work of charity not of institution or right by their birth to either But these things Mr. Cr. pleads against them 〈…〉 well as my self and both the doctrine and practise of Paedobaptists now is against the Ancients as well as mine Yea more in that they had a constant course of baptizing the catechized persons upon a solemn profession of faith and did in all baptisms except that of the Clinici that is sick persons baptized in their beds plunge the whole body or dip it so as to be under water which are now clean otherwise and things unknown among Paedobaptists So that as Bp. Usher in his answer to the â—esuites challenge in the article about praying for the dead p. 245. proves the Romanists to have rejected the ancient prayer for the dead because they pray not for Martyrs and others in bliss for their resurrection but for persons in Purgatory to be delivered thence so I may truly â—ay the Paedobaptists now have rejected the ancient infant Baptism sith they deny Baptism necessary to salvation or that it gives grace and they do it onely to believers infants by sprinkling or perfusion without mersion scarce to any but infants without any solemn course of catechising ordinarily in order to future Baptism and to infants ordinarily out of the case of danger of death upon pretence of a federal holiness by birth and ordinance of visible Churchmembership unrepealed unknown to the Ancients and therefore their doctrine and practise hath no patronage from them Mr. Cr. p. 98. saith that I cunningly alter the subject of the question when I say infant-sprinkling was not held of the whole Church and tels me that he and others do not say so Which intimates that hee and others desert the maintainance of sprinkling infants as ancient which diffidence is some argument that the late Assembly have forsaken the ancient way of Baptism by dipping having in the Directory determined sprinkling as sufficient and in the practise of many of them taken away the old Fonts more agreeâ—ble to antiquity and brought in little stone Basons near the Pulpit or Readers Pew like Popish holy water pots fit onely for the novelty of sprinkling after the Scottish modâ— Nâ—r is Mr. Crs. way of powring water on the face or dipping in part of the head any more the baptizing Christ appointed or antiquity used excâ—pt in the case of the Clinici 'T is true Gods ordinances are not destructive to nature who requires mercy and not sacrifice But this proves 〈…〉 Baptism should be omitted altogether and not the ordinance 〈◊〉 and people mocked as they are by the preacher that saith falsly he baptizeth the person when he doth onely sprinkle or powr water on the face or dip in part of the head SECT LXXXIX The testimonies of the ancient Writers of the Greek Church concerning Infant Baptism are examined and my exceptions made good against Mr Cragge Dr. Hammond Dr. Homes Mr. Marshal THe alledging of pseudo Dionisius the Areopagite and Clements Apostolical Constitutions is but to abuse the world with counterfeit names discovered by many learned Paâ—ists and Proâ—estants to be such and the like is to be said of Justin Martyrs forged testimony qu. 36. ad orthodoxos which are not rejected because questioned as Mr. Cr. seems to intimate but because they are by many strong evidences proved not to have been the Authors whose names they bear As for the evidence to matter of faâ—t they give that infants were baptized in that age â—n which they were written I do readily grant iâ— aâ—d before too yet think it no advantage â—or the present preâ—ended infant Baptism which is clean otherwise and upon other reasons aâ— particularly that the baptized infants obtained good things at the resurrection by Baptism but the unbaptized obtain not good things Nor is there a word in that to confirm the novel doctrine of the childrens right to Baptism as being in Covenant with the parents For neither are the parents there said to be believerâ— but the bringers nor by the parents faith are they said to have right to Baptism but by the faith of the bringers to obtain good things at the resurrection and therefore in vain doth Mr. Cr. thus endeavour to hide the deformity of that Authors doctrine which is no better then that which commonly Protestant Divines condem as Popish More honestly in this then Mr. Cr. doth Bellarmin tom 3. l. 2. de effectu Sacram c. 6. say Juâ—â—in in his Apology to Antoninus saith We obtain remissâ—â—â— of afore committed â—â—ns in water c. And before he had said that no man was brought to Baâ—tism unless he before believed Like things hee hath in his dialogue with Triphon And ch 8. alwayes in the Church the custome waâ— that those who would be Christians should first be made catechized persons and long enough instructed and not baptized unless instruâ—ted and firm and stable in faith citing to thiâ— end Justin in his Apology to Antoninus as showing the manners of the Church As for Irenaeus his testimony lib. 2. adv bar c. 39. it proves not infant Baptism For though it be true that Mr. Mede in his Diatribe on Tit. 3.5 say None I trow will deny that when the Apostle speaks of saving us by washing of regeneration and renewing of the holy Ghost hee speaks of Baptism yet it follows not that that the Apostle meant by regeneration Baptism nor is it likely sith the word regeneration is noâ— to be read by the washing which is regeneration as if it were by apposition but of regeneration as the Genitive possessive and the meaning is by the washing which signifies regeneration which is before the washing yet if it were so it proves not Irenaeus meant by renascuntur are born again are baptized sith he saith not are by washing born again as the Apostles phrase is Nor though it be granted that in Justin Martyr and others of the ancients to be regenerated is to bee baptized doth it appear that Irenaeus meant it so in that place unless it were proved it is so onely meant by him and the ancients Nor doth Irenaeus l. 1. c. 18. term Baptism regeneration as Dr. Homes p. 118. suggests but saith thus to the denying of Baptism of that generation which is into God But that indeed the word renascuntur are born again is not meant of Baptism is proved from the words and the scope of them For 1. the words are per eum renascunâ—ur by him that is Christ are born again and it is clear from the scope of the speech about the fulness of his age as a perfect master that by him notes his person according to his humane nature Now if then by him are born again be as much as by him are baptized this should bee Irenoeus his assertion that by Christ himself in his humane body infants and little ones and boyes and young men and elder men are baptized unto God But this speech is most manifestly false for
of the term sanâ—tified any where else and how ill it suits with the Apostles argument is shewed fully before 2. But were it yeelded him 1. it would shew that thâ— alledging of the Jews calling their washings sanctifications to expound 1 Cor. 7.14 by was impertinent the Jews sanctifications being not bâ— perswasion of another but of themselves according to Gods appointment nor do they note first bringing to the faith and then admission by another to baptism but washing themselves and that is one reason why neither the use of sanctified nor holy 1 Cor. 7.14 can be conceived to be allusive â—o the Jewish sanctifications mentioned by the Dr. sith in 〈…〉 high Priest washed himself and but his hands and his feet 〈…〉 but Christian baptism was by the ministry of another by immâ—â—â—sion of the whole body and therefore this third reason of the Dr. is altogether in â—â—â—bable 2. If sanctified 1 Cor. 7.14 be to be 〈◊〉 brought to the faith and so to Baptism holy is in like sort so be expounded and then we might allow the Drs. exposition of holy 1 Cor. 7 14. witâ—out any detriment to our cause it being granted the children of believers were brought to the faith and so to baptism Again saith the Dr. As for his second exceptions to my conjeâ—ture founded in the use of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sanâ—tifications for partial not total â—ashingâ— 1. I answer that I mention it onely as a conâ—ecture with a perhaps and lay no more weight uâ—on it 2. That for Christian baptism I no wheâ—e affiâ—m that it was onely by immersion nor on the other side that it was alwayâ— by spâ—â—â—kling but disjunâ—tively either by one or the other as by the wordâ— cited by him from prac cat l. 6 â—ect 2 is clear supposing indeed that Christs appointment was not terminated to either and so satisfied by either Answ. 1. The Dr. by putting in his conjecture shewed his willingness to have maintained by some colour the abuse of sprinkling in stead of baptism which his own words cited by me made me fâ—ar hee did against his own light and the contrary is not cleered by this slight excuse 2. The Drs. own words alledged by me plainly shewed that he knew the primitive baptisms were alwayes immersions of the whole body nor was any other use of water for baptism till the corrupt use of the circumfusion of the Clinici in the third Century began Nor do his words practic cat l. 6. sect 2. cleer the contrary to be conceived by him For when he saith By Christs appointment whosoever should bee thus received into his family should he 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 then aâ—ds or instead of that to bee sprinkled with it though he make Christs appointment disjunctively the one or the other yet he makes the primitive ancient custome onely to bee by putting under water as in like manner p. 35. and this was indeed the ancient primitive custome a Rom. 6.3 4. Col 2.12 shew and the known saâ—ing of Tertullian â—er meâ—gitamur And of any one Dr. Hammond should acknowledgâ— it who distinguisheth the sanctifications of a part from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is Baptism and saith the Jewish solemnity of Baptism which he would have the original and paâ—tern of our Baptism to be the washing of the whole body As for his propounding Christs appointmenâ— disjunctively it discovers more of his audacious and corrupt dealing by maâ—ing that appointment which is but one way disjunctive either that waâ— wâ—ich is acknowledged to be Christs or another way in stead of it whicâ— cannot be shewn to have been practised by the Apostles or any Apostolical men in the primitive times And in this thing it is necessary that â—he â—â—il dealing of Dr. Hammond Mr. Baxter and othâ—rs be shewed who do most presumptuously add to the ordinance of Baptismâ— when Christ hâ—th appointed onelâ— dipping they add sprinkling when Christ appoints onely Disciples made by preaching the Gospel to be baptized they add infants who are not such and by a fictitious title maâ—e them Disciples by their parents faith who learn and profesâ— nothing themselves which he that readâ— considerately Mr. Baxters arguments in his 2â— disputation of the right to Sacraments may see sufficiently refuted and may think he could not write that Book without regret of conscieâ—ce for what hee had written in his Book of Baptism and when the New Testament makes none members of the visible Church Christian but professors of faith they add infants of their own head â—nd when the Scripture and Fathers in setting down the institution and practise of Baptism plainly express both so as that they confess them to bee onely meant of the aged yet would have them to include also infants contrary to the plâ—in words and their own confessions and in their expositions so expound the texts as expressing onely what agrees to the aged and yet in their arguments urge the same for baptizing of infants which they could not do if they did not plead for infant Baptism against heir own light or were not extremely heedless at one time of what they say at another How ever it be with them sure I am no conscientious Christian hath reason to be satisfied by sprinkling when Christ hath appointed no other then dipping nor with infant Baptism when as Mr. Baxter hath fully proved in his 2d disput that there is a necessiâ—y of profession of repentance and faith before and none are to bee baptized but those that are first professed Disciples of Christ and though he supposeth believers children Disciples and the parents profession to be instead of their own yet no where proves it nor offers any proof but what is meerly conjectural nor can any Pastours or teachers of Churches without most arrogant presumption baptize or take for visible Churchmembers infants whom neither Christ nor his Apostles did baptize or take for such But I return to the Dr. My last reason saith he is taken from the effect of the legal uncleanness contrary to those their sanctifications viz. removing men from the congregation agreeable to which it is that those should bee called holy who in the account of God stood so that they might be received into the Church To this he answers that it is said without proof that the uncleanness excluding from and sanctification restoring to the tabernacle are proportionable to the notion here given of the childrens beiâ—g excluded or included in the Church asking why Cornelius should be counted out of the Church being a devout man But to this I reply that that which is so manifest needed no further proof for what two things can be more proportionable or answerable the one to the other then the Jews calling those unclean and holy who were excluded from and restored to the tabernacle and the Christians calling them unclean and holy
Serpents head should prove infants of them that profess the true Religion to be visible Church-members is a riddle which I cannot yet resolve Ch. 28. art 4. they say Infants of one or both believing parents are to be baptized and in the margin cite Gen. 17.7.9 with Gal. 3.9.14 Col. 2.11 12. Aâ—ts 2.38.39 Rom. 4.11 12. 1 Cor. 7.14 Mat. 28.19 Mark 10.13 14 15 16. Luke 18.15 what they would gather from these texts may be ghessed from the Directory about baptism where they direct the Minister to teach the people That baptism is a seal of the covenant of grace of our ingrafting into Christ c. That the promise is made to believers and their seed and that the seed and posterity of the faithful born within the Church have by their birth-interest in the Covenant and right to the seal of it and to the outward privileges of the Church under the Gospel no less then the children of Abraham in the time of the old Testament the covenant of grace for substance being the same and the grace of God and consolation of believers more plentiful then before that the Son of God admitted little children into his presence embracing them and blessing them saying For of such is the Kingdom of God that children by baptism are solemnly received into the bosome of the visible Church that they are Christians and federally holy before baptism and therefore are they baptized Most of which propositions are ambiguous few of them true or have any proof from the texts alleged in the Confession and if they were all true setting aside one or two which express the conclusion in a different phrase they would not infer the Conclusion The first proposition is ambiguous it being doubtful in what sense baptism is said to be a seal of the Covenant of grace whether in a borrowed or proper sense so as it be the definition or genus of it or onely an adjunct of it or whether it seal the making of the Covenant or the performing of it or the thing covenanted what they mean by the covenant of grace which is that covenant whether it seal all or a part of it whether it seal Gods covenanting to us or our covenanting to God Nor is there any proof for it from Rom. 4.11 which neither speaks of baptism nor of any ones Circumcision but Abrahams nor saith of his Circumcision that it was the seal of the Covenant of grace as they it is likely mean The next proposition is so ambiguous that Mr. M. and Mr. G. are driven to devise senses which the words will not bear to make it true as I shew in my Apology s. 9. The words seem to bear this sense That the promise of Justification adoption c. is made to believers and their seed But so it is apparently false contradicted by the Apostle Rom. 9.7 8. and by other texts nor is it proved from Gen. 17.7 compared with Gal. 3.9.14 Acts 2.39 or any other of their texts yea in that sense it is disclaimed by Master Marshall and Master Geree The next is ambiguous also For how the seed of the faithful may be said to be born within the Church or what interest in the covenant and right to the seal of it and what outward privileges they have by their birth or what outward privileges they have in like measure as the children of Abraham is as uncertain as the rest and how any of the texts prove it is uncertain Surely Gal. 3.9.14 speaks only of the privileges of Justification and Sanctification which Abrahams children by faith and no other not every believers posterity or natural seed have nor is there a word Gen. 17.7 of any privilege to our natural seed as such The next too is doubtful it being uncertain what they mean by the substance of the Covenant what they make accidental in it and what substantial nor is it easie to conceive what they mean when they say the grace of God and consolation of believers is more plentiful then before or how any of the texts prove it or what this is to their purpose that the enlargement of a believers comfort intitles his child to baptism nor what is meant when it is said That children by baptism are received into the bosom of the visible Church and yet after withheld from the Lords Supper without any Ecclesiastical censure nor do I know how they mean or prove them to be Christians or federally holy afore baptism For my part in those propositions I deprehend little truth or plain sense but that the Directory in that part is a meer riddle fitter for Schollars to study than for teaching of the people The London Ministers of whom it is likely a considerable part were of the Assembly in their Jus Divinum regim Eccl. page 32. speak thus So infants of Christian parents under the New Testament are commanded to be baptized by consequence for that the infants of Gods people in the old Testament were commanded to be circumcised Gen. 17. For the privileges of believers under the New Testament are as large as the privileges of believers under the old Testament and the children of believers under the New Testament are federally holy and within the covenant of God as well as the children of believers under the old Testament Gen. 17. compared with Rom. 11.16 1 Cor. 7.14 And what objections can be made from infants incapacity now against their baptism might as well then have been made against their being circumcised And why children should once be admitted to the like initiating Sacrament the Lord of the Covenant and Sacrament no where forbidding them there can be no just ground And baptism succeeds in the room of Circumcision Col. 2.11 12. concerning which I say there 's no proof from Gen. 17. compared with Rom. 11.16 1 Cor. 7.14 to prove the children of believers federaly holy as they would nor is there any proof from Col. 2.11 12. to prove the succession of baptism in the room of circumcision And though infants have not a natural incapacity to be dipped in water yet they have a natural incapacity to profess faith in Christ which is now required to baptism though not required to circumcision And there is an objection that may be made against infant-baptism to wit the want of a command which could not be objected against infant male circumcision and this is a just ground to exclude infants from baptism yea the very same ground they give for excluding them the communion and the very same ground which Paedobaptists do continually in books and Sermons urge against Popish and Prelatical ceremonies But forasmuch as Mr. M. did direct his Defence of infant-baptism to the Assembly and Mr. Pryn in his suspension suspended p. 21. seems to have taken his book to be approved by the Assembly and he is of any I meet with in print likeliest to have produced their strength and for other reasons therefore I conceive my self bound to examine
