speaking of the Church's Authority in this Case of Paedobaptism that it was without all question delivered by the Lord and his Apostles p l. 1. De peccat merit remiss c. 16. Proculdubio per Dominum Apostolos traditum The word Tradition the Fathers understood not in the Popish Sense for that which hath been delivered in Doctrine from Age to Age above what is written to supply the supposed defect of the Scripture but for the very written word it self by which they delivered the truth and for their examples and report thereof tending to the explication of their Doctrine and not to the adding any new Doctrine Calvin affirms the baptizing of Infants to be a holy Institution observed in Christ's Church q Instit 4. c. 16. Sect. 6. All the Reformed Churches use it as you may see by the Harmony of their Confessions r Th. à Jesu de Convers omnium Gentium l. 7. pag. 506. The Greek Church who yearly excommunicate the Pope Baptize their Infants s Pagit of Heresies pag. 17. so the Cophti or native Christians of Egypt who have no Communion with the Roman Church And the practice being so general and Primitive Erasmus wondered what evil Devil entered them who denyed the Baptism of Children used in the Catholick Church above 1400 Years and he might the rather for that it hath been the general Consent and almost universal Practice not only of all Christendom but of all the World Jews Gentiles Mahometans Christians of all Sects Protestants Papists Greeks Armenians Muscovites Mengrelians Indians of St. Thomas Abyssines c. as a modern Author observes to use some solemn initiating Ceremony to admit their Children not yet adult into the Society and Communion of their Religion These Authorities with others cited in the Margin * Constit Clementis there 't is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Baptize your Infants l. 6. c. 19. Concil Melevit can 2. apud Magdeb Cent. 5. cap. 9. col 835. Caranz fol. 123. Ambros l. de Ahrah Patriarch Hier. contra Pelag. lib. 3. Ut Christus Infantes ad se venire jussit ita nec Apostoli eos excluserunt à Baptismo quidem dum baptismus Circumcisioni aequiparat Paulus Col. 2. aperte indicat etiam Infantes per baptismum Ecclesiae dei esse inferendos c. Magdeb. Cent. l. 2. c. 4. Magdeb. Cent. 2. 't is said nec usquam legitur Infantes hoc seculo à Baptismo remotos esse We don't read they were then excluded Baptism c. 4. p. 48. de Baptismo nor as 't is said until the 6th Cent. when 't was excepted against by one Adrianus That Terull himself was for Infant Baptism appears in that in his Book De anima cap. 39. He presseth it when the Child is in danger of Death and gives his reason lib. de Bapt. cap. 12. praescribitur nemini sine Baptismo competere salutem Council of Trullo Can. 48. requires that all the Grecian little ones without delay should be baptized One of the 8 Cannons in the Council of Carthage concluding against Pelagius decreed that whosoever denyed Baptism for the remission of sins to a new Born Infant should be anathematiz'd see Craggs Arraigment and Conviction of Anabaptism against Tombs pag. 85. Photius a learned Greek produceth an Imperial Constitution wherein it was decreed that all baptized Samarit and Grecians should be punished who brought not their Children to holy Baptism apud Craggs ibid. I lay down as I might have done many more not to tye the Baptism of Children to the Testimony of Men but as a Martyr for the Protestant Religion did to shew how Mens Testimonies do agree with God's Word w In a Letter that Mr. Philpot writ whilst he was in Prison and that Antiquity is on our side and that the Anabaptists have nothing but false and new Imaginations who feign the Baptism of Children to be the Pope's Commandment or any late Invention or Innovation Nor is our manner of administring this sacred Rite by sprinkling or pouring on of Water novel as I said or unjustifiable for the word to Baptize usually signifies as much which as Dr. Featly x Dipper dipt pag. 33. See Wells also in his Answer to Danvers pag. 242. Printed Anno 74. and Walker's Discourse of dipping and sprinkling wherein is shewn the lawfulness of other ways of Baptization besides that of total Immersion Printed Anno 78. says Hesychius Stephanus Scapula and Budaeus those great Masters of the Greek Tongue makes good by many Instances and Allegations out of Classick Writers And in this sense is it used in Scripture So the Fathers were baptized in the Clould not dipt therein for they were under the Cloud * 1 Cor. 10.2 but were wet or sprinkled therewith So Nebuchadnezzar was wet or sprinkled or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the Septuag hath it baptized with the Dew of Heaven Hence we read of diverse washings or Baptisms as the word is And what were those but sprinklings Sometimes Blood was sprinkled †Hebr. 9.10 sometimes Water was poured forth No Person was dipt or plunged in Blood yet those sprinklings were called Baptisms So Mark 7.4 except they wash the Original is except they be baptized and the manner of their washings before Meat was not by dipping but by pouring on of Water ‖ 2 Kings 3.11 We read also of washing or baptizing Tables * Mark 7.4 in the Margin beds vid Lightfoot vol. 2. p. 345. and other things many times a Day which if done by dipping would make the labour of the Jews intolerable besides many other inconveniences And 't is but reasonable that the outward Baptism should have allusion to and an Analogy with the inward We are said to be baptized with the Holy Ghost but not dipt into the Holy Ghost or his Graces but to be sprinkled therewith as with clean †Ezek. 36.25 Water in our Baptism and to have the Holy Spirit poured on us * Isaiah 44.3 And it had been more properly translated baptized in Water if it had been done only by dipping rather than baptized with Water Again if we take a Survey of the several Instances and Examples of Persons baptized in Scripture we shall find that 't was probably done by sprinkling or pouring on of Water rather than by dipping St. Paul was baptized by Ananias when Sick and Weak having fasted three Days and was not strengthened till he received Meat which was after he was baptized †Act. 9.18 19. and according to all Circumstances it was done in his Lodgings So when the Goaler and those that belonged unto him were baptized it was at a time and place that there could be no accommodation for Water and other Conveniences for plunging and dipping as the manner of some is for 't is not likely that the Apostle should carry the Goaler and all his in the dead of the Night to a River or Pond to Baptize them 'T is said
