referred to nurses who he saith will tell me more in this than he can It may be so yet sure nothing to shew that any have made their infants learn the Doctrine of Christ. He adds And what if they cannot at first learn to know Christ even with men of years that is not the first Lesson if they may be taught any of the duty of a rational creature it is somewhat Answ. If they do not learn to know Christ they learn not that which should make them Disciples of Christ. It is somewhat indeed that they can learn to kiss the mother stroke her breasts c. but what 's this to make them Disciples of Christ And if they can learn nothing of the parents either by action or voyce yet Christ hath other ways of teaching than by men even by the immediate working of his Spirit Answ. 'T is true and he may make infants Disciples nor do I deny it to be done invisibly but it would be a greater wonder than yet Mr. B. hath had for all his wonderments a very prodigy that any of them should become a visible Disciple 'T is true they may learn something of God very young and are to be bred up in the nurture of the Lord. But that in their infancy at two or three dayes old they are learners of the things of God of the admonition of the Lord from mothers and nurses is a fiction like Galilaeus his New World in the Moon or Copernicus his Circumgyration of the earth Mr. B. tels us he might argue further All that are saved are Christs Disciples some infants are saved Ergo. And I might answer him that they may be saved and yet no visible Disciples according to the meaning of Christ Matth. 28 19. But sith he hath put this off to another time I shall take a little breathing from Mr. B. and set him aside a little while till I have heard what his seniors say further for their baby-baptism SECT XVI Dr. Featley and Mr. Stephens arguings from John 3. 5. for Infant-baptism are answerâ—d and Baptism shewed not be a cause of Regeneration and Mr. Cranfords words considered THere are some other Texts broughâ— to prove an institution of infant-baptism out of the New Testament which I shall take in though the Assembly and the chiefest I have to do with in this controversie do omit them The Ancients were wont to allege Joh. 3. 5. to prove infants are to be baptized after Christs appointment or rather the reasonableness and necessity of the Churches appointment Augustine in his writings often joyns Rom. 5. 12 and John 3. 5. as the reason of infant baptism Lumb Sent. 4. Dist. 3. allegeth some as making the institution of baptism to be John 3. 5. The Papists commonly allege John 3. 5. for the necessity of infant-baptism Becan Manual l. 4. c. 2. Mandatum habemus Joan. 3. 5. They are refuted by the Protestants as Chamier tom 4. l. 5. de bapt c. 9. yet Vossius thes Th. de paedobapt thes 7. brings it to which being in Latin I have answered in Latin in my Refutation of Dr. Savage his supposition though contrary to my expectation not yet printed Dr. Featley in his Dipper dipt p. 10. 43. makes it one of his prime arguments for infant-baptism p. 10. he thus argues If none can enter into the Kingdom of God but those that are born of Water and the Spirit that is those that are baptized with Water and regenerated by the Spirit then there is a necessity of baptizing children or else they cannot enter into the Kingdom of God that is ordinarily for we must not tie God to outward means But the former is true Ergo the latter And pag. 43. none ought to exclude the children of the faithfull out of the Kingdom of Heaven But by denying them baptism as much as in us lieth we exclude them out of the Kingdom of Heaven For as Christ affirmed to Nicodemus and confirmed it with a double oath or most vehement asseveration Amen Amen or verily verily I say unto thee except a man he born of Water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the Kingdom of Heaven Ergo we ought not to deny them baptism Answ. This arguing is the same in effect notwithstanding the Doctors mincing it which is but a little with that which the Papists bring for their horrid tenet of Exclusion out of the Kingdom of Heaven of infants dying unbaptized For he holds that there is a necessity of baptizing children or else they cannot enter into the Kingdom of God ordinarily In which assertion he denies any infants enterance into the kingdom of God ordinarily without water-baptism And no more is said as I conceive by the more moderate Papists such as Biel Cajetan Gerson cited by Perkins in his preparative to the demonstration of the probleme But no marvail the Doctor who was addicted to the Common Prayer Book concurred thus far with the Papists For in it the Doctrine of Augustin and others is retained of asserting the necessity of infant-baptism because of original sin and Christs words Ioh. 3. 