referred to nurses who he saith will tell me more in this than he can It may be so yet sure nothing to shew that any have made their infants learn the Doctrine of Christ. He adds And what if they cannot at first learn to know Christ even with men of years that is not the first Lesson if they may be taught any of the duty of a rational creature it is somewhat Answ. If they do not learn to know Christ they learn not that which should make them Disciples of Christ. It is somewhat indeed that they can learn to kiss the mother stroke her breasts c. but what 's this to make them Disciples of Christ And if they can learn nothing of the parents either by action or voyce yet Christ hath other ways of teaching than by men even by the immediate working of his Spirit Answ. 'T is true and he may make infants Disciples nor do I deny it to be done invisibly but it would be a greater wonder than yet Mr. B. hath had for all his wonderments a very prodigy that any of them should become a visible Disciple 'T is true they may learn something of God very young and are to be bred up in the nurture of the Lord. But that in their infancy at two or three dayes old they are learners of the things of God of the admonition of the Lord from mothers and nurses is a fiction like Galilaeus his New World in the Moon or Copernicus his Circumgyration of the earth Mr. B. tels us he might argue further All that are saved are Christs Disciples some infants are saved Ergo. And I might answer him that they may be saved and yet no visible Disciples according to the meaning of Christ Matth. 28 19. But sith he hath put this off to another time I shall take a little breathing from Mr. B. and set him aside a little while till I have heard what his seniors say further for their baby-baptism SECT XVI Dr. Featley and Mr. Stephens arguings from John 3. 5. for Infant-baptism are answerâ—d and Baptism shewed not be a cause of Regeneration and Mr. Cranfords words considered THere are some other Texts broughâ— to prove an institution of infant-baptism out of the New Testament which I shall take in though the Assembly and the chiefest I have to do with in this controversie do omit them The Ancients were wont to allege Joh. 3. 5. to prove infants are to be baptized after Christs appointment or rather the reasonableness and necessity of the Churches appointment Augustine in his writings often joyns Rom. 5. 12 and John 3. 5. as the reason of infant baptism Lumb Sent. 4. Dist. 3. allegeth some as making the institution of baptism to be John 3. 5. The Papists commonly allege John 3. 5. for the necessity of infant-baptism Becan Manual l. 4. c. 2. Mandatum habemus Joan. 3. 5. They are refuted by the Protestants as Chamier tom 4. l. 5. de bapt c. 9. yet Vossius thes Th. de paedobapt thes 7. brings it to which being in Latin I have answered in Latin in my Refutation of Dr. Savage his supposition though contrary to my expectation not yet printed Dr. Featley in his Dipper dipt p. 10. 43. makes it one of his prime arguments for infant-baptism p. 10. he thus argues If none can enter into the Kingdom of God but those that are born of Water and the Spirit that is those that are baptized with Water and regenerated by the Spirit then there is a necessity of baptizing children or else they cannot enter into the Kingdom of God that is ordinarily for we must not tie God to outward means But the former is true Ergo the latter And pag. 43. none ought to exclude the children of the faithfull out of the Kingdom of Heaven But by denying them baptism as much as in us lieth we exclude them out of the Kingdom of Heaven For as Christ affirmed to Nicodemus and confirmed it with a double oath or most vehement asseveration Amen Amen or verily verily I say unto thee except a man he born of Water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the Kingdom of Heaven Ergo we ought not to deny them baptism Answ. This arguing is the same in effect notwithstanding the Doctors mincing it which is but a little with that which the Papists bring for their horrid tenet of Exclusion out of the Kingdom of Heaven of infants dying unbaptized For he holds that there is a necessity of baptizing children or else they cannot enter into the Kingdom of God ordinarily In which assertion he denies any infants enterance into the kingdom of God ordinarily without water-baptism And no more is said as I conceive by the more moderate Papists such as Biel Cajetan Gerson cited by Perkins in his preparative to the demonstration of the probleme But no marvail the Doctor who was addicted to the Common Prayer Book concurred thus far with the Papists For in it the Doctrine of Augustin and others is retained of asserting the necessity of infant-baptism because of original sin and Christs words Ioh. 3. 