initiatory seal in his as as well as their flesh is Gods covenant v. 13. or a sacramentall sign firstly and expresly of Gods covenant v. 11. 7. compared albeit it implicitly oblige him and them to other duties formerly mentioned Hence Acts 2.38 39 the seal of baptism is put to the promise as the choice matter and foundation in view and as that was a ground of repentance it self repent and be baptized for the promise is to you not for you have repented as if that were the thing to be firstly sealed by baptism but the promise rather Answ. The inititory seal is a late devised term not found in Scripture and it is used upon an erroneous conceit as if the nature of Sacraments were to be seals of the Covenant and baptism were the initiatory seal But the term initiatory seal is chosen rather than the word baptism though it be the Scripture term by Mr. C. and others that they may shuffle what they say in and out under the term of ininitiatory seal sometimes understanding by it Circumcision sometimes baptism as if they were the same and what is said of the one were meant of the other which is meer fallacious arguing But setting aside Mr. C's lately devised term the end of Christian baptism is in the first place that thereby the party baptizâ—d may testifie his repentance faith and hope in Christ love to the people of God and resolution to follow Christ to the death And this is proved in my Exercit in the twelfth reason of my doubting about Pedobaptism pag. 33. in the 2 part of this Review Sect. 5. from these Scriptures Rom. 6.3 4.5 1 Cor. 12.13 Gal. 3.26 27. Ephe. 4.5 Col. 2 12. 1 Pet. 3.20 where the phrase of the answer of a good conscience as Beza rightly observes in his Annot. on that place alludes to the manner of the primitive baptizing after the answer to the questions propounded concerning the parties repentance faith and obedience which were held so necessary to baptism in the first ages of the Christian Church that none was baptized without it yea and when infant baptism came up even till our dayes and in some places according to the Common prayer Book even to the infants the same questions are propounded yea the Lutherans confesse that without faith in infants it is in vain to baptize them The continuance of which questions as Lud Vives Comment in Augustin de civit Dei l. 1. c. 27. rightly saith proves the original use of baptism to be of those only that could answer those questions In respect of which Basil and others call baptism the seal of faith Tertullian of repenâ—ance the sealing of faith Chamier Paustr Cath. tom 4. l. 2. c. 8. cites the treatise of the spirit under the name of Bazil ch 12. saying Confession goes before bringing to salvation baptism followes sealing our consent whence he infers thus manifestly salvation is ascribed to confession but baptism is the seal of confession No where that ever I could find among the Ancients is baptism termed the seal of the Covenant Bucer on Acts. 2.38 To be baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ is by the sign of baptism to testifie that were the believers in Christ for remission of sins Grot Annot on Mark. 16.16 And is baptized he that believeth and by baptism maketh profession of his faith So that the profession of faith by it is the primary end and use of baptism nor is there any place of Scripture that I know which doth make the end of baptism to be the sealing of Gods Covenant to us And here by the way it is to be noted what shifting is used in this matter by Pedobaptist They say the seal follows the Covenant and the parties interest in it and this Covenant they make the righteousness of faith as Mr. C. here but when they are pressed that then in vain are infants non-elect and non-believers baptized who are not in that Covenant they fly to an imaginary external Covenant and visible interest in that as sealed by it and there by a right to be baptized which yet by their own confession is not the Covenant of grace nor by sealing that interest is the Covenant of grace sealed for that is Gods Covenant of righteousness by faith not the baptized persons Covenant or his right As for Mr. C's observations here they are false and slighty For neither is it true that it is hence because baptism is not primarily the seal of mans faith and repentance but of Gods Covenant rather Abrahams circumcision was called a seal of the righteousness of faith but the contrary rather is true For if it were a seal of the righteousness of faith which he had yet being uncircumcised it sealed rather his own faith and the righteousness by it already obtained than Gods covenant to him of something to come And if circumcision be called Gods Covenant yet it follows not that baptism is rather a seal of Gods covenant than of mans faith and repentance That which he saith of Acts. 2.38.39 is as vain For the promise is not alledged there as sealed in baptism or giving any right to baptism but meerly as a motive to them to repent and to be baptized in the sense I give Antipaedobapt part 1. Sect. 5. In this part of the Review Sect. 5.8.21 22 23 wherein Mr· C's frivolous interpretation is examined And though the Apostle do not bid them be baptized because they had repented yet he bids them first to repent and then be baptized Infants have no visible title to baptism because they make no visible personal profession Parental faith in the Covenant made to them and their children is but a delusion What ever may be said of the texts Deuteronomy 26.17 Deuteronomy 29.10 11 12. c. Concerning taking it of children of which in the examining of Mr. B's remainder there is no visibility of infants Church-membership in the Christian churches mentioned in Scripture I know not how the believing Gods testimony is the assent of charity I still say there is no judgment of charity concerning infants who do nothing which may be interpreted to the better or the worse Mr. C. if he had recited my words fully in my Examen Pag. 41. might have found my words to yeeld him no help for his fourth Conclusion I pass on to the fifth SECT XLI Sect. 41. Animadversions on the sixth sect of the same ch shewing that Christ is not head of any unsound members noâ— parents profession of faith unites children to Christ so as to entitle them to baptism SEct. sixthly he sets down this conclusion That Christ is in Scripture considered as head of the visible Church in which are many members of Christ the â—ead in that respect which prove unsound as well as in other respects he is considered as head of the visible Church wherein are none but elect ones Concerning which I say that part of the invisible Church which is on
