Adams Condition in Paradise Discovered, Letter
To George Hammond, of Biddenden in Kent.
SIR,
ONe of your judgment, having preſented me with your book; which being dedicated to the Clergy, I thought with my ſelf, that if I ſhould have paſſed it by in ſilence, you might have ſaid I was ſuch an one as your ſelf, according to Pſal: 50 21. or unable to anſwer you: for I confeſs you have gotten into great repute with thoſe who know not how to contradict you. You have the ſubſtance of all your Book anſwerd, and your material quotations of Scripture, I confeſs your Treatiſe of Original ſinne, has more witty (if not wicked) arguments in it, than any piece written by any Heretick, ſince the Reſurrection of our Saviour to this hour: and I know I have the Epitome of all Errours or Hereſies from Chriſts time, to this, lying by me. Therefore I ſhall be larger in anſwering that part of your book, but briefer (yet full enough) in conſidering Sions Redemption, being not ſo material. You have quoted many texts of Scripture, contrary to the purport or meaning thereof, as ſhall appear: I wonder a man for liberty of Conſcience, ſhould force the Text of Holy Writ to take your part volens nolens againſt the intent of the Spirit thereof: But I begin to conſider your Examination of Mr. Rutton's Letter about Baptiſm and Original Sinne,
George Hammonds Examination of Mr. Ruttons Letter, examined.
VVHere you ſay,Page 9. Sprinkling of Infants is Baptiſme. that ſprinkling a little water in the face of a Child, is not Baptiſm, but a cozening ſhift brought in, by Pope Innocent the 3d. (what acquaintance you have gott with Popery of late!) and that Baptizo doth not ſignifie ſprinkling (bue Rantizo doth) but onelyonly to plunge, or over-whelm in water. Magiſterially ſpoken! Here I muſt conſider, firſt, that ſprinkling is nought. 2. Infant baptiſme, a cozening ſhift. 3. Pope Innocent the firſt Author of it. To the firſt, baptizo is taken for dipping or ſprinkling often: as Mat. 3.11. foreign. He ſhall baptize you with the Holy Ghoſt. And pray, are not ſanctified men rather ſprinkled then plunged with the ſpirit? Are we not imperfect here below? knowing in part, and ſanctified in part? Again, in Matth. 20.22. Chriſt ſayes, he has a Baptiſme to be baptized with, meaning that of his*Eſt ergo baptiſma triplex; fluminis, flaminis, et ſanguinis. Paſſion; (as Paraeus on the place.) Now Chriſt was rather ſprinkled, than plunged, in regard of outward man. Suppoſe the Thorns were on his head (indeed we read not of their pulling off) and Nailes and Spear wounding alſo, yet he was not wounded in each part of his body:Jo. 20.25. Therefore, this Baptiſme rather was ſprinkling then plunging. And remember how the Parallel lies between John's Baptiſme with water, and Chriſts with ſpirit, Act. 1.5. So if Chriſts giving the ſpirit (compared to powring, in reſpect of the few drops in the Law) be rather ſprinkling (for Chriſt onelyonly was plunged with it (receiving it without meaſure) ſo was his Water-baptiſme, or elſe the Parallel is nothing, which the Evangeliſt from Chriſt urges: But what think you of that known place, in 1 Cor. 10.2: All our Fathers*foreign, To dip or ſprinkle, foreign To plunge, vide Paſor on the word, foreign or foreign, theſe much differ. baptized in Cloud and Sea: 'Twas Water-baptiſme, yet they went on dry ground: ſome water might ſprinkle on them from the Sea, as they walked through, and a Cloud doth fall by drops (as Experience teſtifies) more like to ſprinkling, than plunging; eſpecially conſidering how little rain falls in thoſe parts, where Iſrael then was, if we will believe Travellers; or Reaſon, becauſe of the Suns exceſſive heat drying up the Clouds.
