A Collection of cases and other discourses lately written to recover dissenters to the communion of the Church of England by some divines of the city of London ; in two volumes ; to each volume is prefix'd a catalogue of all the cases and discourses contained in this collection.

THE CONCLUSION.

ALthough in the management of this Controversie against the Anabaptists, I have endeavoured so to state the Case of Infant-Baptism, as to obviate, or answer all the Considerable Pleas, and Material Objections, which they are wont to make against it; yet there are two of their Objections, of which I have yet taken no notice, thinking it better, that I might avoid te∣diousness, and confusion in determining upon the prece∣ding Questions, to Propose, and Answer them a part by themselves.

The First of these two, is the ancient Custom of gi∣ving the Communion unto Infants, which they endeavour with all their Art, and Skill to run Parallel with the pra∣ctice of Infant-Baptism, although there is not the like Evi∣dence, nor the like Reason for the practice of that, as there is for the practice of this.

First, There is not the like Evidence for the practice of it, St. a 1.1 Cyprian being the first Author which they can pro∣duce for it, and after him the b 1.2 Author of the Book of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, and c 1.3 Cyril of Jerusalem are the next, who make mention of it towards the latter end of the Fourth Century, and then St. d 1.4 Augustine in the Fifth, who indeed speaks frequently of it, as of the practice of the Church in that Age.

These are all the Authorities for Infant-Communion, that I know of, till St. Augustin's time; whereas besides the au∣thority of St. Cyprian, which is the first they have for Com∣municating Infants, we have the authority of a whole Council of Fathers, in which he presided, and of Origen, Tertullian, and Irenaeus, who was the Scholar of St. Polycarp, and the Grand-Scholar of St. John.

And then, whereas among the Writers of the 4th Cen∣tury, there are but the two above-cited, who make men∣tion of Infant-Communion, we have St. * 1.5 Hierom, St. Am∣brose, St. Chrysostom, St. Athanasius, Gregory Nazianzen, and the Third Council of Carthage, who all speak of Infant-Baptism, as of a thing generally practised, and most of them, as of a thing, which ought to be practised in the Church.

Furthermore, none of the four Testimonies for Infant-Communion, speak of it, as of an Apostolical Tradition, as Origen doth of Infant-Baptism, not to mention that the Pe∣lagians never owned the necessity of Infant-Communion, as they did of Infant-Baptism: All which things considered, shew, that there is nothing near the like Evidence in Anti∣quity for the practice of the one, as there is for that of the other.

And as there is not the like evidence for the constant, successive, and general practice of Infant-Communion, that there is for Infant-Baptism: So there is not the like Reason for the practice of it.

First, Because Baptism is the Sacrament, or Mystery of Initiation, of which Persons of all Ages are capable; it be∣ing instituted chiefly for an initiatory Sign to solemnize the admission of the Baptized Person into the Church, and to Seal all the Blessings of the Gospel unto him, as a Member of Christ. This is the Substance, or Chief end of Baptism; which, as I have shewed upon the Second, and Fourth Questions, is equally answered in the Baptism of Children, as well as of professing Believers; Confessi∣on of Faith, as well as Confession of Sins, being but ac∣cidental Circumstantials, which are necessary with respect to the State of the Person to be Baptized, but not to Bap∣tism

it self. But on the contrary, the Holy Eucharist, or Communion, is the Sacrament of Perfection, and Consum∣mation in the Christian Religion, being primarily, and chiefly instituted for a Sacrificial Feast in remembrance of Christ's Death, and Passion, which being an act of great Knowledge and Piety, Children are not capable to per∣form.