been unbelievers Had St. Paul taught a contrary Doctrine or any other of the Apostles viz. That the Children of Christian Parents had no more right to Baptismal Initiation than those of Heathen Idolaters it would certainly have offended them more than all they preached against Circumcision and keeping the Ceremonial Law Page the 17. He hath these Words The nearer you are to the Truth the further off you are from the Papists and the further off from the Truth the nearer to them Which is so false that 't is not in the least deserving a confutation since they hold most if not all the fundamental Articles of Faith how e're they may endanger the Foundation by their building Hay and Stubble thereon But it signifies nothing it seems to retort upon them for symbolizing with the Papists tho' in points diametrically opposite to the Protestant Religion it don't affect them as he gives us to understand in the Words just before neither will they be concern'd to take notice of any such charge At this rate they themselves may fall into the grossest Principles of Popery and yet be nearer the Truth and it must pass for sound Protestant Doctrine And no reflection must be made as if they had a Prerogative peculiar to their Sect that whatsoever opinion they espouse they are so infallible in their Tenets though it be never so Erroneous and Popish it immediately commenceth Orthodox To my saying and proving that Antiquity is on our side instead of answering the Authorities he says Page 23. that 't is my great Mistake and wonders how I could assert such a thing since they can go back as far as John and Christ and his Apostles Now I must and do acknowledge that no Argument or Antiquity is equal to the Scriptures when the Interpretations are not doubtful yet when they are so I appeal to any sober Dissenter of whatsoever Sect or Party whether the harmonious Practice of the ancient Churches and the undivided consent of Apostolical Fathers be not the most sure and authentick Interpreters that can be betwixt Men and Men they thought Infant Baptism lawful and valid and no abuse of the Ordinance of Baptism And let any modest or moderate Man judge whether it be likely that those famous Saints and Martyrs so near the Apostles times should fall into such a delusion as as to conspire in the Doctrine and practice of a Mock-Baptism and of making multitudes of supposititious Christians and Churches Or whether it be not more probable that a little Sect repugnant to all the Ancient as well as modern Churches should be in an Error The very Scriptures whose sufficiency we admire as well as they cannot be proved to be the Word of God without Tradition and though they are sufficient where they are understood to determine any Controversie yet the right Understanding and Interpretation of them in many Points the practice of the Church is as requisite as the practice of the Court is to understand the Book of the Law I may further observe to them that they themselves cannot defend according to their own Postulatum the baptizing of such grown Persons as were born and bred in the Church from the Scripture for that the very Institution there of Baptism hath a special regard to Proselytes who from Judaisme or Gentilisme were coming over to the Christian Faith Neither can they produce a Precedent of such an one baptized in the New Testament but all the baptized Persons we read of in it were Jews or Gentiles of an expiring or false Religion newly converted and therefore according to their own demands if to justifie their own practice they must produce such a particular Distinct Precept or Example they cannot defend themselves against the Quakers who for this and other Reasons have quite laid aside Baptism nor against the opinion of the Socinians who use this very way of Argumentation for the Non-necessity of Water-Baptism Though they think good in their present Circumstances to practise it * Vid. Johannis Volkelii Misnici de verà Religione Lib. 6. Cap. 14. de Aqua-Baptismo ab Apostolis Usurpato pag. 663. In the same Page he saith 't is strange reasoning to Argue that 't was not likely that St. Paul was dipt when he was baptized seeing he was Sick and Weak having fasted three Days c. Methinks he should rather have said strong reasoning being it would be so unsuitable to the easiness of Christ's Yoak who will have Mercy and not Sacrifice Ay but saith this Answerer he being commanded to be baptized closed with the Command and did not consult with Flesh and Blood Very good it would ill become him to dispute God's Commandment but was the manner prescribed That it must be by dipping the whole Body under Water or plunging it as they do with their Cloaths on which would be rather a baptizing of Garments than of Bodies nothing of this appears All Circumstances agree that he was not so baptized Such a penance to St. Paul in his Condition had perhaps been more Unsupportable than Circumcision and more dangerous than whatever the Ceremonial Law required to those therefore who are such stubborn Assertors of the Doctrine of dipping that of St. Peter may be well applyed Why tempt ye God to put such a Yoak on the Necks of Christians that are not able to bear it And let them fear who submit thereto that God say not unto them at last who hath required this at your Hands What he saith to the Instance of the Goaler is in short this If they had not gone forth out of his House how could he say when he had brought them into his House As if the Keeper had not or might not have an Apartment in the Prison peculiar to himself and distinct from that of the Malefactors He is again with my strange reasoning Page 24. about the manner of Philip's baptizing of the Eunuch It seems 't was too difficult for him to Answer to any purpose and therefore he bids me to leave off such Carnal Reasonings But what doth he seem to say to it he endeavours to shew that Philip and the Eunuch's meeting could not be accidental as I had observed for this very Reason Because it was eminently Providential which argues that he is so very Simple and Ignorant that he understands not what accidental Means or that he most erroneously thinks that some things may happen or fall out without the Divine Prescience and in which the Providence of God is not concern'd He hath a mere Figment of his own Invention though he don't apply it which would argue that their Meeting was not altogether accidental but that Philip at least had some previous Knowledge thereof for he says Act. 8.26 The Angel of the Lord bids him arise and go to meet him When as there is no such thing in the Text. And therefore he may justly fear lest that Curse he more than once causelesly alludes to Page 22. as of so tremendous and
INFANT-BAPTISM OR Infant-Sprinkling As the Anabaptists Ironically term it Asserted and maintained by the Scriptures and Authorities of the Primitive Fathers Together with a REPLY to a pretended ANSWER To which is added A SERMON PREACHED On Occasion of the Author 's baptizing an Adult Person With some Enlargements By J. R. Rector of Lezant in Cornwal LONDON Printed and are to be Sold by J. Taylor at the Ship in St. Paul's Church-yard Philip Bishop at Exon and Benjamin Smithurst at Lanceston in Cornwal 1700. To the Worshipful Sir Joseph Tredenham Kt. 