of visible members in the former administration whether Jewes and their children or Proselytes and their children it is apparent to me that he makes the covenant now and then not onely the same for substance but also in respect of administrations contrary to his first conclusion For what are those outward priviledges in respect of which they are the same but outward administrations And if so his speech is in my apprehension professed Judaism opposite to the Apostles determination in the Synod Acts 15. And yet Mr. M. tells me he endevours in all this to speak as clearly as he can possibly which makes me hopeless of any thing but confusedness in his writing when after I had distinctly opened the various senses of his terms yet he wilfully declines making answer in which of those senses I should take his words and when he takes on him to explain his meaning he takes on him to explain other terms then were in his conclusion and yet his explications are as dark as his terms which he would explain and in the upshot his second conclusion can have no other sense consistent with his own Hypothesis but such as asserts Judaism or being coÌ„ceived to be the antecedent of his Enthymeme is the same with the conclusion of it which is meerly to trifle proving the same by the same which course how unfit it is for him who is to dispute I leave it to them to judge who know what belongs to Scolastick exercise Mr. M. next chargeth me with holding no more promises for believers children in reference to the covenant then to the children of Turks And yet page 119. he doth in these words maintain the same which I do I joyn with you that it is an error to say that all Infants of believers indefinitely are under the saving graces of the covenant for although I find abundance of promises in the Scripture of Gods giving saving graces unto the posterity of his people and that experience teacheth us that God uses to continue the Church in their posterity and that Gods election lies more among their seed then others yet neither to Iew nor Gentile was the covenant so made at any time that the spirituall part and grace of the covenant should be conferred upon them all which is directly to contradict the usuall plea of Pedobaptists that the covenant of grace is made to every believer and his seed and particularly the words of the Directory The pâ—omise is made to believers and their seed seeing the covenant of grace is made to none but those on whom the spirituall part is conferred nor can without wresting the words from the plain meaning according to the Grammar sense the spech of the Directory be understood of any other promise than saving grace Mr. M. and with him Mr. G. Vindic. Paedob pag. 12. charge me that in my judgement believers children are not actually belonging to the Covenant or Kingdom of God but onely in possibility that they belong to the Kingdome of the Devil actually which calumnies are reâ—uâ—ed in my Apologie Sect. 14. Next he speaks thus to me But say you to make them actually members of the visible Church is to overthrow the definitions of the visible Church which Protestant Writers use to give because they must be all Christians by profession I reply It overthrowes it not at all for they all include the infants of such professors as the visible Church among the Iewes did include their infants male and female too lest you say that circumcision made them members Answer Though Protestant Divines do hold many of them that infants belong to the visile Church yet they put them not in their definitions There are many definitions cited by me in the first part of this Review Sect. 14. in which infants are not included not in that definition of the Church visible which Baxter plain Scripture proofe page 82 saith Certainly all Divines are agreed That it is a Society of persons separated from the world to God or called out of the world c Not in that of Dr. Featly Dipper dipped pag. 4. A true particular visible Church is a particular Congregation of men professing the true faith known by the two markes above mentioned the sincere preaching of the Word and the due administration of the Sacraments Norton Resp. ad Appollon pag. 10. Immota Thesis Idem illud in professione constituit Ecclâ—siâ—m visibilem quod internâ suâ naturâ constituit Ecclesiam mysticam i. e. Fides usque adeo luculenta est haec veritas ut vel invito Bellarmino lib. de Eccles milit etiam à praecipuorum inter Pontificos calamis excidisse videatur The Assembly Answer to the reasons of the seven dissenting brethren pag. 48. Precog 1. The whole Church of Christ is but one made up of the collection and aggregation of all who are called by the preaching of the word to professe the faith of Christ. Mr. M. himself in his Sermon at the Spittle April 16 52. pag. 15. Secondly that part of the Church which is upon earth in regard that the very life and being of it and of all the members of it lye in internall graces which cannot be seen in that respect the Church of Christ is called an invisible Church But now as the said Church and members doe make a profession of their faith and obedience sensibly to the eyes and ears of others in that respect it is called a visible Church But the visible is not one Church and the invisible another but meerly the same Church under severall denominations the one from their constituting graces the other from the external profession of them The Church visible of the Jewes consisted of the whole nation and was visible otherwise than the Christian and therefore the definition of the Christian Church visible is different from that of the Jewish Church visible and infants included in the definition of the one are not included in the definition of the other Mr. M. saith I add also Baptisme now as well as circumcision of old is a reâ— all though implicite profession of the Christian faith Answer Baptism of it self I mean dipping in water is no reall explicite or implicite profession of faith but onely when it is done with consent of the baptized to that end Otherwise the Indians driven into the water by the Spaniards against their wills should be profâ—ssors of the Christian faith The like may be said of circumcision Mr M omitting my next reason That to make infants visible Church-members is to make a member of the visible Church to whom the note of a member of the visible Church doth not agree saith thus to me But say you Infants are onely passive and do nothing whereby they may be denominated visible Christians I answer Even as much as the infants of the Iewes could do of old who yet in their dayes were visible members I reply It is so yet that which made a visible Church member in the Jewish
his flesh and bloud they could not have life As for the other place Dr. Hammond ciâ—es in Chrysostoms 40th Homily on Genesis that Baptism is lawfull in the first age I yeeld that Chrysostome did in that age allow infant Baptism but I think the Dr. cannot shew that he held it was to bee done out of the case of apparent danger of imminent death or that the practise of baptizing them out of that case was ordinary It is most evident by many proofs that both then and some agâ—s after the ordinary usual baptizing was of chatechized persons at the solemn feasts when most in the Empire were by profession Christians SECT LXXXX The arguments to prove Infant Baptism an innovation Exam. pag. 9. are made good against Mr. Marshal and Dr. Homes WHereas Mr. M. had said in his Sermon pag. 3 that it is manifest out of most of the Records that wee have of â—â—iquity both in the Greek and Latin Church that the Christian Church hath been in possession of the priviledge of baptising the infants of believers for the space of 1500. years and upwards I said in my Examen p. 9. But it is wonder to mee that if it were so manifest as you speak you should finde nothing in Eusebius for it nor in Ignatius nor in Clemens Alexandrinus nor in Athanasius nor in Epiphanius that I mention not othâ—rs To this Mr. M. or his fâ—iend replies that I add three arguments to shew that Infant Baptism was not known in the Greek Church but therein he abuseth me for I addâ—d them not to that end but to shew that it was not so manifest as Mr. M. said that it was not universally known To my mention of the silence of Eusebius c. he saith 1. The question was not started then as the Fathers spake not clearly of the traduction of original sin before it was denied by the Pelagians 2 That it is enough to him that none of the â—uthors named by me spake against it Answ 1. The question of the Hieracites was raised in Epipâ—anius his time which did lead to speak of infants Baptism and yeâ— Epiphanius allegeth not inâ—ants Baptism against them though it had been for his purpose 2. Sure Eusebius that writes the Ecâ—lesiastical story and such as wrote the history of the Church had occasion to mention it is â—hey do the Bâ—ptism of persons of age he use of the Loâ—ds Supper the meetings of Christians the orders of the Church the ordinations oâ— Bishops and other things and would it iâ— were so manâ—fâ—st as Mr. M. said it was â—3 It may be they spake not against it because there was â—o question about it Buâ— it is lâ—kely there was no question about it because there was in the first ages no practise of it or very obscure For as soon as it began Tertullian put in some excâ—ptions against it and after him Nazianzen 4. If the Fathers afore Poâ—â—gius arose did not speak clearly of original sin then it is likely the paâ—â—ages in Origen on Levit. Rom. Luk. were nor his sith they speak clearly of the traduction of original sin and that speech of Vâ—ssius Hist Pel. l 2 â—artâ— th 6. p. 153. is right For who can at this day discern what passages were the brats of Origen or his paraphrasts Hee adds 1. If any thing were brought out of Ignatius you would tell mee that you did not know Ignatius when you see him Answ. 1. Though Ignatius Epistles be very doubtfull yet I incline to think some of them to be his which we have and that genuine passages may be discerned from spurious 2. If any pâ—ssage though spurious were to be found in him for infant Baptism Paedobaptists would not stick to produce it who make no conscience to allege the words falsly ascribed to Justin Martyr in the book of questions and answers to the Orthodox and stick not to maintain the allegation of it as his thâ—ugh it mention Origen whom Dr. Homes imagins Justin Martyr might hear of though he died by his confession anno 169. and Origen waâ— not born till about 156. as the passages in his Animado on my Exercit. p 111 112 127. compared do shew Besides the allegation of the Book of Ecclesiastical Hierarchy as Dionysius the Areopogites the questions ad â—ntiochum as Athanaâ—â—us his shew that neither this Authour nor other Paeâ—obaptists are ashamed to allege bastard writings which say any thing for infant Baptism Concerning Clemens Alexandrinus he tels me Defence p. 19. You desire to know what Clemens Alexandrinus saith which is not true why sure he had none but greâ—t infants to be his Schollers I conceive he means pâ—ofessed Pagan infidels But I tâ—ink this not true sith in his writings he directs Christians and opposeth heretiques if you who pretend to bee acquainted familiarly which is very false with the secrets of antiquity be acquainted with him you 'l know what I mean He desired as it is likely more Greek Fathers who were converted from Paganism did to set forth religion in such a way as might move other Pagans to come and confess the Christian saith that so they might bee added to the Church by Baptism in such a way as was proper to the baptising of grown men Which is true and confirms my presumption that when he speaks of Baptism as he doth lib. 1. paedag c 6. and elsewhere he would have mentioned infant Baptism and its benefit to the same end if it had been in his time in use as Mr. M. in his sermon said Concerning Athanasâ—us he speaks thus What say you to that passage in Athanasius Where he is shewing how wee are buried with Christ in â—aptism and rise again he sayes the dipping of the infant quite under water thrice and raising of it up again doth signifie the death of Christ and his resurrection upon the third day Athan. dicta interpretatio script q 94. is not that testimony plain Answ. It is But whâ—se is it Is not that Book one of those suppositiâ—ious writing in the 2d tome of Athanasius works of which Scultetus Medul patrum part 2. l. 1 c. 42. saith qu dam nullo judicio videntur con cripta quae se satis produn Among which also are the quaestions to Antiochus out of which Mr. M. or â—is friend pag. 20 21. cite two testimonies onâ— out of quaest 2 and another quaest 114 and saith the woâ—ds are safe and sound builâ— on a â—osâ—el ground owned by all the reformed Churches which make infants of believers baptised to enter into the Kingdome of heaven excluding the unbaptized which hitherto hath bâ—â—n termed Popery Nor is hee excused â—rom abusing Readers with these bastard writings by saying the words following may be erroneous and yet written by Athanasiuâ— when the words following are part of the answer which is erroneous and they are so connex that they must bee the same Authors As for the words How do you prove what you allege out of Tertullian and
conceive by the date of his Epistle however whether alive or dead a man very reverend and however he conceived of me one of the most learned and accurate writers specially in such things as this of his age and while he slights him discover so much folly and ignorance in Hebrew and Greek as an ordinary â—rammarian or student in the Bible would hardly have shewed certainly it 's unsuitable to his undertaking of a Schoolmaster The phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is word by word the son◠〈◊〉 hundred years for without of it would be non-sense it being the sigâ—◠〈◊〉 Genitive case nor is old substracted but included in that expression it being the Hebrew expression of old or aged as M. Gataker shews from Gen. 11.10 21.5 5.32 7. â— 12.4 16.16 17.1 25.20 26. 37.2 41.46 45.26 and elswhere and the same he might have learned from Ainsworth Annot. on Gen. 5 â—2 c. Hebr. son of 500. years that is going in his 500. year An usual speech in the Hebrew Scripture of mens age or of beasts Gen. 17.1 Exod 12.5 And for he and when how can they be said to be superadded when the very term shall die is all one with when he shall die which shews it is not for Mr. Crs. purpose for then it should have been shall be born as an hundred years old as well a churchmember as if he were but is agreeable to the Prophets meaning to express long life And therefore his jeer of excellent Arithmetick shews his folly in deriding that which was right And for his prattle it shews his excellent ignoranâ—e of the Hebrew and Greek of the â—ible Buâ—torf Thes Gram. Hebr. l. 2. c. 3. p. 360 in that piece which is termed by Amama c. admirandum opus 〈◊〉 nomen 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 filius periphrases Hebraismos facit insâ—gnes ut 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 filius areus Iob 41.19 id est sâ—gitta similes innumeri Sic Iâ—â—an 17.12 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Apud Latinos Horat. 1. carm od 14. Terrâ— filius should one scribble as Mr. Cr. doth here Here 's a new creation of a new generation son of the bow of perdition of the earth who evâ—r heard such a syntax did the son beget tâ—e bow perdition the earth or the bow perdition the earth the son or whether is elder Would not a Scholler say he played the fool For this I leave him to Mr. Vaugâ—ans correction But he seems to be more considâ—rate in what follows According to which interpretation the words must carry this sense There shall no more infants diâ— when they are young nor an old man till he 〈◊〉 filled his days for he that now is a child shall not die till he be an hundred years old I wonder in what age this was performed that no man died till he had compleated his century no mortal disease nor use of Physitians but every man might certainlâ— know the day of his death Answ. The words contain not such an absolute universal longaevity as Mr. Cr. would make to be the consequent of our interpretation but a length of days opposite to former troubles v. 16. in which so many died by war famine and pestilence which therefore comparatively is reckoned as universal as in like manner Ieremiah ch 50.20 speaking of the same times saith the iniquity of Israel shall be sought for there shall be none that is as formerly to provoke God to cut them off by gâ—ievous deaths as before the captivity And according to this iâ— that of Zech. 8.4 and I said without any vaunting Nebuchadnezzar like language as Mr. Cr. abusively chargeth me with Isa. 65.20 was rightly made by me answerable to Zech 8 4. which doth not intimate that the Text was made by me and not by the Holy Ghost but made answerable or correspondent which arrogates no more to me then if I had said made clear made manifest c. Nor is any experience or History contrary to this that the Iews after their return from Babylon 〈◊〉 prosperity increase and long life in Canaan a great while together and were honoured by divers Persian Kings Alexander the Great and some of the â—recian Kings and the Nations near them iuâ—ject to them The Contents of the Chapter were never by any Synod or Parliament interpretatively entitled to the Church of England nor are to be accounted any more valid then Mr. Gatakers notes who though a single man yet had his notes approved by other Annotators and in some sort by the Assembly at Westminster Yet the Contents of the Chapter being v. 17. The blessed estate of the new Ierusalem and in the Margin at v. 19. Revel 21.4 being put shew that Mr. Crs. conceit is no more favoured by them then mine And the speech being to be understood comparatively to the former times was true of the Jews after their return from the captivity at Babel V. 25. expâ—essing the Jews peace notwithstanding the Samaritan neighbours was true at the same time although both were accommodated to the Gospel times and the calling of the Jews yet to come Nor is it any strange thing in that Prophet to make thâ— restitution of the Jews from Captivity as answering to making new Heavens and Earth as Isa. 51.16 44.24 25 26. 45.12 13. Yet I deny not that 2 Pet 3.13 Revel 21.1 the words are rightly applied to some other great work of God resembled by this and to be yet accomplished That the Israelites 1 Cor. 10.2 were actually baptized or washed under the cloud it raining upon them and in the Red Sea the water touching their feet at least after the dividing of the waves in such a sudden passage and blowing upon them with thâ— sprinkling thereof is no where set down Exod 13. and 14. Nâ—r will such wetting be ever found in any Greek Authour to be termed Baptism formally and therefore it can be no other then similitudinary Baptism which is there meant as the eating Manna and drinking Water was a similitudinary partaking of the Lords Supper and Grotius did rightly expound 1 Cor. 10.2 were baptised by were as if they were baptisâ—d and yet Isa. 65 20. is not rightly so expounded shall die as an hundred years old there being no need of such an interpretation nor any thing leading to it in the Text but the expression is of long life nor if it were meant so iâ— it proved that infants must be Churchmembers and capable of some seal under the Gospel unless there were no other wâ—y then that in respect of which he might be as one an hundred years old Had Mr. Cr. sought the clearing of truth he had been willing to read out the whole that his dealing might not be taken for deceitfull By my refutation of Dr. Savage in Latin some years since Printed it may appear whâ—tâ—er Text Dr. Savage or the Dr. of the Chair did avoid my argument The rest of M. Crs. argumenâ—s are the same with what others have urged and have been answered in this and the former parts as this Review nor do I find that Mr. Cr. hath added any thing of moment to them to which I need make further reply As or his â—â—â—nts quips misrecitals or mistakes of my words mis-reports of my actions together with his own mistakes in Logick Grammer Divinity thâ—y are otherwise discernable then by a particular answer in Print to each part of his Book I presume the Christian and equal Reader will think it unnecessary to make any more reply to what iâ— written of infantâ— Baptism till some thing be found written which better defends it then those have done who are here answered If any other think it fiâ—â— I should answer him also in particulaâ— he may conceive that if I did pâ—rceive any thing that might not have an answer in that which is already written or had in it any difficulty I should have done it But being conscious to my felâ— that I have not declined the answering of any out of contempt of the person or sense of the difficulty of doing it but because it is thought that I have been too large already and that to answer every meer quirk of wit is unnecessary as knowing that however light witâ— that love to shew their skill in disputing be taken with them yet solid conscientious men will be led onely with good proofs out of Scripture which may shew the institution of Christ I do here supersede from this work and commend it to his blessing of whom and through whom and for whom are all things to whom be glory for ever AMEN FINIS Mr. Gatakers Annot. on Jer. 31.30 The former Covenant comprehended together with those spiritual promises which yet were the principal part of it many temporal blessings as the possession of the land of Canaan and multiplicity of issue and outward prosperity Gen. 15.5 7 18. 17.2 7 8. Psal. 105.8 Deut. 28.1 19. Whereas this later runneth wholly upon the Spiritual and Celestial blessings Rom. 3.24 25. 5.1 2. Eph. 1.3 Heb. 8.6 See Ainsworth Annotations on Gen. 21.12 Vide Gatâ—k Discept de vi effic inf baptism pag. 243.