5. as appears by the Preface appointed to be used before the solemnity of Baptism But Protestant Divines do generally refute this opinion as e. g. Chamier Panstr Cath. tom 4. l. 5. de Bapt. c. 8. c. teaching that infants of believers are ordinarily holy and admitted into the Kingdom of Heaven though dying unbaptized But to answer his Arguments 1. it 's known that Calvin Piscator and many more do take water metaphorically and the conjunction 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and to be exegetical not coupling differing things but expounding what is meant by water as if he had said that water which is the Spirit as when it is said Mat. 3. 11. He shall baptize with you the Holy Ghost and with fire that is with the Holy Ghost which is as fire And this they conceive as necessary that the speech of Christ may be verified For simply understood it is false sith the Thief on the Cross sundry Martyrs and others have entered into the Kingdom of Heaven unbaptized And this Exposition Chamier Panstrat Cath. tom 4. lib. 5. cap. 9. hath taken upon him to maintain against the opposites to it and if true the objection of Dr. Featley fals which rests on this that there a necessity of water-baptism is imposed on all that shall enter into the Kingdom of God Nevertheless I confess my self unsatisfied in this Exposition 1 Because I do not think that Matth. 3. 11. by fire is meant the Holy Ghost as being like fire in his operation on every sanctified person but that the words are an express prophesie of what Christ also foretold Acts 1. 5. and was accomplished at Pentecost Acts 2. 3. when the Holy Ghost filled them and fiery cloven tongues sate upon each of them 2. Because if it were parallel to that place and water were used metaphorically as is said by them and exegetically added water should be after and spirit before
as Matth. 3. 11. spirit is first and fire after and after the usual manner of speaking it should run thus except a man be born of the spirit and water if it were to be expounded of the spirit which is as water Dr. Homes animadv on my Exercit pag. 30. allegeth Bullinger saying Omnes penè de baptismo Ioh. 3. 5. interpretantur to which he adjoyns Bullingers and his own consent For these reasons I am much inclined to expound it of the Element of Water Yet 2. am very apt to conceive that forasmuch as Mr. Selden de jurenat Gent. juxta discipl Heb. lib. 2. cap. 4. tels us that when the Iews did initiate Proselytes by baptizing them with water they called it Regenerating and that Christ when he taunts Nicodemus with dulness in being a Master in Israel and yet not knowing of Regeneration but by imagining a natural New-birth when Regeneration was frequent in baptizing Proselytes among the Iews insomuch that by it they taught a person lost his natural relations of kinred as he shews lib. 5. c. 18. and hath these words in the place above cited tamet si de eâ quae spiritu fit non solùm aquâ loqueretur Christus our Saviour meant baptism of water not according to his Apostles practice but the Iews and that the sense is this Except a man be born of water and of the spirit that is Except a man be not onely born again by water as ye Pharisees regenerate when ye make Proselytes but also by the spirit as I do beget again he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God although he may enter into the Common-wealth or policy of Israel which sense nevertheless doth not assert a necessity of their water-regeneration but onely of Christs spiritual regeneration and the insufficiency of the other by it self which is so much the more probable because I finde 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 used for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is and for but Motth 11. 19. 12. 39. Acts 10. 28. and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Acts 26. 29. seems to answer to not onely but also yet because I finde not a place every way parallel I onely propound it to be examined But 3. it being granted that it is meant of Christs water-baptism yet Papists themselves make not such a necessity of it as is without limitation and exception and therefore they put in some one some another restriction which Chamier in the place alleged reduceth to four 1. Unless the person be baptized either with the baptism of water or some other thing instead of it as the baptism of bloud and spirit 2. If they may be baptized and they despise it 3. If they be not baptized with that Regeneration which is by water though it may be otherwise also 4. If they be neither baptized in deed nor desire Why may not then this limitation be added Except a man be born again of water that is except such a person of whom baptism is required according to my institution be born of water when he may have it and it s cleared to him to be his duty he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God And indeed this and such like speeches Mark 16. 16. Iohn 3. 18 â—6 c. that require faith as well as baptism are to be understood of persons to whom the Gospel is preached and do or may hear it and speak not of infants whom we finde not that God enters into the Kingdom of Heaven any other way than by his invisible election and operation of his Spirit And it is observable that whereas Iohn 3. 