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
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
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