'T IS not unknown how you have vouchsafed to espouse my Cause in many difficulties I have strugled with Which is very much my Glory that so eminently worthy and accomplisht a Person and so great a Votary of the Church of England as Your Self hath not only judged favourably but on many occasions actually interested your self on my behalf It therefore behoves me to lay hold on any opportunity to demonstrate a grateful Mind tho' it be accompanied with a new Address for further Favour as this at present is to countenance a small Polemical Discourse for I cannot but call to mind having so well experienced its truth in you that known Aphorism which a Reverend Prelate lays down in the close of his Parable of the Pilgrim Those will be our best Friends not to whom we have done good but who have done good to us which speaks the abounding goodness of a Benefactor Vpon this ground I take the confidence of making this Dedication 'T would be tedious to recount to you the various Motives that have induced me thus to engage in this Controversie when so many Tracts have been already set forth of this Nature it may suffice to clear me from all aspersions that I can justly say from the Observation of others as well as my own that 't is like the Quakers a growing Sect with whom I contend and that they have lately in my Parish of Up-Ottery built them a Synagogue of such a Structure as if they meant it should out-vy the Parochial Church there These things I humbly conceive render it necessary and make it my more peculiar Province to endeavour with others to stop the growth of the Faction that so my own Flock may not be worried and miss-led but that I may be assisting to them in my necessary absence as well as when I am present amongst them and by any means reduce some and prevent others from going astray from the holy Communion of our Church whose Peace and Prosperity all its true Members especially the Clergy ought to Consult and Promote Sir my Prayers and Endeavours are intent upon these Things and as far as I continue stedfast in such labours I am secure of your good Opinion Your most Obliged and most devoted humble Servant James Rossington INFANT BAPTISM OR Infant Sprinkling c. INfant Baptism or Cornwal's Vindication of the Royal Commission of King Jesus Dedicated to the House of Commons about the Year 1645 and A. R. in his Vanity of Childish Baptism as the Anabaptists sometimes call it Infant Sprinkling is no Popish Tradition much less is it as they pretend brought into the Church by Innocent the Third yea so far is it from being any corrupt Innovation crept into the Church that it agrees with the mind of God in the holy Scriptures and consequently we need not question its agreeableness to the practice of the Church of Christ even in the first Ages of Christianity tho' it should be supposed we have no express Records of matter of Fact which yet we have and the same authentick and undeniable Neither is our way of administring Baptism by pouring on of Water novel or to be dislik'd To demonstrate the agreeableness of this Doctrine to the revealed Will of God I shall take my rise from the Covenant God made with Abraham * Gen. 12.3.17.8 being by the Apostle's computation †Gal. 3.17 430 years before the giving of the Law And to this he elsewhere refers ‖ Gal. 3.8 where he signifies that the Gospel was before preached to him that is to say in the words of the Promise as containing in them a Breviary thereof being an Evangelical and not a legal Promise viz. That all Nations of the World and not only the Jews should be justified by Faith and consequently the Gentiles now and that without legal Mosaical performances for after this manner and in these express words did the Promise run In thee shall all the nations of the earth be blessed and again I will establish my Covenant to be a God unto thee and to thy seed after thee * Gen. 17.8 9. And when God had thus enacted and established his Covenant with that holy Patriarch and his Seed he immediately thereupon as you 'l find †ver 10. commanded them to keep that his Covenant Vid. Dr. Burthog's Argument for Infant Baptism Printed Anno 84. and Whiston's Infant Baptism plainly proved Printed Anno 78. not only in the substance but in the sign and token of it as 't is immediately in one continued Speech exegetically added this is my Covenant or token of my Covenant so that the sense and meaning of the Phrase in either Verse is clearly the meaning of both and Circumcision is specified to be the Covenant at that time to be kept tho' not the only Covenant to be kept The Obligation imposed upon Abraham and his Seed was as you may note in the first Place to keep the sign or token of the Covenant or the Covenant in the sign of it and then to observe Circumcision as that sign or token The former is of perpetual Obligation the latter is more positive and secondary Tho' then there be an alteration in the second Injunction it will not therefore follow there must be in the first or that the Covenant ought not to be observed in the sign of it if for certain reasons Circumcision be no longer but something else be that sign So in the fourth Commandment Remember the Sabbath-day to keep it Holy that is the first thing which is principally Commanded but the other the seventh Day that is the last Day of the Week is the Sabbath that is but secondary so that the Obligation to the first and that which is primary in the Command doth not cease because there is an alteration in the second and that not the seventh but the first is now the Sabbath of the Lord. For a further explanation of this Truth you may observe that the Command in the 9th verse requires the keeping of the Covenant in general but don't determine what the token of the Covenant should be but obligeth to whatsoever token God should institute 't is not said Thou shalt be circumcised or be baptised but thou shalt keep my Covenant that is as afore the token of the Covenant consequently when Circumcision was appointed it obliged to that but Circumcision being laid aside and another sign
instituted which is Baptism it now obligeth to this since the Command in general is not revoked but only the sign is alter'd Wherefore the Command at first not determining the sign what it should be but only enjoyning the keeping of it whatsoever it should be and being applicable to Baptism as well as to Circumcision and extending and reaching to all Abraham's Seed to believing Gentiles as well as to the Jews 't is all one as if God had said Thou shalt Circumcise under the first Testament and Baptize under the second These being Tokens of the Covenant successively to be kept the one after the other And this Covenant being renewed to the Children of Israel in the Land of Moab besides the Covenant which Moses made with them in Horeb * Deut. 29.1 the command runs in these Terms That they should all even their little ones enter into this Covenant that is explicitely by some Rite or other not that the little ones could then personally and expresly indent with God or that a personal or express Stipulation was a Condition prerequisite to their Initiation but only an implicit or vicarious or an imputative sort of Stipulation by Sureties or Witnesses as the old Testament word is †Isa 8.2 vid. Jun. and Trem. on the place which at Years of understanding they were bound to own by the restipulation of a good Conscience or by an open Profession of the Jewish Religion The manner then of entring into Covenant with God or keeping the Covenant in the sign or token of it was by receiving of Circumcision Accordingly in the 17th of Gen. aforesaid Abraham and the rest were circumcised in the Capacities they were in Abraham at 99 Years old and Ismael at 13 and the Children as they were commanded Neither did this Law concern only such as belonged unto Abraham for the present and his Posterity but also Proselytes that in future times were to be received or adopted into his Family even to the time of John the Baptist and Christ who were both circumcised the 8th Day that is during the first Administration so long says God it shall be for a sign between me and you ‖ Gen. 17.11 viz. Those that belong to thee with thy self for the present and those that shall descend from thee according to the Flesh or be adjoyned unto thee he adds not and thy Seed after thee which hints that Circumcision was no longer to be the sign but till the Seed should come Whereas speaking of the Covenant without limiting it particularly to Circumeision he says Thou shalt keep my Covenant thou and thy seed after thee in their generations and again This is my Covenant