lest any should stumble at this that the Promise here made Gen. 12. was not confirmed till Abraham was circumcised he is to remember that St. Paul expresly teaches the contrary Gal. 3. 17. as I have shewed And I will add the Judgment of a learned Writer upon the place who writes thus That the Gospel was preached to Abraham and the Covenant of Grace revealed to him we have asserted in such full terms in the Context as none can rationally doubt thereof and moreover in verse 17. we have the time of God's establishing this Covenant with him so exactly noted it was saith the Text 430 Years before the giving of the Law viz. on Mount Sinai now the Law was given in a very little time after the Children of Israel came out of Egypt and from the Beginning of the first Promise to Abraham which was Gen. 12. 3. unto that very Night in which the Children of Israel were brought out of their Egyptian Bondage is the Computation of these Years made as will be evident to him that shall diligently compare the Chronologie of those times with the express Testimony of Moses Exod. 12. 41. And it came to pass at the end of 430 Years even the self-same Day it came to pass that all the Host of the Lord went out of the Land of Egypt From the time of the first Promise to the end of Israel's sojourning in the Land of Egypt was 430 Years though their Abode in Egypt was not near so long And hence saith he we collect that in the Transaction of God with Abraham recorded Gen. 12. he did solemnly confirm his Covenant with him although Moses makes not express mention of the term Covenant until occasion be offered Gen. 15. 18. for the Promise there mentioned the Apostle-asserts to be the Covenant confirmed of God in Christ unto Abraham The Sum of all that has been said is this That the Covenant of Circumcision properly taken is not the Covenant of Grace or a Gospel-Covenant nor the Sign thereof Circumcision a Gospel-Ordinance as the Doctor maintains and affirms that Circumcision did seal to its Subjects the same Grace as Baptism does now which cannot stand with Reason because those who had been circumcised should not then have been baptized for Remission of Sins for if Circumcision did seal that Grace to its Subjects why should it be now conferred in Baptism they came to Baptism not as Righteous but as Sinners The Doctor 's long Paraphrase on Rom. 4. is rather destructive of than advantagious to Infant-Baptism For whilst therein he makes Faith yea such as enables Men to walk in the Steps of Abraham ' s Faith the absolute Condition of the Covenant c. he can never make Infants the Sons and Daughters of Abraham by Faith yet he endeavours to do this by telling us that the Faith and Consent of the Father or the Godfather or Congregation under which he was circumcised was believed of old by the Jews to be imputed to the Child as his own Faith and Consent 1 Maccab. 2. 46. They had very good Ground saith he in Scripture for this their Opinion because the Infidelity and Disobedience of the Parents in wilfully neglecting or despising Circumcision was imputed to the Children And to strengthen this Jewish Doctrine he brings Austin with his accommodat illis Mater Ecclesia aliorum pedes ut veniant aliorum cor ut credunt aliorum Linguam ut fateantur To all which very strange Doctrines we reply By the Doctor 's quoting 1 Maccab. 2. 46. it appears that the Cannonical Books would afford no Relief for these Jewish Fables And he that looks upon the place in Maccabees can find no ground to say that the Jews there did circumcise any Children upon the Faith of Parents or God-fathers for they did not stay for Consent of Parents but circumcised them valiantly or by Force as in the Margin which I take to be a bad Precedent to be brought into the Christian Church tho God knows they have been too forward in such violent Proceedings And no less strange and unsound is his Interpretation of Gen. 17. 14. where he would make the Sin of Parents to be imputed to the uncircumcised Infant In which he is not so well advised as some Papists and contrary to the Doctrine of Learned Protestants who both in this case acquit the Infant both from Sin and Punishment Cajetan tho a Papist speaks well Consentaneum est saith he It is fit that none should be punished but they which had committed the Fault but Infants can commit no Fault therefore the Punishment here design'd doth belong only to the grown Persons for they only are justly punished who only are justly blamed for the omission of Circumcision And Dr. Willit a Protestant speaks to the same sense It is no good reading saith he to say the uncircumcised Manchild but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Male for the Infant of eight Days old is of purpose omitted here though mentioned ver 12. Hence then is inferred that there was no such absolute necessity of Circumcision that Children wanting it should be damned And saith Mr. Diodate This is not to be understood of Children but of those who by reason of their Age were capable of voluntary Rebellion refusing or contemning the use of the Sacrament As for Augustin his Church accommodating Infants with others Feet to come to be baptized and with the Hearts of others to believe and the Tongues of others to confess it shews that in his Judgment Baptism ought not to be given but where 't is sought for and where there is Faith and Confession going before it But that one may do these things for another that is one believe and another to be baptized we will answer it as Jerom did another case Non credimus quia non legimus We cannot find it ought to be so neither in the Old Testament nor in the New and therefore we believe it not And let the Doctor consider whether upon such Presumptions as these he may not allow the Feet Heart and Mouth of others for the Dead that they also may be baptised from 2 Maccab. 12. 43 44. The Truth is should we admit the Dictates of the Doctor in this and many Parts of his Book it cannot be avoided but that many Innovations and Superstitions used by the Papists and others would obtrude upon us In page 6 7. the Doctor tells us That the Gentiles who were born of Gentiles in Abraham ' s House or bought with Mony as Servants were and Blacks are now among us were the spiritual Seed of Abraham and Children of the Covenant And thus also he makes the Medes Persians and Idumeans to be constituted in the Jewish Church by Regeneration as the Church Christian is and calls them the Spiritual Seed of Abraham because they were turned Jews and lived according to the Ceremonies of the Law. Which how uncertain these Dictates are may be seen when we consider that St. Paul
quoting the Text thus In whom also they are circumcised with the Circumcision made without Hands in putting off the Body of the Sins of the Flesh by the Circumcision of Christ Having been buried with him in Baptism Does not the Doctor by this Addition to the Text assert the thing which he would deny or else denies what Paul asserts for St. Paul does make Circumcision a Shadow or Figure of the Circumcision of Christ made without Hands why else does he call the Work of Grace in the Heart by that Name of Circumcision as he also doth Rom. 2. 29 But the Doctor does refer this Circumcision to Baptism having been buried with him in Baptism but then if this be his meaning Circumcision must needs have something in it umbratical of Baptism which yet he denies and therein contradicts Mr. Philpot who affirms even Baptism to be the Circumcision made without Hands The Truth is this Text can never be made serviceable to Infant-Baptism as Mr. Philpot and the Doctor would have it seeing no more are here said to be baptized than had put off the Body of the Sins of the Flesh Nor as we have it Rom. 6. no more are here buried with Christ in Baptism than were dead with him And this alone might serve to shew that God expects not that Infants should be baptized seeing they can neither die to Sin nor rise to Newness of Life and to what purpose they should be buried before they be dead no good reason can be shewed Here we are told again that Circumcision was a real Consignation of the Covenant of Grace every way as real and substantial an Ordinance as Baptism is now It is only called a Seal in the special case of Abraham And if it was every way as real and substantial as Baptism is now to what end were the Circumcised baptized also in the Jewish Church as the Doctor says they were And why does Paul call it a beggarly Element And how could it be the Yoke of Bondage or the Obligation to it and a Seal of the Covenant of Grace too A Seal or Sign of the Covenant of Grace frees Men from the Yoke of Bondage and of this Evangelical Baptism is a real and substantial Consignation where the Subject is qualified for it Had Circumcision been such a real and sustantial Ordinance to consign the Covenant of Grace it would not have ceased if St. Paul's Argument hold Heb. 10. 1 2. But it is abolished as well as other Ceremonies of the Law which is a sign it did not make the Comers thereunto perfect any more than the other Legal Ceremonies Whereas had it consign'd the Covenant of Grace more could not be expected from a ritual to make the Subjects of it perfect And this Perfection have the Ordinances of the Gospel as we have shewed before but here the Ceremonies of the Law failed CHAP. III. Wherein the Doctor 's first Question is answered viz. Whether Infants are capable of Baptism THE Doctor counts it Rashness to deny Infants to be capable of Baptism and saith Nothing can reflect more Dishonour upon the Wisdom of God and the Practice of the Jewish Church And the Sum of what he brings to prove them capable of Baptism is to repeat what he has said before about the Identity of the Covenant of Circumcision and that which is made with us in the Gospel and concludes that because Infants were admitted to Circumcision therefore they are to be admitted to Baptism and affirms that Circumcision was as spiritual an Ordinance as Baptism yea that it was a Gospel-Ordinance If therefore I repeat the same things which I have said before the Reader will I hope hear with that for Answer then I say though we deny not but that the Covenant of Circumcision did comprehend all those Dignities which pertain'd to Abraham for the Greatness of his Faith to be the Father of many Nations yet every Man that reads and considers the Tenor of the Covenant as set down Gen. 17. may easily see these things belonged to none but him and therefore Circumcision could seal the Righteousness of Faith in those peculiar Promises whether we consider the numerousness of his Seed or that Christ should be born of his Seed and so the Nations blessed in his Seed but to Abraham only because none of these Promises were made to any but to him We have also shewed how and in what respects the Covenant of Circumcision could not be the Covenant of Grace because none but Abraham ' s Family was bound to keep it nor damned no nor blamed if they did not enter into it but the case is otherwise with the Gospel for now God commandeth by the Gospel all Men every where to repent and he that believeth not the Gospel when made known to him shall be damned Can it enter into the Doctor 's Heart to think that all the World was now left under Condemnation without Mercy except Abraham and his Family Surely it was not in the Days of Abraham as it was in the Days of Noah as if God had only found Abraham righteous before him in all the Earth No we have proved there were other righteous Men and some superiour to Abraham himself wherefore God's peculiar Kindness to Abraham did not argue that God had rejected and taken the Covenant of Grace from all the World besides but it is certainly a presumptuous way of arguing that because God made Infants of eight days old capable of Circumcision by his Command to circumcise them that therefore we ought to take them to be capable of Baptism tho we have no Command to baptize them and then fly to the Identity of the Covenants to make it good when there is no Identity at all to be found between them But to concess a little Let us now suppose for Argument sake that the Covenant of Circumcision was the Covenant of Grace as the Doctor would have it yet it will not follow that an Interest in the Covenant of Grace does infer an immediate Right always either to Circumcision or Baptism and this the Doctor must grant because Infants of five six or seven days old had an Interest in the Covenant made with Abraham and yet had no right to Circumcision till the eighth day Also the Infants of the other Patriarchs had an Interest in the Covenant of Grace yet had no right to Circumcision at all Nor could they nor the Patriarchs themselves be cut off from the Covenant of Grace tho they were not circumcised And all the Females of Abraham's Family had Interest in the Covenant of Grace but had no right to Circumcision and the reason was God did not appoint them to be circumcised And yet so foolish have some Nations been as to circumcise Females without any command from God and therefore it s less strange that Men now force on their Superstition of Infant Baptism without God's Command also But what if all the Infants in the World be under the Mercy of
