16.15 v. 32 33. shew that by the house are meant persons of age and by so expounding we diminish not Gods word nor make exception that God hath not made nor imply a contradiction nor incur a curse as Mr Cr. after his vein of pratling writes All that Mr. Cr. saith in opposition to what I said of baptizing believers in the first ages continued without any infant Baptism proves not my words an untruth nor a frontless assertion and is answered before sect 88 89 9â—â—n which and sect 90 91. all that he brings to evince my 7th and 8th untruth as he terms my words is examined I justly account infant Baptism a Popish abuse it being derived from these principles unwritten tradition and necessiâ—y of it to save an infant dying which are judged Popish errours And for answer to what Mr. Cr. saith of my 9th untruth as he terms it I refer the Reader to the 9th Section of my Praecursor not refelled by Mr. Baxter in his Praefestinantis morator Sect. 7. Mr. Cr. excepts against me for saying 1. That the Epistlers assignation of the causes of Anabaptism are vain 2. That Anabaptism is true Baptism 3. That the true cause is the light shining from Scriptures and other Authors 4. That this light was not discovered formerly as now What he saith against the first is but a repeating of the reasons without any confirmation but some light Poetical pedaâ—tiâ—ue expressionâ— which deserve onely neglect Against the â—d he gives his reasons against reiteration of Baptism which are nothing â—o me who asserted not thâ—â— baptizing twice was true Baptism but baptizing â—f persons of age professing â—aith though in infancy imagined to have been baptized is true Baptism Yet do I see no force in the reasons he gives For 1. in the institution of Baptism Mat. 28.19 the precept is to the baptizer and I presume he doth not think the baptizer is not to reiterate his act of baptizing yea doubtless he is to baptize as oft as there are Disciples made by him And as for the act of the baptized which is implied it is true neither is it determined to be once or twice and may therefore seem to be left to liberty That he allegeth Whatsoever is not of faith is sin is clean mistaken by him the meaning â—eing onely what a man doth with a doubâ—ing conscience is sin to him so by this reason rebaptization is a sin only to him that doubts of it And when â—e saith Whatsoever is not grounded on the Scripture is will worship I presume he means it of that which is used as worship and determined to be but once But then the question is only begg'd not proved that Christ hath determined Baptism to be but once In that which he saith of Act. 19.3 which is an instance of being twice baptized I find nothing brought by Mr. Cr. to avoid the force of it For to be baptized into Johns Baptism can be no other then to be baptized with water according to the proâ—ession of Johns Disciples and this was true Baptism from Heaven not differing in the nature of it from Christs as say Protestant Divines and it is certain that to be baptised into the name of the Lord Jesus iâ— to be baptized with water into the profession of him as Act 2. â—8 41. 10.48 the giving the Holy Ghost is distinctly expressed v. 6. to have been by laying on of hands and this was on the same persons v. 6. who were â—aid to hear and to be baptised v. 5. and these were not all the people mentioned v 4. buâ— twelve onely v. 7. and therefore it is far more probable and in mine apprehension certain as the Ancients did conceive that those twelve were baptized with water twice once according to the profeâ—â—â—on Johns Disciples made at Baptism and the other according to the Christian. Nor am I moved by the observation of Marnixius â—pâ—roved by Beza in hiâ— annot in locum and followed by many others That the particles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must necessarily answer each other and therefore â—he words v 4 5. be Pauls For 1. the particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is put oft and the matter requires it should be so conceived here either as an expletive that is without force to which in the vulgar translaâ—ion nothing answers as it is Act 3.21 22 c. oâ— an adverb of affirmation or if it be a conjunction diâ—cretive that which answers to it is not that v. 5. there being no good sense to say John verily baptised with the Baptism of repentâ—nce saying unto the people that they should believe on him which should come after that is on Christ Jesus but they hearing this c. there being no apt discretion made in such speech if the particles be discretive the other part is concealed and should be to thiâ— purpose But the Baptism we use is into the name of the Father Son and Holy Spirit or into the name of the Lord Jesus already come And for this reasâ—n the particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must be expounded as our interpreters when or as a meer expletive as in the vulgar 2. The words Act. 19.5 do give an obvious plain sense on the other side as the words of Luke thus When the twelve mentioned v. 7. heard this of Paul that it was Christ â—esus to come after John on whom John would have his Disciples to believe when he baptized them with the Baptism of repentance then they were baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus with express profession of him Nor is it true that there is express Scripture Ephes. 4 5. One Lord one Faith one Baptism against the iteration of the same Baptism For as one Faith notes nâ—t one act of believing but one kind of faith from the unity of the object bâ—lieved which may be and is one faith though an hundred times iterated so one Baptism notes not one act of baptizing but one kind of Baptism distinct from Pharisaical Baptism into the observance of the Law fâ—r righteousness termed one by the profession of the same Doctrine or Lord though it be an hundred times iterated The same man baptized an hundred times and an hundred men once onely baptized each of them have one Baptism in the â—postles sense if they be baptized with the same profession and the same person though but once baptized yet if with another profession hath not that one Baptism there meant One Baptism is not as much as once baptized and no more but Baptism into one profession and no other The 2d argument is of no force Baptism is the Sacrament of regeneration or new birth and as Austin hath it we are caâ—nally and naturally born but once so we are spiritually and supernaturally new born but once Faith though it admit of gradations begins but once Baptism that matriculates us into Christs School is to be performed but once Answ. The Scripture no
part of Baptism it self yea essential to it to signifie and profess the saving faith and repentance of the baptized pag. 710. arg 4. we must baptize none that profess not their consent to enter themselves presently into the Covenant of grace with God in Christ p. 79. arg 5. we must not baptize any without the profession of that faith and repentance which are made the condition of remission of sins the rest have speeches to like purpose in which though he puts in sometimes and their seed yet his proofs do all overthrow that his own addition and tear off his patch which he hath printed to his argumenâ— and as fully militate against his book of baptism as Mr. Blakes tenet so that to me it seems that by Divine providence without his intention una eademque manus vulnus opemque tulit Nor do I think but that if conscientious Christians chiefly Schollers would read over that second disputation they would be satisfied that infants ought not to be baptized but themselves and that Mr. Baxter hath cheated the world by his book of baptism and shewed himself therein an inconsiderate writer But however this fall out it is a great rejoycing to my soul that God hath so long preserved my life and strength though now declining to finish this part of the Review also and to see that part of it printed which is in answer to Mr. Baxters second main argument in his book of baptism about his pretended ordinance of infants visible Church-membership and its repeal which some have given out as unanswerable because this answer hath been so long in publishing not considering that besides the not knowing of his minde about it till 1655. I have been necessitated to answer many others and together with my constant labours some other employments extraordinary with domestick distractions necessity of respect to my bodily strength want of help of books in some points of learned men to whom I might have recourse of an amanuensis and chiefly the difficulty of getting it printed by reason of the great charge which this book amounts to and yet is not so readily put off as other smaller writings and such as sute more with the minde of Readers of whom few seem to search after truth impartially especially in controversies of this kinde In this which is done my witness is in heaven how faithfully and sincerely I have dealt which makes me slight the unrighteous censures of those Mr. Blake mentions of Mr. Baxter Mr. Firmin Mr. Gattaker Mr. Ford Mr. Crag and the rest And for Mr. John Goodwin who so much magnifies Mr. Baxters book I wish he and Mr. Horn his second would read this writing which I take to be a sufficient answer with the two fore-parts of this Review to what is said by Mr. Baxter and themselves in the point of Infant-baptism As for the point of Schism or Separation which Mr. Baxter and he charge Anabaptists with I take my self no further concerned then mine own fact which if they can prove to have been unbrotherly or unrighteous I hope God wil so frame my heart as to testifie my repentance if not I advise them to take heed of rash judging and all their followers of following them in that sin If the objection be still set on foot That those that are as they term us Anabaptists do fall into many false opinions prove Quakeâ—s c. I wish them better to examine reports of us then Mr. Farmer Mr. Breton and others have done of me afore they spread them and to look into the state of the societies of their own judgement who if they be not guilty of such fallings I shall rejoyce with them and hope they will learn to pitty and endeavour to restore those who are fallen in the spirit of meekness if they be that they will remember that it should be no more objected to us then to themselves For my own part I hope I shall not abet any such errour nor do I know of any such errours or miscarriages in the Churches to which I have associated which are not opposed and censured by us Nor do I think it equal we should be charged with that errour or miscarriage which we condemn And I make bold to admonish Paedobaptists in the Lord that they take heed of those practises which tend to the disquieting defaming hindering their brethren in the work of Christ because of the supposed errour as they term it of Anabaptism lest they happily fight against God and wrong their brethren remembring that he that doth wrong shall receive for the wrong he hath done and there is no respect of persons with God Col. 3.25 And to the end they may search their own consciences and rightly judge of themselves I presume they may do well to lay to heart thâ—se following quâ—stions 1. Whether it be not a manifest perverting of the Gospel of Christ to maintain that the Covenant of Gospel grace is made to each beleever and his seed 2. Whether it be not against the Gospel to maintain that the command of Circumcision Gen. 17. doth any way bind Christian beleevers now in their practise 3. Whether it be nor against the Gospel to entitle pâ—rsons to the Church visible Christian by their natural generation of beleevers 4. Whether it be not a manifest will-worship to practise the positive Rite of Infant-Baptism as Gods worship which is confest to have neither precept nor example in the New Testament 5. Whether it be not a profanation of Baptism to use it otherwise then Christ appointed 6. Whether by justifying Infant Baptism the relinquishâ—ng of many Popish and Prelatical ceremonies which have as much of reason tradition authority of the Church as it be not condemned 7. Whether it be not an oppression and exercising of dominion over mens consciences to tie them to acknowledge Sacraments to be in their nature seals of the Covenant of grace which the Scripture terms not so nor can be proved plainly from it and to impose on them the practise of Infant baptism under pain of guilt of sin which Christ never appoâ—ntâ—d 8. Whether it be not manifest hypocrisie to oppose the Cross Surplice c. and to be zealous for Infant baptism 9. Whether they who justifie Infant baptism and oppose baptism of Believers at age confessed to be according to the institution of Christ and primitive practise are not partial in Gods Law and may expect to be made contemptible before all the people 10. Whether they who do so do not break the solemn Covenant of endeavouring reformation according to Gods word 11. How they that say they baptize infants into the Name of Christ who sprinkle or powr onely some water on them without any profession of the infant can be acquitted from saying falsly 12. By what rule those who are acknowledged visible Church-members in infancy câ—n be denied the Lords Supper 13. Whether it be not a signe that Paedobaptism is not according to rule when there are so many