elect in reality and to those that are not elect in charitable presumption of the Minister of baptism till comming to years they discover the contrary now what a non-sence exposition is this to expound thee meant of Abraham by every believing Gentile and by thy seed which is meant of Abrahams seed onely either natural or spiritual by faith to understand every believers natural seed and when it is said God will be a God to them that he will be a God only to some in reality which is to make God to promise what he doth not perform and to others that men shall think he will be a God to them which would be too poor a matter to be meant in that expression and therein God should not promise what he will be or do but what men shall think which would be false for it is not made good or that they may charitably so presume of them but in this sense it is not a promise at all but a meer permission to men to think charitably of them which I suppose they are as well bound to do of unbelievers children till they discover the contrary and so no privilege to the believers children And yet this too must be limitted to a certain time till they come to years and discover the contrary and therefore by seed must be understood onely the infant-seed when they came to years there 's neither promise nor permission for men to think so charitably of them And yet herein there is nothing but abuse of terms For charitable presumption must have some ground which is to be from some thing we perceive done to judge well of what we see not according to the rule 1 Cor. 13.7 Charity believeth all things but in infants acts there 's nothing that may be such a ground but to the contrary they opposing their baptism by their crying c. If it be said the promise is a ground I answer Mr. Geree confesseth the promise is not in reality but to the elect nor to the elect till they believe and therefore there is no ground from the promise till it be known the persons be elect or believers But it will be said we know nothing to the contrary To which I reply nor do we know any thing to the contrary but that unbelieving Jews children are elect and in the Covenant and yet it s not charitably presumed of them so as to count them in the Covenant and to judge them admissible to baptism I think sith we perceive nothing of believers infants acts that may distinguish them from unbelievers that we should rather suspend our thoughts of Gods election and covenant to them till they shew of what spirit they are which is meet for an administrator of baptism who as a wise Steward should give to every one his portion in due season Luke 12.42 rather then have such a fond imagination of what God hath concealed And if it be true which Mr. Geree saith in his Vindic. Vindic. p. 42. That many of the Assembly intended the words in the Directory for baptism The promise is made to believers and their seed in Master Gerees sense they have reason to be ashamed that they have so much abused the World with such a toy Yea but have they not a promise on which to ground this charitable presumption I answer surely the Jews have a more express promise Ro. 11.26 27. for their posterity then any believer now living hath for his children and therefore if that be all the ground of baptizing believers infants there 's a like ground for baptizing Jews infants though parents be unbelieving and they have wrong that it is not done where it may But shall we make no difference between the children of believers and unbelievers I answer we are to conceive with a judgement of probability for the present that they are elect and with a quieting hope for the future that they will be believers 1. Because of Gods general indefinite promises 2. Because by reason of the means of the knowledge of the Gospel which they have in their education and living where the Gospel is taught they are in a nearer possibility then others to be believers 3. Because experience shews that God often doth continue godliness in religious families though it often fall out otherwise But that such an extension of the Gospel-covenant as Mr. Geree makes to the children of believing Christians should entitle to baptism is without all rule And to his Syllogism though it might be denied in respect of the form by reason of the ambiguity of terms yet I answer by denying the Major in his sense which I conceive is this They to whom the Gospel Covenant is extended according to the charitable presumption of the Minister without the persons shewing by any act that he is in Covenant to them the Sacrament of initiation to wit baptism doth belong and shall examine his proof both of Major and Minor The Major saith he I prove by that of Peter Acts 10.47 when they had received the Holy Ghost which was but an evidence of Gods receiving them into the Gospel covenant Peter saith can any forbid water that these should not be baptized who are in covenant with God as well as we They have the word or promise which is the greater who can inhibite the sign which is the less To this I answer the proof rests on this That the allegation of Peter that they had received the Holy Ghost was brought for an evidence that God had received them into the Gospel Covenant and so it may be said to the same purpose who can forbid water that these should not be baptized who are in covenant with God as well as we But this is false For their receiving the Holy Ghost is brought not to prove only that God had made his covenant of grace to them but to prove that they were actual believers as their works did shew upon hearing the word of faith for saith he v. 46. they heard them speak with tongues and magnify God ch 11.17 if God hath given them the like gift as unto us that believe on the Lord Jâ—sus Christ who was I that I could forbid God And v. 18. it is said when they heard these things they held their peace and glorifyed God saying then hath God also granted to the Gentiles repentance unto life Whence it appears that they were penitent believers and this is proved by their acts and therefore to be admitted to baptism and not barely because the Gospel covenant was extended to them much less because the Gospel covenant was extended to some of that sort and to those particular persons onely upon a charitable presumption that Gods promise did belong to them for the future without any shew of repentance or faith at the present It is false that we may say that when by any other principle in Scripture any are demonstrated to be in the Gospel covenant who can forbid water that these should not
many Authors relate that the Habassines and Iacobites do at this day circumcise females then it is not true they were uncapable of it by reason of natural impediment But if it be true which Mr. M. saith yet Gods chosing a sign of which they were not capable and that for a typical use when he might have chosen one as baptism of which both sâ—xes were capable it is an evidence That it was not the Will of God since Abrahams time and so forward that all in Covenant should be sealed with the initial seal which was Mr. Ms. proposition Nor do his two limitations added in his Defence help him For if incapacity and non-appointment be a sufficient exemption from the initial seal yea a prohibition of it then his proposition is but what I contend for that those in covenant to whom God appoints it and no other are to have the initial seal which is as much as I would evince that it is not bare interest in the Covenant without institution or appointment that gives right to a person to claim either circumcision or baptism nor warrants a baptizer to admit a person to baptism And therefore though it were yielded that all infants of believers were in covenant yet they have not right to either initial seal without a command or institution concerning each rite As for Mr. Ms. general proposition as he states it as it advantageth it him not for the reason last given so it may be granted if he mean by exemption or particular dispensation the non-appointment of it For then I am sure infants of believers are exempted from baptism till they be proved disciples of Christ or believers by profession which if it could be proved we need not fetch it from circumcision and the Covenant From which they that deduce infant-infant-baptism do but in vain weary themselves and others as they that seek to draw water out of a pumice stone But there is some more in Mr. M. about womens circumcision which I must not omit Mr. M. in his Sermon had answered that women were circumcised virtually in the Mâ—les To which I answered that a virtual circumcision was not enough to make good his argument For then his Syllogism must have four terms thus They that are in Covenant must be sealed actually in their now persons or virtually in others But infants of believers are in the Covenant therefore they are to be sealed If the Conclusion be meant of actual sealing in their own persons then there are four terms and more in the Conclusion then in the premisses But if it be meant disjunctively they are to be sealed actually or virtually then it is less than is to be proved his business being to prove that they were to be sealed actually For a virtual sealing is less than Mr. M. would have and might be granted without any detriment to the cause of Anti-paedobaptism To this Mr M. makes no answer at all but chargeth me with a scoff where there was none tells me it is like refuting Bellarmine with Thou liest whereas I did shew wherein his answer was insufficient and that by putting his Syllogism into form according to his own meaning and then shewing how it would not conclude what he should prove And to this in his Defence he makes no answer but tells us what his plain meaning was which is nothing to the present point he should have shewed how with that exposition or limitation his argument would prove actual sealing of infants in their own persons But to slight a reason and speak nothing to it is not to answer but to shift But I also said to speak exactly women were not circumcised virtually in the Males For that supposeth they might receive it in their own persons wheras it had been a sin in them to be circumcised God not appointing it which is confirmed by the like it would be sin for the male to be circumcised afore the eighth day sith it was not appointed which may now be confirmed by Mr. Ms. words that God forbad them to have the seal till they were eight daies old To this saith Mr. M. But first give me leave to observe by the way how you pinch me with a point of Law that no man can be said virtually to have that by his Proxy or Atturney which he might not actually receive himself in his own person I question whether this be good Law but I am confident it is bad Divinity sure we sinned virtually in Adam yet we could not actually though the sin of Adam be ours by imputation The Sun is virtually hot yet Philosophers say it 's not actually And the Jews of old offered to God such things by the hands of the Priests who were their Proxies in that work which they might not offer in their own persons yea and received such things by the hand of the High Priest who bare their names in the most holy place which they might not receive in their own persons immediately and the Saints now in this world do virtually and quoad effectum juris receive some such privileges in Christ their Advocate who in their right is at Gods right hand which here they are not capable of receiving immediatrly in their own persons Answ. My words were not as Mr. M. recited them but thus He is said virtually to have a thing by another as by a Proxy or Atturney that might receive it by himself yet quoad effectum juris according to the effect of Law another's receiving it is as if he had received it In which I understand by having a thing that having a thing which is by possession of it as a benefit privilege commodity and by might receive it without any prohibition in Law and that he receives it not in his own person is onely from some temporary impediment as minority absence or the like And this according to that skill I have in such terms I conceive still to be the meaning of them Nor do Mr. Ms. instances take me any whit off from it being without fear of being chargeable with bad Law or Divinity For our sinning in Adam is not receiving something as a benefit the Suns heat is natural not by vertue of any Political Law it is not having as a proxy or atturney for another the High Priests offering for the people was an action in their stead not receiving a benefit for them and what they received for the people which they might not receive in their own persons immediately was not by reason of any prohibition but from some other cause nor were they in imparting it the peoples Proxies or Atturneys but Gods were it an answer from God or any other thing they received for them if God had immediately communicated it to them it had not been their sin And the like may be said of what Christ receives for us as our Advocate But the circumcising of women had been a sin forbidden according to Mr. Marshalls and others doctrine before recited they
argument being drawn from an act or end of Christ which was not onely duty but his performance it was urged that if infants were not baptized and to be baptized they belonged not to the Church To which I answered 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by an answerable illation by the same reason the thief on the cross should not belong to the Church because not baptized That which Mr. B. answers is not true that Mark 16.16 the former part speaks but ad debitum and the later de eventu For though a duty may be gathered from the subject of the proposition it being clear that salvation being promised to the believer baptized Faith and Baptism are required duties to that end yet the former part of the proposition doth as fully speak of an event as the later part doth And though Ephes. 5.26 it is proved a duty to baptize as aâ—so to preach the word because it is Christs way in which we are to concur with him of clensing his Church yet the clensing of the Church with or in the washing of water by the word doth not note a duty but an end intended and event to follow by Christs action Mr. B. proceeds 2. He objecteth that therefore it must be understood of the more famous part of the Church or that purification is to be understood of that which is for the most part Answ. The Apostle speaks plainly of the whole Church and to take it for part is to cross the Text except you shew a necessity for it 2. It speaks of all quoad debitum in regard of the means of it which they are capable of 3. And usually quoad eventum of the said means too Refut 1. It cannot be understood of the whole visible Church in which are many reprobates for it is that Church which Christ loved with that peculiar love which is the Husbands pattern to love his Wife by for whom he gave himself that he might sanctifie it that he might present it to himself glorious and a Church not having spot or wrinkle or any of such things but that it might be holy and without blemish which are true onely of that part of the visible which is also of the invisible Church of the elect 2. Whomsoever it speaks of that he might purifie it in or with the washing of water by the word it speaks of the intention of Christ which being supposed that it is not frustrated it follows that those who are said to be purified in or with the washing of water by the word are all in the event converted by preaching and baptized with water Which sith it cannot be said of all elect infants for they are not purified by the word it must be understood as I say either by a synocdoche of the whole for the more famous or apparent part or else the act is meant of that which is usually done or for the most part not what is universally and perpetually 3. It is granted that we may gather thence the duty of preaching the word and baptizing with water and that they who are sanctified by preaching are to be purified by baptism and that this was usual in the event a known use in the primitive times But expresly it notes onely Christs act not the Ministers duty which is onely implied and follows from this that Christ doth it by them and it supposeth that they who are capable of the one to witâ— baptism are capable of the other the hearing of the word for these two are conjunctively put not dis-junctively either the one or the other as if some were purified in the washing of water onely others by the word but the same who are purified by the one are purified by the other Mr. B. adds Object But some may say that by the word is here added which infants are not capable of Answ. 1. Infants are sanctified by the word of promise and precept to parents to dedicate them to God though not by the word preached to infants 2. The means is to each member as they are capable Washing by water to those that are capable of that and by the word to those that are capable of that which blind and deaf men are not any more then infants Ref. There is no word of precept to parents to dedicate infants to God by baptism though there be to pray for them nor do I think M. â— would allow every parent to dedicate his or her infant to God by baptism which they must do if there were a precept to them to do it That there is no such word of promise as entitles every infant of a believer or any definitely to baptism much less that appoints parents to dedicate their infants to God by baptism is amply shewed in this book before Nor can the meaning be Ephes. 5 26. of such a sanctification For 1. no word of promise and precept to parents to dedicate them to God is that which Christ doth sanctifie or clense them by partly because there is none such partly because the word of precept to parents if there were such to dedicate them to God would not clense or sanctifie the infants it hath no effect on them nor notes their duty nor doth the precept sanctifie or clense but the observing of it nor was the parents dedication ever made by God a means to clense or sanctifie the child as there is meant Nor were there such a word of promise to a parent would that of it self sanctifie and clense 2. The word there meant is the word of the Gospei preached to those who are said to be clensed by Christ. For 1. all along the N. T. and particularly in that Epistle by the word is meant the word of the Gospel as it is preached or published Acts 10.22 36 37. Rom. 10.8 9 17. Ephes. 6.17 Heb. 6.5 1 Pet. 1.25 Luke 3.2 John 3.34 6.63 68. 8 47· 12.47 48. 15.7 17.8 Acts 5.32 Matth 13.20 21 22 23. Mark 2.2 4.14 15 16 17 18 20. 16.20 Luke 1.2 5.1 8.11 12 13 15 21. 10.39 11.28 John 5.24 38. 8.31 43 52. 14.23 24. 17 6 14 17 20. Acts 4.4 29 31. 6.2 4 7. 8.4 14 25. 11.1 19. 12.24 13.5 7 26 44 46 48 49. 14.25 15.7 35 36. 16.6 32. 17.11 13. 18.11 19.10 1 Cor. 2.4 14.36 15.2 2 Cor. 2.17 4.2 5.19 Gal. 6.6 Ephes. 1.13 Phillip 1.14 2.16 Col. 1.5 25. 3.16 4.3 1 Thes. 1.6 8. 2.13 2 Thes. 3.1 1 Tim. 5.17 2 Tim. 2.9 15. 4.2 Tit. 1.3 9 2.5 Heb. 13.7 Jam. 1.21 22 23. 1 Pet. 2.8 3.1 Revel 1.9 6.9 12.11 20.4.2 It is the word of the Gospel preached or published by which persons are said to be purified converted regenerate sanctified John 15.3 17.17 Acts 20.32 26.18 Rom. 10.17 Gal. 3.5 Ephes. 1.13 Jam. 1.18 1 Pet 1.23 not any where by the word