sect 5 c. what from Fathers in this and some othâ—r of my writings that which Christ prescribed is indispensably to be used to baptize inâ—â— the Name of the Father Son and Holy but all the question is about these words I baptize thee in the Name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost whether Christ have prescribed them to be indispensably used so as thaâ— if any say I baptize thee in the name of Christ or the Lord Jesus or be thou baptized or aâ— the Greeks use it Let this servant of Christ bee baptized into the Name of Father Son and Spirit or This pâ—rson is baptized by â—e into the profession and owning of the Father of Christ the onely true God and Jesus Christ whom he hath sent and the Comforter whom he sent as his Lord and Master this be not agreeable to Câ—rists prescription I conceive it is and that neither did Christ prescribe those very words the Dr. seâ—s down but the thing of which Grotius â—nnâ—t in Matth. â—8 19 may be seen where the Dr. may see that to be baptized into the Name is not all one with bapâ—izing with the express naming of each oâ— these but another thing and how the ancients varied in their expressions and how Irenâ—us lib. 3 c. 20. saith In nomine Christi subauditur qui unxiâ— ipse qui unctus est ipsa unctio in qâ—a â—nctuâ— eâ—â— Nor the Apostles when they prescribed Baptism into the name of Christ without mentioning the other persons Acts 2.38 10.8 8.16 Luâ—â—bard l. 4. sent dist 3. â—ui baptizat in nomine Christi baptizâ—t in nomine â—rinâ—tatis quae ibi intelligitur and this Ambrose before spake iâ— lib. 1. de sâ—ir sanct c. 3. â—iscat schol in Matth. 28.19 But it is not to be thought that in these words Christ commands Misters oâ— Pastors of the Church that in baptizing they should pronounce these words baptize thee into the Name of the Father c. Fatherâ—c â—c which may be done although those wordâ— be not â—ronounced in baptizing And therefore thaâ— which I â—aid needed not bee somewhat stâ—â—nge in the Dr. And for the words of the Drs. Practicâ—l catech l 6. § 2. the words do shew what I said the Dr. confessed to have been no misâ—â—eporting of his words who did not say he affirmed the putting under water used by the primitive Church to be appointed by Christ exclusiâ—ely to sprinkling but tâ—at by Christs appointment the baptized was to be dâ—pt in waâ—eâ— i.e. according to the primitive ancient custome to bee put under waâ—er and said expresly be allowed of sprinkling and yet varied from the Jâ—wish pattern which requirâ—d immersion and from Christs appointment which though he propounded dâ—sâ—junctively yet I knew it could â—ot â—e so understood and from the primitive custome and yet in another thing nâ—t so prescribed will have it to be indispensably used which shews his variableness SECT XCVII Matth. 28.19 Infants are excluded from being subjects of Baptism notwithstanding Dr. Hammonds pretensions TO what Dr. H. Defence of infants Baptism ch 2. sect 1. saith I reply 1. That his writing for the Common Prayer Book is evidence of ascribing more then was meet to the Canons of Prelates sith thâ— Common Prayer Book stood as well by the Prelates Canons as the Act of Parliament and those that are for the one are for the most part for the other 2. It appears to me that he hath offended much against the Sacrament of Baptism in his Defence of infant Baptism the use of sureties sprinkling in stead of Baptism according to the Common Prayer Book all which are mentioned before 3. This to me is a signe that the Dr. ascribes too much to the Canon which enjoyned subscription and conformity to the Common Prayer Book in that he hath opposed as much I think as any man of his rank the reformation of these and such other faults as were in it 4. If there were a Catechesis in the term allegation then my use of it proves not my signification that the Dr. did produce Matth. 28.19 as a proof of his posâ—tion yet when I consider how the Dr. Letter of resol q. 4. sect 14 25. doth make the Jewish baptism the pattern whence the Christian is copied out and saith Christian baptism hath nothing in the Copy to exclude Christians children which copy is set down in the N. T. i e. in the words of institution and these words § 25. are no other then those Matth. 28.19 which he endeavours to prove not onely not to exclude but also to include Christians children as he speaks § 121. Christs baptism being founded in the Jews custome of baptizing of Proselytes and the custome among them being known to be this to baptize the Proselytes and their children the indefinite command of baptizing all nations was all that was needfull to comprehend the children also of those that received the faith of Christ. I do still conceive he did allege Matth. 28.19 as a proof of his position though not by it self yet with his imagined pattern of the Jewish custome and that though he would not openly yet by his contending so much for the equivalency of Disciple and Proselyte and the extent of the term Proselyte and his acknowledgement of these words to be the copy in the N.T. he did tacitely yeeld that if those words Matth. 28.19 include not infants under the discipled then there is something in the N. T. which excludes infants from Baptism Nor is he at all relieved by what he saith that whatever were the notion of Discipling there yet â—ee could not deem infants thereby excluded from Baptism whom by another medium viz. the Apostolical practice hee supposed to be admitted to it by Christs institution for that very medium is to prove it to have been Christs institution and Matth. 28.19 comprehends the words of institution and is the copy of the original and therefore it 's tacitely implied that if infants be noâ— proved to bee included Matth. 28.19 there is something against infant Baptism in the N. T. nor is it true that in that which is not included is not presently excluded for in all such institutions or appointments what is not included iâ— presently excluâ—ed Our Lord argues Matth. 19.5 6. two shall bee one flesh therefore more then two are excluded the Apostle 1 Cor. 11.23 thus Châ—ist appointed the Lords Supper therefore no otherwise wine is appointed therefore water is excluded eating is prescribed therefore reservation is excluded let the self-examiner eat therefore infants excluded the Dr. himself baptizing in the name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost prescribed Mat. 2â— 19 therefore that from indispensably to be used If the Dr. would look on such a despicable piece he might see this further proved in that Book a part whereof hee answers Review part 2. sect 5. â—f not he may finde enough in Jewels Sermon at Pauls Cross 1560. and in all sorts of Protestant
be laid aside when an argument is drawn from them as here from the word Sacraâ—ent He adds Besides is there not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 mystery in the original Answ. It is but never in the use in which the term Sacrament is used as now it is defined 2. I alleged that there is no common nature of Sacraments not as Mr. Cr. of a Sacrament express'd in Scripture This he saves is untrue in the sequel For what consequence There is no common nature of a Sacrament expressed in Scripture therefore Baptism is not a Sacrament more then in this There is no common nature of infused grace expressed in Scripture therefore faith is not an infused grace Answ. It was not my sequel but this therefore the term Sacrament may be laid aside and no good argument is from the definition of a Sacrament to prove Baptism to be a relation The term grace or grace of God I do much question whether any where in Scripture it be applied to inherent quaâ—ities in us or good acts proceeding from us and I conceive that the use of it in that manner hath occasioned or strengthened the errour of justification by inherent righteousness because we are said to be justified by grace and do wish that when approvers of Preachers are directed to examine persons of the grace of God in them the thing had been otherwise expressed and that such an expression as the gift by grace or the like were used yet I deny not there is in Scripture a common nature of those gifts by grace in us which accompany salvation and that faith is a gift by grace infused inspired or wrought by the spirit of God Mr. Cr. saith further untrue