Compassion yearn upon him and here I restore him and before you all wash him with pure Water to signify that he is cleansed and restored to his Birth-right Could any Man say that the Action was insignificant because the Child knew nothing of it Now in this Similitude the Doctor begs almost every thing in question between us As 1. That all that are attainted with Original Sin must be washed with Water as a sign that they are cleansed from it 2. That God vouchsafes the Bowels of Compassion to such Infants only as he intends shall be baptized 3. That he does not require the Party baptized to understand or take notice of any thing but bids the by-standers take notice of these Things And 4. this Similitude supposes that all Rules about Infant Baptism are plainly delivered by our Heavenly King when not one of these things are true But the Doctor does very ill to suppose that to be a true Gospel-Sacrament which wants the inward and spiritual Grace as in this Similitude there is no knowledg or consent on the part of him that is baptized but a meer force is put upon him And yet when the Doctor can shew us what Infants in particular the Bowels of God does yearn towards and his Will that they be cleansed by washing with Water that shall suffice to make them capable of Baptism But before we leave this Similitude let us consider whether the Foundation of it be sound Are Infants indeed such attainted Persons Sure no for whatsoever was their Case considered in sinful Adam yet when through Christ Adam was redeemed that is virtually by the Promise of a Saviour Gen. 3. 15. all Infants who then were all in him had the Attainder taken off as much as from Adam himself John 1. 29. So that this Attainder of Treason against Infants as they proceed from Adam is but a Fancy and to think that he has left Original Sin to be washed away by Baptism from poor innocent Babes is another Fancy and yet these were the Grounds on which Infant Baptism was built at first and many are yet under the dominion of this Mistake We conclude then that through the free Mercy of God in the Gift of Christ the Attainder of Sin which lay against Infants to Condemnation was taken away from the Foundation of the World and that Baptism was not ordained of God to take away Original Sin but for the Remission of Actual Sins upon Repentance and Faith. Nor does it appear in all God's Book that he appointed any Ritual no not Circumcision it self to take away Original Sin and he that shall assert it will be intangled in so many Difficulties as he cannot escape For what then took Original Sin from all Males that died before the eighth Day And what became of all Females and Male Infants throughout the World Did God leave them all under a Malady without any Remedy And though the Doctor insists never so much upon that Apochryphal Story of Infant Baptism among the Jews before the coming of John Baptist yet as himself yields p. 18. it was not of Divine Institution so it is looked upon to be a Fable by the Learned of his own Church who tell us as we have shewed That Rabbi Eliezer denies that there was any such Baptism among the Jews though Rabbi Joshua does affirm it To whom shall I give credit saith that Learned Protestant to Eliezer who asserted what the Scripture confirms that there was no such Baptism among the Jews or to Joshua who affirms what is no where to be found in Scripture I am not concerned in their answer who do prove Infants more capable of Circumcision than of Baptism because it left a Character in their Flesh But I answer whatsoever makes any Person capable of Baptism the revealed Will of God to order it so is the chief us for Example some Infants might be as capable of Circumcision on the 7th day as others on the 8th yet those of 7 days were not at all capable of Circumcision So that for Men to insist upon their Conjectures about Infants Capacity or Incapacity is but to wander in the Dark It must be the Institution of Baptism the Commission for the use of it in all Nations and the Example of Christ and his Apostles and Churches by them constituted that must decide this Question Whether Infants are capable of Baptism CHAP. IV. Answereth the Doctor 's second Question Whether Infants are excluded from Baptism AND here in the first place saith the Doctor I must observe that the Question ought to be proposed in these Terms and not whether Christ hath commanded Infants to be baptized For as a good Author observes of the River Nile we ought not to ask the Reason why Nile overflows so many days about the Summer Solstice But why it doth not overflow all the Year long But by his Favour he is as wife a Man that asks the first Question as he that asks the second And I know but one Answer to be given to both and that is chiefly and before all things It is the Will of God to order it so Now let this be apply'd to the case in hand And the Will of God shall determine who are and who are not to be baptized And let the Doctor here resolve me whether God excluded Infants of 6 or 7 days old from Circumcision when yet there is no negative Law you shall not circumcise them and he will soon answer his own Question For his Answer must be seeing God did not appoint Infants of 7 days old to be circumcised therefore he did not admit them to it and our Answer is the same Christ did not command to baptize Infants therefore he does not admit them to it And it is observed by some learned Men that tho Negative Commands do usually exclude yet it is also true that an Institution of God and an affirmative Command does exclude all that is above or besides that Command and Institution And they bring Levit. 10. 1 2 to justify what they say For Nadab and Abihu came to a dismal end And saith Diodate Though the Command was not given before yet it was a Sin in undertaking the contrary before God's mind was known And so may the Doctor find the same Acceptance in going where he has no Law to direct him though there were no negative to forbid him however we dare not follow him because we fear the Lord who if we add to his Word will reprove both him and us Prov. 30. 6. But here again the Doctor would build his Infant-Baptism upon that Jewish Tradition of baptizing the Infants of Proselytes though he knows they had no Authority from Heaven for it And we have shewed from a learned Author in chap. 2. that it's very probable there was no such thing And it 's very strange that the Doctor or others should suffer themselves to be thus deluded from the Simplicity of the Gospel by the Jews Talmud which
the Learned Buxtorf explodes with such Indignation Whence saith he was the Talmud sent to us that from thence we should think that the Law of Moses either can or ought to be understood much less the Gospel which they were prefessed Enemies unto And yet now this is become one of the chief Refuges of this Doctor and of Dr. Hammond before him for the Support of Infant-Baptism And it 's strange that the Doctor should hope by such Arguments to bring any Credit to the cause of Infant Baptism He might as well have referred us to the Turkish Alcoran where divers Washings are also mentioned Page 32 33. Upon this tottering Foundation the Doctor builds divers Suppositions as first That if Christ had not changed the Seal of the Covenant but had said Go make all Nations my Disciples circumcising them I appeal saith he to any impartial Mans Judgment whether the Apostles would not have presumed that it was Christs Intention that the Infants of adult Proselites should be circumcised And in a Word saith he there lay no Obligation upon our Blessed Lord to lay aside the Practice of Infant Baptism as being inconsistent either with the free or manly or universal Nature of the Christian Church I answer 1. The case which the Doctor puts is not at all rational but upon this Presupposition that the Disciples had known the Law before given to Israel and their Practice in that case but they knew no such Law to have been given to any Nation in the case of Baptism so that they must only keep to the Words of their Commission and the Practice of their Master who made and baptized Disciples and none else John 4. 1. 2. I must needs tell the Doctor that Christ was obliged to disapprove and make void the Custom of the Jews in baptizing Infants if they did so seeing it was but their own Tradition and that from the Tenor of his own Doctrine Matth. 15. 9. Mark 7. In vain do ye worship me teaching for Doctrine the Commandments of Men. For it was their divers Traditional Washings which he was here opposing And seeing the Doctor grants their Infant Baptism was but a humane Institution the Pharisees might have replied to our Saviour Why dost thou reprove our Washings Dost not thou also allow the Doctrine of Men in the case of Infant-Baptism Teachest thou another and teachest not thy self And now the Doctor 's Suppositions will tumble down of themselves for seeing the Apostles knew no such Practice as baptizing Infants by God's Appointment in the Jewish Church and they having heard their Master condemn all Washings in Religion founded only on humane Authority as being but vain Worship and now receiving no Commandment as the Doctor must also confess to baptize Infants Matth. 28. 20. they were sufficiently forbidden to baptize any Infants by Christ's severe Censure against the Jews for worshipping God after their own Tradition And therefore though the Doctor thinks he has given some reason why he stated the Question as you have heard yet I humbly tell him he was therein very unreasonable in that he would beg the whole Controversy whilst he will suppose nay conclude that Infant-Baptism had been the immemorial Practice of the Jewish Church and approved or not censured by our Saviour And then indeed if this were true his Suppositions might beguile a wiser Man than I am But all this being meer sophistical beggarly and presumptuous Insinuations it is to me a great Evidence against Infant-Baptism But now the Doctor p. 34 35. will shew that Matth. 28. 19. Mark 16. 16. Heb. 6. 1 2. does not so much as consequentially prohibit Infant-Baptism And because we think these places do evidently shew that Christ in the two first could not impose any such thing upon his Apostles as to teach Infants and so not to baptize them because all that he commands them to baptize he commands them first to teach or preach the Gospel to them And Heb. 6. 1 2. shews very plainly that Baptism does not go before but follows Repentance and Faith and therefore cannot with any shew of Truth or Reason from hence belong to Infants but the contrary I fay because we thus think and teach from these Scriptures the Doctor says we are grievously mistaken because these and the like Texts do of themselves no more prove that grown Persons are the only Subjects of Baptism than the Words of the Apostle 2 Thess 3. 10. proves that grown Persons only are to eat From whence in their sophistical way it may be argued thus It belongs only to grown Persons to eat because the Apostle requires that Persons who eat should first work But I reply The Doctor does here greatly wrong both the Apostle and us 1. The Apostle does not say Any that does not work shall not eat for he knew that grown Persons who are sick and weak as well as Infants cannot work But he says If any would not work these only are they who shall not eat i. e. such as are able and yet being idle would not work Is this fair for the Doctor to pervert the Words of the Text 2. He abuses us for we do not baptize any grown Persons meerly as such No all that we baptize are or at least profess to be new-born Babes in Christ Now our Saviour designing Baptism to be the Laver of Regeneration must needs prohibit those of whose Regeneration no Judgment can be made nor Demonstration given by any Man whatsoever Surely the Doctor has little reason to talk of his discovering the fallaciousness of our Arguing But he says he will further shew the Weakness and Fallacy of our Argument Let us hear him do that Suppose saith the Doctor there were a great Plague in any Country and God should miraculously call an eleven or twelve Men and communicate to them a certain Medicine against this Plague and say unto them Go into such a Country and call the People together and teach them the Virtues of this Medicine and assure them that he that believeth and taketh it from you shall live but he that believeth not shall die Vpon this Supposition I demand of these Dissenters if the words of such Commission would be sufficient to conclude that it was God's intention that they should administer his revealed Medicine to none but grown Persons because they only could be called together and taught the Virtues of it and believe or disbelieve them that brought it No certainly this way of arguing would not be admitted by any rational Man c. I answer This Similitude is very fallacious and deceitful supposing what is not to be supposed in our Case no I think not in the Doctor 's own Judgment For 1st no Infant is under the Disease or Plague here meant or intended by the Similitude For seeing Christ has taken off their original Pollution they are just Persons that need no Repentance they are to be distinguished from Infidels Whoremongers Drunkards Swearers Idolaters superstitious and