5. our Saviour joyns water and spirit as means of Regeneration yet v. 6. he names onely the spirit omitting water whence may be gathered that water is not of such universal unrestrained necessity that in no case a person is not born again without it nor admissible into the Kingdom of God yet such as is necessary ordinarily to those to whom the Gospel is preached and their duty made known Whence in answer to the Doctors argument I say that his speeches are to be thus limited at least none can enter into the Kingdom of God ordinarily without baptism to wit of those to whom the Gospel is preached their duty made known and Baptism may be had and to his later Argument I answer by denying that children are excluded out of the Kingdom of Heaven by denying them Baptism sith those unbaptized persons onely are excluded who are appointed to be baptized to whom the Gospel is preached the duty of Baptism made known and they may have it administred to them which cannot be said of infants Mr. Nathaniel Stephens in his Book intituled A Precept for the Baptism of Infants out of the New Testament having premised some thing about the Text Iohn 3. 5. pag. 18 19 20 21 22. about the necessity of baptism of water and the efficacy of it in which many things are meerly dictated and very slightly handled he would infer pag. 23 c. a Precept for infant-baptism from Iohn 3. 5. because infants are guilty of original sin where the disease is there is need of the remedy when Christ doth press a necessity of washing both by water and the spirit he doth not this so immediately in reference to actual sin as in reference to birth-sin and to the natural pollution in which infants are born The same is the plea of Mr. Thomas Fuller in his Infants Advocate c. 13. Answ. That either baptism of water or Circumcision are made the remedy of original sin is more than I finde in Scripture though it go as currant among many of former and later times It is true our Lord Christ saith Except a man be born of Water and of the Spirit he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God John 3. 5. and he assigns this as a reason thereof v. 6. That which is born of the flesh is flesh but that either thereby he intended to make baptism as the remedy of sin or of original sin rather than actual is more than appears For though our Lord Christ v. 5. make regeneration to be by Water and Spirit yet I conceive regeneration is by the Spirit onely as the cause by baptism of water onely as the sign whereby the person baptized testifies that he is born again by the Spirit Now a remedy is a cause and not a sign onely no man calls that which is onely a sign of cure a remedy but that which doth operate for healing That baptism of water is not the cause of regeneration appears 1. Because v. 6. our Saviour giving the reason of the necessity of regeneration and the effect of regeneration leaves ouâ— water and mentions onely the Spirit 2. Because the person baptized is supposed to be born again to be a repenting and believing person afore he is baptized But if baptism were the cause it should be before regeneration for the cause is before the effect and so men should be
it at laying on of hands but the same persons had the Doctrine of both layd in them 4. There 's not a word of reciting the Doctrine at the several rites by the taught but the laying of the foundation of the Doctrine of those rites by the Teachers 5. The Doctrine of baptisms whether by them be meant those of John and Christ or other and of laying on of hands is more likely and more generally conceived to be concerning the use of baptism and laying on of hands But the Doctrine of the use of these was not recited by either sort of catechized persons though both sorts were taught both doctrines 6. The placing the words the Doctrine of baptisms and laying on of hands in the middle between faith and resurrection of the dead is against the Doctors sense sith the Doctrine of baptisms being joyned by apposition to faith and repentance the sense must be that repentance and faith were the Doctrine recited at baptism not the resurection of the dead which comes after if the Doctors sense were right 7. This order leads us to conceive that the writer of that Epistle did orderly place the elements of Christianity in which Christians were instructed to wit repentance and faith before baptism then the baptism of water and the laying on of hands for the obtaining the Spirit by prayer after baptism and then the declaration of what they were to expect the resurrection of the dead and eternal judgement wherein sentence should pass on them concerning their everlasting state 8. The terms of repentance of faith of the doctrine of the resurrection of judgement are all governed of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the foundation as if they were possessed of it as the Grammarians speak the word Doctrine is not joyned by apposition to faith as if the sense were which is the Doctrine of baptisms which must be the sense if the Doctors interpretation be right 9. Those interpreters which are brought as giving us that sense which Dr. Homes and Mr. Brinsley allâ—ge are but late writers and such as speak onely by ghess without proving the antiquity of the use they mention out of ancient writers or alleging any ancient writer expounding the Text Heb. 6. 