no 420.

§. 67. St. Ambrose (about the year 374) on that saying of our Saviour, Ex­cept a man be born again of water and of the Holy Nisi enim quis re­natus fucrit ex a­qua & Spiritu Sancto non potest introire in regnum Dei. Ʋtique nul­lum excipit, non infantem, non ali­qua praeventum ne­cessitate. D. Ambr. de Abr. Patriarch. l. 2. c. 11. Hinc evacaatio ba­ptismatis parvulo­rum, qui sola ado­ptione donari, nullo autem reatu dice­rentur absolvi. D. Ambr. l. 10. Ep. 84. pag. 217. Spirit, he cannot enter i [...]to the kingdom of God, ob­serves that our Saviour therein makes no exception of any, not the Infant, not him that is prevented by any necessity. And speak­ing of some, that made A­dams sin no otherwise hurt­full to posterity, than by [Page 268] the example of it, he pres­seth them with this absur­dity that would follow thereon, that hereby the baptism of Infants would be evacuated, who could onely be said to have adoption given them, but not to have any guilt forgiven them. Likewise on Luke (as Dr. Hammond notes) by Jordans being driven back, he saith are Per quae in primor­dio naturae suae qui baptizati fuerint parvuli à malitia resormantier. D. Ambr. in Luk. ap. Dr. Ham. Def p. 103. Non autem latet quantum cor­dibus fidelium d [...] ­fidiae gigneretur, si in baptizandis par­vulis, nihil de ou­jusquam negligen­tia, nihil de ipso­rum esset mortalitate metuendum. D. Ambros. de Vocat. Gent. l. 2. c. 8. cujus titulus est, Quare tan­ta multitudo non regeneratorum infantium à perpe­tua alienetur Salute. Tom. 2. p. 32. 33. Nolite ergo à Christo arcere infantes, quia & ipsi pro Christi no­mine subiêre martyrium. Talium est enim regnum Coelorum. Vocat eos Dominus. & tu prohibes? De ipsis enim ait Dominus, Sinite eos venire ad me. D. Ambros. De Virginib. l. 3. Tom. 1. pag. 93. Nec frustra scriptum est, Nemo mundus à sorde, nec infans cujus unius diei vita est super terram. Et. Quis inquit, poterit facere mundum de immundo conceptum semine? Non tu qui solus es? Propter quod ficut nunc in Ecclesia manet constitutio salva­toris dicentis, Nisi quis renatus fuerit ex aqua & Spi­ritu Sancto, non intrabit in regnum Coelorum [...] itae sacratissime era [...] in lege praecautum, ut natus puer nisi die circumcideretur octavo exterminaretur anima ejus de populo suo nullum in haereditate Israel habitura consortium. D. Ambros. l. 10. ep. 84. ad Deme­triad. Virg. Vide & Magdeb. Cent. 4. Cap. 5. Col. 239. lin. 7, &c. signified the mysteries of baptism, by which the lit­tle ones that are baptized, are reformed from their malignity to the first state of their nature. Yea, that St. Ambrose affirms Paedo­baptism to be a constitution of our Saviour, is affirmed by A. B. Laud. Conf. Sect. 15. p. 55.

§. 68. The Third Council of Carthage about the year 397, de­creed that nothing should Non est aliquid ab his exigendum qui infantes suos ad baptizandum adducunt. Caran­za. fol. 99. Nam de infantibus baptizandit, qui necdum baptizati nascuntur, quoties necessitas exegerit. Regula Ecclesia­stica per beatum Siricium prolata demonstrat dicens. Ita infantibus, qui non lum loqui po­tuerunt per aeta­tem, vel his qui­bus in qualibet ne­cessitate opxs fuc­cit, sacri undâ ba­ptismatis omni vo­lumus celeritate succurri, n [...] ad no­stram perniciem [...]cndat animarum, [...]i negato defide­rantibus fonte sa­lutis, exiens unusquisque de seculo, & regnum perdat & vitam. Hincmar. apud Magd. Cent. 9. c. 4. Col. 140. lin. 34, &c. be exacted from those that brought their Infants to be baptized.

§. 69. Siricius Pope of Rome, who died Anno 388, is by Hincmarus produced as an Author for Infants Baptism: as saying that he would have baptism admi­nistred with all speed to Infants, who as yet are not able to speak for want of age, as also to those that are in any necessity, to pre­vent (and it is worth mark­ing [Page 270] what he saith in this case) its tending to the de­struction of our souls, if any through our denial of baptism to them depart un­baptized, and lose at once both kingdom and life.

§. 70. St. Chrysostom (who died Anno 407) saith, For this cause (namely because of the so [...]. D. Chrys. Hom. ad Neophy­tos apud St. Au­gustin. l. 1. contra Julianum Pela­gianum, cap. 2. many benefits as there are by baptism) do we ba­ptize little children, though they have not sins; that is, not any actual sins of their own, as St. Augustin shews his meaning to have been from the right ren­dring of the words, against the Pelagians, who misrendred them, as Dr. Hammond shews. Def. of Infants Bapt. pag. 103. Where as the words of St. Ch [...]ys [...]stom de­clare the practice of the thing, so St. Au­gustine's interpretation clears the meaning of his words. Again, in his fortieth Ho­mily on G [...]nesis speaking of Baptism, as of [Page 271] the Christian Circumcision [...]. D. Chrysost. Hom. 40. in Genes. Tom. 1. Edit. Savil. p. 328. l. 4, &c. he saith it hath no determinate time, but 'tis lawfull both in the first age, and in the middle, and in old age it self, to receive this Circumcision made without hands. Where [...], as Dr. Ham­mond notes, signifies child­hood, as being applied to the time of circumci­sion, which was on the eighth day; and given then, as the Father notes, for two reasons; † [...]. D. Chrys. Hom. 39. in Genes. Edit. Savit. Tom. 1. p. 222. lin. 10, &c. Ideo ergo praedicat Eccle­sia Catholica ubique diffusa debere parvulos baptizari propter originale peccatum, quia filios procreare ex praecepto Dei venit, cupiditas verò quae facit silios procreare ex poenâ peccati venit, &c. D. Chrysost. Hom. de Adam. & Eva. Tom. 1. Col. 447. B. Illud etiam quod circa baptizandos in universo mundo sancta Ecclesia, sive sint parvuli, sive juvenes, uni­formiter agit, non ocioso contemplemur intuitu. Id. ib. Col. 448. Adducit quispiam infantem adhuc u­bera sugentem, ut baptizetur, & statim Sacerdos exigit infirmâ aetate pacta conventa, & assensiones, &c. Id. in Psal. 14. one because then the trouble of circum­cising was the easilier born, the other to signifie, that what was done, did nothing conduce to the soul, but was onely for a sign. For what could ( [...] the same with [...] forgoing) an Infant of eight days old reap of advantage to his soul by things which he had nei­ther knowledge nor sense of.

§. 71. Gregory Nazianzen flourished about the year of Christ 370, and died in the year Magdeb. Cent. 10. c. 10. col. 97. & ib. c. 6. col. 416. & ib. c. 4. col. 238. 389. And he having in his Oration on Baptism gone through all the ages of man, showing that it be­longs [...]— to every age and sort of life, comes at length to [Page 273] Infancy; and then touch­ing that delivers his mind [...]. Greg. Nazianz. Orat. 40. [...]. Id. ib. thus, Thou hast an Infant, let not iniquity get time, let it be sanctified in infan­cy; let it in the tender age be consecrated, &c. Where by sanctifying he means ba­ptizing. Vid. sup. c. 6. Sect. 4. And again, saith he, what will you say con­cerning those that are yet children, and neither know the loss, nor any sen­sible of the grace of ba­ptism, shall we also baptize them? Yes by all means, if any danger press; 'tis bet­ter they should be sancti­fied when they have no sense of it, than that they should die unsealed, and uninitiated. See Dr. Ham­mond urging this, and o­ther passages of this Au­thor. Def. of Inf. Bapt. pag. 101, 102. And as for this Authors willingness that Infants should stay till they be about three years [Page 274] old before they be baptized, (which the Magdeburgenses tell us is to be accounted a singular opinion of his own,) that nothing prejudices ours, or profits the Antipaedo­baptistical Cause; as Dr Hammond shews; loc. sup. cit. For at three years old they are still Infants, and if they have attained to speech, yet have not attained to reason, at least not to that measure of it, thought ne­cessary by the Antipaedobaptists to qualifie for Baptism.

§. 72. In this Age also, about the year 326, flourished St. Athanasius. And to the question concerning the final estates of Infants dy­ing [...] D. Athanas. q. 114. ad Antiochum. [...]. Id. q. 94. de Dict [...] & Interpret. Pa­rabol. S. Script. unbaptized, he answers, that in as much as the Lord saith, Suffer little chil­dren to come unto me, for of such is the kingdom of heaven; and in as much as the Apostle saith, now are your children holy, it is ma­nifest that the baptized In­fants of believers do enter as unspotted and faithfull into the kingdom of hea­ven; But that their unba­ptized Infants, as also the Infants of heathens, have [Page 275] not entrance into that king­dom, as neither on the other side do they go into punish­ment, having not commit­ted actual sin. And as in this passage he declareth his own belief as to the final estates of Infants dying, whether baptized, or un­baptized; so in another he intimates the practice of this age to be to baptize In­fants, and by that particu­lar way of Immersion, whilest he declares the sig­nification of that Immer­sion to have respect to the death and resurrection of Christ, after three days. For whereas saith he, we thrice dip the Insant in the water, and bring him up again, this signi­fies Christs death, and resurrection after three days. This Fathers Authority is re­ferred to by the Magdeburgenses also Cent. 4. c. 6. Col. 416.

And let this suffice for the Fourth Cen­tury.

§. 73. Ascend we now up to the Third Century. And about the middle of that (Anno 248) was St. Cyprian made [Page 276] Bishop of Carthage; and ten years after (as Dr. Hammond notes) he suffered mar­tyrdom. He in the year 257 sate in Coun­cil with 66 Bishops. In that Council was debated a question proposed by Fidus. The question was, not whether Infants might be baptized at all; (that was no question then, that I see) but whether they might be baptized the Quantum verò ad causam infantium pertinet quos dixi­sti intra secundum vel tertium diem quo nati sunt con­stitutos baptizari non oportere, & considerandam le­gem esse circumci­sionis antiquae, ut intra octavum di­ent eum qui natus est baptizandum & sanctificandum non putares, longe aliud in concilio nostro omnibus vi­sum est. In hoc e­nim quod tu puta­ [...]as faciendum esse nemo consensit, sed universi potius [...]u­dicavimus, nulli hominum nato mi­sericordiam Dei & gratiam dene­ gandam. D. Cypr. Ep. ad Fidum, l. 3. Ep. 8. Porro au­tem si etiam gra­vissimis delictori­bus & in Deum multum ante pec­cantibus cum postea crediderint, remis­sa peccatorum da­tur, & à baptismo atque gratia nemo prohibetur, quanto magis prohiberi non debet infans. qui recens natus nil peccavit nisi quod secundum A­dam carnaliur na­tus contagium mor­tis antiquae primâ nativitate contra­xit? Qui ad re­missam peccatorum accipiendam hoc ipso faciliùs acce­dit, quod illi non propria remittuntur peccata, sed aliena. Et ideo frater charissime haec fuit in concilio nostra sententia, à baptismo atque à gratiâ Dei (qyi omnibus misericors, & benignus & pius est) nemi­nem per nos debere prohiberi. Quod cum circa uni­versos observandum sit, atque retinendum, tum magis circa infantes ipsos & rec [...]ns natos observandum pu­tamus, qui hoc ipso de ope nostra ac de divina miseri­cordla plus merentur, quod in primo statim nativi­tatis suae ortu plorantes ac flentes, nihil aliud faci­unt, quam deprecantur. Id. ib. This is referred to by the Magd [...]b. Cent. 3. c. 4. col. 49, &c. 6. col. 125. & ib. c. 9. col. 205. second, or third day after birth; or whether, as in circumcision, so in baptism, the eighth day were not to be expected. To this Que­stion St. Cyprian in his E­pistle to Fidus returns in Answer the judgment of the Council upon the Case. So that, by the way, his Testimony is not a single witness, but the Testimony of a Council, and that of above threescore Bishops in conjunction with him. And what's their judgment? We all resolved upon the case, that the mercy and grace of God (and con­sequently that means of Grace, which was under [Page 277] debate, namely baptism) was not to be denied to any child of men. And, if saith he, no man be hindred from Baptism, and Grace (i. e. from the Grace of Ba­ptism) how much more ought not an Infant to be forbidden. And again this was our determination in Council, that no man ought by us to be kept back from baptism and the grace of God, which being to be observed and held about all, much more do we think it ought to be so a­bout Infants and new born children. This, and more to the purpose, speaks the Father in that Epistle.

§. 74. In the same Century, but some­what before Cyprian, flourished Origen, who dyed (Anno 254). And he hath several passages in him to our present pur­pose. Little ones (saith he in his 14 th Ho­mily on Luke) a [...]e bapti­zed Parvuli bapti­zantur in remis­sionem peccatorum. Quorum peccato­rum vel quo tem­pore p [...]ccaverunt? aut qu [...]modo potest ullalavaeri in par­vulis ratio subsi­stere, nisi juxta illum sensum de quo paulo ante di­ximus: Null [...]s mundus à sorde, nec si unius diei qui­dem fuerit vita e­jus super terram. Et, quia per ba­ptismi sacramen­tum nativitatis sordes deponuntur, propterea bapti­zantur & parvuli. Nisi enim quis re­natus, &c. Orig. Hom. 14. in Luc. into the remission of sins. Again, how can any account of baptizing little ones hold, but according to what was said a little be­fore, None is clean from pollution, no not if he but of a day old. And again, By the Sacra­ment of baptism the de­filements of our nativity are put away; therefore are even the little ones ba­ptized. So in his 8th Ho­mil. on Levit. Let it be considered what the cause is, when the baptism of the Church is given for the re­mission of sins, that baptism should according to the ob­servation [Page 279] (or custom) of Addi his etiam il­lud potest, ut re­quiratur quid cau­sae sit, cum baptis­ma Ecclesiae in re­missionem peccato­rum detur, secun­dum Ecclesiae ob­servantiam etiam parvulis baptismum dari: cum uti­que si nihil esset in parvulis quod ad remissionem debe­ret & indulgentiam pertinere, gratia baptismi su­perflua videretur. D. Origen. Homil. 8. in Le­vit. the Church be given to lit­tle ones. See ch. 28. §. 4. His Authority is referred to by the Magd. Cent. 3. c. 4. Col. 57.

§. 75. In this Age may the Author of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy going under the name of Dionysius the Arcopagite be conveniently placed. And here Dr. Ham­mond places him; though the Magdebur­genses put him into the fourth Century, as others into the first. And saith he, when it came into the mind of our divine Guides what influ­ence Hoc cum in men­tem venisset divi­nis nostris praece­ptoribus placuit admitti pueros hoc sancto modo, ut na­turales pueri qui introfertur paren­tes, tradant filium alicui [...]orum, qui initiati sunt, bono puerorum in divi­ nis rebus informa­tori: ac deinceps puer ei operam det ut divino patri sponsorique sanctae salutis. D. Areop. Eccles. Hier. cap. ult. Notandum est quid dicat pater hic de baptizandis infan­tibus. Max. Schol­in l. B. Dion. de Eccl. Hierarch. a pious education would be likely to have on children towards a holy conversation, they ordered that Children should be ad­mitted, namely to baptism after this holy manner, &c. He had a little before pro­pounded and answered this [Page 280] question, why children as yet unable to understand divine things should be made partakers of the sa­cred birth from God. By that sacred birth, as is evi­dent in the thing it self, is meant Baptism; and that it is so, we are further in­structed by Maximus his Scholiast on that place. Here saith he is to be noted what the Father saith touching the baptizing of Infants.

§. 76. And about the same Age it is also supposed was the Author of the Consti­tutions going under the name of Clemens Romanus; whose Autho­rity what it is I do not [...].Clem. Rom. Con­stit. l. 6. c. 15. well know: but that it is full for the baptizing of Infants the following words do make it appear. Ba­ptize (saith he) your In­fants and bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord.

§. 77. And let these Witnesses suffice for the Third Age. Step we now up into the Second Century, that which immediately succeeds the Age wherein the Apostles lived. [Page 281] And here the Centuriators Centur. 2. cap. 4. Col. 48. tell us, that it is no where read that Infants in this Age were excluded from Baptism; yea ra­ther that Origen affirms the Church to have received from the Apostles a tradition to baptize even Infants. But if this satisfie not I will endeavour to find out witness even for this Age also.

§. 78. And Tertullian, who lived in the latter end of this and in the beginning of the following Century, and so may at once speak for both; though he be produ­ced as a witness against it, yet even his wit­ness against it is an evidence for it. For whiles he pleads for a delay of baptism, especially that Itaque pro cujus (que) personae conditione ac dispositione, e­tiam cunctatio ba­tismi utilior est: praecipue tamen circa parvulos. Tertull. de Bapt. Quid festinat in­nocens aetas ad re­missionem peccate­rum? Id. ib. of little ones, he tacitly declares that Infants then were baptized, though soo­ner then he thought conve­nient. And when by way of reproof he saith, (Quid festinat, &c.) Why does that innocent age make hast to the remission of sins (that is unto baptism, wherein sins were remitted)? he plainly confesseth that that age did (festinare) make hast thereto. What need else was there of his [Page 282] question? what reason for his reproof? And even in saying that the delay of baptism is (utilior) more profitable, he tacitly implies that the hastening of it is (utilis) not without its profit. And can we think but that he was really for the baptizing of the Infants of Christians, Adco nulla ferme nativitas munda est, utique Ethui­corum. Hinc enim & Apostolus ex sanctisicato alieru­tro sexu sanctos procreari, tam ex seminis praerogati­va, quam ex insti­tutionis disciplina. Caeterum, inquit, immundi nasceren­tur, quasi designates tamen sanctitati ac per hoc etiam saluti, intelligi volens filelium fi­lios; ut hujus spei pignore matrimo­niis, quae retinenda censuerat, patro [...]i­naretur. Alioq [...]in meminerat Domi­nicae definitionis, Nisi quis nascetur ex aqua & spiritu, non ibit in regnum Dei, id est, non erit san [...]lus. Ita omnis anima cous­que in Adam cense­tur, donec in Chri­sto recenseatur: tamdiu immunda quamdiu recensea­tur. Tert. de A­nima. c. 39. Quum verò praescribitur nemini sine baptis­mo competere sa­lutem, ex illa ma­xime pronuncia­tione Domini, qui ait, Nisi natus ex aqua quis erit, non habet vitam— Ter­tul. de Bapt. p. 261. Edit. Rigalt. Lex enim tinguendi imposita est, & forma praes [...]ripta, Ite, inquit, docete nationes, tinguen­tes cas in nomen Patris, & Filii, & Spiritus Sancti. Huic legi collata definitio illa. Nisi quis renatus fuerit ex aquâ & spiritu, non intra [...]it in regnum Coelorum, obstrinxit fidem ad baptismi necessita­tem. Itaque om­nes exinde creden­tes tinguebantur. Tert. ib. pag. 262. what ever he thought as to the Infants of Heathens, who saith they are designed to holiness and by this to salvation? But how are they designed to holiness? why by Baptism sure e­nough. For saith he, Ex­cept one be born of water, and of the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of God; that is, saith he, he shall not be holy; every sould being to be reckoned in Adam till it be enrolled into Christ, and so long unclean, as it is unenrolled; in which his meaning I con­ceive is, that one is in that state of nature wherein he first was born, till he be baptized into Christ, and a child of wrath through the [Page 283] uncleanness of his natural birth, till he be made a child of grace by baptismal regeneration. Can we think but he was for the baptizing of Infants who saith it is praescribed, that none is capable of salvation, with­out baptism, especially be­ing the Lord hath positive­ly said, Except a man be born of water, he has not life; and who, from a comparison of this Defini­tion of our Saviours with that Law which he gave for the discipling of nations by baptizing them, gathers a necessity of baptism to sal­vation, upon the account of which necessity believers were baptized. And if they were baptized themselves and upon the account of a necessity of baptism unto salvation, then surely they would have so much chari­ty for their children as to baptize them, and not leave them in a state of per­dition. [Page 284] It is plain therefore that he was rather for than against Infants Baptism.