part of this Argument is the very reason of the Text. The Minor proposition viz. that the blessings and promises of the Covenant do belong to infants before actual faith is proved by these reasons 1. By the express words of Peter which say the promise is to your children 2. By the express words of our Saviour of such is the Kingdom of Heaven 3. By example of Isaac and Jacob they were children of the promise before actuall faith and had applied unto them the seal of the righteousness of faith 4. Some infants dying are saved they are members of Christs Kingdom therefore the blessing of the covenant viz. regeneration and remission of sins through the blood of Christ do also belong to them To which I answer blessings of the covenant are of sundry sorts such as certainly accompanie salvation regeneration justification adoption or such as are common to reprobates as to have teachers example and acquaintance with the godly c. Both these may belong to them in present possession or assurance for the future when they belong to them in present possession it is either discernibly or indiscernibly Actual faith may be in the exercise or habit Infants of believers are elect or non-elect It is true all those to whom the blessings of the Covenant which accompany salvation belong in present possession discernibly to them also belongs baptism but so the Minor is false understood of all infants of believers they belong not to all but only to the elect nor them certainly in present possession much less discernibly during infancy or if it be discernible then they have actual faith and so the Minor is not true that to infants of believing parents the saving blessings of the covenant do belong in possession discernibly before actual faith If it be meant of the blessings of the Covenant in future assurance only the Major is false Nor is it true that the Major is the very reason of the text Act. 2.38 39. It is false that this is Peters reasoning therefore does the sign belong to Peters hearers because the promise did first belong to them For the term 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for does not infer a right which they might claim but imports a motive to duties and of these duties first to repentance and then baptism so that if from thence a right be concluded they must conclude as well a right to repentance in the first place and then to baptism Nor is it true that Acts 10.47 48. the Apostles discourse is reduced to M. Lyfords form of argument or saies as he saies They that receive the same grace are capable yea have right to the same sign but infants are capable of the same grace therefore of right they are to have the same sign i. e. the Sacrament of baptism For although the Major be granted of actual possession of the spirit and magnifying God yet it is not true only of the promise thereof But the Minor infants are capable of the same grace alters the term which is in the Major thus they have received the same grace and so Mr. Lyford syllogism hath four terms Nor doth the Apostle say they that are capable of the same grace are to be baptized as well as we but none can forbid water to baptize them that had received the Holy Ghost and so were manifestly actual believers as well as themselves though they were of the Gentiles which when it appears in infants I should yield they are to be baptized but not meerly because of the promise or capacity of grace for the promise agrees to Jews children elect and capacity of grace to Turks children and therfore if either or both these did intitle to baptism the infant-children of such might be baptized And for his proofs of the Minor it is false that to infants of believing parents the blessings and promises of the covenant do belong before actual faith is proved by the express words of Peter For though he say the promise is to your children yet he doth not say to you as believers or to your children in infancy as the children of believers nor before actual faith Yea the words as many as the Lord our God shall call do require actual faith afore the possession of the blessings of the promise Nor is this any miserable shift nor is it true that those words are quite a new thing clearly relating to another sort of people than his present hearers and not to them for that expression limits all the Subjects and is put after all joined by copulative particles and therefore is to be conceived to limit all of them Nor is the speech true of any of them without that limitation Nor is it true which Mr. Lyford saies That the words do not exegetically expound to which of his hearers children the promise did belong For they are a manifest limitation excluding some and including others And what he saith that Peter saies this promise does belong to them that are afar off and their children as well as to you and your children is manifestly false But of this text I have spoken in the first part of this Review sect 5. more fully To his second proof I say it is false that the express words of our Saviour of such is the Kingdome of Heaven prove his Minor For of such is not all one with infants of believing parents nor when it is said of such is the Kingdome of heaven is it all one with this the blessings and promises of the Covenant do belong to them afore actual faith the Kingdom of heaven is not said to be of them because their parents were believers its uncertain whether they were so or no and if they were another reason may and ought to be conceived of their interest in the Kingdome of heaven to wit Christs special and effectual blessing nor is it said the Kingdom of heaven belongs to them in actual possession and if it were so meant and yet they were not appointed to be baptized as it appears by the Evangelists they were not it is a good presumption Christ would not have infants notwithstanding their interest in the Kingdom of heaven to be baptized till they became believers by profession and knew what their engagement is thâ—â—eby To his third it is true Isaac and Jacob were children of the promise before actual faith yea before they were born and therefore if the interest in the Covenant had been a sufficient reason of Circumcision they should have been circumcised afore the eighth day which because they were not it is an argument that not the Covenant but the Command intitled them to Circumcision To the fourth I never denied that to some infants the covenant belongs nor that they are saved regenerated in infancy but I deny that this is true of all infants of believers For the very instances brought prove the contrary that though Isaac and Jacob were children of the promise yet Ishmael and Esau begotten by believing parents were
the person baptized repents of his sins and renounceth specially his Gentile defilements communion with Satan and engageth himself to be Christs disciple Yet I deny not but that by consequent in the manner of doing it by dipping or plunging under water it minds us of Christs death burial and rising again and testifyeth our salvation by him and so in a remote manner assures to us the benefits of the Covenant of grace But in this manner it is the administration of election as well as the Covenant and is an administration of the Covenant only to elect persons and true believers for it assures salvation onely to them not to all that are baptized and therefore in this respect none but they can have title to it So that if from hence that baptism is the administration of the Covenant a title be derived for infants to be baptized it can intitle none but those to whom it administers the Covenant which are only the elect or true believers But the ambiguity of the expression is much more fallacious For 1. when it is said it is appointed for the administration of the Covenant the expressions sometimes are as if it were the administration it self calling it the new administration as I shew in my Apology sect 10. Mr. Geree here p. 10. baptism is a seal of a new administration and then it is all one as to say the administration of the Covenant is appointed for the administration of the Covenant which is either non-sense or at least inâ—ptly spoken 2. When they say it is the administration of the Covenant do they mean the outward or inward Covenant The latter I presume they will not say for then baptism should be an administration of the things promised therin regenerarion remission of sins and if so then it administers them in a natural way and so it should in manner of a natural agent regenerate c. which is to confer grace ex opere operato or in a moral way but baptism can administer regeneration remission of sins c. no other moral way but by assuring or perswading or the like what ever way it be conceived it administers not the covenant to an infant in infancy nor to any but the elect now if it do not administer the covenant to any but such then it is not baptism but to such if baptism be in its nature the administration of the Covenant of Grace If they mean baptism is the administration of the outward covenant I am yet to learn what the outward covenant is except they mean the outward administration which is no other then baptism as I shew Apology s. 10. and what is this then but to say that baptism is the administration or appointed for the administration of baptism 3. When they say it is the administration of the Covenant do they mean the Covenant or promise of the baptized to God or Gods promise to the baptized If the former then it is no more but this that baptism is the administration that is the signification of the baptized his engagement to be Christs disciple which is indeed the best sense of it but then it will not fit them for so it is not in infants for they signifie no profession or engagement of theirs by it If the later then by baptism God doth promise man but that 's not true his promise is in the Word before baptism or he signifies his promise formerly made this can derive no title to the persons to whom the promise is made for the signifying that promise as past is as useful for others either baptized or unbaptized as the then baptized and not at all of use or avail to infants who cannot apprehend the signification or he assures the benefits of the Covenant and that can be only to elect or true believers or that he contains them by it and so it gives grace ex opere operato 4. The Covenant of grace is I take it the Covenant of saving grace opposite to the Covenant of works the promise of justification by faith in contradistinction to the Law Gal 3.18 This covenant was made mixtly Gen. 17.4 5 6 7 8. purely Heb. 8.10 11 12. They should tell us whether they mean the one or the other or both The former they seem to mean when they make baptism to succeed Circumcision and to seal the same Covenant that it did But then baptism should not be the new administration but belong to the old And if it seal that Covenant then it assures the Land of Canaan and greatness in it But it seems they mean that it seals only the promise I will be thy God and the God of thy seed so Mr. Geree here we find in the administration of the Gospel covenant to Abraham and his seed But if so 1. Then it seals only a part of the Covenant that circumcision did and so succeeds not in it's use nor is there a reason given but their own conceit why it should seal one part and not another 2. If it seal or administer the Gospel-covenant then it administers not this promise that God will be a God to a believer and his natural seed as such For that is neither Gospel nor at all to be found Gen. 17.7 3. In that promise was foretold Christ to come of Abraham and this was Gospel Gal. 3.16 But this is not administred by baptism which signifies Christ already come 4. In the spiritual sense it was made to Abrahams seed by faith Gal. 3.29 Rom. 4.11 12. But they are only the elect Rom. 9.7 8. and then it is an administration of that Gospel covenant onely to elect persons and true Believers 5. There 's ambiguity also in the term the Gospel covenant is extended The Gospel covenant is The just shall live by faith that God will be a God to Abrahams seed by faith But Mr. Geree imagines a Gospel covenant which is but a fiction that God hath promised to be a God to the natural posterity of every believing Gentile 6. For the extent of it how it is extended is ambiguous For he cannot say it is extended in respect of the Gospel promise of righteousness and life to all the children of believers it was not extended Ishmael to and Esau. Therefore he acknowledgeth it to be extended in the reality of it onely to the Elect onely it is to be charitably presumed that they are elect and therefore they are to be taken for persons in covenant till they discover the contrary But he shews no rule of Scripture for such a Construction of the promise sure such a construction was unknown to Paul Rom. 9.6 7 8. when he expounded that very promise Gen. 17.7 nor doth such a construction agree with the words sith when God saith I will be a God to thee and thy seed the meaning according to M. Geree should then be I will be a God to thee that is every believer and to thy seed that is every believers natural seed which are
of visible members in the former administration whether Jewes and their children or Proselytes and their children it is apparent to me that he makes the covenant now and then not onely the same for substance but also in respect of administrations contrary to his first conclusion For what are those outward priviledges in respect of which they are the same but outward administrations And if so his speech is in my apprehension professed Judaism opposite to the Apostles determination in the Synod Acts 15. And yet Mr. M. tells me he endevours in all this to speak as clearly as he can possibly which makes me hopeless of any thing but confusedness in his writing when after I had distinctly opened the various senses of his terms yet he wilfully declines making answer in which of those senses I should take his words and when he takes on him to explain his meaning he takes on him to explain other terms then were in his conclusion and yet his explications are as dark as his terms which he would explain and in the upshot his second conclusion can have no other sense consistent with his own Hypothesis but such as asserts Judaism or being coÌ„ceived to be the antecedent of his Enthymeme is the same with the conclusion of it which is meerly to trifle proving the same by the same which course how unfit it is for him who is to dispute I leave it to them to judge who know what belongs to Scolastick exercise Mr. M. next chargeth me with holding no more promises for believers children in reference to the covenant then to the children of Turks And yet page 119. he doth in these words maintain the same which I do I joyn with you that it is an error to say that all Infants of believers indefinitely are under the saving graces of the covenant for although I find abundance of promises in the Scripture of Gods giving saving graces unto the posterity of his people and that experience teacheth us that God uses to continue the Church in their posterity and that Gods election lies more among their seed then others yet neither to Iew nor Gentile was the covenant so made at any time that the spirituall part and grace of the covenant should be conferred upon them all which is directly to contradict the usuall plea of Pedobaptists that the covenant