But what think you of the ſprinkling of bloud in the Law, ſo often mentioned? Heb. 9.19. foreign. He ſprinkled the people. Was not it a type of Chriſts bloud called the bloud of ſprinkling, Heb. 12.24. And why ſhall … ſprinkling on Infants (ſignifying Chriſts bloud ſhed for them) be counted Baptiſme, ſince the word will carry it, unleſs you believe 'tis the muchneſs of water, and not the ſprinkled bloud of Chriſt (ſignified by Baptiſme) doth the work? Peter was once for a kind of plunging, Joh. 13. till better catechized by our Saviour, ver. 9, 10. I am ſure the Promiſe was of ſprinkling, * Ezek, 36.25.†Sanguine Jeſu Chriſti, ſayes Trem, on the place. and a Goſpel-promiſe. Annotations of Aſſembly refer us to Epheſ. 5.26: for a farther illuſtration of the place: Chriſt gave himſelf for the Church, that he might ſanctifie it and cleanſe it by the waſhing of water, foreign. Sowhat ſprinkling is in Ezekiel, is waſhing in St. Pauls Expoſition; and why not ſometimes uſed indifferently, ſince the word Baptizo, and Texts of Scripture will hold it out. The old Common-Prayer Book allowed of Dipping or Sprinkling, if our Climate could at all times ſuffer it. Our great Fonts in England ſhew our former Cuſtome; both have been uſed, Dipping and Sprinkling: but no way will pleaſe you, if Children be baptized, which we ſhall conſider anon: onelyonly I wonder how the Jaylor and his could be plunged (baptized they were, Act. 16.) 'twas night, ver. 33. and in likelyhood, in the Priſon, into which he ſprang with a light, ver. 29. For though it's ſaid he called them forth, ver. 30. (that is, out of the inner priſon into which they were thruſt, ver. 24.) yet they are but brought into his houſe afterwards, ver. 34. So that the Jaylors houſhold came out of the houſe to the Apoſtles, not the Apoſtles into the Jaylors houſe to preach: but be it in Gaole or Houſe; where was water enough to plunge him, and his in ſo dry a Countrey? Did he venture, trow, to carry them to ſome River; his fear, if not his care, hindred. But had they a large tub of water there, and were they plunged: How came they, being very wet, to ſit at meat preſently with the Apoſtles rejoycing?Nos pro baptiſmo …antiſmum potius habeamus hoe eſt aſperſionem. Zep. de Sacram. foreign Lix. vide Mr. Hall quarctect, pag. 114. But I forbear, perſwading my ſelf, they were contented with ſome ſprinkling: of which, ſayes one, inſtead of Baptiſme, we have rather (the word bearing both ſignifications) uſed Rantiſme, conſidering the cold climes wherein we live. Yet I ſay, not that Baptiſme and Rantiſme are quite the ſame; but that Baptizo ſignifies Sprinkling ſometimes, as well as Dipping: read Leigh Cr. Sacra in verbum, and Dr. Featley, Dipper dipt. Circumciſion to Iſrael was as Baptiſme to us: now that was not but in one part, read Gen. 17. and the Hebrew word for baptiſing (tabhat) ſignifies Waſhing in part, or Dipping: Read Joſh. 3.15. and the feet of the Prieſts that bare the Ark were dipped in the brim of the water: The word Baptizo doth ſignifie as much, therefore uſed for Sprinkling, moderate Waſhing, or Dipping; not Plunging. What the Apoſtle calls Waſhing, Heb. 9.10.13. (in Greek, Baptiſmous) he expounds himſelf by Sprinkling, ver. 19.21. in Greek, Rantiſmous: ſo that Baptizo ſignifies Sprinkling; for their Baptiſmes, or Ceremonious Waſhings, were Sprinklings. We read of 3000. baptized at once, and no mention of any Rivers, Act. 2.41. Therefore, in all likelyhood, Sprinklings were there uſed. But, to draw to a concluſion, we deny not, but Baptiſme may include Dipping; but ſince it includes Sprinkling alſo, we uſe that out of care and tenderneſs to Infancy: For as the Sabbath was made for man, ſo Baptiſme for our good, and not detriment; and therefore Sprinklings, in cold Climates, to be uſed rather; ſince the word will bear it.