5. as appears by the Preface appointed to be used before the solemnity of Baptism But Protestant Divines do generally refute this opinion as e. g. Chamier Panstr Cath. tom 4. l. 5. de Bapt. c. 8. c. teaching that infants of believers are ordinarily holy and admitted into the Kingdom of Heaven though dying unbaptized But to answer his Arguments 1. it 's known that Calvin Piscator and many more do take water metaphorically and the conjunction 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and to be exegetical not coupling differing things but expounding what is meant by water as if he had said that water which is the Spirit as when it is said Mat. 3. 11. He shall baptize with you the Holy Ghost and with fire that is with the Holy Ghost which is as fire And this they conceive as necessary that the speech of Christ may be verified For simply understood it is false sith the Thief on the Cross sundry Martyrs and others have entered into the Kingdom of Heaven unbaptized And this Exposition Chamier Panstrat Cath. tom 4. lib. 5. cap. 9. hath taken upon him to maintain against the opposites to it and if true the objection of Dr. Featley fals which rests on this that there a necessity of water-baptism is imposed on all that shall enter into the Kingdom of God Nevertheless I confess my self unsatisfied in this Exposition 1 Because I do not think that Matth. 3. 11. by fire is meant the Holy Ghost as being like fire in his operation on every sanctified person but that the words are an express prophesie of what Christ also foretold Acts 1. 5. and was accomplished at Pentecost Acts 2. 3. when the Holy Ghost filled them and fiery cloven tongues sate upon each of them 2. Because if it were parallel to that place and water were used metaphorically as is said by them and exegetically added water should be
apparent that in both places in Matthew the Noun disciple is included in the Verb though in Matthew 28. 19. it be used actively make disciples in the other Matthew 27. 57. it is used passively he was himself a Disciple The same is to be conceived of the two other places where the word is used Matthew 13. 52. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 made a disciple Acts 14. 21. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 had made many disciples And this is further proved from the parallel place Mark 16. 15 16. where preach the Gospel to every Creature answers to make disciples all nations and he that believeth and is baptized answers to baptizing them which plainly shews the subject of baptism to be disciples and those disciples to be believers as Chamier proves panst cath tom 3. l. 12. c. 9. s. 15. But such are not infants of believers Ergo they are not appointed to be baptized 2. Those only Christ appointed to be baptized to whom the Gospel was preached and the persons taught But such are not infants Ergo. The Major is plain both by the words Mat. 28. 19. make disciples which is by teaching and more plainly from Mark 16. 15. Go preach the Gospel to every Creature which answers to disciple all nations and this is to precede baptism This is confirmed by the Apostles practice which shews how they understood Christs words and how we should understand them for they baptized none till they were taught Ergo neither should we Conformable hereto is the constant exposition observation of former and later writers and Expositors of whom as they have occurred to me I shall set down their words Athanasius Orat. contra Arianos Ideoque salvator non quovis modo baptizandum praecepit sed primum dixit docete ac deinde baptizate in nomine Patris et filii et spiritus sancti ut ex doctrina recta fides oriretur et cum fide baptismatis integra initiatio perficeretur Hieron in Mat. 28. 19. Primum docent omnes genses deinde doctas intingunt aqua non enim potest fieri ut corpus baptismi recipiat sacramentum nisiante anima fidei susceperit veritatem Ordo praecipuus jussit Apostolis ut primuÌ„ docerent universas gentes deinde fidei intingerent sacramento et post fidem ac baptisma quae essent observanda praeciperent which words are also ascribed to Hilarius in Matthew 28. 19 20. And the like to Beda Anselmus Aquinas Paschasius Rabanus Lucas Brugensis Iansenius and many others on Matth. 28. 19. which were it necessary might be produced whence the Ancients deduced that persons were first to be catechized and then to be baptized which was constantly observed except in case of present danger of death towards children of believers untill some later ages But because later Protestant writers are of more esteem with most of my Antagonists I will adde some of them Calvin in Matthew 28. 19. apud Marlor Baptizari jubet Christus qui nomen Evangelio dederint seque professi fuerint discipulos Ursin Cat. Explic. part 2. q. 69. Quasi dicat colligite mihi Ecclesiam per verbum et quos feceritis mihi discipulos toto corde credentes eos omnes et solos baptizate mihi areliquis separate Pareus Com. in Matt. 28. 19. Colligite mihi Ecclesiam inter omnes gentes praedicatione vestra adducentes eos ad fidem Alsted Theol. polem parte 3. pag. 251. Ut praecipitur ex cohaerentia sententiarum Matth. 