of grace is made to every believer and his seed and particularly the words of the Directory The pâ—omise is made to believers and their seed seeing the covenant of grace is made to none but those on whom the spirituall part is conferred nor can without wresting the words from the plain meaning according to the Grammar sense the spech of the Directory be understood of any other promise than saving grace Mr. M. and with him Mr. G. Vindic. Paedob pag. 12. charge me that in my judgement believers children are not actually belonging to the Covenant or Kingdom of God but onely in possibility that they belong to the Kingdome of the Devil actually which calumnies are reâ—uâ—ed in my Apologie Sect. 14. Next he speaks thus to me But say you to make them actually members of the visible Church is to overthrow the definitions of the visible Church which Protestant Writers use to give because they must be all Christians by profession I reply It overthrowes it not at all for they all include the infants of such professors as the visible Church among the Iewes did include their infants male and female too lest you say that circumcision made them members Answer Though Protestant Divines do hold many of them that infants belong to the visile Church yet they put them not in their definitions There are many definitions cited by me in the first part of this Review Sect. 14. in which infants are not included not in that definition of the Church visible which Baxter plain Scripture proofe page 82 saith Certainly all Divines are agreed That it is a Society of persons separated from the world to God or called out of the world c Not in that of Dr. Featly Dipper dipped pag. 4. A true particular visible Church is a particular Congregation of men professing the true faith known by the two markes above mentioned the sincere preaching of the Word and the due administration of the Sacraments Norton Resp. ad Appollon pag. 10. Immota Thesis Idem illud in professione constituit Ecclâ—siâ—m visibilem quod internâ suâ naturâ constituit Ecclesiam mysticam i. e. Fides usque adeo luculenta est haec veritas ut vel invito Bellarmino lib. de Eccles milit etiam à praecipuorum inter Pontificos calamis excidisse videatur The Assembly Answer to the reasons of the seven dissenting brethren pag. 48. Precog 1. The whole Church of Christ is but one made up of the collection and aggregation of all who are called by the preaching of the word to professe the faith of Christ. Mr. M. himself in his Sermon at the Spittle April 16 52. pag. 15. Secondly that part of the Church which is upon earth in regard that the very life and being of it and of all the members of it lye in internall graces which cannot be seen in that respect the Church of Christ is called an invisible Church But now as the said Church and members doe make a profession of their faith and obedience sensibly to the eyes and ears of others in that respect it is called a visible Church But the visible is not one Church and the invisible another but meerly the same Church under severall denominations the one from their constituting graces the other from the external profession of them The Church visible of the Jewes consisted of the whole nation and was visible otherwise than the Christian and therefore the definition of the Christian Church visible is different from that of the Jewish Church visible and infants included in the definition of the one are not included in the definition of the other Mr. M. saith I add also Baptisme now as well as circumcision of old is a reâ— all though implicite profession of the Christian faith Answer Baptism of it self I mean dipping in water is no reall explicite or implicite profession of faith but onely when it is done with consent of the baptized to that end Otherwise the Indians driven into the water by the Spaniards against their wills should be profâ—ssors of the Christian faith The like may be said of circumcision Mr M omitting my next reason That to make infants visible Church-members is to make a member of the visible Church to whom the note of a member of the visible Church doth not agree saith thus to me But say you Infants are onely passive and do nothing whereby they may be denominated visible Christians I answer Even as much as the infants of the Iewes could do of old who yet in their dayes were visible members I reply It is so yet that which made a visible Church member in the Jewish
argument being drawn from an act or end of Christ which was not onely duty but his performance it was urged that if infants were not baptized and to be baptized they belonged not to the Church To which I answered 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by an answerable illation by the same reason the thief on the cross should not belong to the Church because not baptized That which Mr. B. answers is not true that Mark 16.16 the former part speaks but ad debitum and the later de eventu For though a duty may be gathered from the subject of the proposition it being clear that salvation being promised to the believer baptized Faith and Baptism are required duties to that end yet the former part of the proposition doth as fully speak of an event as the later part doth And though Ephes. 5.26 it is proved a duty to baptize as aâ—so to preach the word because it is Christs way in which we are to concur with him of clensing his Church yet the clensing of the Church with or in the washing of water by the word doth not note a duty but an end intended and event to follow by Christs action Mr. B. proceeds 2. He objecteth that therefore it must be understood of the more famous part of the Church or that purification is to be understood of that which is for the most part Answ. The Apostle speaks plainly of the whole Church and to take it for part is to cross the Text except you shew a necessity for it 2. It speaks of all quoad debitum in regard of the means of it which they are capable of 3. And usually quoad eventum of the said means too Refut 1. It cannot be understood of the whole visible Church in which are many reprobates for it is that Church which Christ loved with that peculiar love which is the Husbands pattern to love his Wife by for whom he gave himself that he might sanctifie it that he might present it to himself glorious and a Church not having spot or wrinkle or any of such things but that it might be holy and without blemish which are true onely of that part of the visible which is also of the invisible Church of the elect 2. Whomsoever it speaks of that he might purifie it in or with the washing of water by the word it speaks of the intention of Christ which being supposed that it is not frustrated it follows that those who are said to be purified in or with the washing of water by the word are all in the event converted by preaching and baptized with water Which sith it cannot be said of all elect infants for they are not purified by the word it must be understood as I say either by a synocdoche of the whole for the more famous or apparent part or else the act is meant of that which is usually done or for the most part not what is universally and perpetually 3. It is granted that we may gather thence the duty of preaching the word and baptizing with water and that they who are sanctified by preaching are to be purified by baptism and that this was usual in the event a known use in the primitive times But expresly it notes onely Christs act not the Ministers duty which is onely implied and follows from this that Christ doth it by them and it supposeth that they who are capable of the one to witâ— baptism are capable of the other the hearing of the word for these two are conjunctively put not dis-junctively either the one or the other as if some were purified in the washing of water onely others by the word but the same who are purified by the one are purified by the other Mr. B. adds Object But some may say that by the word is here added which infants are not capable of Answ. 1. Infants are sanctified by the word of promise and precept to parents to dedicate them to God though not by the word preached to infants 2. The means is to each member as they are capable Washing by water to those that are capable of that and by the word to those that are capable of that which blind and deaf men are not any more then infants Ref. There is no word of precept to parents to dedicate infants to God by baptism though there be to pray for them nor do I think M. â— would allow every parent to dedicate his or her infant to God by baptism which they must do if there were a precept to them to do it That there is no such word of promise as entitles every infant of a believer or any definitely to baptism much less that appoints parents to dedicate their infants to God by baptism is amply shewed in this book before Nor can the meaning be Ephes. 5 26. of such a sanctification For 1. no word of promise and precept to parents to dedicate them to God is that which Christ doth sanctifie or clense them by partly because there is none such partly because the word of precept to parents if there were such to dedicate them to God would not clense or sanctifie the infants it hath no effect on them nor notes their duty nor doth the precept sanctifie or clense but the observing of it nor was the parents dedication ever made by God a means to clense or sanctifie the child as there is meant Nor were there such a word of promise to a parent would that of it self sanctifie and clense 2. The word there meant is the word of the Gospei preached to those who are said to be clensed by Christ. For 1. all along the N. T. and particularly in that Epistle by the word is meant the word of the Gospel as it is preached or published Acts 10.22 36 37. Rom. 10.8 9 17. Ephes. 6.17 Heb. 6.5 1 Pet. 1.25 Luke 3.2 John 3.34 6.63 68. 8 47· 12.47 48. 15.7 17.8 Acts 5.32 Matth 13.20 21 22 23. Mark 2.2 4.14 15 16 17 18 20. 16.20 Luke 1.2 5.1 8.11 12 13 15 21. 10.39 11.28 John 5.24 38. 8.31 43 52. 14.23 24. 17 6 14 17 20. Acts 4.4 29 31. 6.2 4 7. 8.4 14 25. 11.1 19. 12.24 13.5 7 26 44 46 48 49. 14.25 15.7 35 36. 16.6 32. 17.11 13. 18.11 19.10 1 Cor. 2.4 14.36 15.2 2 Cor. 2.17 4.2 5.19 Gal. 6.6 Ephes. 1.13 Phillip 1.14 2.16 Col. 1.5 25. 3.16 4.3 1 Thes. 1.6 8. 2.13 2 Thes. 3.1 1 Tim. 5.17 2 Tim. 2.9 15. 4.2 Tit. 1.3 9 2.5 Heb. 13.7 Jam. 1.21 22 23. 1 Pet. 2.8 3.1 Revel 1.9 6.9 12.11 20.4.2 It is the word of the Gospel preached or published by which persons are said to be purified converted regenerate sanctified John 15.3 17.17 Acts 20.32 26.18 Rom. 10.17 Gal. 3.5 Ephes. 1.13 Jam. 1.18 1 Pet 1.23 not any where by the word
containing questions and those not touching the argument instead of answers and I leave it to the Students of Divinity in the Universities and else-where who are understanding unbyassed men if there be any yea to any that have studied Logick to judge whether I have not proved a repeal of his pretended Ordinance after I have added some more proof out of the New Testament in the next Section and answered his Letters to me to which I hasten SECT LII It is proved that infants were not reckoned to the visible Church Christian in the primitive times nor are now 1. I Thus argue If no infants were part of the visible Church Christian in the primitive times then what-ever Ordinance there were of their visible church membership before must needs be repealed But the antecedent is true Ergo the consequent The consequent of the major I think will not be denied For supposing there were infants even of Christians and an Ordâ—nance before that the infants of the godly should be visible church members and yet no part or members then it must needs be from the revocation of that Ordinance if there were such a one Now that the antecedent is true I prove thus If in all the days of Christ on earth and the Apostles no infant was a part or member of the visible Church Christian then not in the primitive times For the primitive times of the Christian Church go no further though I think I might extend my proof somewhat further But the antecedent is true Ergo. That no infant was a part or member of the visible Church Christian in the dayes of Christ and his Apostles on earth is proved by these arguments 1 All visible members of the Church Christian were to be baptised This is often asserted by Mr. B. plain Scrip. proof c. pag. 25. The whole Church must be sanctified by the washing of water pag 342. As the whole Church is one body and hath one Lord and one faith so it hath one common baptism And he alledgeth 1 Cor. 12.13 Eph. 5.25 26. Eph. 4.5 out of which this proposition may be proved But no infants were to be baptised This is proved at large in the 2d part of this Review Sect. 5 c. Therefore no infants were visible members of the Christian Church 2. They were not visible members of the Church Christian who were not of the visible body of Christ. This is proved from Mr. Bs. words plain Script c. pag. 25. The body 1 Cor. 12.13 is the visible Church pag. 342. As the whole Church is one body c. pag 39. What is the Church Is it not the body of Christ The same he confirms pag. 60.318 from 1 Cor. 12.13 which he proves to be meant of the visible Church and it is affirmed by the Apostle Col. 1.24 Ephes. 1.22 23. that the Church is the body of Christ and so the visible Church is his visible body But no infant was of the visible body of Christ. This is proved 1. from 1 Cor. 12.13 all that were of the body were made to drink into one spirit namely in the cup of the Lâ—rds supper Diodati annot in locum hanc rationem confirmat testimonio baptismi caenae dominicae piscat analys 1 Cor. 12.13 Arg. 9. Sacramento baptismi caenae dominicae omnes fideles connectuntur Dicson expos Anal. 1 Cor. 12.13 ut utri usque Sacramenti unus scopus idem etiam esse intelligatur Beza annot in 1 Cor. 12.13 Calicem quoqâ—e Domini in hanc spem bibimus Grot. annot in locum But no infant was made to drink into one spirit for none of them did drink the cup in the Lords supper Ergo. 2. From 1 Cor. 10.17 All that were one body and one bread did partake of that one bread which was broken v. 16. But no infant did partake of that one bread if they did they must do so still be admitted to the Lords supper Ergo. 3. From Ephes. 