seeing there was a Multitude of Strangers did go with the Israelites and they are distinguished from the Children of Israel Exod. 12. 38. Numb 11. 4. But S. Paul appropriates Baptism in the Cloud and in the Sea to the Fathers all our Fathers c. Now for any to add and all their Infants is a Presumption not to be justified It is not said that Israel or all Israel were baptized which had it been so express'd would have more favoured the Notion And yet we know that the words Israel and all Israel do not include Infants in many places for example Exod. 14. 31. 15. 1. Deut. 13. 11. Josh 7. 25. much less can they be here called Fathers and such Fathers too as did feed upon Christ in Manna c. as well as were baptized unto Moses in the Cloud c. It must needs be very dangerous to insist upon this Miracle at the Red Sea as a Rule to us to baptize Infants the Cause is weak which needs such Arguments to defend it The Doctor sets down many other Texts in his Margin which I have also put down in mine that the Reader may peruse them and see if he can find any footing for Infant-Baptism in any of them the most likely in the Doctor 's own Judgment is Psal 51. 5. and yet we know that David's Infant which was born in Adultery was saved without Circumcision or Baptism And the Doctor confesses that the Requisite Necessity of Infant-Baptism cannot be demonstrated from these Texts without the Tradition of the ancient Church And there is no such authentick Tradition to be found whatever is pretended for he brings none from the first Churches at all And that there is no such Tradition Dr. Jer. Taylor is a great witness who in his Disswasive from Popery and in his Rule of Conscience informs us There is no prime or Apostolical Tradition for Infant-Baptism That it was not practised till about the 3d Century and judged necessary about the 4th That Children of Christian Parents were not baptized till they came to Vnderstanding in the first Ages That Dipping and not Sprinkling was the Vsage of Christ and his Apostles and the constant Doctrine and Practice of the Ancients for many hundred Years See also Mr. Tombes 3d part of Review But after all this the Doctor is pleased to allow Salvation to Infants which die unbaptized Because saith he we ought not to tie God to the same means to which he hath tied us It seems then God hath not tied Infants to any Necessity of Baptism nor can he prove that he hath tied us to baptize them But now he will try another way to enforce his Arguments Suppose saith he that Scripture and Tradition stood against Infant-Baptism in the same Posture as now it stands for it it would not be unjustifiable for any sort of Men to separate from the Church for not baptizing Infants Let us suppose that Christ had said I suffer not little Children to come to me for the Kingdom of God is not of such and that we had been assured by the Writers of the two next Ages to the Apostles that then there was no baptizing Infants I appeal unto them whether it would not be highly unreasonable to separate from all the Churches in the World for not allowing Infant-Baptism against the concurrence of such a Text to the contrary and the Sense and Practice of the Catholick Church The meaning of the Doctor I take to be this that as it is highly unreasonable to separate from a Church who upon a doubtful or probable ground only does give Baptism to Children so it would be highly unreasonable to separate from a Church who upon a like doubtful or probable ground only should refuse to baptize Infants I confess this is an odd way of disputing for here the Churches supposed to err on either side are yet supposed themselves to be true Churches and only erring about such a doubtful Practice as this on the one side or on the other But alas the case is far different between the Church of England and us For she is wholly made up of Persons thus doubtfully baptized nay perhaps not baptized at all whatever she pretends and by this doubtful Baptism she is disclaiming all other Baptism in respect of all her Members for some hundreds of Years Otherwise I must confess had I lived in the Church in the beginning of the third Century when Infant-Baptism was creeping in there was then a Church truly baptized distinct from the Infants who here and there might perhaps be baptized upon such supposed Grounds as are mentioned by the Doctor here I say a Separation would in my Judgment have been unwarrantable it being but an ill Principle to separate from a true Church tho incumbred with some Error But should I have lived till this doubtful Baptism was forced on with Anathema's till it had overtopped and quite destroyed in such a Church all Practice of baptizing Believers in respect of her Members and that the whole Church were now become doubtful to me whether she had any Baptism at all And therewith that she had apparently left the due form of Baptism which she had formerly observed Then I think no Man could blame me if I left this Communion to sit down with those who did yet retain the ancient and only undoubted Baptism both for Subject and manner of Administration and this is our very case Now seeing it is impossible for us or any Body else to hold ample Communion with all sorts of Christians and there are some good folk amongst them all why should any one of these Parties whether Papists Prelatists Presbyterians c. expect that all should come to them or why should the Doctor think we ought to joyn Communion with his Party more than others unless they could not err as well as the rest But seeing that is not to be pretended we must all satisfy our own Souls as well as we can where to communicate and where to forbear for with all we cannot have Communion let us not then grudg one against another about this necessary Christian Liberty Page 60. The Doctor attempts to prove his Tradition not doubtful but certain in the case of infant-Infant-Baptism to which purpose he insists on that Rule given by Vincentius Lyrinensis viz. Vniversality Antiquity and Consent But I have shewed already that all these being truly taken are all wanting in the case of infant-Infant-Baptism because as for other reasons so for these in particular 1. The Churches in the Apostles days baptized no Infants And 2. The Greek Churches to this day do retain the Custom of delaying Baptism which yet is no delay to Children till they make Profession of their Faith and the Doctor confesses a few of the Fathers were against it And there might be more for ought he knows though not counted among such Fathers that might deserve as well as any And it is known that many very learned and good
the Law and to nail them to his Cross as we have shewed not to establish them in his Church But the Truth is whoever revives them pulls down his Church And it were the false Apostles that would have conformed the Church of Christ to the Platform of the old Jewish Church Acts 15. 5. But the true Apostles withstood them and decreed that the new Church should observe no such things but they establish what the Light of Grace and the positive Law of God had made necessary before to all Mankind Acts 15. 23 to 30. Gen. 9. 4. Thus far were the Apostles from building the Church of Christ with Jewish Materials That as the great Curcellaeus says The Apostle writ that Epistle to let the Gentiles know they were freed from Moses's Law lest by their hearing him read every Sabbath they might think they were bound to obey his Laws And it is strange that the Doctor should now make Christ and his Apostles Anabaptists as he does for he will have them to have been baptised as well as circumcised to initiate them into the Jewish Church and he will have that very Baptism consecrated by Christ instead of Circumcision to initiate into his Church sure he has little reason to write against Anabaptism when he is one of the greatest Asserters of it that ever was but more of this pretended Baptism anon St. Paul above all the rest rejects the old Materials and builds all with new Old things are passed away behold all things are become new 2 Cor. 5. There is verily a disannulling of the Commandment going before for the Weakness and Vnprofitableness thereof Heb. 7. 18. He calls the whole Mass of Jewish Ceremonies Beggarly Elements And is it like that he would build the Gospel-Church with such Materials much less with that supposed Baptism of Jewish Proselytes or of Jews themselves which the Doctor knows was at best but of Mans Institution Let us view the old Jewish Church and the new Gospel-Church in a few Particulars briesly The Members of the Jewish Church were Natural called natural Branches Rom. 11. that is they were the Seed of Abraham according to the Flesh The Members of the Christian Church are spiritual grafted contrary to Nature into the good Olive and born of God. The Circumcision of the Jewish Church was outward in the Flesh made with Hands The Circumcision of the Gospel-Church is that of the Heart in the Spirit made without Hands in putting off the Body of the Sins of the Flesh by the Circumcision of Christ Their Sacrifices were carnal carnal Ordinances Heb. 10. Our Sacrifices are Spiritual 1 Pet. 2. 2 3 4. Their Ministers were chosen of one Family or Tribe and did succeed by natural Descent and were Ministers of the Letter Ours are given by Christ as the Fruit of his Ascension into Heaven and are Ministers of the Spirit Ephes 4. Their two Sacraments served chiefly to seal their Right to the Land of Canaan and that the Messiah should come of the Seed of Abraham according to the Flesh and to commemorate their Deliverance out of Egypt Ours seal Remission of Sins by Faith in the Blood of Jesus and our Inheritance in the Kingdom of Heaven to all Eternity In short Their Services made nothing perfect Heb. 10. Ours present every Man perfect in Christ Jesus Col. 1. 28. But let us come to this pretended Insant-Baptism among the Jews which is so much made use of by the Doctor as if it were the very thing that must give Life to Insant-Baptism in the Christian Church And indeed Dr. Hammond from whom this Doctor seems to borrow much makes the Jewish baptizing of Proselytes the Original and ours but the Copy That our Saviour should thus highly approve of a Jewish Ceremony as to consecrate it to be the initiatory Sacrament into his Church is no way to be believed For he condemned all such Ceremonies of their own devising to be but vain Worship Mat. 15. 9. and will he then establish this their Tradition if indeed they had any such The Baptism of John was that which he established both by his own Submission to it and Divine Testimony concerning it Matth. 3. 15. 21. 25. Nor did John take up his Baptism from the Jews as many Learned Men of the Church of England do teach of late For he was a Prophet immediately sent of God to baptize with Water John 1. 33. And he that says John's Baptism was originally of the Jews as this Doctor and Dr. Hammond do teach denies John to be a Prophet and does dissent herein from many Learned Protestant Writers whose Testimonies I will therefore here bring against them who with one Mouth bear witness that John's Ministry and Baptism was Evangelical and not Ligal Jewish or of his own devising Diodate on John 1. 6. Divine Light being now extinguished the Son of God himself came into the World to light it again by the Gospel whereof John the Baptist was the first Preacher And on Matth. 11. 13. John's Prerogative above the precedent Prophets is they have only foretold and described things to come but he declared the present Salvation and in him began the Evangelical Ministery and the Legal and figurative Ministery ceased This could not be true had he taken his Baptism from the Jewish Church Dr. Willit in his Synopsis John preached the Baptism of Repentance for the Remission of Sins which was all one with the Baptism of Peter Act. 2. 38. And it is absurd that Christ the Head and the Church the Members should not have the same Baptism And that John ' s Baptism was not of John ' s devising but of God's Appointment Dr. Fulk on Mat. 3. Dr. Fulk John by his Doctrine and Baptism prepared a way to Christ not to the Baptism of Christ for he preached not his own Baptism but the washing away of Sins by Christ Therefore he also was a Minister of the Baptism of Christ This new Device of founding the Christian Baptism upon Jewish Baptism is dangerous opening a Gap to the Quakers and other Notionists to contemn it as a Legal Ceremony Yet the Doctor boldly tells us That Christ was obliged to lay by Circumcision and consecrated this Ceremony used by the Jews instead of it The Enemies of Christ durst not say as Dr. Hammond and this Doctor does say that the Baptism of John was of Jewish Original They knew such a Speech must deny John to be a Prophet And yet these Learned Men have not Learning enough to consider this We know the Pharisees were very zealous for the Traditions of the Jewish Church but it 's certain they had no Zeal for the Baptism of Repentance for they rejected it against themselves Luke 7. 20. And here this holy Ordinance is expresly called the Counsel of God which shews it was not originally a Rite or Ceremony of humane Institution or Jewish Ceremony But now let us see whether the Doctor may not possibly be mistaken in asserting that the
the new Covenant as it respects the Abolition of the condemning Power of Original Sin and Gift of eternal Life as I think whatever the Doctor says at some turns yet he will grant me this at least for the substance of it for all that die in Infancy yet he will not say that all Infants in the World in Abraham's time who were Males ought to be circumcised or that all Infants in the World since Christ's time are to be baptized And therefore suppose the Covenant of Grace before in and since the Law to be the same yet it 's clear that an immediate Right to the Mercy of the Covenant in the sense before explained does not infer an immediate right to partake of Ordinances but some other particular Qualifications and God's Direction must give immediate right to participate of them or else we act and do we know not what Let us then calmly consider what were the necessary Qualifications for Circumcision and what are the necessary Qualifications for Baptism and then we shall soon be able to answer this Question Whether Infants are capable of Baptism Infants Qualifications for Circumcision were these They must be the Seed of Abraham according to the Flesh or born in his House or bought with Money or the Children of Proselytes and they must be Males and they must be eight days old else they could not lawfully be circumcised I say it was not all Infants as such that might lawfully be circumcised but Infants under such Circumstances or Qualifications Wherefore in the next place let us consider the indispensible Qualifications for Baptism And here I shall chiefly make use of that Text Col. 2. 11 12. so much insisted on by the Doctor with its parallel place Rom. 6. 1 2 3. From these Texts it plainly appears that Baptism is a mystical Burial and therefore every one of the faln Race of Mankind which are lawfully baptized are buried with Christ in Baptism So then there is an indispensible Necessity that all who are to be thus buried be first dead for it is directly against these Scriptures and against all Reason and Religion to bury any Person before they be dead The Question therefore is what Death is here meant It cannot be a corporal Death for then none but dead Bodies should be baptized which is absurd Nor can it be a Death in Sin for if that did qualify for Baptism then all unregenerate Persons were fit Subjects for Baptism but that also is absurd It must therefore be a Death to Sin and to the Rudiments of the World. And thus does St. Paul himself expound it How shall we that are dead to Sin live any longer therein Rom. 6. 