An unmoved position That same thing in profession constitutes the Church visible which in its inward nature constitutes the mystical Church that is faith Hudson vindic ch 4 p. 90. Every visible believer is called a Christian and a member of Christs visible Kingdom because â—he form viz. visible believing common to all Christians and all members is found in him And this may be proved out of Scripture which denominates visible Christian church-members from their own profession of faâ—th in respect of which they are termed believers 1 Tim. 2.12 Acts 4.32 5.14 c. nor is there any such denomination in Scripture or hint of such a form constituting a visible Christian church-member or believer as the faith of another of the parent church c. It is a meer novel device of Papists who count men believers from an implicit assent to what the Church holds and Paedobaptists who ascribe unto infants faith and repentance implicit in their sureties the Church their owners the nation believing their parents next or remote faith Which is a gross and absurd conceit For that in profession alone makes visible believers which makes in reality true believers But that 's a mans own faith Hab. 2.4 not anothers therefore a mans own and not anothers profession of faith makes a visible believer Again the form denominating must be inherent or in or belong to the person denominated so as that there is some union of iâ— to him but there is no inherence or union of anothers faith to an infant Ergo. Naturally there is none nor legally if there be â—et him that can shew by what grant of God it is Infants may have civil right to their parents goods a natural interest in their mothers milk parents and masters may have power over the bodies labour c. of their children and servants they have no power to convey Faith or Ecclesiastical right without their own consent But this conceit is so ridiculous that I need spend no more words to refute iâ— I subsume Infants make no profession of faith they are onely passive and do nothing by which they may bee denominated visible Christiâ—ns as experience shews yea at the Font while the faith is confessed by the parent or surety and the water sprinkled on their faces they cry and as they are able oppose it Ergo. To this faith Mr. M. I answer even as much as the infants of the Jews could do of old who yet in their dayes were visible members Answ. The infants of the Jews were never Christian visible church-members though they were visible members of the Jewish Church But Mr. M. neither hath proved nor can that the same thing to wit natural birth and Jewish descent and dwelling which denominated the Jewish infants visible members of that church doth denominate a christian visible church-member And till he do this the force of the argument remains 5. I argue If infants bee visible Christian church-members then there may be a visible Church christian which consists onely of infants of believers for a number of visible members makes a visible Church entitive though not organical But this is absurd Ergo Infants of believers have not the form of a visible Church-member To this Mr. M saith I answer no more now then in the time of the Jewish Church it 's possible but very improbable that all the men and women should die and leave onely infants behinde them Answ. 1. It is no absurdity to say that of the Jewish church which it is absurd to say of the Christian For the Jewish church was the people of God of Abrahams or Israels house which they might be though but infants But the Christian visible Church is a people or company that profess faith in Christ which infants cannot do and therefore it is absurd to imagine that a Christian church visible may bee onely of infants of believers whereof not one is a believer by profesâ—ion not so of ths Jewish church 2. The possibility acknowledged by Mr. M. is enough for my purpose though it never were or should bee so in the event sith the absurdity followes upon that grant as well as the actual event 6. I argue If infants be visible Christian church-members then there is some cause thereof But there is none Ergo. The major is of it self evident every thing that is hath some cause by which it is The minor is proved thus If infants be visible-Christian church members by some cause then that is the cause of all infants Christian visible church-membership or of some onely But of neither Ergo. I presume it will be said of some sith they account it a priviledge of believers infants But to the conttary there is no such cause by which infants of believers are Christian visible church-members Mr. B. plain Script c. part 1. c. 29. pag. 92 Denies that the parents faith is any cause not so much as instrumental properly of the childes holiness by which he means visible Church-membership but he makes it a condition which is an antecedent or causa sine qua non of childrens holiness I answer saith he fully If this be the question what is the condition on which God in Scripture bestoweth this infant holiness It is the actual believing of the parent For what it is that hath the promise of personal blessings it is the same that hath the promise of this priviledge to infants Therefore the promise to us being on condition of believing or of actual faith it were vain to say that the promise to our infants is oneâ—y to faith in the habit The habit is for the act yet is the habit of necessity for producing of the act therefore it is both faith in the habit or potentia proxima and in the act that is necessary But yet there is no necessity that the act must be presently at the time performed either in actu procreandi vel tempore nativitatis vel baptismatis It is sufficient that the parent be virtually and dispositively at present a believer and one that stands in that relation to Christ as believers do To which end it is requisite that he have actually believed formerly or else he hath no habit of faith and hath not fallen away from Christ but be still in the disposition of his heart a believer and then the said act will follow in season and the relation is permanent which ariseth from the act and ceaseth not when the act of faith intermitteth It is not therefore the meer bare profession of faith which God hath made the condition of this gift but the former act and present disposition Ch. 2. pag. 15. The parents faith is the condition for himself and his infants The causes of this condition of Discipleship or Churchmembership may improperly be called the causes of our Discipleship it self but properly Christ by his Law or Covenant grant is the onely cause efficient Pag. 69. All these Church mercies are bestowed on the standing Gospel grounds
by Baptism to them as the best preservative against it For my part I think Mr. Bs. and other Ministers maintaining infant Baptism do give most advantage and encouragement to them both to inveigh against them as men that will not yeeld to truth but teach a manifest errour and therefore not to be heard and then Mr. Saltmarsh and others delusions about water baptism as now ceased living in the spirit expectation of it no true Ministry now without the spirit as the Apostles had and such like conceits driving them off from the Churches of the baptized they are caught by those emissaries from Rome and other agents of Satan with that Divelish delusion God justly suffering Satan to delude them with lies because they received not the love of the truth that they might be saved 2 Thes. 2.10 So that I have as much cause to think quakerism the fruit of Mr. Bs. ways as of mine own Nor will it be any wonder if posterity be left in controversie about the History of former times when such a one as Mr. B. shall continue to load me with false accusations with which I have many wayes shewed my self not chargeable and not onely he but also Mr. Robert Baillee in his Dissuasives Mr. Edwards in his Gangrena's and others shall in English and Latine heap so many untruths on godly persons because dissenters while they lived to shew the falsity of them Qu 6. Have you felt the guilt which we too strongly fear you have incurred of the perverting of so many souls opening them such a gap to schism contempt of the Ministry and Apostacy destroying a hopefull reformation that cost so dear or weakening our hands in the work and filling the adversaries mouths with scorn enticing the Jesuites and Friars to seem your proselytes and list themselves among you as the hopefull party to befriend their cause hardning thousands both of the Papists and profane and setling them again on their drâ—gs when many once began to shake O what a Church might we have had and were likely to have had had it not been for the Separatists and you And what a lamentable confusion are we now brought into by these Have these things toucht your heart Answ. How far these things have toucht my heart I must give an account to God my Judge and not to Mr. B. who with his fraternity I perceive would pass a heavy doom on mee and scarce award me a place in earth or heaven And no marvel if I were so pernicious an instrument as he describes me But may I not require Mr. B. to shew me by what actions I have done any of these things Is Mr. B. allowed to accuse in generals and not to instance in particulars may he without control accuse and not prove May he have liberty as in a Chancery bill hath been wont to put in all he can imagine whether true or false Is not this the manner of quakers and scolds Are my answers often made of no avail to clear my self but that Mr B. will still be imputing that to me which my writings and courses do absolve me from No marvel Dr. Owen said of him Appendix to his Vindic Evang. pag. 5. A man that doth not know him as I do would by his writings take him to be immitis immisericors a very Achilles that will not pardon a man in his grave but will take him up and cut him in a thousand pieces I tell Mr. B. plainly it is not my doctrine but Mr. Bs. which perverts souls I mean his doctrine of Baptism and Churchmembership besides his other errours that neither my doctrine nor practise open a gap to Schism but tend to the contrary unity of Baptism being one of the bonds of Christians Ephes. 4.4 the restoring of which is the regular way to union Mr. B. by his violent opposing it and the assertors of it doth really open a gap to Schism I open no gap to contempt of the Ministry but they themselves do it by opposing truth and other wayes Apostacy from Christ or godliness is no fruit of my doing but is rather caused by those that urge persons to renounce the right Baptism and Communion of the baptised of which I fear Mr. B. is guilty A right reformation according to Gods word cannot be while infant Baptism continues in seeking to destroy it I promote reformation Mr. B. by maintaining it destroyes reformation and by proposals shews his inclination to persecution which if I hinder I rejoyce I weaken not Mr. Bs. hands in preaching the Gospel but strengthen them if I enervate his errour I am glad he hath most unbrotherlike endeavoured to weaken my hands and to stop my mouth I fill not adversaries mouths with scorn of him but he hath thrown as much dirt as hee could on me in his writings I entice not Jesuites and Friers and if they creep in among those of our judgement is it any more then Jude v. 4. speaks of in his time Can Mr. B. say they are not among his party I harden no Papists but shew their bottome errour nor prophane persons but take the right way to undeceive them they that maintain their infant Baptism settle them on their dregs I mean their carnal presumption by which they take themselves to bee Christians without knowledge of Christ. The Church that was likely to have been Mr. Bs. way may be discerned by the Elders by the Scottish Church Mr. Bs. Church at Kederminster the associated Ministers in Wocestershire and their Churches Confusion is too great for want of restoring Christs order more would be if Mr. Bs. way were imposed and no small oppression on tender consciences and dissenting brethren I may say oh what a Church might wee have had if it had not been for Mr. B. and other such violent Paedobaptists as he is opposing Christs way Qu. 7. Is a transeunt fact making infants Churchmembers without Law promise or Covenant a sufficient medium to encourage you to venture on all these horrid things and run such hazards as you have done or is it possible that an humble sober man and a tender conscience durst make all this havock and stand out in it so many years considerately as you have done and this upon such a palpably unreasonable pretence When you should prove to us the revocation of infants Churchmembership to tell us that they â—ad it onely by a transeunt fact Is this a safe ground to build so great a weight on Sir my conscience witnesseth that it is not your reproach that is the end of speaking these unpleasing words to you but some compassion on you do not scorn it and more on your poor followers and most on the Church of God which you have so much injured and troubled Answ. I venture on no such horrid things nor run such hazards as Mr. B. imagines nor is the transeunt fact that I build on but Christs institution Matth. 28.19 though that transeunt fact I assigne is sufficient
severity intimates an inclination or desire to it which is stopped by a contrary inclination whereas Gods attributes are all equally in him nor hath he any propensity of desires to exercise one more then another but he doth work all things according to the counsel of his own will 2. It is falsly supposed as if visible Churchmembership were an act of remunerative mercy and not the taking of infants into visible Church-membership were an act of severity against the infant for the parents sin whereas the taking or not taking into visible Churchmembership iâ— as election to eternal life or reprobation an act of soveraignty and liberty which God useth as hee pleaseth without respect to any persons or parents good or bad actions 3. It is also as falsly supposed that by not taking infants into visible Churchmembership they are cast out from being in any visible state of Churchmercies For their being in the families of the godly though not visible Churchmembers puts them into a visible state of Churchmercies even as well as if they were taken to be visible Churchmembers and baptised 4. That God giveth some greater mercy then visible Churchmembership to wit eternal life out of the Church visible is easily proved in that he saves elect infants which die in the womb are abortives or still born And if Mr. B. do deny it hee must hold a tenet like the Papists that without his visible Churchmembershâ—p infants are damned 5. The grace of God in Gospel times is enlarged in the extent of it to all nations in the doctrine of the Gospel concerning the Messiah comen already freedom from the bondage of the law in the powring out of the spirit in the new Covenant c. although infants be not visible Churchmembers 6. Gods tenderness of compassions to the godly and their seed may and doth stand with the non-visible membership of their infants in the Christian Church it being not out of any defect of mercy in God or deprivation of mercy to them which they may not have without it but because it is his good pleasure that the Church Christian should not bee by natural descent but by faith not national but of believers of all Nations 7. How God is said to admit into visible Churchmembership infants needs explication admission as I have hitherto conceived it beeing the act of the administratour of baptism according to Mr. Bs. doctrine pag. 24. and therefore his conclusion seems to have this sense that God will baptise some infants with water which is a friâ—olous conceit 8. If Mr. Bs. suppositions on which his argument rests should bee granted him the conclusion should bee rather that God will not permit the infants of the godly to bee put to death but will keep them alive from the hands of persecutors for otherwise hee should be more prone to severity to the wicked then to mercy to the godly and their seed For all the instances hee gives of Gods severity to the children of wicked men is in the taking away of their natural lives and therefore his inference if there were any force in it would concâ—ude not the visible churchmembership of the infants of the godly but the preservation of their livâ—s in common calamities and persecutions which it is certain he doth not but as the Wiseman saith All things happen alike to alike to all Eccles. 9.2 Which things being premised thougâ— the minor of M. â—s first syllogism may be well questioned yet waving it I deâ—y the consequences of the major in both the syllogisms which rest on such futile dictates as he hath not proved except by saying he knows not how it should be otherwise which seems to intimate this fond conceit of himself as if none could know what he doth not He goes on in his frivolous arguings thus Ch 25. The 20th arg I draw from Deut. 28.4 18 3. Those that keep the Covenant are blessed in the fruit of their body and of Covenant-breakers it is said cursed shâ—lt thou be in the fruit of thy body thy sons and thy daughters shall be given to another people and thy eyâ— shall look and â—aâ—l with longing for them c. Thou shalt beget sons and daughters but thou shalt not enjoy them for they shall go into captivity The argument that I fetch hence is this That doctrine which maketh the children of the faithful to be in a worse condition or as bad then the curse in Deut. 28. doth make the children of Covenant breakers to be in is false doctrine But that doctrine which denieth the infants of the faithful to be visible Churchmembers doth make them to bee in as bad or a worse condition then is threatned by that curse Deut. 28. Therefore it is false doctrine The major is undeniable The minor I prove thus The curse on the children Deut. 28. is that they go into captivity Now to bee put out of the whole visible Church of Christ is a sorer curse then to go into captivitie therefore that doctrine which puts infants out of the Church doth make them in a more accursed state then those in Deut. 28. They might bee Churchmembers in captivity as their parents were or if they were not yet it was no worse then this To bee in captivity is but a bodily judgement directly but to bee out of the Church is directly a spiritual judgement Therefore to bee out of the Church is a greater judgement which I must take for granted having before proved that it is far better to bee in the visible Church then out Answ The minor of the first and secâ—nd syllogism are both denied For though to be put out of the whole visible Church of Christ either by just excommunication or voluntary desertion is a heavie curse yet to be put out doctrinally that is to teach that infants are not visible Christian churchmembers is not to put them under any curse at all neither is it to be so any judgement spiritual or bodily nor are they in any better case by their being accounted visible Churchmembers and baptised then they are without both nor hath Mr. B. proved any such thing before but what he hath scribled to that purpose is before shewed to bee vain Another argument saith hee this text would afford in that the judgement on the children is part of the curse on the parents cursed shalt thou bee in the fruit of thy body now GOD doth not curse the faithful but hath taken off the curse by CHRIST though corporal afflictions are left But I must haste Answ. That non-visible Churchmembership of infants now is any part of judgement or curse for the parents sin hath not the least colour of proof from this text or any other The purport of the whole chapter is quite besides the present business it being to assure the Israelites of prosperity in Canaan while they kept Gods Commandments and adhered to him and curses on them and theirs if they fell off from God the curses are for