4.5 The whole Church is one body and hath one Lord and one faith Mr. B. plain Script c. pag. 342. But no infant hath one faith Ergo. 3. They were no members of the visible Church who were left out of the number of the whole Church all the believers the multitude of the disciples in all the places where there is an enumeration of the members of the Church or mention of the whole Church the number of believers or disciples in the new Testament But infants are left out of that number in all places in the new Testament Ergo. The major is evident of it self For as we know who was in the church by their mention so we know who were not by their being left out in those passages which make an enumeration or reckoning of all there being no other way to know who were in or out and if this be not true the speeches are false which mention all the whole the multitude as the full number if they were not so The minor is also proved from those texts where such enumeration is mentioned Acts 1.15 Peter is said to stand up in the mids of the disciples and that the number of the names together were about an hundred and twenty and in the verses before are reckoned the Apostles with the women Mary the mother of Jesus and his brethren and they are said to continue in one accord in prayer and supplication Here I conceive is an enumeration of the disciples or church that then was at Jerusalem visible Dr. Lightfoot in his Com. on Acts 15. saith the believers at Jerusalem no doubt were many hundreds if not thousands at this time though we read of no Converts in this book till the next chapter For what fruit or accompt can else be given of all Christs preaching and pains bestowed in that city Let but Joh. 2.23 3.2 4.1 Mar. 3.8 Joh. 7.31 8.30 11.28 45. 12.19 42. and divers other places be well weighed and it will be utterly unimaginable that there should be less believers in Jerusalem now then many hundreds much more unimaginable that these one hundred and twenty were all who were all Galileans and no inhabitants of Jerusalem at all The like is the arguing of the Assembly in their answer to the Dissenters pag. 66. Nevertheless it seems not improbable to me considering the narration all along â—he chapter that v. 4 6. they are said to come together go to mount Olivet and then to return to Jerusalem and their action noted with special notice of some v. 13 14. and then next v 15. that Peter stood up in the mids of the Disciples that this enumeration of 120 is not an enumeration onely of men of note but of all the disciples of Christ then at Jerusalem me thinks the terming of Peter a Galilean Mark 14.70 doth intimate few of the Hierosolymitans were disciples of Christ Christs preaching most in Galilee his directing them to go into Galilee where they should see
his assent to his verbal profession But infants baptism is no profession of any faith either explicit or implicit there being no act done by them tending to make any shew of faith which they neither understand nor take â—o bee true upon the trust of their teachers as Papists do in their implicit faith which yet we dâ—ny to be christian faith but are every way passive both in respect of the act of the baptisers and the reason and end of it they neither do any thing towards their baptism nor understand any thing of it Yea were it true that such an implicit profession of faith were in infants baptism yet were it not enough to make them visible members of the christian church no not according to the definition of Protestant writers who when they define the church to be a company of professors of faith do mean more then an implicit profession to wit an intelligent and free profession and do blame the baptising of the Indians by the Spaniards forcing them to own the Christian Faith afore they understand it though there bee more implicite profession of the faith by them then is or can be by an infant 3. I argue They are no visible members of the christian church to whom no note whereby a visible christian church or church-membership is discernible doth agree For that which is visible is discernable to the understanding by some sensible note or signe by which it is known But to infants of believers no note whereby a visible church or church-member is discernable doth agree Ergo. The minor is proved 1 by shewing the right notes of the visible church and church-members not to agree to infants The right notes of the christian church and church-members are the profession of the whole Christian faith the preaching and hearing of the Word administration and communion in the Sacramenâ—s joyning in Prayer discipline c. with believers Hudson vindic pag. 229. But none of these agree to infants Not profession of of the whole Christian faith For they neither understand nor shew by any thing they do that they assent to the christian faith Not the preaching or hearing of the Word For infants can neither preach nor hear the Word I mean as it is speech or significative language though they may hear it as a sound much less as yeilding assent to it which hearing alone is a mark of a visible church-member Nor do they administer or have communion in the Sacraments None will say they administer nor though they should be baptised in water by a Minister or eat bread or drink wine at the Lords supper can it be said they have communion in the Sacrament For he onely hath communion in a Sacrament who useth it as a signe of that for which it is appointed and this use onely is a note of a visible church-member otherwise a Spaniards forcible baptising of an Indian without knowledge of Christ should make him partaker of the Sacrament or doing it in sport or jest should make a visible church-member See Mr. B. himself correct sect 6. pag. 253. But infants neither use baptism nor the Lords Supper as a signe engaging to Christ with acknowledgement or remembrance of him therefore they have no communion in the Sacraments no not in baptism nor is their pretended baptism any note of visible Church membership Nor do they joyn in prayer discipline or any part of Christian worship or service which might shew they own Christ as their Lord and therefore they are not discernable to be of the visible Church christian by any right note 2. By shewing that the notes whereby they are conceived to bee discernable as visible Church-members are not notes of their visible church-membership Two notes are usually alledged the one the covenant of God the other the parents profession of faith neither shew them visible Christian church-members nor both together Not the covenant or promise of God For there is no such covenant that promiseth to every believers childe much less to every professor of Faith's childe saving grace or visible church-membership and a promise to save indefinitely not expressing definitely who is not a note whereby by this or that person is discernable to be the person to whom it belongs Besides if there were such a promise to every childe of a believer yet unless it were a promise of it to them in their infancy it would not prove they were actually visible church members but onely that in the future they should be Nor is the parents Faith a note of the infants visible church membership For whether it be a note of it self or conjunctly with the covenant it is a note of the infants visible church-membership because it is his child and if so then it is a note of his child 's visible church-membership at twenty years of age though he should be then a professed Infidel as well as a day old a note of an Embryo's visible church-membership in the mothers womb as well as a childe born which are absurd Other reason then this I know not But sure I am there is not the least hint in Scripture of a childes being discernable to be a visible Christian church-member by the parents faith or profession but to the contrary To this argument briefly propounded in my Examen of his Sermon part 3 sect 3 Mr. M. replies not in his Defence and therefore I see not but it stands good 4. I argue They who have not the form constituting and denominating a visible Christian church-member are not visible Christian church-members This proposition is most sure according to Logick rules take away the form the thing formed is not if the form denominating agree not the denomination agrees not Scheibler Top. c. 5. de forma Stieri praec doct Log tract 2. c. 4. But the form constituting and denominating a visible Christian church-member infants have not Ergo. The minor is proved thus They which have not the outward profession of Faith within have not the form constituting and denominating a visible Christian church-member For profession of Faith is the form constituting and denominating a visible church-member as is proved from the constant sayings of Divines Ames Marrow of Divinity first book c. 31. § 11. Faith is the form of the Church § 25. visibility is the affection or manner of the Church according to its accidental and outward form § 27. The accidental form is visible because it is no other thing then the outward profession of inward faith which may easily be perceived by sense c. 32. § 7. It is a society of believers for that same thing in profession constitutes the visâ—ble Church which in its inward and real nature makes a mystical Church that is Faith Ball trial of separat c. 13. p. 302. A lively operative faith maketh a man a true member of the Church invisible and the profession of faith and holiness a member of the Church visible Norton answer to Apollon â— 1. prop. 2. pag. 10
because preached by Christ himself and more comfortable because in plain words without shadows Mr. M. adds To have nothing in lieu of the administrations then as they were shadowes of the substance which is Christ is very right But to say it is our priviledge to have nothing in lieu of them as they were external Ordinances to apply Christ is to say it is our priviledge to have no Ordinances to apply Christ to us and thereby to make us compleat in him which were a most absurd thing to affirm Answ. Those external Ordinances applied Christ to them no otherwise then as shadows of the substance which is Christ nor doth Mr. M. in his Sermon p. 10 11. express their administrations of the Covenant of grace otherwise then as figures signs types and sacraments of spiritual things so that if we have nothing in lieu of them as they were shadows but Christ we have nothing in lieu of them as external Ordinances to apply Christ to us nor did they make us compleat in Christ nor is it absurd to affirm that no external Ordinances now do But saith Mr. M. Circumcision was indeed a part of that administration and obliged them to the rest of that manner of administration as Baptism doth now to ours but did it not also belong to the substance Answ. No. Was it not a seal of the righteousness of faith of Circumcision of heart c. Answ. Abrahams was not every ones Circumcision Doth not the seal belong to the thing sealed the conveyance and seal annexed to it are no part of the purchased inheritance but do they not belong to it Answ. They do but not as of the substance of the thing sealed or the inheritance purchased or the Covenant whereby it is promised but as the sign whereby the futurity of it is confirmed Now surely he should use non sense who should â—erm the sign or seal the substance of the Covenant or thing promised being neither essential nor integral parts of them but onely adjuncts without which they may be or not be entirely To my saying That 't is so far from being a priviledge to our children to have them baptized to have Baptism succeed in the stead of Circumcision that it is a benefit to want it God not appointing it I answer saith Mr. M. then belike our priviledges of the Covenant of grace are so far from being enlarged by enjoying the Sacrament of Baptism that it had been a priviledge to have wanted Baptism if God had not appointed it and by as good a reason at least you might have said that Circumcision was so far from being a privilegde to the Jews and their children that it had been a benefit for them to have wanted it if God had not commanded it Sure that is a strange kind of priviledge of which I may truly say that it had been a greater be to them who have it to have wanted it if the Donor had not commanded it Answ. Mr. M. by clipping my words hath misrepresented my speech he hath left out that Circumcision was a priviledge belonging not to the substance of the Covenant but to the administration which then was a priviledge to the Jews in comparison of the heathens but a burthen in comparison of us which was in that it signified Christ to come the obligation of the law for which reasons I judged it a great priviledge to us and our children that they have neither it nor any other thing in the place and uâ—e of it but Christ manifested in the flesh because if we had any thing in the use of it Christ must be expected to come in the flesh and Jesus denied to be the Christ and we debtors to keep the whole law And then I determined absolutely that the want of infant Baptism is no loss to us and our children not a loss in respect of duty God having not appointed it nor of priviledge God making no promise of grace to be confirmed by it to the infants of believers which last words being left out by Mr. M. the reason of my words is omitted and my speech misrepresented but thus set down Mr. Ms. exceptions appear but cavils For he supposeth our priviledges of the Covenant of grace are enlarged by enjoying the Sacrament of Baptism but I know not any priviledges of the Covenant of grace but effectual calling justification adoption sanctification glorification and if there be any other termed saving graces or which accompany salvation and to say these are enlarged by enjoying the Sacrament of Baptism especially when administred to infants is as much as to say it confers grace ex opere operato And I grant for us to have wanted Baptism had been a priviledge God not appointing it nor promising any thing upon the use of it nor declaring his acceptance of it which is the case of infant Baptism Sure I know none but would think it a burthen to be baptized or be covered with water though but for a moment were it not God commanded it and accepted of it as a service to him And the like is true of Circumcision the want of which being so painfull was a benefit but for the command and promise of God signified by it Such actions as are no way priviledges but sins without Gods precept and promise it is better to want them then have them or act them such is infant Baptism and if it be in the place and use of Circumcision it is a heavy burthen no benefit now but a yoke of bondage I said Mr. M. was to prove either that Circumcision did belong to the substance of the Covenant of grace and he answers That Circumcision though a part of their administration did yet belong to the substance not as a part of it but as a means of applying it Which speech how frivolous it is is shewed before sect 25. p. 165 166. and in this section Or that the want of Circumcision or some Ordinance in the place and use of it is a loss of priviledge of the Covenant of grace to us and our children To this he saith And I have also proved that though it be a priviledge to have nothing succeed Circumcision as it bound to that manner of administration yet it is a priviledge to have somewhat succeed it as a seal of the Covenant in as much as a Covenant with a seal is a greater benefit then a Covenant without a seal Answ. 1. If it be a priviledge to have nothing succeed Circumcision as it bound to that manner of administration then it is a priviledge to have nothing succeed it in its use which confirms my before speech carped at by M. M. 2. How vain the talk of Paedobaptists is about Sacraments being seals of the Covenant of grace is shewed before sect 31. 3. A Covenant with a seal is a greater benefit then a Covenant without a seal when there is more assurance and better estate thereby procured but if as good assurance and estate be by a
