not be vanquished till almost a hundred thousand of them were slain by the united forces of the Empire But the Emperour objected to the Protestants that their Preachers were a great occasion of the Rustical war wherein an hundred thousand were slain But whether it were so or not so what ever Mr. Crs. protestations be the writing this Epistle with some other passages at the time and to the persons to whom it was directed shew what we are to expect from him and such as he is if ever they have power over us But of these things onely by the way SECT LXXXVIII Austins saying about Apostolical traditions is not to be rested upon nor his testimony about the antiquity of Infant Baptism AFter his own Epistle and the Epistle of I. T. P. and the reprinting of the conference between me and Mr. Vaughan and the dispute between me and himself Mr. Cr. leaving out the former Epistle of I. T. P. begins with a descant on the title of my reply which he vainly makes to imply a suit against the universal Church though it be onely an action against innovators who have left the plain way of Christ and his Apostles and as they have done in many other things brought in infant Baptism to the great corruption of the Church of God And for Mr. Halls inditement it is such as is fit for boys onely to make sport with and were Mr. Hall or Mr. Cr. of such serious and grave spirits as they should be they would have buried it in silence or been humbled for handling things of God so lightly such writings being fitter for light wits in the University then for Preachers and Pastors over Churches of Christ. My calling Mr. Baxters book a cheat and mock titled book is proved here to be right and that Mr. Ms. is no impregnable Defence is here shewed The rest of Mr. Crs. light Poetry in sect 1. c. par 1. I let pass as the scum of his wit and onely take notice that he terms from Stow Sir John Oldcastle a traitor who was hanged on a gibbet and burned in St. Gyles field whom Mr. Fox in his book of Martyrs in the time of Henry the 5th hath against Alan Cope vindicated and by sundry arguments particularly by the manner of his death mentioned by Mr. Cr. made it probable that he died a Martyr oppressed by popish Prelates Whose case is a good document how little credence is to be given to the censures of men when the relations of them are made by their prevailing adversaries What I think of laying on hands may be seen part 2 of this Review sect 23. Dr. Featly was a man with whom I had sundry times conference when he was in his greatest esteem but never found him such as I durst not look in the face when living and sure his book of Baptism is besideâ— what Denn hath done shewed here and elsewhere not to be unanswerable With what spirit Mr. Cr. and other Paedobaptists and my self have written on this subject must be left to the cognizance of our Judge If Austins saying l. 4. de Bapt. contra Donat. c. 23. That what the universal Church holds nor was instituted in Councels but always retained is most rightly believed to have been delivered by no other then Apostolical authority were meant as Mr. Cr. sect 5. p. 67. expounds it including the Apostles I should yeeld it But 1. I do not conceive that to be Austins meaning for 1. then the speech would be an inept tautology to say that what the whole Church including the Apostles holds is most rightly believed to have been delivered by no other then Apostolical authority it were as if he had said what the Apostles held the Apostles held 2. The very speech shews that Austin meant it of the universal Church of his time the word tenet being in the present tense and the Councels meant being such as were since the Apostles and that he counted that to be instituted in no Councels but to have been always held of which he could not shew any beginning or any interruption 3. Elsewhere his speeches shew this was his mind as Epist. 118. ad Joann Illa quae non scripta sed tradita custodimus quae quidem toto terrarum orbe observantur dantur intelligi vel ab iâ—sis Apostolis vel plenariis Conciliis quorum est in Ecclesiâ— saluberrima autoritas commendata atque statuta retineri and he instanceth in the anniversary solemnities of Good Friday Easter day Holy Thursday and Whitsunday and adds and if any other thing hath occurred which is kept by the whole Church where ever it spreads it self And accordingly he makes the necessity of the Communion to eternal life as of Baptism to the Kingdome to be from Apostolical tradition tom 7. de pecc mer. remis l. 1. c. 24. Mr. Crs. conceit is not right as if the words And if any man seek for Divine authority in this thing did intimate that his following rule was meant of what was held in the Apostles time for in them he means that which he after fetcheth from Circumcision out of Scripture besides that which the whole Church holds not instituted in Councels yet still held In this sense it is urged by Canus l. 3. loc Theol. c. 4. as a rule to know genuine unwritten traditions Apostolical from spurious and rejected by Chamier paustr. cath tom 1. l. 8. c. 14. § 13. as impossible sith what hath been in all ages and Churches from the Apostles cannot be known and it is urged by Bellarm. de bonis oper in part l. 2. c. â—4 for Lent fast and refuted by Chamier paustr. cath tom â— l. 19 c. 7. § 36. 2. This rule cannot stand the Epistler in any stead for proving infant Baptism without the Apostles writings 1. because there is no way without them to know what was universally held there being no man able to know what the Church holds in all places in his own time much less what in former ages was held and many things have been taken even by Austin as universally observed which were not and many Councels held which are unknown and many corruptions crept very early into the Church whose original cannot be sâ—t down determinately of which Ushers general answer to the Jesuites challenge gives reasons 2. Infant Baptism cannot bee proved to have been universally observed but as now it is taught and used hath been opposed by some of the Ancients and is now rejected by Protestant Divines as it was by the Ancients taught and used Nor is Austins testiâ—ony Seâ—m 10. de verb. Apostoli not Serm. 15. that the Church always had and held Infant Baptism valid for Mr. Crs. purpose 1. because the term hoc this may bee rather referred to tâ—e doctrine of infants being born with original sin rather then the practise of their baptism and to this senâ—e both tâ—e scope words precedent consequenâ— and the terms had held perceives from the
for the begetting of a favourable opinion of themselves and their children which are more to most then demonstrations out of Gods word do gain an easie assent And though I am not out of hope that those who have opposed the truth I assert with impetuous zeal will be especially the most tender conscienced who examine their wayes and review their doctrines awakened and see and confess their errour yet I fear the obloquy and perhaps detriment in repute and outward estate and peace which mâ—n either are likely or doubt they may incur by owning the truth I hold forth or the seeming inconsistency of the reformation I seek to promote with the peace of the Churches of God will divert the thoughts of many from an exact consideration and an equall judgement of what I shall write either of my self or the matter under debate What was wont to be opposed against the reformation of Popish and Prelatical corruptions shall we go against all antiquity Be wiser then our Fathers condemn all the Churches make rents in the Church and such like objections though they be upon examination but vain yet like Gorgons head they are apt to turn men into stones and to make men not see what they do or might see and to be insensible of the evil of that practise which otherwise their Consciences would be affrighted with And truely though it be the wise and just contrivance of Divine provâ—dence and congruous to his end that the vanity of all things under the Sun might appear yet is it an humane irregularity that not onely for evil labour but also for all travel and every right work a man is envied malignâ—d or disliked of his neighbour Eccl. 4.4 chiefly when it crosseth self ends and conceits Nor is it incident onely to the prophane and unbelievers to dislike and oppose such acts as are rightly done but also to the godly until their mistakes are discovered to them The building of the Altar of Ed Josh. 22.12 was likely to have been an occasion of war beetween the rest of the Congregation of Israel and some Tribes till the intention of the builders was cleared to Phinehas and Peter's going in to Cornelius Act. 11.2 occasioned contention with him though it were from God till his warrant was shewed Paul knew that his promoting the collection for the poor Saints at Jerusalem might be distasted of the best and therefore he prayes that his service which he had for Jerusalem might be accepted of the Saints Rom. 15.31 Even holy upright men have their weaknesses passions mis-prisions prejudices which oft times hinder a right understanding of tenents and actions of Christian Brethren and thereby no small contentions arise God would have us discern thereby humane imperfection and keep our spirits humble and heedfull how we manage the rightest actions Surely no action is more necessary then the discovery of truth in the things of God nor should any endeavours be more acceptable to holy persons then such as tend thereto yea though there should be imperfection in actings and defect in the success Yet too much experience hath shewed that such attempts meet with much opposition and are ill entertained even by those who are or seem friends to truth It is unnecessary to give instances in the Scripture Acts 15.2 c. in the Ecclesiastical Story there are so many as verifie it beyond all contradiction If there were no other example but what hath befaln me about the point in this writing discussed yet it were sufficient to verifie what I said of the difficulty to gain