Anti-Paedobaptism Part 2, Section 16
SECT. XVI.
Dr. Featley and Mr. Stephens arguings from John 3. 5. for Infant-baptism are answer…d, and Baptism shewed not be a cause of Regeneration, and Mr. Cranfords words considered.
THere are some other Texts brough… 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 infantbaptism, 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 [foreign 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 waterbaptism 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 onelyonly 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 Commonwealth or policy of Israel: which sense nevertheless doth not assert a necessity of their water-regeneration, but onelyonly of Christs spiritual regeneration, and the insufficiency of the other by it self, which is so much the more probable, because I finde foreign used for foreign, that is, and for but, Motth. 11. 19. & 12. 39. Acts 10. 28. and foreign, Acts 26. 29. seems to answer to [not onelyonly but also] yet because I finde not a place every way parallel, I onelyonly 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 its 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, …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 onelyonly 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 onelyonly 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 birthsin, 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 onelyonly as the cause, by baptism of water onelyonly 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 onelyonly: no man calls that which is onelyonly 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 ou… [water] and mentions onelyonly [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 baptized afore they are believers, or repenting persons, which is absurd, and contrary to the Scripture, Mark 16. 16. Acts 2. 38. &c. and contrary to the order of Christ that persons should be made Disciples afore they were baptized Matth. 28 19. 3. Because it is altogether inexplicable how the use of water can be a cause either principal or instrumental to work a new birth or inward change on the soul; If it be sayd, that it is by virtue of Gods promise, it is meet that promise should be shewed, that at, by or upon the use of baptism, God hath promised to regenerate persons. That it is a sign of regeneration will not be I suppose denyed; for it is made the sign of repentance (which is all one with regeneration) and therefore called the baptism of repentance Acts 19. 4. because as Beza on v. 3. baptism was symbolum resipiscentiae, the token of repentance. And so in like manner it was the sign of faith, and therefore the Apostle Gal. 3. 27. saith, That as many as were baptized into Christ had put on Christ, that is, had by the sign of baptism testified their putting on Christ by faith. And in this sense it is termed the washing of regeneration (if baptism be meant by it) Tit. 3. 5. because by that washing the person baptized testifies his regeneration. And Rom. 6. 4. We are buried with him by baptism into death, that is, we by being under water testifie our dying to sin conformably to Christs death and burial. And in this sense Paul is bid Acts 22. 16. to wash away his sins, that is, by baptism to testifie his purging from his sins. And so Christ is said to sanctifie and cleanse his Church with washing of water, Ephes. 5. 26. that is, as Beza Annot, in locum, as representing what he entirely doth effect within. Mr. Iames Cranford in his Epistle to Mr. Thomas Bedford printed at the end of the Friendly Accommodation between Mr. Bedford and Mr. Baxter, saith, that he conceives the ground of Anabaptism to have been the erroneous Doctrine de nudis signis, in which he is more confirmed by what I answered once to an Argument drawn by him from Ephes. 5. from the efficacy of baptism to inforce the baptizing of infants, that if that Tenent could be clearly proved, I would no longer oppose that practice. Concerning which I say, I remember not all that passed from me in the Dispute he mentions, I did think that which I put down in my Exerci… ▪ sect. 11. had been his Argument. But this I still say, that could it be clearly proved that Christ ever appointed baptism of water taken severedly from the preaching of the Word to be the cause of Regeneration, or that God had assured that by outward baptism with water he would confer regenerating grace to an infant, I should not oppose the practice of Paedobaptism. What Mr. Bedford hath produced for the efficacy of baptism, hath been answered by Mr. Baxter in his Appendix to his Plain Scripture, &c. Nor doth it appear to me that Mr. B. is of his minde, notwithstanding what Letters have past between them now printed, and the syncretism yielded to in the printing of the Friendly Accommodation, and leaving out the Appendix. Dr. Burges his Treatise of Baptismal Regeneration, hath been freely censured by many. Dr. Ieremiah Taylour in his Discourse of baptism hath like an Orator rather than a Disputant pleaded for infant-baptism from the efficacy of baptism, more from speeches of the Fathers than from the Scripture. Sure I am, baptism was appointed by Christ, and used in the examples of the Scripture, as a testimony of Repentance, of faith in Christ, no cause of either. And therefore I deny baptism to be the remedy of original sin, or the cause of Regeneration, or that Christ intended to assign the use to baptism to heal original sin, or to testifie the freedom from it without actual. These things have been delivered by Augustine, and taught by the Romanists and Lutherans, but by many other Protestants disclaimed and refuted; and therefore Mr. Stephens, Mr. Cranford, Mr. Bedford, &c. in using this Argument do but symbolize with the Papists, and revive what many Protestants of best note have exploded.