28. docete omnes gentes nempe praedicando Evangelium baptizantes eos Confer cum Marc. 16. Becm Exercit. Th. 17. p. 259 260. Doctrina praecedit baptismus sequitur Mr. Cotton The way of the Churches in New England chap. 4. sect 6. And indeed the Commission which Christ gave his Apostles holdeth it forth that they were by preaching to make disciples before they baptized them and their children This later is his own addition the rest is right and to my purpose But sure Christ did not appoint to preach the Gospel to infants therefore he did not appoint to baptize them For Christ appointed his Disciples to baptize none but they who were first preached to and consequently they do it without Commission from Christ who baptize infants ordinarily without preaching the Gospel to them I suppose no man will conceive Christ appointed infants of a day old to have the Gospel preached to them it had been a ridiculous injunction therefore neither did he appoint them to be baptized For both commands are joined together concerning the same persons 3. The institution is To baptize into the name of the Father Son and holy Spirit But the baptizing of infants is not into the name of the Father Son and holy Spirit Ergo their baptism is not according to the institution The Minor is proved from the right understanding of the meaning of the phrase of baptizing into the name of the Father Son and holy Ghost Beza annot in Matthew 28. 19. Into the name that is the Father Son and Holy Spirit being called upon And this interpretation is confirmed from the words of Ananias to Paul Acts 22. 16. Arise and be baptized and wash away thy sins calling on the name of the Lord where is injoined calling on the name of the Lord with baptizing which explaineth what Christ had appointed Mat. 28. 19. Of baptizing into the name of the Father Son and Holy Spirit Or to be baptized into the name is to be baptized with the person baptized his devoting himself to the Service of the Father Son and holy Spirit This is gathered from the phrase 1 Cor. 1. 13. Were ye baptized into the name of Paul Beza annot in Acts 19. 3. Baptizari autem in ejus nomen dicimur cui nos per baptismum dicamus ac consecramus quamobrem recte Paulus negat sese in nomen suum quemquam baptizâsse Or to be baptized into the name of the Father Son and Spirit is to be baptized with profession of that doctrine to wit that Jesus is the Son of God Act. 8. 37. testifyed by the Father Son and Spirit Mat. 3. 17. 1 John 5. 5 6 7. as to be baptized into Johns baptism Acts 19. 3. whether the same with being baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus verse 5. as those conceive that expound the words as spoken of what Iohn did or different yet it was with profession of doctrine as Beza annot in Acts 19. 3. Baptizari in Ioannis baptisma significat doctrinam quam Ioannes annunciabat ac baptismi symbolo obsignabat profiteri baptismo adhibito amplecti I will add the words of Grotius annot in Matth. 289. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cum locutio haec varias habeat ex Hebraismo significationes eam his praeferendam arbitraor quae baptismo maximè propria est Est autem baptizari in aliquem vel in ejus nomen se ei auctorare atque devovere de ejus nomine appellari â—elle Paulus 1 Cor. 10.
2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 respiciens illud Exodi 14. 31. Crediderunt in Deum Mosen servum ejus id est Mosi tanquam Dei ministro cum bona siducia regendos se commisere sic Paulus negat quenquam baptizatum in suum nomen 1 Corinth 1. 13 15. hoc est sibi velut novi dogmatis auctori mancipatum Maimomides de bello capta 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 baptizet eam in nomen proselytarum id est in eam religionem quam profitentur proselytae Christiani igitur tres sui dogmatis auctores agnoscere jubebantur Patrem filium spiritum sanctum nihilque ut necessarium admittere quod non ab eis esset profectum id est quod non à patre ortum à filio proditum à spiritu verò esset partim explicatum apertius partim obsignatum Administratur enim baptismus ut loquitur Hilarius in confessione auctoris unigeniti dom But infants of believers do neither call upon the Father Son and holy Spirit nor devote themselves to their service nor profess the doctrine of Christ Therefore they are not baptized into the name of the Father Son and holy Spirit according to Christs appointment Mr. M. Defence page 266. calls these petty reasonings and saith That baptizing into the name of the Father Son and holy Ghost should be interpreted to be invocation of Gods name and so to make baptism and prayer all one is strange divinity I reply My words are perverted by him I said baptizing is to be with the party baptized his invocation of the name of the Lord not that baptism and prayer are all one but that they should be concomitants and together in the use of baptism after Christs appointment And this is no strange divinity to others however it be to Mr. M. The words of Ananias Acts 22. 16. Beza on Matthew 28. 19. shew it to be no strange or forced Divinity Becman Exercit. Theol. 