Infant Baptiſme proved.But I come to the ſecond point, and prove, that Baptiſme belongs to Children: Firſt, becauſe there was but one Covenant ſince the Fall, (which in ſubſtance was Chriſt) though in reſpect of its ſeveral Adminiſtrations called Covenants, as being ſeveral ways adminiſtred; under the Law, by Circumciſion; under the Goſpel, by Baptiſme. Now if God allowed Iſraels Children the prerogative of Circumciſion under the Law, (as was accounted, Rom. 9.4) ſhall we, under the Goſpel, be barred from an anſwerable priviledge in Baptiſme? You'l ſay, 'twas no priviledge, read Rom. 9. and conſider, the fooliſhneſſe of God is wiſer then men, and the weakneſſe of God ſtronger then men: in 1 Cor. 1.25. To be a marked ſheep, or Lamb of the flock of Iſrael, is a mercy. 2. Believers Children are federally holy, 1 Cor. 7. therefore to be received by Baptiſme into the Church of Chriſt. 3. Children were baptized in the Cloud and Sea, 1 Cor. 10.2. compared with Exod. 12.37. Theſe, the Apoſtle calls Fathers, to the ſucceeding Iſraelites. 4. As God owned thoſe Children preſented to him in Circumciſion, Ezek. 16.20, 21. and called them, his Children: So, we believe, he will own ours; eſpecially, conſidering 5. The promiſe to thoſe under the Goſpel, and their Children, Act. 2.39. to them believing, and their Children, by vertue of the Parents Faith, (as to Abraham believing, and his Seed: for we have but one Covenant, Chriſt, by whom all are to expect Salvation) and to all afar off, when they believe; and to their Children, by vertue of their Faith; and to as many as God ſhall call to Faith, and to their Children, by vertue of that Faith. Hence the Apoſtle ſayes, The Promiſe is made to you (in Greek foreign) quoting that Promiſe made to Adam Abraham, and Iſrael of Chriſt Jeſus: and ſhall not we and ours partake of it, as well, as Iſrael, and their Children? Read Rom. 11.17. We partake of the fat of the Olive tree; as, thoſe branches of Jews did before their cutting off; but they and their Children did; therefore we, and ours alſo. And here, by the way, obſerve, we plead a Church-priviledge for Children, to be, at leaſt in outward Covenant: we ſay not all of them ſhall be ſaved; we uſe the means, and leave the iſſue to God: There are ſome branches ſeemingly in Chriſt, who bring not forth fruit, Joh. 15.1, 2. yet have the benefit of an external priviledge, as in Iſrael, Mr. Marſhall againſt Mr. Tombs, p 138,In Mar. 6.10. To ſuch belongs the Kingdome of Heaven, muſt not be interpreted of all Children, (as ſuch) but of Children, whoſe Parents were in the Covenant, as theſe were, and brought by Parents, or neer friends, to Chriſt; ſuffer ſuch to come to me: You believe theſe were Children of Jews, yet in Covenant. Now though Chriſt baptized them not, nor any other, Joh. 4.2. yet he laid his hands on them (A preparative to Baptiſme in the primitive times, if you'l believe Antiquity†Read Doctor Hammond of baptizing Infants, p. 194.) and bleſſed them. (If Chriſt gave Children the greater benefit, Bleſſing, why do ye deny them the leſſer, which is Baptiſme?) Now I ſuppoſe you believe it was a ſpiritual bleſſing, being Chriſts gift, for Eſau had a temporal and earthly (an heir of the world, as well as Jacob) yet he counted himſelf deceived of the bleſſing,Read my Glim. of Chriſts love, p. 93. Gen. 27.36, 37, 39. Chriſt alſo affirmed, that to ſuch (Children of Parents in Covenant) belongs the Kingdom of Heaven: Then deny not Baptiſme to the heirs of heaven.