true believers are termed the Circumcision in opposition to the Judaizing Teachers termed befor v. 2. the concision by a figure of speech termed Eutelism or slighting them in that in which they gloried and they are termed the Circumcision because they were truly circumcised before God in heart and were his people And the Jews 1 Cor. 12.13 are said to be baptized no otherwise then the Gentiles who believed who were not circumcised in the flesh and therefore could not be termed baptized because circumcised but Christian believers whether Jews or Greeks bond or free are all said to be baptized and to be made to drink because they were baptized with water and did partake of the Lords Supper as 1 Cor. 10.17 Mr. C. adds more of these toys Hence first instituted for a seal to the circumcised Jews to shew it was in the essentials of sealing Abrahams covenant to them but the same with circumcision in a manner onely as that sealed it to them visibly in Christ as to come this did it in like sort in reference to Christ as come that was the seal of the righteousness of Abrahams faith or that whereon his faith acted to righteousness of justification Rom. 4.11 even the promise of grace in Christ Rom. 10.6 7. with Deut. 30.14 Wherein 1. he dictates without any pretence of proof that Baptism was first instituted to the Jews to shew that which he says nor is there the least intimation thereof in Scripture 2. He seems to me to unsay by his limitation in a manner what he said before it was the same in the essentials For that which is the same in the essentials is altogether the same and not in a manner 3. It is false that baptism was the same in the essentials of sealing Abrahams covenant to the Jews with circumcision For it was as much in the essentials of sealing Abrahams Covenant to the Jews if I may use Mr. Cs. gibberish that Circumcision sealed the promise of the land of Canaan Gen. 17.8 9 10 c. as that it sealed Christ to come but surely Baptism never sealed the promise of the land of Canaan 4 That which I find of the seal of the righteousness of faith Rom. 4.11 is meant of Abrahams personal Circumcision and of no other and therefore is inepâ—ly applied to prove sameness of sealing of others Circumcision and Baptism 5. I conceive it somewhat inconsiderately said that Circumcision was the seal of the righteousness of Abrahams faith which would impâ—y that it assured that Abraham faith was righteous whereaâ— the meaning is that it assured that Abraham had righteousness by faith before he was circumcised as v. 10. he had asserted 6. The other explication is worse for it iâ—timates as if the Apostle meant that the righâ—eouâ—ness of faith ascribed to Abraham is to termed as that whereon his faith aâ—ted to righteousness of justification even the promise of gâ—ace in Christ whereas the meaning is not that it sealed the righteousness he was to obtain by acting faâ—th in a promise but that it was a seal of the righteousness of faith which he had many years before he was circumcised Mr. C. goes on in the same vâ—in of dictating thus Hence when Christ is called the minister of circumcision it is thus explained by the end of the sign administred â—cil to confirm the promises made unto the Fathers Rom 15.8 Act. 7.8 Gen. 17. â—1 Which speech seems to intimate as if Christ were termed the minister of circumcision as if he did minister Circumcision to that end to confirm the promises But that is too absurd for such a man to vent sith he ministrâ—d â—ircumcision to none and the meaning is plain that he was the minister of circumcision that is of the circumcised jews among whoâ—â—he preached and lived as Peter is said Gal. 2.8 to have had the Apostleshâ— of the circumcision that is of the circumâ—ised Jews And in this sense â—eza Willet Diodati the new Annot. Dicson Piscator c. expound it Now this being promised it is eaâ—â—e to percâ—ive how iâ—perâ—inently this â—ext wâ—ich mentions not at all Baptism nor any use of Circumcision at all but onely the end of Christs ministery among the circumcised is alledged to prove that Baptism agâ—ees in the essentials with circumcision as an initiatory seal The Texts Act. 7.8 Gen 17 1â— aâ—eas little tâ— the purpose there bâ—ing no mention of Baptism and they onely proving what is not denied that Circumcision was the token of Abrahamsâ—ovenant â—ovenant As little is that wâ—ich follows Hence the promise premised and then Baptism annexed as the seal Act. 2.38 For neither is it proved that the promise there is the same with Abrahams Covenant and how piâ—â—ifully Mr. C. mistakes the meaning of it is shewed before sect 22 23. nor a word about Baptism as a seal annexâ—d to the pâ—omise but an exhortation to repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for remission of sins and â—ssurance of the gift of the Holy Ghost which are annexed to repentance as much as to baptism What he adds Hence that washing annexed to the word Ephes. 5.25 26. But that the word there is the word of promise much less of Abrahams Covenant Gen. 17 or that it is mentioned as sealed by Baptism or thaâ— therein it agrees with Circumcision is not proved The word is the Gospel preached by which men are made believers and then baptized and so purified as Act. 15.9 Tit. 3.5 Act. 20.32 26.18 Job 3.15 17.17 c. Nor is it any more pertinent which follows 2. Saith he Itâ—s a baptizing in the name or covenant-fellowship of God the Father Son and Spirit he having exalted his word above all his name Psal. 138.2 Wherein 1. he seems to expound baptizing Matth. 28.19 into the name of the Father Son and Spirit thus into the Covenant-fellowship which is somewhat strange there being neither there nor elsewhere where the like phrase is used any mention of Covenant or Covenant fellowship and his arguing God hath exalted his word above all his name Psal. 138.2 Ergo baptizing is in the name and Covenant-fellowship of God the Father Son and Spirit is a baculo ad angulum 2. But were his exposition allowed yet what this is to prove that Baptism is a seal of the Covenant Gen. 17. or any other Covenant I am yet to divine Is baptizing all one with sealing is Covenant-fellowship all one with the Covenant 3. Saith he It 's a seal of the remission of sins and therefore of the promise tendering the same hence joyned Act. 2.38 39. Act. 22. But neither is the promise there joyned as a thing sealed by Baptism but as a motive to the duties of Repentance and Baptism nor is the remission of sins mentioned as sealed by Baptism but as a consequent obtained by Repentance and Baptism as conditions pre-required thereto nor is a seal of remission of sins all one with a seal of the Covenant 4. Saith he The
work of charity not of institution or right by their birth to either But these things Mr. Cr. pleads against them 〈…〉 well as my self and both the doctrine and practise of Paedobaptists now is against the Ancients as well as mine Yea more in that they had a constant course of baptizing the catechized persons upon a solemn profession of faith and did in all baptisms except that of the Clinici that is sick persons baptized in their beds plunge the whole body or dip it so as to be under water which are now clean otherwise and things unknown among Paedobaptists So that as Bp. Usher in his answer to the â—esuites challenge in the article about praying for the dead p. 245. proves the Romanists to have rejected the ancient prayer for the dead because they pray not for Martyrs and others in bliss for their resurrection but for persons in Purgatory to be delivered thence so I may truly â—ay the Paedobaptists now have rejected the ancient infant Baptism sith they deny Baptism necessary to salvation or that it gives grace and they do it onely to believers infants by sprinkling or perfusion without mersion scarce to any but infants without any solemn course of catechising ordinarily in order to future Baptism and to infants ordinarily out of the case of danger of death upon pretence of a federal holiness by birth and ordinance of visible Churchmembership unrepealed unknown to the Ancients and therefore their doctrine and practise hath no patronage from them Mr. Cr. p. 98. saith that I cunningly alter the subject of the question when I say infant-sprinkling was not held of the whole Church and tels me that he and others do not say so Which intimates that hee and others desert the maintainance of sprinkling infants as ancient which diffidence is some argument that the late Assembly have forsaken the ancient way of Baptism by dipping having in the Directory determined sprinkling as sufficient and in the practise of many of them taken away the old Fonts more agreeâ—ble to antiquity and brought in little stone Basons near the Pulpit or Readers Pew like Popish holy water pots fit onely for the novelty of sprinkling after the Scottish modâ— Nâ—r is Mr. Crs. way of powring water on the face or dipping in part of the head any more the baptizing Christ appointed or antiquity used excâ—pt in the case of the Clinici 'T is true Gods ordinances are not destructive to nature who requires mercy and not sacrifice But this proves 〈…〉 Baptism should be omitted altogether and not the ordinance 〈◊〉 and people mocked as they are by the preacher that saith falsly he baptizeth the person when he doth onely sprinkle or powr water on the face or dip in part of the head SECT LXXXIX The testimonies of the ancient Writers of the Greek Church concerning Infant Baptism are examined and my exceptions made good against Mr Cragge Dr. Hammond Dr. Homes Mr. Marshal THe alledging of pseudo Dionisius the Areopagite and Clements Apostolical Constitutions is but to abuse the world with counterfeit names discovered by many learned Paâ—ists and Proâ—estants to be such and the like is to be said of Justin Martyrs forged testimony qu. 36. ad orthodoxos which are not rejected because questioned as Mr. Cr. seems to intimate but because they are by many strong evidences proved not to have been the Authors whose names they bear As for the evidence to matter of faâ—t they give that infants were baptized in that age â—n which they were written I do readily grant iâ— aâ—d before too yet think it no advantage â—or the present preâ—ended infant Baptism which is clean otherwise and upon other reasons aâ— particularly that the baptized infants obtained good things at the resurrection by Baptism but the unbaptized obtain not good things Nor is there a word in that to confirm the novel doctrine of the childrens right to Baptism as being in Covenant with the parents For neither are the parents there said to be believerâ— but the bringers nor by the parents faith are they said to have right to Baptism but by the faith of the bringers to obtain good things at the resurrection and therefore in vain doth Mr. Cr. thus endeavour to hide the deformity of that Authors doctrine which is no better then that which commonly Protestant Divines condem as Popish More honestly in this then Mr. Cr. doth Bellarmin tom 3. l. 2. de effectu Sacram c. 6. say Juâ—â—in in his Apology to Antoninus saith We obtain remissâ—â—â— of afore committed â—â—ns in water c. And before he had said that no man was brought to Baâ—tism unless he before believed Like things hee hath in his dialogue with Triphon And ch 8. alwayes in the Church the custome waâ— that those who would be Christians should first be made catechized persons and long enough instructed and not baptized unless instruâ—ted and firm and stable in faith citing to thiâ— end Justin in his Apology to Antoninus as showing the manners of the Church As for Irenaeus his testimony lib. 2. adv bar c. 39. it proves not infant Baptism For though it be true that Mr. Mede in his Diatribe on Tit. 3.5 say None I trow will deny that when the Apostle speaks of saving us by washing of regeneration and renewing of the holy Ghost hee speaks of Baptism yet it follows not that that the Apostle meant by regeneration Baptism nor is it likely sith the word regeneration is noâ— to be read by the washing which is regeneration as if it were by apposition but of regeneration as the Genitive possessive and the meaning is by the washing which signifies regeneration which is before the washing yet if it were so it proves not Irenaeus meant by renascuntur are born again are baptized sith he saith not are by washing born again as the Apostles phrase is Nor though it be granted that in Justin Martyr and others of the ancients to be regenerated is to bee baptized doth it appear that Irenaeus meant it so in that place unless it were proved it is so onely meant by him and the ancients Nor doth Irenaeus l. 1. c. 18. term Baptism regeneration as Dr. Homes p. 118. suggests but saith thus to the denying of Baptism of that generation which is into God But that indeed the word renascuntur are born again is not meant of Baptism is proved from the words and the scope of them For 1. the words are per eum renascunâ—ur by him that is Christ are born again and it is clear from the scope of the speech about the fulness of his age as a perfect master that by him notes his person according to his humane nature Now if then by him are born again be as much as by him are baptized this should bee Irenoeus his assertion that by Christ himself in his humane body infants and little ones and boyes and young men and elder men are baptized unto God But this speech is most manifestly false for