17. p. 251. hath the like In nomen hoc est invocato nomine Christi baptizamur The New Annot. on 1 Cor. 1. 13. The third reason taken from the form and end of baptism wherein we make a promise to Christ calling on also the name of the Father and the Holy Ghost The words of Grotius a learned man whatever his other qualities were shew it to be old Divinity Annot. on Matthew 28. 19. he speaks thus Post has ergo stipulationes atque responsiones quas verba Sacramenti Tertullianus vocat ad militiae morem alludens sequebatur baptismus cui accedebant preces in quibus nominabantur Pater Filius Spiritus sanctus Orationem hanc propriè ad patrem directam indicare videtur Justinus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Deinde 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Solemne ejus invocations verbum erat Abba Pater ut not at Chrysostomus 8. ad Rom. 15. The words in Chrysostome hom 10 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That is by which we cry Abba Father This holy Ministers know what it is rightly commanding to say this word first at the mystical prayer meaning at baptism Grotius goes on thus His si addas id quod Acts 22. 16. refertur ab Anania dictum Paulo 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Videbis tum eum qui baptizabatur tum eos qui baptismo aderant neque enim in toto coetu exercebatur primis temporibus quod ostendunt c. solitos orare Deum patrem 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quomodo ipse orare nos docet John 14. 13 14. Ut sidem ejus qui baptizabatur liberam illam christianismi professionem muneraret spiritu suo sancto per gradus quosdam quorum initium erat 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Grotius notes to like purpose on Luke 3. 21. where it is said Jesus being baptized and praying the Heaven was opened which shews Christ prayed at his Baptism and thereupon the Spirit descended which the Ancients conceived as a Rule and is at least recorded as an Example to be imitated Mr. Cobbet in his Just Vindic. pag. 182. cals this New Light which if he mean Ironically as it is likely he doth he may hereby perceive that he is mistaken and for what he excepts against this Exposition that neither in the baptizing of the Samaritans Acts 8. was that Rule observed nor was it possible that the three thousand baptized in one day Acts 2. should arise each of them and call upon the Name of the Lord as they were baptized it proceeds upon a mistake as if no calling on the Name of the Lord were sufficient but that which was set and solemn before the publick Assembly whereas neither is Baptism necessary to be administred before the publick Assembly Grotius proves out of Justin Martyrs words and otherwise that it was administred not as they now do infant sprinkling in the publick meeting place but in some place without aside from the publick Assembly and the calling on the Name of the Lord was or might be ejaculatory whether in the heart onely or by words praying to the Father by Christ for the Spirit Mr. M. makes this inference from my words Then it seems if the party baptized call on the Name of the Lord by prayer that 's all that is intended by baptizing into the Name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost But this is but another of his pervertings of my words for in the same place I joyned with it devoting themselves to the service of and adherence to the Father Son and Spirit which I proved out of 1 Cor. 1. 13 15. which proves plainly that to be baptized into the Name of the Father Son and Spirit notes not a Ministers Commission from the Father Son and Spirit nor a Form of words to be used by him at Baptism whether the party baptized understand it or no but in baptizing engaging the party baptized to acknowledg the Father Son and Spirit as Lord and Teacher Diod. Annot. in 1 Cor. 1. 15. In mine own Name as to binde them unto me to acknowledg me for their Head Hence Johns Baptism is the Doctrine he preached and the baptized by him professed Mark 1. 4. Acts 10. 47. 19. 3. and the Pharisees therefore were not baptized of John Luke 7. 30. because they should have professed Johns Doctrine which they were against if they had been baptized of him as their Disciples did their Doctrine and Johns Disciples did his Clear therefore it is that baptizing into the Name doth note not onely the act of the Ministers of Baptism but also the party baptized his act of invocating addicting profession of Service and Doctrine and obediently testifying it by that sign for that is plain from the command Acts 2. 38. Let every one of you be baptized in the Name of Jesus Christ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is the requiring of a duty from them conjoyned with repentance and â—herefore to be baptized is not meerly passive but implies a voluntary yielding of a person to it And it is further proved