11. Wherefore reckon your selves to be dead indeed unto Sin but alive unto God. Col. 2. 20. Dead with Christ from the Rudiments of the World. This is that Death which is so absolutely necessary to the Baptismal Covenant that the Doctor knows it to be granted by the Church of England that Repentance whereby we forsake Sin which is the same thing which St. Paul calls a Death to Sin is required of all that are to be baptized Another indispensible Qualification is every Subject of Baptism ought first to be a Child of God by Faith in Christ Jesus or to be a new Creature Hence it is said of the whole Church Militant Ye are all the Sons of God by Faith in Christ Jesus for as many as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ Gal. 3. And as every Member of this Church is said to be buried with Christ in Baptism so they are said therein to be risen with him through Faith. And to this also the Church of England gives Testimony that Faith is required of all that are to be baptized even such Faith as whereby the Promises of God made in that Sacrament are stedfastly to be believed And that it 's necessary the Party baptized be a new Creature they boldly affirm when they have sprinkled the Infant when perhaps fast asleep that he is born of the Spirit c. And that to be born again is a necessary Qualification for Baptism The Word of God is clear Tit. 3. where Baptism is called the Washing of Regeneration And St. Peter calls it the Answer of a good Conscience And unto this Doctrine all the ancient Writers of Christianity agree with full consent And for Brevities sake as also because Augustine is thought to be as eminent as any of the Fathers that were before him and more eminent then any that did succeed him I will content my self with his Testimony who saith Per fidem renascimur in Baptismate by Faith we are born again in Baptism Serm. 53. And again Primo fides Catholica Christiano necessaria est per ipsum renascimur in baptismate Salutem aeternam impetramus first of all the Catholick Faith is necessary for all Christians by the which in Baptism we are born again to obtain eternal Salvation And that Infants have not Faith he testifies in these Words Si illis minati essent ipsum Baptismum 〈◊〉 susciperent cui videmus cos cum magnis stetibus reluctari From these Premises I think we may safely conclude that Infants are not capable of Baptism for what Man with any Truth or Fairness of Discourse is ever able to bring Infants under these Qualifications or to shew that Baptism may lawfully be administred to Persons of whom we can have no Knowledg nor Evidence from themselves that there is any thing of these Prerequisites to Holy Baptism but as far as they are able Augustine being witness they do oppose and withstand it If Infants were illuminate they would gladly receive Baptism which we see them strive against with great crying Now all that Augustine the Church of England or the Doctor can say in this case amounts but to this That Infants do perform this Repentance and Faith by their Godfathers c. which is so poor an Answer so dellitute of Divine Warrant that it is to be lamented that ever wise Men should satisfy themselves with such a Speech as no Man can know to be true but by all Experience is found to be false insomuch that no Man could ever yet I suppose give Thanks to God for that Faith and Repentance which their Godfathers performed for them nor do the Godfathers themselves know that they do the Infant any good in or by any Supply the Infant does receive from them in respect of Repentance or Faith. But p. 24. the Doctor proceeds thus If the relative Nature of Circumcision considered as a Sacrament was the same under the Law that Baptism is under the Gospel it must needs follow that Children under the Gospel are as capable of this supposing no new Command to exclude them as under the Law they were of that But by the Doctor 's favour we do not exclude Children from Baptism but bring them to it as soon as lawfully we can but we must not make more haste
erroneous Worshippers The Plague of Unbelief cannot seize them therefore the Medicine of Faith is not applied to them The Disease of transgressing the Laws is not upon them Rom. 4. 15. therefore they have not the Medicine of Repentance appointed to them and consequently not the Baptism of Repentance Secondly This Similitude supposes Infants cannot be cured of the Disease they are under without Baptism which is so contrary to Truth and to Protestant Doctrine that it is to be exploded And thus we see this Flourish about which he spends two or three Pages to the amusing his credulous Admirers comes to nothing at all For no sooner is it looked into but it vanisheth as a Dream when one awaketh Even so Lord shalt thou despise this false Image of the Gospel and all that are like unto it And like unto this is the next following p. 36. For tho it be true that considering the previous Law of Circumcision Gen. 17. it is not to be doubted but that David or Solomon would both observe it in any Commission which they might give to propagate it But what is all this to the purpose Where is the previous Law that commanded Infants to be baptized And such a Law as must be supposed according to the Similitude to oblige our David and Solomon even Christ himself to observe it Where I say is this Law to be found Not in the Word of God the Doctor confesses that Where then why in the Talmud the Gemara c. Very well But then this wretched Talmud was not finished in our Saviour's days but 500 years after and so could be no Rule to him nor in the time of his Apostles and so could be no Rule to them and therefore I hope it shall never be a Rule to us The Doctor p. 38. says we put the greatest stress upon Mark 16. 16. But it is plain saith he that the believing and not believing in that Text is only to be understood of such as are capable of hearing and believing the Gospel Now as this is very true and therefore Infants may and shall be saved without believing so it is as true also that Infants are not concern'd in the Duty of Baptism here mentioned but may and shall be saved without that also And as the Doctor tells us he has proceeded thus far to shew how inconclusively and absurdly we argue c. so I have proceeded thus far too to shew how little Truth or Reason he has used to convict our Arguments of Weakness But he adds So weak are all the Arguments of the Anabaptists by which they endeavour from Scripture to prove that Christ hath limited the Subjects of Baptism to grown Persons c. Even so I reply that our weak Arguments are too strong to be overthrown by such impertinent Similitudes as the Doctor has brought against them And for Scripture as he has none so he has brought none but 2 Thess 3. 10. which he has also very much perverted as he doth also the Arguments used by us Here the Doctor p. 39 40. is pleased to say That Infant Baptism is so universal and ancient a Practice that no body knows when and where it began or how not being it came to be the Practice of the Church since there was never any Church Ancient or Modern which did not practise it it must argue a strange Partiality to think that it could be any less than an Apostolical Practice and Tradition And he brings Tertullian saying Had the Churches erred they would have varied but what is one and the same amongst them all proceeds not from Error but Tradition Here the Doctor has left his Jewish Fort and takes Sanctuary in Apostolical Tradition and indeed the wisest Man that asserts this Scriptureless Practice is at a loss where to fix it Nay the Doctor now tells us plainly That no Body knows when and how and where Infant-Baptism came in And we tell him as plainly that this is a sign that it is an Error and came in privily stealing by degrees upon the Churches as false Teachers are said to do Gal. 2. 4. But now if the Doctor will stand to Tertullian's Rule we shall soon prove that Infant-Baptism is an Error For 1. All Churches have not held or practised it no not so much as one Church mentioned in the Holy Scripture or during the Apostles Days The Mother Church at Jerusalem knew no such practice for non apparentibus c. that which appears not is not It 's easy for the Doctor to say all Churches held it but it 's impossible for him to prove it He confesses no Body knows when it came in nor how nor where and why then might there not be true Churches before it came in even in his own Judgment and then all Churches have not held it 2. But now this is our Argument from Tertul. If the Churches varied about Infant Baptism then they erred in it But they varied about it ergo they erred in it The Major the Doctor must not deny because it 's become his own The Minor I shall prove presently first in Tertullian himself for he was not always the same even as he is quoted by the Doctor p. 41. for first he brings him in saying Pro cujusque personae conditione ac dispositione etiam aetate cunctatio Baptismo utilior est praecipue tamen circa parvulos c. It seems then that tho he speaks favourably of it afterwards yet he thought the delay of Baptism ESPECIALLY FOR LITTLE CHILDREN to be more profitable And this also was the Opinion of Nazianzen These two great Men who are at least the first of them as early Witnesses of Infant-Baptism creeping into the Church as can justly be named shewing so much doubfulness about baptizing Infants is a great sign it had no Authority from Christ and his Apostles for what were these Men to teach to delay it if Christ had commanded it And yet so they did expresly teach as the words quoted out of Tertullian by the Doctor do farther shew because it was his present Opinion That cunâ—tatio Baptismi praecipue circa parvulos was utilior He answers Venient dum adolescunt venient dum discunt dum quo veniant docentur Yea he further saith Fiant Christiani quum Christum nosse potuerint but this the Doctor left out And if after this he altered his Judgment as the Doctor supposes though some Learned Men think otherwise it shews that he was contrary to himself in this thing Now that whole Churches varied about it whether we respect the Infant Subject or the alteration of Dipping to Sprinkling has been abundantly made evident by many so that I shall content my self with an Instance or two out of the Learned Du-Veil who from Grotius on Mat. 19. 13. gives this account That according to the Rule of Scripture and agreeing with Reason it self the most part of the Greeks in all Ages even unto this Day retain a Custom of delaying Infant
saith the Doctor undoubtedly had well read and considered the History of Baptism in the Acts of the Apostles but never drew such absurd Consequences from them c. And did they not as well read the History of Communion in the Acts of the Apostles and yet drew these absurd Consequences for 600 Years together that Infants should be communicated But to this the Doctor tells us That God might suffer all the Church to fall into such a harmless Practice as that of Infant-Communion or that the Fathers of the Church might comply with the Religious Fondness of the People as we do saith he in bringing them to Prayers Now as this may be well guessed so we likewise may conjecture and it 's not improbable but Infant-Baptism came stealing so too upon the Churches at the first but after these Errors had got root they were both defended by the Fathers as if they had been Oracles drop'd from Heaven And such a Necessity laid upon them as if Infants could not be saved without them Thus did Augustine teach both concerning infant-Infant-Baptism and Infant-Communion The Doctor demands What account can rationally be given why the Jewish Christians who were offended at the neglect of Circumcision should not have been much more offended if the Apostles had refused to initiate Infants under the new Testament But we may with more reason demand of the Doctor seeing the Jews were so offended at the Neglect of Circumcision why did not the Apostles quiet this discontented People by telling them you need not be offended seeing instead of Infant-Circumcision you have now Infant-Baptism and if indeed there had been any such thing it had been the most pertinent means to quiet them to refer them to that for Satisfaction But seeing the Apostles make no use of this Argument it 's clear they had no such thing to argue from for where they could use it they did as in the case of baptized Believers themselves Coloss 2. 11. which is a sufficient Argument that Infant-Baptism had no being in the Church in St. Paul's time seeing he never mentions it at all no not then when he had the greatest occasion for it that could be given The Doctor observes that the Jews always looked upon the Children of Pagans as common or unclean but upon their own as separate and Holy. And then he tells us that St. Paul makes the same Distinction between them 1 Cor. 7. 14. But this is so expresly against the Word of God that I admire the Doctor should write it was not this Distinction between Jew and Gentile the one being common and unclean the other Holy taken quite away Acts 10. 15 18. What God hath cleansed call not thou common which the Apostle expounds thus ver 28. God hath shewed me that I should not call any Man common or unclean And why should the Doctor so much as think that St. Paul should count the Infants of Jews or Gentiles which do not yet believe common and unclean The Text 1 Cor. 7. 14. says not a Word to that Purpose but is an Answer to the Scruple which some Christians had about continuing in Marriage-Union with their Yoke-Fellows who were Unbelievers supposing them to be unclean but St. Paul perswades them to continue in that Relation for that they were both sanctified to that Relation of Husband and Wife else saith he your Children were unclean Now this Text is greatly abused by Poedobaptists and the learned Muscullus who had abused this Text as they do at last did confess as much Now this place Acts 10. 