in it self for though not in one place there may be in many places of Scripture compared together a common nature of Sacraments compared together And is there not the common nature of a Sacrament expressed in one Scripture Rom. 4.11 a seal of the righteousness of faith This is the judgement of the Ancients and the most of the Divines of the reformed Churches Answ. That neither the text Rom. 4.11 nor the Ancients do so define a Sacrament is shewed before and however the Divines of the Reformed Churches do define thence a Sacrament as the seal of the Covenant yet not as there it is expressed a seal of the righteousness of faith But of this I have said enough before sect 31. What I said of Austins definition of a Sacrament that it is a visible signe of invisible grace as imperfect which I proved by instances was without a miscellany of absurdities â—f the descent of the Holy Ghost as a Dove were a signe or seal of Christs office of Mediatorship and not of his righteousness of faith yet it was a visible signe of his holy qualifications Luk. 4.18 Joh. 3.44 and so of invisible grace and consequently a Sacrament by Austins definition Christs washing his Disciples feet shewed his love and humility ergo by Austins definition must be also a Sacrament and holding up the hands in prayer shews faith in God kissing the Bible in swearing shews appealing to God as Judge or hope in his word which are invisible graces according to Austin and according to his definition Sacraments And though it be added in the Common Prayer book Catechism ordained by Christ yet it is not so in Austins definition used by Mr. Cr. in the dispute and if it had holding up the hands in prayer had been a Sacrament being apâ—ointed 1 Tim. 2.8 And for the addition in the Catechism as a means to receive the same and a pledge to assure us thereof I know no Scripture that ever made Ciâ—cumcision the Passeover the Lords Supper or Baptism meanes to receive invisible grace and how faâ— and in what manner it assures I have before sect 31. and elsewhere shewed Enough of Mr. Crs. vain praâ—â—le in this section Sect. 3. Mr. Cr. quarrels with my reconciliation of my own words denying all invisible Churchmembers were to be baptized but affirming it of viâ—ible He tels me 1. This distinction is not fitly applied for the proposition was meant of visible Churchmembeâ—ship But 1. however it were meaâ—t the expression was God appointed infants Churchmembers under the Gospel and this might be understood of invisible as well as visible Churchmembership and therefore it was fitly applied to take away the ambiguity of the expression 2. It was fitly applied also to â—lâ—er my meaniâ—g and to free my words from contradiction 2. He tels me my proposition is not true for all visible Churchmembers are not to be baptized then all baâ—tized before they being visible members were to be baptized again But what is this but wrangling sith the proposition was his own and I granted it with that limitation in his own sense of them that were not yet baptized He tels me of the state of the question between us which is impertinent to the present business of cleering my words He adds Invisible and visible members differs as Genus and species all invisible members are visible but not all visible members invisible the invisible being extracted out of the visible now if all invisible members be also visible it will inevitably follow they may be baptized whether visible by profession or by prerogative and promise of parents or sureties of infants But what a dotage is this Doth visible Churchmember praedicari de pluribus specie differentibus in quid If it be asked what is an invisible Churchmember will any that is in his wits say hee is a visible Churchmember Is not this a contradiction to say all invisible members are visible How is it proved that any are visible members of the Christian Church but by profession of faith The like dotage is in what he saith after that there is an intrinsecal connexion of thâ—se termes actually to receive into Covenant under the Gospel and to appoint Church-members under the Gospel that they are as essentially coincident as to bee a man and a reasonable creature which makes this proposition to be aeterâ—ae veritatis those whom God did actually receive into Covenant under the Gospel those God did appoint Churchmembers under the Gospel For is the one to be defined by the other Do not these terms express existences restrained to hic and nunc for sure actual receiving and appointing are singular acts in tiâ—e not essences If these speeches of Mr. Cr. be according to Metaphysical and â—ogical principles I am yet to seek in them as having not heard or read of such principles before And if God did promise before the Law foreâ—ell under the Law actually receive into Covenant under the Gospel or appoint Churchmembers under the Gospel without faith or profession of â—aith then infidels are actually in Covenant under the Gospel and so justified then is Mr. Baxters dispute against Antinomians about the condition of the Covenant and justification false and if they be Churchmembers without faith or profession of faith and to
and uncertainty among them To which I conceive my self the more ingaged because some words of mine in my Examen part 4. Sect. 5. gave some overture to Mr M. and after to Mr Bl. and Mr B. to except much against me about this point Two things which I said in that passage it seems are not relished one that I said that God seals not to every one that is baptized but onely to true believers the other that making Gods promise in the covenant of grace conditional in this sense that persons after agnize the covenant and that to speak of it so as if it were common to the elect and reprobates and conditionall in this sense as if God left it to mens liberty to whom he had sealed to agnâ—ze or recognize that sealing or to free themselves if they please and so nullifie all yet so as to afford them a while the favour and priviledge of being in covenant with him â—s symbolizing with Arminians To this Mr M. replied but little yet what he saith in his Defence pag. 236 I shall briefly answer First saith he Was not Circumcision Gods sign and seal which by his own appointment was applied to all the Jewes and proselytes and their children Ans. Circumcision was appointed by God to be applied to all the Jews proselytes and their children being males of eight dayes old and was by his institution a sign of the covenant made with Abraham Gen. 17. Abrahams own circumcision in his own person was a seal of the righteousness of faith which he had yet being uncircumâ—ised but that God did by Circumcision seal â—o every one the righteousness of faith who was rightly circumcised I find not nor if I did should I think it were any thing to prove that God seals the righteousness of faith to every one that is baptized rightly sith I doe not take circumcision and baptism to be all one or to have the same use or that baptism seals in the same manner as circumcision Mr. M. adds Did it ingage God absolutely to every one of them to write his law in their hearts c. Answer No. And are not the Sacraments Signa conditionalia conditionall signes and Seals Answer I conceive baptism according to Christs institution to be a sign of the faith of the baptized and so it is a sign absolute and not conditionall and because the object of that faith is Christ dead and risen again whereby we are justified and baptisme as fitted to mind the