entertainment of that truth against which men are prepossessed and of the ill usage of them that in a due manner endeavour to cleer it That Infant Baptism was not according to Gods will I thought might be made manifest by the silence of it in Scripture and the Writings of the two first Ages and by shewing how it was counted but an Ecclesiastical humane tradition unwritten induced upon such reasons by the Leaders of the Churches in after ages as are now judged erroneous and how false and dangerous the grounds are on which it is made a Divine institution to wit an imagined Covenant of grace to a Believer and his seed natural the nature of Sacraments to be seals of the Covenant of grace the inference of duties about positive rites of the new Testament from analogy with abrogated Ceremonies of the old the command of Circumcision to have been in the extent of it commensurate to and derived from the Covenant with Abraham Gen. 17. as the adequate reason the succession of Baptism into the room and use of Circumcision all which or most of them are so contrary to the Scripture and Protestant doctrine as that I presumed they would quickly have been discerned by those who are acquainted with the controversies of Divines and sought reformation in Discipline and removal of humane inventions in Gods worship and had entered into a solemn oath and Covenant to that end And for my way of manifesting my doubts first to the Ministers of London and then to the Committee of the Assembly then sitting at Westminster and after to a prime man in it in the years 1643 1644. and what opposition I found is so manifest in my two Treatises and Apology published 1645 1646. as that it were but actum agere to say any more thereof Which I hoped would have taken off such prejudices as my Antagonists writings had raised against my writings and person that I might securely apply my self to review the Dispute wâ—thout hearing of any more personal objections But when I found the like usage continued by Mr. Robert Baily of Glasgow in Scotland I published an Addition to the Apology 1652. though it were framed before and sent in a letter Manuscript to him Yet the hottest charge was behinde After my necessitated removal from the Temple in London to Bewdley in Worcestershire anno 1646. it happened that a publike Dispute was between Mr. Richard Baxter of Kidderminster near to Bewdley and my self at Bewdley Jan. 1. 1649. which how it was occasioned managed injuriously divulged may be perceived by the writings on both sides his Epistle before the first Edition of the Saints Everlasting rest his Book of Baptism Praefestinantis Morator and my Antidote printed 1650. and Prâ—cursor anno 1652. By Mr. Baxters book of Baptism my self doctrine answers practise have been so unwoâ—thily dealt with as that they have been painted out in deformed shapes quite besides their true feature and thereby exposed to the unrighteous censures and contempt of so many that Mr. Blake in his Preface to his Vind. faederis thought he might without controul say Mr. Tombes is generally lookt upon low enough under hatches It is indeed too manifest that upon the publishing of Mr. Baxters Book of Baptism which was often printed and very much dispersed floods of reproaches were cast on me and those who are of my judgement in that point triumphant boastings of that
intimating such a command we are not bound to do the like in the one as we do in the other As for the sixth Argument That nothing can be soundly collected from the scriptures against infant-baptism the contrary hath appeared above in the second part of this Review Sect 5. c. what he grants that it may be soundly gathered that all of riper years should be discipled before baptism from the commission Matth. 28.19 doth also prove that they had no Commission to baptize any but discipled persons and so none but those of riper years not infants unless there be shewed some other Commission which is not to be found in the Scripture but only in corrupt tradition of antiquity and the Jewish arguings of latter Divines and is not yet found any other then will-worship To all which Mr. Church further brings answer is made before the vindicating of my objections will most fitly come in the reply to Masters Marshalls Defence to which I shall hasten after the dispatch of some few other Authors SECT XII Doctor Featley his argument for Infant-baptism from the Covenant is examined MR. Rutherford is another of the Authors whose writing Mr. Baxter tells yet remains to be answered But I know not any writing of his in which he doth directly dispute against Anti-paedobaptists I confess I have met with a dispute against those of the Congregational way of Discipline in his Peaceable and temperate Plea c. 12. q. 12. for denying baptism to those infants whose next parent is not a known believer in some gathered Church who yet do hold and practise baptism of such infants whose next parent is a Church-member But that dispute going only against them and upon his grounds denied and refuted by me elsewhere it were out of my way to answer what he saith there If there be any other writing of his I presume some one or other of the Antagonists I refute have the strength of it yet I intend if such a one do occurre to me to give account of it as I shall find meet Mr. Robert Baillee is another to whose writing Mr. B. points me But his first Argument I have already enervated in the Addition to my Apology in my letter to him and answering his three first criminations especially the third and have shewed sect 1. that he doth but calumniate when he charges us to affirm That no infants have any place in the Covenant of grace or any Gospel promises till they be called by the word and by an actual faith have embraced the Gospel What other arguments he brings are answered either in answering Others that bring the same or it s intended shall be answered in fit place There are many others who have written of this argument in the English tongue each of which forms his Argument from the Covenant to the initial seal from infant circumcision to infant-baptism with some difference in terms or phrasifying though in effect all of them are reduced into the three forms in the 1 2 3. sect of my Exercitation and rest on these false principles that interest in the Covenant of grace was the adequate reason of a persons title to circumcision and is the adequate reason of a persons title to baptism and that there is the like reason of baptizing infants of believers as of circumcising infants of Abraham by virtue of the like interest in the Covenant though there be not the like command for the one as for the other nevertheless that it may not be said I have neglected any thing conceived worth answering or to have slighted any of their labours I shall briefly answer the Arguments of such as have come to my hands and then more largely answer Mr. Geree Mr. Marshall Mr. Cobbet Mr. Blake Mr. Baxter who have opposed my writings taking in others by the way as I see fit Dr. Featley is one that hath been a Leader of the Prelatical party and is judged by them to have proved Paedobaptism learnedly His dispute is in his Dipper dâ—pt p. 46. arg 5. thus All they who are comprized within the Covenant and are no where prohibited to receive the seal thereof may and ought to receive it But children are comprized within the Covenant of faith whereof circumcision was a seal Rom. 4.11 and now baptism is Ergo children may and ought to receive Baptism Of the Major or first Proposition there can be no doubt for it is unjust to deprive a Man of the confirmation of that to which he hath a true right or title And for the Minor or Assumption it is as cleer for so are the words of the Covenant Gen. 17.17 I will establish my Covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee Against which I except first That the Syllogism is many waies faulty 1. That he puts in the Conclusion children as all one with infants 2. That in the Conclusion there is this term not exprest in the Major may and ought to receive baptism for that which is in the Major may and ought to receive the seal of the Covenant is not all one with may and ought to receive baptism baptism and seal of the Covenant being not equipollent besides Circumcision passeover Lords Supper the Ephesians are said to be sealed with the holy spirit of promise Ephes. 1.13 nor is the term seal of the Covenant applyed to Sacraments any other than a novel expression neither used in Scripture nor the Antients Rom. 4.11 doth not term circumcision much less other Sacraments as they are called a seal of the Covenant of faith as the Doctor misallegeth it but a seal of the Righteousness of faith which he had being yet uncircumcised Whence it appears that it was a Seal of what he had not of a covenant concerning what he was to have and this is said onely of Abrahams circumcision with such an observing of particularizing circumstances as shew it to be appropriated to Abrahams circumcision what ever is said of circumcisions being a seal of the righteousness of faith however Divines dictate to the contrary and therefore what the Doctor addes in the Minor which multiplies the terms in the Syllogism and now baptism is asserting thereby baptism to be a Seal of the Covenant of faith is said without proof though I should not stick to grant it in this sense that to the true believer his baptism assures righteousness according to Gods Covenant and the true believer by baptism gives testimony or assurance of his faith according to his Covenant as being unwilling to wrangle about terms if we agree in the meaning But in the sense Paedobaptists use it as containing the nature of a Sacrament I shall reject it in that which followes 3. Against the Doctors omission of some words in the Minor and are no where prohibited to receive the seal therof which were in the Major 4. That the term and are no where prohibited to receive the seal thereof is ambiguous For it may be understood either of an express