which ye shall keep between me and you and thy seed after thee Nevertheless the Seed Christ mystical the believing Gentiles in after Ages are as absolutely enjoyn'd to keep the Covenant in the sign of it as the others Thou shalt keep my Covenant * Ibid. v. 9. Q. d. thou and all that thou ownest and thy Seed and all that they own shall by way of Stipulation be dedicated unto me and that in token of being so both you shall observe the Covenant by wearing the Initiating sign thereof your self in your own Person and by putit on all yours as far as they are capable of receiving it which shall be virtually and interpretatively the puting it on all thy Seed †The whole Nation of the Jews are called the Circumcision the Women being reckoned to be circumcised in the Men and were permitted to partake of the Passover of which no uncircumcised Person could eat Exod. 12.47 48. all such as have the benefit or advantage of the Covenant shall keep it in like manner causing their Children and such as they adopt to wear the like Badge and Cognizance the initiating Sign and Seal And as it cannot be supposed but that the believing Gentiles do retain a propriety and right for their Children and that under the Gospel they are as much theirs and in the same right as the natural and adopted Children together with the Servants and Slaves of Abraham were his so neither is it to be denied but that as Circumcision was the initiating Rite and Sign before the coming of Christ so Baptism is after it And that now to dedicate and give up a Person unto God visibly and solemnly is by that Sign or Rite to enter him into the Church and that the command of keeping the Covenant in the sign of it or of ent'ring into Covenant according to the Rite that ought to accompany it is still necessary and lays an Obligation upon all to whom the Covenant extends Now how far the Covenant reacheth the Apostle declares at large Act. 2.39 where he infers the same Conclusion and on the like Premises as I have done viz. The Right of such Persons and consequently their Children's right to Baptism and the Obligation that is incumbent on Parents to have it administred because the Promise of the Covenant extends to posterity without limiting it to those who were immediately and personally called as the Anabaptists would have it but it belongs to them and in them to their Children without any Condition or Qualification on their part save only their being Children of such Parents Nor can we interpret the Apostle by reason of that last Clause in the verse even as many as the Lord our God shall call to have meant or intended any personal Call required as to Children in order to Baptism unless we make him in effect guilty of very gross Tautologies for should that be necessarily implied with respect to the several particulars aforegoing it would make the Apostle speak to this Purpose The Promise is to you that is to as many of you as God hath called and to your Children even to as many of them as God hath called and to all afar off which God shall call even as many as the Lord our God shall call the imposing such a sense I say on the Apostle's words would render him very vain and Tautological much less is there an inward Call absolutely necessary for every particular Person in order to his susception of Baptism or indeed for any but only an outward Call of the Parents sufficeth not only in reference to themselves but to those Minors likewise who are under their Power for 't is not necessarily requisite that the party to be baptised must be supposed to have an absolute Right to the Rem foederis to what is promised in the Covenant but only to the conditional Grant or Covenant as that speaks a mutual Engagement each to other There being no such thing as a right in foro Ecclesiae contradistinct to the right in foro dei no one having a right to Sacraments in the judgment of Charity who hath none in the sight of God If it be otherwise how shall we have the Church's judgment concerning the Individuals that are to be admitted unto Baptism or the Lord's Supper
be saved ‖ Act. 11.14 Thus it was promised to the Gaoler that on his Faith not only himself should be saved but his House and upon his Profession he was baptized and all that were his or all that belonged to him * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Act. 16.31 33. therefore not only the major Part of his Family according to the false and corrupt Gloss of the Anabaptists but simply and absolutely all that lived under his Roof Moreover how reasonable is it to believe that there were Children in those Families as part of the Houshold for the word House or Houshold in Scripture signifies Children eminently being the principal Materials Ben a Son and Bath a Daughter do both come from the Root †〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Filius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Filia à radice 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 edificavit Metaphor de liberorum procreatione Deut. 25.9 Buxt So Gen. 16.2 Margin be built by her Sept. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Banah which signifie to build and figuratively to procreate Children and so to build an House or Family Thus God promising to give Children unto David is pleased to express him-himself in this Phrase I will build thee an House because Children under God do build up the House and keep up the name of their Father's Family and so to build an House or Family being the ordinary Instruments as to perpetuate and continue and hold up the House in Natural and Civil so in Religious and Ecclesiastical Respects likewise accordingly the Apostle directing a Bishop to rule his House well presently names Children * 1 Tim. 3.4 as the most considerable part of his Charge and Care Wherefore as it often falls out when some parts of the Family are expresly instanced in and the nomination of Children omitted they are nevertheless intended and included as Gen. 14.16 Neither do we read of any laid aside or excluded from Baptism upon the account of their Non-age yea 't is highly probable that those Children yea sucklings as the original Word imports which were brought to Christ with a desire in them that brought them that he should lay his hands on them had been already baptized now 't is said expresly that he laid his Hands on them †Luk. 18.15 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in a former Translation Babes but we rever read in the N. T. of the laying on of Hands on any unbaptized Persons unless perhaps it were in order to the working some miraculous Cure ‖ Mark 10.16 In all other Cases imposition of Hands was practised on baptized Persons * See Mark 8.23.16.18 Luke 4.40.13.13 Act. 9.17.28.8 only and the reason given by Christ to his Disciples why they should countenance and further rather then restrain their Access to him sufficiently evinceth that they were brought upon a spiritual Account rather than for any bodily Cure And as a further Argument to shew that the practice was Apostolical I may add hereto the Testimonies and Suffrages of the Ancient Fathers a Vid. Cassander de bapt of the Eastern and Western Churches both of the Greek and Latine Church Origen affirms in express Terms that the Church from the Apostles days received a Tradition to Baptize Children b In his Comment on the Epist to the Rom. c. 6. l. 5. and that Baptism is to be given unto Infants according to the Tradition of the Church c In his 8 Homil. on Levit. who yet