easie fully to answer them p. â—5 but does not especially in this point on which the controversie between us depends and therefore not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the Dr. terms it I think the Dr. hath made a more immoderate excursion in his heaping up testimonies out of the Fathers in his standing so much on the denial of an enallage and the force of the preposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But I resolve to follow him and hope to overtake him in long running though his Pen and Press be quicker in dispatch then mine The first thing the Dr. attempts is to prove out of the Fathers that the term holy 1 Cor. 7.14 is as much as partakers of Baptism First saith he the ancient Fathers who knew the sacred Dialect call Baptism sanctification and Cyprian and Nazianzen are cited To which I answer 1. The word of the Apostle is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the adjective holy which notes a state of discrimination from the unclean not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sanctified a participle connoting the action of the sanctifier as well as the state of the sanctified and therefore may import Baptism and not the other now the two Fathers the Dr. cites with Gregory Nyssen after use not the term holy but sanctified and therefore were it granted that they used sanctified for baptized yet this proves not they or the Apostle to have used holy for baptized 2. I think the Fathers he cites did not in those passages he cites call Baptisme sanctification though they took the person baptized to be sanctified by it My reasons are from their words For when Cyprian saith him who is born to be baptized and sanctified he seems to mee to distinguish not to confound baptism and sanctification and when Nazianzen in the place quoted useth this phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I think it is ineptly rendered by the Dr. p. 102. by this means they may be baptized souls and bodies sure the Baptism of water doth not touch the soul and therefore Nazianzen is to be so interpreted as though he included baptizing in the phrase of sanctifying as the means of it yeâ— he doth not confound them or call Baptism sanctification The like I imagin might be said of Gregory Nyssen if I had his book whose words it 's likely if the Dr. had set down more fully as hee doth in others the impertinency of his allegation would have appeared As for the Jewish stile of sanctifications for Baptisms it will be to be considered after Macarius his saying that the Jewish Baptism sanctifies the flesh is not a calling Baptism sanctification But the Dr. stands most on Tertullian in which he takes iâ— that holy is used as he conceives Paul to use it 1 Cor. 7.14 for partakers of Baptism so he expounds designatos sanctitatis the designed or sealed of holiness in the sense he conceives wherein they that are baptised are by the ancients frequently said to be sealed and p. 92. designati sanctitatis sure must signifie that they are initiated into Christ by the Christian right or sign or ceremony of Baptism as those which had the Heathâ—nish ceremonies used upon them were candidati daemoniorum candidates of the Devil in the former thus early admitted and initiated into their sacra But neither do I conceive the Apostle to have used holy for holiness by baptism nor that Tertullian doth mean that which the Dr. would have him nor do the Apostle and Tertullian perfectly accord Twice in that Chapter doth Tertullian use the term holy once holiness once sanctified The fiâ—st passage is thus Hinc enim Apostolus ex sanctificato alterutro sexu sanctos procreari ait tà m ex seminis praerogativa quà m ex institutionis disciplina From hence the Apostle also saith holy ones to be procreated from either sex sanctified as well by prerogative of seed as by discipline of institution By either father or mother sanctified the Dr. coâ—ceives meant when either the father or mother is received as a believer by baptism into the Church by holy baptized for he makes the notion of holy in those words of Tertullian to be the same with designatos sanctitatis which he interprets by sealed that is baptised in the ancients language Pag. 61. holy appears to bee this but now are your infant children partakers of the priviledge of Baptism But that Tertullian mean by sanctified baptised is not proved by the Dr. and his paraphrase makes it in 1 Cor. 7.14 to import being converted to the faith and so Tertullian ad uxorem l. 2. explains what he means by sanctified gained by the wise to the faith I deny not that hee made Baptism a means of that sanctification but he doth not call as the Dr. saith baptism sanctification but the whole fact of Gods grace as hee saith Dei gratia illud sanctificat quod invenit by teaching and inlightning the person sanctified Yet herein Tertullian and the Dr. accord not with the Apostle for the Apostle supposeth 1 Cor. 7.14 the person said to be sanctified still an unbeliever otherwise his reason had been nothing to confirm the resolution v. 12 13. which was the believing yoke fellow might live still with the unbeliever for the unbelieving husband that is the husband continuing an unbeliever is sanctified but this cannot bee meant either of conversion to the faith or baptism for then he should be a believer when hee is said to bee sanctified so that it is plain neither Tertullians expression concurs with the Dâ—ctors notion not do the Dr. and Tertullian agree with Paul The other words sanctos procreari sith he restrains to infants the sanctity pag. 72. hath this sense the infants are procreated holy that is baptized for thus he speaks the Apostle in that place makes the sanctification or bapâ—ism of the children a benefit of the believing parents cohabiting with the unbeliever But herein neither doth Tertullian or the Dr. accord with Paul for hee makes not the holiness of the children to be the benefit of the parents faith but of their conjugal relation nor doth the Dr. accord with Tertullian For the holiness there meant by Tertullian is not meant onely of the time of infancy 1. Because he saith it to be as well ex institutionis disciplinâ as ex seminis praerogativa Where ex seminis prerogativa the Dr. agrees p. 92. to be in that he is not so polluted by their idolatrous ceremonies and so is in some degree holy not federal holiness as Mr. M. pag. 35. would the whole scope shewing that to be the meaning that they are not so polluted as heathens children Now ex institutionis disciplina the Dr. would have have p 9â— meant the doctrine of Baptism instituted by Christ in his Church for by this it is that baptism was allowed to those that were ex alterutro sexu sanctificato procreati born of parents of which either of them was Christian. Thus in his book de bapt c. 12. he uses a like
the place will the place be clear For not two priviledges as the Dr. makes it but one priviledge to wit holiness which the Dr. makes to be baptism is ascribed to them by a double means freedome from heathenish pollutions and the doctrine of Christ about infants Baptism Whereas freedome from such pollutions gives no title to Baptism and if prerogative of birth â—e meant of federal holiness of which is not a word there and the discipline of institution be the doctrine allowing baptism to the child born of a believer it is either an inept tautology both being the same or incongruous speech which should be thus mended by prerogative of birth according to the doctrine of baptism by Christ in his Church imagined by the Dr. but not extant in Scripture nor Tertullian Nor do Tertullians words following de Anima c 40. Every soul is so long enrolled in Adam till it be inrolled in Christ and is so long unclean till it be thus anew enrolled prove that by holy Tertullian meant baptized For in the words before to which ita so refer he makes holy to be the same with entring into the Kingdome of Heaven and the enrolrolling in Christ he makes the same with being born of water and the spirit Of the words ascribed to Origen and Athanasius enough hath been said already Neither Cyprians nor Chrysostomes words prove that holy is as much as partaker of baptism in the Ancients language much less in the Apostles 1 Cor. 7.14 to the further consideration of which I proceed after Dr. Hammond I excepted against Dr. Hammonds paraphrase of 1 Cor. 7.14 that the term young Children of Christians is more then is in the text which hath onely your children which is not restrained to infancy But the Dr. proves it is 1. By the authority of Tertullian who saith of infant children that they are procreated holy and Nazianzen who using this phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in all probability refers to this place of the Apostle and so renders 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 their children by their infant children Answ. 1. Tertullian doth not say that the infant children are holy in infancy onely 2. Noâ— is there any thing said to make it in any sort probable that Nazianzen referred to that place of the Apostle in which is neither 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nor 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nor that hee should render 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when he useth not the same case nor number the Apostle doth but onely useth a description of young age which is not to my remembrance expressed by the other word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 any where 2. The other reasons are farther from the thing For neither doth it appear to be the general doctrine of the Fathers that the parents faith profits onely their infant children some of them do reason from the faith of the woman of Canaan the faith of the ruler of the Synagogue that faith of parents profits children who were not infants The other reason runs upon this mistake which should be proved to be the Apostles meaning but is denied by me â—hat he makes 1 Cor. 7.14 sanctification or baptism of the children a benefit of the believing parents cohabiting with the unbeliever I said holy for admitted to baptism is a sense of the word no where else found But this the Dr. hopes he hath cleared both from the usage of â—he word among the first Christian writers which is answered and the Jewish of which in that which followes and saith I might further do it even by this Apostles dialect who in his inscriptions of most of his Epistles to the Churches calls all those to whom he writes i. e. the baptized Christians of those Churches holy Rom. 1.7 and sanctified and holy 1 Cor. 1.2 2 Cor. 1.1 Eph. 1.1 Phil. 1.1 Col. 1.1 among whom no doubt there were many who were no otherwise holy or sanctified then as all baptized Christians are capable of that stile Answ. True But doâ—h hee term any infant so in those places or give them those titles barely from Baptism doth he not expresly term them Saints by their calling not by their Baptism The Drs. allegations have not yet altered my minde but I think as I did his interpretation new strange and absurd I alleged Aug. l. 2. de pecc mer. remiss c. 26. and the like is said l. 3· c. 12. Saying the sanctification of what sort soever it be which the Apostle said to be in the children oâ— believers yet it belongs not to that question of Baptism and the beginning or remission of sins To this the Dr. answers T is true he saith it belongs not to that question whether the sanctifying of the catechumeni after a sort by the sign of Christ and prayer of imposition of hands without Baptism profits him not to the entring the Kingdome of Heaven And the meaning is such sanctification except it be that of baptism cannot avail to remission of sins Answ. The Dr. mistakes in making the question to be of the Catechumeni mentioned c. 26. it is of the children of believers who being termed holy 1 Cor. 7.14 should seem not to need Baptism which Augustin answers 1. By mentioning divers sorts of sanctification but not determining which is there meant 2. By resolving that what ever the sanctification be which the Apostle said to be in the children of believers not as the Dr makes it of the Catechumeni it belongs not to that â—uestion of Baptism not as the Dr. doth palpably pervert the words p. 64. whatsoever sanctification it can be imagined to be that the Apostle speaks of except it be that of Baptism it cannot avail to the remission of sins c. to wit mentioned ch 25. whether it exclude necessity of Baptism original sin and the remission of it in the children of believers termed holy Which is plainly against the Dr. who will have it meant onely of baptism of infants of believers by vertue of the believing parents faith As for my other objections against his paraphrase not answered I am so far from assurance that the Dr. can easily answer them that by this answer I judge he can answer none of them SECT LXXXXII Dr. Hammonds imagined evidence from hath been sanctified for his sense of the fore part of 1 Cor. 7.14 is nullified and my opinion of enallage of tense vindicated CH. 3. Sect. 2 the Dr. saith thus First then to my first evidence taken from the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hath been sanctified referring to some past known examples and experiences of this kinde of a wives converting the husband c. he hath a double answer 1. That as my paraphrase expresseth it it should signifie not onely that an unbelieving husband hath been sanctified but also that there is hope they will and so it should note not onely some example past but also some to come of which there can be a