15 18 28. does so fully explain St. Paul that no Man can with any shew of Truth or Reason make a Distinction between a Christian's Infant and the Infant of an Indian to call the one common and unclean the other separate and Holy for if we may call no Man as such common and unclean much less may we call an Infant so If they be born according to the Law of God they are called by the Prophet Malachi a Seed of God chap. 2. v. 15. And though this Mercy of God towards all Infants equally might perhaps gaul the Jews as it does the Doctor and his party yet it 's Evangelical Doctrine and shews evidently that God is no Respecter of Persons and Infants being all equally the same as Objects of his Pity he despises none of these little ones The innocent Babes in Nineveh were as dear to him as the innocent Babes in the Land of Israel and yet for all this it is certain that the Children of faithful Men have many Blessings which the Children of evil Men have not being Children of many Prayers and under early Advantages to know the Lord and to cut short the Days of Iniquity whilst on the other side the Children of Unbelievers are in danger by an evil Education to be kept from the Truth and brought up in Error and as such they as their Fathers for the same cause become defiled not by Birth but by Sin Tit. 1. 15. For as born according to God's Ordinance they are his Offspring Acts 17. 28. and so Holy. And to this agrees the Sentence of Muscullus Vnless Marriage were Holy and clean even between Vnbelievers what other thing would follow than that all the Children are Bastards and unclean But far be it from us to say so they are Holy for they are born of lawful Marriage CHAP. V. Answereth the Doctor 's third Question Whether it be lawful to separate from a Church which appointeth Infants to be baptized THat the Church or People of God ought to be a People separated from them that live in Wickedness and are professed Adversaries to the Truths of the Gospel in things essential to Church-Communion will not be denied I suppose by any Christian Now there are two Causes besides that of the want of true Baptism which does warrant the present Separation maintained by the present baptized Believers from the Parochial Church-Communion The first is that great Impiety and ungodly living which is every where to be seen in such Churches for the worst of Men to be sure will croud into those Churches as their Sanctuaries let the most vigilant Magistrates and the well-minded Persons in National Churches do what they can in their present Constitution for there will they be yea and in places of Preferment too Secondly The many Innovations and continual Alterations in Religion not to be avoided in National Church-Constitutions by reason of the Influence of Interest and of the Revolutions which National Government has always upon them does necessarily enforce at least some Distinction in Communion between such Churches and those whose professed Principles are constantly to adhere to Apostolical Institutions only in all things essential to the Constitution and Government of the Church of God which must ever be the same or should be however the Government of Nations do alter or suffer Revolutions And to this agrees that excellent Sentence of a Divine of the Church of England in
indeed where this Principle is neglected many Innovations are introduced and many Truths are neglected under as fair shews of Antiquity as can be pretended for infant-Infant-Baptism The Doctor then had little reason to call this a slavish Principle which is indeed the Principle which delivers us from Slavery to Jewish Fables Mens Inventions and Traditions Pag. 53 54. the Doctor to support Infant-Baptism tells us how he builds many Points of Faith and Practice nor upon certain Evidences of the Scripture otherwise than as interpreted so or so by the Catholick Church as 1. That Christ is of one Substance with the Father 2. That there are three Persons in the Trinity 3. That it is necessary for Christians to assemble on the Lord's Day 4. That the Church be governed by Bishops 5. That Women have the Lord's Supper 6. That Infants are to be baptized And these things he makes necessary no otherwise but as the Catholick Church has interpreted divers Scriptures to justify them to be so Sure this is strange Doctrine for a Protestant But were a Man disposed to trace him in all these Particulars it might appear that the Churches in most Ages have been divided in all or the most of these Points that so that he makes the Catholick Church as it is commonly taken so great a Foundation of his Faith as he here pretends to make her will meet with many Difficulties to discourage and take off his Confidence And particularly if I desire him to resolve me but this one What sort of Christians are this Catholick Church But he adds We can prove Infant-Baptism from the Scope and Tenor of the Gospel and from many Passages of it as they are interpreted according to the Practice of the ancient Primitive Church But this is a vain Boast and I demand what Church or what Apostle did interpret any part of the Doctrine of Christ or of the Gospel to such a sense The Doctor replies It is unreasonable to presume that the Gospel would not extend the Subject of Baptism as far as the Jewish Church extended the Subject both of Circumcision and Baptism But I answer if this be granted yet the Doctor gains nothing for 1. The Jewish Church had no Baptism at all of Divine Institution and therefore could not extend that she had not 2. Her Circumcision was limited to Abraham's Family and perhaps not extended to much above a third part of that Family neither seeing all Females and all Males that died before the eighth Day were debarred of it Whereas the Gospel extends holy Baptism to all Nations to the End of the World to both Male and Female as they are qualified for it Thus for his Argument from the Scope Let us now see his particular Passages to prove Infant-Baptism P. 55. The Doctor gives us these Texts as interpreted by the Catholick Church for Infant-Baptism John 3. 5. Mark 10. 14. 1 Cor. 1. 16. Acts 16. 15 33. 1 Cor. 7. 14. 1 Cor. 10. 2. Good Reader look upon these Scriptures and thou wilt not find one word of Precept or Example for Infant-Baptism in them all The first Place shews that none can be Church-members lawfully under the Gospel except they be regenerate and have the washing of Regeneration by Water but Infant-Regeneration is a Secret no Man can know it God will fit them for Heaven if they die in Infancy this David knew for his Child which was begot in Adultery and died without Circumcision yet he nothing doubted its Salvation The second Text our Saviour pronounceth unbaptized yea I say unbaptized Infants to belong to Heaven how unwise then was the Doctor to bring it for Infant-Baptism If these very Infants which were brought to Christ's own Person yet were not by him appointed to be baptized it can never prove that other Infants are to be baptized And seeing our Saviour declares that unbaptized Infants belong to Heaven therefore that Place John 3. 5. cannot by any means be understood of Infants Look well also upon 1 Cor. 1. 16. and compare it with 1 Cor. 16. 15 16. and thou wilt find tho the Catholick Church say nothing that the Houshold of Stephanus were such as had been converted and were the first Fruits in Achaia and had addicted themselves to the Work of the Ministry and then these could be no Infants As for the two Housholds Acts 16. it's admirable that wise Men should bring them to prove what they do sufficiently confute For Lydia had no Husband we read of And there is no Infant found in her House but the Persons of her Family received Instruction from Paul and Silas Acts 16. ult therefore no Infants And of the Jaylor's Houshold it is expresly said that Paul spake the Word to all that were in his House and that he rejoiced believing in God with all his House And they went out about Midnight to be baptized All which being well weighed no Man no Church can honestly interpret this Text for Infant-Baptism And for that Place 1 Cor. 7. 14. the Doctor does injure it as he did before in thrusting in the word common And it is ill done to make any distinction of common and unclean from holy which God has not made but rather taken away as we proved from Acts 10. 15. No Man as such is now to be called common or unclean and therefore no Infant is to be called common or unclean but being born according to God's Ordinance they are as such a holy Seed or a Seed of God. See the learned Diodate upon the Place Mal. 2. 14. Marriage ought to be of one with one and two in the same Flesh God's chief End in this Proceeding was that the Posterity might be sanctified being born in chaste Wedlock according to his Appointment whereas it is defiled by all manner of unlawful Conjunction And to concude I wish that my self and the Doctor my Opposâ—â—â— in this case be found at last as holy as a dying Infant of a Jew or poor Indian and we shall be sure to go to Hea-Heaven for I could never find that it is the Will of our Heavenly Father that one of these little ones should perish We come now to his last Text 1 Cor. 10. 2. where we find and the Doctor does ingenuously acknowledg that the Baptism here meant was but an Vmbrage or Shadow of Baptism not a real Baptism Nor does the Text speak of Infants being baptized in this umbratical Baptism it seems as clearly restrained to the Fathers in the case of Baptism as the eating and drinking spiritually of Christ is restrained to them ver 3. So that nothing can be urged from this Text for infant-Infant-Baptism which will not with equal Truth and Reason conclude for their coming to the Lord's Table Read Mr. Diodate upon this place he was for infant-Infant-Baptism yet does not infer infant-Infant-Baptism from this Text as indeed there is no reason so to do For it is certain that all that passed through the Sea were not baptized to Moses
in Ceremonies I have intituted my Book as you see The last and most Friendly Debate concerning Infant-Baptism And glad should I be to see an end of the Controversy by an Agreement in the Truth or a brotherly Condescension in such things on either part as may be without Sin. That I have undertaken this Task was not the Fruit of my own Choice but indeed I was particularly desired by Letter from some Persons of Quality and Learning to give a brief and distinct Answer to the Contents of the Case of Infant-Baptism which they commend for the temper 〈◊〉 which it is framed and for that it is very nervous in Argument insomuch that till it was answered it was so satisfactory that more need not be said on their part And now I hope they will do me the Justice as to read me with Patience and to judg without Prejudice knowing that shortly we must all appear before the Judgment-Seat of Christ and receive from him the things done in the Body whether they be good or bad The Last and Most FRIENDLY DEBATE CONCERNING INFANT-BAPTISM CHAP. I. That the Covenant Gen. 17. strictly taken was not a Gospel-Covenant nor Circumcision a Gospel-Ordinance as is affirmed by the Doctor THE Learned Author of the Book now under Consideration may rationally expect some Reply from those whom he calls Anabaptists or else interpret their Silence to be either a sullen slighting of his Endeavours to convince them or that they are not able in their own Judgments to shew the Insufficiency of his Arguments and the rather because he has more obliged us to consider his Writing by his modest and friendly management of the Controversy than many of his Brethren who have bent their Stile against us We shall therefore God willing with no less Modesty and friendly Demeanour shew our Reasons why in our Judgment his Labours have not only come short of proving the baptizing of Infants to be warrantable by God's Word but has rather given us great cause to think that the Case of Infant-Baptism cannot be made good by all that Learning and Art can do it being wholly without Divine Authority And to make this good we will now consider the chief of his Strength in the several Pages of his Learned Treatise In pag. 1 2. he would have it believed that the State of the Church from Abraham to Moses and from Moses to Christ was parallel'd by the differing State of the Christian Church from Christ to Constantine and from Constantine onwards For saith he there is ground for this distinction in the reason of the thing as is evident to any Man who is capable of considering the difference betwixt the Church Christian before and after its Vnion with the Empire But here seems to be a very great mistake in the very entrance of his Book for it is certain that the Jewish Church from Abraham to Moses had very little of the Face of a Church-state till his time being as yet destitute of most of her Laws both for Constitution and Government Abraham himself owning a Priest superior to himself even after he was called of God and had received the Promise both of being that Person in whose Seed all Nations should be blessed and that to his Seed God would give the Land of Canaan as will appear to such as shall peruse these Scriptures Gen. 12. 1 2 3. 13. 15 16. 14. 