§. 79. And as he was for the baptizing of Infants, so was also Irenaeus, in the same Age, but before him, one that had been an Auditor of Polycarp Bishop of Smyrna, and is by St. Hierom lookt on as a man of the Apostolical times, and so a most com­petent witness, as Dr. Ham­mond argues, of the Apo­stolical Def. of Inf. Bapt. c. 4. §. 2. pag. 96. doctrine and pra­ctice, especially being as Tertullian saith a most accurate searcher of all doctrines, and one that sealed his belief with his blood, being martyred at Lyons in the year 197. And what saith he? Why he saith, that Christ came to save all by himself, all, Omnes enim venit per semetipsum sal­vare, omnes in­quam qui per eum renascuntur in De­um, infantes & parvulos, & puc­ros, & juvenes, & seniores. D. Irenaei advers. Haeres. l. 2. c. 39. p. 192. See D^r Haem. Bapt. of Inf. Sect. 40. I say, who are born again unto God by him, Infants, and little ones, and chil­dren, and young men, and elder men. Here it is plain that Infants, and little ones, and children are in the number of those that are born again unto God through Christ. Now that by being born again un [...]o [Page 285] God is meant by being baptized I suppose none doubts that has read, and understands (as the Catholick Church hath ever under­stood) that of our Saviour (John 3. 5.) Except a man Quod verbum Christi ad Nico­demum intendie aquam sensibilent, is a position of Thom. Waldens. de Sacramentis. Tom. 2. q. 102. fol. 104. col. 2. be born again of water, and of the spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God; or is acquainted with the Scripture notion of [...] regeneration, the laver whereof is Ba­ptism.

§. 80. In the same Age flourished Hy­ginus Bishop of Rome, and about the same time being martyred (Anno Dom. 144). And he, as Platina affirms out of the ancient Records, Voluit unum sal­tem Patrimum, u­namque Matrimam baptismo interesse: sic enim eos appel­lant, qui infantes tenent dum bapti­zantur. Platina in Vitâ Hygini. appointed that there should be at least one Godfather and one Godmother pre­sent at Baptism. Now who he meant by Godfather and Godmother Platina in­forms us, while he tells us that so they call those that hold Infants when they are baptized. Godfathers and Godmothers appointed to be at the bapti­zing of Infants supposes Infants bapti­zed.

§. 81. Lastly, Justin Martyr, or who ever wrote that Ancient piece, intituled, Quaest. & Respons. ad Or­th [...]dox. stating the diffe­rence [...]. S. Just. Martyr. Quaest. & Resp. ad Orth. 56. pag. 424. Edit. Paris. 1615. between Infants dy­ing baptized, and unba­ptized, saith it is this, that the baptized obtain the good things that come by baptism, but the un­baptized obtain them not. A proof this clear and full as can be desired, of the baptizing of Insants in that Age, the age wherein that Author lived, the very next to that of the Apostles, if Justin Martyr were that Author. To which it is not now needfull I should add any thing, unless I should add what follows in the same Author touching the Baptized Infants, namely, that they are vouchsafed the advantages of baptism through the faith of those that bring them to be baptized.

§. 82. And thus I have shewn you, that it hath been the Custom and Practice of the Universal Church of Christ in all the Ages [Page 287] thereof, from the present to the Primitive Times, even up to that very Age wherein the Apostles lived, to baptize Infants.

CHAP. XXVIII.

§. 1. I Am now to examine how this could come to be practice of the Uni­versal Church. And truly it can be no o­ther but the Authority of the Apostles Tra­dition, or Practice in their own Age. The Apostles some way by word or writing, taught Ʋniversa Ecclesia, quae Apostolicam proximè secuta est, infantes baptiza­vit. Igitur dubium non est, quinmota Scripturae autho­ritate, & praxi Apostolicâ hoc se­cerit. Wendelin. Thelog. Christ. l. 1. cap. 13. Explic. Thess. 11. others so to do, or did so themselves, and so made themselves an example for others to do the like, or both; or else it is not ima­ginable how such a practice should not onely be recei­ved so generally into the Church, and so early too, but continue also in it through all Ages, down from their time to our own, without interruption. I will therefore speak of both. And first of Tra­dition.

§. 2. Tradition notes the delivery of a thing to be received into our belief or practice. See Dr. Ham. Bapt of Inf. Sect. 99, 100. That, where 'tis genuine and Apostolical, is of mighty moment in religious concerns. And that, if any, is truly such, which hath been received and owned for such by the Church in all the Ages of it, from the primitive to the present times, either openly in profes­sion, or tacitly in practice.

§. 3. To this is referred the Sanctifica­tion of the Lords day. To this is referred the admission of Women to the Lords Ta­ble. To this is referred the Canon of Scri­pture. And to this is referred the Baptizing of Infants.

§. 4. Let no man whisper you in the ear (saith St. Augustin) with any other doctrines. Quid de parvu­lis pueris, si ex A­dam aegroti? Nam & ipsi portantur ad Ecclesiam—Nemo ergo vobis susurret doctrinas alienas. Hoc Ec­clesia semper ha­buit, semper tenuit, hoc a ma, orum fide percipit: bu [...] us­q [...] in sin [...]m perse­ [...]renter [...]dit. D. Aug. Serm. 10. de V [...]v. Apost. This the Church hath always had, hath always held; this from the Faith of our Fore elders it hath recei­ved, and this it keeps per­severingly unto the end. And for as much as the U­niversal Church doth main­tain it, being always held in the Church, and not brought into it by any [Page 289] Councils decree Quod uni [...]rs [...]z t [...]n [...]t [...]l [...]sia, noc Conciliis institu­tum, sed semper retentam est, non nisi A [...]boritate dpo [...]l [...]lica tradi­tum re [...]issime cre­di [...]r. D. Aug. de Bapt. [...]o [...]tra Do­nat. l. 4. c. 24. there­fore it is most rightly be­haved in St. Augustines judgment to be delivered by Authority Apostolical; Co [...]su [...]tu [...]o [...]amcn matris Ecclesiae in bapti [...]an [...] parvu­lis n [...]quaq [...]amsper­nenda c [...]t, ni que ull [...] m [...]d [...] superslu [...] dep it in [...], ner om­nino cred [...]da, nis [...] [...]stolica esse tra­ditiv. D Aug. l. 10. de Genes. al Li­teran, c. 2 [...]. This reading isasser [...]ed and vindicated by Dr. S [...]illing fl [...]. Vindic. of A. B. of Cant. part. 1. c. 4. p. 108. nor saith he is it to be be­lieved, to be any other but an Apostolical Tradition; which, it seems, it was so apparent then to be, that the P [...]la [...]s themselves upon that account did yield that Infants were to be baptized, though they would not yield it upon the account of any original sin in them: because (saith he) they cannot go against the Authority of the Uni­versal Church del vered Parvulos baptizandos esse con [...]dant, quia contra authorita­rem universae Ec­clesiae proculdubio per Dominum & Apostolos traditam venire non possunt. D. Aug. l. 1. de pecc. merit. & re­miss. without doubt by the Lord and his Apostles. And accordingly Origin testifies, that the Church did receive from the A­postles Ecclesia ab Apo­stolis traditionem susccpit etiam par­vulis baptismum dare. Origen. l. 5. in [...]p. ad Roman. a Tradition for the baptizing of Infants. And so when the Author of the Ecclesiastick Hie­rarchy reports Infants Ba­ptism [Page 290] to have been brought down to his Time from ancient Tradition Hoc quoque de hac re dicimus quod divini nostri pon­risices à veteribus acceptum [ [...]] nobis tradi­derunt. Aiunt c­nim, id quod ctiam verum est, pucros si [...]n sancto instituto ac lege instituan [...]ur, ad sanctam animi constitutio­nem perventuros esse, ab omni er­rore solutos ac li­beros & sine ullo impurae vitae peri­ [...]lo. Hoc cum in mentem venisse [...] divinis nostris prae­ccptoribus [ [...]] placuit [ [...]] ad­mitti pueros hoc sancto modo, Dionys. Areopag. l. de Eccles. Hierarch. cap. ult., and saith, that when it came into the mind of our divine Guides, that children being brought up in a holy law would lead their life in holiness, it pleased them that Infants should be ad­mitted to it after that holy manner there by him de­scribed, Maximus his Scholiast interprets those Divine Guides to be the Apostles. And so Ph. Meloncthon Baptismum infantium constat à veteribus Scriptoribus Ecclesiae probari. Nam Origines & Augustinus scribunt ab Apostolis rece­prum esse. Melancthon. Concil. Theolog. part. 1. p. 59. names both Origen and Augustin, as avouchers hereof. And whereas the Antipaedoba­ptists in Mr. Calvins time made the simple believe, that for many years toge­ther after the resurrection of Christ Infants Baptism was unknown, in that saith he, they telled a most soul lie, for as much as there is no so ancient writer as doth not of a certainty re­fer [Page 291] the original thereof unto the Apostles Quod autem apud simplicem vulgum disse­minant, longam annorum seriem post Christi resurre­ctionem praeteriisse, quibus incognitus erat paedoba­ptismus; in co faedissime men [...]iuntur: siquidcm nullus est scriptor tam verustus, qui non cjus origin [...]m ad Apostolorum scculum pro certo reserat. Calvin. In­stit. l. 4. c. 16. Sect. 8. Age.

§. 5. So that I shall no further labour by the Testimony of Ecclesiastical Writers to prove the Tradition to have been Apo­stolical: but rather go on to make it evi­dent to you from the Testimony of the Sa­cred Scriptures that it was the Practice of the Apostles (a thing done by some, or all of them) to baptize Infants. Not that I can produce any Text, which expresly saith they did so; (that must not be expected from me out of these writings which we have of the Apostles; one such expres te­stimony would end the strise on all hands) but that I shall name some Scripture Texts, from which it may very probably at least [Page 292] be gathered, if it cannot be demonstra­tively concluded, that they did baptize In­fants. And yet by the way, me [...]hmks even a probable Intimation of any Apostolick Practice from the Scriptu [...]e, backt with so full and positive an Affirmation of it by the Catholick Church as hath been produced, should be enough to sway the judgment, and carry the Assent of any modest nquirer thereinto; next to, if not as good as a Demonstrative Argument.

CHAP. XXIX.

§. 1. Now for Practive: We read in the Scripture of several h [...]ush Ids baptized at once; as Lydia and her hou­shold, Acts 16. 15. and the Jaylor and his houshold, ib. 33. and the houshold of Ste­phanas, 1 Cor. 1. 16. and all these by St. Paul. And it is not to be doubted, but the other Apostles walked in the same steps with him, and did as he did, receiving unto Pro­selytism whole housholds by baptizing them. And no marvel if they did sometimes ba­ptize whole housholds, who were commis­ [...]ionated to baptize all nations.

§. 2. Now though it be not expressed there were any Infants in those, or any of those houses: yet first it is very strange there should be none in any of them: as if the grace of God had delighted to take place and dwell chiefly in barren families, who should be in least probability of propagating it to posterity, at a time when its propaga­tion seems to have been the design of all the persons in the Trinity: and secondly, if there we [...]e any, it is certain, that being not excepted, they were baptized. Which pro­bability, though the Antipa dobaptists, who cannot deny it, do yet think they sufficiently con [...]ute, by laughing at it, is not so altoge­ther improbable, nor will be found so to be, when it shall appear, that it was the manner of the Jews to baptize the Infants of the Proselyte Converts, as well as themselves; and that the Christian Baptism founded therein made no variation therefrom in that particular. Of which more anon.

§. 3. But to come to that which I chiefly purpose to insist on St. Paul tells the Corinthians See Dr. H [...]mmond of Inf. Bapt. Sec. 31. to Sec. 39. and Defence of Inf. Baptism, pag. 101. & pag. 58. to pag. 66. (1 Cor. 7. 14.) that the unbeli [...]ving husband had be [...]n sanctisied by the nife, and the unbelieving wife by the husband: and that [Page 294] otherwise their children had been unclean, whereas now, saith he, they are holy. Now this Text rightly rendred, and understood, is a full evidence for Insants Baptism by the very Apostles themselves, or those whom they themselves appointed to baptize, which comes all to one. The word, which in the English we render is sanctified, is, if rightly rendered hath been sanctisied. So the Tense of the Verb [...], being the Praeterper­fect Tense, clearly shews it to signifie. And the sense of [...] hath been sanctified, is, hath been baptized; sanctification the effect of baptism being put for the act of bapti­zing by a Metonymie of the effect.

§. 4. And from this use of the word by the Apostle here in this place I presume it is, that it is so ordinary with Ecclesiastical Writers to express baptizing by a word that signifies to sanctifie: whose so expressing it is a confirmation of this way of under­standing it. Thus Greg. Nazianzene speaking of children in some danger of death, [...]. Gr. Naz. Orat 40. p. 658. Edit. Paris. [...] Id. ib. [...] Id. ib. pag. 648. Timeat ne post agnitionem Dei, [...]ujus signa­culo jam praenota­tus est, si non dig­nus agnitione per­cepta inveniatur, indignus etiam sanctificationis mu­nere judicetur. D. Chrysost. Homil. de Militia Chri­stiana. F [...]lium [...]i induti & toti [...] us membra p [...] ba­ptismi sandis [...]a­tionem effecti, Fi­tii Dei sitis nece [...]le est. Primas. in Gal. 3. 23. Ʋt intra [...] di­em eam qui natus est, ba [...] andum & san lisicanlam non put [...], longe aliud in [...]ili, nostro omni'us [...]i­sum est. D. Cypr. l. 3. cp. 8. Ba­ptismum repeti Ec­clesiasticae regul [...]e prohibent, & se­mel sanctificatis nulla deinceps ma­nus it [...]rum conse­crans praesumit ac­cedere. D. Cypr. S [...]rm. de [...]lat. ped. Baptiz [...]i & sanctificari in Ec­clesia Catholica vero & unico Ec­clesia Catholica vero & unico Ec­clesiae baptisms o­porteat D. Cypr. l. 1. [...]p 6. Johannes Baptista non tam peccata dimisit, quam ba­ptisma poenitentiae fecit in peccato­rum remisionem, id est in suturam remissionem quae est post ex Christ sanctificatione sub­secuta. Ʋt enim ante pracursor do­mini ipse, sit & baptisma ejus prae­vium domini ba­ptismatis fuit. D. Hieron. advers. Luciferian. Igiur omnes aquae de pristina originis prarogativa Sa­cramentum Sancti­ficationis conse­quuntur invocato Deo. Super [...]enit enim statim Spiritus de C [...]elis, & aquis superest sanctificans de sen [...]tips [...] & ita sanctificata vim sanctifi­ [...] combibunt. Tertull. de Baptismo. Deni (que) apud Auguitinum duodecimo ejusdem. libri capite (abi Paulinum illud expen [...]it, 1 Cor. 7. Sanitafi­catus est [...]ir insidetis in uxore, & sanctificata est malier insidelis in sratre, alioqui filii vestii immundi essent, none autem sancti funt) magnus haec com­mentatur antistes. Aut sic est accipiendum, que mad­modum & nos alibi, & Pelagius, cum candem ad Corinthios epistolam tractaret, exposuit, quod ex­empla jam praecesserant & virorum quos ux [...]res, & foeminarum quas mariti lucrisecerant Christo, & par­vulorum, ad quos facienlos Christimos voluntas Christiana etiam unius parentis evicerat. Voss. Hist. Pelag. l. 1. c. 4. S. 3. p. 14. though he were not over hasty for their baptizing, yet saith, 'tis better they should be sanctified [that is baptized] when they have no sense of it, than that [Page 295] they should die unsealed and uninitiated. And for others, where there was no danger, he advises their stay from being baptized for about three years, and then advises ( [...]) to sanctifie them souls and bo­dies by that great Sacra­ment of consummation. A­gain, if thou hast an In­fant, let not iniquity get time ( [...]) let it be sanct [...]fied, that is, bapti­zed in Infancy, let it in its tender age be consecrated by [or to] the Spirit. St. Chrysostom tells the Candi­date of Baptism, that if he be not found walking wor­thy of that profession wh [...]ch he made, when he was consigned unto Ba­ptism, he may well be a­fraid of being judged un­worthy even of the gift of Sanctification, that is of being baptized. Hence Primasius speaks of being made members of Christ [Page 296] by the sanctification of Ba­ptism. So when St. Cyprian speaks of the new born In­fants being to be baptized and sanctified, that is (by the Figure Hendiadys) sancti­fied by Baptism. So again saith he the rules of the Church do sorbid baptism to be repeated: and to them that have once been sancti­fied, that is baptized, no hand presumes to come to consecrate them over again. So St. Herom saith John Baptist preached the Ba­ptism of repentance for the remission of sins, that is, that remission which afterward followed upon the Sanctifi­cation, that is the baptism of Christ. Where what he means by Sanctification is plain by what follows a lit­tle after. For saith he, as John Bapt was himself the forerunner of Christ, so was his Baptism the leader on unto the Baptism of Christ. Hence Tertullians saying [Page 297] of Infants, that if either of their parents were san­ctified, that is, were a ba­ptized Christian, the In­fants were holy; namely, so far as to be capable of baptism (as the children of Parents that were both mere Heathens were not) Candidates of holiness, that is of baptismal Sanctifica­tion, such as were in the next capacity for baptism, and as it were stood for it. And hence his calling Ba­ptism Sacramentum sancti­ficat on [...], the Sacrament of sanctification.