Scripture to prove it Austin affirms lib. 10. c. 23. de Genes that the custome of our mother the Church in baptising of little ones iâ— in no wise to be despised nor to be thought superfluous nor at all to be believed unless it were an Apostolick tradition and yet proves the necessity of it from Joh. 3.5 unless one be born again of water and the spirit c. Answ. It was granted in my Examen that the greatest points of faith though written were by the Ancients called Apostolical traditions but in this point that the words ascribed to Origen meant an unwritten tradition I alledged 1. that the phraieâ— pro hoc ecclesia ab Apostolis traditionem suscepit and secundum Ecclesiae observantiam are sufficient proof to them who are acquainted with the Ancients writings of those times To this is nothing replied by Mr. Ms. friend Dr. Homes or M. Cr. to shew that these phrases are applied to any other then unwritten traditions when they are used of riâ—es for the use or institution of which they alledge no text of Scripture 2. That there is no text of Scripture cited for the use or instiâ—â—â—ion of infant Baptism To this it is replied that Origen layes the ground on the Scriptures But those Scriptures are brought for the proof of origiâ—al sin and the necessitâ— of infant Baptism which were reasons of the Churches observance not proofs of the use and institution of it And that the Scriptures do not give any proof of the use or â—nstitution of infant Baptism but onely grounds of the reasonableness and why the Church took it up is shewed to have been the judgement of many learned Papistâ— and Protestants of later and elder time in my Praecursor sect 20 which may bee easily observed because they alledge nothing out of Scripture about â—nstiâ—uâ—ion or practise of it but of neceâ—â—â—ty to save thâ— infant which being a mistake it appears â—he tradition waâ— not from the Apostles Besides as Augustin alledged Joh. 3.5 for infâ—nt Baptism so he also alledged Joh 6 53 for infant Communioâ— which hee and the Ancients observed aâ— an Apostolick tradition 〈◊〉 many Churches observe even to this day yet we conclude it is but an unwritten tradition and so judged by the Ancients All the places of the Fathers which cite Scripture for infant Baptism infant Communion Easter Lentâ—â—ast and many other things which the Ancients observed shewing rather the reason of their observation then the institution as Mr. Cawdrey speaks in another case Sabb. rediv. part 4. chap. 1. § 24. To the 20th section of my Praecursor Mr. Baxter in his Praefestinantis morator saith The Ancients took infant Baptism as you say for an Apostolical tradition but not unwritten The warrant they supposed written but not the history de facto Answ. The ancients must needs take infant Baptism for an unwritten tradition when they supposed the History neither de facto noâ— of the institution to be written though they â—ook the custome of the Church as Austin tom 3. l. 10. de Genes ad litteram c 23 terms iâ— having suâ—h reason from the necessity of it to save them perishing upon the mistake of Joh. 3.5 for their warrant But how poor a matâ—â—r was taken by the Church for a reason to coâ—tinue a custome may â—ppear even by those words of Austin in that place which shew also it was taken onely for a custome of the Church taken up by them and not appâ—inted by thâ— Apostles For having spoken as doubtfull and uncertain what to say about the question before agitated by him concerning the creation of the souls of the children from the parents becâ—usâ— of thâ— objection fro◠〈◊〉 Baptism of little ones he â—hen adds Yet the custome of ouâ— mother the Church in Baptising little oneâ— is not to be dâ—spâ—sed nor by any meanâ— to be accounted superfluous nor aâ— all to be believed unless it were an Apostolical tradition For that little age hath great weight of testimony which first meâ—ited to shed bloud for Christ. Whereby it may appear 1. That Austinâ—ook â—ook iâ— for a custome of the Church without example or institution written 2. That he took such a frivolouâ— pâ—â—â—ence as the death of the children of Bethlehem slain bâ— Herod Matth. 2. to have great weight of testimony for the believing of infant bapâ—ism to have been an Apostolical tradition It would be counted arrogance in me to censure the Fathers yet when I find such silly reasons as Austin here and elsewhere and Cyprian Epist. 59 ad Fidâ—m gâ—ve aâ— warrant for infant Bapâ—ism so slightly passed over by Mr. B. and otâ—ers aâ—d theiâ— testimonies still urged for the credit of infant Bapâ—ism which do wiâ—h any that is willing to see the weâ—kness of them discredit it I cannot but for the truths sake say that as in many other things so in this of infaâ—t Baptism the Fathers speeches are so vain as thâ—t there is more need to bewail the errour they have led peâ—ple into then to the continuance of thâ— deceiving of people by them to alledge them for proofs or to magnifie justifie or excuse them Mr. B. adds You might have spared all the 86. page where you prove that Papists take it for an unwritten tradition We know they are desirous of any pretence to set tradition above Scripture Yet you know Bellarmin and others commonly prove it by Scripture The words of Becanâ—s not § 24. as you say but § 12. yeeld the 〈◊〉 rightly interpreâ—ed to prove infant Baptism and that 's all that I desire I had thought that Chamiers answer to this might have satisfied you If you have forgot it peruse it again tom 7. lib. 9. c. 10. § 40 c. and tom 4. l. 5. c. 9. § 32. Answ. I could not well have spared any part of that page Not onely later Papists engaged in the modern controversies but also elder and disingaged Papists and others were alledged by me of whom it is not meet to suspect that they did acknowledge that infant Baptism is an unwritten tradition out of a deâ—re to set tradition above Scripâ—uâ—e but out of cleer evidence of the tâ—uâ—h of what they say Nor do I think Mr. B. can shew one Author until Luthers day who made infant Baptism any other then an unwritten tradition although they produce many of them Scriptures for the necessity reasonableness and lawfulness of the Church to use it to whose authority they ascribed too much in the appointing such rites and interpreting â—criptures to that end I do not finde that the engaged Papists cited by me did set tradition above Scripture bâ—t that they make it equall I grant I know Bellarmin tom 3. l. 1. de sacram bapt c. 8. brings three arguments from Scripâ—ure for infant Baptism and c. 9. saith deducitur evidenter ex Scripturis uâ— diâ—imus but how he means it hee 〈◊〉 us thus in the same chapter that though the argument of the Anabaptists from defect
of Command or example have gâ—eat force against Lutherans for as much as they use that principle every where that the â—ite which is not in Scripture having no command nor example there is to be rejected yet it is of no force against Catholicks For altâ—ough we find no command expresly that we should baptize infants yet that also is openly enough gathered out of Scriptures as we have shewed above and besides the tradition of the Apostles is of no less authority with us then Scripture for the Apostles spake with the same spirit with which they did write But that this is an Apostolick tradition wee thence know whence we know the Apostolick Scripture to be the Apostolick Scripture to wit from the testimonies of the ancient Church The words of Becanus were cited rightly by me out of his manual of Controversies l. 1. c. 2. § 24. not § 12. as Mr. B. corrects me without cause and they plainly shew the meaning of those men to be that the Scripture onely proves infant Baptism by that sense of it which is not manifest but by the tradition and practise of the Church I have perused Chamier paustr. Cath. not tom 7. as Mr. B. directs I know none such but tom 1. l. 9. c. 10. § 40 c. and tom 4. l 5. c. 9. § 32. But I am not thereby satisfied that either the Ancients took infant Baptism for any other then an unwritten tradition or that it ought to be taken Mr. B. proceds Mr. Rogers hath made you know he is of another judgement Mr Bedford tels me he hath corrected his wordâ— in a later edition How could you allege Dr. Field without considering how you wrong'd your self Is nothing written in Scripture but expresly yea is not that Scripture proof and plain proof which shews plainly from Scripture the grounds reasons and causes of the necessity of the practise Dr Prideaux thought Episcopacy provable from Scripture and therefore if hee thought that infant Baptism must bee proved the same way he is sure against you For Dr. Taylour if you have read all his books I hope you will no more reckon him amongst Protestants having so much of the body of Popery in them Mr. Youngs words if they be his are against you in the thing you cite them for There are testimonia minùs aperta and there are testimonia aperta pro fundamto praemissis quae sunt minùs aperta directâ— pro conclusione My audaciousness in asserting plain Scripture proof must bee bâ—tter repressed then thus if you will satisfie men of reason and conscience Answ. I have made known in my Apology sect 13. how Mr. Rogers shifts but answers not the allegation I made of his words And if M. Bedford have corrected his words I wish it have not been fâ—r the cause sake against his conscience If he and Mr. Rogers can so easily say and unsay who can give credit to men that can thus blow hot and cold wiâ—h the same breath I know no wrong to my self done by alleging Dr. Field Though things be written in Scripture which are not so expresly yet is not that Scripture proof nor plain proof for infant Baptism any more then infant Communion which shews plainly from Scripture Pauls conclusion of original sin Rom 5.12 and Christs Joh. 3.5 which Ancients took falsly for grouâ—ds reasons and causes of the necessity oâ— infant Baptism as they did Joh. 6.53 of infant Communion yet took the use to bee a custome â—f the Church countenanced from Scripture without institution of