how could he oppose it 2. But we must give the names of those that were for it as before he must know where Cyprian's Council was held or else he could not assent to the being of it But how many names will suffice him I know not What if I say Origen was one for I hope by this time he may stand rectus in curia and not be excepted against for a Witness he speaks point blank to the Case Ecclesia ab Apostolis Traditionem accepit parvulis dare Baptismum The Church hath received a Tradition from the Apostles to give Baptism to little Children as we have it in his Comment upon the sixth Chapter of the Romans And though Ruffinus riffled his works as is said yet Jerom Translated that out of Greek and so also his other Comment upon Luke where he is express to the same purpose and this is attested by Erasmus and Jerom's Prefaces to both Books puts it beyond doubt Let me add what I find in Mr. Baxter for farther satifaction You saith he Baxter plain Scripture-proof p. 157. to Mr. Tombes think the worse of it because it is pleaded by Origen as a Tradition from the Apostles I think very much the better for it both because it the more fully resolveth the question concerning the matter of fact and Apostolical Custom and shews that it was no late invention or Innovation And the Fathers as is hinted before took not the word Tradition in the Popish Sence for that which hath been delivered in Doctrine from Age to Age above what is delivered in Scripture as to supply the supposed defect of Scripture But for the very written word it self by which the Apostles delivered the Truth and for their Examples and the report of it and of some other passages especially in matter of Fact tending only to the explication of their Doctrines and not to the adding of new-Doctrines as if the former were defective What if I name once more Irenaeus Qui proximus fuit temporibus Apostolorum S. Basil de S. Sto. Cap. 25. That was next to the Apostles who is calculated to live within some fourty-three years of St. John I find the Author hath passed him by and yet as hath been before shewn he was for Infant-Baptism otherwise what sence shall we put upon those Words of his Lib. 2. C. 39. which are before spoken to and which occasioned Dr. Taylor to say The Tradition of Infant-Baptism passed through his hands in his Consideration of the Practice of the Church in Baptizing Infants Sec. 29. pag. 55. 3. We shall by no means grant that Tertullian was against Infant-Baptism we have given some hints why already But shall reserve our discourse about that till we come to its proper place that is the Examination of the Witness produced against Paedobaptism whereof Tertullian is the first The AUTHOR's Exceptions against Scripture-grounds for Infant-Baptism Examined NExt he falls upon Scripture-grounds usually produced for Infant-Baptism which he is pleased to select for us leaving out that in Rom. 11.17 which is the most principal place of all and so to encounter them in that way and manner as he sees best And herein he hath shewed cunning not much unlike to that before in conjoyning the condemned Ecclesiastical Authorities for Infant-Baptism with those which Protestants own for Authentick Reply 1. Had I been to choose my own Weapons I would have let alone some of those the Author pitcht upon Secondly Neither would I have ordered the the Proofs from some of the Texts in so flight a manner as he doth for if a Weapon be sharp and keen yet if an Enemy have the handling of it how can we expect unless he be the more ingenious but that he will blunt the edg of it And that Adversary shews but sorry valour which knocks in the head some Arguments of straw which he hath framed to shew his skill on In my Opinion it had been more ingenuity in the Author 1 To have chosen for usonly the pertinent places that carry the clearest evidence and to have pretermitted the rest For if the chiefest places will hold good the rest which are dark and disputable whether they belong to the point may well be let alone and if the chiefest will not carry it much less will the other yet this is certain that if the strength of every one of those Texts which he produceth for us were eluded save one yet that one would carry it for though two Witnesses be needful for men yet one single one is as valid for God as if there were many thousands 2. To have pitcht only upon those Texts wherein all Protestants both Lutherans and Calvinists i.e. Paedobaptists concurr in as pertinent to the point whereas he knows it is controverted among them whether some of the Scriptures produced have any thing to do with Infant-Baptisme as both the second and third Texts instanced in Nay the third which contains Christs Commission for Baptism is that which the Author and his party judge to be the main ground for Baptizing Believers and excluding Infants And we know that this is their main Argument that Infants are not to be baptized because they cannot believe and truly we were very sparing of places to prove childrens Baptism if we should pitch upon Mark 16.16 for it And here I profess my self to be of Mr. Baxters mind Pos 7. pag 7. of his plain proof I cannot deny saith he but that some Divines have brought some mis-applyed Scriptures for Infant-Baptism Now it is easie to write against these and seem to triumph and yet the cause be no way shaken some silly people think when they hear an impertinent Text put by that all is done when it may be all the most plain Scriptures and best arguments have never been answered with sense or reason Having said thus much I come now to his exceptions 1. The first is against that place Mat. 19.15 Suffer little children to come unto me and forbid them not c. To this our Author Objects May we not say How doth Baptism come to be concerned in this Text c. To which I reply First I conceive none did ever bring this place as of it self a full and direct proof for Infants-Baptism But secondly it doth prove two points which lay a good ground work for the same First That the Kingdom of God is made up as well of Infants as of grown persons if any by Kingdom of Heaven will needs understand it of the Kingdom of Glory let him consider that none are of that Kingdom who were not first of the Church first of the Kingdom of grace here and so it comes all to one understand it of which you please The Kingdom of God is made up as well of Infants as Adult persons Quùm jubet Infantes ad se accedere nihil clariùs quà m veram Infantiam notari Instit Christ Relig. Calv. compend per Launeum cap. 17. p. 325. for Christ saith it is of
Apostolical Tradition THis is a false suggestion and exceeds all modesty for although the Church of Rome ascribes too much to Tradition as in many other things yet the Ancient Fathers as Cyprian Nazianzen Chrysostom with divers others as is before shewn plead Baptism to come in the room of Circumcision and that Infants have right thereto from the Infants of the Jews having right to Circumcision whereby 't is evident that Tradition hath not been primarily asserted to be the ground of Infant-Baptism 2. He farther saith The Protestants since the Reformation have chose to fly to some consequential Arguments deducted as they suppose from the Scriptures to prove the same both which in this Chapter are brought forth and duely weighed in the Ballance of Truth We doubt not in the Process of the discourse to shew that after we have weighed what she saith we shall find it too light and to be but chaff in stead of Truth The Protestants he saith have chose to fly to consequential Arguments deduced as they suppose from Scripture But the Antipaedobaptists are of another mind and suppose themselves to be Men of deeper Reason and more piercing inspection into the sence of the Scriptures than all the Godly and Learned Protestants since the Reformation They see the mistaken conceits they have of Scripture and how ungroundedly they draw their consequences from thence An Argument indeed it is of much modesty for the Author to speak at this rate I would ask any of these Men who are so highly conceited of their Scripture-Knowledg why Paedobaptists that are humble searching praying Christians may not understand so much of God's mind in Scripture as they Doth the Word of God come out from them or doth it come to them only John 17.14 1 Cor. 14.37 or have they only the Spirit of Illumination or are they the only Masters of right Reasons Or dare they say 't is unlawful to make use of Consequences Or may not we be permitted to use them for Infant-Baptism aswel as they against it Do not they argue from Matt. 28.18 19. and Mark 16.16 None ought to be Baptized but such who are first taught and consequently that no Children ought to be Baptized because they be not capable of teaching Vide Tombes Is not this their constant way of Arguing Now how unreasonable is it for men to practise that themselves which they will not allow of in others I remember Mr. Staltmarsh in his shadows flying away doth much condemn Consequences and saith Prudence and Consequence are the two great Engins of Will-Worship good Doctrine indeed and a fine preparative to an Implicit Faith But Mr. Baxter chastiseth the folly of these men in his Plain Scripture-Proof c. Position 10. pag. 8. Evident Consequences Quae colliguntur ex Scripturiâ— sacris perinde habenda sunt ac si in illis scripta essent Gâ—eg Nazâ—anzen L. 5. Thelog or Arguments drawn by reason from Scripture are as true Proof as the very words of a Text would it not make a man pity such senseless ignorant wretches saith he that will call for express words of Scripture when they have the Evident Consequences or Sence Is Scripture-Reason no Scripture If I prove that all Church-Members must be admitted by Baptism and then prove that Infants of Believers are Church-Members is not this asmuch as to prove that they must be Baptized I suppose no man of sound judgment will deny that the sence