§. 5. And this notion of the word may, for ought I see, be admitted in 1 Cor. 1. 2. Ʋnto the Church of God, which is at Co­nin [...]h, to them that are sanctified, as we read it, but according to the Original [...], to them that have been sancti­fied in Christ Jesus, that, say I, may be baptized into Christ Jesus, being separated from the community of the polluted world, and received into the communion of the cal­led Saints, that Church of Christ, which he so loved, as to give himself for it, that he might sanctifie and cleanse it by the wash­ing of water by the word.

§. 6. And this notion of sanctisying for Baptism may come from the Jews using the word [...] (which sig­nifies to sanctifie) for Dr. Hammond In­fant. Bapt. §. 35. washing. Whence the High Priests washing his hands and feet ten times on the expiation day are called his ten sanctifications.

§. 7. Well now supposing that the word ( [...] and sanctifico) which we render to sanctifie, doth sometimes signifie to ba­ptize, and particularly in this place hath that signification (there being no other so com­modious [Page 299] a rendring of it here as that, nor any that will not be exposed to more obje­ctions than that; especially theirs, who in­terpret the Holiness of Children in this Text of Confut. of Ins. Bapt. by Tho. Lambe. p. 32. See Mr. Stevens Precept for the baptizing of In­fants, p. 5. their legitimacy, and their uncleanness of Bastardy, as if all children were illegi­timate and Bastards, that were born of Parents whereof one at least were not a Christian) I say supposing the word ( [...] and sanctifico) here to have the signification of Baptizing, as we have shewed it elsewhere to have that signification, it will easily follow from hence that Infants were baptized in the Apostles days. For the rea­soning of the Apostle is this. The unbelie­ving husband hath been sanctified, that is, brought to be a believer and to be baptized, by, that is through the means, the instru­ction and conversation of the believing wif [...] dw [...]lling together with him, gaining him to the Faith through her perswasion and good conversation. And the same hath also been found to be effected upon the unbelieving wife by the dwelling of the believing hus­band together with her. In confideration whereof he had advised the believing hus­bands still dwelling with his unbelieving [Page 300] wife, and wife with husband, ver. 12, 13. Upon this experience a hope hath been grounded that your ch [...]ldren though now they be not actually believers, yet shall be brought to be believers by the means of their living in the same Families with you that are bel [...]evers, and by being instructed by you in the Christian Faith as soon as they shall be capable of understanding it. And upon this hope they have been made holy by a Visible sanctification (as Aquinas hath it) that Aquin. Sum. 3. q. 68. Ar. 2. is baptized, or sanctified by baptism, separated by that Sacrament from the common unclean condition of Heathens, and taken into the Communion of Saints, Persons holy by de­sign, relation, and vocation. And else, but for this hope they had not been sanctified, nor made holy by baptism: even as the chil­dren of Heathens are not baptized, nor so made Holy, because there is not the same reason for their coming hereafter to be Christians, that there is for yours: who therefore now upon this hope are in that sense Holy. Let that hope therefore move the believing husband to continue with his unbelieving wife, and the believing wife to continue with her unbelieving husband, which hath moved us to baptize the children [Page 301] of those of you, whereof either Parent is a Christian, even the hope that those that now actually are not believers, shall hereaf­ter be brough [...] actually to believe through the instruction and conversation of the be­lievers with whom they coinhabit and con­verse.

§. 8. Well now, Children, as it ap­pears by this Text, were made holy in the Apostles See Dr. Ham. Def. of Inf. Bapt. ch. 3. §. 1. p. [...]2, &c Times Those children were Infants, who alone are capable of being bapti­zed capable of being bapti­zed by the benefit of their Parents Faith. The Hol [...]ness of those children imported their being baptized. That Baptism was administred by none but the Apostles or Persons ordained and appointed by the A­postles for that work. Hence it follows, that Infants were baptized, as in the Age, so by the Hands, or by the Appointment, of the Apostles themselves. Than which nothing needs be required further for the justifying of Infants Baptism.

§. 9. And now it having appeared to be the Custom and Practice of the Universal Church of Christ to baptize Infants; and that Custom and Practice being grounded on the Tradition, and derived from the Pra­ctice of the Apostles themselves; it follows [Page 302] that Infants have as good a Right unto Ba­ptism by Prescription from thence, as any person can have to any thing else by that Ti­tle, which yet in many cases is as good as any other.

§. 10. And now, for Gods sake, tell me why Infants should now be denied that which they have always had? why should they now be forbidden coming to Christ, who in all the Ages of the Church, even up to that wherein the Apostles lived have had free access unto Christ, and have been suf­fered to come to him, and that by Baptism? Why should we be less carefull of our chil­drens concerns than in all former ages others have been? why should not we be as vigilant to preserve their Rights, and this especially, as others before us? We need not doubt their Title nor question their Right, having so good a Prescription for it. Either Pre­scription can give no good Right to any thing, which yet we see it doth in many: or else children having sixteen hundred years prescription to plead for it, have a good Right unto Baptism.

§. 11. And yet is not that all the Right the little Children have unto Baptism. For I shall now proceed to shew you a Third Right, that they have unto it: and that is by the Institution of Christ himself.

CHAP. XXX.

§. 1. ANd truly if it can appear that In­fants Baptism does come within the Institution of Christ, and that Christ in his instituting of Baptism to be a Sacra­ment of the Gospel did either include In­fants in it, or not exclude them by it, I cannot see what any sober modest inquirer can fur­ther want for his satisfaction in this point. Unto that therefore I shall immediately ha­sten my discourse.

§. 2. And if any man think that the In­stitution of Baptism is set down in Matth. 28. 19. or Mark 16. 15. and from the circumstances of those Texts define the Sub­ject of Baptism, as if those onely were to be baptized, that are such as those were that are there expresly mentioned, namely per­sons capable of hearing and learning, belie­ving and disbelieving the Gospel preached to them, and so exclude Infants from bapti­zing, because incapable of these things, I shall humbly assume the boldness to believe that to be a mistake, and to affirm that Ba­ptism was by our Saviour instituted, that is [Page 304] o [...]dained, appointed and made a Ceremony of admission of Proselytes into his Church long before.

§. 3. The Particular time indeed when he did institute it cannot be affirmed with so great c [...]rtainty. Aquinas ground [...]ng in St. Augu­s [...]nes Sum. 3. q. 66 a. [...]. Ex quo Christus a­quis immergitur, ex co omniam pec­ [...]nta a luit aqua. D. Aug. ib. saying, that from the time of Christs being dip­ped in water, water did wash away the sins of all, is of opinion that Baptism was instituted a Sacrament by Christ, when himself was baptized, though the necessity of using of it was not enjoyned till after his pas­sion and resurrection. But Nc [...]l. de Orbell: saith, Baptismus fuit à Christo in [...]it [...]tus ante p [...]onem ip­sius: cum ante li­lam dis [...]ipuli ba­ptizarent baptismo Christi, Joh. 3. Quan vi [...] hora pracisa institu [...]i [...] ­nis non have atur ex Evangelio, non enim fuit institu­tus quando Chri­stus baptizatus est à Johanne, tamen Christus tune de di­cavit q [...]am tan­quam materiam l. doneam bapt [...]smo­ex taitu suae mun­dissima carnis. Nic. de Orbell. list. 3. 4 Sent. q. 3. de Baptismo, fol. 7, 8. † Bapti [...]mi Insi­nuatio fuit Facto, quan lo fait Chri­stus baptizatus in­sinuans no [...]esse ba­ptizandos. Verbo, quando Nicedemo dicit, Joh. 3. Nisi quis renatus fue­rit. Guiller vorri­long. sup. l. 4. Sent. de p. 3. a [...]t. 3. that he did not then insti­tute it, but onely did by the touch of his most [...]ure flesh dedicate water as a fit matter for, baptism. Nor will Cluitlerm. [...]orri­long, allow that act to be the institution of baptism, but onely an insinuation by Deed that we should be baptized; a [...] his saying to Nicodemus, Joh. 3. Ex­cept [Page 305] a man be born again, &c. was an Insi [...]uation of it by Word. And Mr. Cal­vin In co jam plus­quam pu [...]riliter labintur qu [...]d pri­mam Baptismi in­stitutionem inde derivant, quem ab exordio praedica­tionis suae Aposto­lis Christus admi­nistrandum man­ [...]averat. Calvin. Inst. l. 4. c. 16. S. 27. saith, Christ com­manded his Apostles to ad­minister it form the very beginning of his own preaching: and that it is a great piece of childishness to fetch the Institution of baptism from those Texts. And truly, though the pre­cise hour of its institution be not infallibly to be de­clared from the Gospel, yet from the Gospel it is most evident that it was institu­ted by Christ before his resurrection or passion: and then those words in Matth. 28, a [...]d Mark 16, cannot be its institution. And that of John 4. 1. will put it out of doubt, where long before our Sa­viours Resurrection or [...]eath even while John Baptist was yet alive, we read of our Saviours making and baptizing disciples, that is receiving disciples by Baptism. Which Ceremony yet he himself did not, [Page 306] after the taking in of his Apostles to be his Disciples administer by himself but by his Disciples. Now certainly they did it, not of themselves, but by his Institution; which is nothing else but his prescribing and ap­pointing the use of it to that end whereto it was to be used. Whence it is said of those whom his Disciples baptized, that he ba­ptized them: that being reckoned as done by him, that was done by his appointment. Now if it were practiced by the Disciples of our Saviour, and by his appointment in his life, then could not those words in Matth. and Mark, be the Institution of it, which were not spoken by him till after his death. But that must be the time, when ever it was when our Saviour instructed, empowred and appointed his Disciples to baptize, and the words what ever they were whereby he did instruct, empower, and appoint them to do it, must be the words of Institution. And accordingly the learned Gabriel Biel decides the Case, saying that Baptism was not in­stituted Institutus est ergo baptismus prius, quando baptizandi officium discipulis commissum fuerat: licet quan [...]o & u­bi determinatè ex Scriptura non sit certum. Gab. Biel. when Christ was baptized; nor in that say­ing of his to Nicodemus, Except a man be born a­gain; nor in the last of Matihew, when he com­manded [Page 307] his Disciples to Go teach all Nations, &c. nor in 4 lib. Sent. dist. 3. qu. unica. in the last of Mark, when he said, He that believeth and is baptized; nor on the Cross, when out of his side came blood and water; nor when he sent his disciples by two and two preach: but before, when the office of baptizing was committed to his Disciples, though when and where that was done, is not determinately certain out of the Scripture. And so those Texts can be of no force in the world against Infants Baptism, so Sed propugnacu­lum omnium mu­nitisimum in ipsa Baptismi institu­tione se habere gloriantur, quam ex capite Matthaei ultimo petunt, &c. Calvin. Inst. l. 4. c. 16. S. 27. In­expugnabilis baec ratio, qua tantopere considunt. Id. ib. S. 28. as to gather thence, that by the Institution of our Sa­viour Infants are excluded from Baptism. And then one of the Antipaedoba­ptists strongest supports of their Error is fallen to the ground.

§. 4. Well but what were those words then? I answer, they were a Confirming of that Commission, which the Disc [...]ples of our Savi­our Baptismi Confir­matio fuit, facto, quando non solum sanguis sed aqua exivit de latere e­jus. Verbo, quan­do post resurrectio­nem misit eos di­cens, Decete [...]om­nes gentes bapti­zames eos, &c. Guillerm. Vorri­long. sup. l. 4. Sent. dist. 3. art. 3. fol. 123. b. col. 1. Caterum Apostoles non jam ad sol [...]s J [...]os mictit s [...]d ad om [...] gen [...]. Theophyl. in loc. had formerly received, and an Enlarging of it to a giving of them power to [Page 308] become his Apostles, Le­gates, or Embassadors to forreign Nations; so as that, whereas in his life they were onely to go to the people of the Jews (Matth. 10. 5, 6.) after his death they were to go unto the Gentiles, even in­to all the world, to preach the Gospel to the whole creation, and make Disci­ples of all nations.

§. 5. But where then is the Institutioin of Baptism set down? and in what form of words was it instituted? I said before, it was no where particularly set down in Scri­pture when the Institution of Baptism was. Nor is it, that I can meet Institutio autem baptismi fuit (1) Fac [...]o, quan do Christus venit in in Ju [...]am, Joh. 3. & baptiza [...]. (2) Verbo, quan­do misit disci [...]los pradicare, & ut cre [...]itur baptizare, Luc. 10. Guiller Vorrilong. in 4. l. S [...]nt. dist. 3. art. 3. fol. 123. with, how ever Guillerm. Vorrilong say it was insti­tuted by Deed, when Christ came into Judea and baptized, Joh. 3. By Word when Christ sent his Disciples to preach, and as it is believed to baptize, Luk. 10. in which latter he is contradicted by Ga­briel Biel. And in what [Page 309] Form of words it was instituted is more than I, or, I think, any man living can tell. The Scriptu [...]e is not, nor was ever meant to be a compleat Register of all either the words or actings of Christ: how absurdly soever some will not allow of any thing as said, or done by him, but what is expresly written there, how credibly soever it may be otherwise shewn to have [...]een said or done by him. And if the Form of words where­by our Saviour did institute Baptism be no more [...]k own then the Time of its insti­tution, then can there no Argument be drawn from thence, whereby Infants can be excluded from Baptism.

§. 6. But how then shall we know what the Institution of Christ was, and so judge by that, what Persons are to be baptized? I answer, very well: and by the considera­tion of two things. The first is, what was in use among the lews before our Saviours time. The second is, what has been the use among Christians since the time of our Saviour. And if we find the o [...]e agreeing with the other, and answering to it as face answers to face in water, then there can be no other judged, but that as the one did a­gree with the other, so our Saviour did or­dain it should be; appointing that what was in use before should be still in use as it was, [Page 310] save where he did improve or alter any thing therein. Now whether we look at what was in use among the Jews before our Saviours time, or what has been in use a­mong Christians since h [...]s time, we shall find all making for Infants Baptism.

§. 7. And by the way you are to un­derstand, that our Saviour, when he put an end to the Mosaical Observances, did not wholly evacuate, and make null, all that was in use and practice among the Jews, and introduce a perfectly new platform of his own, wholly other, in all both the Substance and circumstances of it, from what was be­fore: but did take much of what he found ready to his hand among them, that was usefull to him, and did continue it still in his Church, onely accommodating and fitting it to his own purpose, and improving and heightning it in the uses and advantages of it to his Disciples. This the Learned shew by instances Dr. Hammond Quaere of the Ba­ptizing of Infants, §. 5. in sundry particulars. And thus particularly it was in the institution of Baptism. That before the time of our Saviour, even from ancient days, had been in use among the Jews as one Ceremony among others of the initation of Disciples into the Cove­nant of God; as the most Authentick Re­cords [Page 311] of the Jewish Antiquities do testisie. And that our Saviour, leaving off the other two which were in use together with it, namely Circumcision and Sacr [...]fice, did con­tinue and ordain shou [...]d be the sole and single Ceremony of Initiation or Admittance of Disciples into his Church. And here by the way I cannot let pass, without a remark, the mercifulness of our Saviour towards mankind, in the continuation of this, and dismission of the other two; in that where­as Sacrifice was chargeable, and Circumci­sion was painfull, he was pleased to lay down them, and continue onely Baptism, which was neither charge nor pain.

§. 8. Now it is most certain that before our Saviours time those that became Prose­lytes to the Jewish Church, were admitted into it by three things, Circumcision, Sa­crifice, and Baptism; which last was so ne­cessary, that though one were circumcized, yet if he were not also baptized, he was not a true Proselyte, but a Gentile still. Whence, (as the Learned Dr. Light foot informs) it is said, and said as a known Axiome by the Gemara Non est quis Pro­selytus usque dum circumcidatur & baptizetur. Dr. Lightfoot Hor [...] Habraicae, l. 42. Babylonica (Jevamoth, fol. 46. 2.) That till a man were both circumcized and baptized he was no Prose­lyte. [Page 312] I say, a Man, because for a woman baptism was sufficient to ma [...]e her a Prose­lyte without circumcision, as the same Ge­mara shews (Jeva [...]h fol. 45. 2.)

§. 9. Now I being a Statute Law upon record among the Jews (Numb. 15. 15.) that one [...]dma [...]ce should be both for them, and for t [...] manger (the P [...]oselyte) that so journed with them; and that as th [...]y were, so should the stranger he before the [...]ord; and that one [...]aw, and one Manner, as for Moral Duties, so for Rites and Ceremonies, should be both for the native Jews and Pro­selyees that sojourned among them; nothing can be more evident than this, that what is recorded to have been their u [...]e with the Proselytes, was the [...]r u [...]e also with, and among themselves; and that they did to them­selves Dr. Hamm [...]n [...] De­fence of Inf. Bapt. p. 10, 11, 24, 25. By three things (say the Hebrew Doctors) did Is­rael enter into the Covenant, by Cir­cumcision and Ba­ptism and Sacri­fice.—And so in all ages when an Ethnic is willing to enter into the Covenant and ga­ther himself under the wings of the Majesty of God, and take upon him the yoke of the Law; he must be circumcised and baptized and bring a Sacrifice. And if it be a wo­man, she must be baptized and bring a Sacrifice; as it is written [Numb. 15. 15.] as ye are so shall the stranger be. How are ye? by circum­cision and baptism, and bringing of a Sacrifice: so likewise the stranger throughout all generations, by Circumcision and Baptism, and bringing of a Sacrifice. Ainsworth on Gen. 17. 12. pag. 68. and theirs, what they did to the Prose­lytes and their Children: insomuch that their way of argu [...]ng to what was ne­cessary to be done to the P [...]oselyte proceeded from what was done among themselves, and that be­cause the Law of God was, [Page 313] that as it was with them, so it should be with the stran­ger.

§. 10. Now this is most certain, as be­ing upon record in the Gemara Babylonica, one, besides others, of their most Authentick wri­tings, Dr. Hammond Bapt. of Inf. §. 15. and Def. of Inf. Bapt. Sec. 3. Dr. Lightfoot Ho­rae Hebraicae, pag. 42. 43. that, when any of Heathens became Jews, not onely the Proselytes them­selves, but also their Infant Children, if they had any, were baptized. They ba­ptize the little or young stranger or Pro­selyte, saith the Gemana. Again, If toge­ther with a Proselyte his sons and daugh­ters be made Proselytes, which none were without being baptized, what their father doth for them, turns to their good. Indeed (as R. Josph said,) when they grew up they [Page 314] might, if they pleased, renounce what was done. Where the Gloss saith, This is to be understood De parvulis, of little ones that were made Proselytes together with their Fathers. And so again Maimonides, They baptize the Infant or little stranger upon the knowledge or understanding of the house of Judgment, or the Congregation. And again (saith he) If an Israelite take or find a Heathen Infant, and baptize him in the name of a Proselyte, Ecce ille est Pro­selytus, loe, he is become a Proselyte. So R. Hezekiah saith, Behold one finds an In­fant cast out, and baptized him in the name of a servant, do thou also circumcise him in the name of a servant: but if he baptize him in the name of a freeman, do thou also circumcise him in the name of a freeman. (Hierosol. Jevamoth, fol. 8. 4. ) Infants then were baptized among the Jews before our Saviours time, admitted into Covenant with God, and into Communion with his Church by Baptism.