was contemporary according to Osiander and Funesius account with Tertullian neither could Tertullian himself be so sottish as to oppose an imaginary abusive practice of having Sureties or Hyginus Bishop of Rome before him to order as he did about the Guardianship of Infants in appointing such who should promise for their religious Education in that Faith whereinto they were batized d See Platina in the life of Hyginus the 8th Pope from St. Peter according to Caran if the baptizing of them was not a thing in use before and so an Apostolical ordination derived down to them and from them transmitted to the Church where the practice of it hath been uninteruptedly continued ever since Why should Tertullian I say affright Persons from being Susceptors to Infants in their Baptism by the Hazard they ran in their Childrens liableness to Death and to Distempers if no such thing were in his time It had been dangerous to start such a Novellism if never before practised St. Austin writ a Tract of Infant Baptism e De Bapt. parvulorum and says the Church always had it always held it f Semper habuit semper tenet in his 5 Serm. de verb. Apost Justin Martyr who lived as they calculate in St. John's Days in his unquestionable Works gives several hints for Infant Baptism g As in his Dialogue with Triphon part 2. prop. 3. Irenaeus speaks of Infants being Born again that is by the Laver of Regeneration viz. Baptism as Dr. Hammond understands it h Irenaeus l. 2. c. 29. Dr. Ham. resolution Sect. 4. pag. 212. Nazianz is for it not only in danger of Death but simply and absolutely expressing himself to this purpose Hast thou a Child let it be baptized from an Infant let it be early consecrated to the Spirit i Orat. 3. and 40. in S. Lavacr St. Basil gives Testimony to it answering the Question whether Infants may be baptized in the Affirmative for so says he we are by the Circumcision of Children instructed there being a parity of reason as for the circumcising of Children k l. 3. contra Eunomium 58. Vossius makes the Testimony of St. Cyprian in his Epistle l Epist to Fidus which for its authenticalness is quoted by Nazianzen Chrysostom Ambrose Jerom Austin and others m Vid. Naz. Orat 3. in S. Lavacr Chrysost Homil. ad Neoph. Ambr. in Luc. Hieron l. 3. Dialog contr Pelag Aust in his 28 Epist to St. Jerom in his 14 Serm. de verb. Apost in his Book de peccat merit remiss and in his 3 Book c. 5. beyond all exception and Grotius says it makes the matter plain that there was then no doubt of Infant Baptism accordingly the Magdeb. bring in Origen Cypr. and other Fathers to avouch the Practice to have been even in the time of the Apostles n Cent. 3. c. 4. pag. 57. Now what says St. Austin touching such immemorial usages as the Catholick Church holds and ever hath held and have not come into use by the Institution of any Council that they are such as are rightly believed to have been delivered down to us by no less than Apostolical Authority o In Donat. l. 4. c. 23. calling it an Eccles Custom or as he explains himself an Apostol Tradition se de Genesi ad literam l. 10. c. 23. and his 3 Epist to Volusiam and lest there should be any wresting of his words viz. Traditum ab Apostolis or Apostolical Tradition he peremptorily affirms
with the Papists tho' I had represented it in so many Instances and whereas I said expresly that the Fathers in avouching Infant-Baptism to be an Apostolical Tradition did not understand the word Tradition in the Popish sense to supply the supposed defect of the Scripture Yet he positively affirms it is to be believed to do so and so he runs on for above 2 Pages proving the Perfection of the Scripture that is fighting with his own Shadow for who denied it Once more I said we don't read in the New Testament of laying on of Hands on any unbaptized Person except in order to a bodily Cure But the Answerer passeth by the exception and then doubtless he confuted his Adversary speaking so home to the matter What hath been hitherto observed chiefly refers to the Method and Composure of the Answer and discovers in it so much of weakness and insufficiency that no judicious Person can well allow it that denomination But taking liberty further to display its imbecility I shall offer somewhat by way of Reply to the matter and contents of the pretended Answer that if possible I may provoke him or some one for him to make a Rejoynder that the point in Controversie may be thorowly sifted and the truth cleared or left to the World to judge how unable that Party is to maintain their way or make any tolerable defence He saith Page the first that he cannot understand that the weight of the Arguments for Infant-sprinkling but rather thinks that the want of weight in them is the Cause an Answer hath been so long neglected It seems he is unfit to answer Arguments tho' they want weight and others perhaps may think it was very meet and fit he should have let them alone rather than prejudice his Cause by an unfit Answer and should not have put himself upon this Tryal of his Skill unless he could have managed it better But first an Answer as he saith is expected that is something must be done towards the giving an Answer for the amusing the expecting People who otherwise 't is likely would have been more apt to have mistrusted the weakness of their Cause Secondly 'T is presumed that after the perusal of my Discourse by some of the more learned and wiser Heads 't was thought more eligible to leave it to one that is unfit for it to give an Answer that the defect thereof may not reflect on any of the Grandees or rather 't is suspected that some Chief undertook it but under the mask of one unfit that the lameness of the Answer of which the Preface seems conscious may by those that peruse it be imputed to the Author and the strength thereof which their own Party will suppose may be ascribed to the presumed goodness of the Cause they have espoused however tho' he be unfit he will make an Essay Yea he will which is more give an Answer to such things as he thinks may have any thing in them that calls for an Answer Now he who will discharge the Office of a Respondent ought fairly to repeat his Adversaries Words and then to apply his Answer either by denying or distinguishing or both but how this hath been observed by the Answerer you will see in the first Paragraph The first thing saith he that I take notice of is in Page 1. where you endeavour to prove that Infant-Baptism came in the room of Circumcision although no positive Prescript for it bringing the change of the Sabbath-Day from the seventh to the first without prescript Reply These are so far from being my words that they contain not the sense of them For 1. neither I nor I think any Body else ever indeavoured to prove either that Baptism came in the room of Circumcision without a positive prescript or that Infant-Baptism came in the room of Circumcision but that Baptism did which none can justly deny St. Paul Coloss 2.12 affirms as much viz. That Baptism in the New Testament succeeded Circumcision the initiating Sacrament of the Old Testament and that as plainly as in 1 Cor. 5.7 8. he hath affirmed the Lords Supper to come in the room of the Passover for the Apostle having told his Colossians that they had the Circumcision made without Hands the Circumcision of the Heart he further signifies by way of implication that they had as good as the outward Circumcision too by being baptized or he could have no occasion to add being