Christ or practise of the Apostles And that this was Dr. Fields meaning is plain from his words and this seems to have been the common opinion of the Prelates of the Church of England by thâ— words by way of Preface used at the solemnity of Baâ—tism and in sundry places of the Common Prayer book Catechism art 27. of the Church of England And after this manner thought Dr. Prideaux infant Baptism and Episcopacy proveable by Scripture I have not read all Dr. Taylors works nor do I know but that hee is to bee reckoned among Protestants Dr. Youngs words are much for me 1. In that he produceth no precept but that of Circumcision for infant Baptism 2. Thâ—t hee confesseth the practise Apostolical to be somewhat obscurer and therefore addes the cust me of the Church from the times of the first ages which is in effect all one as to resolve the proof of infant Baptism finally into the custome of the whole Church especially when he saith we cannot smite the Anabaptists with plain testimonies Nor can Mr. Bs. distinction of more or less open testimonies help him sith Dr. Young denies that Paedobaptists can smite with open or plain â—estimonies the Anabaptists barking against infant Baptism If Mr. Bs. audaciousness in asserting plain Scripture proof for infant Baptism be not yet repressed nor men of reason and conscience satisfied I must leave them to the Lord. Enough I think is said about Origens words I go on Dr. Hammond in his Defence of infants Baptism pag. 98. saith thus About the same time the 3d. Century or without question soon after wrote the Author under the name of Dionysius Areopagita de Eccl. Hierarch For as by Photius it appears Theodorus Presbyter about the year 420. debated the question whether that writer were Dionysius mentioned in the acts or no. And of this no doubt hath been made but that he was a very ancient and learned Authour He therefore in his 7th ch of Eccles. Hierarch Edit Morel p. 233. proposeth the question as that which may seem to prophane persons i. e. heathens ridiculous why children which cannot yet understand divine things are made partakers of the sacred birth from God i. e. evidently of Baptism concerning the baptizing of infants saith Maximuâ— his scholiast adding to the same head also that others in their stead pâ—onounce the abrenunciations and divine confessions And his answer is 1. That many things which are unknown by us why they are done have yet causes worthy of God 2. That we affirm of this the same things which our divine Officers of the Church being instructed by divine tradition have brought down unto us and again our Divine guides i. e. the Apostles saith Maximus considering this appointed that infants should thus be admitted according to the sacred manner nothing can bee more clear then that the Apostolical tradition is by this ancient and elegant writer avouched for the baptizing of infants as a sufficient account of that matter against the reproaches and scoffâ— of prophane or heathen men who deemed it unreasonable And so there is a most convincing testimony for that time wherein that Author wrote which must needs be in the 4th Century before Theodorus Presbyters debating the question concerning him but most probably more ancient and so to be placed in this 3d. age Answ. 1. It is to be noted by the Reader that Dr. Hammond doth not so much as pretend the antiquiâ—y of
sine Baptismo compeâ—ere salutem ex illa maximè pronuntiatione Domini qui ait nisi natus ex aqua quis erit non habet vitam c. However Ambrose and Augustine determine of the salvation of grown persons without Baptism if they believe desire to be baptized be Martyrs yet both they and many more held both Baptism and the Lords Supper to be necessary for infants unto salvation by an Apostolick tradition as M. Perkins Demonst. of the probleme in the point of Baptism proves though perhaps they could not reasonably grant the one and deny the other That Calvin was a mâ—n well versed in Antiquity for his time it 's not denied nor that he was a man well acquainted in the Scriptures yet that in neither he was in this point in the right is so fully demonstrated before that I may safely say Calvin was not therein Calvin as he is in his opposition of the Papists And if Mr. M. or his friend think it not meet to be tied to Calvins judgâ—ment in the point of the Sabbath and Lords day and Usury notwithstanding his skill in Antiquity and Scripture the same in equity is to be allowed to us about the point of Baptism I like Mr. Ms. acknowledgement with Riveâ— that tradition is in most points uncertain and therefore he that will build sure must build on the Scripture and therefore we must necessarily come to arguments from the Scriptures which if they evince not the thing we shall in vain call to Tradition If Mr. M. had not fiâ—st in his Sermon forestalâ—ed his hearers and readers with the pretence oâ— the Churches possession for 1500. years and upwards and Dr. Hammond resolved all his proof of infant Baptism into his exposition of 1 â—or 7.14 which he had no way to make good but by Tertullian and some of the Ancienâ—s I had spared this labour of shewing tâ—eir and and the Ancienâ—s mistakes Thaâ— Doctrine and practise of Baptism of Infants â—hich Austin saith to be according to the sentence of the Gospel is rejectâ—d by Proâ—estants who iâ— they would in this as in other things they have done 〈◊〉 according to Scripture and all their own principles must baptize no infants till they be made believers till then they do but prevaricate and profane the holy Ordinance of Baptism SECT XCIX Mr. Crs. objections about my 9 untruths his discourse about re-baptizing are refelled I Return now to Mr. Cragg Part 1. sect 6. he chargeth me with 9 untruths outvying the number of the lines in which he is a false accuser In the first he misâ—recites my words which were not that the Epistle affirms that the baptising of believers had its spring and rise from Nicholas Stork but thus As false it is thâ—t the baptizing of believers called by these Anabaptism had its spring and rise from Nicholas Stork and others there named which were true For though it was not in those words said by me that the Epistle did so affirm yet it is true 1. That Paedobaptists call the baptizing believers which Nicholas Stork and others practised Anabaptism me thinks he should not be so impudent as to deny that those whom they baptized were believers or that they baptized them or that that Baptism is called Anabaptism by them 2. The very words of the Epistle are the spring and rise of Anabaptism had its beginning after truth and saith the first Author thereof was Nicholas Stork then Phipher c. there you have the spring and rise of it and therefore in my words there is no untruth but Mr. Cr. doth falsely insinuate as if there were folshood and inconsequence in my speech and slâ—nderously make me one of the great disturbers of the late reformation and the first â—uthor of the disturbance or Anabaptism and cunningly altering the subject of the Question from Anabaptists to baptizers of believers The 2d thing he chargeth on me as untruth was not expressed as Mr. Cr. inâ—inuates that Paedobaptists call the baptizers of belivers Anabaptists but thus the baptizing of believers called by these Anabaptism which cannot be denied to be true unless he deny that the baptizing used was not baptizing or the baptized no believers or that they call it not Anabaptism It is also false that he saith of me that my judgement and practise is that all that will be saved must be baptized again when they become actual believers and this I put in execution by making as many Proselytes by rebaptising as I can The 3d. untruth as he calls it is that baptising of believers without infants or excluding infants had not its spring and rise from Nicholas Stork and he notes that the Epistle affirmed Anabaptism which is another thing had its spring thence But he neither shews what other thing Anabaptism is nor doth he prove it to be an untruth but by rendring my own instances against it invâ—lid But therein he dâ—tâ— buâ— abuâ—e me who alledged not the instances he brings to prove that proposition he terms an untruth nor is there any thing said by him but what he hath from Mr. Ms. Defence and is aâ—swered before here sectâ—â— â—â— 98. The 4th untruth he châ—rgeth me with is that infants Baptism was not commanded by Christ and he thâ—â—ks to â—vince the contrary from Mat. 28.19 But he saith â—othing but whâ—t is â—â—â—ully refuted before Review part 2. sect 5 c. part 3. sect 97. and elsewhere so that I neeâ— say no more here to it The 5th untruth he imagines is that infant Baptism was not practised by the Apostles which being denied by the Anâ—ipaedobaptists the proof lies upon them But by his â—â—ave the proof lies upon the Paedobaptists to prove they did baptize infants sith they claim a right to it which muâ—â— be proved by precepâ— oâ— example of the doing it validityâ—o â—o shâ—w infant Baptism not to be according to Gods will sith in meer positive instituted worship wherein â—od hath set down what he will have done he will have it so done and no otherwise It is proâ—ed bâ—fore Review part 2. sect 5. c. part 3. sect 52 that the Apostles baptized not infants Mr. Crs. imagined reasons why they might baptize none but of ripe age de facto are vain there being no intimation of any such reasonâ— in the History of the Apostles Acts Yea the story is against his surmises for the converted and baptized did not travel far to hear the Apostles but the Apostles travelled far to preach to them in their own Cities and in them they went from house to house Acts 16.15 34. 20.20 Hierusalem and all Judea and all the region round about Jordan are said to go out to John Baptist to be baptized of him in Jordan confessing their sins which cannot be meant of infants Though infants be a parâ— of a Nation yet Mat. â—8 19 Is. 2.2 by nations no infant is meant nor Luk 19.19 is inâ—ant Baptism intimated The Baptism of infants is not proved from Act.