baptized of Christs death but all and resurrection Rom. 6.2 3 4. Col. 2.12 it is in its nature that is in its right use apt to seal that is to assure justification and salvation 1 Pet. 3.21 and so may be termed in its nature a seal aptitudinall but yet it seals actually to none but those who truly believe which it doth absolutely in respect of justification and coditionally in respect of glorification which is not yet attained nor to be attained but upon conditition of perseverance yet it doth not seal that as an uncertain thing because conditionall for even the condition also is assured by vertue of the death of Christ confirming the covenant of grace or the New Testament in his blood But when I say these things are actually assured by baptism I do not conceive they are actually sealed by God not to the true believer without the inward testimony or seal of the spirit without which God never sealed actually by his word or Sacraments these promises of the covenant of grace or the persons interest in them although both the word of God the oath of God the death of Christ the ordinances of Baptism and the Lords Supper are in themselves or in their nature aptitudinall seals that is apt signs to assure them The like I say of the Lords Supper both which are alike signes and seals neither to an infant without extraordinary operation Mr M. adds And did any orthodox Divines before your self charge this to be Arminianism to say that the Gospel runs upon conditions I confesse it is Arminianism to say any thing is conditionall to God this I never assertedâ— but that the Gospel is both preached and by the Sacraments sealed to us upon condition of faith will passe for orthodox doctrine when you and I are dead and gone Answer I never charged this to be Arminianism That the Gospel runs upon conditions that it is both preached and by the Sacraments sealed to us upon condition of faith according to the explication given What I count symbolizing with the Arminians I have before declared to wit Gods conditionall sealing and covenant common to elect and reprobates as Mr M. in his Sermon seemed to conceive To what I said that I did not well understand that God required of the Jewes infants to seal in their infancy I reply saith Mr M. But I hope you understand that the infants were sealed in their infancy and by this they received not only a priviledge to be accounted as belonging to Gods family but it also obliged them to the severall duties of the covenant as they grew up to be capable of performing them Answer I understand the Iewes were circumcised in their infancy but that God did seal to every circumcised infant either the truth of the promises or his interest in them or that they did in infancy seal to God I do not yet understand For though they had the priviledge mentioned yet not by vertue of Gods sealing to them and though they were obliged to the duties mentioned yet not by vertue of their sealing to God But Mr. Bl. and Mr B. are more earnest in this point and in opposition to what I said in my Examen part 4. Sect. 5. in his Answer to my Letter Mr. Bl. ch 15. asserts Sect. 1. The seals of the Sacrament are conditionall not absolute Sect. 2. The entrance into covenant and acceptation of the terms of it is common to the elect and reprobate a heart stedfast in the covenant and the mercies of the conenant are proper onely to the elect and regenerate Sect. 3. To say that the seals of the Sacraments are conditionall and that the reprobate are within the verge of the covenant as tendered in the Gospel and accepted is not to symbolize with Arminians To which I replied in my Postscript Sect. 21. concerning which Mr. Bl. in his plain Scripture proof c. pag. 224. of the first Edition saith But to these Mr. Bl. hath fully answered Mr T. though in his Apology he passeth over much and is not able to discern his meaning For my part I speak impartially according to my judgement I think there is more true worth in those two or three leaves of Mr. Blakes book in opening the nature of the covenant than in all Mr T s book that ever he wrote about baptism And pag. 222. he chargeth me with two errors in Apologie and saith of them I conceive these dangerous errors of Mr T. about the nature of
he to be circumcised and therefore the seal follows not the covenant but the command even where the promise goes before What he adds Else what had become of them if they had died then in respect of the ordinary covenant means of their good Rom. 9.6 Methinks Mr. C. might have as easily answered himself as he would do a Papist pleading this very plea for the necessity of infants baptism to salvation or about the case of famales or still-born infants Surely he would say God supplies that without means which he bestowes on others by ordinary means and so infants of a day old may speed well without circumcision To what purpose Rom. 9.6 comes in here I know not This and some other passages seem to be the inconsiderate speeches of a man dreaming To the objection with the Jews the Church and State were the same but not so now Mr. C. thus writes Answ. God never confounded Church and Civill State either then or now Who dare make God the author of confusion which is the God of order He then kept them severall paling in the Civill State with the Judicials with which the Church as such dealt not but as Civil cases came under a Church consideration She had her Ceremonials and Morals to regulate her Kings and Princes Priests Levits and Elders had their proper work and word onely in their own Sphears The Elders of the Assemblies knew and acted in their places Ecclesiastically without interruption from Civill officers or intruding upon Civil Officers as such as Josh. 9. 16.1 2 Acts 14. Luke 4. The matters of the King and of the Lord were carefully bounded and sundred 2 Chron. 17.11 Answ. According to the constitution of the Jewish people by God the Church was not one body and the State another but all the same persons were of the Church who were members of the Common-wealth he that had the right of a Iew had the right of a Church-member nor were any taken in or cast out of the one but withall he was taken in or cast out of the other Nor hereby is God made the Author of confusion but good order was setled kept in this way of coincidency of State Civil and Ecclesiastical Nor is it true that God kept the Church and Civill State severall or paled in the Civill State with Judicials by which it was divided from the Church In the Church the Priest dealt as well in judicials as in ceremonials the Priest and the Levite as well as the Iudge gave sentence in matters of blood and plea as well as between stroak and stroak Deut. 17.8 9. Eli Samuel Iehoiadah judged Israel managed State-affairs as wel as Temple service Nor do I know any such Iudicials but that they did belong to the Church or Priests who were Iudges as well as to the Civill State that is the Princes As there were ceremonials and morals to regulate Kings and Princes so there were also lawes to regulate the Priests But no where do we read of any Court kept by the Church or Officers of the Church that is Priests and Levits wherein to censure Kings and Princes for meer morall sins called now somewhat besides the Scripture use of the word Scandals though we find Princes deposing Priests It is true Priests Levits and Elders had their proper work and moved onely in their own Sphears And so had Princes and Souldiers but not so as to make two distinct