Truth and Peace, Chapter 2
CHAP. II. That the Story of the Jews baptizing Infants, is either a Fable; or if they had ſuch a Humane Tradition, it's rather deſtructive of Sacred Baptiſm, to ground it on that Tradition, than any way advantagious to it.
IN pag. 18. the Doctor ſays, Hitherto I have given the Reaſons of altering the Jewiſh Oeconomy—But then my Undertaking obliges me to prove that Chriſt and his Apoſtles did build with many of the old Materials, and conformed their new Houſe as much as they could after the Platform of the Old. This will appear from Baptiſm it ſelf, which was a Ceremony by which Proſelytes both Men and Women and Children were initiated; yet ſo much Reſpect had our Saviour for the antient Orders and Cuſtoms of the Jewiſh Church, that being obliged to lay by Circumciſion, he conſecrated this inſtead of it (though it were but a meer human Inſtitution) to be the Sacrament of Initiation into his Church, and a Seal of the Righteouſneſs of Faith. So likewiſe the Lord's Supper was certainly of Jewiſh Original.
Anſwer.
This Doctrine, that Chriſt and his Apoſtles did build their new Houſe of the old Materials of the Jewiſh Church, and that they conform'd their new Houſe as much as they could to the Platform of the Old, ſeems to hold no Agreement with the Doctrine and Practice of Chriſt and his Apoſtles, whether we conſider the Subjects, Ordinances, or Miniſtery of the Church.
The Doctrine and Miniſtery of John the Baptiſt, is called the Beginning of the Goſpel, Mark 1. 1. And he would not admit of one Stone (or Member of the old Church) as ſuch, to be laid into the Goſpel-Church. Begin not to ſay within your ſelves, we have Abraham to our Father. God is able of theſe Stones to raiſe up Children unto Abraham. Bring forth Fruits meet for Repentance. Every Tree which bringeth not forth good Fruit is hewn down. Matth. 3. So great a Change do we find, that the old Materials, in reſpect of Memberſhip in the new Houſe, would not do, when yet there was but an Introduction, to make ready a People prepared for the Lord.
Chriſt came to fulfil the Ceremonies of the Law, and to nail them to his Croſs, as we have ſhewed, not to eſtabliſh them in his Church. But the Truth is, whoever revives them, pulls down his Church. And it were the falſe Apoſtles, that would have conformed the Church of Chriſt to the Platform of the old Jewiſh Church, Acts 15. 5. But the true Apoſtles withſtood them, and decreed that the new Church ſhould obſerve no ſuch things, but they eſtabliſh what the Light of Grace, and the poſitive Law of God had made neceſſary before to all Mankind, Acts 15. 23 to 30. Gen. 9. 4. Thus far were the Apoſtles from building the Church of Chriſt with Jewiſh Materials: That as the great Curcellaeus ſays, The Apoſtle writ that Epiſtle to let the Gentiles know they were freed from Moſes's Law, leſt by their hearing him read every Sabbath, they might think they were bound to obey his Laws. And it is ſtrange that the Doctor ſhould now make Chriſt and his Apoſtles Anabaptiſts, as he does, for he will have them to have been baptiſed as well as circumciſed, to initiate them into the Jewiſh Church; and he will have that very Baptiſm conſecrated by Chriſt inſtead of Circumciſion, to initiate into his Church; ſure he has little reaſon to write againſt Anabaptiſm, when he is one of the greateſt Aſſerters of it that ever was: but more of this pretended Baptiſm anon.
St. Paul above all the reſt, rejects the old Materials, and builds all with new; Old things are paſſed away, behold all things are become new, 2 Cor. 5. There is verily a diſannulling of the Commandment going before for the Weakneſs and Ʋnprofitableneſs thereof, Heb. 7. 18. He calls the whole Maſs of Jewiſh Ceremonies, Beggarly Elements. And is it like that he would build the Goſpel-Church with ſuch Materials? much leſs with that ſuppoſed Baptiſm of Jewiſh Proſelytes, or of Jews themſelves, which the Doctor knows was at beſt but of Mans Inſtitution.
Let us view the old Jewiſh Church, and the new Goſpel-Church in a few Particulars brieſly. The Members of the Jewiſh Church were Natural, called natural Branches, Rom. 11. that is, they were the Seed of Abraham according to the Fleſh. The Members of the Chriſtian Church are ſpiritual, grafted contrary to Nature into the good Olive, and born of God.
The Circumciſion of the Jewiſh Church was outward in the Fleſh, made with Hands. The Circumciſion of the Goſpel-Church is that of the Heart, in the Spirit, made without Hands, in putting off the Body of the Sins of the Fleſh by the Circumciſion of Chriſt.