quibus Latina versio â—orrigi possit emendâ—ri And I find cited Erasmus his preface on Hillary aâ— charging Ruffinus with this practise of adding and châ—nging be â—nd an interpreter in all his translations as of Eusebius hiâ— History but chiefly of Origens writings Grot. annot in Matth. 25.46 â—uid Oâ—igenes senserit ex ipsius scriptis difficile est dictu adeo omnia a Ruffiâ—o sunâ— interpolata Hieronymus Apol. adv Ruff. l. 2. speaks thus to Ruffiâ—â—â— concerning some of his translations of Origen Novit conscientia â—ua 〈◊〉 addiderris quae subtraâ—eris quâ— in utranque partem ut â—ibi vâ—sum suerit immutâ—ris Whereas therefore Mr. Ms. frâ—enâ— Defence part 1 p 15. tels me You call the Author of them supposed Oâ—igen It had been your part before you had so branded them fiâ—st to haâ—â— made it manifest by some undeniable evâ—dence or other that they were not Oâ—â—gens I tell him that being but a respondent it was enough that I shâ—wed sucâ— evidences aâ—â— did to prove the passages doubtfull an uncertain witness being no gâ—od proof And to Dr Homes his saying in his Animadvâ— on my Exerciâ— p 129. Truly a man can hardly with patience enougâ— look upon Mr. 〈◊〉 â—is dealing in this When we urge Origen he is not Origen wiâ—h him but if he do it then Origen must be received I answer if the Dr. had had 〈…〉 eâ—ough to have considered my words he might have observed that I onely named Origen Hâ—m on Rom. 6. but did neither assigâ— the 〈…〉 for the time in which thosâ— words were written noâ— did 〈…〉 that they were to be received 〈◊〉 his but added two reasons to 〈◊〉 this imagination â—s iâ— by alledging thosâ— words under the 〈…〉 homil on Rom. 6. by which onely it is known I did 〈…〉 his whereof the one was thâ— cenâ—urâ— of Erasmus the 〈…〉 Austin nor Hierom menâ—iâ—â— Origen as â—vouching 〈…〉 which is enough to shâ—w it to be likely that the passagâ—◠〈…〉 by Ruffinus though Hierom and others mention not these in particular sith neither doth he mention all the particulars of his dealings in this kind but chargeth them upon his conscience Nor is it true that what is added is ingeniously confessed by Ruffinus the translator himself For though the words cited by Mr. Ms. friend Defence p. 16. shew that Ruffinus acknowledged of what sort his addiâ—ions were to his translation of his Homilies on Leviticus yet they shew not what in particular they were nor is any thing produced to shew the words cited for infant Baptism were not one Nor is there any good answer made to my allegation to prove that passage likely to be one 1. from the bringing of them in as it seemed to me when I read them in a patcht manner not as if they were woven at first with the whole cloth that is the rest of the writing before and after but as sewed to it by a botcher without any handsome coherence which neither Mr. Ms. friend p. 16. nor Dr. Homes p. 130. deny and therefore I count worth the observing by the judicious Reader when he shall examine the places as being of some moment to discern whether they were Origens words at first or Ruffinus his assument 2. Because they are the very words which are frequently used by the refuters of Pelagians in the 5th century who denied Original sin whereas Origen is taxed as the very Father of Pelagianism by Hieron praesat ad lib. 4. in Hierem. and elsewhere as teaching 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 perfection or freedome from sin contrary to the express words of those cited passages and when August tom 7. l 1. adv Julian c. 1 2. alledgeth ancients avouching Original sin he never mentions Origen and therefore these passages being so express against Pelagians and in the very words used by the refuters of them in Augustines time are to be judged to be added either by Ruffinus whose words to the same purpose on the 50th Psalm are cited by Chamier paâ—str cath tom 3. l. 1. c. 6. § 9. and of whom the same Author tom 4. l. 7. c. 9. § 30. saith Sciunt omnes docti exiguam fuisse Ruffini in vertendis authoribus religionem or by some other Nor are these passages in Origen onely hints against some piece of Pelagianism which might be conceived by some few in his time as Dr. Homes minceth the matter p. â— 30. but express arguing against the main point of Pelagianism denying original corruption and that in the chief arguments used by Augustine and others Nor did Origen Pelagianize a little onely but is supposed to have first brought in Pelagianism into the Church Hieron adv Ruffin saith Dr. Owen display of Arminianism ch 12. And though it 's not â—enied that Origen did deliver contraries yet I think it 's hard to find him so often and so directly arguing against his own tenet Nor do I conceive however Dr. Homes Mr. Blake Mr. M. and others imagine contradictions in my words which are not so that ever Dr. Homes hath found in my writings such clashings against my self Nor do I make such an argument as M. Ms friend Defence â— 17 answers â—hat the passages make against the Pelagians and therefore necessarily they were written after the Pelagian heresie was broached which is a meer shifting fashion in that Author who ever he were used before in answering my argument from Irenaeus words and scope which he answers as if I made it from the scope and not the words but thus these passages are plainly and directly against the Pelagians chief point of impeccability which Origen is charged to bee the Author of therefore according to Rivets rule tractat de patrum autoritate c. 14. it 's not likely they were Origens to which he answers not I will add only the words of Vossius Hist. Pelag. l. 2. part 1. th 6. p. 153. Idem Origines T. 2. p. 471. nisi is potius Rufinus interpres quis enim quae vel Origenis vel paraphrastae adeò liberi suerint hodii discernâ—t in cap. IX rectiùs VI. ad Rom. ubi ait ab sorde pâ—ccati mâ—ndus non est quisquam etiamsi unius diei fuêrit vita ejus super terram Sed fuse clareque imprimis â—oc de peccato scribit lib. VIII XII in Levit. nisi isti in Leviticum commentarii Cyrilli potiùs sint quando etiam in hujus operibus inveniunâ—uâ— ac ut in Origenianis libri sexdecim ita inter Cyrilliana sexdecim homiliae appellantur which shews that that learned writer for Paedobaptism did distrust those very passages cited for infant Baptism to have been none of Origens Mr. C. aâ—ds The third thing objected is that he calls it a tradition so does the Apostle things contained in Scripture 2 Thes. 2.15 Epiphanius calls Baptism and other divine truths 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 traditions and yet quotes Scripture for them Bellarmin calls infant Baptism a tradition and yet brings ten places of
that Author to be afore the 3d. century and consequently not that Dionysius the Arâ—opagite mentioned Act 17 34. as some Papists would have it but are by learned men both Papists and Protestants refuted whereof may be seen Magdeb. centur 1. l. 2. c. 10. Scultet med Patrum l. 11. c 9. Perkins prepar to the demonstr of the probleme 2. Though Dr. Hammond conceive that that Author is to be placed in the 3 d age by reason of some words of Photius which for want of books I cannot examine yet Salmasius ad Colâ—ium saith p 1â—9 quamvis subdititius ille Dionyâ—â—us Areopagita sit auctor nec antiquior quinto seculo p. 441. quem certa fides est scripsisse circa finem quinti seculi And that which Scultetus ubi supra observâ—s that in his book of Ecclesiastical Hierarchy he writes many things of Temples of â—ltars of Holy places of a Quiâ—e of consecration of Monks of the tonsure and shaving of heads iâ— me thinks a good argument that the Author was somâ— idle dreaming Monk no elder then the 5th century and is so far from being accâ—unted a Wâ—iter of esteem among Divines that he is rather censured as one who by his curiosities hath corrupted Divinity 3. Whether those who deemed infanâ— baptism unreasonable were infidels who derided it or Christians who scrupled it is noâ— câ—eared by the Dr. Nor is it aâ—pareâ—t that by Divine guides are meant the Apostles 4. Bâ—t if it were that Author makes it no other then an unwritten tradition if he did he would â—ave alledged some Scripture for iâ— and the words our Divine Officers being instructed not as Dr. Hammond translates it by Divine tradition but unto or of the old tradition have brought down unto us do shew that he counted it a tradition unwritten and delivered from one Officer to another until that time Now it is granted that in the end of the 3d. and following ages infant baptism and in like manner infant communion were counted traditions Apostolical to save infants from perishing and such seems to have been the opinion of that Author Pamelius annot 89. on Cyprian de lapsis Tractat hunc locum D. Augustinus Ep. 23. ad Bonifac. Haud obscure autem hic quomodo suprâ— indicatur vetus Ecclesiae consuetudo communionis parvulorum qualem etiam indicaâ—e videtur Dionysius Areopagita sub finem Eccles. Hierarch sua adhuc aetate D. Aug. Epist. 