§. 11. And that it was so with Infants [...]fter our Saviours time I have (I hope) sufficiently made it appear by what I have already said in this discourse, shewing by abundant authorities and instances that it has been the Practice of the Catholick Church of Christ in all the Ages of it to baptize [Page 315] Infants; and that Practice founded in the Tradition and derived from the Practice of the Apostles, sufficiently, though some­what obscurely, attested by the holy Scri­ptures.

§. 12. Now where we find what was before, and what was after our Saviours time in this matter answering exactly each to other, save where an alteration is expresly made, what other can any rationall man judge than this, that as it was before our Sa­viours time, and as it was still continued af­ter his time, so our Saviour in his time did institute and appoint, ordain and decree, that unto all future time it should be. And it is impossible any better account than this should be given of any Institution of our Saviours that is not particularly recorded in Scripture; as this of Infants Baptism, nei­ther is, nor was necessary Nam cum Pae­dobaptismus in Ec­clesia Judaicâ in admissione Prose­lytorum, ita suit notus, us [...]tatus & frequens, [...] n [...]hil fere notius, usitatius, & frequentius (1) Non opus erat ut aliqu [...] pracepto rob [...]rar [...]tur [cum Baptismus jam in Sacramentum evaderet [...] van elicu [...]]. Nam Christus Baptismum in manus suis atque [...] E­vangelicum suscepit, qualem in [...] hoc sol [...]m dito, quod ad digniorem finem atque largiorem usum promoveret. Novit satis gens universa parvulos so­litos baptizari: illud praecepto opus non habuit, quod communi usu semper invaluerat. Si prodiret [...]am edictum regale in haec verba, Recipiat se unusquisque die Dominico ad publicum conventum in Ecclesia, in­saniet certe ille qui [...]unque olim hinc argueret, non ce­lebrandas esse die Dominico in publicis conventibus preces, conciones, psalmodias, co quod nulla in edicto de iis mentio. Nam cavit edictum de celebratione deel Dominicae in publicis conventibus in genere, de particularibus autem divini cultus speciebus ibidem celebrandis non opus erat, ut esset mentio, cum istae ante datum edictum, & cum daretur, semper & u­bique notae essent, & in usu assiduo. Ipsissimo hoc modo res st habuit cum Baptismo; Christus eum in­stituit in Sacramentum Evangelicum, quo in profes­sionem Evangelii omnes admitterentur, ut olim in Pros [...]lytismum ad religionem Judaicam. Particula­ria [...]ò spectantia, modus scilicet baptizandi, atas ba­ptizanda, sexus baptizandus, &c. regula & defini­tione opus non habuerunt: eo quod haec vel lippis & tonsoribus satis nota erant ex communi usu. (2) E contra ergo plana & aperta prohibitione opus erat, ut insantes & parvuli non baptizarentur. si eos bapti­zandos nollet servator. Nam cum per omnia secula praecedentia usitatissimum esset, ut baptizarentur par­vuli, si adoleri istam consuetudinem vellet Christus, aperte prohibuisset. Silentium ergo ejus & Scri­pturae hac in [...]e Paedobaptismum firmat & propagat in omnia secula. Dr. Lightfoot Horae Hebraicae in Matth. 3. 6. pag. 44, 45. to be, being already so well known by the former practice of it; as the Lear­ned Dr. Lightfoot excel­lently argues.

§. 13. And now what can any mortall man, that hath not addicted himself a slave to prejudice, judge any other but this, that [Page 317] in as much as our Saviour made no alteration in this particular in the Jewish Baptism, therefore Infants are by his Institution to be baptized. And, that in all those passages of Scripture, which speak of admitting any to be disciples to Christ, or of any's being ad­mitted by baptism to be his Disciples, there, if Infants be not by some Circumstance ne­cessarily excluded, they are in the design and by the Institution of our Saviour to be in­cluded.

§. 14. As, for instance: when our Sa­viour enlarging his Disciples former Com­mission, saith to them, Go and make Disci­ples of all nations baptizing them, who, that remembers but what persons were admitted to be made Disciples before our Saviours time, namely Infants as well as others; and considers but withall that since his time also Infants as well as others were in the first Ages of the Church, and ever since admitted to Discipleship by Baptism, who I say, that but remembers and considers this, can judge any other, but that our Saviour did in his design extend his words to all those that he did not exclude, even to Infants also as well as to others; and that his Disciples did also accordingly so understand him; and baptize Infants; and deliver Infants Baptism down as a thing to be for ever re­tained [Page 318] in the Church even by his Institution: of which their so doing there can no other probable account or reason be given.

§. 15. Put case, whereas of three things formerly in use for the admitting of Disci­ples, viz. Circumcision, Sacrifice, and Ba­ptism, our Saviour did lay aside the two for­mer, Circumcision and Sacrifice, and did continue onely the later, namely Baptism; (put case I say) he had continued Circum­cision to be the onely Ceremony to be used in his Church for the admitting of Disciples, and had laid aside Sacrifice and Baptism; and in stead of saying, Go ye therefore, and make Disciples of all nations, baptizing them, &c. had said, Go ye therefore, and make Dis­eiples of all nations, circumcising them, &c. who that remembred that Infants as well as others See Dr. Stilling­fleets Vindicat. of the A. B. of Cant. p. 107. had usually in that case been circumcised, would ever have interpreted his words to the excluding of Infants from Circumcision, or ever have once imagined, or phansied any other, but that children should now, and henceforth, as well as formerly, be circumcised. Even so now our Saviour having discontinued Circumcision and Sacrifice, and continued Baptism alone, to be the Sacrament of the [Page 319] Initiation of Disciples into his Church, who, that remembers that it was the use before our Saviours time to admit Infants into the Church by Baptism, can imagine any other, but that his mind was that they should still be so admitted; or but rationally phansie, that in saying, make disciples of all nations baptizing them he meant to exclude Infants from Baptism. If Infants should have come in, had he said Circumcising them, as undoubtedly they would (who would ever once have disputed it, or made any question of it?) then they ought to come in now that he hath said, Baptizing them. For the case is equall on both sides, one as well as the other being a Ceremony of ad­mission of Disciples to Proselytism before his saying those words; and there being as much reason for the one as for the other, the very same for both. Which one consi­deration, if reason might take place, were enough to end the controversie, and carry the Cause for Infants Baptism.

§. 16. And thus again, when in the pre­sent Text our Saviour saith, Suffer little Children to come unto me, and forbid them not, in as much as the coming he there speaks of is a coming to be his Proselytes, a be­coming his Disciples, (as appears by what [Page 320] he adds as a reason why Adduxerunt ergo aliqui è credenti­bus infantes suos, ut peculiari recog­nitione Christus eos in discipulatum suum cooptaret, ac pro suis sua consig­naret be nedictione. Dr. Lightfoot in Matth. 19. 13. Horae Hebraicae, pag. 221. they should be suffered to come to him, viz. because of such is the kingdom of God, which intimates that their coming to him was for entrance into that king­dom, and to be made mem­bers of his Church) and his command to suffer them to come to him was to suf­fer them to have entrance into Gods kingdom, so to come to him as Proselytes of his kingdom, to become mem­bers of his Church, it is most evident that he appoints they should have all things per­mitted to them, and that performed for them, which was necessary to their so coming to him, and was usually done to such as so came, became Proselytes to, and entred into Gods kingdom; and that was to baptize them: for he that commands the end, doth even without naming them command the means. His word (M [...]tth. 28. 19.) is [...] make them Disci­ples baptizing them, i. e. admit them to Discipleship by the Ceremony of Baptism; let them come to me into my Church by Ba­ptism, that door of their Admission, that Sacrament of their Initiation thereinto.

§. 17. And in that it is not said that our Saviour did baptize them, but onely took them up into his arms, and laid his hands upon them and blessed them, it will not hence follow that he did neither baptize them, nor appoint, nor allow of their ba­ptizing. For to argue that he did not do, nor appoint, nor allow of this or that, be­cause it is not said, that he did do, or ap­point, or allow of it, is not good: there is no consequence at all in it. For he might allow of, appoint, and do, more than is written: that which is written of his sayings and doings being exceedingly short of comprehending and reporting all he said and did: which were so many, that St. John that modest Disciple, is fain to use an Hy­perhole to set out the numerousness of them, saying that, if they should be written every one, he supposed that even the world it self could not contain the Books that should be written, J [...]ha 21. 25.

§. 18. Who doubts but Jesus primo ad te mpus baptizavit, non quoslibet, sed suos discipulos pro­pria manu, quo fa­cto commisit e is ba­ptizandi officium, & ipse vacabat doctrinae. Dionys. Carchus. in Joh. 4. that the Tnel [...]e Discipl [...]s of our Saviour were baptized by him? Dionysius Carthusianus affirms it, that he baptized them, and with his own hand. And yet as Tertullian (de Ba­ptismo) [Page 322] saith, tinctos non invenimus, we do not find their baptizing in Scripture; it is no where expressed that he did baptize them, or any of them. As therefore it doth not prove that his Disciples were not baptized, because it is not written, that he did baptize them; so it doth not prove, that he did not baptize these Infants, because his baptizing of them is not written.

§. 19. Again, who doubts but that our Saviour himself was circumcised? And yet it is no where expressed in Scripture that he was circumcised. It is said indeed, that when eight days were accomplished for the circumcising of the Child, his name was called Jesus, Luke 2. 21. But it is not said, that upon the eighth day, when it was come, he was circumcised. As therefore it doth not prove that our Saviour was not circumcised, because his being circumcised is not written: so doth it not prove that these Infants were not baptized, because it is not written that they were baptized by him.

§. 20. Lastly, who doubts, but that our Saviour did at his last Supper communi­cate with his Disciples, eat the bread, and drink the cup with them? And yet it is no where written that he did so. It is said in­deed, [Page 323] that he blessed the bread, and brake it, and gave it to his Disciples, and said to them, Take, cat. But it is not said that he himself did eat it. I [...] is said, that he like­wise gave the cup to them, and said, Drink ye all of it. But it is not said, that he drunk of it himself. (And his saying, Matth. 26. 29. that he would not thenceforth drink of the fruit of the Vine, does but give reason to suppose it, and is no affirmation of it). As therefore it doth not prove that our Sa­viour did not communicate with his Disci­ples, because it is not expressed in Scri­pture that he did it: so it doth not prove, that he did not baptize these Infants, because it is not written that he did baptize them.

§. 21. Rather, the very great favours that he is written to have shewed these In­fants, as to take their part against his own D [...]sciples, even so far as for their sakes to rebuke them; to call the Infants to him; to take them up i [...]to his arms; to lay his hands upon them, and bless them, should argue that he did vouchsafe them all the favours that they came to him for more than is ex­pressed. And it is evident, that the bapti­zing of them was one, in as much as Ba­ptism is as it were the door of entrance into that kingdom, into which they came to him for entrance, and into which he commanded [Page 324] they should, when they came or were brought, be admitted, in saying, Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not. And would he deny them that one, that had vouchsafed to them all the rest?

§. 22. And if he did not baptize them himself, that is no wonder. For he did not constantly baptize himself all that he admit­ted to be his Disciples. Though from John Baptists saying, I have need to be baptized of thee, I may suppose that he did baptize some; and if no more, yet at least his Twelve disciples, by whose hands, after that he had baptized them, he did baptize others. Whence it is said, (John 4. 2. ) that Jesus himself baptized not, but his Disciples. Though he made Disciples, which imports his admitting men to be Disciples, and receiving them to proselytism by the Cere­mony thereof, which was Baptism (whence he is as well said to have baptized, as to have made more disciples than John, i. e. to have made by baptizing) yet the particular act of baptizing them, was a thing, which he did most usually, if if not constantly, transact by the hands of his Disciples. And by their hands he might baptize these Infants, though he did not use his own hands to that work.

§. 23. And besides what hath been said [Page 325] upon other accounts to shew the probability of it, his vouchsafing to them Imposition of hands, that Ceremony, which that renow­ned Champion of the Church of England Dr. Hammond saith, in the ancient Church was pre­paratory Quaere of the Ba­ptizing of Infants, Sect. 22. Explanatâque ei­dem divinâ vitâ, & ut ita dicam conversatione, ex eo praeterea quaerit, num ita instituat vivere: cum pro­misit, manum [...]jus capiti admovet [...]t signoque edito Sa­cerdotibus imperat, ut viri atque spon­soris nomina per­seribant, &c. Dio­nys. Areop. Hie­rarch. lib. c. 4. and antecedent to Baptism, is a strong argu­ment for, if not a clear evidence of, his admitting them to Baptism. What can be thought but that he did vouchsafe them that, who did admit them unto all foregoing that, and that was preparatory unto that? What other can be imagi­ned, but that he gave them over to his Disciples to be baptized with their hands, who had vouchsafed them the Imposition of his own hands? For though it be not said he baptized them, yet it is said he did that, that was the next to it, and the utmost that he can be conceived to have done to any, whom he did not baptize himself, but gave over to his Disciples to baptize; he laid his hands upon them, and blessed them; and by those actions did as it were consign them unto baptism, mark them [Page 326] for, and deliver them up to his Disciples to baptize: and that according to the former, and then present manner of receiving even Infants as well as elder persons unto Prose­lytism by Baptism.

§. 24. And thus, when we read of a whole City, as Samaria, or a Family, as the Jaylors, and Crispuses, and Stepha­nas's, baptized, though none be expressed to be baptized, but those that believed, yet what other can be thought, but that even the children a [...]so of those Believers, if they had any in their town or family, were baptized? Since it was agreeable with the Jewish Ba­ptism, (wherein our Saviours was founded, and from which in that particular it is never said in the least to have differed) to receive to Proselytism by Baptism the Infants of those that were converted, and baptized, as well as the Converts themselves. And if in so many whole Families as are reported in Scripture to have been baptized, there was never a child, which yet cannot be sa [...]d, and 'tis hard to believe, yet sure in Samaria, a great City, there were some. And why any that were converted and baptized themselves, should not desire baptism for their children as well as for themselves, since their children were by the Institution of Christ as capable of it as themselves were, [Page 327] is not easie to say. And on the contrary, that those that were converted, did desire the baptism of all theirs as well as of them­selves, is most evident, because we read of the baptizing of whole Houses consequent to the conversion of the single Master, or Mistress of those Houses: for instance, the Jaylor, and Lydias, Acts 16.

§. 25. And touching this latter, the house of Lydia it may not be amiss to make one observation before we pass, namely that, though it be said that the houshold of Lydia was baptized, yet it is not said, that they or any of them, beside Lydia her self believed, professed, or ever so much as once heard the Gospel preached to them. Now hereupon I would ask our Adversaries, whe­ther we may receive any thing as a Divine Truth, that is not written in the Divine Word, or we may not?

§. 26. It is their interest to say we may not: that being the main, if not the whole, of all the strength they have against our Plea for Infants Baptism, that it is not said in the Scriptures that Infants should be baptized, or were baptized, whence they weakly in­fer that Infants Baptism is not either in the Doctrine or Practice of it to be received. Now if in pursuance of their Interest they shall say we may not: then I shall infer [Page 328] from the same ground, that it is not to be received as a Divine Truth that the Houshold of Ly [...]ia d [...]d ever believe, profess, or hear the Gospel preached to them before they were baptized, because no such thing is writ­ten of them. And so here will be a Scripture Example of Persons baptized, without any either belief, or profession, or knowledge, or so much as hearing of the Gospel; their believing, professing, knowing, or hear­ing of it, being not to be received as a Di­vine Truth, because it is not written in the Divine Word. And then a Persons not be­lieving, professing, or knowing the Gospel will be no hindrance to his baptizing. And so our Infants cannot be denied baptism upon that account. Why man not our Infants be baptized, though they neither believe, nor profess, nor know the Gospel, upon the un­dertaking of believers for them, as well as the House of Lydias was: who, for any thing that appears in Scripture to the con­trary, nei her believed, nor professed, nor had any the least knowledge of the Gospel before they were baptized, but, as it may be supposed, were admitted to baptism through the Mistress of the Familie's un­dertaking for them, and becoming a God­mother as it were unto them.

§. 27. If, to avoid the sorce of this In­ference, [Page 329] they say we may receive something as a Divine Truth, which is not written in the Divine Word, then I infer on the other side, that it can be no hindrance to our re­ceiving Infants Baptism as a Divine Truth, that it is not written in the Scripture. For if we may receive it as a Divine Truth, that the Family of Lydia had both heard, and did believe, and at least make a profession to believe the Gospel, before they were ba­ptized, (and if they did not, then let the Antipaedobaptists tell us, if they can, upon what account or ground they were bapti­zed) though no one syllable of all this be written of them in the Divine Word, then may we as well receive it as a Divine Truth, either that there were Infants among those baptized ones, or that the Apostles did ba­ptize other Infants, though their baptizing be as much passed over in silence, and unmen­tioned, as the hearing, believing or profes­sing of Lydias Family before they were ba­ptized, here is: especially being there are such other positive grounds, as we have shewn, whereupon to receive it.

§. 28. And here I must profess my self too short sighted to be able to foresee what shift our Adversaries can find out, to evade and avoid the force of this Dilemma; by which their whole way of arguing against [Page 330] us a non scripto, from our having, as they pretend, no Scripture for what we profess and practice in this case, seems to be broken and overthrown.

§. 29. And by this time hope it is evi­dent to every one, that, not onely by the Constitution of this particular Church, but also by Prescription from the Custom and Practice of the Catholick and Primitive Church, and also by the Institu­tion of Christ himself our Infants have a Right to be baptized. And if so, then they cannot, without injury, and injustice to them, not to say also disobedience to the Order of this present and particular Church, Separa­tion from the practice of the Catholick and Primitive Church, disagreement with the institution of Christ, and resistance to the Command of Christ, be denied Baptism. For what else can it be, to hinder those from coming to him, whom he hath commanded to be suffered to come?

§. 30. And so I have dispatcht the Fourth and last Branch of my Argument for In­fants Baptism; and have said all I intended to say by way of Confirmation of the Point. What remains to be said will be matter of Use and Application.

CHAP. XXXI.