But Secondly, There is not the like Reason for Bapti∣zing, and Communicating Infants, because that is ground∣ed upon the Authority of many Texts of Scripture, which without the Concurrence of Tradition are fairly, and ge∣nuinely interpretable for it; but this is grounded only up∣on one Text [John 6. 53. Except ye eat the Flesh of the Son of Man, and drink his Blood ye have no life in you] which it is doubtful whether it is to be understood of the Holy Eu∣charist, or no, because it cannot be understood of it but in a proleptical sence, the Lord's Supper having not been yet instituted by him; or if it be to be so understood, yet the sence of it ought to be regulated by the Chief end of its Institution contained in those words of our blessed Saviour, do this in remembrance of me, and this do ye, as oft, as ye drink it in remembrance of me. Wherefore though this Text were literally to be understood of the Holy Eucha∣rist, as St. Augustine first interprets it, yet it ought not to be strained to Infant-Communion, because Infants cannot par∣take of the Holy Banquet in remembrance of Christ. And therefore though the Custom of Communicating Infants pre∣vailed by Degrees in some Ages of the Church, yet the Western Churches discerning the mistake upon which it was grounded, have long since laid it aside, though they still continue the practice of Infant-Baptism, as fully an∣swering the Chief end of Baptism, and as being founded upon more, and clearer Texts of Scriptures, and a much more noble Tradition, than Infant-Communion is.

But Thirdly, There is not the like reason for Baptizing, and Communicating Infants, because the Correspondent practice of the Jewish Church in Infant-Circumcision, and Infant-Baptism, answered as a Pattern unto that under the Law, but there was nothing of a Pattern under it, which

answered so to Infant-Communion, because a Child never partook of the * 1.6 Passover, before he was old enough to take his Father by the hand, and to go up from the Gates of Jerusalem unto the Mount of the Temple, and to en∣quire about the meaning of the Service, and was capable of understanding the nature of it, as it was done in re∣membrance of their Deliverance out of Egypt.

And in like manner when the Children of Christians are old enough to be instructed in the nature of the Holy Communion, and to understand that, then they may par∣take of it, be it as soon, as it will, if they are Baptized and Confirmed; though it is true, that Christian Chil∣dren are usually much older, than the Jewish were, before they Communicate, which is merely accidental, because it requires a riper reason to understand the Mystery of the Holy Eucharist, which is done in remembrance of our Spiritual Deliverance by the Sacrifice of Christ, both God and Man, upon the Cross, than to understand the plain and easie meaning of the Passover, which was annually kept in remembrance of the Temporal Deliverance of the Jews.

But to speak yet more fully of Infant-Communion, the practice of it is so far from prejudicing the Cause of In∣fant-Baptism, that it mightily confirms it, because none were, or could be admitted to partake of the Holy Com∣munion, till they were validly * 1.7 Baptized, and therefore the practice of Infant-Communion is a most emphatical De∣claration, that all the Churches, wherein it ever was, or a 1.8 still is practised, were of Opinion that the Baptism of Infants was as lawful, and valid, as that of professing Be∣lievers can be.

As for the Original of this custom, it is not known when it began, probably it came in by degrees from the ancient, and laudable custom of administring the Lord's Supper to grown Persons presently after their Baptism; and if so many of the ancient Churches were so tender towards Infants, as to bring them to the Communion, rather than deprive them of the least shadow of right, what shall be said in excuse of those uncharitable Men, who

will rather destroy all the Churches in the World, than bring their Children unto Baptism, of which they are capable, and to which they have a Right so highly proba∣ble, if not certain, and infallible, as I have proved above?

The Second Objection against Infant-Baptism, which I took no notice of, but reserved for this place, is taken from their incapacity to engage themselves in Covenant unto God. For, say these Men, all who enter into Covenant, and re∣ceive the Seal of the Covenant, must contract, and stipu∣late for their parts, as well as God doth for his, and there∣fore St. Peter saith, That the Baptism which saveth us, must * 1.9 have the answer, or restipulation of a good Conscience towards God. But how can Infants restipulate, or what Conscience can be in them, who have not the use of reason, nor are capable of knowing what the Covenant means?

To this Objection, I answer as formerly, That it is as strong against Infant-Circumcision, as Infant-Baptism; for the Infants of the Jews were admitted as effectually into the Covenant, and had it as really sealed unto them, and were as strongly tyed to perform the Conditions of it, when they came to years of understanding, as if they had been Circumcised then, and at their Circumcision had personal∣ly, and expresly indented with God.