words for I do not say positively as he cites them but comparatively thus for it is more likely that imposition of hands for Ordination which was still in use and to continue to be used should be there meant than laying on of hands for confirmation after baptism of infants which hath no Rule nor Example in Scripture 2. Saith Dr. Homes Those gifts usual onely in that little time of the Apostles were not to be joyned with and put among the first Principles of Christian Religion to be taught young ones to fit them for baptism or to give an account of their faith after baptism Answ. Those Principles Heb. 6. 1 2. are not sayd to be taught to little ones in age but in knowledg of Christian Religion nor are they sayd to be taught to fit them for baptism or to give account of their faith after baptism they may be principles and a foundation though they were taught them after baptism and to establish themselves rather than to give account to others Now for what reason the knowledg of these might be a part of the beginnings of the Doctrine of Christ to young Christians is given above And there is in the Text that which may induce us to conceive the giving the spirit by laying on of hands meant because v. 4. they that were enlightned which many even of the Ancients understood of baptism commonly called by the Greeks inlightning are sayd to have tasted of the heavenly gift and to be partakers of the Holy Ghost which seems to be meant in respect of these gifts and Paul Acts 19. 2. propounded this as a Catechism question to certain Disciples at Ephesus Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed But I rested not on it because the other of laying on of hands for Ordination seemed to me more likely then 2. Sayth Mr. Brinsley It s not likely to be meant of laying on of hands for Ordination 1. Because that 's not fit to be taught younglings children novices as milk Heb. 5. 12. If this be milk viz. the Doctrine of Church-discipline Church-officers Church-goverment c. what shall we call oâ— count strong meat To this was answered that however all the Doctrine about Church-discipline might be unfit to be taught novices yet laying on hands for Ordination being an outward riâ—e of continued use it might be needfull to be taught younglings in Christian profession To this Dr. Homes replies that no ingenuous man weâ—ghing and pondering things will think that little children should be taught as one of the first elements of Christian faith the imposition of hands to ordain Ministers To which I say many even of later Writers whom me thinks the Doctor should not deny to be ingenuous men do refer the laying on of hands Heb. 6. 2. to Ordination Dicson on Heb. 6. 2. Ames Bell. Ener tom 3. lib. 3. cap. 1. th 8. Cartwright Answ. to Rh. Annot. in locum Thomas Hooker Survey part 1. cap. 1. pag. 7. Noyes the Temple measured pag. 70. Hudson Essence and Unity of the Church pag. 9. and Vindic. pag. 22. Dr. Hammond of the Keys cap. 4. sect 28. Chamier tom 4. Panstr Cath. lib. 4 cap. 10. sect 38. recites the opinions of Papists as differing some referring to Confirmation some to Ordination some to giving the Holy Ghost The New Annot. Diodati speak as uncertain to which to refer it Grotius refers it to all rites besides baptism and the Lords Supper in Confirmation Ordination curing the sick reconciling penitents blessing the married and therefore whether little children were taught the Doctrine thereof or no many ingenuous men conceive it meant Heb. 6. 2. 2. Though it might be conceived unfit for little children in age to be taught yet it may nevertheless be fit to be taught younglings in Christianity meant Heb. 5. 12. It seems to me to be as fit to be taught little children as the Doctrine of Confirmation and may be as easily learned by them as the points about the Resurrection of the Dead and eternal Judgment 2. Sayth Mr. Brinsley The very putting these two together baptisms and laying on of hands seems in Calvins judgment to import some relation that the one should have to the other as in the other Principles which are by pairs To this I answered that baptism and imposition of hands might be fitly coupled being both Ordinances for initiation the one into the profession of Christianity the other into sacred function To this Dr. Homes replies that imposition of hands initiâ—teâ— but few and that long after they are Church members and that Marriage might better be coupled with baptism or imposition of hands and the Lords Supper Answ. If all this were granted yet the answer stands good that the joyning proves not Mr. Brinsleys sense necessary which is enough for my purpose to shew the insufficiency of his Argument But Dr. Homes thinks to blow away all by avouching his and Mr. Brinsleys interpretation which he cals a naked and honest explication of the Text. And that is that the Doctrine of baptisms is the Doctrine which the catechized of the heathens recited afore their baptism and the Doctrine of laying on of hands was the Doctrine which infants of believers before baptized in their infancy after they were past childhood rehearsed before the Church upon which they were received into the Church by imposition