2. â—s referring to that use Dr. Homes recites p. 59 60. the words of Pareus Calvin Bullinger Marlorat Hofman Theophylact Mr. Cotton of all which there is none afore the 16. Century but Theophylact placed by Dr. Usher at the year 10 70. and his words with the words of Hofman and Marlorat do not at all speak of the use of laying hands on children of believers baptized in infancy and Bullingers words apply the laying on of hands to the ordination of Pastors So heedlesly did Dr. Homes write his Animaâ—versions that his own authors he allegeth are not for him or else against him And for Mr. Cotton he sayth onely There be that conceive and that not improbable there was such an use and that some judicious Divines have conceived that use to be the reason of reckoning the laying on of hands among the Principles Heb. 6. 2. and he brings it to prove that then Elders were not without laying on of hands for all Church-members had hands layd on them and so might more freely lay hands on others which speech if true and the inference be good then women who were Church-members had hands layd on them and might more freely lay hands on others But the New England Elders of whom I think Mr. Cotton was one if not the very Penner of those answers in the Answer to the 32. Question pag. 69. say If it were not so then one of these would follow either that the Officers must minister without any Ordination at all which is against 1 Tim. 4. 16. Heb. 6. 2. So that there it is referred to the same laying on of hands which is mentioned 1 Tim. 4. 14. which is indeed a very common exposition of interpreters It is true Calvin and Pareus refer it to the use Mr. Brinsley mentions yet Chamier tom 4. Panstr Cath. lib. 4. cap. 10. sect 39. allegeth with Salmeron Justinian Calvin Beza Aretius Piscator concerning the initial laying on of hands upon the catechized to prepare them to receive baptism for which use Dr. Hammond in his letter of resolut pag. 195. brings some places of the ancients and Calvin in his institutions l. 4. cap. 19. sect 4. disallows Hieroms judgment conceiving that the laying on of hands for confirmation was an Apostolical Ordinance Beza saith that the Doctrine Heb. 6. 1 2. was delivered when they met either to baptize or lay on hands on infants or adult persons so that he speaks as one not fully resolved And indeed interpreters as is shewed above are not agreed whether to refer it to laying on hands on the baptized or the ordained yet very few of the Protestants refer it to the laying on of hands for confirmation of them that were baptized in infancy and the 25. Article of the Church of England makes Confirmation one of those things which have grown of the corrupt following of the Apostles I sayd in my Exercit. sect 14. that if Hierom. tom 2 in his Dialogue against the Luciferians do assert that use of imposition of hands from Scripture yet he allegeth not Heb. 6. 2. for it but the Examples of giving the Holy Ghost by laying on of hands in the Acts of the Apostles To this Dr. Homes replies 1. That however the antiquity holds good that imposition of hands was used to be after applied to them that have been baptized To which I say This being granted yet as I shew there and here the use of baptizing infants is not proved thereby nor doth Hierom confirm Mr. Brinsleys Exposition 2. Sayth Dr. Homes In that place he quotes other places than the Acts of the Apostles and speaks to our purpose thus and then reciting some words of Hierom adds so Hieronymus Wherefore he supposeth imposition of hands may be on them that had the Spirit in baptism before which is not denied by me nor do I see what that is to Dr. Homes his purpose to prove that the laying on of hands Heb. 6. 2. is meant of believers infants before baptized and then upon their own profession received into the Church by imposition of hands Yet Chamier tom 4. Panstr Cath. lib. 4. cap. 11. sect 41. allegeth Hierom as referring the imposition of hands to the time of baptism not some years after I sayd in my Exercit. pag. 23. but if it were supposed that this imposition of hands meant Heb. 6. 2. were on the baptized yet this proves not the baptism of infants in the Apostles days unless it could be proved that it was used after the baptism of infants onely for a confirmation either of the baptism or the baptized On the contrary it is apparent out of Tertullian de corona militis cap. 3. that in the primitive times the baptized did make his confession sub manâ—â— antistiâ—is the