same Church you speak pure Anabaptism indeed and contradict the Scripture expresly which every where makes the Church of the Jewes and the Gentiles one and the same Church though under divers administrations I count it needless to annex any proofs because I think you dare not deâ—y it Answ. I do not mean onely the several administrations if I had so spoken I might have perhaps been judged to speak non-sence from which I can hardly acquit Mr. Ms. speeches that Circumcision and Baptism do initiate into different administrations of the Covenant and yet they are termed the divers administrations and the Church of Jews and Gentils by reason of them under divers administrations which kind of expressions though frequently used by Paedobaptists yet I can discern little in them but non-sence or tautologies or self-contradictings My meaning was very obvious That the Christian Church properly so called contradistinct from the Jewish visible Church is one society and that Baptism enters into the visible Church Christian that the visible Church Jewish contradistinct to the Christian is another society and Circumcision entred into it not into the Christian. And these things are so manifest that I thought it needless to bring proofs Who knowes not that circumcised Proselytes were in the Jewish Church visible and not in the Christian and baptised disciples of Christ cast out of the Jewish church who remained among the disciples of Christ in his Church that the Jewish Church visible persecuted the Christian Church visible Yea this is so apparent that Mr. M. both in his Sermon p. 27. speaks to the same purpose None might be received into the Communion of the Church of the Jews until they were circumcised nor in the communion of the Church of the Christians until they be baptised our Lord himself was circumcised as a professed member of the Church of the Jews and when he set up the new Christian Church hee would be initiated into it by the Sacrament of Baptism And in his Des. p. 169. I reply that the Christian Church was not fully set up and compleated with all ordinances of worship government officers till afterwards is readily granted but that it was not in fieri in erecting and framing and that Baptism was administred in reference to the Christian Church and that by Baptism men were initiated into this new administration or best edition of the Church I think no sound Divine did ever question p. 171. I answer Johns Baptism and Ministry was a praeludium to Christ and was wholly in reference to the Christian church which then began to be moulded and though there was not a new distinct Church of Christianity set up yet all this was preparing the materials of it and John did not admit them by Baptism as members to the Jewish Paedagogy which was then ready to be taken away but into that new administration which was then in preparing So that what Mr. M. terms in me the speaking of pure Anabaptism indeed is no other then his own and is so manifest as cannot be denied to be true nor is at all contradicted by the Scripture which never makes the Church christian visible and the Jewish to be one and the same but the Church invisible by election and believing of Jews and Gentils to be one and the same mystical body of Christ Ephes. 3.6 Now this one thing demonstrates that Baptism succeeds not into the place or office of Circumcision sith they had different institutions were for Churches as Mr. M. speaks under divers administrations whereof the one was national gathered by natural descent or Proselytism the other onely by the preaching of the Gospel and faith As Sâ—lmatius in his apparatus to his book Of the primacy of the Pope p. 20 21. proves the modern Bishops neither to succeed into the place of the Apostles nor the first Bishops because of their different institution name function and ordinaâ—ion so in like manner I prove that Baptism succeeds not in the place of Circumcision because of its different institution name office and state it hath from it Which iâ— further proved thus The command of Circumcision was different from the command of Baptism the command of Circumcision not inferring Baptism to which Mr. M. replies Now this follows that therefore Baptism doth not succeed in the room of Circumcisâ—on â— cannot guess the Lords day succeeds the 7th day in being Gods Sabbath but certainly the institution of it was long after the other Answ This proves that the one is not sâ—ated on the command of the other Baptism on the command of Circumcision they having dâ—fferent commands Gen. 17.10 c. Matth. 28.19 and consequently no rule for baptizing in the command of Circumcision nor the command of circircumcising infants a virtual command for baptising the rules of administring each of these being to be taken from their several commands and approved examples of practise and no other Lastly that Baptism succeeds Circumcision in the same use and end is more untrue For the uses of Circumcision were so far from being the same with the use of Baptism that they are rather contrary For the uses of Circumcision were to engage men to the use of the rest of the Jewish ceremonies to signifie Christ to come out of Abrahams family to be a partition wall between Jew and Gentile To this Mr. M. answers These all refer to the manner of administration peculiar to the Jews I have often granted there were some legal uses of Circumcision it obliging to that manner of administration and so they were part of the Jewish Paedagogy which is wholly vanished and therein Circumcision hath no succession but Baptism succeeds it as a seal of the same Covenant under a better administration as a set and constant initiating Ordinance onely I wonder that you say Circumcision did initiate into the Church of the Jews or rather the family of Abraham Answ. Mr. Ms. grant that the uses were part of the Jewish Padagogy and that it is wholly vanished and therein circumcision hath no succession doth infer that Circumcision and all its uses are vanished and have no succession For it had no uses but what did belong to the Jewish Paedagogy the initiating was into the Jewish Church or rather the family of Abraham which speech I used as conceiving that term more comprehensive and more proper in as much as the family of Abraham was it into which Circumcision did initiate first afore the people of Abrahams house were termed the Church of the Jews and that covenant which circumcision did signifie and confirm was peculiar to the Jews although Christ were typified by circumcision and righteousness by faith in the latent sense promised in the Covenant Gen. 17. which yet no more proves Baptism to succeed circumcision then to the cloud sea Manna water out of the Rock the Ark of Noah the Passeover the sacrifices of the Law high Priest washings c. And if then this be all the use that Baptism succeeds
that Mr. M. perverts my words my arguing being no other then this Baptism is alledged as one of the means whereby we come to be compleat in Christ which Mr. M. denies not but avows as his sense therefore there was another reason besides the succession of it into the place of circumcision why the Apostle there mentions it which Mr. M. denied And this consequence however Mr. M. in his flout term it is good except it were true that every means whereby we are compleat in Christ succeeds circumcision the contrary whereof is confessed by Mr. M. in acknowledging faith to be one of the means whereby we are compleat in Christ Col. 2.12 which yet succeeds not circumcision according to him Mr. Ms. censure of my speech that the misunderstanding Col. 2.11 12. was an ignis fatuus as arrogant is shewed in my Apology sect 5. p. 29. to be injurious And what he saith in his Defence p. 179. of my position that circumcision was not a token of the Covenant to the Jews children is another injury in that he leaves out the words in sone sense which was set down a little before in my Appendix p. 174. which being added there is nothing in them contrary to the Text Gen. 17. but enough thence to prove my speech true What Mr. C. urgeth p. 81 from 1 Cor. 5.7 8. of the Lords Supper succeeding the Passeover That the Apostle could not have expressed by such phrases taken from the Passeover the celebrating the Lords Supper had not the Passeover and the Supper been the same for substance is not right For 1. that by keeping the feast is meant eating the Lords Supper is not proved and Beza Diodati the new Annot. with others paraphrase the words thus Let us lead our life 2. Our obedience gifts doing good are termed sacrifices yet these phrases prove not them to be the same in substance in Mr. Cs. sense 3. Christ is expresly in the Text 1 Cor 5.7 termed our Passeover therefore the Text makes the sacrifice of Christ to sucâ—eed the Passeover not the Lords Supper But Mr. Drew p. 3â— thinks to prove the succession of Baptism to Circumcision because as he saith in my Exercit. p. 3. c. I readily grant that Baptism is an Ordinance set up by the appointment of Christ to serve for the same spiritual ends that circumcision did To which I say that all I grant there is that Circumcision and Baptism signified and confirmed the promise of the Gospel but I added according to different forms and function and I ascribed no more to Circumcision then to the Paschal lamb the rain of Mannah c. But this is not the same with that which Mr. Drew injuriously imposeth on me Yet if it were it would not prove Baptisms succession to Circumcision as is before shewed and if it did it would as well prove its succession to the Passeover Manna the water out of the Rock c. which hee will not assert I think The rest which hee saith about Col. 2.11 12. is the same with what others say and hath been answered in my Examen part 3. sect 9. in my Appendix and in this section and in other parts of this Review As for Mr. Cotton who is one of those to whose writing Mr. Drew refers us for proof of Baptisms succession to Circumcision from Col. 2.10 11 12. his conceit is grounded upon this mistake in hiâ— book of Baptism p. 128. That the Apostle pleadeth our compleatness in Christ notwithstanding our want of circumcision in that wee enâ—oy the like fulness of benefit in our Baptism as the Jews did in their circumcision which hath been often shewed to bee false For there is no mention of a benefit to the Jews but to the Colossians and this benefit was not bare outward Circumcision or any outward Church priviledge but the inward Circumcision in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh and this not by the Jews Circumcision but Christs circumcision in his own person nor is it true that the fulness of benefit there is ascribed to ordinary Baptism nor can bee rightly so conceived And what Mr. Cotton saith in the same place against those who say that Baptism being granted to succeed Circumcision yet it follows not infants must bee baptized That succession is the substitution of later things for former things in the same subâ—ect if the subject be changed so far as there is a change of the subject there is no succession and therefore if infants be not baptized as they were circumcised Baptism succeeds not circumcision is false and against himself 1. False for we know though there were a law made that after infant Kings al should be adult and after women Queens all should be male Kings yet they should be true successors as King James to Queen Elizabeth Henry the 7th to Edward the 5th or Henry the 6th 2. Against himself For thereby is proved Baptism doth not succeed circumcision sith there is a change in the subject women being baptized who were not circumcised and parents or masters of families being to circumcise but preachers of the Gospel onely to baptize As for what Dr. Homes to whom Mr. Drew also refers in his Annimadvers on my Exercit. p. 28 29. brings to prove Baptisms succession to Circumcision it 's upon alike mistakes For 1. it is not true that the Apostles scope Col. 2.12 in mentioning Baptism is to answer the objection Dr. Homes imagins and to shew that we are as compleat as the Jews because Christ hath appointed another sign to wit Baptism in stead of the Jews Circumcision 2. Nor doth the Apostle affirm or intimate that if we have not Baptism in the room of Circumcision to us Believers and our infants we are not so compleat as the Jews by Christ. 3. Nor is it true that the Apostle doth call off the Colossians from circumcision by the consideration of their Baptism as in the room of circumcision 4. Nor doth the Apostle make such analogy between Baptism and Circumcision as Dr. Homes saith he doth 5. Nor if hee did would this prove such a succession of Baptism to Circumcision as Paedobaptists would have that the command of infant Circumcision must be a command for infant Baptism Mr. Thomas Fullers argumentation for the succession of Baptism to Circumcision in all the essentials of it as he speaks in his Infants advocate ch 7. is alike vain For there is no inconvenience that I know to say no ordinance doth succeed Circumcision his talk of Sacraments being pillars of the Church is but phrasifying instead of disputing nor do I know how it can bee true Nor do I know that all or any graces Evangelical are conferred in baptism or were in circumcision of the Jewes much less that the conferring of such grace is essential to either of them nor is it true that Col. 2.11 12. Christians are said by Baptism to bee spiritually circumcised and by the same proportion the believing Jews
because preached by Christ himself and more comfortable because in plain words without shadows Mr. M. adds To have nothing in lieu of the administrations then as they were shadowes of the substance which is Christ is very right But to say it is our priviledge to have nothing in lieu of them as they were external Ordinances to apply Christ is to say it is our priviledge to have no Ordinances to apply Christ to us and thereby to make us compleat in him which were a most absurd thing to affirm Answ. Those external Ordinances applied Christ to them no otherwise then as shadows of the substance which is Christ nor doth Mr. M. in his Sermon p. 10 11. express their administrations of the Covenant of grace otherwise then as figures signs types and sacraments of spiritual things so that if we have nothing in lieu of them as they were shadows but Christ we have nothing in lieu of them as external Ordinances to apply Christ to us nor did they make us compleat in Christ nor is it absurd to affirm that no external Ordinances now do But saith Mr. M. Circumcision was indeed a part of that administration and obliged them to the rest of that manner of administration as Baptism doth now to ours but did it not also belong to the substance Answ. No. Was it not a seal of the righteousness of faith of Circumcision of heart c. Answ. Abrahams was not every ones Circumcision Doth not the seal belong to the thing sealed the conveyance and seal annexed to it are no part of the purchased inheritance but do they not belong to it Answ. They do but not as of the substance of the thing sealed or the inheritance purchased or the Covenant whereby it is promised but as the sign whereby the futurity of it is confirmed Now surely he should use non sense who should â—erm the sign or seal the substance of the Covenant or thing promised being neither essential nor integral parts of them but onely adjuncts without which they may be or not be entirely To my saying That 't is so far from being a priviledge to our children to have them baptized to have Baptism succeed in the stead of Circumcision that it is a benefit to want it God not appointing it I answer saith Mr. M. then belike our priviledges of the Covenant of grace are so far from being enlarged by enjoying the Sacrament of Baptism that it had been a priviledge to have wanted Baptism if God had not appointed it and by as good a reason at least you might have said that Circumcision was so far from being a privilegde to the Jews and their children that it had been a benefit for them to have wanted it if God had not commanded it Sure that is a strange kind of priviledge of which I may truly say that it had been a greater be to them who have it to have wanted it if the Donor had not commanded it Answ. Mr. M. by clipping my words hath misrepresented my speech he hath left out that Circumcision was a priviledge belonging not to the substance of the Covenant but to the administration which then was a priviledge to the Jews in comparison of the heathens but a burthen in comparison of us which was in that it signified Christ to come the obligation of the law for which reasons I judged it a great priviledge to us and our children that they have neither it nor any other thing in the place and uâ—e of it but Christ manifested in the flesh because if we had any thing in the use of it Christ must be expected to come in the flesh and Jesus denied to be the Christ and we debtors to keep the whole law And then I determined absolutely that the want of infant Baptism is no loss to us and our children not a loss in respect of duty God having not appointed it nor of priviledge God making no promise of grace to be confirmed by it to the infants of believers which last words being left out by Mr. M. the reason of my words is omitted and my speech misrepresented but thus set down Mr. Ms. exceptions appear but cavils For he supposeth our priviledges of the Covenant of grace are enlarged by enjoying the Sacrament of Baptism but I know not any priviledges of the Covenant of grace but effectual calling justification adoption sanctification glorification and if there be any other termed saving graces or which accompany salvation and to say these are enlarged by enjoying the Sacrament of Baptism especially when administred to infants is as much as to say it confers grace ex opere operato And I grant for us to have wanted Baptism had been a priviledge God not appointing it nor promising any thing upon the use of it nor declaring his acceptance of it which is the case of infant Baptism Sure I know none but would think it a burthen to be baptized or be covered with water though but for a moment were it not God commanded it and accepted of it as a service to him And the like is true of Circumcision the want of which being so painfull was a benefit but for the command and promise of God signified by it Such actions as are no way priviledges but sins without Gods precept and promise it is better to want them then have them or act them such is infant Baptism and if it be in the place and use of Circumcision it is a heavy burthen no benefit now but a yoke of bondage I said Mr. M. was to prove either that Circumcision did belong to the substance of the Covenant of grace and he answers That Circumcision though a part of their administration did yet belong to the substance not as a part of it but as a means of applying it Which speech how frivolous it is is shewed before sect 25. p. 165 166. and in this section Or that the want of Circumcision or some Ordinance in the place and use of it is a loss of priviledge of the Covenant of grace to us and our children To this he saith And I have also proved that though it be a priviledge to have nothing succeed Circumcision as it bound to that manner of administration yet it is a priviledge to have somewhat succeed it as a seal of the Covenant in as much as a Covenant with a seal is a greater benefit then a Covenant without a seal Answ. 1. If it be a priviledge to have nothing succeed Circumcision as it bound to that manner of administration then it is a priviledge to have nothing succeed it in its use which confirms my before speech carped at by M. M. 2. How vain the talk of Paedobaptists is about Sacraments being seals of the Covenant of grace is shewed before sect 31. 3. A Covenant with a seal is a greater benefit then a Covenant without a seal when there is more assurance and better estate thereby procured but if as good assurance and estate be by a