107. ad vitalem All which being consideâ—ed this testimony is so far from being a most convinciâ—g â—estimoâ—y of the derivation of infant baptism from the Apostleâ— â—hat considering upâ—n what ground they observed it and how much vanity was in the Ancients in their retaining many fond customes and fathering them on the Apostles and when common defending them by Scriptures perverted it is a convincing testimony that infant baptism was no more froâ—â—he Apostles then infant communion both meer corruptions taken upon mistakes and defended by abuse of Scripture Mr. M. Mr. Cr. Dr. Homes Dr. Hammond alledge Gregory Nazianzen his 40th Oration about baptism in which he adviseth the baptizing of infants which saith Dr. Hammond is a plain testimony of the Churches doctrine at that time the 4 th century about the year of Christ 70. he flourished and died in the year 389. Against this sundry things are objected 1. that the same Author saith as I find his words in Chamier paustr. cath tom 4 l. 5. c. 9. § 66. where he gives instance in his 40th Oration of baptism of those who decease without baptism Neither can they receive it either perhaps by reason of infancy or some altogether involuntary chance by which it is that even they who would obtain not that gift From whence it is manifest that in Gregory Nazianzens time infants did decease without baptism and that they could not receive it by reason of infancy Nor is this objection salved by making the reason of these childrens not receiving baptism because that sometimes it might fall out that Christians might not have the opportunity of bringing their children to baptism because they dwelt among infidels or Paynims where they could not enjoy the benefit of the word and sacraments for themselves or their children therefore they were necessitated to put off the baptising of their children which seems to be Mr. Ms friends evasion in his Defence p. 24. in that he applies this passage in Nazianzen as well to the hinderance of the baptism of children as of elder persons For the words of Nazianzen shew that as some deceased without baptism by reason of some 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 unvoluntary accident whether by the hand of God or men so others he saith deceased 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 barely by reason of infancy and that by reason of it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they were not in power or capacity to receive it Which is a plain testimony that however in câ—se of apparent daâ—ger of death then infants miâ—ht receive baptism according to his opinion yet ordinarily they were not in the power or capacity to receive it and so did sometimes die without it 2. It is objected and thereby this observation is confirmed that when he comes in the same Oration to set down what he would have done about infants baptism he resolves 1. that they should be baptized if danger did urge it that they might not miss of the common grace intimating thâ—t otherwise they should 2. He gives his judgement for others that they should wait longer 3. The reason he giveth of this longer waitiâ—g is that they may hear some mystical or spiritual thing may be taught to answer somewhat and if they understand not fully perfectly and exaâ—â—ly yet they are instructed and informed 4. That not as Dr. Hammond to give colour to his conceit of sanctifying to be the same with baptizing 1 Cor. 7.14 by this means they may be baptised souls and bodies for if this were good reading 1. they should baptize themselves 1. they should bapâ—ize â—heir souls which were ridiculous but so as that they sanctifie both souls and bodies by or with the great mystery of initiation Which shews he conceived 1. that by baptism benefit did come to infants though they perceived it not 2 that it sanctifies their bodies 3. that it is beâ—ter done when children are taught to answer 4. then they sanctifie soulâ— and bodies 5. that danger of death was a forcible impulsive to move to the baptism of inâ—ants 6. that without baptism infants should misâ— oâ— the common 〈◊〉 To 〈…〉 Dr Hammond thus 1. It is clear that it no way prejudgâ—s â—he doctrine and practise of the Church formerly set down 〈…〉 him that infant children indefinitely considered might be bâ—ptized and if dangâ—r apprâ—acâ—ed must how young soever they were which is as contrary to the Anâ—ipaedobaptist and so to Mr. T. as any thing Answ. 1. The phrase the doctrine and practise of the Church is according to the Prâ—latical language I think as
is so little as that in his Letter qu. 4. § 22. he confesseth they come not home distinctly to the baptizing of infants nor do they prove any unreasonableness or uncharitableness in our objections against their baptizing of them whom the Dr. affirms not either Christ or his Apostles to have baptized who had reason and charity enough to have done it if thâ—â— had judged iâ— fit to have been done That Matth. 8 6. is ridiculously applied to little children in age is demonstrate Review part 2. sect 17. Augustins saving credit in altero qui peccavit in altero and his reckoning infants baptized among believers is besides the Book I mean the Scripture and to be judged as no better then a fond conceit The lawfull bâ—ptizing of some professors of faith who prove hypocrites is no colour â—o baptize non professors of faith 'T is rightly done that that which contains no relation of Christs or his Apostles baptising infants is put by him among the more imperfect probations and such his alleging 1 Cor. 7.14 is already shewed to be That which the Dr. saith Sect. 2. that the Fathers with one consent testifie the receiving our infants to Baptism to bee received from the Apostles as the will of Christ himself is so manifestly false that the very first of the Fathers who makes mention of it Tertullian in his book of Baptism ch 18. disswades it and useth arguments against it and those arguments as well are against the believers infants Baptism as the unbelievers whereby it is evident he opposed the Baptism of any infants whereto might be a dâ—d the case of Nazianzen together with his judgement forementioned as evidences that infant Baptism was not the judgement and practice oâ— the universal Church for 1600. years The Dr. himself confesseth that Peter de Bruis and Henry his Scholler and the Petrobuciani and Henriciani that sprung from them were opposers of it and therefore the Dr doth very much excâ—ed truth in making it the judgment and practice of the universal Church for 1600 years The term son of the Church used by the Dr. 〈…〉 by â—anonists and others and it is usual to term the Church a Christians mother and by the Church the prelates are usually meant and much advantage made of it to keep Christians under the yoke of Bishops 〈◊〉 But it is no Scripture term in it the Elders Apostle 〈◊〉 â—ermed Fathers 1 Cor 4â— 5 all Christians Brethren and Sister 1 Cor 〈…〉 â—hurch being no other then a company of Bâ—ethen and Sisters it is very unfit to call the Church a Christians Mother and therefore 〈◊〉 willing not to be accounted a son of the Church nor do I acknowledge that the judgement and practise iâ— there were any such of the universal Church for 1600 years letting aside the Apostles of Christ haâ—h any force or authority over me nor do I fear the incurring of Gods displeasure by oppugning or contemning it but rather considering how the Apostle 2 Thes. 2.7 tels me that in his time the mystery of iniquity did begin to work and the vain altercations about Easter in the 2d Century and many other mistakes and blemishes even in the Apostles times and much more after together with the prediction of the falling away 1 Tim. 4. â— the exceptions against the seven Churches of Asia 〈◊〉 our Lord Christ himself the imperfections that are in the writings of the first Fathers after the Apâ—stles the exceptions against the histories of the Church the imposing on the Church suppositions Treatises the coâ—rupting of authors I think iâ— the safest way to avoid Gods displâ—asure not â—o rest on the practise or judgement of the universal Church iâ— there were any such after the Apostles but onely on the writâ—ngs of the New Testament it being highly unreasonable as the Dr. saith that â—n institution of Christs such as each Sacrament is should bee judged of by any other rule whether the phanâ—es or reasons of men but either the word wherein the institution is set down oâ— the records of the practise of Christ or his Apostles in Scripture which comes home to the deciding 〈◊〉 câ—ntroversie of faith and manners and 〈…〉 to be obâ—erved and needs not the Drs records besides scripture however conserved or made known to us whether by unwritten tradition or in the writings of Fathers in which there is very much uncertainty but do deter men from adhering to this way as the inlet to many Popish and Prelatical abuses and errours yet deny not good use may be made of the ancient writers for clearing of many truths if they be read with judgement and do resolve to review what hath been brought for infant baptism by the Dr. out of other writers besides holy Scripture Sect. 3. the Dr. complains of mee as doing some injury to his Book in leaving out one considerable if not principal part viz. that which concerned the native Jewish children who were baptized as solemnly as the Proselytes and their chiâ—dren Ans. But by the Drs. leave in this no injury iâ— done him For however he mentioned Letter of Resol qu. 4 sect 5 6. Baptism as a known rite solemnly used among the Jews in the initiating of Jews and Proselytes into the Covenant yet both the words I allege Review part 2. sect 24. Out of his Letter q. 4. § 24. and all other passages I yet finde in his writings make the Christian baptism of believers and their infants to bee from the Jewish custome of Baptising Proselytes and children as the pattern basis or foundation of it no where the Baptism of native Jewes is made the pattern of Christian baptism though he say § 24. the baptism of the native Jews was the pattern by which the baptism of the Proselytes was regulated and wherein it was founded Yea the Dr. in his practical Catechism l. 6. sect 2. saith that as among the Jews when any Proselyte was received in among them and entred or initiated into their Church they were wont to use washings to denote their forsaking or washing off from them all their former prophane heathen practises which did not agree to the native Jews so by Christs appointment whosoever should be thus received into his family should bee received with this ceremony of water therein to be dipt i. e. according to the primitive ancient custome to be put under water three times And in his Letter qu. 4. § 37. so it is directly the thing that the Jewish practise in which Christ founded his institution hath laid the foundation of in baptising Proselytes and their children and to which the primitive Church conformed To which I may add that the proof which the Dr. brings for baptising of infants from Christs appointment is thus expressed qu. 4. § 22. receiving of Disciples was the receiving of Proselytes to the Covenant and faith of Christ a Disciple and a Proselyte being perfectly all one save onely that the latter denotes a comming from other nation c. which shews