or meaning of Scripture is Scripture as well as the Letters and Syllables in the Bible For the sence and meaning of the Letter of the Word must be drawn out by rational Consequence as the conclusion from a Proposition by a fit medium and if this were not so the searching and studying of the Scriptures were a needless undertaking and so would all Preaching and Expounding be It is a good observation of Dr. Sclater in his Comment upon the 5th verse of the 4th Chapter of the Romans That God's Spirit in Scripture speaks as well what he implyeth as what he expresseth as well what by Consequence is deduced as what in summe of Words he uttereth And instanceth in that of James 4.5 saith the Scripture in vain c. It is usual for our Adversaries to cavil against this Theological Axiom Say the Papists and Anabaptists for in this like Sampson's foxes they are joyned together by the tayls whilst their heads look several ways where have we it taught that Infants should be Baptized in all the Scripture To which we answer we have it not in Express terms but by just Consequence Where find we that Christ's Righteousness is imputed to us for Justification saith Bellarmine Why in Express terms we have it not but Virtually and by just Consequence we have it 2 Cor. 5.21 In the Equivalent we have it Rom. 5.17 18 19. You are wont to boast saith Bellarmine of the Word of God and to reduce all your Opinions to this one head but in the Case of Justification by Faith only that help fails you for you were never able to shew in the Scripture that particle only To this we Reply that if we have it by Consequence from Scripture and if we have it in the Equivalency we have it in the Scripture That Tradition hath been the first and principal ground of Infant-Baptism he would prove from Austin and Chrysostom's sayings But how and in what sense do they call it a Tradition of the Church why certainly not as if the Church had been the Author but the Subject of it as before as continued therein all along down from the Apostles And if any of the Fathers speak too hyperbolically of Tradition what is that to us who plead Scripture as its primary ground for it Besides Anciently the greatest points of Faith were called by the name of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. Divine Doctrines or Ordinances for so it is rendred 1 Cor. 11.2 and the same word is rendred Traditions 2 Thes 2.15 So that Austin's Intendment by that expression of Apostolical Tradition is nothing else but Apostolical Ordinance or Doctrine as appears from his own words saying The Custom of our Mother the Church in Baptizing little Infants is not to be despised nor to be judged Superfluous nor to be Believed unless it were an Apostolical Tradition Lib. 10. de Gen. c. 23. i. e. an Apostolical Ordinance What follows from 153 p. to the 155th is mostly borrowed from Mr. Tombes his Praecursor Sec. 20. p. 86 89. As first The Assertion of the Cardinal Ragusi in his Oration in the Council of Bazil Tombes indeed hath it in Latin but the Author is at the pains to translate it And since it is so notorious and intolerable a piece of Plagianism thus to take and conceal from whence he had it contrary to the Laws of ingenuity provided in that behalf we shall make discovery thereof by a Paralel H. D i.e. The Author In the Council of Bazil in the Oration of of the
that their Children should be unclean that is infamous and not Legitimate who so are holy that is during the Marriage are without all blot of ignominy J. T. Hierome saith because by Gods appointment Marriage is holy Exerc. p. 12. J. T. Ambrose hath it thus the Children are holy because they are born of lawful Marriage Exercit. p. 12. J. T. Melancthon in his Commentary on the place Therefore Paul answers that the Marriages are not to be pulled asunder for their unlike opinions of God if the impious person do not cast away the other and for comfort he adds as a reason The Vnbelieving Husband is Sanctified by the believing Wife And elsewhere he saith Meat is Sanctified for that which is holy in use so here he speaks the use of Marriage to be holy and to be granted of God Exer. p. 11. J. T. Musculus on the 1 Cor. 7.14 hath those words I have sometimes abused the present place against the Error of the Anabaptists Exercit. p. 1. H. D. leaves out Error because that sounds ill and an ignorant Reader upon the leaving that out may judge Musculus was Proselyted to them J. T. Joachimus Camerarius about this matter in his Coment for the Vnbelieving Husband hath been Sanctified an usual change of the Tense that is sanctified in the lawful use of Marriage for without this he saith it would be that their Children should be unclean that is infamous and not legitimat who so are holy that is during the Marriage are without all blot of ignominy Exercit. pag. 11. By this the Reader may see that our Antagonist hath little reason to keep such a vaunting with things made ready to his hand And in Answer to all the Testimony of these Commentators that it is to be understood of Legitimacy in opposition to uncleanness and Bastardy besides the aforementioned Reasons against it I am of Mr. Marshals mind as he told Mr. Tombes that though some Ancient and Modern do interpret this Text as he did yet it is easie to bring 10 for one that interpret it for federal holiness and this saith he to Mr. Tombes you will confess although I forbear to bumbast my Book with them no ways desiring that this cause should be carried by number of voices only because Camerarius is named as against us in the interpretation and he is joyned and bound up at the end of Beza I mean that which was Printed at Cambridge I shall acquaint the Reader how positive Beza is who carries the Text for federal holiness Sed quid si quis hoc negassot Imo verò nemo id potuit negare cum constaret do promissione in qua semen quoque comprehenditur No man may interpret it otherwise it being according to the Covenant which comprehends the seed Nec alia causa est cur sanctorum liberos ad Baptismum admittamas quà m quia sancti sunt id est in faedere comprehensi ab ipso utero This is the only reason why we Baptize the Children of the Godly because they are holy that is comprehended in the Covenant from their Mothers Womb. Now the Author is for answering our Objections against their interpretation of the Text. Object You give another sense of the word Holy then is to be found in Scripture for no where is holy the same with Legitimat but throughout the Bible in many hundred places Holiness is taken for a Separation to God saith Mr. Sydenham and Mr. Baxter And besides them all know holiness is taken for a special separation of things or persons to God and his use Mr. Marshall Geree Blake and all latter writers as well as former so take it in the present point and the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Text rendred holy is most used to express the Hebrew word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which ever signifies what is usui Divino accommodatum that which is appropriated to a Divine use which is the proper notion of the word in the old and new Testament as Sydenham notes and never taken otherwise and for the proof of it tells us he had compared above 300 places The Author speaks of 600 in the old Testament according to the Septuagint and all the New Testament places where the word is used Well How doth our Antagonist answer the Objection which he bring Why thus First suppose it be so He is no farther yet then a suppose that the word signifies that in all those places but this viz. 1 Cor. 7.14 But now are they holy it follows not but it may have this sense properly enough here the scope of the place leading to it as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies authority or power in all other places This is also borrow'd from Mr Tombes yet in the 1 Corin. 11 15. is rendered a Vail c. No wonder that Hereticks are so inflexible when even good men such as I hope both Mr. Tombes and this Author are will wrangle at this rate somnem movere lapidem try every way rather then be thought to erre in their conceits and where this humour is predominant men were better be silent and not dispute at all for it puts an abuse upon the Scripture and renders Religion not only ridiculous but turns it into a Fire brand of contention Thus our Author being unwilling to part with his fond notion of the word Holy in the Text doth I fear prophanely abuse the Scripture by flying to this old shift of Mr. Tombes grounded upon a mistake of the scope of the Text as is before shewn for the Corinthians doubt was whether it was sinful to cohabit with their Infidel Yoak-fellows and not whither is was fornication to live with them It will not be amiss to give you the reply that Mr. Baxter made to Tombes when he urged that though the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth in all other places signifie authority or power yet in the 1 Cor. 11.15 it is rendred a Vail To which saith Mr. Baxter if God do no where in all Scripture call the meer making a thing lawful the sanctifying it but many hundred times use the word in another sense then we must not call it nor so interpret him here but God doth no where in Scripture call the meer making a thing lawful the Sanctifying of it therefore we must not do so nor here so interpret it Mr. Tombes granted the Antecedent but denying the consequence said that though God did not so use the word yet we might and though he use it five hundred times otherwise yet we must so interpret him here To which saith Mr. Baxter I am resolv'd to learn of God how to speak rather then you and to follow Scripture phrase as near as I can c. But I must follow the Author And secondly saith he Neither are we to seek of some Parallel place where the word holy signifies this sort of Holiness Mr. Tombes Exercit. p. 13 14. viz. Matrimonial holiness Mal. 2.15 A holy seed viz.