§. 1. BY what I have said in the former part of this Discourse, I hope I have sufficiently evidenced the Lawfulness at least of Infants Baptism; I will now go on to consider and answer Objections a­gainst it; and that will still be a further con­firmation of it; and that being but obtained, the Need they have of it, and the Benefit they may have by it, will be sufficient in­ducements to their baptizing, though they had no positive Right unto Baptism.

§. 2. The Antipaedo baptists main ground, on which they build their Opinion of the Unlawfulness of Infants Baptism, taken in its full strength lies thus. That which no one Text in all the Scriptures either com­mands, or gives example of, that it Unlaw­full. But in all the Scripture there is no one Text, that either commands, or gives an example of Infants Baptism, Therefore it is Unlawfull.

§. 3. In contradiction to this ground. [Page 332] and to shew the falseness of it, I thus argue against the first part of it. If nothing be lawfull to be practiced, but what some Text of Scripture doth command or give exam­ple of, then nothing will be lawfull to be believed, but what some Text of Scripture doth affirm. For it is as necessary that we should have a Scripture Affirmation for what we believe, as a Scripture Command or Example for what we practice. And this I think no Antipaedo baptist will deny. And if so, then many things that we now believe and practice, and shall become Hereticks and Schismaticks, if we do not believe and practice them, shall become unlawfull to us, because there is in all the Scriptures no one Text that affirms the one, or commands or gives example of the other: as I shall shew in both particulars.

§. 4. And first in matters of Faith. First, that the Son, as God, is equall to the Father: this we believe, and I hope the Antipaedobaptists do not disbelieve it. And yet there is no one Scripture that doth ex­presly affirm it. So, that as Man, he was circumcised: this we believe, and our An­tipaedobaptists do not deny, and yet (as we have already noted) there is no one Scri­pture that doth expresly affirm it.

§. 5. Again, that the Holy Ghost is [Page 333] God: this we believe, and I would hope our Antipaedobaptists did believe it too. And yet there is no one Scripture that doth expresly affirm it. Also that the Holy Ghost proceedeth from the Father and the Son: this we believe; and our Antipaedo­baptists do not, that I know, deny it. And yet there is no one Text of Scripture that doth expresly affirm it.

§. 6. Thirdly, that the Three Persons in the Trinity, the Father, the Son, and the Holy [...]; D. Basil. de Spir. Sancto, cap. 27. p. 213. Ghost are but One God; this we believe; and our Antipaedobaptists have not, that I know of, declared themselves to deny it. And yet there is no one Scri­pture that doth expresly affirm it.

§. 7. Fourthly, even but this, to add no more, that it is the duty of Children to love their Parents; this we believe, and sure the Anabaptists will not deny it. And yet where is there one Text in all the Scripture that doth expresly affirm it.

§. 8. Now if we do, and may believe these things, and ought to believe them, ha­ving sufficient ground for our belief of them; [Page 334] even good Consequence drawn from some one or more Texts of Scripture compared together, though no one Text of Scripture doth singly, and alone in terms affirm them: then may we as well practice some things, which no one Text of Scripture doth ex­presly command, or exemplifie, so long as we can deduce that practice from any one, or more Texts of Scripture compared toge­ther. And the contrary Doctrine, which is the Antipadobaptists ground for the Un­lawfulness of Infants baptism, is erroneous and absurd.

§. 9. Again, in matters of Practice, That Women as well as Men ought to receive the Si quid valerent id genus argumenta mulieres pariter Coena Domini in­terdicendae essent, quas Apostolorum seculo ad cam fuisse admissas non legi­mus. Calvin. In­stit. l. 4. c. 16. S. 8. Sacrament of the Supper of the Lord: this we be­lieve, and practice; and the Antipaedobapt [...]sts too. And yet there is no one Text of Scripture, that any more expresly com­mands or exemplifies that, than Infants baptism is commanded or ex­emplified.

§. 10. So that the weekly Lords day is to be sanctified, or kept holy; this we be­lieve and practice, and the Antipaedoba­ptists too. And yet there is no one Text of [Page 335] Scripture that commands it. Nor is there in the Scripture any example of its sanctifi­cation, but what may agree to any other besides it. It may indeed be shown, that some where they did meet on that day, and perform holy duties: but it may also be shown that other where they did meet and perform holy duties on other days: and if one conclude for the one, then will the o­ther conclude for the other: and so we shall either have all holy days, or none: and then not that, for any either command that enjoyns it, or example that infersit.

§. 11. So that Men or Women may be baptized either naked or cloathed we be­lieve, and the Church hath practiced. And the Anabaptists, I suppose, do believe and have practiced both ways. And yet there is no one Text of Scripture that commands baptizing either way: neither is there an example of any persons being either way baptized extant in Scripture. Of the going of some into the water, of their being ba­ptized therewith, we find mention: but of their going into it, or being baptized with it, naked or clothed, there is nothing men­tioned. So that let the Antipaedobaptist say, which way men and women should be ba­ptized, whether naked or clothed, yet still here will be a circumstance at least in pra­ctice [Page 336] allowed, and used by them as well as by our selves, without any Scripture Command for it, [...] D. Bas. de Sp. San [...]to. c. 27. or Example of it. So that men may be dipped, either once, or thrice, at their ba­ptizing, we believe, and it hath in the Church been practiced both ways. But what Scripture command or example have we to determine that circumstance either way?

§. 12. Now if both we, and the Anti­paedobaptists, do rightly believe, and law­fully practice, what we believe of, and pra­ctice in, these things, without any Scripture command, or example, to enjoyn, or di­rect us; then their assertion of the Unlaw­fulness of what is neither commanded, nor exemplified in Scripture is erroneous, and full of absurdity. Which yet I shall further make to appear upon other accounts.

§. 13. I think any rational man will grant, that there is no more necessity of ha­ving a Divine Command for every thing we take up into our practice, then there is of having a Divine Countermand for the laying down of any thing practiced by a Command Divine. Yea of the two there is more rea­son we should have an express command from God to leave off what himself had [Page 337] once commanded, than there is to have a com­mand for the beginning of a practice never commanded by him. For that which he never expressed any command for, may yet be agreeable to his secret will, and so not on­ly lawfull, but acceptable to him. And this may be shewn in sundry cases; and parti­cularly in the Jews ordaining and keeping the Feasts of Dedication, and of Purim. But the leaving off to do what God hath once commanded, cannot but be against his revealed will, and so neither acceptable to him, nor lawfull: unless there be good and competent ground for the What may be a sufficient ground in this case, See Dr. Stilling fleets Irenic. part. 1. c. 1. S. 3. p. 12, 13. leaving it off, and a suffi­cient evidence of the ceasing of that obligation to it, which was once by vertue of a Divine command upon it. If then there may be any thing shewn, which was once expresly commanded by God, and practiced in obedience to that command, whose practice is now left off; and by the Anabaptists themselves, without any express command to the contrary, and yet lawfully, then it will follow, and con­vincingly. I hope, that there may be some­thing practiced by us, which yet never was in Scripture expresly commanded us: and so Infants Baptism may be lawfull e­nough, [Page 338] though never expresly in Scri­pture commanded. Now I instance in the Sanctification of the seventh day, and in the Circumcision of Infants at eight days old: both expresly commanded, both ac­cordingly practiced; and both now left off to be observed, and yet without any express command for the disobserving of either. I speak all this while of things sacred, and not merely civill or naturall. And say an express command, because I find nothing else will satisfie. Else enough hath long enough, and often enough been offered to shew the lawfulness of Infants Baptism. Which if nothing else had been offered, is sufficiently proved by this Argument follow­ing, which they are as far from being igno­rant of, as they are from being able to an­swer.

§. 14. That which is no sin cannot be unlawfull. Infants Baptism is no sin: There­fore it is not unlawfull. That Infants ba­ptism is no sin either to the Baptizer, or Baptized is plain, because it is no transgres­sion of any Law. For that which is no trans­gression of a Law is no sin. Infants Ba­ptism is no trangression of any Law. There­fore it is no sin. That that can be no sin, which is no transgression of any Law is most evident, not onely because St. John hath [Page 339] positively defined sin to be the transgression of a law, (1 John 3. 4.) but also because St. Paul hath concluded negatively, that where no Law is, there is no transgression, (Rom. 4. 15. ) And these men that con­clude Infants baptism unlawfull, which must needs signifie its being sinfull, I wonder how, or whence they come to know it, and conclude it. Sure they do not know more than St. Paul did. And his Rule to know sin by, and so what is lawfull, and what un­lawfull, was the Law. For (saith he) by the Law is the knowledge of sin, (Rom. 3. 20. ) And, I had not known sin, but by the Law: for I had not known lust, i. e. had not known it to be a sin, except the Law had said, Thou shalt not covet, (Rom. 7. 7. ) So then Infants Baptism being no transgres­sion of any law; because there is no law a­gainst it; for there can be no transgression of a law which is not; it must follow that it can be no sin, and so cannot be unlaw­full.

§. 15. The Scripture, I say, being laid down to be the Rule of Lawfull and Ʋn­lawfull in sacred Things; as that which the Scripture commands is not onely lawfull but necessary, and that which the Scripture for­bids, is not onely unnecessary, but also sin [...]full: so that which the Scripture neither [Page 340] commands nor forbids, is neither necessary, nor yet sinfull: but of a middle nature be­twixt both; and that is Lawfull. So that though the Scripture had never spoke word, either in particular or in general, of Infants baptism, yet it must have been granted law­full, and could not have been concluded un­lawfull: because neither in particular, nor in general hath the Scripture spoke any one word or title against the baptizing of In­fants.

CHAP. XXXII.

§. 1. YEa but, argues the Antipaedobaptist, Nothing is lawfull that is not com­manded in Scripture. Infants Baptism is not commanded in Scripture. Therefore it is unlawfull. But why is nothing lawfull that is not commanded in Scripture? Because the doing of any uncommanded thing is an Ad­ding to the word; & all additions to the word are forbidden by the Word: and so unlaw­full. Now the Scriptures that forbid all ad­ditions to the word are many, Deut. 4. 2. [Page 341] Deut. 12. 32. Prov. 30. 6. Isa. 1. 12.

§. 2. But what if not every doing of an un­commanded thing be an adding to the word? Or what if the baptizing of an Infant (sup­pose it never so much uncommanded) be no such addition to the word, as is forbid­den? Why then Infants Baptism, for all its supposed uncommandedness, may be no sin. And so the whole force of the Argument falls to the ground. But because the best trial hereof will be a particular view of the Scri­ptures objected on this account, I will there­fore instantly address my self to the consi­deration of them; and from that view I shall hope to find, as that not all doing of a thing beside the word, is an addition to the word, so that Infants baptism is none of those cul­pable additions to the Word, which are forbidden by it.

§. 3. And the first is that in Deut. 4. 2. Ye shall not add unto the word which I com­mand you, neither shall you diminish ought from it, that you may k [...]ep the Command­ments of the Lord your God, which I com­mand.

§. 4. To this I answer first that the Ad­ding here forbidden cannot possibly be so un­derstood, as to make it unlawfull to do any thing, even appertaining to the worship of God, which is not expresly commanded. [Page 342] in the word of God. And that will be e­nough to overthrow their ground, and secure Infants Baptism from the guilt of unlawful­ness. For it is evident that the word here commanded to Israel, to which they were not to add, and from which they were not to diminish, are the Statutes, and the judg­ments, which Moses taught them to do (ver. 1.) namely, in this Book of Deute­ronomy, and the several chapters and verses of it: and however in the whole book of the Mosaical Law. Now it is most certain, that those Statutes and judgments, as they lie dispersed in the whole book of Moses Law, do reach unto all sorts of duties of common life, towards our selves, and to­wards our brethren, as well as of worship towards God. If then all doing any un­commanded thing be an adding to the word, and that adding to it which is here forbidden by it, then all other uncommanded actions, as well as uncommanded acts of worship and service towards God, must hereby be forbidden, and so be unlawfull: and we must no more do any action of common life, than any act of worship and service to­wards God, but what is expresly comman­ded in the word, for fear of incurring the guilt of adding to the word, and doing that which is unlawfull. And then there will be [Page 343] Absurdities enow follow­ing hereupon, as has upon Mr. Hooker Eccl. Politie. Dr. Ham­mond Will-wor­ship. &c. several accounts, and oc­casions, been shown by sundry of our Divines. But if the Prohibition of adding to the word here, be not, for the absurdities consequent thereunto, to be extended unto the actions of common life, then it is not to be exten­ded to the actions of religious service. For the same addition that is not to be made to the one, is not to be made to the other: and the same diminution that is not to be made from the one is not to be made from the o­ther. There being no distinction in this case made betwixt the one and the other, it must be applied to both or to neither. And either there shall no uncommanded actions of common life be lawfull, or else some acti­ons of religion may be lawfull, though not commanded, and the doing of them no ad­dition to the word. And if so, then Infants Baptism may be lawfull enough, notwith­standing any thing that here is said to the contrary, and not be found any addition to the word.

§. 5. Secondly, I answer, that, this way of Interpreting this Text, so as to render all uncommanded either civil or sacred a­ctions unlawfull being overthrown, there [Page 344] are other commodious rendrings of the Text, which may fully speak the sense of it, and yet render Infants Baptism not unlaw­full.

§. 6. One is that of Hugo Grotius, who saith, To diminish is not to do that which is bidden. Diminuere est non facere quod jube­tur; addere, aliter quam est jussum fa­cere. Grot. in loc. To add is to do otherwise than 'tis bidden. To do what otherwise? Why that sure which is forbidden. His word is not (aliud) another thing, as if the doing of any other thing, than what was bidden, were in his sense that ad­ding to the word which is forbidden: but it is (aliter) otherwise, clearly shewing his sense of the Adding here forbidden to be the doing of what was bidden, otherwise than it was bidden to be done. Now what is this to Infants Baptism? How can our doing of it be a doing otherwise than is commanded, and so an adding, in his sense to the word, if in the word there be nothing at all commanded that concerns it. And if it be not all com­manded, how is it possible we should do it otherwise than 'tis commanded, and so be guilty of adding to the word, in his sense, by the doing of it?

§. 7. Another is that of Dr. Ham­mond, who makes the paying of an Uni­form [Page 345] Obedience to God by Defence of Super­stition, pag. 15. 16. the Jews according to the Law of Moses to be the mean [...]ng of the not adding nor diminishing mentioned in this Text. Now what is this, you shall fulfill all my commandments, and not disobey any of them, either by doing what I forbid, or by leaving undone what I command, or by doing any thing that I have commanded otherwise than I have commanded otherwise than I have commanded it, to the business of Infants Ba­ptism? What one either Affirmative or Ne­gative Law of God touching his worship and service given to the Jews by Mos [...]s, is violated and disobeyed thereby? And if none, then for any thing yet here said, it must remain lawfull.

§. 8. A third is that of theirs, with whom I agree, that interpret the not adding here forbidden of not adding any thing to the word of God as the word of God which was never spoken by God. The word Add is explain'd by the word Di­minish. To dimin [...]sh any thing from the word of God is properly to rob God of any part of it. This is done two ways. First, by wholly destroying it, as if it had never been spoken at all, And this is a thing that they were gu [...]lty of, whoever they were, by whom any book, or part of any book of [Page 346] Gods word hath been lost, if ever any were, as is to be suspected: some things being spo­ken of as written, which are not to be found amongst the writings that are extant. Se­condly, it is done by diminishing the Au­thority of it, reckoning that for merely Humane, which is Divine. This is a thing which we are wrongfully charged by the Pa­pists to be guilty of, because we own not the Apocryphal Books as the divinely inspired word of God, but as the writings of unin­spired men. But they are justly guilty of it, that look upon the Scri­pture as a dead letter, and Caspar Swenck­feldius docuit vo­cale verbum tan­quam literam oc­sidentem rejiaien­dum esse: solo spi­ritu nos contentos esse debere. Alsted. Prolegom. Theolo. Polem. Sensum literalem aiunt [Weigeliani] esse umbram, sonum Antichristianum, sapientiae expertem, spiritu va­cuum, fundamentum arenosum, saluti noxium, am­biguum in verbis, imperfectum in doctrinâ, mortuum & inefficacem in literâ, ineptum ad consolationem. Wendelin. Theolog. Christian. Epist. Dedicator. a useless thing, to be laid by as out of date now in the times of the effusion of greater light. This is the Doctrine of the Swenck­feldians, and Weigelians, and espoused I doubt by too many of our English Enthusiasts.

§. 9. And accordingly to Add to the [Page 347] word of God is to foist in and obtrude words upon God, pretending them to be delivered and spoken by him, though he ne­ver spake them, nor gave any man order to speak them from him. And this is done two ways. First, by adding words to the word of God. This he should be guilty of that should put any words into the Bible more than Originally were there; or should put into the Translation of the Bible more then is in the words or sense of the Original. And this they are guilty of, that affirm any thing to be spoken by God, which he neve [...] spake. And this, Nicholas Stock, and John of Leiden Ringleaders amongst the Dr. Fea [...]ley Dip­pers dipt, p. 225. &c. Germane Anabaptists for­merly have been charged with. And I could wish none of our English Enthus [...]sts were chargeable with it. Secondly, it is done by giving a divine authority to words not spoken by a divine inspiration. This we ac­cuse the Papists to be guilty of in making the Apocryphal Books of equal Authority with the Canonical. Which yet cannot be pro­ved to have been written by a Divine Inspi­ration; nor to have been given by God as a Law of Faith but onely written by Men as a Direction for Life.

§. 10. If then for the Baptizing of In­fants [Page 348] we pretend no word of Gods not spo­ken by him; if into his word we have put no words of our own, or any mans else, nor have given to any thing not written by him an equal Authority with his word, then we are not, we cannot be guilty of that Adding to the word of God which here is prohibi­ted. None sure is so weak as to think the baptizing of a child to be the adding of words to the word of God.

§. 11. And what hath been said of this Text will serve in answer to other Texts of the same import. Such as (Deut. 12. 32.) where it is said, What thing soever I com­mand you, observe to do it, thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it. What thing soever, that is, as the Septuagint ren­der it, [...], every word that I injoyn you, every word of command that I give you, that shall you be carefull to observe; to that shall you pay an uniform obedience, forbearing to do the things that I forbid, and doing the things, whatsoever they be, that I command; and to my words ye shall add no words of your own; ye shall put into my Law no commands that I never gave you, you shall not take from my Law any of the commands that I have given you; ye shall not change the Rule I have set down for you [...]o walk by, either in whole or in part, by [Page 349] imposing on your selves either more severe or more easie performances than I have re­quired from you, instead of those that I have required: but ye shall do fully that which I have commanded, and ye shall do it faithfully as I have commanded it.

§. 12. And this is agreeable to those Texts, where this uniform observance of the then setled rule is more explicately set down. As (in Deut. 5. 32.) ye shall ob­serve to do therefore as the Lord hath com­manded you, you shall not turn aside to the right hand or to the left. And (Deut. 28. 14.) Thou shalt not go aside from any of the words, which I command thee this day to the right hand or to the left, to go after o­ther gods to serve them. And (Joshua 1. 7.) Be th [...]u strong, and very couragious, that thou mayst observe to do according to all the Law, which Moses my servant commanded thee, turn not from it to the right hand, or to the left.