Corporations in Israel If by Elders of the Assemblies which knew acted Ecclesiastically in their places he mean any other than the Priests and by their Ecelesiasticall knowing and acting the taking cognizance of moral evils and proceeding against them by Ecclesiasticall censure in a Court distinct from the Civill I must confess I find not either such Assembly or such proceedings in the texts brought by Mr C. or any other I grant there was a dististinction between the matters of the King and of the Lord 2 Chro. 19.11 that Amaziah the chief Priest was over the Iudges whom Iohoshaphat sent forth in all matters of the Lord and Zebadiah the Ruler of the house of Iudah for all the Kings matters But this doth not prove that these men did keep severall Courts but that in the same Synedrium these persons were best fitted to direct the one in one sort of matters the other in the other As in a Parliament Senate or Council of Lords Bishops Lawyers Souldiers though they sit and act together yet one may be more specially for one business and another for the other Nor doth it appear that Iehoshaphat assigned in the Cities some Iudges for one kind of causes and others for others But because there was occasion to have recourse in many difficult cases to the Synedrum at Ierusalem he instructs them whom they should have there for their help according to the law Deut. 17 8 9 c. But I leave the Reader to Mr Seldens books de Synedrijs Etraeorum to resolve him in this point What Mr C. gathereth out of the words of I. S. that he saith That God made a covenant of grace in generall and so with the body of the Jewes infants and all serves not Mr C his turn unless he meant his naturall seed in-generall which that he did grant in respect of Evangelicall grace I do not believe What he saith touching Baptism that it sealeth the Covenant indefinitely to all sorts and that it sealeth an infants present federall grace and unto future grace likewise unto grown ones it sealeth personall grace less principally covenant-grace principally is meer fancy without any Scripture which makes no such distinctions of federall grace and personall of the sealing one grace principally another less principally of sealing an infants present federall grace and unto future grace of baptism sealing the covenant indefinitly to all sorts which the Scripture makes the act of the person baptized only to testifie his own repentance and faith I proceed to examine the ninth Section of that Chapter Sect. 9 Mr C. sets down this Conclusion That the covenant-interest at least externall and Ecclesiasticall of Infants of inchurched believers is Gospel as well as such Covenant-interest of grown persons SECT XLIV Animadversions on the ninth Section of the same Chapter in which the Covenant-interest externall and Ecclesiastical of infants of inchurched believers is pretended not proved to be Gospel in which his allegations of Deut. 30.6 c. Gen. 17.8 Luke 19 9. Deut. 29.10 c. Ezek. 16.1 c. Gen. 9.25.26 and other places are examined Answ IN my Examen page 51. I said They that say the Covenant of grace belongs not onely to believers but also to their naturall children whether believing or not these add to the Gospel and the Apostle saith of such Gal. 1.8 9. Let him be accursed And page 122. It is no wrong to say it that it is a new Gospel to affirm that this is one of the promises of the covenant of grace That God wil be
is not this as great a mercy to the poor off cast Jews They are put out of the carnal Churchstate too But did God give so many admirable Elogies of the Jews Church and can Mr. T. yet think that it is better to be of no visible Church then to be of theirs Answ. I alledge the more spiritual Churchstate as one reason of Gods changing of churchmembership by birth into churchmembership by faith and as a mercy to the catholick Church For thereby they are free from the bondage they were in under carnal ordinances which infants are partakers of in actual possession and capable of the spirit though they be not actually visible churchmembers and therefore it is not true that by my doctrine they are kept out of the spiritual church-state And Mr. B. doth much mistake as if the carnal churchstate the Jew had when Christ was come was a priviledge or benefit For though many admirable Elogies were given by God of the Jews Church yet none of them were given of it in Christs time they were a rebebellious and gainsaying peoâ—le a generation of vipers denied the holy one and the just and desired a murtherer made the temple a den of theeves c. And therefore I verily think it was better then to be of no visible Church then to be of theirs As for the Jews who believed not they were justly put out of Gods favour their temple was destroyed and they cast out of their land for denying Christ Yet they were not put out of their carnal churchstate actually for they adhere to it unto this day and it is their curse 4. Saith Mr. B. And where did Mr. T. learn in Scripture to call the Jews churchstate carnal Answ. From 1 Cor. 10.18 where the nation of the Jews are called Israel after the flesh in contradistinctâ—on to the Israel of God or in the Spirit Rom. 9.6 Gal. 6.16 From Rom. 2.28 29. where there is distinction of the Jew outwardly from the Jew inwardly of Circumcision which is outward in the flesh from Circumcision that is of the heart in the spirit not in the letter From Gal. 4.25 26 23 29. where Hierusalem that then was is contradistingued to Hierusalem above and the former is in bondage with her children the later free the children of the former born after the flesh the later after the spirit From Gal. 3.3 where to be of faith is to begin in the spirit to be of the works of the law is to be perfect by the flesh From Ephes. 2.11 where their circumcision is termed circumcision in the flesh made by hands From Philip. 3.3 4 5. where Hebrew discent and churchmembership thereby are termed the flesh From Heb. 9.10 where their ordinances are termed carnal ordinances I had thought this had been so well known to Mr. B. that it needed not proof But he further demands Or what doth he mean by churchstate whether the essential nature of the Church it self or any carnal ordinances of worship which were accidental to it Is not this word churchstate like his former of church call devised terms to darken the matter with ambiguities and signifying what pleaseth the speaker Answ. Neither the term Church state nor Church call were devised by me but are terms ordinary in the writings of Divines I have shewed the use of the later before and proved that the Church hath its denomination and definition from it and that according to Mr. B. himself And for the former me thinks Mr. B. should not be ignorant of it who its likely knows a Book of learned Dr. Usher intituled De visibilis Ecclesiae successient statu And to imagine it to be devised to darken the matter with ambiguities is one of Mr. Bs. evil surmises when the word is as apposite for its use as any term I think Mr. B. can give in stead of it and if it signifie what pleases the speaker it is so much the better for that is the use of words and this later accusation acquits it from darkening the matter with ambiguities if it signifie for that which signifies the speakers mind doth give light and not darken with ambiguities So ridiculous is Mr. Bs. accusation that his later words cross his former And to help Mr. Bs. understanding if I can I tell him I mean by it neither the essential nature of the