c. A third Scripture is that Act. 8.36.38 And they went both down into the Water both Philip and the Eunuch and he Baptized him and when they came up both out of the Water c. Answer I see not how this Text can serve their turn for there is nothing in it to prove that Philip plunged him over head ears if they will prove it from any thing it must be from their going down into the Water or coming up out of it but that will not do for I may go down into the Water and come up again out of it and yet not be up to my Ankles and how can it be proved hence they went any farther or whether Philip did not flash water into his Face or cast it over his Head or whether he dipt only his Head or his whole Body under water the Scripture is silent as to this and Men may conjecture what they please but must not impose upon others The Text faith they both went down into the Water but their going down into water was no part of the Baptism for then they had both been Baptized for they went both together down into the water but it is said that Philip Baptized him after they went down into the water That the Eunuch was Baptized is clear but after what manner we are yet to seek We cannot from hence learn the management of this business whether Philip took up this great corpulent Person for such Eunuchs use to be quite out of the water by the strength of his Arms and so Dipped down again or no or whether so much of him only as was above the water was Dipt that of him under the water left alone And besides as for this Eunuch if his whole body were Dipt whether it were in puris naturalibus altogether naked or in his wearing cloaths this latter cannot be conceived for they went presently up in the Chariot nor could he have any conveniency of shift for such a purpose for their meeting was accidental as to the Eunuch's part so that we conclude nothing for plunging the whole body under water can be pretended to from this Text. The last Scripture the Author mentions is tha Rom. 6.4 Buried with him in Baptism c. This is a Metaphorical expression signifying partaking of Christ's Death by vertue of Union but Plunging the whole body doth not hold similitude neither with Christ's burial nor the manner of burials in the most part of the World for as Mr. Sydenham notes Christ's burial and the manner of it was not by throwing under the Earth for his Body was wrapt up in a linnen-cloth by Joseph and laid in a Tomb or Sepulchre hewen out of a Rock and this was the custom of the Jews Matt. 27.60 to cut out a place like a Cave out of a Rock to lay their dead Bodies in and besides Christ is said to stay three days so buried and so must they under the water if they are for an exact resemblance to his Burial but of this we may have occasion to speak more in our Answer to the 6th Chapter After this the Author brings divers Learned Authors who affirm that the ancient way of Baptizing was by Dipping as Cajetan c. And amongst the rest he hath a passage out of Mr. Fox his Acts and Monuments who takes it out of Fabian viz. That Austin and Paulinus did in the 7th Century Baptize here in England great multitudes in the River Trent and the River Swall where note by the way saith Mr. Fox it followed there was no use of Fonts To this I Answer there could not well be any use of Fonts because as Bede says it was in initio Ecclesiae ubi jam cito templa non potuerunt extrui it was before Temples were built and therefore saith he passim ad Flumina turba Baptizata est Beda Lib. 2. Angl. Hist cap. 14. And I shall mind the Reader with a pretty Observation of Mr. Fuller upon this occasion we have it in his Church-History p. 66. That saith he which they bring for Dipping because they were Baptized in the River Swall makes against it For Cambden in his Preface of Britain pag. 136. cites a certain Author who reports how in the River Swall near Richmond in York-shire Austin in one day Baptized above ten-thousand Saxons Though Bede ascribes this numerous Baptizing to Paulinus Arch-Bishop of York Now faith he if so many were Baptized it may be well urged against the Anabaptists and Papists against the former that all these could not be dipt in a day and for the latter it appears that in that Age the Administration of the Sacrament was not loaded with those Superstitious Ceremonies as essential thereunto of Crossing Spittle Oyl Cream Salt c. Lastly the Author frames an Objection or two on our behalf which he undertakes to Answer thus Objection But the Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies if not to Sprinkle yet not only to Dip and overwhelm but also to Wash Mark 7.4 where there is mention of Washing of Hands Cups Pots Vessels which may be done without Dipping or Plunging under Water Answer That Baptism in a sence is Washing saith he I no ways doubt for you can not dip a thing without you wash it But may not Cups and Vessels be washed though not dipt True saith he they may though not from this Scripture the Word being 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for though all Dipping be Washing yet all Washing is not Dipping in a proper sense Well argued Sr. I perceive you are very ingenious and logical you are now at your termini convertibiles where shall we have you next No wonder that as some boast you convert many to your Judgment But by your leave I will lay a Rub in your way What think you of that place Luk. 3.16 I Baptize you with Water if by Baptism had been meant Dipping must it not have been said I Baptize you in Water Once more Act. 1.5 John Baptized with Water is not this a very improper speech if it be meant of dipping for 't is as much as to say John Dipt with Water The same may be said of Christ's coming after John whom he saith shall Baptize with the Spirit is this to be understood of Dipping or is it not rather of the pouring out of the Spirit which was promised If this will not satisfy I shall offer one Text more and that I think is beyond exception it is concerning Nebuchadnezzar Dan. 4.30 of whom it is said he did eat grass as the Oxen and his Body was wet with the dew of Heaven 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the Septuagint hath it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is here rendred Wet and that with the Dew of Heaven It is the second Aorist of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from whence comes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So now we have found that which the Author said he could never do namely that the word is simply taken for Washing by
pouring on Water or Sprinkling for if the Root signifies so then doth the Branch also And thus my Antagonist having shewn so much of his Acumen in the Greek he will also give us a tast of his skill in the Mystery of Huswifry I presume saith he you will account her but a Sâ—lut and give her no thanks for her pains that having unclean Hands Vessels or Cloaths to Wash doth only Sprinkle or pour a little Water upon them as though that would serve 'T is a commendable thing to be cleanly and let all Maids take special notice of this item and as they would not willingly incur the brand of Sluts let them be mindful of this that when ever they set about that necessary work of Washing Dishes to look well to their business and let them be sure they dip them quite under water or they will never be clean and I question whether this will do without some rinsing and rubbing for I have observed your cleanly Huswifes to fetch off the filth that way and then they will shine like Chrystal if afterward they scoure them with Sand. But we must be more ferious in a business of this nature and I hope to be excused being tempted thus 10 Answer our Author in his own kind I will leave that word of Mr. Baxter to the consideration of the Judicious viz. It would be but folly for any to think Men must needs fill themselves full of Bread and Wine because it best signifies the fulness of Christ so it is no better to say that we must needs be washed all over because it best signifies the fulness of Christ Christ told Peter that the Washing of his Feet was enough to cleanse all Eight Argument against the Administration of Baptism by Dipping 1. BEcause we are not to presume to do that which is not written that is that is not founded upon Scripture-precept either Thetice in so many express words or Dianoetice by clear consequence They will not allow us the priviledg of deducting Consequences from Scripture although never so clear yet they presume to make use of Consequences and think they can demonstrate that which is impossible to be done from Scripture There is a positive saying in Mr. Leigh's Critica Sacra upon the Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Christ nowhere requireth Dipping but only Baptizing and as for the manner and method how this should be done there is altum Silentium in the Scripture a deep silence and therefore 't is I very great boldness to say no worse for any to lay the whole essence of Baptism in Dipping 2. As there is no express Command for it so there is no President in the New-Testament they cannot instance in any one Person that ever was so severely dealt with as to be Plunged over Head and Ears Nor is there any convincing Circumstances to be collected thence that any was so served And is it not strange that upon search of all the Sacred Register from the time that John the Baptist began his Ministery to the time that John the Evangelist ended his which was above sixty years during which time thousands and ten thousands were Baptized that if Plunging over head and ears had been the way then no error ever should be committed no fainting or drowning of persons under water or some accident or another happen to demonstrate that Baptizing was after that manner Me thinks there should fall out something either of Omission or Commission that might argue the thing But we have not so much as one Circumstance of that nature 3. Because as the Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies both to Plunge and to Wash so it is mostly used in Scripture for Washing It is a good Rule to be observed that when we find a word in Scripture of a double sence and it hangs as it were in Equilibrio so that we know not which to take our safest course is then to observe which way the Scale doth most incline that is we are to imbrace that sence which is most common in Scripture But in the matter before us I think we need not be much at a loss for we shall not easily find any explicite place in all the Bible where the Word Baptize is used positively for Plunging 4. Let it be granted that in Scripture the word can be found to signify Dipping yet for asmuch as it is also in Scripture used simply for Washing we are also to observe and follow another Theological Rule that where a word is of doubtful interpretation admitting a double sense that sense is to be taken for right which agrees best with the Mind of God in other places and the general Anatogy of Faith and Evangelical Doctrine Hence then we conclude that Baptizing is not Dipping because this Practice runs directly cross to a Vital Maxime of Religion which is self-preservation required not only in the Moral-Law but Charactered in us by Nature and under the Evangelical Dispensation we find our Lord Jesus so tender of Man's health and life that rather than it should be endangered even the Sabbath it self must be dispensed with and the Reason Christ gives is because Man was not made for the Sabbath but the Sabbath for Man so may it be said Man was not made for Baptism but Baptism Instituted for Man for his good not hurt and therefore Dipping which we know hath not been only to the damage of some Mens health but the loss of some lives is to be suspected to be none of Christ's Ordinances And for this Reason Mr Cradock a great Independent as they call them in his Treatise of Gospel-Liberty saith the Practice is to be restrained by the Magistrate for the preservation of the lives of his Subjects Let us a little dive into this Dipping-Principle and we shall see how inconsistent it may in some cases be to the Life of Man 1. We know the Command of Baptizing takes place immediatly upon Believing for this is certain every one that Believeth ought presently to be Baptized if he can have it for so it was without delay as appears by several Instances in the Acts of the Apostles If then only Dipping be Baptizing what shall become of them that are weak and sickly that have Catarrhs Consumptions Palsies These if they Believe although it be in Winter in frost and snow must to the work without any delay they must I say be covered all over with water and if so may not this hasten their end which may endanger the lives of the soundest Bodies Is this think you suitable to the mercy tender Bowels of Christ whose Yoke is easy and Burden light Certainly such a penance as this to some Persons and to those that live in extream cold Countries is more unsupportable than the burthen of the Ceremonial-Law and more dangerous than what ever the Ceremonial Law requited And what though our bodies may endure it better than theirs who live under a more severe Climat yet we must know Christ's
Arise and be Baptized and wash away thy Sins hath a favorable aspect upon Gods designing and blessing that Ordinance for the sealing of pardon in reference to grown Persons 2. To work Grace and Regeneration This is Mr. Tombes his 7th Argument against Infant-Baptism Exer. pag. 30. and to effect Salvation by the work done Although the Author knows all Protestants disclaim this and condemn it for a damnable Error yet he seems indirectly at least to charge it upon the Church of England which for my part I look upon it as very unjustly done What means else those reflections of his pag. 148. upon that passage in the Service-Book in the Rubrick before the Catechism viz. That Children being Baptized have all things necessary for their Salvation and be undoubtedly saved and then after Baptism the Priest must say We yield thee hearty thanks that it hath pleased thee to Regenerate this Infant with thy Holy Spirit just comporting saith he length and breadth with Pope Innocent's first Canons Answer 'T is fit the Church of England should be believed in what sence she intends those words Baptism by the Ancients was commonly called Regeneration or a new-Birth so 't is by the Scripture Tit. 3.5 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Washing of the new-Birth or Regeneration and we may learn it in her Articles which speaks her at an infinit distance from the absurd and irrational Error of Salvation by merit or ex opere operato and 't is not for others to put what interpretation they think meet especially such as are Obnoxious to her Lash Will you hear what Mr. Cotton of New-England an Independant as they call them speaks in Vindication of the Church of England in this particular matter and at a place where he needed not her favour and as I take it at a time when she could not help him which are circumstances that will not suffer us to suspect him of flattering or fawning We have it in his grounds and ends of Children's Baptism Notwithstanding saith he those expressions in the Service Book yet the Church of England doth professedly teach the contrary Doctrine not only in their Pulpits but in Books allowed by publique Authority She doth assert that the Scraments do not beget Faith nor Regeneration ex opere operato but they are signs and seals thereof Nor do I find that the publique Prayers of the Church are contrary hereunto but as in judgment they do believe that God by Covenant promiseth to pour clean Water upon us and our Seed Ezek. 26.25 Is 48.3 and that he Sealeth the Covenant and Promise by Baptism 3. That it was an Apostolical Tradition And for that we have the Testimonies of Origen and Cyprian as before Mr. Tombes his 4th Argument against Infant-Baptism Exerc. p. 28. Chap. 3. Part 2. who lived near the Apostles days and in which Chapter we have also shewn how Tradition is both by the Fathers of old and Reformed Churches taken in a safe sence different from that corrupt one of the Papists and not derogatory to the authority of the Scripture 4. That Children have Faith and are the Disciples of Christ Answer No Paedobaptists ever held Children had personally actual Faith for their condition is insufficient for the production of Intellectual Acts but as for the habit and grace of Faith the inherent infused power of believing it is more than any Antipaedobaptist in the World can prove they have not for 1. Their condition makes them not uncapable of Sin and Corruption in the Roots and Principles of it most of them confess it Anabaptistae ut Paedobaptismum prorsus tollerent peccatum negârunt Originale ut non sub esset causa cur Infantes Baptizarentur Dr. Prideaux Lect. 22. pag. 331. though some of them deny Original Sin and therefore not of the Roots and Principles of grace of which Faith is one for the acts of both are Moral and Intellectual But whether Infants Baptized have any such thing as a distinct habit of Faith or no this question of their Baptism depends not upon it It is a hidden thing The ground on which we give them Baptism must be visible and so it is viz. their being the Seed of Believers and hereby visibly entitled to the Covenant and so to the Seal of it We look not to what they have but to whom they pertain viz. to God as being the Seed of his Servants That they are Disciples is sufficiently proved Chap. 1. Part. 1. 5. That all Children of Believers are in the Covenant and federally Holy That 's abundantly made good Chap. 3. Part 2. 6. By defiling and polluting the Church viz. 1. By bringing false matter therein who are no Saints by calling being neither capable to perform duties nor enjoy priviledges Notwithstanding their inability to perform Duty yet they are capable of enjoying Priviledges as we have abundantly made good Chap. 6. Part 1. and are as true matter for the Church now under the Gospel as formerly under the Law as is there made out 2. By laying a foundation of much Ignorance and Profaness Cujus contrarium est verissimum The contrary is most true for 1. Infant-Baptism layes a singular good foundation for knowledg for in that Children are taken into Christs School they are in a near capacity to be taught and those who recommend them to that Ordinance are obliged to promote their knowledg and to see them brought up 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Nurture and Admonition of the Lord. And we know the Liturgy of the Church of England But the neglect hereof is much to be lamented the Children are not lookt after as they should be nor do Ministers mind them of their duty gives charge You must remember that it is your part and duty to see that this Infant be taught so soon as he shall be able to learn And that he may know these things the better ye shall call upon him to hear Sermons and chiefly you shall provide that he may learn the Creed the Lords-Prayer and the ten-Commandments in the English Tongue and all other things that a Christian man ought to know and believe to his Souls health c. Secondly it laies a good foundation for Holiness They are minded by their Baptism to cast of the Devil's service as soon as they are able to reflect that they were from their very Cradles dedicated to God whose Livery they have worn And some have repelled great temptations by virtue of their engagement to God by Baptism in their Infancy hence saith Mr. Ford in his 2d Dialogue concerning the Practical use of Infant-Baptism pag. 87. There is a very Prophane Spirit fomented under the Wings of Anabaptism for how can it be otherwise than such which endeavours to extirpate so considerable a means for the advance of Conversion and Sanctification as he shews Infant-Baptism to be Hence saith he arise grievous prejudices against those Ministers Societies and Ordinances in which God hath been wont