Proselyte was received in among them and entred or initiated into their Church they were wont to use washings to denote their forsaking or washing off from them all their former prophane Heathen practises but this could not be an end in the baptizing of native Jews ordinarily for they were not born in uncleanness but sanctiâ—y according to the Hebrew Doctors having not been polluted with idols and therefore the end or reason of baptizing Proselytes not agreeing to the native Jews that baptism was not requisite to them and therfore used not ordinarily of them It is true when they had gotten strange Gods among them which defiled them they were required to be clean and change their Garments Gen. 35.2 and perhaps some defilement of the Israelites by idolâ— in Egypt might occasion that command Exo. 19.10 But there was no reason of this in the ordinary entring of the infants of Israel into the Covenant who were not thus defiled 6. The baptism of John Baptist for remission of sins was distastfull to the Pharisees and Lawyers who thought themselves pure Luk. 7.29 30. therefore it is likely they usâ—d not such a baptism of native Jews as imported an acknowledgement of such defilement as they took themselves and infants to be free from 7. The Dr. saith Letter of Resol qu. 4th § 18. They that were thus baptized were said to be born again and that as if born of a new mother as it is oft said in the Talmud to which our Saviour refers when he talks of regeneration of which saith S. Paul baptism is the laver of being born again from above of water c. Joh. 3.3 5. And this was so vulgar a notion among the Jews that v. 10. Christ wonders at Nicodemus that he understood it not Art thou a ruler in Israel and knowest not these things But if there were such a regeneration by water of native Israelites which had been the pattern of the baptism of Proselytes Nicodemus doubtless had known it and answered otherwise therefore his wonderment was that Christ should require regeneration of him by water who was a Jew by nature who need no such regeneration and not a sinner of the Gentiles and consequently no such known custome ordinary of baptizing native Jews 8. The Dr. ibid § 17. saith â—hey that were thus received as Proselytes by Baptism put off their former relations of kinred c. To which surely our Saviour refers when he talks of leaving father and mother Mark 10.29 And Tacitus the Historian nec quicquam prius imbuuntur quà m exuere patriam parentes liberos fratres vilia habere their Proselytes are first taught after renouncing the gods to put off their countrey parents children brethren to despise them And the later Jews have a saying that he thaâ— hath maried his own sister or entred any the most incestuous bands by becoming a Proselyte ceaseâ—h to have that near relation of bloud to her and may 〈…〉 with her as with a â—ife which false suâ—erstructure in them is yeâ— a testimony of â—he truth whereon it is falsly founded by them And this is a testimony also of this that the Jews did not thus baptize native Jews because they never allowed such incest at they would have done if they had by baptism regeneâ—ated thus native Jews and conceived of the effect of it as they did of Proselytes baptism 9. We read of the circumcision of Christ John Baptist Timothy Paul but wee read not of their baptism by water as the custome of the Jewes was to enter into the Covenant Proselytes therefore there was not a custome of baptizing native Jewes infants 10. There 's no way mentioned of initiating Jewish females by any ceremony into Judaism no description in the Talmud Gemara Maimonides of observing any such thing as the Dr. sets down Letter of resol q. 4. sect 9. concerning Proselytes to have been used towards the Jews sundry of the things done to the Proselytes at their baptism were such as were proper to strangers as namely the baptizing into the name of a freed man or a servant the limitation of the priviledges of the baptized which are evidences that this baptism was not used to native Jews but onely to Gentile Proselytes All which being considered there was neither unkindness nor injustice to Dr. Hammond or his Reader in my discourse and it is necessary for him to consider better the considerations which I have offered in this matter unless hee will become non-suit which have certainly force in them though this thing were omitted by me which yet was not perfectly omitted as his language is by me nor the contrary supposed without proof But the Dr. however refuseth not to attend me in all my motions and I hope I shall at long running overtake him To what I said Baptism it seems was a custome of all nations as well as the Jews ciâ—ing Grotius for it on Matth. 3.6 and Matth. 28.19 the Dr. answers Of the truth of this Observation I shall raise no question onely I wonder what he could fancy from thence to conclude for his advantage and then he fals to â—onjecturing But by my words he might have easily resâ—lved himself what I aimed at in this to wit to shew the Jews baptism of parents and children is not undeniably proved to be the pattern of Christian baptism and Christs institution of baptism but a copy according to that pattern iâ— iâ— bee true that it were derived from the â—ame common fountain the â—ons of Noah in remembrance of the deluge according to that famous verse among the Greeks the Sea sweeps away all the evils of men to which S. Peâ—â—â— alludes in making Baptism the antâ—type â—o Noahs floud which the Dr yeâ—ds To this I added that I knew not that Dr. H. or any oâ—her hâ—th alleged one passage in Scripture or any of the Fathers that might evince that the custome of baptizing or baptizing infants was derived from the Jews initiating Proselytes by baptism To this saith Dr. H I answer 1. By asking Mr. T. whether he be ready to pay thâ—t reverence to the authority of the Fathers as to bee concluded by their affirmations To which I say I am ready to pay that reverence to the Fathers which is meet but to be concluded by their affirmations is more then is fiâ— tâ—e same liberty is to be allowed mee which learned men take usually to dissâ—nâ— from them when Scripture or reason lead another way He â—aith If he be wonder why the uniform consent of them that infants are to be baptized should not prevail with him Answ. And I wonder 1. that the Dr. should pretend an uniform consent of the Fathers that infants are to be baptized when for the two first ages there 's not any just evidence of the consent of one Father for it in tâ—e third there is a dissent of Tertullian and in the 4th of Nazianzen and the rarity of its use and thaâ— upon such erroneous grounds as it was practiâ—ed
with infant communion which had alike consent and in so ridiculous a manner as to propound questions of its faith and devotiâ—n to an infant who could not understand or speak and put in others to undertake and answer for an infant who could neither promise for them wiâ—hâ—ut arrogant presumption what was not in their power noâ— profess their faith without apparent untruth argue it to have been a corruption 2. That the uniform consent of the Apostles and Apostolical men with Christ and John Baptiâ—â— in Scripture should not more prevail with a man who makes the Scripture his Canon then Fathers of those ages wherein maâ—y errours and corruptions were received and either hatched or fostered by them but that hee should not onely dare to practise the corrupt innovation of infant Baptism of which there is no instance in Scripture but also omit the baptism of believers and oppose it and harden men in their conceits as if they were baptized in infancy sufficiently and for that reason to bâ—e reckoned among Christians though meer strangers from the knowledge or practise of Christianity He adds If he be not why doth he mention this as usefull in this matter Answ. To shew how little credit is to be given to the Drs. dictates without proof The Dr. adds But then 2dly it must be adverted that this one containing two questions in it 1. Whether this of initiating into the Covenant by baptism were a Jewish custome 2. Whether from thence Christ derived this right of baptizing Christians The former of these was that which alone required proving the latter being of it self evident without faâ—ther pâ—obation supposing onely that the Fathers testified that to bâ— Christs institutioâ— of Baptism which we find to have been thus agreeable to the pâ—actise customary among the Jewes And this â—e illustrates by the like examples of excommunication and the post câ—nium from whence he concâ— vs Christ derived the Lords Supper and excommunication by the Apostles Answ. For pâ—esent omitting the instances of the Lords Supper as dâ—ive froâ— the Jewish post câ—nium and excommunication Apostolical râ—spâ—ct Jewiâ—â— it hath been yeeldâ—d by me that Christian baptism was in 〈◊〉 of the rite like Jewish baptism of Proselytes acknowledged to havâ— been a custome among them for initiating them not of native Jews 〈◊〉 the giving of the Law into the Covenant and it is probable that Jâ—hn Baptist follâ—wed in the external act that rite though to another end he bâ—ptizing with the baptism of repentance for remission of sins they into he observance of the Law for righteousness and other subjects John Baptist â—ews by nature not so Pharises And as John â—aptist practised so Christ appointed and his Apostles practised Baptism with express mention of the Trinity or the name of Christ somewhat differently fâ—om John and if the one be said to be derived from the other by way of accommodation I shall not contend about it nor do I deâ—y thaâ— Christ alluded to this baptism of Proselytes Joh. 3.3 5. in the manner I have expressed before and the 2d part of this Review sect 16. Nor do I â—eny that the Jewish Christian and Gentile baptisms may have their first riâ—e from Noahs deluge but that which I insist on â—s that the Jewish use was was not so conformable to the Christian as that it can be true that the Jewish was thâ— pattern of the Christian. As for the Fathers Nazianzen Maâ—arius Athanasius their words seem not to mâ— to make a comparison between the Bapâ—ism Jewiâ—h and Christian for initiation but the Christian and Jewish which was occasionally renewed upon any legal defilement or often iteâ—ated by the Priests for purification or sanctifying and so the words of Athanasius cited by the Dr. inâ—imate which say the 3d. is the Legal baptism which the Hebrews had whereby every unclean person not â—very one who was so by natuâ—e as the Dr. aâ—ds but by accident was baptised in water as oft as he was defiled had his garmentâ— washed and so enâ—red into the Camp whicâ— was anoâ—her baptism then that tâ—e Dr. makes the pattern of Christian baptism to wit that which was once onely used for initiation and of this I think the Dr. findes no mention in the Fathers nor of the derivation of Christian baptism from it That which the Dr. saith sect 4. p. 18. from the Talmud That when a Proselyte is received he must be circumcised and then when hee is cured they shall baptise him in the presence of two wise men saying Behold he is as an Israelite in all things addiâ—g A plain testimony to the sense of those which we formerly produced of baptising both Jews and Proselyte for else how could the Proselyte upon receiving this be said to be a Israelite in all things Answ. Two wayes 1. In respect of the rite he was circumcised and baptised as the Israelites at the giving of the Law Exod. 19.10 not after that time were baptised anâ— the Proselytes pâ—sterity were then not after this time of the first initiation into the Jewish people 2. In respect of priviledges and profession as it is said Ester 8.17 Many of the people of the Land became Jews Neither this then nor the other are plain or obscure testimonies of baptising native Jews for iniâ—iating into the Covenant afâ—er the giving of the Law That which I said that I alleged that Mr. Selden de Syned Ehra l. 1. cap. 3. p. 40 41. mentionâ— some who have conceived that tâ—e Jewish baptism in initiating Proselytes was in imitation of Christs example though he do not believe it and that Schickardus conceives they added a certain Baptism to Câ—rcumcision to difference them from Samaritans to shew that notwithstanding Dr. Hs. supposition that the whole fabrick he frames of Baptism is discernable to be built on that basis the customary baptism among the â—ews yet many will conceive it needs more proof then the bare recital of passages out of Jewish writers is a conclusion drawn out of the premises in the first figure thus That is not so discernable but that many will conceive it needs mâ—re proof then the bare recital of passages out of Jewish writers which was not so conceived by Schickard and some others mentioned by Mr. Sâ—lden But the Drs. supposition was not so conceived by those Ergo. The maâ—or rests on two things 1. That experience shews what some others who had understanding to conceive did not conceive to be so many its likely will not discern 2. That the later Jewish writers are not such certain proof of the ancient Jews customes but that more proof may bee justly required then the bare recital of passages in them It is not unknown that some have excepted against Ainsworths allegation of Rabbins and that in his apology for it he himself saith Some things I note from them not as approving them my self absolutely but leaving them to the further consideration of the prudent Preface to his annot on Gen. Nor