Church it self nor any carnal ordinances of worship which were accidental to it but the manner of being or qualification incident to it from providence whereby it is denominated flourishing or decaying numerous or small rich in knowledge or poor carnal or spiritual by reason of the way of entry into it as natural descent or faith more or less of the spirit the promises ministery rites c. it hath Which term state comprehends innumerable terms such as are rich and poor noble or ignoble fat or lean and many more which whether they are to be reduced to the predicaments of quality relation or passion or to be called modi entis I leave it to Logicians to determine I hope this will serve to indoctrinate Mr. B. in the meaning of my speech But Mr. B. is resolved to follow me with more questions which he must not expect I will answer as I have done after this bout 5. Saith he And how long might I wait before Mr. T. would prove from Scripture that it is a mercy to the whole catholick Church to have all infants put out or unchurched These are the men that make their followers believe that we have no Scripture for our cause when themselves give us but their magisteâ—ial dictates But I wonder whence he should fetch such a Dream What are infants such â—â—ads or Vipers in comparison of men of years that it is a mercy to the whole catholicke Church to have them cast out Are not the aged worse then they And were we not once all infants Answ. I say not that all infants are put out of the catholick Church and so need not prove it nor had I asserted it was it either in the Dispute or Sermon my work to prove what I said by way of answer but for Mr. B. to disprove it Yet what I assert is distinctly before set down not without some proof from Scripture and I may wait long afore either I shall finde his pretended ordinance of infant visible Churchmembership unrepealed proved from Scripture or my assertions disproved by any solid arguments without idle questions and vain exclamations which I resolve to neglect And of the former sort are the questions here which insinuate as if I conceived it were a mercy to the catholick Church that infants are not in the visible Church Christian as members because they are Toads Vipers worse then the aged whereas I onely say that the dissolving of the Jewish Church national in which and by reason of which infants were visible Churchmembers and no otherwise was in mercy to the catholick Church Which is the very doctrine of the Apostle
phrase tingi disciplina religionis to be sprinkled with the discipline of religion meaning evidently being baptised Where the Dr. by the way doth ill render tingi by sprinkled no Grammarian doth so render it nor doth Tertullian so mean it as in the place may be observed But to the thing This cannot be the meaning of Tertullian in that place 1. The words are these ut opinor autem aliud est aspergâ— vel interciâ—i violentià maris aliud tingi disciplina religionis As I think it is one thing to be sprinkled or intercepted with the violence of the sea as Peter was when against his will he was in the sea anoâ—her thing to be baptised with the discipline of religion that is out of a willing yeilding to baptism by the learning of religion that is knowledge and profession of faith which religion prompts to meaning plainly not the doctrine or command of Christ but the learning or discipline of his own heart in the sense that Tertullian useth after disciplina verecundiae modestiae And that sense which I give the Scope leads to which is to shew neither the Apostles being dashed with the waves when the ship was almost covered nor Peters being almost drowned was Christian baptism because it was not out of a voluntary disposition from that discipline of religion which doth dispose to it but the violence of the sea 2. Tertullian could not mean as the Dr. would sith there is no such institution of Christ either expressed by the Evangelists or by Tertullian The Evangelists express no title to baptism but by the persons own faith or discipleship who is to be baptised as is proved Review part 2 sect 5. And Tertullian in his Book of Baptism a little after the words cited by the Dr. c. 12. expresseth the institution of Baptism thus Lex enim tingendi imposita est forma praescriptae iâ—e inquit docete nationes tingentos eas in nomen patriâ— filii spiritus sancti Huic legi collata definitio illa nisi quis renatus fuerit ex aqua spiritu non intrabit in regnum coelorum obstrinxiâ— fidem ad baptismi necessitatem Itaqae omnes exinde credentes tingebantur And after Nam prius est prâ—dicare posterius tingere and in the 18th chapter gives his reasons against the hastening the baâ—tism of infants as being not necessary which if he had acknowleâ—ged such an institution as the Dr. imagins he could not have said and directs according to the institution Let them come when they grow up when they learn when they are taught wherefore they come let them hee made Christians when they can know Christ and afâ—er prescribes How they should go to baptism with prayer fasting kneeling confessing of sins and in his Book of Repentance cals Baptism the sealing of repentance no where is any such institution of infants Baptism from the faith of one parent and therefore I conclude ex institutionis disciplina is not meant as Dr. Hammond conceives On the other side I conceive that he means by sanctos procreari real holiness future and by ex institutionis disciplina learning of the doctrine or institution of Christ. That the holiness is real saving holiness is gathered first from the joyning together designati sanctitatis ac per hoc etiam salutis which plainly shews that the holiness meant is that by which is salvation 2. This is confirmed in that it is made the effect of being born by water and the spirit 3. Shall enter into the Kingdome of heaven is expounded by sanctus holy 4. It is opposed to that uncleanness which they had in Adam and it is expressed to bee in Christ which must needs bee a real saving holiness 5. If it bee that which is by baptism then it is not baptism it self as the Dr. expounds it but a consequent on it which is no other then saving holiness 6. This is proved from the expression of designatos sanctitatis ac per hoc salutis this is confessed by the Dr. to express the same with procreari sanctos ex institutionis disciplina but designatos sanctitatis hath the sense of designed to be holy that is a believer by education and so saved I will set down the words of a Letter of my learned and much honoured friend and quondam scholler Dr. Wilkins Warden of Wadham Colledge in Oxford who at my request imployed a friend to enquire into the sense of this passage of Tertullian and thus wrote to me As for that phrase Designatos sanctitatis salutis though this reading be approved by Pamelius and de la Cerda in their editions yet 't is corrected by Johannes a Wouwer by that famous Manuscript Copy of Fulvius Ursinus now in the Vatican which hath it Designatos sanctitati Which reading is now generally received as the most genuine as may appear by Rigaltius and Georgius Ambianus in his last and best edition of Tertullian at Paris 1648. And the most proper sense of this phrase must be such as are designed by their parents to a religious education which is likewise signified by that other expression ex instituionis disciplina So that designatos sanctitati ac per hec etiam saluti plainly expresseth that whereas the Pagan idolaters did dedicate and consecrate their children to Devils and thereby made them unclean the children of the believer were brought into the world holy both in that they were free from such pollution and also by prayer vow or resolution designed or intended to be made holy by the disciplin of Christian institution and so to be saved or to enter into the Kingdome of heaven by faith in Christ. 