Their Sacrifices were carnal, carnal Ordinances, Heb. 10. Our Sacrifices are Spiritual, 1 Pet. 2. 2, 3, 4.
Their Miniſters were choſen of one Family or Tribe, and did ſucceed by natural Deſcent: and were Miniſters of the Letter. Ours are given by Christ, as the Fruit of his Aſcenſion into Heaven, and are Miniſters of the Spirit, Epheſ. 4.
Their two Sacraments ſerved chiefly to ſeal their Right to the Land of Canaan, and that the Meſſiah ſhould come of the Seed of Abraham, according to the Fleſh; and to commemorate their Deliverance out of Egypt.
Ours ſeal Remiſſion of Sins by Faith in the Blood of Jeſus, and our Inheritance in the Kingdom of Heaven to all Eternity.
In ſhort, Their Services made nothing perfect, Heb. 10.
Ours preſent every Man perfect in Chriſt Jeſus, Col. 1. 28.
But let us come to this pretended Inſant-Baptiſm among the Jews, which is ſo much made uſe of by the Doctor, as if it were the very thing that muſt give Life to Inſant-Baptiſm in the Chriſtian Church. And indeed Dr. Hammond (from whom this Doctor ſeems to borrow much) makes the Jewiſh baptizing of Proſelytes the Original, and ours but the Copy. That our Saviour ſhould thus highly approve of a Jewiſh Ceremony, as to conſecrate it to be the initiatory Sacrament into his Church, is no way to be believed. For he condemned all ſuch Ceremonies of their own deviſing to be but vain Worſhip, Mat. 15. 9. and will he then eſtabliſh this their Tradition (if indeed they had any ſuch)? The Baptiſm of John was that which he eſtabliſhed, both by his own Submiſſion to it, and Divine Teſtimony concerning it, Matth. 3. 15. & 21. 25. Nor did John take up his Baptiſm from the Jews, as many Learned Men of the Church of England do teach of late. For he was a Prophet immediately ſent of God to baptize with Water, John 1. 33. And he that ſays John's Baptiſm was originally of the Jews, as this Doctor and Dr. Hammond do teach, denies John to be a Prophet, and does diſſent herein from many Learned Proteſtant Writers, whoſe Teſtimonies I will therefore here bring againſt them, who with one Mouth bear witneſs that John's Miniſtry and Baptiſm was Evangelical, and not Ligal, Jewiſh, or of his own deviſing.
Diodate on John 1. 6. Divine Light being now extinguiſhed, the Son of God himſelf came into the World to light it again by the Goſpel, whereof John the Baptiſt was the firſt Preacher: And on Matth. 11. 13. John's Prerogative above the precedent Prophets is, they have only foretold and deſcribed things to come, but he declared the preſent Salvation, and in him began the Evangelical Miniſtery, and the Legal and figurative Miniſtery ceaſed. This could not be true, had he taken his Baptiſm from the Jewiſh Church.
Dr. Willit in his Synopſis; John preached the Baptiſm of Repentance for the Remiſſion of Sins, which was all one with the Baptiſm of Peter, Act. 2. 38. And it is abſurd that Chriſt the Head, and the Church the Members ſhould not have the ſame Baptiſm. And that John's Baptiſm was not of John's deviſing, but of God's Appointment, Dr. Fulk on Mat. 3.
Dr. Fulk. John by his Doctrine and Baptiſm prepared a way to Chriſt, not to the Baptiſm of Chriſt, for he preached not his own Baptiſm, but the waſhing away of Sins by Chriſt. Therefore he alſo was a Miniſter of the Baptiſm of Chriſt.
This new Device of founding the Chriſtian Baptiſm upon Jewiſh Baptiſm is dangerous, opening a Gap to the Quakers, and other Notioniſts to contemn it as a Legal Ceremony. Yet the Doctor boldly tells us, That Chriſt was obliged to lay by Circumciſion, and conſecrated this Ceremony (uſed by the Jews) inſtead of it. The Enemies of Chriſt durſt not ſay as Dr. Hammond and this Doctor does ſay, that the Baptiſm of John was of Jewiſh Original. They knew ſuch a Speech muſt deny John to be a Prophet. And yet theſe Learned Men have not Learning enough to conſider this.
We know the Phariſees were very zealous for the Traditions of the Jewiſh Church, but it's certain they had no Zeal for the Baptiſm of Repentance, for they rejected it againſt themſelves, Luke 7. 20. And here this holy Ordinance is expreſly called the Counſel of God, which ſhews it was not originally a Rite or Ceremony of humane Inſtitution, or Jewiſh Ceremony.