easie fully to answer them p. â—5 but does not especially in this point on which the controversie between us depends and therefore not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the Dr. terms it I think the Dr. hath made a more immoderate excursion in his heaping up testimonies out of the Fathers in his standing so much on the denial of an enallage and the force of the preposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But I resolve to follow him and hope to overtake him in long running though his Pen and Press be quicker in dispatch then mine The first thing the Dr. attempts is to prove out of the Fathers that the term holy 1 Cor. 7.14 is as much as partakers of Baptism First saith he the ancient Fathers who knew the sacred Dialect call Baptism sanctification and Cyprian and Nazianzen are cited To which I answer 1. The word of the Apostle is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the adjective holy which notes a state of discrimination from the unclean not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sanctified a participle connoting the action of the sanctifier as well as the state of the sanctified and therefore may import Baptism and not the other now the two Fathers the Dr. cites with Gregory Nyssen after use not the term holy but sanctified and therefore were it granted that they used sanctified for baptized yet this proves not they or the Apostle to have used holy for baptized 2. I think the Fathers he cites did not in those passages he cites call Baptisme sanctification though they took the person baptized to be sanctified by it My reasons are from their words For when Cyprian saith him who is born to be baptized and sanctified he seems to mee to distinguish not to confound baptism and sanctification and when Nazianzen in the place quoted useth this phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I think it is ineptly rendered by the Dr. p. 102. by this means they may be baptized souls and bodies sure the Baptism of water doth not touch the soul and therefore Nazianzen is to be so interpreted as though he included baptizing in the phrase of sanctifying as the means of it yeâ— he doth not confound them or call Baptism sanctification The like I imagin might be said of Gregory Nyssen if I had his book whose words it 's likely if the Dr. had set down more fully as hee doth in others the impertinency of his allegation would have appeared As for the Jewish stile of sanctifications for Baptisms it will be to be considered after Macarius his saying that the Jewish Baptism sanctifies the flesh is not a calling Baptism sanctification But the Dr. stands most on Tertullian in which he takes iâ— that holy is used as he conceives Paul to use it 1 Cor. 7.14 for partakers of Baptism so he expounds designatos sanctitatis the designed or sealed of holiness in the sense he conceives wherein they that are baptised are by the ancients frequently said to be sealed and p. 92. designati sanctitatis sure must signifie that they are initiated into Christ by the Christian right or sign or ceremony of Baptism as those which had the Heathâ—nish ceremonies used upon them were candidati daemoniorum candidates of the Devil in the former thus early admitted and initiated into their sacra But neither do I conceive the Apostle to have used holy for holiness by baptism nor that Tertullian doth mean that which the Dr. would have him nor do the Apostle and Tertullian perfectly accord Twice in that Chapter doth Tertullian use the term holy once holiness once sanctified The fiâ—st passage is thus Hinc enim Apostolus ex sanctificato alterutro sexu sanctos procreari ait tà m ex seminis praerogativa quà m ex institutionis disciplina From hence the Apostle also saith holy ones to be procreated from either sex sanctified as well by prerogative of seed as by discipline of institution By either father or mother sanctified the Dr. coâ—ceives meant when either the father or mother is received as a believer by baptism into the Church by holy baptized for he makes the notion of holy in those words of Tertullian to be the same with designatos sanctitatis which he interprets by sealed that is baptised in the ancients language Pag. 61. holy appears to bee this but now are your infant children partakers of the priviledge of Baptism But that Tertullian mean by sanctified baptised is not proved by the Dr. and his paraphrase makes it in 1 Cor. 7.14 to import being converted to the faith and so Tertullian ad uxorem l. 2. explains what he means by sanctified gained by the wise to the faith I deny not that hee made Baptism a means of that sanctification but he doth not call as the Dr. saith baptism sanctification but the whole fact of Gods grace as hee saith Dei gratia illud sanctificat quod invenit by teaching and inlightning the person sanctified Yet herein Tertullian and the Dr. accord not with the Apostle for the Apostle supposeth 1 Cor. 7.14 the person said to be sanctified still an unbeliever otherwise his reason had been nothing to confirm the resolution v. 12 13. which was the believing yoke fellow might live still with the unbeliever for the unbelieving husband that is the husband continuing an unbeliever is sanctified but this cannot bee meant either of conversion to the faith or baptism for then he should be a believer when hee is said to bee sanctified so that it is plain neither Tertullians expression concurs with the Dâ—ctors notion not do the Dr. and Tertullian agree with Paul The other words sanctos procreari sith he restrains to infants the sanctity pag. 72. hath this sense the infants are procreated holy that is baptized for thus he speaks the Apostle in that place makes the sanctification or bapâ—ism of the children a benefit of the believing parents cohabiting with the unbeliever But herein neither doth Tertullian or the Dr. accord with Paul for hee makes not the holiness of the children to be the benefit of the parents faith but of their conjugal relation nor doth the Dr. accord with Tertullian For the holiness there meant by Tertullian is not meant onely of the time of infancy 1. Because he saith it to be as well ex institutionis disciplinâ as ex seminis praerogativa Where ex seminis prerogativa the Dr. agrees p. 92. to be in that he is not so polluted by their idolatrous ceremonies and so is in some degree holy not federal holiness as Mr. M. pag. 35. would the whole scope shewing that to be the meaning that they are not so polluted as heathens children Now ex institutionis disciplina the Dr. would have have p 9â— meant the doctrine of Baptism instituted by Christ in his Church for by this it is that baptism was allowed to those that were ex alterutro sexu sanctificato procreati born of parents of which either of them was Christian. Thus in his book de bapt c. 12. he uses a like
that he made the baptising of Proselytes and their children onely the pattern of Christian baptism Next the Dr. sets down his proofs out of the Talmud Gemara and Maimonides and then concludes And now I may I hope assume that not onely there is perfect truth in what I now affirm that Baptism among the Jews belonged to their natives as well as to Proselytes even to all that entred into Covenant and those evidently were the Jewish children as well as men but also that this had before been evidenced in that resolution of the fourth Quaere which here Mr. T. hath been pleased to examine and consequently that it was no small injustice and unkindness in him both to the Reader and to me that hee would omit to take notice of it but assume and build on it as a thing yeilded and granted him by my discourse that the Proselytes only and not the native Jews were partakers of that Jewish baptism This sure was a strange infirmity in an answer Answ. It is a stranger infirmity in a Reply that whereas I had expresly in the 2d Part of my Review sect 24. p. 307. said after the baptism Exod. 19. â—0 the Jews did not baptize Jews but onely Proselytes the Dr. should not take notice that I limited my denial of the baptizing the native Jews to the time after the baptism Exod. 19.10 Now I think there is not one of his allegations prove that the Jews baptized native Jews after the giving of the Law I confess I was unwilling to relye on mine own judgement in this or Mr. Seldens because the Dr. excepts against it though I thought and think still Mr. Selden was in the right in this and of any man living I imagined his knowledge in things of this kind to be most accurate and ample and therefore did write a Letter to my ancient acquaintance Mr. Edward Pocock Professor of the Oriental Languages in Oxford to inform mee if I were mistaken But whether by reason of his bodily infirmity or miscariage of Letters or other cause I have received as yet no answer At present having not the 〈◊〉 cited by Dr. Hammond I return this answer that none of the words as he cites them shew that Baptism was to the posterity of native Jewes 〈…〉 â—he giving of the Law fâ—r entring the Covenant not the 〈…〉 tr de repud Israel do not enter into Covenant but by these thâ—â—e things by Circumcision by baptizing and by Peace offering Nor these in Gemara ad tit Cherithoth c. 2. Your fathers did not enter into the Covenant but by circumcisâ—on and Baptism and in Jabimoth c. 4. Rabbi Joshua said we find of our mothers that they were baptized and not circumcised Nor those of Maimonides tit Isuâ—bia c. 13. By three things the Israelites entred into the Covenant by Circumcision Baptism and Sacrifice and soon after what was done to you yee were initiated into the Covenant by Circumcision and Baptism and Sacrifice For that out of Gemara the very words as the Doctor himself observes speak of what the Jews did of old time not what was a custome continued among the Jews in after times and so I make no question but the words of the Talmud are to be understood specially when the words of Maimonides counted the exactest of the Rabbins in the Jewish customes set down thus out of Maimon in mis. tom 2. in Issurei biah ch 13. § 1 6 11 14 15. do plainly shew this to have been the meaning of the Hebrew Drs. as I find them in Ainsworth Annot. on Gen. 17.12 By three things say the Hebrew Drs. did Israel enter into the Covenant by Circumcision and Baptism and Sacrifice Circumcision was in Aegypt as it is written no uncircumcised person shall eat thereof Exod 12.48 Baptism was in the Wilderness before the giving of the Law as it is written sanctifie them to day and to morrow and let them wash their clothes Exod. 19.10 And Sacrifice as it is said And hee sent young men of the sons of Israel which offered burnt offerings c. Exod. 24.5 And so in all ages when an Ethnick is willing to enter into the Covenant and gather himself under the wings of the Majesty of God and take upon him the yoke of the Law he must be Circumcised and Baptized and bring a Sacrifice And if it bee a woman she must be baptized and bring a sacrifice as it is written Numb 15.15 as ye are so shall the stranger be How are ye By Circumcision and Baptism and bringing of a Sacrifice So likewise the stranger throughout all generations by Circumcision and Baptism and bringing a Sacrifice Out of which words this may bee collected 1. That the baptizing of Israel whereby they entred into Covenant was that Exod. 19.10 2. That there is not in these passages any thing that shews that the Jewish Baptism for entring into Covenant was of native Jews after that time 3. That the Baptism throughout all generations according to the Jews was of strangers 4. That the Jewish baptism which was the pattern of Proselytes baptism according to Numb 15.15 was the baptism Exod. 19.10 and not any baptism of native Jews after that time Which if true Dr. Hammonds reasons and allegations are plainly answered that they prove not a custome of baptizing native Jews in successive generations to the time of giving the Law at Mount Sinai In which I am the more confirmed because so learned a man as Mr. Selden l. 2. de Jure nat c. 4. de Syn. ed. Ebâ— l. 1. c. 3. doth so expresly say it but also 1. Because of the speech of the Rabbin mentioned here by the Dr. and in his Letter q 4 § 11. who said That they found that their fathers were circumcised but not baptâ—zed that is ordinarily which the Drs. parenthesis seems to limit to Abraham Isaac c. but is to be understood of the Paâ—riarchs generally and other Jewish ancestors who were circumcised and not baptized 2. Because there is no other bapâ—ism in all the Old Testament for entring into the Covenant of the Law of originary or native jews mentioned 'T is true there is mention of Ezek. 16.4 of washing an infant in the day of its nativity iâ— supple it and in the Law many baptisms were Heb. 9 10. for purifications none for entring into Covenant that I find but that 3. In the relation of the Sichemites being admitted to be one people with the Jews Gen. 34.24 circumcision onely was then required without baptism 4. Where in the N. T the Apostle ascribes to the Fathers baptism he doth not mention baptism of water but their passing through the Sea and being under the cloud 1 Cor. 10.1 2. for which baptism of water had been â—pter to shew correspondence to our Baptism if such a custome of baptizing for entring into the Covenant native Jews had been then in use 5. Dr. Hammond himself pract Catech. l. 6 seâ—â— 2. saith that 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 but this could not be an end in the baptizing of native Jews ordinarily for they were not born in uncleanness but sanctiâ—y according to the Hebrew Doctors having not been polluted with idols and therefore the end or reason of baptizing Proselytes not agreeing to the native Jews that baptism was not requisite to them and therfore used not ordinarily of them It is true when they had gotten strange Gods among them which defiled them they were required to be clean and change their Garments Gen. 35.2 and perhaps some defilement of the Israelites by idolâ— in Egypt might occasion that command Exo. 19.10 But there was no reason of this in the ordinary entring of the infants of Israel into the Covenant who were not thus defiled 6. The baptism of John Baptist for remission of sins was distastfull to the Pharisees and Lawyers who thought themselves pure Luk. 7.29 30. therefore it is likely they usâ—d not such a baptism of native Jews as imported an acknowledgement of such defilement as they took themselves and infants to be free from 7. The Dr. saith Letter of Resol qu. 4th § 18. They that were thus baptized were said to be born again and that as if born of a new mother as it is oft said in the Talmud to which our Saviour refers when he talks of regeneration of which saith S. Paul baptism is the laver of being born again from above of water c. Joh. 3.3 5. And this was so vulgar a notion among the Jews that v. 10. Christ wonders at Nicodemus that he understood it not Art thou a ruler in Israel and knowest not these things But if there were such a regeneration by water of native Israelites which had been the pattern of the baptism of Proselytes Nicodemus doubtless had known it and answered otherwise therefore his wonderment was that Christ should require regeneration of him by water who was a Jew by nature who need no such regeneration and not a sinner of the Gentiles and consequently no such known custome ordinary of baptizing native Jews 8. The Dr. ibid § 17. saith â—hey that were thus received as Proselytes by Baptism put off their former relations of kinred c. To which surely our Saviour refers when he talks of leaving father and mother Mark 10.29 And Tacitus the Historian nec quicquam prius imbuuntur quà m exuere patriam parentes liberos fratres vilia habere their Proselytes are first taught after renouncing the gods to put off their countrey parents children brethren to despise them And the later Jews have a saying that he thaâ— hath maried his own sister or entred any the most incestuous bands by becoming a Proselyte ceaseâ—h to have that near relation of bloud to her and may 〈…〉 with her as with a â—ife which false suâ—erstructure in them is yeâ— a testimony of â—he truth whereon it is falsly founded by them And this is a testimony also of this that the Jews did not thus baptize native Jews because they never allowed such incest at they would have done if they had by baptism regeneâ—ated thus native Jews and conceived of the effect of it as they did of Proselytes baptism 9. We read of the circumcision of Christ John Baptist Timothy Paul but wee read not of their baptism by water as the custome of the Jewes was to enter into the Covenant Proselytes therefore there was not a custome of baptizing native Jewes infants 10. There 's no way mentioned of initiating Jewish females by any ceremony into Judaism no description in the Talmud Gemara Maimonides of observing any such thing as the Dr. sets down Letter of resol q. 4. sect 9. concerning Proselytes to have been used towards the Jews sundry of the things done to the Proselytes at their baptism were such as were proper to strangers as namely the baptizing into the name of a freed man or a servant the limitation of the priviledges of the baptized which are evidences that this baptism was not used to native Jews but onely to Gentile Proselytes All which being considered there was neither unkindness nor injustice to Dr. Hammond or his Reader in my discourse and it is necessary for him to consider better the considerations which I have offered in this matter unless hee will become non-suit which have certainly force in them though this thing were omitted by me which yet was not perfectly omitted as his language is by me nor the contrary supposed without proof But the Dr. however refuseth not to attend me in all my motions and I hope I shall at long running overtake him To what I said Baptism it seems was a custome of all nations as well as the Jews ciâ—ing Grotius for it on Matth. 3.6 and Matth. 28.19 the Dr. answers Of the truth of this Observation I shall raise no question onely I wonder what he could fancy from thence to conclude for his advantage and then he fals to â—onjecturing But by my words he might have easily resâ—lved himself what I aimed at in this to wit to shew the Jews baptism of parents and children is not undeniably proved to be the pattern of Christian baptism and Christs institution of baptism but a copy according to that pattern iâ— iâ— bee true that it were derived from the â—ame common fountain the â—ons of Noah in remembrance of the deluge according to that famous verse among the Greeks the Sea sweeps away all the evils of men to which S. Peâ—â—â— alludes in making Baptism the antâ—type â—o Noahs floud which the Dr yeâ—ds To this I added that I knew not that Dr. H. or any oâ—her hâ—th alleged one passage in Scripture or any of the Fathers that might evince that the custome of baptizing or baptizing infants was derived from the Jews initiating Proselytes by baptism To this saith Dr. H I answer 1. By asking Mr. T. whether he be ready to pay thâ—t reverence to the authority of the Fathers as to bee concluded by their affirmations To which I say I am ready to pay that reverence to the Fathers which is meet but to be concluded by their affirmations is more then is fiâ— tâ—e same liberty is to be allowed mee which learned men take usually to dissâ—nâ— from them when Scripture or reason lead another way He â—aith If he be wonder why the uniform consent of them that infants are to be baptized should not prevail with him Answ. And I wonder 1. that the Dr. should pretend an uniform consent of the Fathers that infants are to be baptized when for the two first ages there 's not any just evidence of the consent of one Father for it in tâ—e third there is a dissent of Tertullian and in the 4th of Nazianzen and the rarity of its use and thaâ— upon such erroneous grounds as it was practiâ—ed
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