with infant communion which had alike consent and in so ridiculous a manner as to propound questions of its faith and devotiâ—n to an infant who could not understand or speak and put in others to undertake and answer for an infant who could neither promise for them wiâ—hâ—ut arrogant presumption what was not in their power noâ— profess their faith without apparent untruth argue it to have been a corruption 2. That the uniform consent of the Apostles and Apostolical men with Christ and John Baptiâ—â— in Scripture should not more prevail with a man who makes the Scripture his Canon then Fathers of those ages wherein maâ—y errours and corruptions were received and either hatched or fostered by them but that hee should not onely dare to practise the corrupt innovation of infant Baptism of which there is no instance in Scripture but also omit the baptism of believers and oppose it and harden men in their conceits as if they were baptized in infancy sufficiently and for that reason to bâ—e reckoned among Christians though meer strangers from the knowledge or practise of Christianity He adds If he be not why doth he mention this as usefull in this matter Answ. To shew how little credit is to be given to the Drs. dictates without proof The Dr. adds But then 2dly it must be adverted that this one containing two questions in it 1. Whether this of initiating into the Covenant by baptism were a Jewish custome 2. Whether from thence Christ derived this right of baptizing Christians The former of these was that which alone required proving the latter being of it self evident without faâ—ther pâ—obation supposing onely that the Fathers testified that to bâ— Christs institutioâ— of Baptism which we find to have been thus agreeable to the pâ—actise customary among the Jewes And this â—e illustrates by the like examples of excommunication and the post câ—nium from whence he concâ— vs Christ derived the Lords Supper and excommunication by the Apostles Answ. For pâ—esent omitting the instances of the Lords Supper as dâ—ive froâ— the Jewish post câ—nium and excommunication Apostolical râ—spâ—ct Jewiâ—â— it hath been yeeldâ—d by me that Christian baptism was in 〈◊〉 of the rite like Jewish baptism of Proselytes acknowledged to havâ— been a custome among them for initiating them not of native Jews 〈◊〉 the giving of the Law into the Covenant and it is probable that Jâ—hn Baptist follâ—wed in the external act that rite though to another end he bâ—ptizing with the baptism of repentance for remission of sins they into he observance of the Law for righteousness and other subjects John Baptist â—ews by nature not so Pharises And as John â—aptist practised so Christ appointed and his Apostles practised Baptism with express mention of the Trinity or the name of Christ somewhat differently fâ—om John and if the one be said to be derived from the other by way of accommodation I shall not contend about it nor do I deâ—y thaâ— Christ alluded to this baptism of Proselytes Joh. 3.3 5. in the manner I have expressed before and the 2d part of this Review sect 16. Nor do I â—eny that the Jewish Christian and Gentile baptisms may have their first riâ—e from Noahs deluge but that which I insist on â—s that the Jewish use was was not so conformable to the Christian as that it can be true that the Jewish was thâ— pattern of the Christian. As for the Fathers Nazianzen Maâ—arius Athanasius their words seem not to mâ— to make a comparison between the Bapâ—ism Jewiâ—h and Christian for initiation but the Christian and Jewish which was occasionally renewed upon any legal defilement or often iteâ—ated by the Priests for purification or sanctifying and so the words of Athanasius cited by the Dr. inâ—imate which say the 3d. is the Legal baptism which the Hebrews had whereby every unclean person not â—very one who was so by natuâ—e as the Dr. aâ—ds but by accident was baptised in water as oft as he was defiled had his garmentâ— washed and so enâ—red into the Camp whicâ— was anoâ—her baptism then that tâ—e Dr. makes the pattern of Christian baptism to wit that which was once onely used for initiation and of this I think the Dr. findes no mention in the Fathers nor of the derivation of Christian baptism from it That which the Dr. saith sect 4. p. 18. from the Talmud That when a Proselyte is received he must be circumcised and then when hee is cured they shall baptise him in the presence of two wise men saying Behold he is as an Israelite in all things addiâ—g A plain testimony to the sense of those which we formerly produced of baptising both Jews and Proselyte for else how could the Proselyte upon receiving this be said to be a Israelite in all things Answ. Two wayes 1. In respect of the rite he was circumcised and baptised as the Israelites at the giving of the Law Exod. 19.10 not after that time were baptised anâ— the Proselytes pâ—sterity were then not after this time of the first initiation into the Jewish people 2. In respect of priviledges and profession as it is said Ester 8.17 Many of the people of the Land became Jews Neither this then nor the other are plain or obscure testimonies of baptising native Jews for iniâ—iating into the Covenant afâ—er the giving of the Law That which I said that I alleged that Mr. Selden de Syned Ehra l. 1. cap. 3. p. 40 41. mentionâ— some who have conceived that tâ—e Jewish baptism in initiating Proselytes was in imitation of Christs example though he do not believe it and that Schickardus conceives they added a certain Baptism to Câ—rcumcision to difference them from Samaritans to shew that notwithstanding Dr. Hs. supposition that the whole fabrick he frames of Baptism is discernable to be built on that basis the customary baptism among the â—ews yet many will conceive it needs more proof then the bare recital of passages out of Jewish writers is a conclusion drawn out of the premises in the first figure thus That is not so discernable but that many will conceive it needs mâ—re proof then the bare recital of passages out of Jewish writers which was not so conceived by Schickard and some others mentioned by Mr. Sâ—lden But the Drs. supposition was not so conceived by those Ergo. The maâ—or rests on two things 1. That experience shews what some others who had understanding to conceive did not conceive to be so many its likely will not discern 2. That the later Jewish writers are not such certain proof of the ancient Jews customes but that more proof may bee justly required then the bare recital of passages in them It is not unknown that some have excepted against Ainsworths allegation of Rabbins and that in his apology for it he himself saith Some things I note from them not as approving them my self absolutely but leaving them to the further consideration of the prudent Preface to his annot on Gen. Nor
that was by preaching as is plain concerning John Matth. 3.1 2 5 6. and concerning the Apostles Mat. 10.5 6 7. Ergo Whence 3. I further aâ—gued that way the Apostles were to Disciple all nations by which they were to disciple the lost sheep of the house of Israel but that was by preaching Ergo discipling supposeth precedent instruction To this saith the Dr. I answer that the account last given is fully satisfactory to this excâ—pâ—ion also For supposing the Apostles to publish wheresoever they came the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the good news that was come into the world by Christ and the hearers not onely to come in themselâ—es but to bring â—heir whole families and so their infant children with them there is no difficulty to imagine that they had thus made proclamation received all and made all disciples young and old that either came or were brought and so it being the instruâ—ent to draw the parents themselves and to move them to bring their children to discipleship it is still very visible how children should be discipled and conseâ—uently baptized by them Baptism being the constant ceremony of discipling And though I am not able to affirm how it was actually in Johns Baptism yet this I may say that as far as can be discerned or inferred from the phrase in either place 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 thus it very possibly might be both in Johns and the Apoâ—â—les baptizing Answ. It is so far from being satisfactory that there is neither pertinency nor truth in this answer For the Dr. answers as if the thing I proved were not that making disciples presupposeth instruction because it is by preaching but that iâ—fants might be made disciples though making disciples bâ— by preaching which is indeed not to answer to the argument but to a consectary deducible from the conclusion of it which though it were not inferâ—ed nor consequent yet the conclusion might be true that discipling presupposeth some precedent instruction and is not wholly subsequent to it Nor is it true For 1. supposing the Apostles should do as he speaks and the hearers come in as hee imagines yet there is difficulty to imagine thaâ— they that had thus made proclamation received all and made all disciples young and old that either came or were broâ—ght unâ—o them sâ—ecially considering how John received nâ—ne wee read of but such as confessed â—heir sins and the whole people that were baptized of him justified God Luk 7.9 believed him Matth. 