Wherefore the same answer which will serve to justifie Infant-Circumcision will justifie Infant-Baptism, which suc∣ceeds in the place of it, and it is this: That God of his goodness towards Infant's was pleased to seal the Covenant of Grace unto Infants upon an implicite, and imputative sort of Stipulation, which at years of understanding they were bound to own by openly professing the Jewish Religion, or if they then renounced it, thereupon they became Stran∣gers to the Covenant, which in such cases was as void, as if it had never been made. An implicit Stipulation was suf∣ficient for the Children of Believers, though an open Pro∣fession and Stipulation was required of Grown Proselytes, which shews, that Circumcision was an institution of Latitude, and that personal, and express Restipulation was not a ge∣neral pre-requisite condition to Circumcision, but only to some Persons to be Circumcised.

In like manner Baptism being an institution of Latitude, ordained for Persons under, as well as at the years of dis∣cretion, perssonal and express Stipulation is only required of the former; and therefore St. Peter in the Text above cited likely had respect not to all Baptism, or Baptism in general, but only to the Baptism of Adult Proselytes, whom the Minister used to * 1.10 interrogate at the time of Baptism, much after the same manner, as we interrogate Adult Proselytes now.

Wherefore, this Objection like the rest which the Ana∣baptists make, runs upon this presumption, that Baptism is a strict institution, and that personal and express answer∣ing or Restipulation is a pre-requisite condition to all Bap∣tism, whereas it is only a personal qualification required of Majors, or Adult Persons, when they come to be Baptized.

But as for Children, Baptism may be administred unto them upon an implicite, and imputative sort of Restipu∣lation, as Circumcision was to the Jewish, and Baptism now is to agonizing Christian Infants, or else it may be ad∣ministred unto them as Baptism formerly was among the Jews to the Infants, and Minors of Proselytes upon a vi∣carious Restipulation by their Sponsors, which seems to have been translated together with the use of Baptism from the Jewish Church. It is certain, that * 1.11 Tertullian makes mention of Sponsors, or Sureties for Children at Baptism, and very probable, that the Apostles made Parents, and Major domos stipulate in the name of their † 1.12 Minors, when they Baptized them, as the Jews were wont to do; and upon this Supposition St. Peter in the Text above cited, might also probably allude to all Baptism, because Grown

Proselytes to the Christan Religion did answer for their Chil∣dren, as well as for themselves at Baptism, according to the Custom of the Jewish Church.

Nay, there is little reason to doubt, but that the Jewish being the Pattern of the Christian Baptism, the Apostles, and their Assistants who were Jews, or Hellenists, did ob∣serve this Custom of Vicarious Stipulation at the Baptism of Infants, and Minors, as well as all the other Particulars, in which they resemble one another, as the Picture doth the Face, whose Picture it is.

As for Example, the Jewish Baptism was administred to Women, as well as Men, and so is the Christian.

Secondly, It was never reiterated nor repeated, no more is the Christian.

Thirdly, It was called Regeneration, and a New Birth, and Baptized Persons were said to be born again and Regenerated, which also holds in Christian Bap∣tism.

Fourthly, Baptized Proselytes among the Jews were bound to leave their nearest Relations, if it were necessa∣ry, and adhere to the Church, and so are Baptized Chri∣stian Proselytes bound to do the same.

Fifthly, The Infants of Proselytes were Baptized among the Jews, as well as the Proselytes themselves, and so have I proved, that Infants have been always Baptized among the Christians.

And therefore in the last place, since the Jewish Church Baptized Infants upon Vicarious Stipulation, why should not we think it sufficient for their entrance into the Covenant, and that the Apostles did so too?