buried with him in Baptism and his Argument had been nothing at all a mere non sequitur unless he gives them to understand thereby that Baptism succeeded and came in place of Circumcision To evidence this to be the genuine sense and intention of the Apostle know that he was here disswading the believing Christians from the Rudiments of the World and Jewish Ceremonies particularly from Circumcision upon this very ground that they were compleat in Christ but lest the Jewish Teachers should suggest that the receiving the inward Grace of Circumcision doth not make them so compleat as the Jews were because they had also an outward visible sign As Abraham for instance had the inward Grace and yet he received the outward Sign and consequently tho' Christians be made partakers of this great Benefit by Christ yet they may stand in need of an outward Seal to assure them of their partaking herein he would have them know that neither is this Priviledge wanting to Christians who have as excellent and express a Sacrament of it and that Christ hath not left his People under the New Testament destitute of such an outward Sign and Seal for however Circumcision be taken away yet there is another Sacrament substituted and appointed a more excellent and lively one than ever Circumcision was a Sacrament resembling it and answering to it buried with him in Baptism wherein c. that is sacramentally signifying and sealing up both our mortification and our vivification But if they had espoused Antipedo-Baptism they might have urged their dissatisfaction and have again Replyed that tho' they needed not to be circumcised themselves seeing Baptism is so happily come in the room of it yet they would still Circumcise their Children because according to their Doctrine Baptism is not to be applyed to them In the second Place the Words have no positive Prescript for it and without a Prescript do shew either that he did not understand my Argument tho' easie to be understood or else that he wilfully altered and perverted my sense that he might serve some other Design than the finding out the Truth His own Conscience must tell him he hath fathered on me what I said not This Addition of his without Prescript insinuates as if I had there argued that the want of a Precept for the change from Circumcision to Baptism is no more a reason to deny Baptism to Infants than the want of a Precept for the change from the seventh Day to the first is a reason for the rejecting of
Covenant of Grace Now suppose the Land of Canaan be the main matter Promised to Abraham in the said Covenant it may not follow that 't is only a temporal Blessing because under temporal Promises Spiritual Blessings were veild and consigned by a temporal Possession of the promised Land an eternal Inheritance in the heavenly Canaan was assured to them Besides you take a part for the whole that which is but an Adjunct or an appendix for an entire Covenant as if God made two distinct Covenants with Abraham when as there is not the least hint for it in the whole Bible which speaks only of one Covenant made with that Holy Patriarch even that which Circumcision did consign which was a Spiritual Covenant under a Veil but now 't is one and the same without a Veil as Doctor Taylor who is so often quoted by them expresseth it * Discourse of Baptism p. 37. and so could not respect only as the Answerer saith God's blessing him with a numerous Issue and them with the Land of Canaan there being in that no sensible Blessing to Abraham seeing neither he nor his Posterity enjoyed the Promise as a mere earthly Blessing for near 500 Years after doubtless therefore this must be made good to him as before premised or there was a Blessing for him which was concealed under the leaves of a temporal Promise Besides there were others than Abraham's Seed and Ismael who were to be circumcised †Gen. 17.11 12. to whom the Land of Canaan did not belong The Mysteriousness of this Transaction we are further instructed in by St. Paul Heb. 11.13 They all dyed in the faith having not received the Promises as he observes viz. of a Temporal Possession in Canaan They saw the Promises that is the Spiritual Part afar off they embraced them and looked through the Cloud and temporal Veil and desired a better Country that is an heavenly or the same in an heavenly State This was the Object of their desires and the secret of their Promise And therefore Circumcision was a Seal of the Righteousness of the Faith which he had before * Rom. 4.11 and so must relate principally to an Effect and Blessing greater than the generality of the Jews apprehended or was exprest in the surface of the Temporal Promise Wherefore when God promised pardon and forgivness of Sins he promised to remember this Covenant †Levit. 26.42 what stay could it be to Moses's Faith when God appeared to him in the Bush in saying I am the God of thy Fathers of Abraham c. ‖ Exod. 3.6 if it only concern'd temporals Agnoscatur says Chamier * Lib. 5. de bapt let it be granted that the Promise of the Land of Canaan together with the Multiplication of Abraham's Posterity is annexed to this Covenant yet says he this is not the Covenant but an appendage to it as to Godliness the promises of this Life are annexed Earthly things were indeed under that dispensation promised more fully and distinctly suitable to the Jewish Pedagogical Estate to allure them to the service of God and heavenly things more generally and sparingly On the contrary spiritual Blessings are more fully and clearly and earthly Things more generally and sparingly held forth and promised to us under the Gospel Administration And the Land of Canaan was more particularly insisted on in the first Dispensation being design'd for the Type of Heaven and an explanation of the Primary grand Promise to be their God Denoting that he would as certainly bring them to the Celestial Canaan and to the spiritual and glorious Rest there as to that temporal and corporeal Rest from their servitude and captivity in Egypt Hence it was that Jacob gave such a solemn Charge to Joseph and Joseph to his Brethren the one to Bury his dead Body in Canaan the other for the Transportation of his Bones thither which they would never have done for an earthly Inheritance but to nourish in the Hearts of their Posterity Faith and Desire of rest in Heaven in the Communion of Saints whereof Canaan's rest was a Type into which not Moses the Law-giver but Joshua or Jesus the Type of Christ was to bring them So that the whole Tenour of the Ahrahamical Covenant speaks it a Covenant of Grace and the Apostle giving us the substance of it in the Gospel doth it in these Words * Heb. 8.10 I will be to them a God and they shall be my People But such is this Man's Confidence that he prays me to take notice whether there be any thing else in the 17th of Gen. but temporal Blessings But what saith he to v. 4. as the Apostle applies it Rom. 4.27 whereto 't is referred in the Margin Or to v. 7. denoting the quality of the Covenant that 't is not temporary but everlasting respecting spiritual good Things Or to the following Words To be a God to thee and thy seed after thee Bellarmine indeed says that God when he enjoyned Circumcision to Abraham did Promise only earthly Things i. e. the Propagation of his Posterity and the Land of Palestine as this Answerer doth and again I will be a God to thee and thy seed holds forth says Bellarmine only a Promise of a peculiar protection But Amesius well observes