21.32 oâ—hers not and the Apostles are said to make disciples afore they baptized Joâ— 4.1 and aâ—oâ—e they bapâ—ized required repentance Act. 2.38 those who were baptized gladly received the word v. 41.2 It beeing granted that they made disciples by preaching preaching being the instrumâ—nt to draw the parents themselves and to move them to bring their children to discipleship yet it is not very visible how children should bee discipled For 〈◊〉 â—ffection or conceit might mâ—ve them to do that upon preaching which yet might not take effect nor be received by the Apostles 4. Nor is Baptism consequent on such a discipleship by offer or vow of pâ—rentâ— witâ—out profession of the party to be bapâ—ized there being no institution for it which is the onely rule about bapâ—izing 5. Neither iâ— it â—rue that Baptism is the constant ceremony oâ— discipling though it be granted to be the ceremony of disciples a person is first a disciple afore baptized Joh. 4 1. they first made disciples then baptized them 6. It is nâ—t â—rue that as far as can be discerned or inferred from the phrase in either place 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it might not very possibly be both in Johns and in the Apostles baptizing as the Dr. imaginâ— sith if there be degrees of possibility it is not very possible they should make any othâ—r disciples and baptize them then such as the Evangelists story relates they did But the Dr. tels us 1. For John 't is true indeed that his Baptism attended his preaching yet doth it not thence necessarily follow that none were baptised by him but those who particularly heard and obeyed his preaching For 1. why might not those that heard it divulge it to others and bring them before they heard him to desire to bee baptised and upon their confessing their sins and professing amendment hee baptise them Answ. Not likely before he had preached somewhat to them however if his preaching were brought to them by others they were not baptized afore instruction 2. Why might not those that heard it or heard of it give that heed to it as to bring all that were dear to them of what age soever by that means to secure them from the wrath to come when Noah preacht repentance to the old world and upon the decree of sending the flood upon the world of the ungodly called all to come into the Ark to him to escape the deluge suppose others besides Noahs family hâ—d hearkened to his preaching or suppose hee and his sons had had infant children can we imagine they would have lefâ— their infâ—nâ—s to that certain ruine and not have taken them into the Ark with them And Johns baptism was answerable to that Ark in respect of that approaching ruine on the Jews stiled the kingdome of heaven v 1. and that evidenced to be a bloudy kingdome explicated by casting into the fire v. 10. And can we imagine the Jews that believed John and came to his Baptism did not bring thâ—se childrâ—n with them to save them from the predicted evils and then I profess not to see any reason to render it incredible that John Baptist should thus receive and baptize those infants though the Scripture affirmiâ—g nothing of it and tradition as far as I know as little I shall neithâ—r affirm nor believe any thing This only is certain that among the jews of that time infant children were known to be capable of entring into covenant with God after this manner and of being partakers of the benefit of the Covenant by that means And one thing more I may add that Christ himself who was by his sinlesness as unâ—ualified for the repentance which John preacht as the infants were by their incapacities did yet come and was received to Johns Baptism v. 13. and then in case infants were brought why might not they be received also Answ. Because it was not appointed to them And this is a reason which the Dr. may see if he will to render it incredible that John should receive and baptize infants though infants of Proselytes born afore their Proselytism were by Jews baptized who baptized upon a far different reason to wit the pollution through idols which did adhere to the Gentiles nativity to wash away that and to engage them to the observance of Moses Law for righteousneâ—s whereas John Baptist baptized with the baptism of repentance for remission of sins even native Jews directing them
to the Lamb of God who was to take away the sin of the world and that he might be known was to be baptized of him We can therefore easily imagine that the Jews that believed â—ohn and came to his Baptism did not bring infant children with them to save them from predicted evils because wee reade that they tâ—at were baptized of him confessed their sins Matth. 3.5.6 justified God Luk 7.29 Nor was Baptism appointed to them as to Proselytes infants nor do wee reade that John Baptist gave any inkling of his minde to have infants brought And it iâ— a signe to me that the Dr. is confident that hee can leade men in a string who adventures to â—uggest such things as he confesseth the Scripture affirms nothing of it and tradition as little as far as he knows and neither affirms nor beleives any thing in it and onely upon a supposition that infanâ— câ—ildren would have been brought 〈◊〉 Noahs Ark if men had beleived Noah and Johns Baptism was as Noahs Ark stiled the Kingdome of heaven whereas Johns and Christs Baptism are not made answerable to Noahs Ark in respect of the bare outward baptism nor is it stiled the Kingdome of heaven but the answer or interrogation of a good conscience towards God by the resurrection of Jesus Christ 1 Pet. 3.21 and the preaching beleiving of the Gospel throughout the world Mar. 1.14 15. which they who were baptized were to entertain and not infants and therefore not to be baptized till they did And wee may with better reason then the Dr. gives of his fancy conceive Gods providence rather ordered there should be no infants in Noahs Ark that we might not fancy infants baptism thence then that we should as this Dr. or doatard supposeth Yet again saith he Then 2. for as much as concerned the Apostles Maâ— 10. Fâ—rst 't is there evident that they were sent to the lost sheep indefinitely and sure that phrase comprehends the lambs also the infant children being lost in Adam as well as the grown men by the addition of their actual to original sin And then why should we doubt but the Apostles mission extended to them also Answ. Because we reade of no such thing done or appointed to be done nor do we know that baptism was appointed to bee a remedy of original sin though some of the Ancients talk so besides the Scripture The Dr. adds And 2. for their preaching it is just as as Johns was to warn them to beware of the imminent destruction that vindicative act of God kingdome v. 7. that all that shâ—uld give ear and heed them might hasten to get out of that danger by reformation and new life and the ruine being impendent to the young as well as old even the whole nation why should not the infant children be rescued from that by their Parents care in bringing them to baptism and timely ingaging them to flye from the wrath to come as soon as they should come to understanding injoying in the mean time the benefit of others charity Answ. It was fit they should enjoy the benefit of others charity in their Prayers and supply of â—uch things as were meet for them of which sort the Apostâ—es Baptism was not nor did they understand it was Christs minde that they were senâ— to baptize them for then they had baptized them and not rebuked those that brought them to Christ Matth. 19.13 Nor by bringing them to Baptism were children rescued from the wrath to come but by reformation and new life Thirdly saith he after their preaching though there be no mention of baâ—tizing and so it was not fit to be produced to our present bâ—siness yet other things are appointed to be done wherein infants were concerned as well as others as healing of diseases c. and if being incapable of receiving benefit from preaching should be deemed an obstacle to their being baptized why should it not to their receiving cures Answ. Because that they might be baptized it was necessary they should be made disciples by preaching not so that they might be cured of diseases Nay I may add saith the Dr. How should the dead in that place who sure were as uncapable of understanding as the tenderest infants be capable of being raised by those Apostles which yet is there affirmed of them v. 8. Answ. And I may add that after this rate of reason if mere capacity of outward Baptism and the charge of Christ to the Apostles to do acts of power on any thing without making it a disciple by preaching to it as the Dr. here fancieth of infants fit it for Baptism then the dead are to be baptized which was practised of old and the giving them the Eucharist as appears by the prohibition of it in the third Synod of Carthage Canon 6. and Balsamous note thereon But the Dr. it seems thought it â—t in this reply to me to write what came next to hand whether it were fit to be produced to the present business oâ— not of which sort also is that which he talks in answer to my third reason of preaching to the nations and receiving all that come in to the discipleship whether on their own legs or in others arms whole families at once the parents and upon their undertaking their infant children also which perhaps the Dr. might write early in the morning or late at night between sleeping and waking it is so like a dream The Dr. goes on thus His fourth proof is taken from the use and notation of the word which is so to teach as that they learn and so saith he is used Matth 13.52 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is rendred instructed by our last translators and can no otherwise be rendred then made a disciple by teaching so Acts 14.21 it is said Haviâ—g preached the Gospel to that City 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 having taught or made many disciples For the notation of the word we have formerly said sufficient that iâ— signifies to receive ad discipulatum as into a School of spiritual inâ—truction 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to make a disciple and such he is made 〈◊〉 by any motive or means either comes or iâ— brought into the school this indeed in order to teaching in the Master and to learning in the Scholler and the one so to teach as that the other learn but this subâ—equâ—nt to his being made a disciple the youth wee know enters into the School is admitted into the Colledge and University before â—e learns a word there the instruction or learning is still lookt upon as futurâ— at his entring into discipleship Answ. How vainly doth the Dr. talk of his former sufficient saying when he neither formerly nor now giveâ— one instance in the New Testament or any other Author wherein 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is as much to receive ad discipulatum nor any Translator or Lexicographer that so renders it Matth. 28.19 or elsewhere 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to disciple Matth. 28.19 is confest