Circumcision to prove noâ— the duety yet the lawfulness of infanâ— Baptism 2. The sacrifice which was required at the initiating a Proselyte was a burnt offering of a beast or two Turtle Doves or two young Pigeons both of them for a burnt offering so Maimonides tit Isuri â—iâ— c. 13. as Ainsworth annot on Gen. 17.12 Selden de syned l. 1. c. 3. â—ite him but that is not prayer nor is it any more agreeable to the Jewish custome to use prayer without it then to use circumcision of the heart Col. 2.11 without the outward or the answer of a good conscience towards God without baptism with water and yet the rubrick of the Common Prayer Book in private Baptism allowed if time did not suffer it to be done without so much as saying the Lords Prayer The Dr. adds So parallel to the Court of three Israelites by the confession or profession of whom saith Maimonides the infant was baptized we have now not onely the whole Church in the presence of whom â—tis publikely administred and when more privately yet in the presence of some Christians who are afterwards if there be any doubt to testifie their knowledge to the Church but more particularly the Godfathers and Godmothers being themselâ—es formerly baptized do represent the Church and the Minister commissionated thereto by the Bishop represents the Church also meaning the Governors thereof Answ. Though Baptism by women and others not commissionated by a Bishop have heretofore been tollerated and been taken for currant Baptism and the terming the Governours of the Church the Church be language not like the Scripture but the Canon law and the use of Gossips be a vain device and the Minister commissionated by the Bishop with the Gossips sometimes so ignorant of the knowledge of Christ that they are not fit to bee among Christians nor to be taken to represent a Church of Christ nor do they stand under that notion at the usual baby sprinkling but as sureties or proxies to the child and in private Baptism there 's none of these sometimes yet were all the Dr. saith yeilded this is not according to the Jewish custome which required a kinde of court of three Israelites skilfull in Law to approve it or else it is voâ—d and so as Judges of the Baptism of which sort the other are not The Dr. adds But I shall not proceed to such superfluous considerations and so I have no need of adding one word more of reply to his 24. Chapter as far as I am concerned in it unless it bee to tell him that the Bishopâ— Canons are not the rule by which I undertake to define wherein the Jewish custome must be the pattern wherein not but as he cannot but know if he had read the resolution of the 4th Quaere the practise of the Apostles of Christ by the testifications of the Fathers of the Church made known unto us to which as I have reason to yeild all authority so I finde the Canons and rituals as of this so of all other Churches in the world no one excepted to bâ—ar perfect accordancâ— therewith in this particular of infant Baptism though in other lesser particulars they differ many among themselvs and all from the Jewish pattern And this I hope is a competent ground of my action and such as may justifiâ— it to any Christian Artist to bee according to rules of right reason of meekness and sound doctrine and no work of passion or prejudice or singularity or as Mr. T. suggests of the Drs. own pleasure as if that were the mutable principle of all these variations from the Jewish pattern Answ. 1. To call Cyprian Augustine c. Fathers of the Church which is elsewhere stiled their mother is scarce consistent 2. To yeeld all authority to the practise of the Apostles of Christ by the testifications of the Fathers of the Church made known to us there is no reason this is due onely to the holy Scripture they testifie sundry things as the Apostle practise which was not so they speak sometimes in these things confidently upon false reports this would be an inlet to many superstitions the Canons of Councils and Rituals of Churches are so full of weakness and blemishes as that they would be counted most useless writings â—o direct in faith or worship did not their age make some men dote on them Tâ—at all Churches accord in infant Baptism cannot be true The Common Prayer book is not justifiable in the allowing that which is termed privat baptism in the use of sureties their mimical or fals answers saying they desire to be baptized when it is not so The Drs. exposition Letter of resol q 4 § 116. I believe i. e. this child stands bound by by thâ—se presents to believe c. is so ridiculous and Augustines tom 2. Ep. 28 ad â—oniâ—acium is like it as that did not prejudice oâ— preingagemâ—nt or some other like reason prevail with Dr. H. he would never defend it That which the Dr. makes a competent ground of his action doth not justifie his tenet of infant Baptism to be according to rules of reason and sound doctrine whether he vary or not in his determinations from that which hee makes the paâ—tern as hee pleaseth or the Bishops Canons order let the Reader juâ—ge by what is said and that which followes Of this score saith he 't is somewhat strange which he thinks fit to add concerning the form of Baptism in the name of the Father and the â—on and the Holy Ghost In â—his one thing saith he which Christ did noâ— prescribe nor did the Apostles that we finde so conceive it yet saith the Dr. Christs prescription must be indispensably used In reply to this I shall not sâ—end much time to evidence this form to bee Christs prescription if the express words aâ— his parting from the world Matth. 28. â—o ye theâ—â—fore and â—ach or receive â—o discipleshâ—p all naâ—â—ons baptizing them in the nâ—me of the Father and the Son and the Holy â—host be not a prescription oâ— Christs and if the universal doctrine and continual practise of the whole Church through all times be not testimâ—ny sufficient of the Apostles conceiving it 〈◊〉 and a competent ground of the indispensable continuing the use of it I shall not hope to perswade with him onely I shall minde him of the words of S. Athanasius in his Epistle to Sâ—rapion tom p. 204. He that is noâ— baptized into the name of all three receives nothing remains empty and imperfect For perfection is in the Trinity no Baptism perâ—â—â— iâ— seems but that And if â—his will not yet suffice I shall then onely demand whether he can prodâ—ce â—o express grounds from Christ or the Apostles or the univâ—rsal Church of God through all agâ—â— or from any one ancient Father for his denying Baptism to infanâ—s Answ What grounds we can produce â—rom Christ and Apostles for denying infant Baptâ—sm may be seâ—n in 〈◊〉 Part of this Review
sect 5 c. what from Fathers in this and some othâ—r of my writings that which Christ prescribed is indispensably to be used to baptize inâ—â— the Name of the Father Son and Holy but all the question is about these words I baptize thee in the Name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost whether Christ have prescribed them to be indispensably used so as thaâ— if any say I baptize thee in the name of Christ or the Lord Jesus or be thou baptized or aâ— the Greeks use it Let this servant of Christ bee baptized into the Name of Father Son and Spirit or This pâ—rson is baptized by â—e into the profession and owning of the Father of Christ the onely true God and Jesus Christ whom he hath sent and the Comforter whom he sent as his Lord and Master this be not agreeable to Câ—rists prescription I conceive it is and that neither did Christ prescribe those very words the Dr. seâ—s down but the thing of which Grotius â—nnâ—t in Matth. â—8 19 may be seen where the Dr. may see that to be baptized into the Name is not all one with bapâ—izing with the express naming of each oâ— these but another thing and how the ancients varied in their expressions and how Irenâ—us lib. 3 c. 20. saith In nomine Christi subauditur qui unxiâ— ipse qui unctus est ipsa unctio in qâ—a â—nctuâ— eâ—â— Nor the Apostles when they prescribed Baptism into the name of Christ without mentioning the other persons Acts 2.38 10.8 8.16 Luâ—â—bard l. 4. sent dist 3. â—ui baptizat in nomine Christi baptizâ—t in nomine â—rinâ—tatis quae ibi intelligitur and this Ambrose before spake iâ— lib. 1. de sâ—ir sanct c. 3. â—iscat schol in Matth. 28.19 But it is not to be thought that in these words Christ commands Misters oâ— Pastors of the Church that in baptizing they should pronounce these words baptize thee into the Name of the Father c. Fatherâ—c â—c which may be done although those wordâ— be not â—ronounced in baptizing And therefore thaâ— which I â—aid needed not bee somewhat stâ—â—nge in the Dr. And for the words of the Drs. Practicâ—l catech l 6. § 2. the words do shew what I said the Dr. confessed to have been no misâ—â—eporting of his words who did not say he affirmed the putting under water used by the primitive Church to be appointed by Christ exclusiâ—ely to sprinkling but tâ—at by Christs appointment the baptized was to be dâ—pt in waâ—eâ— i.e. according to the primitive ancient custome to bee put under waâ—er and said expresly be allowed of sprinkling and yet varied from the Jâ—wish pattern which requirâ—d immersion and from Christs appointment which though he propounded dâ—sâ—junctively yet I knew it could â—ot â—e so understood and from the primitive custome and yet in another thing nâ—t so prescribed will have it to be indispensably used which shews his variableness SECT XCVII Matth. 28.19 Infants are excluded from being subjects of Baptism notwithstanding Dr. Hammonds pretensions TO what Dr. H. Defence of infants Baptism ch 2. sect 1. saith I reply 1. That his writing for the Common Prayer Book is evidence of ascribing more then was meet to the Canons of Prelates sith thâ— Common Prayer Book stood as well by the Prelates Canons as the Act of Parliament and those that are for the one are for the most part for the other 2. It appears to me that he hath offended much against the Sacrament of Baptism in his Defence of infant Baptism the use of sureties sprinkling in stead of Baptism according to the Common Prayer Book all which are mentioned before 3. This to me is a signe that the Dr. ascribes too much to the Canon which enjoyned subscription and conformity to the Common Prayer Book in that he hath opposed as much I think as any man of his rank the reformation of these and such other faults as were in it 4. If there were a Catechesis in the term allegation then my use of it proves not my signification that the Dr. did produce Matth. 28.19 as a proof of his posâ—tion yet when I consider how the Dr. Letter of resol q. 4. sect 14 25. doth make the Jewish baptism the pattern whence the Christian is copied out and saith Christian baptism hath nothing in the Copy to exclude Christians children which copy is set down in the N. T. i e. in the words of institution and these words § 25. are no other then those Matth. 28.19 which he endeavours to prove not onely not to exclude but also to include Christians children as he speaks § 121. Christs baptism being founded in the Jews custome of baptizing of Proselytes and the custome among them being known to be this to baptize the Proselytes and their children the indefinite command of baptizing all nations was all that was needfull to comprehend the children also of those that received the faith of Christ. I do still conceive he did allege Matth. 28.19 as a proof of his position though not by it self yet with his imagined pattern of the Jewish custome and that though he would not openly yet by his contending so much for the equivalency of Disciple and Proselyte and the extent of the term Proselyte and his acknowledgement of these words to be the copy in the N.T. he did tacitely yeeld that if those words Matth. 28.19 include not infants under the discipled then there is something in the N. T. which excludes infants from Baptism Nor is he at all relieved by what he saith that whatever were the notion of Discipling there yet â—ee could not deem infants thereby excluded from Baptism whom by another medium viz. the Apostolical practice hee supposed to be admitted to it by Christs institution for that very medium is to prove it to have been Christs institution and Matth. 28.19 comprehends the words of institution and is the copy of the original and therefore it 's tacitely implied that if infants be noâ— proved to bee included Matth. 28.19 there is something against infant Baptism in the N. T. nor is it true that in that which is not included is not presently excluded for in all such institutions or appointments what is not included iâ— presently excluâ—ed Our Lord argues Matth. 19.5 6. two shall bee one flesh therefore more then two are excluded the Apostle 1 Cor. 11.23 thus Châ—ist appointed the Lords Supper therefore no otherwise wine is appointed therefore water is excluded eating is prescribed therefore reservation is excluded let the self-examiner eat therefore infants excluded the Dr. himself baptizing in the name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost prescribed Mat. 2â— 19 therefore that from indispensably to be used If the Dr. would look on such a despicable piece he might see this further proved in that Book a part whereof hee answers Review part 2. sect 5. â—f not he may finde enough in Jewels Sermon at Pauls Cross 1560. and in all sorts of Protestant
iâ— his also but still baptism or to remove all pâ—â—sible mistake baptizing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Matth. 28.19 is an act of the Baptizer onely and so the Ceremony of receiving into Discipleship whomsoever they thus duely baptize I hope I need say no more of this Answ. I said not baptizing but Baptism the Ceremony not â—s the Dr. misâ—recites my words oâ— receivers into Discipleship but of receiving into discipleship is as truely the aâ—â— of the baptized thereby pâ—ofessing or avouching hâ—s discipleship as of the Baptizer and therefore the baptized is not meerly passive in it nor an infant doth undeâ—go it And I prove it thus 1. Baptism is a duty of the baptizâ—d as well as of the baptizer as may bee proved from Acts 2.38 where the Apostle exhorts them to repent and bee baptized every one of them in the Name of Christ Jesus for the remission of sins Now that which a man is exhorted to as his duty is his own act Ergo. Iâ— any say it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the passive voice hee may understand that Luk. 11.38 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 though it bee the same sense and voice yet notes the action of the baptized 2. It is manifest also from the command to Paul Acts. 22.16 that baptism is the act of the baptized For first it is a thing commanded to bee done by him 2. It is in the middle voice 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which though I deny not to have a passive signification yet here 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cannot have any other then active signification because of the accusative cause following so neither can the other both being injoyned as duties and the washing away sins being not meant of forgiveness of them but turning from them baptism being the signe of his repentance and both being to be joyned together Acts 2.38 and therefore Baptism being called Markâ— 4 Acts 19.4 3. Baptiâ—ing into the Name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost notes the aâ—â— of tâ—e baptized as well as the baptizer and thiâ— is fully taught by Dr. Hammond himself practic cat lib. 6. sect 2. where he saith â— â— baptize thee into the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost â— being prâ—scribed by Christ to his Disciples must indispensably be used and the meaning of them is double 1. On the Ministers part that what he doth hee doth noâ— of himselâ— but in the Name or power of or by Commission from the blessed Trinity which by the way I am sure none can 〈…〉 â—pparent 〈…〉 when they baptize infants much less when â—hey onely sprinkle them 2. And more especially in respect of the peâ—son baptized 1. That he acknowledges these three aâ—d by desiring baptism makes profession of that acknowledgment which is in effect the sum of the whole â—reed 2. That as he acknowledges these three so he delivers himself to them as to the three principles or authors of faith or Christian religion and acknowledges no other as such as to be baptised in the name of Paul signifieâ— to say I am of Paul i. e. toâ—â—â—has â—â—â—has and all other to receive for infallible truth whatsoever is taught by any of these and noâ—hing else 3. That he delivers himself up to be ruled as an obedient servant by the directions of this great master a willing Disciple of this blessed Trinity and so the Greek phrase â— into the name doth import and these thâ—ee acts of the baptised together make up his part by way of condition required of him to make him caâ—able of that grace which the Minister from God thus conveys upon and ensures unto him Besides which it notes the calling on the Name of the Father by the Son through the hâ—ly Spirit as Acts 22 1â— shews where Paul is bid to be baptized or baptize himself calling on the name of the Lord when baptized and this I have proved to be meant 〈◊〉 Luk. 3.21 and other 〈◊〉 Review part 2. sect 5. p. 8â— â—0 9â— So that baptism 〈◊〉 as well or rather more the ceâ—emony of thâ— baptized 〈◊〉 â—â— the baptizer Which might be proved from thoâ—e texts which speak 〈◊〉 the use of it as Rom. 6.3 4. Col. 2 1â— Gal. 3 26 27. 1 Cor. 12. â—3 in all which and sundry more the act of the baâ—tâ—zed is noted who dâ—th thereby signifie his baptism into â—hrists death being 〈◊〉 by baâ—tism into death and his rising to newness of life putting on Christ â—oyning into one body c. which I have cleered more fully in the same pâ—ace pag 6 97 8 â—9 And this the Dr saith 〈…〉 iâ— more especially meant by baâ—tising into the Name of the Father Son and Holy spirit 〈…〉 their act as wâ—ll as the administrators 4. Iâ— baptism were not as truely the act of the baptized as the baptizer tâ—en it should be tâ—uâ— baptism if the baptizer did dâ—p withâ—ut an concuâ—â—◠〈◊〉 of the bapâ—ized yea â—hough he weâ—e forced to it and against his will put undeâ— water and this were warrantably done by the baptizer For he should do what â—s prescribed But this is absurd neither School men nor any other allow such baptism vide Th. Aquin. sum part 3. qu. 68. art 7 10. The Spaniards driving the Indians into the water forcibly for baptism and their going in thus under water is excepted against as neither rightly done nor true baptism Therefore certainly baptizing prescribed Mat. 28.19 doth comprehend not onely the act of the administratour but also the act of the baptized in yeilding to it and concurring with it When Peter Acts 10.48 commanded Cornelius and those with him to be baptised in the name of the Lord there were three acts concurrent 1. The Apostles command by way of authority appointing it to be done 2. Oâ— the administratour by way of Ministry 3. Of the baptized by way of submission and putting himself under water Yet hee is noâ— thereby a meer Sebaptist as iâ— is reported some heretofore have been but is partly passive in consent and sâ—bmission to what the baptizer doth and partly aâ—tive in concurring with him So that my speech is cleered from being gross as â—â— Dr. would Dr. H. adds His second branch of exception is to those words of mine Wherein I say thaâ— the making or receiving Disciples supposeth not any precedent instruâ—tion but looks wholly on it as subsequent Against this I gave reasons of dissent thus 1. That which is exprest in Matthew by Go ye therefore and make Disciples all Nations is in Mark Go ye into all the world and preach the Gospel â—o every living creature which sâ—ews how they should disciple all nations now they who are made Disciples by preaching the Gospel are made disciples by precedent instruction Ergo the making or receiving disciples Matth. 28.19 supposeth precedent instruction But to this saith the Dr. I answer 1. That the words in Mark are no otherwise parallel to those in Matthew then as an Epitome is