But 7. What if Matth. 28.19. make for Infant Baptiſme? though (I wis) you take that Text for your Maſter-piece. Go, diſcipulize all Nations; for ſo is the Original. Pray, may not Children be made Diſciples by Baptiſme? read Joh. 4.1, 2, 3. where Chriſt is ſaid to make more Diſciples than John, baptizing them, intimating the way to make Diſciples, is, to baptize them, and after to teach them, ver. 20. Read it carefully, foreign. So that though ſome ſmall knowledge, and confeſſion, or deſire after Chriſt was required in grown people (none in Children) before Baptiſme: yet moſt teaching, and conſequently knowledge, was afterwards. And hence that paſſage of St. Peter, 1 Epiſt. 3.21. is moſt admirably opened by a learned man,†Dr. Hamond of Infant Baptiſme, p. 196. not to be rendred, the Anſwer of a good Conſcience (ſpeaking of Baptiſme) but the queſtion, of a good Conſcience toward God; for ſo the Original, foreign ſignifies. For men were diſcipulized with ſmall quantity of knowledge, and children with none, but taught afterwards, and ſo asked after the things of God, and a good Conſcience after its Baptiſme. Now that Children are accounted Diſciples, read Act. 15.5.10. where, when Circumciſion was urged (which was moſt peculiar to Children) Peter anſwered [in that moſt famous Council] why put ye a yoke on the Diſciples, meaning on Believers, and their Children, under the Goſpel: ſo Children were Diſciples, and may be diſcipulized. You'l ſay, Why were not Children mentioned in the Commiſſion? Anſw. becauſe needleſs: for what was oft mentioned in Old Teſtament, is more ſparingly in the New: Now what more frequent in Old Teſtament, than to be a God to men, and their Seed, Gen. 17. [if well perpended] and (ye and your Children ſtand before God to make a Covenant, Deut. 11.12.) where's a ſpecial command now for Sabbath, except 1 Cor. 16.1. and that ſo variouſly read by Authors, that it ſeems not clear for that purpoſe? And Dr. Heylin †Hiſtory of the Sabbath, part 2. c. 1. p. 26, 27.brings in many Expoſitions of thoſe words; (upon the firſt day of the week. foreign) occaſioned by the Greek words, which may be rendred, either upon one day of the week, or on the firſt day, or on the Sabbath day (for that day was obſerved, as wel as the Lords day, many years after the Reſurrection;) as Dr. Heylin obſerves out of Gal. 4.10. (an Epiſtle written in the year 59. after Chriſt). And ſo far were the Primitive Chriſtians from believing there was a Command to keep holy the firſt day of the week, that after Divine Exerciſes uſed in memoriall of theirs Saviours Reſurrection, and other bleſſings which befell them that Day, they went to their common work the remainder of the Day: And the learned Hierom tells us, that a devout and pious woman, one Paula, who lived at Bethlehem, with certain poor Widows and Virgins privately, after they had been at the Holy Exerciſes of the Congregation one Lords Day, returned home to their common work,†Inſtabant operi: et vel ſibi vel aliis veſtimenta faciebant. See Helyn Hiſt. Sab. part 2. c. 3. p. 79. which was making cloaths. This I the rather write, to ſhew, that what was commanded oft in Old Teſtament, is ſparingly in the New. Now the Sabbath being morall (onelyonly the Seventh Day changed into the firſt day of the week) what needed new Commands?
And ſo for bringing Infants into Covenant in the New Teſtament, We have juſt grounds, having ſo many Commands in the old: if you ſay, that in 1 Cor. 16.1. there is a Command for obſerving the Lords day, becauſe 'tis ſaid, As I have ordained in the Churches of Galatia. I anſwer, that relates rather to the collections there mentioned, then to the enforcing a Command for ſetting a part the Lords day: And, in a digreſſion, we have firmer Ordinance for Tythes (forgive that Jewiſh expreſſion) in 1 Cor. 9. Even ſo has God ordained (foreign) that thoſe that preach the Goſpel,Tythes in Goſpel time proved. &c. the Apoſtle quotes a former Statute or Ordinance for Miniſtry-maintenance, and that ſeemes out of Moſes Law, for v. 9. the Levitical Text is alledged, thou ſhalt not muzzle the mouth of the Oxe, &c. Now never did God appoint any†Free will-offerings of a atter date. way to maintain thoſe who did his ſervice; but the way of Tythes, which was never type of any thing, nor never repealed; and indeed if Moſes Prieſthood had a ſet maintenance, why ſhould our Saviours come ſhort? And the Apoſtle pleads a ſet maintenance, Who goes to warre at his own charges, 1 Cor. 9. have not Souldiers ſet-pay? I could here be large with