Surely it must be so or else there is no way how Infants can be saved 3. Dr. Taylor in his last discourse of Baptism gives a good Rule for the understanding Scriptures of this sort which if attended to would bring us and Antipaedobaptists a little neerer together which is this viz. That when the Scripture speaks of the effects of or dispositions to Baptisme it speaks in general expressions as being most apt to signifie a common duty or general effect or a more Universal event or the proper order of things but those general expressions do not supponere universalitèr that is they are not to be understood exclusively to all suscipients or of all the subjects of the proposition And he makes it clear by divers passages of Scripture There are many Synecdoches in the word where many only are to be understood when it speaks of all The secret effects of Election and of the spirit are in Scripture attributed to all that are of the outward Communion 1 Pet. 1.2 So Peter calls all the Christian strangers of the Eastern dispersion Elect according to the fore-knowledge of God the Father And Paul saith of all the Roman Christians and the same of the Thessalonians that their Faith was spoken of in all the world and yet among them it is not to be supposed that all the Professors had an unreproveable faith or that every one of the Church of Thessalonica was an excellent and charitable person and yet saith he 2 Thes 1.2 your faith groweth exceedingly and the charity of every one of you all towards each other aboundeth So to the question before us As many of you as are baptized into Christ have put on Christ That is so it is regularly and this is the designed event but from hence we cannot conclude of every person and in every period of time This man hath been baptized therefore now he is clothed with Christ he hath put on Christ nor thus This person cannot in a spiritual sense as yet put on Christ therefore he hath not been baptized that is he hath not put him on in a Sacramental sense To conclude We cannot understand the Apostle in those words of putting on Christ to intend a saving union to Christ or a putting on of Christ spiritually and effectually in regard of all that are Baptized for all these Galathians did not so put him on and innumerable persons that are Hypocrites when baptized at age do not so put him on Wherefore the words are to be understood Sacramentally as 1 Cor. 10.4 5. Heb. 10.29 And thus Infants put on Christ as well as grown persons 7th End of Baptism saith he is that the Baptized person may orderly thereby have an entrance into the visible Church c. For as Circumcision heretofore was the visible door of entrance into the old Testament-Church So also was Baptisme such a door and visible entrance into the New Testament-Church c. Act. 2.41 42. They who gladly received the word were baptized and the same day there was added to them about 3000. souls and they continued stedfastly in the Apostles doctrine and fellowship and in breaking of Bread and in Prayers So that after baptisme not before the believers were said to partake of all the Church-priviledges Posito uno absurdo mille sequuntur Upon this false Hypothesis do our Opposites build their dividing Practices Wherefore we deny that Baptisme doth give formality or make a man a member of a Visible-Church it is not that which gives entrance into it as the Author would have it so as if only by its Administration and in their own way too persons must be Baptized or else they are not to be reputed Church-Members or to be admitted into the participation of Church-priviledges But for this we have divers of our Divines quoted as Vrsinus The Assembly in their Catechisme And lastly Mr. Baxter with whom he is again at Hocus Pocus Mr. Baxter saith he in his plain Scripture proof pag. 24. As a Soldier before listing and a King before Corwning and taking his Oath so are we Church-Members before Baptisme But as every one that must be admitted solemnly into the Army must be admitted by listing as the solemn ingaging sign so every one that hath right to be solemnly admitted into the visible Church must ordinarily be admitted by Baptism But mark Reader the Authors ingenuity Baxters words are So are we and Infants Church-Members But being quite out of charity with those Innocent Babes this man leaves out Infants and one would think by the partial Citation that Mr. Baxter also did shut the Church-door against them It cannot be denyed that Orthodox Divines have frequently termed Baptism the Sacrament of our initiation into the Church and have ascribed our Admission or entrance into it thereunto and hereby have given the Antipaedobaptists some seeming ground for their rigidity And yet I find that they are not agreed among themselves about the point for Mr. Paul a great Zealot against Communion with any that are not Baptized in their way doth in his serious reflections disown the Position That Baptism is an initiating Ordinance and tells us in that Diminitive Volume of his p. 3. That he knows none that asserts it to be the in-let into praticular Churches though it prepares them for Reception Mr. Kiffin it seems is of the same judgement for he bestows an Epistle upon the piece Of the same judgment is John Bunyan a more moderate Antipaedobaptist that is for Vnion and Communion with Saints as Saints and condemnes the Rigidity of his Brethren and maintains in his Answer to the scurrilous not serious Reflections of Paul That differences in judgement about Water-Baptisme ought to be no Bar to Communion Printed for John Wilkins in Exchange Alley which is the Title of his Book and sees no cause to repent after severe checks from his Brethren to call them Babes and Carnal that attempt to break the peace and communion of Churches though upon better pretences than Water and declares God never made Water-Baptism a Wall of Division between us And whereas Paul denies Baptisme to be an initiating Ordinance he retorts very rationally upon him that if it be not that but another and if visible Saints may enter into Fellowship by that other and are no where forbidden so to do because they have not light into Water-Baptisme it is of weight to be considered by all unprejudiced persons Mr. Tull also a moderate and very ingenious Antipaedobaptist is of Mr. Bunyans judgment But Mr. Henry Jessey of precious Memory hath published his judgment to the same purpose grounding it upon Rom. 14. v. 1.3.7 such as are weak in the faith receive you c. From whence he argues most strongly and convincingly that it was the duty not only of the then present Church at Rome to whom the Epistle was writ as also to all beloved of God called to be Saints at that time ver 7. But also of all Churches and
Love and saith it is no outward visible society gathered together into the consent and use of outward Forms and Worship Now although both are out yet I acknowledge the Author is more sober then Dell for he is for an External Visible Church under the New Testament-Dispensation for he tells us Believers upon the profession of faith are to be Baptized and added thereunto and yet take him in his own sence he cannot be excused from error and confusion for by Believers he means the Spiritual seed before mentioned not such as are Believers Equivocally or Analogically by profession only but in reality or truth as appears by the following words upon Profession of Faith by the Ordinance of Baptism were added to the Church As if when mention is made in the Acts of so many thousands that believed it did imply they were all of the Spiritual Seed Regenerated persons Annanias Saphira Symon magus who is said to believe whereas it denotes no more then a visible profession of faith which is all that the Apostles and Primitive Churches had cognizance of and this is seen in Hypocrits who are not the Spiritual Seed of Abraham And this H. D. might have learnt as well as other things from Mr. Tombes who in his Examen pag 159. tells us Profession of Faith and holyness is a sufficient warrant to Baptism And in good earnest one would think by observing the lives and conversations of some of their Proselytes they took them in upon easier terms 2. Sydenhams Exercitaon c. 3 p. 25. We further argue That if none but the spiritual seed of Abraham be the subjects of Baptism then visible believers or such as make a profession of Faith are not the Subjects of Baptism for they may not be more the spiritual seed i.e. Godly then infants 3. Nay according to this Reasoning none must be Baptized at all for who can tell who are the spiritual seed who belong to Christ according to Election and saving Faith Nor will that evasion serve their turn we have charitable ground to believe they are such because of their profession which is enough to satisfie the Church for if according to the Author the New Testament-Church is made up only of a spiritual seed it is necessary the Church should not only have a judgement of charity but infallibility to determine who are the spiritual seed 4. And since the Author and those of his way disclaim all pretence to Infallibility and are contented with the judgment of charity to distinguish of the spiritual seed knowing nothing to the contrary Hanc veniam petimus pray give us leave to act a like charity towards the children of Believers For first they may be capable subjects of Election Jacob was such a one in his Mothers Womb Rom. 9 11 Neither was it his singular priviledge but what is common to all that are Objects of Election which is free without respect to any thing wrought or to be wrought 2. They may be capable of sanctification Christ himself whilst in the Womb is termed The Holy thing which proves the nonage of Infants makes them not incapable of grace supposing Gods will and it shews God would have it so that some of them should be sanctified because Christ passed through each age to sanctifie it to us Ideo per omnem venit aetatem infantibus infans factus sanctificans Infantes in parvulis parvulus sanctificans hanc ipsam habentes aetatem simnl exemplum illis pieatis effectus