18 19 20. Now this Covenant which God made with Abraham that in his Seed all Nations of the Earth should be blessed Gen. 12. which was indeed an Evangelical Promise or Covenant and in the Faith of which Abraham was justified near thirty Years before Circumcision had any being in the World cannot be called the Covenant of Circumcision Neither yet when Circumcision was instituted was the Seed of Abraham formed into a Church-state in contradistinction to all the World beside for still Melchisedec was Priest of the most High God and many righteous Men were then living who outlived Abraham himself and were truly Church-members yea and Governors of Churches too as well as Abraham and yet they were not at all concern'd in the Covenant of Circumcision And hence it 's evident they being under the Covenant of Grace the Covenant of Circumcision and the Covenant of Grace were then distinct and not the same Covenant so but that the one might and did subsist without the other This then may serve to shew the Doctor 's great Mistake in making the Church of Christ from Christ to Constantine parrallel to the Church from Abraham to Moses when in Truth a greater Disparity can hardly be shewed For though the Seed of Abraham till Moses was in a State of Peregrination as also was the Church of Christ till Constantine yet the Church Christian was then not only in her Purity but also both for Constitution and Government as compleat as ever she was since having received from Christ and his Apostles all the Rules of his holy Word even the whole Counsel of God necessary to her Church-state and therewith all the Gifts of the holy Spirit in most plentiful manner by which to stand perfect in all the Will of God. And on the other side the Seed of Abraham till the Times of Moses had neither Law Priest-hood nor Sacrifice in a settled Church-way only they were distinguished by the Covenant of Circumcision as a People from whom in time the Saviour of the World should proceed and that they should be separated from the Nations and settled in a plentiful Country with Laws and special Protection from the Almighty till Shiloh should come and when the Messiah was manifested to Israel the Covenant of Circumcision ceased and the glorious Gospel-Covenant was now plenarily to be made known to all Nations for the Obedience of Faith Rom. 16. And here we will take notice of that excellent Passage in Mr. Baxter The Jews saith he were not the whole of God's Kingdom or Church of Redeemed Ones in the World but that as the Covenant was made with all Mankind so amongst them God had other Servants besides the Jews though it was they that had the extraordinary Benediction of being his peculiar Sacred People Now as this was true all along so it was more particularly manifest in the times of Melchisedec and other holy Men that outlived Abraham What the Doctor means to compare Constantine with Moses is very doubtful Is it to make Christian Magistrates Legislators to the Church of Christ We know indeed Moses was a great Prophet and appointed of God to give Laws and Statutes to Israel but Constantine was not his Antitype but Christ only and whosoever will not hear him shall be cut off but not by the Imperial Sword as God knows since the uniting of the Church Christian to the Empire viz. the Civil and Ecclesiastical Power for the management of Church-matters there has been a very bloody Scene of Affairs in most Places where such a kind of Unity of the
says the Law is not of Faith and that if those that are of the Law be Heirs Faith is made void and the Promise of none Effect And how Christ calls Circumcision the Law of Moses and tells the circumcised Jews themselves that they must be regenerated and born again or they could not enter into the Kingdom or Gospel-Church which shews plainly they were not regenerated in Circumcision and if they were not then there is little hopes that their Slaves bought with Mony as Blacks are now by us had such benefit by Circumcision Nay the Doctor is more bold and tells us That always it was understood that Children were called and elected by God in their Parents which is such a Scriptureless Doctrine and of such dangerous Consequence that we cannot but wonder that so wise a Man should assert it Does not St. Paul expresly teach the contrary where he saith The Children of the Flesh are not the Children of God And that all are not Israel that are of Israel And though they be the Seed of Abraham yet are they not all Children How was it possible that he should think that the Slaves and their Children were elected only because they were circumcised when Abraham's own Posterity are not therefore elected because Abraham was their Father and also circumcised And will it not follow from the Doctor 's Opinion that Infants are also reprobated in their Parents Yes he says no less I think when he makes the Unbelievers Infants to differ from those his Elect Infants as much as the Unbelievers themselves differ from the circumcised Parents whom he calls Believers God be merciful to us and bless us from such Doctrine as this that his antient way of Truth may be known upon the Earth and his saying Health among the Nations for Job and all holy Men and poor Infants too which were not circumcised might for all that be elected Seven or eight Pages the Doctor spends mostly to shew how Christ did alter the Oeconomy of the Church in many Particulars which do not directly concern our present Controversy in which there are many Dictates unproved about the Reasons why Christ made this Change. But we shall content our selves in setting down these two which he thinks moved our Lord to lay aside Circumcision and his first is Because by it the Jewish Nation was become odious and ridiculous to all other People upon the account of it But this Passage seems to cast a Scandal upon God himself as that he should appoint any thing that should make his People odious Sure other Nations had Usages far more offensive than this could be in their Idolatrous Services and particularly the burning of their Children to Moloch But the true reason why it was laid aside was because the distinction which it made between the Seed of Abraham and other People as the Posterity from whence Christ should proceed was now unnecessary because Christ was born and manifested to the World and chiefly because the Ceremonial Law to which it was a strong Obligation and also a part of it was now to be disannulled and taken out of the way as an Handwriting of Ordinances which was against us and was contrary to us Heb. 7. 18 19. Coloss 2. 14. Acts 15. 10. it was therefore meet it should be taken away His second Reason is more tolerable but yet not true for though Circumcision was a painful Ordinance yet the Gospel requires as painful things as that was of all that will be Christians indeed as the denying a Man's self and particularly in parting with House Land Wife Children a right Hand a right Eye a right Foot and our very Life when God calls for them in service to the Defence of the Gospel Yea let me tell the Doctor had he come to Baptism it self after the Example of Christ who came from Galilee to Jordan I suppose 60 Miles and that in the depth of Winter to be dipped in a River as Christ was in Jordan he might possibly have found it as ungrateful to Flesh and Blood as some have found it to part with their Foreskin and add to this such Repentance as truly qualifies for the Reception of Baptism and the whole of it might possibly seem as ridiculous in the Eyes of the wise Men of this World as Circumcision it self We conclude then that the Wisdom of God was great to try the Pride and Haughtiness of Man in appointing Circumcision in the Time of the Law to bring Men to Legal Priviledges And it is no less his Wisdom in appointing Baptism to bring down the Pride of the greatest Nobles and most delicate Ladies as well as others by submitting their Bodies under the Hands of a poor Minister to be dipped in Water at all Seasons as they are found qualified for it by Faith and Repentance to admit them to Gospel-Priviledges CHAP. II. That the Story of the Jews baptizing Infants is either a Fable or if they had such a Humane Tradition it 's rather destructive of Sacred Baptism to ground it on that Tradition than any way advantagious to it IN pag. 18. the Doctor says Hitherto I have given the Reasons of altering the Jewish Oeconomy But then my Undertaking obliges me to prove that Christ and his Apostles did build with many of the old Materials and conformed their new House as much as they could after the Platform of the Old. This will appear from Baptism it self which was a Ceremony by which Proselytes both Men and Women and Children were initiated yet so much Respect had our Saviour for the antient Orders and Customs of the Jewish Church that being obliged to lay by Circumcision he consecrated this instead of it though it were but a meer human Institution to be the Sacrament of Initiation into his Church and a Seal of the Righteousness of Faith. So likewise the Lord's Supper was certainly of Jewish Original Answer This Doctrine that Christ and his Apostles did build their new House of the old Materials of the Jewish Church and that they conform'd their new House as much as they could to the Platform of the Old seems to hold no Agreement with the Doctrine and Practice of Christ and his Apostles whether we consider the Subjects Ordinances or Ministery of the Church The Doctrine and Ministery of John the Baptist is called the Beginning of the Gospel Mark 1. 1. And he would not admit of one Stone or Member of the old Church as such to be laid into the Gospel-Church Begin not to say within your selves we have Abraham to our Father God is able of these Stones to raise up Children unto Abraham Bring forth Fruits meet for Repentance Every Tree which bringeth not forth good Fruit is hewn down Matth. 3. So great a Change do we find that the old Materials in respect of Membership in the new House would not do when yet there was but an Introduction to make ready a People prepared for the Lord. Christ came to fulfil the Ceremonies of
Baptism till they themselves can give a Confession of their Faith. He also brings Nazianzen in his 40th Oration treating of those to whom Baptism was not administred BY REASON OF INFANCY And it is certain that Nazianzen himself though the Son of a Christian Bishop about the 4th Century and bred up in the Christian Religion was not baptized till he was about thirty Years of Age. The same is also true of Chrysostom Hierom Ambrose Austin and others And hence saith he it does manifestly appear That the wisest of our Fathers in Christ did not come to Baptism until they were come to a strong and confirmed Age and Wit. Note here the wisest of our Fathers were not baptized in Infancy you may be sure then that the Churches did vary about it I could never read of so much as one of the Ancient Fathers for six hundred Years after Christ that was baptized in his Infancy The Learned Curcelaeus as quoted by Du-Veil affirms That the Custom of baptizing Infants was brought in without the Commandment of Christ and did not begin before the Third Age. And the Custom of it being brought in was much more frequent in Africa than in Asia and with far greater opinion of Necessity This must needs satisfy that the Churches did vary about Infant-Baptism at its first creeping into the Church And how Christians have varied one from another because of it is apparent in all Ages and Nations almost ever since it had a being has been very largely evidenced by the care and industry of Mr. Danvers and others And I think this present Age may speak for it self that there are very many Christians and Churches too who vary about this Matter Therefore after the Doctor 's Rule from Tertullian they have and do err in this Matter on the one hand or on the other As the Alteration of the Subject so the Alteration of the manner of the Administration has caused great discord among Christians How Offensive it was to use Sprinkling which it should seem some were labouring to introduce in the Year 816 may be gathered from the Synod of Celicyth who gave strict Order to Dip and not to Sprinkle Let the Presbyters beware that when they Administer the Sacrament of Baptism they do not pour Water upon the Heads of the Children but let them be always plunged in the Font according to the Example of the Son of God. But directly contrary hereunto our English Synod in their Rubrick do order the Presbyters to Sprinkle in case the Child be weak and ever since they were all weak that were brought to be Baptized for they do nothing but Sprinkle And so pernicious is this Alteration that the Muscovites and others do now deny the Latins and other Western Countries to be rightly Baptized because they have changed the manner from Dipping to Sprinkling I might enlarge my Testimonies of this kind out of the Learned Du-Veil and others And yet the Doctor would perswade the World the Churches have not varied about this Matter Nor need the Doctor wonder that none of the Writers in the first Age of Christianity are found to detect the baptizing of Infants seeing there are none that yet appear in that Age to have held any such Thing And Dr. Barlow has given Testimony That there is no just Evidence of Infant-Baptism till about two hundred Years after Christ The Dissenters therefore are not unreasonable as the Doctor would have them in charging those that have altered or that approve the Alterations thus made in the Case of Sacred Baptism with Apostacy or falling from the simplicity of the Gospel at least in this that they have now no true Baptism I freely grant saith the Doctor That no Arguments are equal to the Scriptures when the Interpretations of them are not doubtful And certainly the Texts which concerns the Subject and manner of Baptism are none of the Scriptures whose Interpretations are doubtful because it did not comport with the Wisdom of Christ that they should be so Certainly the Rule which God gave about Circumcision was plain enough And shall we think our Saviour did leave us to Ambiguities to guide us in admitting his People to Church-Priviledges What then can we suppose to be plain This very thing then that the Paedobaptists are constrain'd to confess as Mr. Baxter and others that it 's a very difficult thing to prove Infant-Baptism and that as the Doctor here the Scriptures which are brought for it are not plain for if they were he confesses no Arguments are like them but being not clear for Infant-Baptism tho as clear as the Sun for Believers Baptism therefore he flies to the harmonious practice of the Ancient Churches and the undivided consent of the Apostolical Fathers as authentical Interpreters c. But these are mere flourishes there has been no such Harmony nor such undividedness among Churches and Fathers in this Matter as we have shewed He brings many Passages out of Authors Ancient and Modern but these especially the most Ancient of them have been so effectually scan'd by many Learned Pens of those of our Way as Tombs Fisher Blackwood Danvers Den Du-Veil and others that it 's needless to do more I shall rather endeavour to quiet the Clamour about Fathers Ancient Churches c. as if all must be determined by their Sentences by presenting the Reader with that grave Speech of Lactantius one of these Fathers themselves by which it will appear that this Clamour is unreasonable Thus he speaks Lib. 2. c. 8. Div. Instit Dedit omnibus Deus pro virili portione sapientiam c. God hath given Wisdom unto all Men according to a competent measure that they may both find out Things unheard of before and weigh Things already found out Neither because they had the start of us in Time doth it likewise follow that they have it also in Wisdom which if it be indifferently granted to all it cannot be forestalled by them which went before It is unimparable like the Light and Brightness of the Sun it being the Light of Man's Heart as the Sun is of the Eyes Sythence then to be Wise that is to search the Truth is a Disposition imbred in every Man they debar themselves of Wisdom who without any examination approve the Invention of their Ancestors But this is that which deceives them they like unreasonable Creatures are wholly led by others the Name of Ancestors being once set in the Front they think it cannot be that either themselves should be wiser because they are called Punies or that the other should be in any thing mistaken because they are called Ancestors So that if the Doctor had quoted more of the Ancients than he has done yet so long as we have the highest Authorities the Holy Scriptures and the Reason of Men as well as the Ancients we can only follow them as we see or know they follow Christ And more than this St. Paul does not require of us The Ancient Fathers