7. This sense is confirmed by the words hujus spei pignora the pledges of this hope which shew that the holiness and salvation meant in the words before was a thing not then existent at the childrens birth but intended and hoped for at age upon endeavours used by the believing parent 8. This interpretation of designatos sanctitatis or sanctitati is confirmed by the expressions of Hierome Epist. 153. to Paulinus where he saith Of thy second Problem Tertullian hath discoursed in his books of Monogamy affirming the children of believers to be called holy because they were as it were candidati fidei candidates of faith and not polluted with any of the filth of Idolatry Which phrase expresseth the same with designatos sanctitati and alludes to those who in Rome stood for Offices in white and notes that the infants were as it were in expectation of being believers and baptized quod veluti ambiunt expectant baptismum as Erasmus in his note on Hierom Epist. 153. to Paulinus or designed that is intended to be holy by the parents that is to be bred up to profess the faith and so to be baptized To this saith Dr. Hammond 1. This of Tertullian is not the place that S. Hierom refers to but some other in his Books de Monogamia that one
Circumcision to prove noâ— the duety yet the lawfulness of infanâ— Baptism 2. The sacrifice which was required at the initiating a Proselyte was a burnt offering of a beast or two Turtle Doves or two young Pigeons both of them for a burnt offering so Maimonides tit Isuri â—iâ— c. 13. as Ainsworth annot on Gen. 17.12 Selden de syned l. 1. c. 3. â—ite him but that is not prayer nor is it any more agreeable to the Jewish custome to use prayer without it then to use circumcision of the heart Col. 2.11 without the outward or the answer of a good conscience towards God without baptism with water and yet the rubrick of the Common Prayer Book in private Baptism allowed if time did not suffer it to be done without so much as saying the Lords Prayer The Dr. adds So parallel to the Court of three Israelites by the confession or profession of whom saith Maimonides the infant was baptized we have now not onely the whole Church in the presence of whom â—tis publikely administred and when more privately yet in the presence of some Christians who are afterwards if there be any doubt to testifie their knowledge to the Church but more particularly the Godfathers and Godmothers being themselâ—es formerly baptized do represent the Church and the Minister commissionated thereto by the Bishop represents the Church also meaning the Governors thereof Answ. Though Baptism by women and others not commissionated by a Bishop have heretofore been tollerated and been taken for currant Baptism and the terming the Governours of the Church the Church be language not like the Scripture but the Canon law and the use of Gossips be a vain device and the Minister commissionated by the Bishop with the Gossips sometimes so ignorant of the knowledge of Christ that they are not fit to bee among Christians nor to be taken to represent a Church of Christ nor do they stand under that notion at the usual baby sprinkling but as sureties or proxies to the child and in private Baptism there 's none of these sometimes yet were all the Dr. saith yeilded this is not according to the Jewish custome which required a kinde of court of three Israelites skilfull in Law to approve it or else it is voâ—d and so as Judges of the Baptism of which sort the other are not The Dr. adds But I shall not proceed to such superfluous considerations and so I have no need of adding one word more of reply to his 24. Chapter as far as I am concerned in it unless it bee to tell him that the Bishopâ— Canons are not the rule by which I undertake to define wherein the Jewish custome must be the pattern wherein not but as he cannot but know if he had read the resolution of the 4th Quaere the practise of the Apostles of Christ by the testifications of the Fathers of the Church made known unto us to which as I have reason to yeild all authority so I finde the Canons and rituals as of this so of all other Churches in the world no one excepted to bâ—ar perfect accordancâ— therewith in this particular of infant Baptism though in other lesser particulars they differ many among themselvs and all from the Jewish pattern And this I hope is a competent ground of my action and such as may justifiâ— it to any Christian Artist to bee according to rules of right reason of meekness and sound doctrine and no work of passion or prejudice or singularity or as Mr. T. suggests of the Drs. own pleasure as if that were the mutable principle of all these variations from the Jewish pattern Answ. 1. To call Cyprian Augustine c. Fathers of the Church which is elsewhere stiled their mother is scarce consistent 2. To yeeld all authority to the practise of the Apostles of Christ by the testifications of the Fathers of the Church made known to us there is no reason this is due onely to the holy Scripture they testifie sundry things as the Apostle practise which was not so they speak sometimes in these things confidently upon false reports this would be an inlet to many superstitions the Canons of Councils and Rituals of Churches are so full of weakness and blemishes as that they would be counted most useless writings â—o direct in faith or worship did not their age make some men dote on them Tâ—at all Churches accord in infant Baptism cannot be true The Common Prayer book is not justifiable in the allowing that which is termed privat baptism in the use of sureties their mimical or fals answers saying they desire to be baptized when it is not so The Drs. exposition Letter of resol q 4 § 116. I believe i. e. this child stands bound by by thâ—se presents to believe c. is so ridiculous and Augustines tom 2. Ep. 28 ad â—oniâ—acium is like it as that did not prejudice oâ— preingagemâ—nt or some other like reason prevail with Dr. H. he would never defend it That which the Dr. makes a competent ground of his action doth not justifie his tenet of infant Baptism to be according to rules of reason and sound doctrine whether he vary or not in his determinations from that which hee makes the paâ—tern as hee pleaseth or the Bishops Canons order let the Reader juâ—ge by what is said and that which followes Of this score saith he 't is somewhat strange which he thinks fit to add concerning the form of Baptism in the name of the Father and the â—on and the Holy Ghost In â—his one thing saith he which Christ did noâ— prescribe nor did the Apostles that we finde so conceive it yet saith the Dr. Christs prescription must be indispensably used In reply to this I shall not sâ—end much time to evidence this form to bee Christs prescription if the express words aâ— his parting from the world Matth. 28. â—o ye theâ—â—fore and â—ach or receive â—o discipleshâ—p all naâ—â—ons baptizing them in the nâ—me of the Father and the Son and the Holy â—host be not a prescription oâ— Christs and if the universal doctrine and continual practise of the whole Church through all times be not testimâ—ny sufficient of the Apostles conceiving it 〈◊〉 and a competent ground of the indispensable continuing the use of it I shall not hope to perswade with him onely I shall minde him of the words of S. Athanasius in his Epistle to Sâ—rapion tom p. 204. He that is noâ— baptized into the name of all three receives nothing remains empty and imperfect For perfection is in the Trinity no Baptism perâ—â—â— iâ— seems but that And if â—his will not yet suffice I shall then onely demand whether he can prodâ—ce â—o express grounds from Christ or the Apostles or the univâ—rsal Church of God through all agâ—â— or from any one ancient Father for his denying Baptism to infanâ—s Answ What grounds we can produce â—rom Christ and Apostles for denying infant Baptâ—sm may be seâ—n in 〈◊〉 Part of this Review