But now let us ſee whether the Doctor may not poſſibly be miſtaken in aſſerting that the Jews had ſuch a Ceremony as Baptiſm among them before John Baptiſt came. And in this Enquiry we will prefer a Learned Proteſtant of the Church of England, who writes thus:
As to their Argument who would have our Baptiſm toSir Norton Knatchbul. be derived from the Jewiſh Lotions, as there is nothing of certainty in it, ſo it is ſo far from being grounded on any Authority in Scripture, that there are hardly any Footſteps to be found thereof in the Old Teſtament. They deduce the Original of Baptiſm from the Hebrew word foreign, which ſignifies to waſh or cleanſe. But the Rabbins, if I am not deceived, uſe the Hebrew word foreign, which ſignifies Immerſion, thereby making it appear that they owe the Notion of the Word to the Greeks, or rather to the Chriſtians. For what affinity is there between Lotion and Immerſion? But the thing is ſo uncertain, that it cannot be ſaid of the Rabbins, that there were not ſeveral among them who differed very much about this matter.—
For in the very place cited by the forementioned Learned Men, Rabbi Eliezer expreſly contradicts Rabbi Joſhua, who was the firſt that I know of, who aſſerted this ſort of Baptiſm among the Jews. Now to whom ſhall I give credit? To Eliezer, who aſſerts what the Scripture confirms [meaning that Proſelytes were not baptized] or to Joſhua, who affirms what is no where to be found in Scripture [meaning this pretended Baptiſm is not to be found in Scripture.] But the Rabbins upheld Joſhua's ſide, and what wonder was it? for it made for their buſineſs, that is, for the Honour of the Jewiſh Religion, That the Chriſtians ſhould borrow their Ceremonies, [how imprudent then is the Author of the Book we are anſwering, to give this Advantage to the Jews againſt the Chriſtians.] But when I ſee Men of great Learning fetching the Foundation of Truth from the Rabbins, I cannot but heſitate a little. For whence was this Talmud ſent to us,—that we ſhould give ſo much credit thereto—? for the Talmud is called a Labyrinth of Errors, and the Foundation of Jewiſh Fables. [This is then a Fault in the Church of England Doctors to fly hither for Refuge for Infant-Baptiſm.] It was brought to Perfection 500 years after Chriſt. [This ſhews the danger of truſting to it, it being ſo lately confirmed.] Therefore it is unreaſonable to reſt upon the Teſtimony of it. And that which moves me moſt, Joſephus—who was alſo a Jew, and contemporary with Rabbi Eliezer, who alſo wrote in particular of the Rites, Cuſtoms and Acts of the Jews, is altogether ſilent in this matter. [He knew no baptiſing of Infants among the Jews] So that it is an Argument to me next to a Demonſtration, that two ſuch eminent Perſons, both Jews, and living at the ſame time, the one ſhould poſitively deny, the other make no mention of Baptiſm among the Jews.
Beſides, if Baptiſm in the modern ſenſe were in uſe among the Jews in antient times, why did the Phariſees ask John Baptiſt, Why doſt thou baptize, if thou be not Chriſt, nor Elias, nor that Prophet? Do they not plainly intimate, that Baptiſm was not in uſe before, and that it was a received Opinion among them, that there ſhould be no Baptiſm till either Chriſt, or Elias, or that Prophet came? How then there ſhould be ſo much affinity between Baptiſm and the Divings of the Jews, that the one ſhould be ſucceſſive to the other by any Right or Pretence, is altogether I confeſs, beyond my Faith.
It appears from this learned Man's Diſcourſe, that there is no Certainty that the Jews had any ſuch Baptizing of Infants, or others, as the Doctor pretends. However, God having appointed no ſuch thing in the Jewiſh Church, leaves ſuch a Practice (if they had it) without any Authority to govern Chriſtians in their Adminiſtration of Baptiſm. Nor do we who aſſert the Ordinance according to the Scripture, need to run for Counſel to the Jews Talmud, Gemara, and Maimonides. And indeed it looks too much like going to the Witch of Endur, and to Baalzebub the God of Ekron for Knowledg, as if there were not ſufficient Inſtruction in the undoubted Word of God, how or to whom to diſpence the firſt Ordinance of the Goſpel to a poor Convert. And it is a ſure ſign that the Doctor and all that make ſuch a noiſe about this Rabbinical Learning to juſtify them in the caſe of infant Baptiſm, are conſcious to themſelves▪ that they have no ſure Footing in God's Word for it.
And yet ſo partial are our Talmudiſts, that they will not follow its Directions for the manner of Baptiſm, which as Dr. Hammond ſhews is commonly expreſſed by foreign Immerſion, never by foreign, that is, Aſperſion or Sprinkling; for ſuch as will not be true to the Rules given in the Holy Scripture, how ſhould they be true to any other Book?