These things, and whatsoever else is written in this little Tract, I hope will be fairly, and candidly confidered by the Dissenters among us upon the account of Infant-Bap∣tism. I say, the truth in Christ, I lye not, my Conscience also bearing me Witness in the Holy Ghost, who is the Searcher of Hearts, that I have great heaviness, and almost

continual sorrow in my heart for them, and that to re∣concile them to the Church. I could wish in the Apostles Sence, that I my self were an Anathema from Christ. And because it is a Disease too common among Dissenters, and more especially among those, with whom I have been a dealing, to have minds full of Prejudice, Prepossession, and sinister Suspitions against what we Speak, or Preach, or Write, I have here subjoined a Letter of that Famous Martyr of Jesus Christ Mr. John Philpot, concerning In∣fant-Baptism, which I seriously recommend to their Im∣partial, and diligent perusal, hoping that the same Argu∣ments, which may perhaps have less effect upon them as they come from me, may be better received, and make deeper impression upon their Souls as they come from him, who like the Primitive Martyrs, was Blessed with Hea∣venly Visions, and chearfully suffered for his Redeemer, who had suffered for him, and thanked God when the time was come, that he was to seal the truth of the Prote∣stant Religion with his Blood.

Notes

• a 1.1

  Ac nequid de esset ad criminis cu∣mulum Infan∣tes quoque parentum ma∣nibus vel im∣positi, vel at∣tracti: amise∣runt parvuli, quod in primo statim Nativitatis Exordio fuerunt consecuti. Nonne illi cum judicii dies venerit, dicent: Nos nihil fecimus, nec derelicto cibo, ac poculo domini ad profana conta∣gia sponte properavimus. Afterwards he tells a Story of a little Girl, who having been car∣ried to the Idol-Feasts, was afterwards brought by her Mother who knew nothing of it, to the Communion, when he administred it; and when the Deacon brought the Cup to her, she turned away her Face from it, but the Deacon pouring some of the Wine into her Mouth, she fell into Convulsions, and Vomitings, which the Holy Father looking upon, as a Miracle, did thereupon discover, that she had been polluted at the Idol-Feasts. Vid. & August. ad Bonifacium Episcop. Ep. 23. vol. 2.
• b 1.2

  Cap. 7. Contemplat. 3. p. 360, 362.
• c 1.3

  Catechesis 3. isluminat. Hie∣rosolym.
• d 1.4

  De verbis domini in Evang. Johan. Epist. 23. 106, 107. Lib. 1. de peccato∣rum merit. & remiss. cap. 20. lib. 1. Contra Julianum c. 11. Contra duas Epistolas Pelag. lib. 2. cap. 22. lib. 4. cap. 14.
• * 1.5

  See them all cited at large in Walker's Plea for In∣fant-Baptism, from p. 266. to p. 275.
• * 1.6

  Exod. 12. 26, 27.
• * 1.7

  Theodoret. Therapeut. Serm. 2. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• a 1.8

  As in the Greek, Russian, and Abyssin Churches, and among the Christians of St. Thomas in the Indies.
• * 1.9

  1 Ep. 3. 21.
• * 1.10

  Hence Ter∣tullian de Baptismo calls Baptism Spon∣sionem Salutis. And in St. Cy∣prian we often read of the in∣terrogation in Baptism.
• * 1.11

  De Baptismo cap. 18. quid enim necesse est Sponsores etiam peri∣culo ingeri?
• † 1.12

  Praefecturae igitur juridicae quae Baptismo praeerat profi∣tebatur Proselytus ipse Majorennis (Masculus qui annum decimum tertium, foemina quae duodecim superaverat) legem Mosaicam se servaturum. Minorum vero nomine idem ipsum profitebatur praefectura ipsa, uti in Christianismo susceptores minorennium, seu par∣vulorum, saltem si nec parentes adessent, qui idem praestare possent. Selden de Synedriis, Lib. 1. c. 3. And what is here said of the CONSISTORT among the Jews, concerning the Baptism of Infants, and Minors, St. Augustine saith of the Church among Christians, ac∣commodat illis mater Ecclesia aliorum pedes ut veniant, aliorum cor, ut credant, aliorum linguam ut fateantur.