by their inveighing against deferring â—aptism I answer 1. That I have not been mistaken appears by that which goes before 2. They speak not against deferring infants Baptism but for it though they speak against the deferring it by the aged 4. To what I said of their opinion of the necessity of and practise of infant Communion he saith All did not so though some of the Affricans did I answer The chiefest of them and some of them Europaeans held it Dr. Field 3d. book of the Church ch 1. saith According to the old custome used in the primitive Church the Greeks minister the Sacrament of the Eucharist to children when they baptise them And Ortelius in his Theat where he describes the Abissins in Affrica saith To all the baptised the same moment they minister the holy Eucharist 5. â—o what â— said of their baptizing infidels children he saith It was not their constant and general practise But it appâ—ars not but that it was practiâ—ed and alâ—owed of as well as the other 6. To my words that the ancientest testimony for prâ—ctise according to any rule determined is Cyprian near 300 years after Christ he saith he must needs take notice of my overlashing and I reply â— must needs take notice of his overlashing in again mentioning Justin Marâ—yr as a witness though the book be but suppositioâ—s and Irenaeus when â—e saith nothing of it and Origen who is dâ—ubtfull and Tertullian who is against it and excepting against my words as overlashing wâ—en the first determination of it in any Councel was that of Cyprian with hiâ— 66. Bishops which as Dr. Hammond saith was anno 257. near 3â—0 years after Christ. 7. To my words that infant Baptism was not from the beginning Austins semper habuit semper tenuâ—t is opposed to which how little credit is to be given is shewed Apol. § 16. heâ—e sect 8â— and in thiâ— before 8. â—o my alledging the proposal of the questions of repentance and faith to infants as a sign that none but those who answered the â—uâ—stioâ—s were formerly baptized it is said This supposeth these questions to be of as ancient use in the Church of God as Baptism iâ—self whiâ—h certainly you can never prove from Scripture I have produced testimonies for infant Baptism afore any you can bring to witness that those forms of questions and answers had any being in the Church But I think the question of faith plâ—inly proved Act 8. â—7 to be anâ—ecedent to Baptism and the words of Beza annot on 1 Pet. 3 21. are thus Yet to me more nearly now considering the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it doth seâ—m better to agree that we interpret it stipulation and that we say the Apostle had respect to the interrogations of Catechists in which the caâ—echised even then did testifie their more inward Baptism to be confirmed by the outward as Act. 8.37 to which the whole Apostolick Creed looks and that from the Baptism of adult persons by a great errour if we look to infants themselves translated to the Baptism of infants Doest thou believe I do believe Doest thou renounce I do renounce Whence that of Tertullian which is as if it were in stead of a Commentary on this place in his Book of the Resurrection of the flesh the soul is not confirmed or sanctified by washing but by answering Tertullian de corona militis Aquam adituri ibidem sed aliquanto prius in Ecclesia sub antisâ—itis manu contestamur nos renunciare Diaâ—olo pompae angelis ejus Dehinc ter inergitamur amplius aliquid respondentes quam Dominus in Evangelio determinavit Grot. in Mat. 28.19 proves the profession of faith out of Justin Martyr who saith expresly Apol. 2. That the baptised did promise to â—â—ve according to the Christian Doctrine and out of â—gnatius Irenaeus Tertullian c. what they answered who weâ—e baptiseâ— In the Councel of Basil in the Oration of the Cardinal of Rag sium it is said In principio hujus sacramenti baptizabantur solum illi qui per se sciebant fidem interroganti respondere The testimonies of this kind are so â—any that I think it superfluous to alledge them The very form of Common Prayer in propounding thâ—se questions as they were in Augustines time to infants is evidence enough of the antiquity of that custome of propounding questions to the baptized 9. To what I said of the examples of Greg Nazian Chrysos Augus Const the Great to whom I might have added Hierome of whom Erasmus in his life testifies of his birth of Christian parents yet not baptized till of age Mr. M. answers by referring to what is said before And I intreat the Reader to look back to what I say before sect 89 90. and this 10. In like manner the evidences against infant Baptism from Tertullians and Gregory Nazianzen disswasion the testimony of the Councel of Neocaesaria the silence of Eusebius Epiphanius Athanasius the constant terming it an Apostolical tradition are referred to what is before said by Mr. M. and by me to my answers to him and others in those Sections and sect 88. For Grotius what reason I had to alledge him may be easily discerned by those that know his aâ—ilities Censura censurae was unknown to me as yeelding me any advantage 〈◊〉 Mr. M. here minded me of that book What Vives speaks he had good evidence for as in part may be seen in what is said before Strabo's testimony is such as Vossius his exception doth not weaken but is sundry ways confirmed here That I could have brought more testimonies it hath appeaâ—ed in part by this writing and in part by my Praecusor sect 20 and my answer to Dr. Savage in Latine sect 13. The more I search iâ— to the point of antiquity the more I am confirmed in my position that infant Baptism is not so ancient as is pretended as now taught is a late innovation Nor am I alteâ—ed from the opinion I had that none before Zuinglius taught infant Baptism as a priviledge of believers children from federal holiness Tertullians and Athanasius his words serve not turn to prove it nor Epiphanius Cyprian Nazianzen Augustine or Chrysostome so taught it from Circumcision as due to them by vertue of the Covenant to a believer and his seed but in other manner as is before shewed Nor doâ—h the Pelagians acknowledgement serve Mr. Ms. â—urn therein The more testimonies Mr. M. might have added had added no more weight to the cause then those he alledged have done I did not charge the Ancients that they held that all who died unbaptised were damned but that in the case of infants born they taught that if they died unbaptized they should not enter into the Kingdome of Heaven but perish or be damned though with the mildest damnation And this is manifest enough from Cyprians Epistle to Fidus and very many places of Augustine Tertullian l. de Bapt. c. 12. Câ—m verò prascribitur nemini