justitiae s bjectionis As Irenaeus that lives neer the Apostles speaks John was filled with the Holy Ghost and what is that but the graces of the spirit although he was no more enabled to exert or put forth any act of Grace then he was able to put forth an act of reason nevertheless his soul wanted not the faculty of reason from his Mothers Womb and what though we may not say all Infants of Believers are a like filled with the Holy Ghost as John was yet may we truly say that are all as capable thereof as John 3. They are also capable of Glory of Salvation or else it would be sad but Christ hath told us of such is the Kingdom of Heaven that is Specifically as you shall see proved hereafter 4. God calls them holy 1 Cor. 7.14 and so may we By what hath been said I suppose it is evident to the impartial Reader that the Infants of Believers are as much the spiritual seed of Abraham as visible professing believers and we have as much ground if not more to look upon them as such as we have for grown Christians untill they manifest the contrary for as for the former we own them as Godly and admit them into the Church upon their own Testimony only in a visible profession which may be deceitful but the Infants of Believers are taken into Covenant with their Parents and are visible Church-Members and hereby come to have right to Baptism For the two former we have an express Divine Testimony and that they were once accounted such and the Covenant being the same as to the essential spiritual priviledges of it none of which can be made appear to be repealed It will follow that Believers Children must not be denyed the sign and seal of the Covenant they having altogether as warrantable a Right thereunto as grown Christians or Believers This is Bucers arguing on Mat. 19.13 14. Si jam ad Ecclesiam pertinent c. Cur eis signum Baptismi quo in Ecclesiam Christi qui ad eam pertinent recipi solent negaremus Bucer an Mat. 19.13 14. Let us now hear what is said to the contrary in what follows He conceives the seed of Believers have no right to Baptism Why Because saith he Though the Jews had right to circumcision as Abrahams natural seed under the old Testament yet this would not serve the turn under the new Mat. 3.9 John Baptist dischargeth them of that priviledge of Abrahams Natural Seed that admitted into the Old Church from any such right in the new Think not to say that ye have Abraham to your Father that ye are the Children of a Godly Parent That which serv'd their turn under Moses would not avail under Christ Nothing now but the fruits of Repentance give right to the Bapisme of repentance c. And must we take all this for Gospel We shall upon examination find no weight in it and nothing prejudicial to the Baptizing the children of Believers For 1. Let it be considered that these Jews to whom John spake were to come under a New Administration of the Covenant and the first subjects of this Administration must be persons able to give an account of their faith and repentance and Christ the Messiah was now come who was the chief blessing of the Covenant yea the substance of it and therefore 't was necessary that as these Jews relyed on the Covenant of Abraham so they should hold forth their relyance on
of a Dictionary No doubt he learnt this good Doctrine from the Schoolmen who maintain that Baptism conferrs grace We may know the mind of them all by that passage of Suarez Suarez in tertiam partem Thom Tom. 3. quest 68. Disp 24. Art 4. sect 2. pag. 250. Per Baptismum datur gratia si aliquis est rectè dispositus ad effectum Baptismi consequendum in instanti quo receperit Baptismum recipiet gratiam By Baptisme grace is given if any man be rightly disposed to receive the effect of Baptisme in the instant that he receives Baptism he shall receive grace These men speak as if they were acquainted with the Cabinet Councel of Heaven They can tell if you will believe them the Punctum temporis the very moment when the spirit will breathe and quicken a soul And then again the Doctor is as peremptory in that which follows Grace saith he never follows Baptism which at first found is enough to scare tender souls from medling with it for if the Doctor says true you that are for Dipping upon the profession of Faith look well to your selves for if you have not grace when you are baptized you are never like to have it afterward grace saith he never follows it you are like to live and die graceless This we deny not but God may if he please make use of Baptism to confer grace but look upon it as a Popish errour that grace is in separably annext to it and a grosser one that Baptisme confers grace ex opere operato The Ancients themselves as highly as they speak of it did not hold that grace was an inseperable companion of it Austin lib. 4. contra Donatistas hath this saying Quid prodest Baptismum c. What profits Baptism to them that receive it unless they be inwardly changed And yet though it may not profit at the present yet it may for the future and not only the Adult but Infants too may receive good by it To conclude this I shall oppose to what the Doctor speaks in derogation of Infant-Baptism the judgement of a more Orthodox Divine viz. Mr. Daniel Rogers who speaks more warily thus I see no cause to deny that even in and at and by the Act of Baptisme the Spirit may imprint grace on the soul of an Infant CHAP. VI. Containing his sixth Argument That Believers Baptism is the only true Baptism from the constitution of the Primitive Churches which were not saith he formed of ignorant Babes but professing men and women with an answer thereunto LEst we should contend in the dark it is necessary we agree upon the terms By Constitution must be meant the essential nature of the primitive Church and in this I suppose we are one and whereas he saith these Churches were not formed of ignorant Babes that is of those alone for so we must understand him in regard of the Antithesis which follows viz. but of Men and Women it is very true the primitive Churches were not of this make that is formed only of ignorant Babes for if they had they would have been but sorry Churches But whatever sence his words may bear we know his meaning is that Children are not included as Church-Members in the Constitution of the New Testament-Churches these being formed as he imagines altogether of professing men and women which he attempts to prove by Christs Commission where Teaching goes before Baptizing By the practice of the Apostles in planting Churches and by the Dedications and Contents of the Epistles c. To which I reply 1. That we must mind the Author with what is before said in the first chapter namely That the import of Christs Commission to his Apostles was de Ecclesia colligendâ to direct them how and in what manner they should gather Churches they being at first sent out to preach only to such as were Aliens in respect of the New Administration And we acknowledge all persons under such a Circumstance are to be Taught before they are to be Baptized or admitted into the Church But in Ecclesia collectâ a Church actually gathered wherein there are Infants the Case alters for such are to be esteemed as Portions of their Parents as being one with them in a moral account and belonging to the Church of which their Parents are Members And to avoid repetition the same answer may serve for what is urged from the example and practice of the Apostles in planting the New Testament-Churches at Jerusalem Acts 2.41 Samaria Act. 8.12 Caesarea Act. 10.47 48. Philippi Acts. 16.14 and elsewhere But I must follow him having to deal with a sort of people who take all of theirs which is not particularly answered for unanswerable By which Scriptures saith he it manifestly appears that the New Testament-Churches were formed only of Baptized Believers wherein we neither find one ignorant Babe c. But what demonstration doth he bring to make this good The Argument if he had us'd any must have run in form thus viz. If we have no examples of any other that were Members of Churches under the New Testament-Dispensation but professing believers then no others are to be accounted Church-Members but such But we have no examples of any other c. Ergo. The consequence of the Major proposition is unsound and the Minor proposition is false 1. The consequence is not sound for suppose it be granted under the Gospel the Scripture makes no mention of any childrens being Church-Members Yet to conclude from thence there were none is no good argumentation Because mention is made of the Apostles taking in professing men and women into the Church Act. 8.12 to argue thence that therefore the children of such belonged not to the Church is childish arguing But this is a more Masculine or Logical way of argumentation namely The children of the faithful were Members of the Church before Moses time before the law and why not after Moses now under the Gospel God took them into his Covenant with their Parents and for the space of 2000 years from Abraham to Christ they were Church-Members and since Christ is come in the flesh we find not this gracious Ordinance repealed There is not the least hint of any such thing in the New Testament therefore it is not repealed and the children of Believers continue Members still 2. The Minor also is false for we have intimation given us that the children of Believers are Church-Members and the Apostle writes to them as such as appears Eph. 6.1 2 3. Col. 3.20 And to make this yet more evident I shall produce an Argument or two The first shall be that of Mr. Baxter in his plain Scripture-proof of Infant Church-Membership and Baptism viz. If God have repealed the ordinance and revoked this merciful gift of Infants Church-Membership then it is either in mercy or in justice either for their good or for their hurt But he hath neither repealed it in mercy for their good nor in justice for