pass from a State of Nature wherein he was a Child of Wrath to a State of Adoption of Grace wherein he becomes a Child of God p. 64. But is the Doctor sure that Infants are now Children of Wrath that is liable to Condemnation Sure whatever their state was in the first Adam yet they are acquitted from Damnation by the Mercy of God in the second Adam for the Lamb which was slain from the the Foundation of the World has taken away the Sin of the World from innocent Babes so that they are not the Objects of God's Wrath but they are Objects of his Grace and Mercy see Jonah 4. 11. Who would think that so wise a Man should believe that the Adoption of Grace is regulated by Water-Baptism or that it must needs wait on him when he sprinkles an Infant for saith he By that Solemnity they may pass from a State of Nature c. Now we teach and believe thus that the Adoption of Grace goes before Water Baptism And so taught the Apostle Paul Gal. 3. 26 27. We are all the Sons of God by Faith in Christ Jesus And then it follows As many as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ But I think the Doctor comes very near the Papists opus operatum in what he here asserts concerning Infant-Baptism His fourth Benefit That Infants have Baptism for a Sign and Seal that their Sins are pardoned and to confer the Right of Inheritance unto everlasting-Life That Baptism washes Infants clean from Original Sin and seals the Pardon of it and the Assurance of God's Mercy unto them and being cleansed by the Washing of Regeneration from the Guilt of that natural Vitiosity which they derived from Adam and which made them obnoxious to the Displeasure of God they become reconcil'd to him and acquire as certain a right to Eternal Life upon their Justification as any Believer in the World. Now had the Doctor proved all this daintily out of the Book of God I should have thought him the finest Man that ever wrote about Infant Baptism but when he puts me off with Origen Irenaeus c. I am displeased and must only take him for a very Bold Man but no certain Oracle However he is pleased to add which was very needful for him in this place That he cannot deny but Infants may be saved without Baptism by the extraordinary and uncovenanted Mercies of God. Well here is some comfort for unbaptized Infants But who can think that the Covenant of Grace should not reach poor Infants in the case of Salvation without Baptism but if any of them that are not baptized be saved it must be by extraordinary and uncovenanted Mercy These are new and strange Doctrines and so let them be The Covenant of Grace was made with whole Adam Gen. 3. 15. And therefore as Infants without their own consent or any act of their own and without any exterior Solemnity contracted the Guilt of Adam's Sin and so are liable to all the Punishment which can with Justice descend upon his Posterity who are personally innocent so Infants shall be restored without any Solemnity or Act of their own or any other Men for them by the SECOND ADAM by the Redemption of Jesus Christ by his Righteousness and Merits applied either immediately or how or when he pleaseth to appoint Dr. Taylor His fifth Benefit That Infants are by Baptism admitted into Covenant and ingrafted into Christ's Body to acquire a present Right to all Promises of the Gospel and particularly unto the Promises of the Spirit which is so ready to assist initiated Persons This the Primitive Christians he durst not say Infants found true by Experience c. He quotes no Scripture for all this but Heb. 6. 4. which how well it agrees to Infants let the Reader consider I am perswaded the Doctor was so sensible of the Unapplicableness of these things to Infants that he durst not name them but Persons all along but seeing he must mean Infants the very recital of his Sayings is the Confutation of them For can he give so much as one Instance of an Infant that received the Holy Spirit upon its being baptized And why then does he presume to speak what neither he nor any Man else can ever prove to be true Nay he tells us in this very page for he is too wise a Man I hope to face out a Fable he confesses that the Holy Ghost cannot be actually conferred ûpon Infants in Baptism by reason of their natural Incapacity And yet being loth to let the Cudgles fall it 's notorious how faintly he goes on in this and the next Page 66 67. at last concludes in a kind of an Angry Huff saying No Person of common Ingenuity who hath any sense of Honour or any tollerable Degree of Conscience within him can without Shame and Horror break these sacred Bands asunder by which he was bound to God in Infancy But good Sir consider we do not spurn against the good Intentions of our Parents in designing us to the Service of God tho we justly disallow the irregular Methods which they fell into in so doing Your Predecessors had their Consecration in Infancy by Spittle Salt Candles Exufflations c. You do not think that they were bound to ratify these Follies when they came to Years And truly so neither can we ratify your Sprinklings Crossings Gossips c. in your Consecrations though so far as you mean well we may not despise but commond and also do now that part of God's Will which our Parents mistake would have prevented A due Regard to Vzzah's case and David's Reformation thereupon obliges us to this But now we are to hear from the Doctor what Profit Infant-Baptism brings to the Church of God. The first he says it prevents those Scandals and shameful Delays of Baptism which otherwise grown Persons would be apt to make c. To this I must needs say If any thing without the Word of God would induce me to baptize Children this Consideration of the Doctor would as soon prevail as any thing for God knows this Duty is shamefully neglected by many whose Duty it is to hasten to it But we must not do Evil that Good may come We may not do what God does not command because Men will not do what he does command And tho it be true that Men will need as many Exhortations to be baptized and perhaps more than to come to the Lord's Supper yet all this must not discourage us nor force us to innovate Methods of our own and leave what God has prescribed If the faithful Minister labour in vain some times yet his Work is with the Lord Isai 49. 4. But I cannot as the Doctor does applaud the Wisdom of those who to prevent Mens Delay of Baptism ran into another Extream by which the Church however she may be more numerous yet by this means the Grace of Baptism is destroyed or made unnecessary to Baptism because
thing And as we are resolved indeed to correct and rectify this Error so we desire earnestly with humble Prayer of him that he would correct and amend that Error of taking away the Cup from the Laicks coming unto the holy Supper Does Monsieur Bossuet think that the Protestants will have a greater respect of that Custom which they have sound to be unlawful and that by the most weighty and solid Arguments than of the Institution of Jesus Christ and that to let Rome get an opportunity of boldly and freely breaking the Laws of Christ by the pernicious Imitation of our Example Far be that wicked frame of Mind from them they are straiter bound by the Authority of their holy Master than to despise his Voice when his Sound cometh to their Ears My Sheep hear my Voice and again I know my Sheep None except Wolves lurking under a Sheep-skin refuseth and turneth from it There is no Place therefore for cogging in these things for those that pretend the specious Title of received Custom for the Days Practice when Jesus and his Gospel is not the Custom but the Truth From the beginning it was not so says the same Jesus unto them who did object unto him the worst and cursed Custom of their Ancestors When we shall be presented before the Judgment of Christ he will not judg his Disciples by Custom but by the lively and effectual Word of his Gospel Neither should any be taken with a vain hope of framing an Excuse from the Authority of the Church because all the Authority of the Church is from Christ granted unto her for that intent and purpose that she might procure a Religious Obedience to his Laws and Heavenly Precepts but not that she might break repeal and cancel them There is in the Church no more Power of changing the Rites in the Sacraments than there is Power of changing his Word and Law c. Thus far the Learned and pious Protestant And shall the religious French Protestants be thus awakened and resolved to correct and rectify this Error by the Reflections made upon it by an Enemy and shall the English Protestants add yet more Slumber notwithstanding they have not only the very same Alarm come amongst them from the same Pen but their own Learned Men who stand upon their Watch-towers have given them notice of this Baptism-destroying Error And besides this God has raised up Witnesses for his Truth in this as well as other Particulars who with great Learning and Judgment have shown the Beauty of this Institution both by Doctrine and by the Practice of it in the Royal City and in most Parts of this Land for many Years together and yet the Church of England does not stir up her self at all to take hold of plain Truth in this matter And tho I am one of the least of the Witnesses which God has raised up in this Age and Nation in behalf of this Truth yet I shall humbly crave leave to address the Church of England after this friendly and free manner as I did Mr. Bossuet himself 1. I beseech her to consider that she has now to do with such Christians as are in good earnest for the ancient Christian Religion as it was delivered by Christ and his Apostles such as would not have any Truth delivered by Heavens Authority to be neglected nor in any-wise to be corrupted by Innovation Change or Alteration but religiously observed and kept according to the due Form and Power of Godliness 2. As to the Case of infant-Infant-Baptism be pleased to consider that the Salvation of our Infants are as dear to us as yours can be to you and therefore you have no reason to think that we would willingly omit any thing which God has appointed as a furtherance thereunto and being as all Men know no less zealous for the Ordinance of Baptism than your selves you may be confident we would by no means hinder its due extent but promote it therein by all lawful means we are able 3. That our Lord Jesus has made Baptism necessary to the Salvation of Infants is not revealed in the holy Scripture nor that he has made it necessary for them at all and therefore as the African Council did ill to Anathematize those that denied the first so you have not done well to Anathematize such as cannot in Conscience bring their Infants to Baptism 4. Let therefore our Brethren of the Church of England return to the Truth in the Case of holy Baptism that we may return to her for when it shall be so with her she will distinguish between the Precious and the Vile yea that very Ministration rightly restored will naturally lead to a far greater Purity in Church-Communion than has hitherto been attained But if she will not be intreated to amend her Ways and her Doings the Lord will plead the Cause of his neglected Truth and despised People The CONCLVSION THE Doctor was pleased to reserve some of our Objections against the Paedobaptists for the Conclusion of his Book Now the Reader does understand that tho we shew like Arguments for Infant-Communion as they bring for Infant-Baptism both from Scripture and Antiquity yet we do not therefore hold that they are to be brought to the holy Table of the Lord but we do hereby shew that the Poedobaptist is not consistent with himself as for example This Doctor argues for Infant-Baptism from 1 Cor. 10. 2. that because Infants passed through the Sea and it 's said All our Fathers were baptized unto Moses in the Cloud and in the Sea therefore Infants were baptized to Moses and consequently ought to be baptized to Christ Now to shew the Fallacy of this Argument we say All that are said to be baptized ver 2. are also said to eat and drink spiritually of Christ so that this Scripture is as strong for Infant-Communion as for Infant-Baptism tho in Truth it 's no Rule for either For how should it follow that because God saved Israel miraculously from the Rage of Pharaoh in the Cloud and in the Red Sea and fed them miraculously with Mannah and Water in the Wilderness Therefore we are to baptize and communicate Infants But we have shewed before that the Apostle does limit this Baptism and feeding upon Christ to those of Understanding to wit our Fathers and so doth Augustine speaking of the latter in these words Quicunque in Manna Christum intellexerunt eundem quem nos cibum spiritualem manducaverunt We shew also from this 1 Cor. 10. 17. that all that are baptized into one Body are to partake of one Bread at the Lord's Table and therefore it will follow that if Infants ought to be baptized into the Church Militant they ought not to be denied the Bread and Cup in the Communion of that Body When they plead from Antiquity c. we shew them and they know it that near the second or early Ages of the Gospel Infants were brought to the Lord's Table to