of hands Answ He may well call it a naked interpretation because it is brought into the world without proof there being nothing in the Text for it and all the shew of proof is onely the opinion of some late writers mistaken about the practise of antiquity Yea me thinks if the Doctor with his brethren of the congregational way as it is called did believe this interpretation to be genuine they should admit their infant-sprinkled members by laying on of hands which yet I hear not that they do But against this interpretation are these reasons 1. In it is supposed that the Doctrine of baptisms and laying on of hands is not the Doctrine concerning those rites but the Doctrine recited when those rites were used But the Doctrine then recited being the Doctrine of the resurrection of the dead and eternal judgment and the profession of repentance from dead works and faith towards God if the Doctrine of baptisms and the laying on of hands be the Doctrine recited by the baptized and confirmed at the use of those rites it will be the same with the resurrection of the dead and eternal judgment repentance from dead works and faith towards God and so those several principles will be confounded 2. The Doctrine of baptisms was that which in those to whom the Apostles wrote was layd before which is intimated in the words v. 1. not laying again But they were Hebrews therefore not as the Doctor Heathens that recited it at baptism 3. There 's no distinction in the Text as if some recited the Doctrine at baptism and others who had been baptized in infancy recited
after and spirit before as Matth. 3. 11. spirit is first and fire after and after the usual manner of speaking it should run thus except a man be born of the spirit and water if it were to be expounded of the spirit which is as water Dr. Homes animadv on my Exercit pag. 30. allegeth Bullinger saying Omnes penè de baptismo Ioh. 3. 5. interpretantur to which he adjoyns Bullingers and his own consent For these reasons I am much inclined to expound it of the Element of Water Yet 2. am very apt to conceive that forasmuch as Mr. Selden de jurenat Gent. juxta discipl Heb. lib. 2. cap. 4. tels us that when the Iews did initiate Proselytes by baptizing them with water they called it Regenerating and that Christ when he taunts Nicodemus with dulness in being a Master in Israel and yet not knowing of Regeneration but by imagining a natural New-birth when Regeneration was frequent in baptizing Proselytes among the Iews insomuch that by it they taught a person lost his natural relations of kinred as he shews lib. 5. c. 18. and hath these words in the place above cited tamet si de eâ quae spiritu fit non solùm aquâ loqueretur Christus our Saviour meant baptism of water not according to his Apostles practice but the Iews and that the sense is this Except a man be born of water and of the spirit that is Except a man be not onely born again by water as ye Pharisees regenerate when ye make Proselytes but also by the spirit as I do beget again he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God although he may enter into the Common-wealth or policy of Israel which sense nevertheless doth not assert a necessity of their water-regeneration but onely of Christs spiritual regeneration and the insufficiency of the other by it self which is so much the more probable because I finde 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 used for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is and for but Motth 11. 19. 12. 39. Acts 10. 28. and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Acts 26. 29. seems to answer to not onely but also yet because I finde not a place every way parallel I onely propound it to be examined But 3. it being granted that it is meant of Christs water-baptism yet Papists themselves make not such a necessity of it as is without limitation and exception and therefore they put in some one some another restriction which Chamier in the place alleged reduceth to four 1. Unless the person be baptized either with the baptism of water or some other thing instead of it as the baptism of bloud and spirit 2. If they may be baptized and they despise it 3. If they be not baptized with that Regeneration which is by water though it may be otherwise also 4. If they be neither baptized in deed nor desire Why may not then this limitation be added Except a man be born again of water that is except such a person of whom baptism is required according to my institution be born of water when he may have it and it s cleared to him to be his duty he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God And indeed this and such like speeches Mark 16. 16. Iohn 3. 18 â—6 c. that require faith as well as baptism are to be understood of persons to whom the Gospel is preached and do or may hear it and speak not of infants whom we finde not that God enters into the Kingdom of Heaven any other way than by his invisible election and operation of his Spirit And it is observable that whereas Iohn 3. 