why then should it stand in force against Infants in their own persons not capable of contemning and whose Parents desire it but are prevented by necessity Alas poor infants that you free from contempt in your selves and your Parents also must yet away to Hell for bare want of Baptism and yet grown persons as Papists themselves acknowledge in the same want have access to Heaven so they be free from contempt Can we imagine bare want to be more prejudicial to Infants then to grown men But what Reader if it appear that the place cannot be understood of Baptism at all I must leave it to thee to judge of what is offered to shew that 't is only Regeneration and not Baptism that is concerned in the Text for Water and the Spirit here by an Exegesis are one or if you will according to the judgement of Dr. Taylor by Water is meant the effect of the Spirit Nor is this the single judgment of Dr. Taylor but very many others who in their time were the Magna Ecclesiae lumina who so interpret it amongst whom are Calvin Beza Piscator Calvin indeed acknowledgeth the ancient Expositors followed Chrysostome that the Text was to be understood of Baptism yet professeth himself of another mind Beza in his Annotations of the place declares himself to the same purpose that he understood by Water in that place is meant rather the effect of the spirit then the Sacrament of Baptism sin verò malimus Christum cum Pharisaeo disserentem Aquae nomine ad externas ablutiones allusisse c. I rather conceive Christ reasoning with this Pharisee under the name of Water doth allude to those external washing which were useless without the cleansing of the Spirit Et Spiritus nomen sit exegesis that is a figure which signifies a dark speech made clear by another word which here is the Spirit nominis aquae sicut alibi spiritus ignis in baptismo conjunguntur By the name of Water we are to understand by an Exegesis the Spirit as elsewhere the Spirit and Fire are joyned Though the Order be inverted there and he gives the reason of it So Piscator except a man be born of Water that is ex spiritu sancto exserente quasi vim aquae Of the holy Spirit which operates in the soul as Water doth in the body and he also referrs to the same place Mat. 3.5 Of being Baptized with the Spirit and with Fire We have also the great Chamier arguing the same seeing in this sense the words bear an absolute truth without any limitation The Author concludes this with sporting himself at the different grounds upon which the Assertors of Infant-Baptism hold it out as the Fathers upon one ground the Lutherans upon another the Calvinist differing from them the Episcoparians one way the Presbyterians another and the Independents have a peculiar ground varying from them all Now thanks be to Mr. Tombes his eleventh Argument against Infant-Baptism for all this Exercitation pag. 33. The Assertors of Infant-Baptism little agree amongst themselves saith he upon what ground they may build it Cyprian and others draw it from the Universality of grace and the necessity of Baptism to Salvation Austin brings the faith of the Church others the Church of England substitute the promised surety in the place of the Faith and Repentance of the Baptized The Lutherans the faith of the Infant others the faith of the next Parent in Covenant in a gathered Church Reply This saith Mr. Geree unto him hath art I will not say Sophistry in it and what though divers men have let fall different grounds yet none of those are the main upon which they ground it for that 's the Covenant of Gods grace that takes in the Child with the Parent if saith he I should from several ways or Arguments used by the Antipaedobaptists say they did oppose Infant-Baptism on several grounds therefore their opposition were invalid you would think my answer unsolid and so do I your Argument Father I desire the Author to reflect upon his own party who oppose childrens Baptism by denying that Covenant made to Abraham was a Covenant of Grace some say it was Temporary some Typical some mixt and I know not what So they much differ in the foundation of their practice Some build it on a bare confession of sin whatever the man be as to grace some on profession of Faith some on signs of grace c. Mr. Geree saith well weakness in mens sight variety of fancy and principles carry men into different ways of defending the same truth The Author now frames his exceptions against those Scriptures which hold forth a Covenant-Right to the Children of Believeers 4. Argument from federal holiness excepted against and from whence we inferr their baptizing and thus he begins Paedobaptists being loth to part with the Tradition and yet seeing the rottenness of the ancient ground upon which 't was built found out this new foundation for it of Covenant-Holiness of which Zwinglius about 120 years for aught that he can learn was the first Founder and singular from all that went before him All this is from Master Tombes The Author a notorious Plagiary having taken all in his 43. pages following from Mr. Tombes his two Books of Exerc. and Examen I mean as to the substance of it and most in his words and method only indeed he hath two quotations out of Dr. Taylor and one out of Dr. Owen Mr. Tombes Exercit. p. 11. and so throughout to the endc of this Chapter both Arguments Authorities Scriptures and Cryticismes with this difference that he varies a little in some things and doth not speak so warily as he Mr. Tombes in his Examen part 3. pag. 35. begins the Argument as framed by us from the connexion between the Covenant and the Seal but this man ends it with that and the Scriptures are in both one viz. Gen. 17.7 Acts 2.39 I need not therefore much trouble my self for an Answer to the Author for the same which Mr. Marshall gave Tombes doth the work to a hair The Author tells us that for ought he could learn Zwinglius was the first Founder of the Argument for Baptism from federal Holiness and this indeed he learnt from Mr. Tombes his Exercitation pag. 11. whose words are Whether any in the Ages before the last past expounded it of federal holiness I am not yet certain and in the two last lines of page the 79. of his Examen he hath it thus viz. None that ever I met with expounded it of federal Holiness till the controversie of the Anabaptists in Germany To this I will seek for no other answer then what Mr. Marshal gives him the cause saith he I confess depends not upon this whether such an interpretation was then first put But it discovers some defect in your reading and then shews Athanasius one of the most Ancient Greek Fathers and Tertullian one of the most Ancient of the
separartion to God as his peculiar people by virtue of which they have a right to the external privileges of the Covenant whereof they are as capable as the children of the faithful Israelites 3. It is acknowledged even by Mr. Tombs himself that the Children of the Jews were federally holy for the whole body of that people Parents and Children were called a Holy Seed a Holy Nation a peculiar people and Jews by Nature distinguished from the Sinners of the Gentiles Gal. 2.15 And yet this did not intail Grace to Nature or Regeneration to Generation under the Old Testament and how doth it then do it under the New 3. His third Reason is Because it contradicts experience both of former and later times wherein Godly men have had wicked Children and wicked men good Children Although this be true yet the Doctrine of federal holiness remains unshaken for children are not therefore holy because born of believing Parents for so they are no better then others but because they are taken with their Parents into Gods gracious Covenant and have therefore a right as proper subjects to the Seal thereof Even as the Children of the Godly under the Law Ishmael and Esau during their Infant-state were comprehended in the Covenant and did partake of the external privilege thereof Circumcision the sign and Seal of the Covenant although afterward they degenerated proving wicked and so discovenanted themselves 4. He tells us The Tenet of Federal holiness necessitates the owning the Docirine of falling from grace but this is his mistake for the Doctrine of Covenant-holiness in regard of the Children of Believers consists very well with perseverance in Grace For we must consider Grace is either Common or saving The Elect and faithful Seed are only in a State of saving Grace and can never totally fall away nevertheless persons may fall away from Common-grace 1. From the External privileges of the Gospel and Covenant of Grace And though we assert this latter yet cannot any man form thence infer that it necessitates the owning the Doctrine of falling from grace in the sense of the Arminians We read of some who are said to be false in Gods Covenant and to Apostatize from it Psalm 44.17 Daniel 11.30 31. And the Apostle bewailes the Jewes upon this account Kom 9. Rom. 11. 