reaſon, but 'tis a digreſſion. Here is a plainer Ordinance for Tythes, then for the Lords day, yet not looked on. What ſpeciall Command have you for Womens partaking of the Paſcall Lamb, or Lords Supper now? except you court that Text of 1 Cor. 11.28. to take your part: Let a man examine himſelf, &c. and under man comprehend both ſexes: the words are maſculine (foreign): but you'l ſay, The man is a courteous Creature to the woman, and will be content to comprehend her under him. Thus though in expreſſe terms in the new Teſtament, we are not commanded to baptize Children, nor keep Lords day, nor pay Tythes, nor admit Women to the Lords Supper, no nor to ſpeak againſt Uſury, or to hold Chriſtiā Magiſtracy: yet by good conſequences in the new, & Cōmands in the old Teſtament, or Rules that look very like Commands. My laſt Argument for Infant-baptiſme, is in Epheſ. 2.3. ſince by nature they are Children of wrath; and therefore need Chriſts blood (repreſented in Baptiſme) to waſh away their ſins: The baptizers ſay, the Text calles them Sons of wrath onelyonly, who walked in ſinful and evill courſes; but I anſwer, That Expoſition, gives the Text the lye; for the Apoſtle there plainly ſhews, firſt, the Epheſians actuall tranſgreſſions, v. 2. and part of the third; and then their originall ſtate in reſpect of Adam, they were by nature Children of wrath (of which more anon). Were not Children, when born, naturall Children? well then by nature Sons of wrath, which made them break forth into ſo many actuall ſins,Perſon may be loved, and their State hated. of which in v. 2.3. here obſerve, becauſe the Epheſians were elect, that their perſons were ever beloved, but their ſtate was the ſtate or condition of wrath, in reſpect of originall ſin; but thus much for Baptiſme of Infants, I could produce more Arguments, and anſwer Objections, but 'tis not my task: there is abundant ſatisfaction to be had in Dr. Featley, Mr. Marſhall, Mr. Hall, Mr. Fuller, B. D. Dav. Chytraus de infantum Bapt. Mr. Pagit. Roſſaeus, and others, ſo that Mr. Fiſhers voluminous Book (where he calls Baby-Baptiſme Babyiſme) ſhall never prevail with me, to deny Childrens Baptiſm. The third thing you affirmed, was that Pope Innocent brought in Baptiſme of Infants; but this is a moſt groſſe error, for Innocent the third lived but about the year of our Lord 1198. and brought in Tranſubſtantiation,Deſcription of Italy, pa. 184. and Auricular confeſſion (as Dr. Heylin tells us) but Infant-Baptiſme was in uſe above 1000. years before; but you are not the firſt who have fathered this Infant-Baptiſme upon Innocent the third, as you may read in Pagit his Hereſiography, page 16. Mr. Marſhall againſt Mr. Tombes, Pa. 92.93, 94. &c.has taken pains to prove the Antiquity of Infant-Baptiſme, to have been in the year, 150. after Chriſt, in the dayes of J. Martyr, Infant-Baptiſme very antient.and produces his Teſtimony for it, which was long before any Pope of Rome was in being, and Origene who lived not very many years after, affirms Paedobaptiſme to be a tradition received from the Apoſtles, [in whoſe time the word Tradition was uſed in a good ſence, read 2 Theſ. 2.15.]. Irenaeus a Grand Father, who lived in the ſame Century, vvith I.Page 23.24, 25. &c. Martyr confirms Infant-Baptiſme to have been in uſe in his time. You may read Mr. Marſhall, vvho vvill alſo give you account vvhy Conſtantine, Greg. Nazianzen, nor Chryſoſtome, &c. vvere baptized vvhen Infants, to vvit, becauſe their Parents vvere not believers at their births. And having mentioned ſome of the Fathers,Scientia non habet inimicum niſi Ignorantem. I wonder why you ſo ſpeak againſt them for darkening the light of the Goſpel. Some of them lived neer the Apoſtles times, ſaw them who heard the Apoſtles, and received light from their light; he that is wiſe will drink as near to the Fountains head as he can, becauſe of the pureneſs and clearneſs of the water.Dulcius ex ipſo ſonte &c. Fideliuns fili ſanctitatis candidati, & ſancti ex ſeminis praerogativâ. And indeed I believe the cauſe why you complain againſt them, is not for want of ignorance of their worth and abilities—. I could produce the teſtimony of Tertullian for Infant-Baptiſme, who lived in the ſame Century with Irenaeus, who calles Children holy, in reſpect of their Prerogative in Generation, to wit, becauſe of believing Parents, and federally holy;Tert. …. de Anima. but I refer the judicious Reader, to Dr. Hammonds Treatiſe of baptizing Infants, pag. 213. And I will wait upon what you ſay concerning Adam's ſin.