5. our Saviour joyns water and spirit as means of Regeneration yet v. 6. he names onely the spirit omitting water whence may be gathered that water is not of such universal unrestrained necessity that in no case a person is not born again without it nor admissible into the Kingdom of God yet such as is necessary ordinarily to those to whom the Gospel is preached and their duty made known Whence in answer to the Doctors argument I say that his speeches are to be thus limited at least none can enter into the Kingdom of God ordinarily without baptism to wit of those to whom the Gospel is preached their duty made known and Baptism may be had and to his later Argument I answer by denying that children are excluded out of the Kingdom of Heaven by denying them Baptism sith those unbaptized persons onely are excluded who are appointed to be baptized to whom the Gospel is preached the duty of Baptism made known and they may have it administred to them which cannot be said of infants Mr. Nathaniel Stephens in his Book intituled A Precept for the Baptism of Infants out of the New Testament having premised some thing about the Text Iohn 3. 5. pag. 18 19 20 21 22. about the necessity of baptism of water and the efficacy of it in which many things are meerly dictated and very slightly handled he would infer pag. 23 c. a Precept for infant-baptism from Iohn 3. 5. because infants are guilty of original sin where the disease is there is need of the remedy when Christ doth press a necessity of washing both by water and the spirit he doth not this so immediately in reference to actual sin as in reference to birth-sin and to the natural pollution in which infants are born The same is the plea of Mr. Thomas Fuller in his Infants Advocate c. 13. Answ. That either baptism of water or Circumcision are made the remedy of original sin is more than I finde in Scripture though it go as currant among many of former and later times It is true our Lord Christ saith Except a man be born of Water and of the Spirit he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God John 3. 5. and he assigns this as a reason thereof v. 6. That which is born of the flesh is flesh but that either thereby he intended to make baptism as the remedy of sin or of original sin rather than actual is more than appears For though our Lord Christ v. 5. make regeneration to be by Water and Spirit yet I conceive regeneration is by the Spirit onely as the cause by baptism of water onely as the sign whereby the person baptized testifies that he is born again by the Spirit Now a remedy is a cause and not a sign onely no man calls that which is onely a sign of cure a remedy but that which doth operate for healing That baptism of water is not the cause of regeneration appears 1. Because v. 6. our Saviour giving the reason of the necessity of regeneration and the effect of regeneration leaves ouâ— water and mentions onely the Spirit 2. Because the person baptized is supposed to be born again to be a repenting and believing person afore he is baptized But if baptism were the cause it should be before regeneration for the cause is before the effect and so men should be
said to save v. â—6 to win 1 Pet. 3. 1. to convert James 5. 20. sanctifying is never ascribed to any but God and his Spirit So 1 Cor. 6. 11. Ye are sanctifyed by the Spirit of our God 9. The word holy is expounded in a sense no where else found nor is there any reason of that sense by way of allusion or otherwise given by the Doctor though according to him a known fact is expressed which had another appellation used commonly even in that Epistle ch 1. 13 14 15 16 17. 12. 13. For he expounds holy by are admitted to baptism and so makes the Apostle in narration of a fact to use a term to express what was in his conceit well known to them by a term not imagined to note the thing elsewhere when there was another term baptized used in the same Epistle and familiar to them 10. He makes the Apostle to infer the lawfulness or duty of living together from that contingent event which might with like probability be brought to pass by another than the believing yoke-fellow even by the endeavour of a Father Mother Brother Sister Companion especially a Preacher of the Gospel So that if this reason were of force to conclude husband and wife might live together because one may bring the other to the faith the reason might be as good for Father and Daughter Son and Mother Brother and Sister Companions Preacher and people to couple or live together because it hath been and there is great reason to hope one may convert the other 11. According to his exposition the Apostles speeches were not right For according to him the meaning should be unless there were cohabiting and there had been an unbelieving husband brought to the faith by the wife and vice versa the Corinthians children could not reasonably be presumed to be admitted to baptism 2. Upon this ground that an unbelieving husband was brought to the faith by the wife and