§. 13. Now what is this to Infants Ba­ptism, supposing it utterly uncommanded? How is the baptizing of an Infant, a not doing as the Lord hath commanded? or a going aside from any of his words? or a turning from them to the right hand or the left? What one word of our own, or anies else, have we added to his to bring it in? [Page 350] what one word of his have we left out, that else might have given a stop to our doing of it? what one word of his have we changed to make the easier way for its intro­duction, or continuation? what one thing required by him have we turned from, and let alone unperformed, that we might do that in the stead of it? yea, on the con­trary, how doth not our doing of it hold proportion with his word, and so can be no violation of his word? In short, when it can be made appear that the baptizing of Infants, is the putting of words into Moses's Law, then we shall, and till then we shall not yield, that it is that adding to the word of God, which God by Moses in this Text for bad.

§. 14. Such again is that saying of A­gur, Prov. 30. 6. Add thou not unto his words lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a lia [...]. What can this mean other, than that no man ought to add any of his own, or others words to the word of God, as if God had spoken them, whereas he never spake word of them? This whosoever he be that doth, he must needs be found a liar, when God comes to reprove him. But what re­proof can he be liable to for adding to his words, that hath added nothing to them? Or how can he be found a liar upon the account [Page 351] of adding to Gods words, who doth not affirm, God ever said one word more than he hath said?

§. 15. And now what is this Text, or any thing that can be inferred from it, to our pleading for Infants baptism? Have we for the introducing or defending that practice, inserted into the word of God any words of our own, pretending them to be his words? Let the book be searcht, and the words pro­duced, and let the shame of such adding light upon the doers of it. But if we do no such thing, if we have added no one word concerning this to Gods Words, then can this Text make nothing at all against us, who have done nothing of that which is forbid­den by it?

§. 16. Indeed from such words of God as are expressed in Scripture, we draw such Consequences as naturally flow from them being rightly interpreted. But this is no adding to the words of God. This is but what we are enabled to by the example of our Saviour and his Apostles: who prove things not expressed in Scripture by Conse­quences deduced from Scripture: and by such proving justifie a rational collection from the word to be no culpable addition to the word, which is the thing that this Text for­bids.

§. 17. Yea but, do we not find the Jews severely reproved again and again for per­forming uncommanded acts of worship, of which, saith God, I commanded th [...]m not, neither came it into my heart, or mind, Jer. 7. 31. & 19. 5. & 32. 35? Yes verily. And what then? Why then uncommanded acts of worship and service are unlawfull. And so Infants Baptism will upon that ac­count also be unlawfull, as being an uncom­manded thi [...]g.

§. 18. So the Anabaptists indeed rea­sons from these Texts: but without any rea­son, yea against all reason. For the acts spoken of in those Texts as not commanded, are acts of devotion to, and worship of false gods, building high p [...]aces to Baal, and causing their sons and daughters to pass through the fire to Molech. Now in the name of God, doth this follow? Israel were rep [...]oved for performing uncomman­ded acts of devotion and Idolatrous wor­ship to false gods? therefore it is unlawfull for Christians to perform uncommanded acts of devotion, and religious worship to the true God? Or, because it was unlawful for them to cause their sons and daughters to pass through the fire to Molech, there­fore it must be unlawfull for us to cause our sons and daughters to pass through the water [Page 353] to Jesus Christ? May not we baptize our Infants, and so consecrate them unto God? because they may not burn their Infants, and so sacrifice them to the Devil? What an absurd? What a wild, and irrational con­sequence is this?

§. 19. But let us a while consider the expression, which I commanded them not, nor speake it, neither came it into my heart, or mind. What is this but a Meiôsis, inti­mating in a milder expression a severer in­terdiction? which I commanded not, that is, which I have most strictly forbidden, as abhorring it, and abominating it in my heart. And were not these things forbidden strictly enough, both in general in the first and se­cond Commandment of the Decalogue, and particularly in Levit. 18. 21. where it is expresly said, Thou shalt not let any of thy s [...]ed pass through the fire to Molech, neither shalt thou profane the name of thy God. And again, Levit. 20. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. where stoning to death by the people of the land, and that without mercy, is threatned against the offender in this kind. See! these un­commanded things, as they are called here, were things elsewhere most strictly prohi­bited, most severely interdicted.

§. 20. Again it is said in the Third Com­mandment, The Lord will not hold him [Page 354] guiltless that taketh his name in vain. Is that all, that the Lord will not look on him that taketh his name in vain as altogether an innocent man? Is it not, that the Lord will most severly punish him? What else is meant in Ezek 17. 18, 19. Jerem. 7. 9, with 12, 14, 15. Zech. 5. 2, 3, 4. Ma­lach. 3. 5. Hosea 4. 2. Jerem 23. 10. So his not commanding here is his forbidding. The not coming into his heart, is his hating such abomination, as it is called, Jerem. 32. 35.

§. 21. Now what is this to Infants Ba­ptism? Where hath God any where for­bidden it, that the doing of it should be such an abomination to God? From this manner of Gods expressing himself, I com­manded not, touching things most severly forbidden, hated, and abhorred by God, how doth any argument arise, how is any reasoning framed to the rendring of that unlawfull to man, as abominable unto God, which God is so far from having ever any where forbidden, or exprest any detestation against, that he is supposed never to have said the least word about it?

§. 22. Yea, what if this be spoken in the way of aggravation of their fault in pro­ceeding to such unnatural cruelties towards their children in the worship of false gods, [Page 355] as were never by the true God required of them? As if God Almighty had said, Your idolatrous wickedness is so much the grea­ter, in that ye do these things to serve your false gods, which, for the cruelty, and un­naturalness of them, I who am the true God, never commanded you to perform to me; it never so much as once came into my heart or mind to require any such thing of you to my self, still this will no way be applica­ble unto Infants Baptism, which can in no respect be parallel'd unto these most inhu­mane acts of the most devillish worship.

§. 23. No more can that of Isa. 1. 12. (a place often enough thrown in our dish about this business) Who hath required this at your hands? For the fault there reproved was not the performing of Offerontium ne­quitla, bene olens thymiams in abo­minationem con­vertit. D. Chrys. Hom. 27. in Gen. There are several accounts upon which God in Scripture is said to disregard and not to approve or accept of Sacri­fices, which yet were of his own institution. 1. In respect of the Hy­pocrisie of the of­ferers: That peo­ple being grown formal and cor­rupt trusted in Sa­crifices, and the work wrought in them, and said by them they should be justifi­ed. God expres­sing his indigna­tion against such Sacrificers, rejects the things them­selves wherein they trusted, that is in reference to them that used them. This is the intention of the Holy Ghost. Isa. 1. 12, 13. Dr. Owen Confut. of Biddle Ca­tech. ch. 22. p. 472. [...] D. Chrysost. 1 Orat. adv. Judaeos. an uncommanded action: the thing it self, to come and appear before God, and that no less than thrice a year, being most parti­cularly commanded, Exod. 23. 17. and Exod. 34. 23. But it was the performing of a commanded action with such hypocrisie as they did it with; it was their being hypocrites in [Page 356] their hearts even whilest they were before the eyes of God. Their hearts were not with him, even whilest they were performing ex­terior acts of worship and service to him. Now in such case the most com­manded acts of worship are hateful to God; not as acts of worship, but as acts of such worshippers. This may be seen in the Context from 12 to 21. and so again Isa. 66. 3, 4. Prov. 21. 27. & Prov. 28. 9.

§. 24. Now this can no way be appli­cable to the prejudice of Infants Baptism: unless our Antipaedobaptists will say, that our coming to appear before God with our Infants to offer and consecrate them unto him in baptism is all Hypocrisie; and that as [Page 357] oft as we tread the courts of God to that end we come but to play the Hypocrites with him. Which yet I hope they will not un­justly, and I am sure they cannot justly charge us with all. What we do in this, we do it simply and sincerely, walking accord­ing to our light, and acting according to our conscience, without hypocrisie.

§. 25. But put case we do allow them their own sense of all those Texts, which they bring to prove the unlawfulness of any thing that is not commanded in the word of God (viz. Deut. 4. 2. & 12. 32. Prov. 30. 6, &c. ) yet still it will not follow, that those Texts which were given under, and as a rule for the Legal Dispensation, and reached to all the most minute parts and circumstances of Gods worship, which were every one under the penalty of a curse to be punctually observed, are now in force un­der, and as rules for the Oeconomy of the Gospel. For that will be to bring back a­gain, and make necessary all the former le­gal administrations; because there must be no Diminutions from Gods Word. For by what Texts of Scripture are forbidden all Additions to the word of God, by the same Texts are forbidden all Diminutions from his Word. And if we must do nothing more than has been commanded, because we [Page 358] must not add; then we must do nothing less, because we must not diminish. And so we must fall again to Circumcision, and all the outdated services of the Law, and in plain terms, turn Jews.

§. 26. If it be said, that the not doing of things now, that were commanded then, is no Diminution, because there has been a disannulling of the Commandment going befo [...]e (Heb. 7. 18); then I answer that for the same reason the doing of things now, that were not commanded then, is no addi­tion. And those Texts must be in force both ways, or neither way; reaching unto all Diminutions, or else not extending unto all Additions. Besides, if the Commandment be dis [...]nnulled, then it is no Command­ment. And how there should either from, or to, a no Commandment be made any di­minution, or addition, is not so very easie to understand. How can any thing be done either more or less than is commanded, when there is no command? And a com­mand disannulled is annihilated as to all existency of being a command: and is now none.

§. 27. If it be replied that the equity of those Texts remains still. And that therefore as nothing was to be done in the time of the Law, but what was written in the Book of [Page 359] the Law: so nothing is to be done in the time of the Gospel, but what is written in the Book of the Gospel. I answer, No. Thus far the equity of them remains, that what is commanded in the Gospel, be done as it is commanded: and what is forbidden, be forborn. But it doth not reach to the making of every thing unlawfull to be done, which is not particularly prescribed in the Gospel. Because there is a great dispa [...]ity between the Legal and Evangelical Dispen­sation in this case.

§. 28. In the Legal Oeconomy parti­cular order was given for all the circumstan­tial as well as substantial parts of Gods ser­vice. But in the Oeconomy of the Gospel no such particular Order has been given. And so the case is not equal. And therefore the Argument from the one to the other, from a compleatly setled administration to an administration not compleatly setled, is not good.

§. 29. Find us in the Gospel so com­pleat a Platform not onely for all Sub­stantials, but also for all Circumstan­tials, as was under the Law, and we shall not think fit, upon the account of the equity that is pleaded from those Texts, to add any thing thereto. But till then, we shall nei­ther think it unfit for the Governours of the [Page 360] Church, to whom Christ hath Act. 1. 8. & 15. 28. 1 Cor. 14. 26, 40. 2 Cor. 12. 19. Eph. 4. 11, 12. Tit. 1. 5. left the power of ordering Church affairs, to order such things as are unordered by the Gospel, nor for those that are un­der government to be conformable unto their Orders, and consequently to baptize Infants though the [...]r baptizing had not by the Gospel been ordered.

§. 30. And by this time I hope it ap­pears, that, even their own sense of these Texts supposed, which yet I do not grant, that whole way of reasoning of theirs, from the prohibitions of additions to the com­mands under the Law, to the not doing of any uncommanded thing under the Gospel, is inconsequent, and of no force against In­fants Baptism.

§. 31. Yea but, say they still, there is as full and clear a Text against adding to the word of God in the Gospel, as there was any under the Law. Is there so? I pray, where? Why in Revel. 22. 18. If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues, that are written in this Book. Well, what of this? Why then Infants Baptism being not written in the Gospel, is an addition to the Gospel, and so unlawfull.

§. 32. Not so. For the adding here spoken of hath reference onely to this one Book of the Revelation, and not to the Gospel, as that is one intire volume, con­taining all the Books of the New Testament. For they were not put altogether into one Book till some years after the death of the Author of the Revelation: it being long ere sundry of the Books now in the Canon were received into it. Yea, there be that affirm the Gospel of this Evangelist Euseb. Hist. l. 6. cap 22. It is certain that he was banish­ed into Patmos where he wrote his Revelation and after his Re­turn to Ephesus his three Epistles and Gospel. which was pub­lished by Gaius his host and Deacon. Bp. Pri­deaux Introduct. to Histor. p. 60. According to Bucholcer in his Chronology (pag. 635.) he was banished Anno Christi 96 to Patmos, where he writ his Revelation: Anno Christi 98 he returned from banishment to Ephesus where in Anno 99 he wrote his Gospel: for which he quotes Hierom-Cum publico edicto edito jussisse [...] omnes Christianos, & maxime praedicatores Evangelii pelli in exilium, profugere Joannes coactus est in Pathmon insulam ubi dicitur Apocalypsin scripsisse, si modo illius autor est hic Joannes—Tandem trucidato Domitiano per­missa est Christianis libertas redeundi, itaque rever­sus est Joannes ad Ecclesiam suam Ephesinam, & tranquillitatem nactus scripsit contra Ebionitas, Mar­cionem, & Cherintum [Cerinthum] haereticos E­vangelium suum—Herman. Bonnus. Farrag Ex­emplor. fol. 7. See also Isaacksons Chronology; and Hutcheson upon John, pag. 1. The same may be further confirmed from several other Chrono­logies, as that of Regino Prumiensis; Hermannus Contractus; Marianus Scotus; the Compilatlo Chrono­logica published by Joannes Pistorius; the Pantheon of Gotsridus Viterbiensis; and W [...]rner Role [...]inks Fasciculus Temporum; also from Spondanus's Epi­tome of Baronius, Anno Christ. 97, & 99. to have been written after his Revelation. And there­fore what is here said could have reference to it self onely, and not to the o­ther Books which were written by others, or to be written by himself.

§. 33. And however that the reference of it is onely unto it self, is evident by what goes before, and after, in this, and the fol­lowing verse. For I testifie, saith the Au­thor of this Book, unto every man that he [...]r­eth the words of the Prophesie of this Bo [...]k, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are writt [...]n in this Book This Book. What Book? Why that, sure enough, that himself was then a writing; the Book of the Revelation con­taining those Prophesies, which God was pleased to impart unto him, and appoint him to write in a book, Rev. 1. 11. Which book, even whilest he was a writing of it, he frequently makes reference unto: as where he mentions the Words of this Prophesie, and the things which are written therein, Rev. 1. 3. [Page 363] and the sayings of the prophesie of this book; & the sayings of this book; and the words of the proph [...]sie of this book; and the words of the book of this prophesie, Rev. 22. 7, 9, 10, 18, 19. All, expressions intimating the book he spake of, to be that book which himself was then writing, containing the prophesies and predictions of the things that were to come, and the most of them in a short time, whence the sayings of the prophesie of this book were not to be sealed, the time being at hand, Rev. 22. 10.

§ 34. Now let our Antipaedobaptists here have his own sense of Adding; let it import the doing of something not comman­ded. And what will then follow? Why, that nothing is lawfull to be done now in the time of the Gospel, but that which is con­tained in this Book, the Book of the Reve­lation But that, he will tell you, cannot be. For so we shall have no Baptism at all: be­cause none is commanded in the Revelation.

§. 35. What then is the Adding here spoken against? Plainly this, and no more, the putting of some word or words to this Book. This is evident by that which is not to be taken away. For contraries la [...]d to­gether do illustrate each the other. Now that, the taking away, is meant of any of the words [...] Si quis abstulerit de Verbis libri, Versio interlinea­ris si quis dimi­nuerit de verbis—Vers. Vulg. & Sy­riac. Si quis de­traxerit ex verbis Prophetiae quae continentur in hoc libro. Vers. Arab. [Page 364] of it. For so it is in ver. 19. If any man shall take away from the words of the book of this Prophesie, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, &c. What, I pray, can be ta­ken away from the words of a book, but words or some part of the words? So that in accordance here with the adding here forbidden is the putting of any word or words to the words of this book, more, or other, then were at first set down in it, by the Author of it; whose design is to prevent any Hoc propter insal­satores dixit Gor­ [...]an. in loc. cx Beda. mans corrupting of his book by addition or dimi­nution, by putting any word to it, or taking any word from it.

§. 36. And this was a caution but ne­cessary for those times, when Hereticks be­gan to corrupt the Aposto­lical writings with their Innuit futuros in Ecclesia Hareticos qui Scripturas sa­ [...]ras adulterarent, atque ad eas cor. rumpendas, & in [...]uos errores detor­quendas quaedam adjicerent, quaedam [...]iam mutilarent. Id quod de Mar­cione testatur mul­tis in locis Tertul­lianus: Et in pri­mis quod plura de­leret in sacris li­teris ad suas haere­reses astruendas docet, l. de carne Christi. cap. 2. His opinor consiliis tot originalia instru­menta Christi de­lere Marcion co­natus est. Ʋnde eundem Marcio­nem Tertullian, lib. adv. eum 1 cap. 1. Murem Ponti­cum appellat E­vangelium corro­dentem. Quod ve­rò Marcion de suo quaedam Scripturis adjiceret, docet i­dem lib. de carne Christi, c. 7. Non recipio inquit, quod extra Scripturam, de tuo infers. Quod de Marcione docet Tertull. in multis aliis Hareticis ostendi posset quos uti diximus hoc loco notavit A­postolus. Blas. Vieg. in Apocalyps. cap. 22. Sect ult. p. 893. Adjuro te, qui transcribis librum istum, per Dominum Jesum Christum, & per glo [...]iosum ejus adventum. &c. own interpolations. And of Marcions so dealing with the Sacred Scri­ptures, both by taking a­way from them, and ad­ding to them, Tertullian [Page 365] is a witness, who from his gnawing away of the Go­spel calls him the Pontick Mouse. And Blasius Vie­gas tells us the like may be shewn of many other He­reticks. In reference to which evil dealing of Cor­rupters with Authors, Ire­naeus imitation of our Author, at the end of one of his own books, adjures the Transcriber of it, by the Lord Jesus Christ, & his glorious coming to judge both quick and dead, to compare his copy with the Original, and most dili­gently to amend it by the exemplar from whence he had transcribed it.

§. 37. Now who is so weak as not to see how nothing at all this makes against Infants baptism? and how remote it is from proving every thing unlawfull that is not commanded? A child is able to distinguish betwixt a Font and a Standish; water and ink; an Infant and a Bible; pouring water upon the one, and putting words into the other; and how no connexion there is be­tween the one and the other; so that from the prohibition of the one to the unlawful­ness of the other no Argument can be drawn.