iâ— his also but still baptism or to remove all pâ—â—sible mistake baptizing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Matth. 28.19 is an act of the Baptizer onely and so the Ceremony of receiving into Discipleship whomsoever they thus duely baptize I hope I need say no more of this Answ. I said not baptizing but Baptism the Ceremony not â—s the Dr. misâ—recites my words oâ— receivers into Discipleship but of receiving into discipleship is as truely the aâ—â— of the baptized thereby pâ—ofessing or avouching hâ—s discipleship as of the Baptizer and therefore the baptized is not meerly passive in it nor an infant doth undeâ—go it And I prove it thus 1. Baptism is a duty of the baptizâ—d as well as of the baptizer as may bee proved from Acts 2.38 where the Apostle exhorts them to repent and bee baptized every one of them in the Name of Christ Jesus for the remission of sins Now that which a man is exhorted to as his duty is his own act Ergo. Iâ— any say it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the passive voice hee may understand that Luk. 11.38 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 though it bee the same sense and voice yet notes the action of the baptized 2. It is manifest also from the command to Paul Acts. 22.16 that baptism is the act of the baptized For first it is a thing commanded to bee done by him 2. It is in the middle voice 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which though I deny not to have a passive signification yet here 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cannot have any other then active signification because of the accusative cause following so neither can the other both being injoyned as duties and the washing away sins being not meant of forgiveness of them but turning from them baptism being the signe of his repentance and both being to be joyned together Acts 2.38 and therefore Baptism being called Markâ— 4 Acts 19.4 3. Baptiâ—ing into the Name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost notes the aâ—â— of tâ—e baptized as well as the baptizer and thiâ— is fully taught by Dr. Hammond himself practic cat lib. 6. sect 2. where he saith â— â— baptize thee into the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost â— being prâ—scribed by Christ to his Disciples must indispensably be used and the meaning of them is double 1. On the Ministers part that what he doth hee doth noâ— of himselâ— but in the Name or power of or by Commission from the blessed Trinity which by the way I am sure none can 〈…〉 â—pparent 〈…〉 when they baptize infants much less when â—hey onely sprinkle them 2. And more especially in respect of the peâ—son baptized 1. That he acknowledges these three aâ—d by desiring baptism makes profession of that acknowledgment which is in effect the sum of the whole â—reed 2. That as he acknowledges these three so he delivers himself to them as to the three principles or authors of faith or Christian religion and acknowledges no other as such as to be baptised in the name of Paul signifieâ— to say I am of Paul i. e. toâ—â—â—has â—â—â—has and all other to receive for infallible truth whatsoever is taught by any of these and noâ—hing else 3. That he delivers himself up to be ruled as an obedient servant by the directions of this great master a willing Disciple of this blessed Trinity and so the Greek phrase â— into the name doth import and these thâ—ee acts of the baptised together make up his part by way of condition required of him to make him caâ—able of that grace which the Minister from God thus conveys upon and ensures unto him Besides which it notes the calling on the Name of the Father by the Son through the hâ—ly Spirit as Acts 22 1â— shews where Paul is bid to be baptized or baptize himself calling on the name of the Lord when baptized and this I have proved to be meant 〈◊〉 Luk. 3.21 and other 〈◊〉 Review part 2. sect 5. p. 8â— â—0 9â— So that baptism 〈◊〉 as well or rather more the ceâ—emony of thâ— baptized 〈◊〉 â—â— the baptizer Which might be proved from thoâ—e texts which speak 〈◊〉 the use of it as Rom. 6.3 4. Col. 2 1â— Gal. 3 26 27. 1 Cor. 12. â—3 in all which and sundry more the act of the baâ—tâ—zed is noted who dâ—th thereby signifie his baptism into â—hrists death being 〈◊〉 by baâ—tism into death and his rising to newness of life putting on Christ â—oyning into one body c. which I have cleered more fully in the same pâ—ace pag 6 97 8 â—9 And this the Dr saith 〈…〉 iâ— more especially meant by baâ—tising into the Name of the Father Son and Holy spirit 〈…〉 their act as wâ—ll as the administrators 4. Iâ— baptism were not as truely the act of the baptized as the baptizer tâ—en it should be tâ—uâ— baptism if the baptizer did dâ—p withâ—ut an concuâ—â—◠〈◊〉 of the bapâ—ized yea â—hough he weâ—e forced to it and against his will put undeâ— water and this were warrantably done by the baptizer For he should do what â—s prescribed But this is absurd neither School men nor any other allow such baptism vide Th. Aquin. sum part 3. qu. 68. art 7 10. The Spaniards driving the Indians into the water forcibly for baptism and their going in thus under water is excepted against as neither rightly done nor true baptism Therefore certainly baptizing prescribed Mat. 28.19 doth comprehend not onely the act of the administratour but also the act of the baptized in yeilding to it and concurring with it When Peter Acts 10.48 commanded Cornelius and those with him to be baptised in the name of the Lord there were three acts concurrent 1. The Apostles command by way of authority appointing it to be done 2. Oâ— the administratour by way of Ministry 3. Of the baptized by way of submission and putting himself under water Yet hee is noâ— thereby a meer Sebaptist as iâ— is reported some heretofore have been but is partly passive in consent and sâ—bmission to what the baptizer doth and partly aâ—tive in concurring with him So that my speech is cleered from being gross as â—â— Dr. would Dr. H. adds His second branch of exception is to those words of mine Wherein I say thaâ— the making or receiving Disciples supposeth not any precedent instruâ—tion but looks wholly on it as subsequent Against this I gave reasons of dissent thus 1. That which is exprest in Matthew by Go ye therefore and make Disciples all Nations is in Mark Go ye into all the world and preach the Gospel â—o every living creature which sâ—ews how they should disciple all nations now they who are made Disciples by preaching the Gospel are made disciples by precedent instruction Ergo the making or receiving disciples Matth. 28.19 supposeth precedent instruction But to this saith the Dr. I answer 1. That the words in Mark are no otherwise parallel to those in Matthew then as an Epitome is
conceive by the date of his Epistle however whether alive or dead a man very reverend and however he conceived of me one of the most learned and accurate writers specially in such things as this of his age and while he slights him discover so much folly and ignorance in Hebrew and Greek as an ordinary â—rammarian or student in the Bible would hardly have shewed certainly it 's unsuitable to his undertaking of a Schoolmaster The phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is word by word the son◠〈◊〉 hundred years for without of it would be non-sense it being the sigâ—◠〈◊〉 Genitive case nor is old substracted but included in that expression it being the Hebrew expression of old or aged as M. Gataker shews from Gen. 11.10 21.5 5.32 7. â— 12.4 16.16 17.1 25.20 26. 37.2 41.46 45.26 and elswhere and the same he might have learned from Ainsworth Annot. on Gen. 5 â—2 c. Hebr. son of 500. years that is going in his 500. year An usual speech in the Hebrew Scripture of mens age or of beasts Gen. 17.1 Exod 12.5 And for he and when how can they be said to be superadded when the very term shall die is all one with when he shall die which shews it is not for Mr. Crs. purpose for then it should have been shall be born as an hundred years old as well a churchmember as if he were but is agreeable to the Prophets meaning to express long life And therefore his jeer of excellent Arithmetick shews his folly in deriding that which was right And for his prattle it shews his excellent ignoranâ—e of the Hebrew and Greek of the â—ible Buâ—torf Thes Gram. Hebr. l. 2. c. 3. p. 360 in that piece which is termed by Amama c. admirandum opus 〈◊〉 nomen 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 filius periphrases Hebraismos facit insâ—gnes ut 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 filius areus Iob 41.19 id est sâ—gitta similes innumeri Sic Iâ—â—an 17.12 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Apud Latinos Horat. 1. carm od 14. Terrâ— filius should one scribble as Mr. Cr. doth here Here 's a new creation of a new generation son of the bow of perdition of the earth who evâ—r heard such a syntax did the son beget tâ—e bow perdition the earth or the bow perdition the earth the son or whether is elder Would not a Scholler say he played the fool For this I leave him to Mr. Vaugâ—ans correction But he seems to be more considâ—rate in what follows According to which interpretation the words must carry this sense There shall no more infants diâ— when they are young nor an old man till he 〈◊〉 filled his days for he that now is a child shall not die till he be an hundred years old I wonder in what age this was performed that no man died till he had compleated his century no mortal disease nor use of Physitians but every man might certainlâ— know the day of his death Answ. The words contain not such an absolute universal longaevity as Mr. Cr. would make to be the consequent of our interpretation but a length of days opposite to former troubles v. 16. in which so many died by war famine and pestilence which therefore comparatively is reckoned as universal as in like manner Ieremiah ch 50.20 speaking of the same times saith the iniquity of Israel shall be sought for there shall be none that is as formerly to provoke God to cut them off by gâ—ievous deaths as before the captivity And according to this iâ— that of Zech. 8.4 and I said without any vaunting Nebuchadnezzar like language as Mr. Cr. abusively chargeth me with Isa. 65.20 was rightly made by me answerable to Zech 8 4. which doth not intimate that the Text was made by me and not by the Holy Ghost but made answerable or correspondent which arrogates no more to me then if I had said made clear made manifest c. Nor is any experience or History contrary to this that the Iews after their return from Babylon 〈◊〉 prosperity increase and long life in Canaan a great while together and were honoured by divers Persian Kings Alexander the Great and some of the â—recian Kings and the Nations near them iuâ—ject to them The Contents of the Chapter were never by any Synod or Parliament interpretatively entitled to the Church of England nor are to be accounted any more valid then Mr. Gatakers notes who though a single man yet had his notes approved by other Annotators and in some sort by the Assembly at Westminster Yet the Contents of the Chapter being v. 17. The blessed estate of the new Ierusalem and in the Margin at v. 19. Revel 21.4 being put shew that Mr. Crs. conceit is no more favoured by them then mine And the speech being to be understood comparatively to the former times was true of the Jews after their return from the captivity at Babel V. 25. expâ—essing the Jews peace notwithstanding the Samaritan neighbours was true at the same time although both were accommodated to the Gospel times and the calling of the Jews yet to come Nor is it any strange thing in that Prophet to make thâ— restitution of the Jews from Captivity as answering to making new Heavens and Earth as Isa. 51.16 44.24 25 26. 45.12 13. Yet I deny not that 2 Pet 3.13 Revel 21.1 the words are rightly applied to some other great work of God resembled by this and to be yet accomplished That the Israelites 1 Cor. 10.2 were actually baptized or washed under the cloud it raining upon them and in the Red Sea the water touching their feet at least after the dividing of the waves in such a sudden passage and blowing upon them with thâ— sprinkling thereof is no where set down Exod 13. and 14. Nâ—r will such wetting be ever found in any Greek Authour to be termed Baptism formally and therefore it can be no other then similitudinary Baptism which is there meant as the eating Manna and drinking Water was a similitudinary partaking of the Lords Supper and Grotius did rightly expound 1 Cor. 10.2 were baptised by were as if they were baptisâ—d and yet Isa. 65 20. is not rightly so expounded shall die as an hundred years old there being no need of such an interpretation nor any thing leading to it in the Text but the expression is of long life nor if it were meant so iâ— it proved that infants must be Churchmembers and capable of some seal under the Gospel unless there were no other wâ—y then that in respect of which he might be as one an hundred years old Had Mr. Cr. sought the clearing of truth he had been willing to read out the whole that his dealing might not be taken for deceitfull By my refutation of Dr. Savage in Latin some years since Printed it may appear whâ—tâ—er Text Dr. Savage or the Dr. of the Chair did avoid my argument The rest of M. Crs. argumenâ—s are the same with what others have urged and have been answered in this and the former parts as this Review nor do I find that Mr. Cr. hath added any thing of moment to them to which I need make further reply As or his â—â—â—nts quips misrecitals or mistakes of my words mis-reports of my actions together with his own mistakes in Logick Grammer Divinity thâ—y are otherwise discernable then by a particular answer in Print to each part of his Book I presume the Christian and equal Reader will think it unnecessary to make any more reply to what iâ— written of infantâ— Baptism till some thing be found written which better defends it then those have done who are here answered If any other think it fiâ—â— I should answer him also in particulaâ— he may conceive that if I did pâ—rceive any thing that might not have an answer in that which is already written or had in it any difficulty I should have done it But being conscious to my felâ— that I have not declined the answering of any out of contempt of the person or sense of the difficulty of doing it but because it is thought that I have been too large already and that to answer every meer quirk of wit is unnecessary as knowing that however light witâ— that love to shew their skill in disputing be taken with them yet solid conscientious men will be led onely with good proofs out of Scripture which may shew the institution of Christ I do here supersede from this work and commend it to his blessing of whom and through whom and for whom are all things to whom be glory for ever AMEN FINIS Mr. Gatakers Annot. on Jer. 31.30 The former Covenant comprehended together with those spiritual promises which yet were the principal part of it many temporal blessings as the possession of the land of Canaan and multiplicity of issue and outward prosperity Gen. 15.5 7 18. 17.2 7 8. Psal. 105.8 Deut. 28.1 19. Whereas this later runneth wholly upon the Spiritual and Celestial blessings Rom. 3.24 25. 5.1 2. Eph. 1.3 Heb. 8.6 See Ainsworth Annotations on Gen. 21.12 Vide Gatâ—k Discept de vi effic inf baptism pag. 243.