vice versa and there is great reason it might be so for the future the children of believing Corinthians unequally matched were admitted to baptism Himself pag. 257. saith This must needs be the method of the Apostles arguing unless there were some hope that the 〈◊〉 of a believer should be a means to bring an unbeliever to tâ—â— saith ' twâ—â—lâ— certainly follow their children were unclean that is not admitted to baptism Now I think all Paedobaptists will disclaim as manifestly false this proposition That the believing Corinthians young children were not or could not be or it could not be reasonably presumed they should be admitted to baptism till the unbelieving yoke-fellow were converted or without hopes or reasonable presumption that he might be won to the faith by the believer It is such a toy as I cannot imagine they will own when they discern it If they do they must quite change their plea and practise about infant baptism their plea being from the imagined federal holines of the childe of one believer without consideration of the others present or future faith and their practise being to baptize infants of one believer though the other parent died or should die in professed unbelief And for the other proposition it is a like false that whether 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 note as much as hoc posito upon this ground as the Doctor expresseth it or to be an Adverb of time noting when their children were holy it is most false that upon the ground of hopes of cohabiting and the conversion of the unbelieving yoke-fellow and experience of what happened the Corinthian believers yonger children noâ— deemed yet believers were admitted to baptism or were reasonably presumed to be admitted or that they were then admitted to baptism when the unbelieving husband was converted or likely to be converted by the believing wife and not before This proposition I make no question other paedobaptists will disclaim nor need I any other proof against his sense than his own words against another interpretation brought in as the Anabaptists though I know none that so interpret it I use his own words pag. 257. sect 82. mutatis mutandis Now I demand of this pretended interpretation whether it be possible Saint Pauls argument should conclude in this sense Suppose the Corinthian parents of these younger children had been one a believer and the other an unbeliever could it of them be concluded if they did not upon the hope of doing good one upon the other cohabit their children could not be holy by designation of the Church in baptism to which when they are brought by the congregation and admitted by the Minister they are thus consecrated and devoted to God This were absolutely to confine the Churches designations to holiness and the Ministers admissions thereto to none but the children of believers as if the childe of parents whereof one is a believer were not thus holy and admitted to baptism without experience of what hath been done in converting the unbeliever by the believer and hopes it should be so It is known that admission to baptism depends upon Chrsts institution not upon such accidental conditions as is the cohabiting of the parents the experience of the converting some unbeliever by the believing yoke-fellow and hopes so of theirs 12. Unto all these I add that I never read or heard any Expositor antient or modern so expounding as this Doctor or Dictator doth nor do I think he can shew any Sure I am Augustin tom 7. de pecâ— merito remiss c. 26. saith Ac per hoc et illa sanctificatio cujuscunque modi sit quam in filiis fidelium esse dixit Apostolus ad istam de baptismo pâ—ccati origine vel remissione quaestionem omninò non pertinet But let us consider what Dr. Hammond brings for this Paraphrase Sect. 32. he speaks thus That this is the true importance of the Apostles words and force of his arguing doth for the former part of it appear evident First by the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hath been sanctified which must needs refer to some past known examples and experiences of this kinde or else there could be no reasonable account given of the Apostles setting it in the Praeter-tense Answ. As Dr. Hammonds Paraphrase expresseth it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 should signifie not onely that an unbelieving husband hath been sanctified but also that there is hope they will and so it should note not onely some example past but also some to come of which there can be a less reasonable account given than of putting it in the Present-tense in English But sayth he It is put in the Praeter-tense in Greek Answ. I presume the Doctor knows that enallage or change of Tense is frequent in Languages even in the Greek though it abound in Tenses above other Languages In the same Epistle c. 11. 24 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Present-tense is put for the Future even in the same Verse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is rendred by Dr.