in his Answer to him that our Saviour gathered from thence a Resurrection to Bliss or his Argument against the Sadducees †Matt. 22.32 had not been Conclusive In short this Covenant is so much the Covenant of Grace that it contains in it the great Mystery of Man's Redemption as is plain from the Comment of Zachary upon it * Luke 1.71 the belief whereof was the justification of Abraham †Gen. 15.5 6. Rom. 4.3 wherefore 't is expresly said that when God enacted this Covenant with Abraham he preached the Gospel unto him ‖ Gal. 3.8 that is he made a Covenant with him concerning Christ and Salvation by him and he saith further that it was preached to the Jews as it is to us * Heb. 4.2 Thus we see what that Covenant with Abraham was that 't is substantially the same that we are now under or by what means else did any of the Jews before Christ came obtain Grace or Glory It was before Christ's coming into the Flesh cloathed with many Shadows of now abolished Ceremonies Types and Sacrifices in its Administration having upon Mount Sinai the Covenant of works adjoyned to it or the first Covenant so termed for that in the substance thereof it represented the first Covenant So that by Reason of these adjuncts 't is sometimes distinguished from its very self as it was administred by Christ after his Incarnation But if not the same how are the Gentiles said to be grafted in amongst them †Rom. 11.17 as Grotius hath it or according to Beza and Piscator pro ipsis instead of them or in their Place or how doth the same Olive-Tree continue still It
dangerous a Consequence should light upon himself for having so palpably and so grosly added to the Word and to the belying of the Angel making him say what he did not But he saith 't is hard for him to believe that I really think that they were baptized so by sprinkling though I so write and appeals to me whether the word Baptize doth not signifie to dip or plunge and not to Sprinkle I have shewn that the Word signifies not only to dip but to wash or pour on Water or to Sprinkle and is often so used in Scripture and gave instances of which he takes no notice Christ no where requires dipping but baptizing And as to the method or manner how it should be done the Scripture is silent nor can there be an Example produced absolutely for dipping I believe that some were baptized in Scripture by pouring on of Water or by Sprinkling others by dipping But I question whether after the manner of our Anabaptists We don't deny dipping as in it self unlawful as they do pouring on of Water or Sprinkling but we say the practice is Schismatical when done in opposition and dangerous in such a cold Climate and in some seasons of the Year And when too the Party is of a weak and sickly Constitution And troubled with Catarrhs Consumptions and the like Page the 26. He pleads for dipping from the significancy of the Ceremony referring to Colos 2.12 I do not in the least deny but that it seems to follow from thence that there was such a Custom in those Days as to Baptize by immersion which carryed a very sensible shew of a Burial and a Resurrection but the Negative cannot be thence concluded that there was no other way of baptizing but that nor is it probable there was no other way because there are other Texts of Scripture which allude to sprinkling in Baptism as this doth to dipping And the like Collection must be allowed to be made from the one that is made from the other and farther because there may be and is a Baptismal representation made of a Burial and of a Resurrection in aspersion and affusion of Water as well as in dipping * Vossius cites several Authors who deny any such Representation to be required the thing being as they say but accidental and not essential to Baptism and in case there ought to be at least some similitude of that Nature this he tells us is exprest in aspersione etiam vel perfusione quia cujus caput as he adds aspergitur vel perfunditur is aquis istis quasi sepelitur Theses Theologicae pag. 360. He that hath Water poured on him as well as he that is dipt is put under Water And the Water falling on him that is sprinkled fairly represents the Earth falling upon him that is Buried and speaks the similitude of a Burial And by the one as well as by the other we may be said to be buried with Christ by Baptism into Death The Representation then is made both ways tho' in the one 't is more lively and sensible than in the other and the appearing again after and from under that affusion represents also a Resurrection so that the Symbol is not spoiled here Accordingly in the Provincial Council of Colen * Sub Hermanno Celebrato Anno 1530. sprinkling as well as dipping is indifferently spoken of as expressive of a Type of Christ's three Days Burial and our conformity to him in that and his Resurrection Moreover Christ's bodily Actions and Passions must be imitated and represented by us after a spiritual way and 't is a vain thing to imagine that every Metaphorical Expression used in the Scripture signifying our Communion with Christ and conformity to him should punctually express the Mystery in the Sacrament both as to the Letter and Spirit The Metaphorical Expressions are various Putting him on buried with him sprinkling with his Blood And what hinders but that the Symbolical Ceremonies and the Sacramental Signs may be so too or at least variously used or accompanied with various circumstantial Ceremonies One Sign after one and the same way administred cannot express our Communion with Christ and our conformity to him in his Death and Resurrrection as to all the foregoing Metaphors Our Communion with Christ in his Death and Resurrection and our conformity to him therein is the sacramental Grace and that being represented as well by sprinkling or pouring on of Water as by dipping it follows that Water in either way of application is Sacramental Again our washing and cleansing from Sin by the Blood of Christ and the raising up our Souls to a spiritual Life being the principal effects of Christ's Death and Resurrection represented and sealed in the Sacrament is truly set out as hath been shewed by sprinkling as well as by dipping Hence under the Law the sacrificial cleansing was done by sprinkling in some Cases and by dipping in others * Numb 19.18 19. Heb. 9.13 and the purifying by Christ's Blood is equally represented by both called therefore the Blood of sprinkling and sprinkling of Blood †Heb. 12.24 1 Pet. 1.2 In his Conclusion not to spare me but to tell me my own he reminds me of his old Item formerly given that we have neither Precept nor Example for Infant-Baptism So say the Papists as well as the Anabaptists tho' in other Words That 't is a mere Ecclesiastical Constitution no Divine Apostolical Ordinance In this they are not unlike Sampson's Foxes joyned together by the Tails whilst their Heads look several ways both asserting the same Position tho' to different Ends the one to establish human Tradition the other to undermine a Divine Ordinance But I reply nothing is more certain than that the Ordinance of Baptism is instituted and appointed us in the Gospel But there is no distinct Precept that particularly determines us to administer it to those of such or such an Age or more to Persons of one Age than another but 't is left to us to apply the Ordinance to those we find qualified according to the rules and directions given us in the Word of God without any respect to the Age. Neither do I know the particular Age of any one baptized in Scripture Unless that our Saviour was then about thirty Years old * Luke 3.21 22 23. Answering therein the legal Type of the Priests and Levites who ordinarily entered not their Function till at that Age. Num. 4.3 23 30. but who will say that we are bound precisely to observe that Time in our reception of Baptism If you say in general Terms it must be when we are come to the Age of Maturity or Discretion let it be proved that the Scripture either by Precept or Example hath limitted it to that only or that the adult or grown Persons are declared in Scripture to be the only qualified Persons or that those in the state of Infancy are declared not be qualified or capable and you have gained the