One thing I marvel at, p. 20. where the Doctor tells his Reader that the Anabaptiſts endeavour to ſhift off the force of many good Arguments, by ſaying Circumciſion under the Old Teſtament was a Type of Baptiſm under the New. For this I take to be a great Miſtake of the Doctor, I never heard of any, whom he calls Annabaptiſts, who hold Circumciſion to be a Type of Baptiſm at all. But I have met with divers of the Church of England, who have affirmed it to be a Type of Baptiſm; ſo that all that the Doctor ſays upon this Miſtake about which he ſpent ſome Pages, is nothing to the purpoſe. For we own no other Antitype of Circumciſion, but the Circumciſion of the Heart, called the Circumciſion of Chriſt made without Hands.
But had he minded well his own Book, he might have ſeen Mr. Philpot aſſerting the thing which he would charge upon us, where he ſaith, The Apoſtles did attemperate all their doings to the Shadows and Figures of the Old Teſtament. Therefore it is certain they did attemperate Baptiſm to Circumciſion, and baptize Children becauſe they were under the Figure of Baptiſm, for the People of Iſrael paſſed through the Red-Sea, &c. Where I think he makes both Circumciſion, and paſſing through the Sea, to be Shadows and Types of Baptiſm; which is yet more evident, becauſe (a little before) he tells us that Paul calls Baptiſm the Circumciſion made without Hands. Which though it be not true, ſeeing all Men know, and Mr. Philpot cannot deny but Baptiſm is made by Hands, yet it ſhews that he looked upon Baptiſm to be the Antitype of Circumciſion. But I ſhall not fight with dead Men, otherwiſe I might ſhew his Miſtake in ſaying that the Apoſtles did attemperate all their▪ Doings to the Shadows and Figures of the Old Teſtament: but this we have ſhewed before, to be an unſound Speech.
The Doctor ſeems to deal unfairly with Col. 2. 11, 12. Circumciſion (ſaith he) hath nothing in it ſymbolical of Baptiſm, and denies it to be an umbratical, but areal Conſignation of the Covenant of Grace; quoting the Text thus, In whom alſo they are circumciſed, with the Circumciſion made without Hands, in putting off the Body of the Sins of the Fleſh by the Circumciſion of Chriſt; Having been buried with him in Baptiſm. Does not the Doctor by this Addition to the Text, aſſert the thing which he would deny, or elſe denies what Paul aſſerts, for St. Paul does make Circumciſion a Shadow or Figure of the Circumciſion of Chriſt made without Hands, why elſe does he call the Work of Grace in the Heart by that Name of Circumciſion, as he alſo doth, Rom. 2. 29? But the Doctor does refer this Circumciſion to Baptiſm, having been buried with him in Baptiſm: but then if this be his meaning, Circumciſion muſt needs have ſomething in it umbratical of Baptiſm, which yet he denies, and therein contradicts Mr. Philpot, who affirms even Baptiſm to be the Circumciſion made without Hands.
The Truth is, this Text can never be made ſerviceable to Infant-Baptiſm, as Mr. Philpot and the Doctor would have it; ſeeing no more are here ſaid to be baptized, than had put off the Body of the Sins of the Fleſh. Nor, as we have it, Rom. 6. no more are here buried with Chriſt in Baptiſm, than were dead with him. And this alone might ſerve to ſhew that God expects not, that Infants ſhould be baptized, ſeeing they can neither die to Sin, nor riſe to Newneſs of Life, and to what purpoſe they ſhould be buried before they be dead, no good reaſon can be ſhewed.
Here we are told again, that Circumciſion was a real Conſignation of the Covenant of Grace, every way as real and ſubſtantial an Ordinance as Baptiſm is now. It is only called a Seal in the ſpecial caſe of Abraham. And if it was every way as real and ſubſtantial as Baptiſm is now, to what end were the Circumciſed baptized alſo in the Jewiſh Church, as the Doctor ſays they were? And why does Paul call it a beggarly Element? And how could it be the Yoke of Bondage, or the Obligation to it, and a Seal of the Covenant of Grace too? A Seal or Sign of the Covenant of Grace frees Men from the Yoke of▪ Bondage; and of this, Evangelical Baptiſm is a real and ſubſtantial Conſignation, where the Subject is qualified for it. Had Circumciſion been ſuch a real and ſuſtantial Ordinance to conſign the Covenant of Grace, it would not have ceaſed, if St. Paul's Argument hold, Heb. 10. 1, 2. But it is aboliſhed as well as other Ceremonies of the Law, which is a ſign it did not make the Comers thereunto perfect, any more than the other Legal Ceremonies. Whereas had it conſign'd the Covenant of Grace, more could not be expected from a ritual to make the Subjects of it perfect. And this Perfection have the Ordinances of the Goſpel, as we have ſhewed before, but here the Ceremonies of the Law failed.