Proselyte are perfectly all one and yet acknowledge this accidental difference that this is no reason of difference and yet say that a Proselyte denotes a comming from some other nation as a disciple doth not that this is but an accidental difference and yet in his own description make this very difference and when he expresseth the Hebrew word for Proselyte still terms him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a stranger that this difference had no place in this matter when his inference is from Proselytes who were strangers to the Jews to prove Disciples and Proselytes the same and to tell me I must know his use of a word which hee neither shews that he or any else have so used But the Dr. adds Thus do we finde a Proselyte defined Heb. 11.6 by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he that commeth to God thus doth a Jew when he enters into Covenant of obedience to him and thus did a Gentile when he undertook the whole Law of the Jewes and was therefore 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Proselyte of the Covenant and a Proselyte of their righteousness and such is every one whether Jew or Gentile that commeth to Christ and as the two former of these were made partakers of priviledges by this means particularly allowed freely to enter into the Congregation and infants as well as grown men were thus among them admitted into Covenant so it is not imaginable why it should not hold of the Christian Proselytes also nor why the Christian infants thus received into Covenant by Christ after the same manner as Jewish and Gentile infants were among the ancient people of God i. e. by Baptism should not as properly bee called Proselytes of Christ though they neither câ—me from any other nation nor ever associate themselves with Israelites according to the flesh Answ. If the notion of a Proselyte were according to Heb. 11.6 I should agree that a disciple of Christ and a Proselyte were the same For such a Proselyte is one that is a believer as the words shew But without faith it is impossible to please God For he that commeth to God must believe that he is and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him All such Proselytes of Christ I doubt not are admitted into Covenant to be bâ—ptized to partake of priviledges in the Christian Church whether they be Jewes or Gentiles according to that 1 Cor. 12.13 and when infants are proved to be such there will be no question about their Baptism though not by reason of the Jewish custome yet by vertue of Christs institution to baptize disciples and believers on him But that infants of Christians are thus received into Covenant by Christ after the same manner as Jewish and Gentile infants were among the ancient people of God i. e. by Baptism or that afore they believe they should be called Proselytes of Christ or that every one whether Jew or Gentile that commeth to Christ is as a Gentile when hee undertook the whole Law of the Jewes and was therefore a proselyte of their Covenant and a proselyte of their righteousness or that a Christian believer is either termed in Scripture a Proselyte or any Jew is to be so termed properly is not to be imagined all these things being the meer dreams of the Dr. suitable to his fancy of infant Baptism instituted among Christians aâ—ter the Jewish pattern The Dr. proceeds thus And whereas he saith of the Proselytes comming to the Israelites that they came not to be taught but to enjoy priviledges I cannot divine what motive he had to affirm it for sure the infant child that was baptized and so received into the Congregation of Israel did come to learn the Jewish religion into which he was thus early initiated and that was one special priviledge the rest of the Heathen having not knowledge of these Lawes the immediate end of his proselytism yet not excluding those other ends of injoying all other priviledges both Civil and Ecclesiastical thereby Answ. The infant had no end but such as the parent who was indeed the Proselyte had and the parents end was not to be taught for hee was taught the Jewish religion before and at his Baptism the precepts of Moses being recited to him while he stood in the water by the Elders at whose command he was baptized and admitted into the Jewish policy afore which admission he was to undertake the observance of them the proper and immediate end of his proselytism was his injoying those priviledges which native Jewes had as one of that body which shews that the admission of a Proselyte was not into a school to learn and therefore the notion of Proselytism not like the notion of receiving to discipleship which the Dr. fancies to be meant Matth. 28.19 and to be the same with admission to Proselytism to shew the mistake of which was the motive why I set this difference between a Proselyte and a Disciple of Christ as the Dr. might easily have diâ—ined if hee had been minded to do so The Dr. saith of me And when he adds but a Disciple of Christ is one that owns Christ for his teacher and Lord onely for spiritual benefits I might as well acknowledge it and ask why then an infant who hath need of those spiritual benefits as soon as he is born should not be hastened to a participation of them Answ. I know no reason why hee should not nor do I know any reason why he should be baptized nor how by it an infant may be hastened to the participation of spiritual or other benefits but know reason why an infant should not bee baptized because Baptism is thereby profaned and the infant afterwards usually hardened through pernicione presumption as if he were thereby made a Christian. The Dr. saith also But it is farther evident that spiritual benefits beeing first and principally designed other even secular advantages may very lawfully bee respected and reaped by them that are thus early brought in whether as Disciples or Proselytes to Christ. Answ. That by Baptism infants are brought in as Disciples or Proselytes to Christ or attain any advantages spiritual or secular I know not sure I am none are lawfully respected in the use of infant Baptism being wholly besides Christs minde and if the end of Proselytism was as manifestly it was for far different purposes from that of a Disciple of Christ the Proselyte and Disciple of Christ are not perfectly one which I was to demonstrate Yet again saith the Dr. Two sage observations he here addeth 1 That there is no mention of the Disciples of the Priests but of the Pharisees and Sadduces and I can verily well grant it who speak not of any lower kinde of Disciples but either of God among the Jewes or of Christ among us Christians those being the onely Discipleship to which they were admitted by the Ceremony of Baptism the Disciples of the Pharisees and Sadduces being but a
16.15 v. 32 33. shew that by the house are meant persons of age and by so expounding we diminish not Gods word nor make exception that God hath not made nor imply a contradiction nor incur a curse as Mr Cr. after his vein of pratling writes All that Mr. Cr. saith in opposition to what I said of baptizing believers in the first ages continued without any infant Baptism proves not my words an untruth nor a frontless assertion and is answered before sect 88 89 9â—â—n which and sect 90 91. all that he brings to evince my 7th and 8th untruth as he terms my words is examined I justly account infant Baptism a Popish abuse it being derived from these principles unwritten tradition and necessiâ—y of it to save an infant dying which are judged Popish errours And for answer to what Mr. Cr. saith of my 9th untruth as he terms it I refer the Reader to the 9th Section of my Praecursor not refelled by Mr. Baxter in his Praefestinantis morator Sect. 7. Mr. Cr. excepts against me for saying 1. That the Epistlers assignation of the causes of Anabaptism are vain 2. That Anabaptism is true Baptism 3. That the true cause is the light shining from Scriptures and other Authors 4. That this light was not discovered formerly as now What he saith against the first is but a repeating of the reasons without any confirmation but some light Poetical pedaâ—tiâ—ue expressionâ— which deserve onely neglect Against the â—d he gives his reasons against reiteration of Baptism which are nothing â—o me who asserted not thâ—â— baptizing twice was true Baptism but baptizing â—f persons of age professing â—aith though in infancy imagined to have been baptized is true Baptism Yet do I see no force in the reasons he gives For 1. in the institution of Baptism Mat. 28.19 the precept is to the baptizer and I presume he doth not think the baptizer is not to reiterate his act of baptizing yea doubtless he is to baptize as oft as there are Disciples made by him And as for the act of the baptized which is implied it is true neither is it determined to be once or twice and may therefore seem to be left to liberty That he allegeth Whatsoever is not of faith is sin is clean mistaken by him the meaning â—eing onely what a man doth with a doubâ—ing conscience is sin to him so by this reason rebaptization is a sin only to him that doubts of it And when â—e saith Whatsoever is not grounded on the Scripture is will worship I presume he means it of that which is used as worship and determined to be but once But then the question is only begg'd not proved that Christ hath determined Baptism to be but once In that which he saith of Act. 19.3 which is an instance of being twice baptized I find nothing brought by Mr. Cr. to avoid the force of it For to be baptized into Johns Baptism can be no other then to be baptized with water according to the proâ—ession of Johns Disciples and this was true Baptism from Heaven not differing in the nature of it from Christs as say Protestant Divines and it is certain that to be baptised into the name of the Lord Jesus iâ— to be baptized with water into the profession of him as Act 2. â—8 41. 10.48 the giving the Holy Ghost is distinctly expressed v. 6. to have been by laying on of hands and this was on the same persons v. 6. who were â—aid to hear and to be baptised v. 5. and these were not all the people mentioned v 4. buâ— twelve onely v. 7. and therefore it is far more probable and in mine apprehension certain as the Ancients did conceive that those twelve were baptized with water twice once according to the profeâ—â—â—on Johns Disciples made at Baptism and the other according to the Christian. Nor am I moved by the observation of Marnixius â—pâ—roved by Beza in hiâ— annot in locum and followed by many others That the particles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must necessarily answer each other and therefore â—he words v 4 5. be Pauls For 1. the particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is put oft and the matter requires it should be so conceived here either as an expletive that is without force to which in the vulgar translaâ—ion nothing answers as it is Act 3.21 22 c. oâ— an adverb of affirmation or if it be a conjunction diâ—cretive that which answers to it is not that v. 5. there being no good sense to say John verily baptised with the Baptism of repentâ—nce saying unto the people that they should believe on him which should come after that is on Christ Jesus but they hearing this c. there being no apt discretion made in such speech if the particles be discretive the other part is concealed and should be to thiâ— purpose But the Baptism we use is into the name of the Father Son and Holy Spirit or into the name of the Lord Jesus already come And for this reasâ—n the particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must be expounded as our interpreters when or as a meer expletive as in the vulgar 2. The words Act. 19.5 do give an obvious plain sense on the other side as the words of Luke thus When the twelve mentioned v. 7. heard this of Paul that it was Christ â—esus to come after John on whom John would have his Disciples to believe when he baptized them with the Baptism of repentance then they were baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus with express profession of him Nor is it true that there is express Scripture Ephes. 4 5. One Lord one Faith one Baptism against the iteration of the same Baptism For as one Faith notes nâ—t one act of believing but one kind of faith from the unity of the object bâ—lieved which may be and is one faith though an hundred times iterated so one Baptism notes not one act of baptizing but one kind of Baptism distinct from Pharisaical Baptism into the observance of the Law fâ—r righteousness termed one by the profession of the same Doctrine or Lord though it be an hundred times iterated The same man baptized an hundred times and an hundred men once onely baptized each of them have one Baptism in the â—postles sense if they be baptized with the same profession and the same person though but once baptized yet if with another profession hath not that one Baptism there meant One Baptism is not as much as once baptized and no more but Baptism into one profession and no other The 2d argument is of no force Baptism is the Sacrament of regeneration or new birth and as Austin hath it we are caâ—nally and naturally born but once so we are spiritually and supernaturally new born but once Faith though it admit of gradations begins but once Baptism that matriculates us into Christs School is to be performed but once Answ. The Scripture no
like may be inferred from v. 24 25. for therein iâ— foretold that they which were taken captive who were the Jews should be delivered But Mr. Cr. saith That one Democritus would not be enough to laugh at nor three Anticyra's suffice to purge that head that would attempt from hence to draw an argument to prove the fore-going conclusion the words are these even the captives of the mighty shall be taken away from whom From Cyrus Artaâ—â—rxes Darius Abâ—suâ—rus That would imply a contradiction for he confesses that these were nursing fathers that did bring back the Jews from captivity the prey of the terrible shall be delivered children are not preys to their nurses nor are their nurses terrible to their children But we need not make the mighty and terrible the â—ame with the deliverers or nurses The Chaldean Princes were the mighty and terrible to whom the Jews were captives and a prey and Cyrus and others after deliverers and nurses Yet did we make them the same persons there were nothing ridiculous in it sith the Jews were at first their captives and prey and they terrible to them and yet not long after deliverers and nurses So that we may retort Mr. Crs. words thus One Democritus except such a scoffer as Mr. Cr. would not bee enough to laugh at nor three Anticyra's suffice to purge that Craig that makes such a silly refutation What he adds to disparage Mr. Gattakers notes may be dispelled by reading the notes nor is he alone in the sense hee gives Grotius in his annot agrees in that thing with Mr. Gattaker And for the contents of the Chapter though there is not sufficient reason to ascribe them to the Church of England they being made by one Translator though allowed by others without any Canon or Act of Parliament establishing them yet I see not that they make against my sense but the making the content of v. 24. to be the powerful deliverance out of captivity did in the Dispute and doth still seem to make for my sense of delivery or returning of the â—ews out of the Babylonish captivity which being derided by Mr. Crs. party shewed the levity of their spirits to whom this book shews him to be too like Which is seen in his alleging my words not p. 14. as he cites them but p. 16. against my reason which he makes my interpretation though if hee had added my words and if so it would have appeared that I spake not those words as my interpretation And for his allegation of Gods saying to Moses thy children which thou hast brought out of Egypt I remember not where it is used but thy people Exod. 3â— 7 And for Mr. Crs. reconciliation I do not conceive it may be congruously to speech so paraphrased the Gentiles shall bring thy sons that is the Churches by spiritual succession the Gentiles by natural generation Gods that is mine by adoption It may be accommodated mystically to the conversion of the Gentiles as shadowed out by the reducing of the Jews from captivity and yet make nothing for infants Churchmembership or Baptism For though I yeeld in the litteral sense infants to be comprehended yet in the mystical sense humble persons or mean contemptible persons or new born babes this is believers desiring the word may be meant If the words be mystically meant yet the words are not a prophesie of a prophesie but as many speeches are which have a double meaning as Gen. 15.5 17.4 5. Exod. 12.46 one more open the other covert And Mr. Crags purpose from Isai. 49.22 were not to prove it foretold that infants under the Gospel should be brought to baptism but to prove the propositton in question that God foretold that infants should be Churchmembers under the Gospel whence infant Baptism will follow it seems Mr. Cr. understands not the bringing of children in arms and upon shoulders of bringing infants to baptism and how else in a litteral sense they by bringing in armes and on shoulders become Churchmembers I yet understand not and am out of hope ever to do Sect. 11. Mr. Cr. speaks thus He says meaning me if by standard be meant baptism which the Scripture never cals Gods standard and the bringing should be to Baptism then the sense should be that supream Magistrates as Kings and Queens should bring infants in their armes and carry them on shoulders to Baptism which no story mentions to have been done and is too frivolous to be made the matter of that prophesie in which words there is neither veriâ—y nor consequence if sense First hee says if by standard bee meant Baptism who makes a Thesis of his Hypothesis or affirms that by standard is meant Baptism To which I reply Mr. Cr. of whom the relatour of the Dispute p. 35. saith That to give me satisfaction which he needed not he told me that by standard he understood some visible Gospel Ordinance as Baptism without an c. to wit Preaching Praying with many more nor had I any reason to conceive he understood any other sith he named no other nor did he say Gospel Ordinances as if he included the genus as now he would evade but some Gospel ordinance in the singular number Now I said Baptism is no where called Gods standard and he hath nothing to reply hereto but that it is so in this place the Genus being predicated on the species But this iâ— but a begging of what he should prove that by standard here is â—eant Baptism in paâ—ticular or Gospel ordinances in general Sure the phrase of setting up the standard is very unsutable to the use of baptizing which was not by setting up but putting down into the water And if Mr. Crs. words or the text do not necessarily speak of Kings and Queens bringing in their arms and on their shoulders to baptism my reasons are the same and of a like force if meant of the people For no story doth mention carrying infants on shoulders to Baptism by the people and such a thing is too frivolous to be made the matter of this prophesie which expresseth some great and wonderfull thing to be done by Gods extraordinary incitement and power of which kinde that is not Though Mr. Cr. grant the phrase of nursing fathers and mothers Isa. 49.23 to be metaphorical yet he applies the words before which are alike mâ—taphorical they shall bring thy sons in their armes or bosome and thy daughters shall be carried upon their shoulders v. 22. according to the proper sense of the words when he saith the people should bring sons in their arms and daughters upon their shoulders to Baptism now if the words v. 23. be metaphorical so are those v. 22. which is also acknowledged by Mr. Cr. 1 In that he grants that in story it is not found that infants have been brought to Baptism on shoâ—lders 2. In that they are said to be brought to the standard which is according to Mr. Cr. Baptism but that is not a