have the invisible guard of Angels watching over and ministring for the good of such as are Heirs of Salvation they have all an interest in the Charity Love and Prayers of the whole Mystical Body all joyning in common in their Liturgies for every single Member how e're divided from one another by Countries and Languages yea every single Member of this Body hath the united strength of the Prayers of all the Saints on Earth and I doubt not but in a general manner the Prayers of all the glorious Society the crowned part of the Church in Heaven our elder Brethren who have finished their warfare and do now possess the Kingdom of Glory Should we go no further we may reflect and thankfully acknowledge this happy Priviledge to be called to this state of Salvation Hence we are brought into a state of Union with Christ made Members of his Mystical Body and partakers of the influences of his favour in all the means and ordinances helps and advantages whereby he declares himself the Saviour of the Body By vertue of this Union all the special saving Graces of his purchase are freely offered the doors of Mercy stand open to us and the gate of Life and Glory is ready to receive us provided we abide in him Hold the head from which all the body as the Apostle says Colos 2.19 by joynts and bands have nourishment ministred and so don't separate from him by Apostacy and fall off by an evil heart of unbelief by an impenitent course of Sin and Wickedness so long I say as we maintain this Union we shall not fail to receive influences of Grace and spiritul Life till we come to Glory Having considered what the Sacrament of Baptism is and the Priviledges and Advantages that redound from thence I come to evince the truth of the general Proposition viz. That the Ordinance of Baptism is the initiating Sacrament of the New Testament and so succeeds Circumcision which is generally granted to be the initating Sacrament of the Old In order to this let it be premised that there can be no Reason given why we should not be by some rite matriculated Members of the Christian as well as heretofore they were thus solemnly initiated into the Jewish Church Now what other way is prescribed to us of doing this than by Baptism the most proper rite for this purpose as it hath been in a manner all along accounted This rite of Initiation of admitting Persons into religious Societies was used by the Posterity of Noah at least very early among the Jews Their Enquiry John 1.25 28. sounds as much as a tacit acknowledgment of their practising it Vid. Wills against Danvers pag. 7. though not as a Sacrament till the Messiah had confirmed it for which we have the Testimonies of their Rabbies cited by the learned Doctor Hammond * In his Query of Infant-Baptism And Bishop Taylor is inclined to give the more credit to such Authorities because the Heathen as he saith had the same Rite in many Places and in many Religions Hence a Proselyte is called in Arrianus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 one baptised Baptism being his solemn Investiture who should enter into any Sect or Religion being thereupon reckoned one of that Sect or Religion A Proselyte or Convert in the Apostle's Phrase such an one is said to be added to the Church The Jews have a Tradition that Sarah and Rebeckah when they were adopted into the Family of the Church that is the Church respectively as it was in Abraham's and Isaac's House were baptized In St. Paul's Catechism Baptism is reckoned as part of the Foundation of the first Principles of Religion and so proper for Babes Whereby they are matriculated and adopted as a late Reverend Prelate expresseth it into the House of their Father and taken into the hands of their Mother This then is the ordinary method God hath taken of adding to the Church such as should be saved And therefore it cannot be denied but that Baptism as an initiating Rite succeeds Circumcision And my Text will avouch for the truth thereof For the Apostle having told the Colossians that they had the Circumcision made without hands the Circumcision of the Heart He further signifies by way of implication that they had as good as the outward Circumcision too by being baptized or he could have no occasion to add buried with him in Baptism And his Argument had been a mere Non sequitur unless he gave them to understand thereby that Baptism succeeded and came in place of Circumcision And that this was the genuine Sense and intendment of the Apostle I have I conceive not only more fully illustrated but demonstrated in the foregoing Discourse * Pag. 43. whereto I refer the Reader I proceed in the third Place to shew that as Christ's Death so his Burial and Resurrection are not only exemplified in the Ceremony and manner of its Administration but that they ought to be exemplified after a spiritual manner in the blessed effects and fruits of that Holy Sacrament viz. In our Mortification and Vivification First As to the Symbol or Ceremony Christ's Burial and Resurrection may be and are represented in the external Action of that Sacrament or manner of its admistration And the Apostle seems to allude to a Practice which might then be used by some in those hot Countries viz. Of dipping or putting the whole Body under Water in Baptism But forasmuch as the Word Baptize carries not always that signification or import and for that there is no Command that Baptism should be always administred exactly after that manner such a Practice cannot be binding to us So that should it be granted that there are some very probable instances and examples in Scripture of dipping and immerging the whole Body in Baptism as it must be granted there are as likely examples and instances of only sprinkling and pouring on of Water This will only argue that we cannot thereby be bound up to either way But are at liberty to administer it according to the more prevailing custom where we live Moreover this Ceremony of dipping cannot be practised towards Infants without great inconvenience and even danger of their Lives in so tender an Age and in so cold a Country as ours is especially in the Winter Season But here the Anabaptists step in and urge from hence their way of dipping and think this is enough for them not only to plead in their own justification but to confute our way of baptizing only by sprinkling or pouring on of Water Accordingly a certain Person who takes upon him to Answer my foregoing Discourse hath these very words Baptism must be by dipping not sprinkling because Baptism rightly administred doth figure out the Death Burial and Resurrection of Christ But I know not wherein sprinkling doth it And then citing Rom. 6.3 4. he immediately subjoyns When the Body is put down under Water O what resemblance is this of the Burial of