§. 38. And if the want of a Command cannot render Infants baptism unlawfull; then much less can the want of an Example: unless we were under some command not to act without a precedent, nor to proceed further than we have example. But that as we have not, so I do not hear it pretended as yet. And therefore though I think we may in some cases, (I will not say in all) argue positively from an example, and say, this I lawfully may do, because I find it done, yet I do not think we must in all cases argue negatively from a no example, and say, this I may not lawfully do, because I find no example of its doing. So that if there were not the least intimation of any such thing done in the Scripture, nor any [Page 367] thing whereby we might conjecture the do­ing of any such thing, the contrary whereto has abundantly been shewn in this discourse, yet were not that any Argument at all from whence to conclude Infants Baptism unlaw­full.

§. [...]9. And now having shown the no unlawfulness of [...]nfants baptism, though there were in all the Scripture no either command to enjoyn it, or example to ju­st [...]fie it, I might here set up my rest.

§. 40. Nevertheless, as being willing to give the fullest satisfaction that can be needed, I shall yet ex abundanti further speak touching that often urged, but never proved assertion, that our Saviour gave no precept for the baptizing of Infants, and that the Apostles of our [...]aviour never ba­ptized any; both which yet might be, though nothing were said of either; and the Scriptures supposed silence in the case is no proof, either that he did not command, or they not practice any such thing. I will speak of both severally.

CHAP. XXXIII.

§. 1. ANd first, it doth not follow that our Saviour gave no precept for the baptizing of Infants, because no such precept is particularly (as our Adversaries suppose) expressed in the Scripture. For our Saviour spake many things to his Disci­ples concerning the kingdom of God, both before his Passion, and also after his Resur­rection, which are not written in the Scri­ptures. And who can say, but that among those many unwritten sayings of his there might be an express precept for Infants ba­ptism? And if there were one, it is never the less binding for its not being written. It is Gods speaking, not mans writing that makes his word Authentick, and his com­mand obliging. If no Apostle, nor Evn­gelist had ever set pen to paper to tell us by writing, what our Saviour did command, sure his commands had been as obliging, though unwritten, as they are now after their writing. And if any command of his [Page 369] did escape writing, as well might be, the Evangelists neither resolving every one se­verally, nor agreeing all joyntly, to set down in writing all his commands, as wri­ting at several times, and in several places, and upon several occasions, and without any command (that appea [...]s) from God to set down universally all his sayings, and make one Codex, as it were, of all his Laws; I say, if any of his com­mands did escape writing, See Dr. Ham­monds Quaere of Resolving of Co [...] ­troversies. it does notwithstanding bind those, to whom it is, though by any other way than writing, credibly made known, as much as if it had been written. So that if it may credibly appear, that our Saviour did give any precept for the baptizing of Infants, then will Infants baptism be to be received and practiced upon a higher account, than that of the mere lawfulness of it, as being though not commanded, yet not forbidden in the Scriptures.

§. 2. And truly, to pass by S. Ambrose his affirming that Infants Baptism was a Constitu­tion And they all a­gree with St. Am­brose l. 10. ep. 84. ad Demetriadem Virginem, who expresly affirms it. Paedobaptis­mum esse Constitu­tionem Salvatoris. And it proves it out of St. Joh. 3. 5. A. B. Laud Con­fer. S. 15. pag. 55. in margine. of our Saviours, that such a Precept was given by him, the very practice of the Church to baptize [Page 370] Infants (as we have shewn it to be,) doth make it cre­dible. For it is not easily imaginable how such a practice should come up so early, and so univer­sally into the Primitive Church, if the Church had not received it from the Apostles as a command of Christs to baptize Infants.

§. 3. Who that understood it to have been our Saviours command to teach all na­tions to observe all things whatsoever he had commarded them, (Matth. 28. 19, 20.) and observed the Apostles teaching, by word or practice, the baptizing of Infants, could judge any other, but that the Baptism of In­fants was one of those things, which he had commanded them to teach all nations to ob­serve? Though I have also shown, that e­ven our Saviours silence in the case, not ex­cluding Infants from that, which it had been the use of the Church before his time to administer to them, when he did institute Baptism to be the Ceremony of admitting into Discipleship to him, is a sufficient indi­cation of his mind, that it was his will they should be admitted; especially when it is remembred and considered, that the same use that was before his Institution, was con­tinued [Page 371] still after it: which makes it evident, that he made no alteration in it.

§. 4. Not to add, that this very Text of mine was anciently lookt upon as a ground, and even as a command of our Saviours, for Infants Baptism. And there­fore St. Augustine having exhorted the Pelagian to Quare contradi­cis? quare novie disputationibus an­tiquam fidei regu­lam frengere co­naris? Quid est enim quod dicis? Parvuli non ba­bent omnino vet originale pecca­tum? Quid est enim quod dicis, nisi ut non acce­dant ad Jesum? Sed tihi clama [...] Jesus, Sinite pue­ros venire ad me. D. Aug, Serm. 8. de Verb. Apost. baptize his Infant, expo­stulates with him for con­tradicting, and going a­bour with new disputes to break the old Rule of Faith; namely in the point of the baptizing of Infants upon the account of Ori­ginal Sin in them. For whereto, saith he, tends your saying, that children have no, not so much as original sin; but to this, that they might not come to Jesus? that is to be ba­ptized, that being the thing which he before had pressed him to. But (saith he) Jesus crieth to thee (that sure is as much as if he had commanded) Suffer the little children to come unto me, that is to be baptized: as is evident by the design of the Father in that place.

§. 5. And accordingly Tertullian, who lived within two hundred years of our Saviours birth, De Baptismo, pag. 264. Edit. Rigalt. thinking this Text to op­pose his Opinion, which was for the delaying of the Baptism of In­fants for a while, yet not as unlawfull, but as more profitable, as he phansied, pro­pounds this Text as an Objection against his. Opinion, and labours to answer it. Which shews however that even so early as his time, this Text was lookt upon as a Precept for Infants Baptism.

§. 6. And what saith he to it? Why by way of Concession he saith, Our Lord doth indeed say, Do not hinder them from coming to me. And what then? Why then let them come when they are grown up to ripeness of years. Yea, but if they must stay so long before they be baptized, they will not be little ones when they come to ba­ptism; and so will not be concern'd in this Text, which speaks of the coming not of Adult persons, but of young children unto Christ. He saith not, Suffer those that are Adult, but Suffer little children to come unto me. And his saying, Suffer little children to come unto me, imports his mind to have them come, and his readiness to re­ceive them at their coming to him, even [Page 373] when, and whilst they are little children. And what man of judgment, would ever have interpreted our Saviours saying, Suffer the little children to come unto me and for­bid them not, at a time when little children were brought to him, and hindred, for be­ing brought to him so little, as if he had by so saying meant, Suffer these, which now are little children, to come to me hereafter, when they shall be men? that is, as much as to say, Suffer them not to come to me now: which is to command the very same thing which at the very same time he rebuked his Disciples for going a­bout to do; and contrary to his present acting, who even then turn'd them not a­way from him, but took them up into his arms, and laid his hands upon them, and blessed them. A gloss this, that contra­dicts, and corrupts the Text.

§. 7. Again, saith he, Veniant dum dis­cunt, &c. Let them come when they have learned, and are taught whither to come. But those, whose coming to Christ occa­sioned this speech, and according to whose then present condition the speech is to be understood, were not such, nor so taught, not such as had learned, or could be taught how to come to Christ: but were Infants brought to him by others by reason of their [Page 374] inability to come to him of This passage of Tertullian because it is much stood upon, see further spoken to, und more fully answe­red by B. Gauden Eccles. Anglic. Suspiria, l. 3. c. 13. p. 299. And by Mr. Wills Infant Baptism Asserted, Par. 2. chap. 7. themselves: and of them then, and of such as they then were are his words now to be understood, and accordingly have been un­derstood in all the ages of the Church: to be sure as early as Tertullians time: else why did he dispute a­gainst it?

§. 8. But if there were neither this, nor any other Text, that was, or lookt like, a Precept for Infants Baptism, in the whole Bible, yet there might have been one given, though none were written. And what pro­bability there is of it that one was given, if none of those Texts that are written were by the practice of the Church interpreted to be such, I have now shown.

CHAP. XXXIV.

§. 1. SEcondly, as it follows not, that our Saviour gave no express precept for Infants baptism, because none is written, that is, none is written so expresly as to be acknowledged for such by the Antipaedo­baptists, though my Text, as I have shewn you, is so express as to have been taken for such in St. Augustines time, and in Tertul­lians time, fourteen hundred, and fifteen hundred years ago, and for ought I know, or any man living can prove to the contrary, from the beginning: so it doth not follow, that the Apostles did baptize no Infants, be­cause it is not expresly written in the Scri­ptures, that they did baptize any; though I have shewn you from the Scripture a very pregnant proof of such practice even by the Apostles themselves in their own times, did not prejudice so blind the eyes of our Adversaries that they will not see it. For they might baptize Infants, though it were not expressed in their extant writings that they did so.

§. 2. A [...]e all things written in the Scri­ptures, that all the Twelve Apostles did in all places, where they came, and preached, gathered, and setled Churches? Yea, how little is there written of what was done by any of them? And how many are there of them, of whom there is nothing written at all; neither what they did, nor whither they went, nor what became of them? Did they nothing of whose doings nothing is written? who are at least one half of the whole number of the Apostles. And if they did any thing, as sure enough they would be doing, they might as well do that, baptize Infants, as any thing else, for any thing, that is written, And where we find Infants Baptism in a Church planted by an Apostle, as in Mus [...]ovia, Christianized by St. Andrew, or in India by St. Tho­mas. Why may we not think that planted there by that Apostle, as well as other Chri­stian Customs or Constitutions, though in the Scripture there be a deep silence as to the whole Story. And there is as good proof, that they did not any thing else, of all those things which our Saviour comman­ded them, as that they did not that: be­cause no more is written of any thing else that they did, than of that, which is just nothing at all.

§. 3. And they of whose doings any thing is written, did they no more, than just what was written? Were they so ex­act in keeping, and publishing Diaries of all their actions? Not a word said? not a deed done, but what was book'd down? How many persons do you read of that were baptized by Paul in all that time that he continued preaching the Gospel, and planting the Church of Christ at Rome? And do ye think none were baptized by him, or at his command all the while? Can there be a Church founded, and formed up with­out baptism? And if any were baptized, where is it written in Scripture, who, what, or how many they were? Again, do ye think the Saints at Rome did never comme­morate the death of Christ in the celebra­tion of the Eucharist? If yea, what men­tion is there of it in Scripture? In what book, chapter, verse is it to be read? No doubt both the one and the other Sacrament was by Pauls instructing and ordering re­ceived there: and yet is the Scripture pro­foundly silent as to any such thing. And who now will be so silly as from the Scri­ptures silence to draw a negative conclusion, and say no such thing was done there, be­cause the Scripture says nothing of the doing of it. The like may be said of other A­postles, [Page 378] and the Churches planted by them.

§. 4. Unless therefore that which is written were a perfect register of all that was done by all, and every one of the Apostles, as it is not of the doings of either all, or one half, or any one of them, it cannot be proved, that no one of them did any thing, or appointed any thing to be done, (for in­stance to baptize Infants) because it is not ex­tant in those few scanty memoires, and inti­mations rather than relations, of some acti­ons of some few of them, written for the most part occasionally, which are come to our hands, that any one of them d [...]d it. They might therefore do it, though their doing of it be not expresly written in the Scriptures.

§. 5. And that they did it, or however so far delivered their mind concerning it, that done it was, and upon the account of their authority is most credible. Because the Practice thereof is, and has been, looked on in all the Ages of the Church, succeed­ing that, wherein they lived, as a Tradition of theirs. And that Tradition from them is as credibly avouched to us, as their wri­ting those several Fpistles and Gospels, which we receive for their writings, and look upon as the word of God. And we may as well receive the one upon that Tra­dition [Page 379] as the other, and with as good rea­son reject the one as the other. We have the Testimony of the Church for the one, and we have but the Testimony of the Church for the other. And if we may be­lieve the Church, when it tells us the Apo­stles wr [...] those Books, why may we not as well believe it, when it tells us the Apostles ordered that thing? And if it be of no cre­dit in the latter, let our adversaries consi­der whether they do not by so saying, de­rogate from, and destroy all its credit in the former. And so the matter is at last come to this, that either we must have no new Te­stament Scriptures, or else we must have Infants baptism. The new Testament, and this Sacrament of it, must for ought I see, ever stand and fall together: both standing upon one bottom, Catholick Tradition, which must bear up both, or neither; not being able to support the one, if it cannot support the other also.

§. 6. I will not say but that some few (one or two, for many hundreds of years) may have thought it not necessary to be administred so soon as in the prime of In­fancy, unless in case of death. But their not thinking it necessary then, is a suf­fic [...]ent evidence of their opinion of its lawfulness at other times. For what is not [Page 380] lawfull at other times, cannot be necessary even then.

§. 7. And what ever reason we find any of the Ancients had to think it fitter to de­fer it, I am of opinion we shall never find the unlawfulness of it to have been any of their reasons. Tertullian thought the deferring of it Quid enim necesse est Sponsores e­tiam periculo in­geri? quia & ipsi per mortalitatem destituere promis­siones suas possunt, & proventu malae indolis falli. Tert. de Bapt. was more profitable; but not the doing of it unlaw­ful; to be sure he does not say so. And what's his reason against the necessity of it? That the Godfa­thers might not be brought into danger of failing in their undertaking, by their own mortality, or the Infants untowardness. The deferring of it might then be prudential, but that makes not the doing of it unlawfull. And if he thought it prudential to defer it, others as judicious as he have thought it no less prudence to hasten it. And so his opinion in that case signifies nothing as to our present concern.

§. 8. Perhaps some might think it pru­dence to defer it, to avoid the exposing of so sacred an administration to the jeers of pro­fane scoffers. Dionysius the Areopagite mentions Eccl. Hier. c. 12. [Page 381] some such in his days, as jeer'd at the Sureties being interrogated and answering in the Infants name. And no doubt there are now such in our days as think that pra­ctice ridiculous enough. But still be it as ridiculous as any has imagined it, that renders it not unlawfull. And if every thing must be laid by that any will think ridiculous, we shall have little left, either of our Worship or Doctrine. When some heard of the Resurrection they mocked (Acts 17. 32.) But, as wise and pious persons will not be jeer'd out of a pra­ctice that is solemn and serious and of weighty concern by the raillery of a few aieny-brain'd phantasticks, so it is beside the question in hand; and if any have thought fit to defer it on that account, that is no argument of the unlawfulness of it.

§. 9. Some perhaps imagining the Con­tract made by the Persons themselves, though never so young, but three or four years old, so they could but answer them­selves to what was to be required of them in order to their baptizing, would after­wards be accounted by themselves the more obligatory, and have stronger impressions upon them than if made by others, have [Page 382] thought it fitter to defer it for a while. I dispute not the prudentiality of the con­sideration: but onely say that the pru­dency, be it never so great, of its defer­ring longer, can infer no unlawfulness on its doing sooner. And it seems to me, that there are more weighty consi­derations inclining to, and pressing for the hastening of it, than that, or any I have yet met with for the deferring, be­cause the generality have this way shew'd themselves inclined by baptizing their chil­dren whilest Infants.

§. 10. And since we have so many weighty considerations moving to hasten it, being we are assured by a late learned Father of our B. Gawden Ec­cles. Angl. Suspir. p. 299. Church, that there is not any one of the Ancients that doth deny its lawfulness, I see no reason why any suggestions or pretences of inconveniency, unnecessari­ness, or novelness in that practice by an inconsiderable number of persons either of elder or later times, should sway us a­gainst the vogue of the Catholick Church, to deposite a Consti [...]ution in which we see there is so much conveniency, for which we see there is so great necessity, [Page 383] of which we see there is so great anti­quity; antiquity reaching up, both unto, and also into, the Apostles Age as being delivered unto the Church by them.

CHAP. XXXV.

§. 1. YEa, but is it not the express Do­ctrine of our Church that Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation? Yes. And what then? Is Infants Baptism therefore unlawfull? No such matter. It follows not. I hope there are more things lawfull, than what are either necessary to salvation, or are contained in holy Scri­pture.

§. 2. But what then follows! Why this. That, supposing Infants baptism were nei­ther read in Scripture, nor could be proved thereby, it were not to be believed as an Article of the Faith, nor were the be­lief of it to be thought necessary to salva­tion. But sure a thing is not therefore un­lawfull, because it is not to be received as an Article of the Faith; or because its belief is not necessary to salvation. And so this Article, even on that supposition, fights not with the lawfulness of Infants Ba­ptism.

§. 3. But we deny the supposition, and [Page 385] say that Infants Baptism is contained in the Holy Nullum dari potest dogma ad salutem obtinendam cogni­tu necessarium, quod in Scripturâ non contineatur express è vel im­plicitè, & analo­gi [...]e, ità u [...] per consequentiam le­gitimam inde elici possit. Wendelin Theolog. Proleg. c. 3 Thes. 7. Cum dico perspicuè intelligo vel in se, vel per se: vel in suis principiis & per aliud. Hier. Zanch. de Sacrâ Script. q. S. prop. 1. pag. 194. Etsi enim non extet expressum praeceptum hac de re (sc. de baptizan. [...]is infantibus fidelium liberis) colligitur tamen perspicuè ex suis principiis, hoc est, ex causis propter quas conferendus sit alicui baptismus, &c. Id. ib. pag. 195. Scriptures, in that manner as other things are, that are not expressed in it, but yet may be deduced from it, namely eminently though not formally, implicitly though not expresly; so as all Points of Faith are con­tained in the Creed, that are not expressed in it: or as all Duties are contained in the Decalogue, or all Pe­titions are contained in the Lords Prayer, that are not particularly and for­mally expressed therein.

§. 4. And that it may be proved thereby, I hope this Discourse hath alrea­dy given a sufficient evidence. And before I conclude, I will yet add one further proof of it: and that such an one as [Page 386] though some think not conclusive of the Point, yet that acute Divine as well as Heroick prelate, A. B. Laud, thought to be a direct proof, and neer an expression in Scripture it self. 'Tis Acts 2. 38, 39. Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the Name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. For the promise is unto you, and to your children, &c. But how doth this prove Infants Baptism? Why, let that learned Man tell you in his own words. ‘For when St. Peter had ended that great Ser­mon of his, Acts 2. he applies two com­forts unto them, ver. 38. Amend your lives, and be baptized, and you shall re­ceive the gift of the Holy Ghost. And then ver. 39. he infers, For the Promise is made to you, and to your children. The Promise; what Promise? What? why the Promise of Sanctification by the Holy Ghost. By what means? Why, by Baptism. For 'tis expresly, Be bapti­zed, and ye shall receive. And as ex­presly, This promise is made to you, and to your children. And therefore A. C. may find it, if he will, That the Baptism of Infants may be directly con­cluded out of Scripture.’