2. His second Argument is Mr. Tomb's Exerc. fourth Arg. on 1 Cor. 7.14 p. 10. Because the Text he saith intends another viz. a Civil or Matrimonial Holiness in Opposition to Fornication Vncleanness Bastardy This is Mr. Tombes again In answer to which I might first except against the impropriety of phrase the Anthor useth of Civil and Matrimonial holiness I have read of Civil honesty but never of Civil holiness in any Orthodox writer And Mr. Tombes himself rejects it I do not like saith he the calling it Civil holiness for it is not from the laws of men but the institution of God and therefore I rather call it Matrimonial holiness But neither of them are good It cannot possibly be meant of Matrimonial holiness as if the sense were this your children are holy that is Legitimate 1. Because Holy is no where so taken in all the Scripture 2. Because it is such a Holiness as that Children could not have if neither of the Parents were a Believer or had a sanctified use of the other which cannot be legitimacie for that may be as well without that as with it 3. It is such a holiness as argues the unbelieving party to be sanctifyed in or to the other but meer Legitimacy doth not so 4. It must be such a holiness as may answer the Corinthians doubt which was not whether when one party came to be a believer the Marriage with the Unbeliever were dissolv'd as the Author falsly supposeth when he saith the Question was Whether their Spiritual Relation to Christ did not dissolve their Carnal Relation entered into in Unbelief But the doubt was whether they might still persist in so neer a Communion with an Unbeliever as Marriage is Now it had been satisfaction to tell them they might for their Children were not bastards They might displease God by such a Communion though their children were not Bastards But says he your Believing gives you a holy use of your Wife though an Unbeliever as appears because your children born of such are holy and owned by Christ as within his Covenant 5. I might add The Holiness in the Text is not put in Opposition to Bastardy for that cannot be the sense of the Apostle which implies untruth because then if one of the Parents had not been a Believer and so by being a Believer had Sanctified the Unbeliever their children must have been Bastards whereas though both the Parents had been Infidels yet the children were not Bastards that were begotten in lawful Wedlock His second Argument to prove it a Holiness of that kind as he supposeth and not federal is Because the Holiness of the Children is of no other Nature then that spoke of the Vnbelieving Parent in the Text and if one will intitle to the Ordinance so the other This the Author dictates and since he brings no proof for what he says I may as well deny it and say no more Nevertheless I shall give a reason to prove the holiness of the children is other then that spoken of the unbelieving Parent Namely because the children here are said to be holy in themselves But the unbelieving Whether Husband or Wife is only said to be sanctified in or to the believing Yoak-fellow as all other creatures the meat he eats the cloaths he wears are sanctified None of which are holy in themselves but only in reference to the believer quoad ejus usum to his use and service and therefore cannot be called holy but the children in the Text are said to be holy in themselves and not sanctified or made holy to another Mr. Cotton of New England is full to the same purpose in his Dialogue about Baptism Though the word Sanctifyed and holy come of the same Root saith he which is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yet the Apostle useth them here in such a different phrase or manner of speech as putteth a manifest difference in the sense or signification of them For when he saith the Unbelieving Yoak-fellow is sanctified he doth not leave it so without a limitation or restriction but joyneth the Preposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i.e. Sanctified in or to the believer and that limiteth the sence to the Believers use But when he speaketh of Children he doth it not with such limitation they are holy to the Believer but Positively they are holy The Author shuts up this with another mistake The Holiness spoken of the unbelieving Parent and the Child being of the same Nature then if one will intitle to the Ordinance so the other Posito uno absurdo mille sequuntur One absurdity laid down draws an innumerable
acquaints us that it was usual in those dayes to Baptize sick Persons in their Beds and the said Father proves by divers reasons the warrantableness of such Baptism and that persons are rightly Baptized although only Sprinkled and he grounds it upon Ezek. 36. I will Sprinkle clean Water upon you c. In like manner Vossius cites out of Eusebius L. 6. C. 43. That it was the Custom of those times to Baptize sick Persons in their Beds Cornelius writes that Novatus was so Baptized upon which the Learned Vossius makes this Observation That those who were thus Baptized were not doused or dipt under Water but only Sprinkled This is Vossius whom the Author brings to be for Dipping according to the signification of the Word as if that were the only way of Baptizing but you see what a false Suggestion it is Estius another very Learned Man and great Critick declares his Judgment Probat Estius modum ablutionis scilicet aspersionis exemplo Apostolorum Act. 2. Sane interalios Thomae Aquinati veristmile est aquâ persudisse ob Baptizandorum multitudinem Vossius de Bap. p. 359. grounding it on Act. 2.4 which is this That the Apostles did Baptize by Washing or Sprinkling for saith he it is altogether improbable that the Apostles Dipt 3000 Persons in one day and 5000 at another time Non est verisimile propter Multitudinem immergi omnes potuisse sed vel perfusos vel aspersos fuisse aquâ He conceived that they were rather washed or had Water Sprinkled on them Walfridus Strabo an Ancient Ecclesiastical Writer though since Austin many hundred years saith in his 26th Chapter It is to be noted that many heretofore were Baptized not only by Dipping but also by pouring Water on them and that the same way of Baptizing may be still retained This is he whom the Author quotes to be for the Baptizing of grown Persons only Lastly the Magdeburgenses whose History of the Church the Author much applauds and that justly being a rare work indeed tell us that Baptism signifies Tinging or Washing and for this they bring Mark 7. when the Pharisees come to the Market except they Wash the Word is Baptize they eat not and yet it was but a part their hands only and not the whole Body that was so Baptized or Washed They also quote that place Luke 11.38 That Baptizing is meerly Washing and not only Dipping The Pharisees wondered at Jesus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that he was not Baptized before Dinner that is that he did not Wash Now this must be by all means according to some men's fancy by Dipping and not pouring Water upon the hands yet what more common than to Wash ones hands this way or by holding them under a Cock or Spout or Youre 2 Kings 3.11 Here is Elisha the Son of Saphat which poured Water on the hands of Elijah that is who was his Servant as 't is noted in the Margent It is a very poor Supposition that Washing of hands must only be by Dipping what if the Pharisees had had a mind to have Washed their Faces when they did their Hands as is common must that have been by Dipping But the aforesaid Text in the Kings puts the matter beyond exception where by good hap we have found a place to prove that a Man may Wash his Hands without Dipping In a Metaphorical sense the Word Baptize is used for Pouring out the Spirit But to go on with the Magdeburgenses they tell us that the Baptism of Christians was taken a judaica lotione from the Jewish Custom of Washings which the Apostle speaks of Heb. 9.10 Their service stood in divers Washings The Greek is Baptisms Now those Baptisms or Washings were not all of them Dippings although some 'tis confest were Mr. Goodwin in his Jewish Antiquities shews that the Jews had amongst other Baptisms or Washings a three-fold Baptization for the Dead one of which was named 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is Baptization or Washing the Dead Corps 't is like this was done with some Odoriserous Water to keep off ill scents Thus likewise the Graecians had their Ablutio mortuorum Homer saith Jupiter bid them do so to Sarpedon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Il. 11. they Washed the Corps with Oyntment and poured Ambrosia upon the Head and Face 'T is said of Tabitha that she dyed and when they had Washed her they laid her up in an upper Chamber Act. 9.37 I hope when they washed her they did not Dip her under water 2. It appears to be so saith he from the Practice and usage we find thereof in Scripture 1. In the Story of Christ's Baptism Mat. 3.5 Jesus came from Galilee to Jordan unto John to be Baptized of him and verse 16. when he was Baptized he went up straight way out of the Water Answer We may be said to come up out of the water when we have not been under it Men usually go down into the water to bath themselves and and yet keep their Heads above water but the Words in the Text which are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Mr. Sydenham notes may be better translated went up from the water 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies more properly ab from than ex out because Rivers for the most part lye low and in Vallies in coming to which usually there is a descent and coming from them some ascent 2. A Second Scripture which he urgeth for his Opinion is that of John 3. verse 23. And John was Baptizing in Aenon near Salem and the reason why he pitcheth on this place is given to be is this because there was much Water Reply The aforesaid Author gives a sufficient Answer to this viz. John's Baptizing at Aenon namely because there was much water is a good reason why he chose that place for the Country to come in and be Baptized because they might go many Miles in those hot Countries and not meet with a drop of water and it was a great priviledg to those places that banked on Jordan that they had much water but this is no Argument to prove that John plunged all he Baptized The Argument saith Mr. Sydenham must be this John Baptized in Aenon because there was much water ergo Baptizing is by Dipping all the whole Body This is a dangerous and ominous way of arguing to those who deny Consequences and Deductions for to warrant duties without express syllabical Precept None of our Consequences for Infant-Baptism are so strained and far-fetcht It was necessary for them that had so many of several parts to Baptize to go where there may be much water when they could get hardly a drop many miles You may in England go twenty miles in some Countries and not find a River to plunge a man's whole body under water what would it be in Spain and other hot Countries where Water is sold as Wine and beere with us how far might they go ere they could get a River to plunge themselves in