communicate there and that this Custom continued 600 Years yet it was laid aside as unwarrantable and we shew there is equal reason to lay aside the Custom of baptizing Infants But we have more particularly shewed these things in our Animadversions upon Dr. S. his Digressions about Infant-Baptism Wherein also the Substance of this Book of the Case of Infant-Baptism is redargued and indeed this Book seems to have been added as an Enlargement upon those short Notes of Dr. Stillingfleet though done perhaps by another Hand I shall therefore say no more at present to the Doctor 's Conclusion nor shall I take notice of Mr. Philpot's Dream he was doubtless a good Man yet that he did dream waking as well as when asleep is evident enough to all that will consider how extreme weakly he goes about to prove Infants to be Believers c. But let us not trouble the Dead we shall ere long be with them where all our Mistakes will be made manifest and all our unavoidable Infirmities will be pardoned But if any Man sin presumptuously the same reproacheth the Lord And happy is the Man who sincerely seeks for Truth and faithfully walks up to his Light tho through unavoidable Weakness he may err in many things For our God knoweth our Frame and whereof we are made and remembers that we are but Dust and like as a Father pities his willing tho weak Son even so the Lord pittieth them that fear him To him therefore be Glory for ever Amen An APPENDIX concerning the Sign of the Cross in Baptism BEcause there is bound up with the Case of Infant-Baptism a Treatise called The Case of the Sign of the Cross in Baptism We shall take so much notice of it as to ask in Tertullian's words Vnde venisti Whence comest thou And to this the Author seems to give answer Ab Antiquitate from Antiquity Tradition c. And quotes for it Tertullian Origen Basil and Cyprian and gives as good ground from Antiquity and Tradition for it as our Doctor has done for Infant-Baptism And he has a clearer Text for it too if Jerome say true than any which has been yet alledged for Infant-Baptism viz. Ezek. 9. 4. Set a Mark upon the Foreheads of the Men that sigh He tells us that by several of the Hebrew Versions this mark is supposed to be by the Hebrew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Tau which Jerome says was in the Samaritan Character like our T and so made the Figure of the Cross It seems these two Cases Infant-Baptism and the Sign of the Cross in Baptism stands much upon the same bottom and will stand and fall together Howbeit we shall not do much more about this case than to be the Remembrancer of this Generation with what Testimony has formerly been given against this piece of Superstition by learned Protestants themselves even such as were our Opposites in the other case who to this Plea of the Church of England that they receive not the sign of the Cross as from the Papists but from the Fathers of the Primitive Church gives them this Answer 1. The Fathers can be no Vizard for a Rite whereof the Pagans Jews or Hereticks were the Fathers and first begetters It was the Fault of one Alexander that he sang the Psalms of Valentinus It is ours that we use his Cross I call it his because he was the first that used this Sign the very first that made account of it as appears by Irenaeus lib. 1. c. 1. And he did wrest the Scriptures to the Crosses Commendation He termed him Crux to shew a purging Power in him because he held the Cross a Purger of Man's Sin. And that he was drawn into this Opinion by the same means that Papists are drawn into it by a supposed Dedication of it in the Blood of Christ not considering that by this conceit Men may adore every Thorn-Bush because the Holy Head of Jesus was embrued with Blood by that Crown of Thorns wherewith he was crowned And Valentinus does confess his Aâ—on was without a Figure until Christ by his Death upon the Cross gave him one and till now we never read of any that used the Figure of the Cross before him or made any account of it And therefore he it is for ought we know even Valentinus that first brought it into Request and Reckoning And who then will suffer us to say we borrow it from the Fathers and not from him See we not then that to say we follow the Fathers in the Cross Valentinus the Heretick being the first Deviser of it we are forced to fly like Eutropius to the very same Sanctuary which we have denied and shut up to others The Fathers can be no Vizard for a Ceremony which has been abused since or what though from the Fathers we take this sign This helpeth not till the Fathers use be justified which will never be He that readeth the Fathers Writings will meet indeed with such a Chaos as will make him afraid I say not to fall into it but even to behold it Who can brook the Efficacy which Tertullian gave it The Flesh is signed that the Soul may be defended The Necessity which Cyprian gave it in Baptism Vngi necesse baptizatum baptizati signo Dominico consumantur The Fathers call this sign Spirituale Signaculum to wit because it bringeth the Spirit for which one place may serve our turn Sequitur spirituale Signaculum quia post fontem superest ut perfectio fiat quando ad invocationem Sacerdos Spiritus fanctus infunditur And in the opinion of the Fathers the Water of Baptism is nothing worth without the Cross In the opinion of the Fathers the Cross is the Terror of the Devil and an impregnable Wall against him so that they used the Cross themselves when in any danger In the opinion of the Fathers the Cross is Insigne Regni et clavis Paradisi Last of all in the opinion of the Fathers the Cross is so necessary as that it is to be made coming and going sitting and standing even ad omnem incessum at every stop and ad omnem actum in every Action that we do And to shew the Superstition of the Cross from Tertullian take a View of it as set down by the Author of the case of the Cross Vpon every motion saith he at their going out and coming in when they put on their Garments or Shoes at the Bath or at Meals when they lighted up their Candles or went to Bed whatever almost they did in any part of their Conversation still they would even wear out their Foreheads with the Sign of the Cross And is not this a sad Story yet our Author brings this in Favour of it Mr. Hooker is brought in as drawing Mr. Goulart as it were by the Hair of the Head to clear the Fathers from the Superstition of the Cross which he doth not save in comparison of the Popish Merit and Enchantment which afterward
not as well as Marriage has been and is incumbred with so many of the Ceremonies of Mens devising that it 's not easy to number them much less to observe them But yet such has been the Wisdom of the greatest Ceremonialists as to be afraid to annual an Ordinance tho the Ceremonies of the Church were omitted and particularly in the Case of Baptism Ordination and Marriages Do not the Protestants allow of all these among the Papists though many Ceremonies be used therein which they dissallow Yea there is no doubt but both the Church of England and the Church of Rome would admit the Baptism of our Children for a valid Baptism which was performed upon their personal profession of Faith and Repentance and by Immersion and by one whom they esteem a Lay-man because nothing is wanting in our Baptism which pertains to the essence of the Ordinance though we reject all their Rites Sponsors Crossings c. And therefore by a parity of Reason our Marriages being warranted by God's Law in all things essential to Marriage must be allowed good and honest Marriages tho no Priest nor Ring c. was concern'd in them I say again Does not the Church of England hold the Ordination received in the Papacy to be valid and yet they condemn some Ceremonies which they use in their Ordinations for superstitious Vanities neither do they marry those Papists a second time who become Protestants but do account their Marriages valid and good and yet their Marriages were not celebrated according to the Rites of the Church of England not by their Ministers And why Surely because neither the Law of God nor the Law of the Land do say they are null or void And then sure I am if they will be but as kind to us as to Papists they must grant our Marriages to be more justifiable of the two For 〈◊〉 ours is no where condemned by the Law of God nor the Law of the Land any more than theirs And 2. we bring not in any Roman Rites in the Celebration of our Marriages as perhaps they do in theirs but we keep as near the Law of the Land in the Celebration of Marriage as we can and do undoubtedly keep to the Law of God and right Reason therein as much as any as has been shewed SECT III. Of the most important Question touching the case depending viz. Whether it be necessary that Marriages should be celebrated by a Minister and whether they may be valid and lawful without them THis is the Question propounded by that learned and worthy Man Bp. Hall in his Book of Resolut p. 361. c. 8. whose Answer will greatly strengthen that which we have said respecting the Law of God for thus he speaks It is no marvel saith he if the Church of Rome which hold Matrimony a Sacrament conferring Grace by the very Work wrought require an absolute Necessity of the Priests hand in so holy an Act but for us who though reverently esteeming that sacred Institution yet set it a Key lower it admits of too much Question whether we need to stand upon the terms of a Ministers Agency in the Performance of that solemn Action So then it is a clear case it seems unless we fall back to the Papists to make Marriage a Sacrament there is no absolute Necessity to have a Priest to celebrate Marriage and consequently it may be done lawfully by God's Law at least without them And assuredly that Doctrine which makes a Minister of God absolutely necessary to the Celebration of Marriages can in no wise be true because it is most unreasonable to impeach all those Marriages which all the World over from the beginning to this day have been celebrated without them If then all Nations have all things that are essential to Marriage and yet few Nations have had God's faithful Ministers to celebrate it it is manifest there may be lawful Marriages without a Minister in all Nations seeing the Essentials of Marriage is the same in all Nations But though the Bishop be for us thus far yet he seems to be against us in that which follows for thus he writes That as it is requisite even according to the Roman Constitutions that he who is entrusted with the cure of our Souls should besides other Witnesses be both present and active in and at our domestick Contracts of Matrimony so by the Laws both of our Church and Kingdom it is necessary he should have his hand in the publick Celebration of them there may then be firm Contracts there cannot be lawful Mariages without Gods Ministers But reserving the Honour due to so grave a Writer I must answer thus 1. If there may be firm Contracts without a Priest that is Contracts made with consent of Parents c. and before sufficient Witnesses and firm that is such Contracts as cannot lawfully be broken and less than such he cannot mean then I see not but that the Substance or all that is essential to Marriage may be atained without the Priests hand even in the Judgment of this learned Bishop But 2. I answer further that by the Testimonies of divers learned Men both in the Roman Constitutions and the Law of this Land which we have alledged in the former Section the Bishop is mistaken when he says the Law of this Kingdom does make the Priests hand so necessary that Marriage cannot be lawful without them Sure Judg Hale understood the Law of the Kingdom yet he thought all Marriages made according to the several Perswasions of Men ought to have their Effects in Law and indeed should it be otherwise that the Papists and other Dissenters should have their Marriages nulled which were not celebrated by a Minister of the Church of England it would cause great Confusion in the Land and again they must all be prohibited Marriage who are unmarried among the Dissenters and excommunicated by the Church of England for they pretend they candor lawfully marry Persons excommunicated and how any Church comes to assume Power to make such Laws we cannot understand only of this we are sure neither the Law of God nor Reason the prime Foundation of all good Laws does warrant any Church in so doing The Proof which the Bishop seems most to rest upon as the Strength of his Opinion is because Christians do know Matrimony to be an Holy Institution of God himself which he not only ordained but actually celebrated betwixt the first annocent Pair and which being for the Propagation of an Holy Seed requires a special Benediction and how can we think any Man meet for this Office but the Man of God set over us in the Lord But sure these Premisses are not at all apt to bear this Conclusion that none but a Priest may celebrate Marriage The Argument seems more naturally to be deduced thus God the Father of Adam Luke 3. ult who also had the right to dispose of the Woman and to give her in Marriage did celebrate Marriage between