§. 5. But Infants are not named here. True; Yet Children are. But those chil­dren might be men. Yes, and they might be Infants also. I conceive the word is ex­clusive of neither, but inclusive of both. Unless any will say that the Infants were no children; or that the promise that was made to the children as well as persons of the then present hearers, was made onely to such of their children as were men and not Infants; which is easilier said, than proved. For the Apostle says to your children; that is all of them; not onely some of them; all of them being capable of the thing prom [...]sed, and none of them being exem­pted from the benefit of the promise. And where God has enlarged the bounds, why should man enclose the Common? where God has made a restriction? Where God has been kind, why should Man become cruel, and shut out Infants from the benefits of a promise, when God has opened a door wide enough to let them in to it?

§. 6. It is true, the word Children is not always to be understood of Infants, but sometimes of Men: and as true it is that it is not always to be understood of Men, [Page 388] but sometimes of Infants: and as true again it is that sometimes it includes both. For when the children of Israel went into the midst of the sea upon the dry ground, (Exod. 14. 22.) Were those children all men? Had they no Infants among them? Did they leave them any where behind them? I think it will not be said. In as much then as no di­stinction is here made, it includes the In­fant as well as Men children of Is [...]ael. And the rather because where God would have it to signifie Men exclusively as to chil­dren, himself makes a restriction. As in Exod. 12. 37. And the children of Israel journeyed from Ramesis to Succoth, about six hundred thousand on foot, that were men, beside children. No distinction then being made of the children into Men chil­dren, and Infant children, it is by Analogy of Scripture, as well as Judgment of Rea­son to be understood of both. And if it be to be understood of both, then what right the men had to Baptism by this Text, the In­fants had the same, and were to be baptized for the remission of sins, and reception of the Holy Ghost as well as they. And admit, we say, you, and your children, does intend the then present Jews, and their posterity; yet sure none can think the Apostle meant that the promise did belong to their posterity [Page 389] onely, and not to their present children also. For why should it belong to those that after should be their children, and not to those that then were? Why should these be skipt over and the other taken in? And would not their after children be once in a state of infancy as well as their present? Would they not be children before they could be men? And at what period of their age must their right to the pomise first com­mence? When must they begin to be re­ceptive of the Holy Ghost? Here's no re­striction or limitation made as to times, any more then as to persons; to shew that both then, and afterward, to all that were, or should be their children, as soon as ever, and as long as ever any should be in that re­lation, the promise did belong.

§. 7. Again, admit we interpret the children as meaning onely such of their chil­dren, whether then or after, as were in that capacity that the persons then present with the Apostles, and to whom St. Peter spake, were: still the business will be done, and ef­fectually. For St. Peter spake to that whole multitude that was come together upon the noise of what was happened unto the Apostles. And to them he said, be bapti­zed [Page 390] every one of you. So then every one of the then present multitude was capable of baptism. Now is it imaginable that so great, and so confused a multitude coming together on a sudden accident, could consist all of persons qualified for age and under­standing in principles of Christianity, ac­cording to the Antipaedobaptistical measures of capability to receive baptism? What? were they all Adult persons? no children? no infants, at least of three, four, five, or six years old, among them? We may make an estimate of the matter by what we daily see amongst our selves on like occasions. Where is it possible to find a Fair, or Mar­ket, or other solemn convention of any re­mark in which some of age under the An­tipaedobaptists standard of capacity for ba­ptizing shall not be immixed? especially if that convention be sudden, and tumultuary, as this was, when a whole Town flocks to­gether, as when a fire happens, or any sray is fought, or game is plaid, or show is seen. What running is there on such occasions of mothers, and servants after their children, to secure them from the injuries of the mul­titude, and save them from being trodden under foot? And we can imagine nothing less then a miracle in it if this assembly were [Page 391] not such. And if such it were, then what would we have more than an exhortation of the Prince of the Apostles with the concur­rence of all his Coapostles to such a multi­tude to be baptized every one of them? What is this less than a Precept for Infants baptism, And though none of them were sucklings, yet if any of them were Infants (& infancy is a state of some latitude) though able to run about and play, yet unable ra­tionally to profess repen­tance towards God, and Confession of Faith setforth by Anabaptists, Anno 1660. pag. 6. faith towards our Lord Je­sus Christ, the case is all one as to the difference be­tween us and the Antipae­dobaptists, and Infants baptism will hence be established.

§. 8. Yea, but these words are spoken to persons capable of repenting. And they onely are bidden to be baptized, who are capable of so doing.

§. 9. I answer, First it is plain the words were spoken to a confused multi­tude; and it cannot be proved that there were none in it but such as were so capable; no demonstration can be made of it, that there were no Infants mixed with it. And [Page 392] therefore when the Apostle says to that multitude, be baptized every one of you, it cannot be proved that he had those onely of them to be baptized, which were capable of repenting.

§. 10. Secondly, the words were spoken of Persons capable of receiving the Holy Ghost: but their children were capable of that: and therefore of baptism the means to make them partakers thereof. And sure their inability to repent, could not render them incapable, unless they had been per­sons that [...] Greg. Naz. Orat. 40. p. 658. Edit. Paris. needed repen­tance, and of whom it had been required that they should repent. 'Tis hard­heartedness sure, and that to a high degree, for want of that duty which they have not need nor ability to perform, to deprive them of that bene­fit which they have need of, and capabi­lity to receive; to deny them the means of being made partakers of the Holy Ghost, who as they do not act repentance, so they need not to repent: and need not to repent because they act no sin.

§. 11. Thirdly, the Reason inducing the Jews to be baptized, is applied to their children as well as to themselves; which were needless, if their children were not capable of baptizing, as well as themselves. Be baptized every one of you. Why? For the promise is made to you and to your children. No need of mentioning the childrens right to the Promise, if that did not give them a right to the Means. The Argument as applied to the Parents lies thus. If the promise belong to you, then the means. But the former does belong to you. Therefore the latter. And there­fore be baptized, which is the means, that you may receive the Holy Ghost, which is the Promise. And lies it not just so as ap­plied to their Children? If the promise be­long to your Children, then the means also belongs to them. But the Promise belongs to them; for it is made to them as well as unto you. Therefore the means also belongs to them. And therefore let your children have the means, that they may not want the grace, let them be bapti­zed that they may receive the Holy Ghost.

§. 12. Again, that which he would have them baptized for, namely remission [Page 394] of sins, is sufficiently I hope proved to be needful for children as well as parents. And where there is the same need, why should we not think he designed the same help? When he bad the Parents be bapti­zed for the remission of sins, can it be thought his meaning was that the children should rather go without remission, than have baptism? as if he had some compas­sion indeed for the parents, but none for the children.

§. 13. But if he meant their child [...]en as well as themselves should be baptized, why did he not say, Be baptized both you and your children, but onely be baptized your selves, without any mention of their children. I answer, It was needless so to say, because as one that well understood the Genius of that people, he knew that they would look upon their children as heirs of the promise, as well as themselves, and so to be as capable of, and to have as good right to the means, that would make them parta­hers of the promise, as themselves; and because he intended particularly to urge that reason for their baptizing, which would be as appliable to their children as to themselves, and which they accor­dingly, [Page 395] observing the cu­stom He that would see this Text further open'd and urged, may consult Mr. Nathaniel Ste­phen's Precept for the Baptism of In­fants. of their nation to circumcise, and baptize the children as well as pa­rents, would apply unto them.

§. 14. And thus I have shewn the Practice of this Church to baptize Infants not to be inconsistent with that Article of the Church which is urged against it. And I hope I have sufficiently answered the An­tipaedo baptists Arguments against the Law­fulness of Infants baptism, and defended it against them.

CHAP. XXXVI.

Obj. THe Objection (saith H: D:) that is usually brought under this Head, is, That there is no express Command or Example for Womens receiving the Lords Supper; yet who doubts of a good ground from consequential Scripture for their so doing.

Answ. In answer whereto, you'll find there is both Example and Command for the Practice, viz.

1. From Example, Acts 1. 14. where we read, that Mary and other women were gathered together, and that these wo­men together with the rest of the Disciples, were altogether in one place, and continued stedfastly in the Apostles Doctrine and Fel­lowship, and breaking of Bread and Pray­ers, chap. 2. 42, 44. It being expresly said, That all that believed were together.

2. It appears from Command, 1 Cor. 11. [Page 397] 28. Let a man examine himself, and so let him eat: The Greek word signifieth a Man or a Woman; the word is [...], a word of the Common Gender, as appears, 1 Tim. 2. 4, 5. There is one Mediator be­twixt God and Man, and Woman; there is the same word used, Gal. 3. 2. There is neither Male nor Female, but ye are all one in Christ. Let but as good proof appear (from Command and Example) for In­fants Baptism, and it shall suffice. Thus far H. D. Edit. 2. p. 95, 96.

Having my self with others, made this Objection, and finding nothing replied by Mr. Wills to this Answer made thereto, I think it convenient to take away the force thereof by the ensuing Reply.

And first I say, that the Allegation that Mary and other Women were gathered to­gether, Acts 1. 14, will not prove that there is express example for womens recei­ving the Lords Supper. For though the Apostles continuing with one accord in prayer and supplication with the women, and Mary the Mother of Jesus be mentio­ned there, yet is no mention there made of their continuing, or so much as being with them at the Sacrament of the Supper of the Lord. Nor is it there, or any where, ex­presly said, that these women together with [Page 398] the rest of the Disciples were altogether in one place, and continued stedfastly in the Apostles Doctrine, and Fellowship, and breaking of Bread, and Prayers.

It is said indeed, Acts 1. 15. That in those days Peter stood up in the midst of the Disciples. But how does it appear, that any Women were among them at that As­sembly? They are not mentioned. And the word [...] Disciples, does not necessa­rily by the force of its literal import imply them. For that is the proper word for male or he-disciples; there are two other words [...] and [...] for female or she-disci­ples; and if the she-disciples had been inten­ded, why was not one of the words pro­per for them used to include them? But further the Apostles address is expresly to men, and not to women. His words are not so much as [...], which might be thought to take in the women, but [...] men (in a word whose literal im­port excludes women) and brethren. So that unless by Men and Brethren must be meant (and expresly too, or else all is nothing) women and sisters here will be no room for the women here.

Again in Acts 2. 1. They that were all-with one accord in one place, are mentioned [...] word of the masculine gender, [...]. [Page 399] So in ver. 2. [...]. So in ver. 3. [...]. So in ver. 4. [...] and [...] again. So in ver. 7. [...]. So in ver. 13. [...]. So in ver. 15. [...] again. So in ver. 37. [...], all expressions necessarily implying men, but not necessa­rily implying women, if not necessarily ex­cluding them.

And who was it that continued stedfastly in the Apostles Doctrine, and Fellowship, and breaking of Bread, and Prayer, ch. 2. 42. the women? It is not so expressed. But [...] expresly the Males that gladly received his word, which [...] continued stedfastly in the Apo­stles Doctrine, &c. To whom before their conversion the Apostle addresses his speech as to Men, & not Women; [...], that's his word, ver. 29. Men and Bre­thren. And to, and of whom after their conversion he still speaks as to persons of the male sex, as far as we can guess by the gen­der of his words. Ver. 38. Peter said unto them [...]; and again [...] every one of you, i. e. in the literal import, every male of you.

Nor does it prove it, that it is said, ch. 2. 44. That all that believed wore together. For still they are persons of the male sex, that there expressly are spoken of, if [...] [Page 400] [...], words all of the masculine gen­der denote any such thing: of which gender still are all the words that denote their per­sons to the end of the Chapter; [...]; and [...], ver. 46. [...] and [...], v. 47.

I might add that its being said, that all that believed were together, does not prove, that the whole multitude of believers men and women were always all together, never a­sunder, but all, in all places, and at all times, and in all actions, still together. [...] will not enforce that.

I might add also, that it is not demon­strable, that the breaking of bread here is infallibly meant of the Holy Sacrament, for some understand it otherwise, though it is ordinarily so understood. And then where's all the force of the Argument from Exam­ple gone? Nothing here said by H. D. has proved it.

And much of the same rate is the proof for Command, from 1 Cor. 11. 28 Let a man examine himself, and so let him eat. Here, saith H. D. the Greek word signi­fieth a man or woman, the word is [...] a word of the common gender, as appears 1 Tim. 2. 4, 5. There is one Mediator be­twixt God and Man and Woman.

To which I Reply; Admitting the word [Page 401] [...] to be, as he saith, of the common gender, and that whilest it continues un­determined to either sex by any distinguish­ing note, it may be allowed to comprehend both sexes in it (as in 1 Tim. 2. 5. where we have [...], without any article of either masculine or feminine gender to con­fine it to either sex, and exclude the other) yet where it is determined by distinguishing notes to either sex, how doth it follow that the excluded sex is necessarily implied under that note that excludes it? The nature of common words being such, that before their determination by any masculine or feminine adjective, they are applicable to either sex, but after their determination to either, they are no longer common to both. Had it been said to be of the doubtfull gender, something might have been inferred from that. But as the word is not of that gender, so H. D. expresly saith it is of the common gender. Now look but into 1 Cor. 11. 28, and it is most evidently apparent that the significa­tion of the common word [...] is de­termined to the male sex by the very next word that follows it, viz. [...] himself, which is of the masculine gender, and not of the feminine, and in propriety of speaking denotes the male and not the female sex. So that that Text which is onely express for [Page 402] mens receiving the Sacrament, can be no express command for womens receiving it also.

And whereas he saith, there is the same word used in Gal. 3. 28. First it signifies nothing, if it were there, unless it were so used as expresly under a determination of sex by gender to intend a sex excluded by such determination. But secondly, it is not true that it is there: for there is no such word used in that Text: but to take in both the sexes there are two words each distinctly belonging to its several sex, [...], the first for male, and the second for female. And so that Text is nothing to the pur­pose.

And now having shewed that there is no proof from either the Example or Com­mand produced by H. D. from Scripture, for womens admission to the Sacrament of the Lords Supper, I may conclude, that the proof for Infants Baptism is as good as for womens Communion, and wish it might (as H. D. saith it shall) suffice.

CHAP. XXXVII.

§. 1. THe remaining part of this Dis­course, wherein I will not be long, shall be spent in a threefold address by way of Reprehension, Caution, and Exhortation: Reprehension of such as ba­ptize not their Infants; Caution against the seductions of Antipaedobaptists; and Exhortation to the baptizing of Infants.

§. 2. And first, if it be so that little children are to be suffered to come to Christ, and ought not to be hindred from coming to him, then do they deserve a sharp rebuke, that will not suffer them to come, but hinder their coming. Hath Christs so much tenderness of heart towards your Infants hardened your own hearts against them? What a cruelty is this to them, to debar them from, and deprive them of, that Remedy for their native Infirmity, which the Physician of souls hath provi­ded [Page 404] for them! Do ye love to see them wallowing in the blood of their nativity, unwashed therefrom in the Laver of Re­generation? Is natures filth so amiable in the eye of any pretending to be Chri­stian? What a presumptuousness is this in you to let them live, and venture their dying, in a damnable estate, And if they be not damned, they have more to thank the mercy of their God, then the care of their Parents; they might have been dam­ned for all you, you resolved to venture both theirs, and your own damnation too, rather than have them baptized, though you knew baptism to be the means, the onely ordinary means there is, whereby they might be saved. What shall I call it in you? pride? or perverseness? that you so contumaciously and contumeliously oppose and confront your private novel conceit, to the judgment and practice of Christs whole Catholick Church. Yea, what is it? cross-grainedness or rebelli­ousness against the Lord Christ himself, to have no regard to his word, no re­spect to his reason, but opposing your re­solution against his reason, and your will against his word, to hinder little children from coming to him, and forbid their coming, though he hath said, Suffer the [Page 405] little children to come unto me, and forbid them not.

§. 3. Secondly, are little children to be suffered to come to Christ? and ought they not to be forbidden coming to him? then, my Brethren, beware of giving ear to the contrary Infusions of Antipaedobaptistical Seducers. O let no man whisper into you any doctrine, that contradicts the Command of Christ, disa­grees with the Institution of Christ, and crosses the practice of the Universal Church of Christ. O consider not what they say now, but what Christ so long ago hath said, and let his word be of more prevalency with you, than the words of any heretical Seducer. O regard not what they do now, but what the Church of Christ hath ever done, and let her judgment be of more power with you, than the Opinion of any Schismatical Separatist. O think not that an upstart generation of men not heard of in the world till many hundreds of years after Christianity had been planted and set­led in the world, are the onely men in the world that have the priviledge of discerning the truth. But stand ye in the ways and see, and ask for the old paths, where [...]s the good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls, Jer. 6. 16.

§. 4. Lastly, are little Children to be suffered to come to Christ? and ought not their coming to be forbidden? Suffer then, I beseech you, Brethren, a word of Ex­hortation. Be perswaded to bring, and suf­fer your little children to come to Christ. Do ye not see Christ calling little children to him? And how can ye then forbear bringing them unto him? Do ye not hear him pronouncing them such as the kingdom of Heaven consisteth of? and how can ye then any longer forbear entring them into his kingdom? Do ye not observe him com­manding that little children be suffered to come to him? And how can ye then have the hearts to hinder them from coming to him? O suffer little children to go to their Savi­our, who hath his arms wide open to re­ceive them! O forbid not Infants coming to Jesus, who hath his hands stretched out to bless them! O bring your children, O carry your Infants to Christ, who for their salvation did himself become an Infant, and pass through the state of Childhood. Suf­fer them to be made partakers of his grace by being baptized with water, who, that they might be made partakers of his glory, was baptized with blood. Consider the Benefit your children may have by Baptism, and let that move you to have them baptized. [Page 407] Consider the Need your Children have of Baptism, and let that excite you to their baptizing. Consider your Childrens Ca­pableness for Baptism, and let that per­swade you to baptize them. What shall I say more? Consider your Childrens Right to Baptism, and let that prevail with you not to suffer them to go unbaptized. Shall the Constitution of this particular Church be of no force to move you? Shall the Practice of the Catholick Church have no power to work with you? Shall the Tra­dition of the Apostles of Christ be of no moment to induce you? Yea, shall the Institution of Christ himself have no pre­valency in it to perswade you? To con­clude, if not out of sense of your chil­drens misery, yet out of conscience of your own duty; if not, that you may save your Children, yet that you may not damn Denique terrere nos summopere de­bet damnatio illa vindicem fore Dc­um, siquis foederis symbolo filium in­signire conte [...]at: quod co contemptu oblata gratia re­sp [...]atur & quasi ejuretur. Calvin. Instit. l. 4. c. 16. S. 9. your selves; if not out of regard to the Autho­rity of the Church, yet out of obedience to the command of Christ; be so just to the fruit of your own bodies, be so cha­ritable to the issue of your own bowels, as to suffer [Page 408] your little Children to come unto Christ, and for­bid them not.