Anti-Paedobaptism Part 3, Section 95
SECT. XCV. Dr. Hammonds reasons from the terms holy and unclean for his sense of baptized or not baptized are refelled.
THe Dr. next pretends to vindicate his reasons for his interpretation from my exceptions.
My first reason (saith he) is, Because foreign, holy, noting a relative holiness, a setting apart to God, and the lowest degree of that imaginable, being the initiating into the Church by Baptism, this must in reason be here noted by foreign holy, as all visible professors, Ezr. 9.2. are the holy seed, and in the Epistles of the Apostles, foreign holy. To this he answers, that it being all granted, confirms not the Drs. exposition, because 'tis no good argument a genere ad speciem affirmativè, and because infants are not visible professors. But sure when the species is such, that he that hath not that, hath not any part of the genus, the argument will thus hold very irrefragably: Suppose that of the Deacon to be the lowest order of Officers in the Church, and that without which there is no ascending to any higher degree in the Ministery, will not then the argument hold, He hath some degree Ecclesiastical upon him, therefore sure he is a Deacon? Thus sure it is in this matter, the relative holiness belongs to no person, that is not baptized, Baptism is the lowest degree of it, and all superiour degrees of Apostle, Prophet, &c. in the Christian Church are founded in that, therefore if the infant children be holy, the infant children are baptized. So again, Baptism is the lowest degree of visible Profession, therefore if these that are said to be holy are visible Professors, then sure they are baptized; And so there is no force in that whether answer or exception to my first reason.
Answ. That there is no force to avoid my exception in this reply, may appear. 1. That he saith nothing to what I said p. 333. of the 2d. part of the Review, that the term [holy seed] Ezr. 9.2. hath a far different notion, as I shew in this Review Antipaed. par. 1. sect. 13, 25. from what the Dr. imagines. 2. Nor doth he here, or any where else prove infants to be visible professors. 3. Nor doth he prove Baptism to be the lowest degree of visible profession. 4. Nor doth the Dr. prove or can prove, that the holiness 1 Cor. 7.14. must be meant of a relative holiness, of setting apart to God in the Christian visible Church, short of real saving holiness. The opinion of matrimonial holiness I assert, with many more, is not yet refuted. They who after Tertullian interpret it of real saving holiness intentional, as Rom. 11.26. the Jews uncalled are holy, designati sanctitati ac per hoc etiam saluti, conceive they have as good proof for it as the Dr. for his. 5. Baptism is not proved to be the lowest degree imaginable of relative holiness in the Christian Church, nor the lowest degree of visible profession. For 1. there is a lower degree by freedome from Idol pollutions, such as Tertullian mentions c. 39. de animá. 2. There is a degree of holiness by vow or prayer, such as Hannah devoted Samuel by, 1 Sam. 1.11. which Josephus Antiq. l. 5. c. 11. terms consecrating or sanctifying to God, as the Greek version terms Numb. 6.2, 3. the separating of the Nazarite by vow a sanctifying, and the Apostle prayer in the use of food a sanctifying it, 1 Tim. 4.5. 3. There is a lower degree of visible profession in the catechumeni not yet baptized then Baptism is. 4. There is a lower degree of sanctification of them, according to Augustine, l. 2. de pecc. mer. & remis. c. 26. cited before by the Dr. here, p. 63, 64. when …e said, Catechumenos secundum quendam modum suum per signum Christi & orationem impositionis manuum puto sanctificari, whence the Dr. himself saith there, that some kind of sanctification which the unbaptized might have by prayer and imposition of hands, of which we sometimes read in the Ancients, as hath elsewhere been shewed. 6. Nor is it proved that a person may not have the higher degree of holiness in the Cnurch without Baptism. Sure a person may be converted, regenerated afore Baptism, and so holy. And it is yet a question, whether all the Apostles and Prophets in the Church were baptized, though I doubt not they were, and that regularly they should be; yet the very questioning it shews the argument not to hold irrefragably, that he that is not baptized hath no part of relative holiness in the Church of God, or that all superiour degrees of Apostle, Prophet, &c. in the Christian Church are founded in that. Lastly, it is apparent that the holiness 1 Cor. 7.14. is not Baptism, in that it is from the birth, and so afore Baptism, and from the parent not from the Minister, may be though the child be never baptized, is derived from the lawfulness of marriage society, not from the belief of one or both parents, and therefore not Baptism, as the Dr. (so far as I know) without any example ancient or modern makes it.
He adds, My second followes from the notation of foreign Acts 10.14. for those that must not be received into the Church, as on the other side Gods cleansing is Gods reputing him fit to bee partaker of this priviledge, whereby it appears how fitly, receiving and not receiving to baptism] are exprest by [holy and unclean.] To this he answers by acknowledging the conclusion, viz. the fitness of the expression, All his exception is against my premise, the notion of unclean, Act. 10. which, saith hee, signifies there not onelyonly one out of the Church, but also one that a Jew might not go into or eat with. To this I reply that my conclusion being granted, I may safely part with that, which inferred it, as when I am arrived at my journeys end I have no further need or use of my horse or guide that brought me thither: Let it be remembred, that [holy and unclean] fitly express those that are received or not received to baptism, and then I am sure I have not offended against the propriety of the words, by concluding from this text, that in the Apostles time the believers children were received to Baptism; And if I have as little offended against the rational importance of the words in that place (as I hope hath formerly appeared that I have) then I hope I am perfectly innocent in inducing my conclusion. As for the use of the phrase Act. 10. though now I need not contend yet I may add that the notion of not entring to and eating with▪ containing under it this other of not baptizing (for sure he might not baptize those to whom he might not enter) and the baptizing Cornelius (and not onelyonly the entring to him) being the end for which Peter received that vision) I still adhere that foreign in that place, signifies one peculiarly that must not be received into the Church by Baptism, and the holiness on the contrary reception to that priviledge.
Answ. 1. I granted the fitness of the expression onelyonly conditionally, if the holy Ghost had so thought good, but denied the holy Ghost did so, and therefore he may offend against the propriety of the words, notwithstanding my concession, and hath as much need of his horse to get to his journeys end, as if I had not yeelded so much. 2. How much he hath offended against the rational importance of the Apostles words 1 Cor. 7.14. is shewed before. 3. Were the fitness of the expression absolutely granted, yet with the Drs. leave, I conceive he needs to contend about the use of the phrase in his sense, or else he will not be able to infer any thing for his purpose, sith it is not the fitness of an expression, but the use of words which must direct us in our expositions, as being vis & norma loquendi. 4. That the use of it Acts 10.14. is not for the Drs. purpose is manifest. For 1. the Dr. thus expounds common or unclean by not received to Baptism, now if this were the notion of unclean Ac…s 10.14. then when Peter saith [I have never eaten any thing common or unclean] hee meanes hee never eat any thing nor received into the Church by Baptism; and when v. 15. it is said [what God hath cleansed that call thou not common] the meaning is, what God hath baptized reject thou not from Baptism, which is too ridiculous an exposition to be urged. 2. If it be said that the foreign, or covered sense doth import it, neither is that true. For 1. it is certain that in the latent meaning, the Apostle discerned by the vision that which is common or unclean to be meant v. 28. of one of another nation, and the eating, keeping company, or going to, which is also gathered from Acts 11.3. where the thing objected was, that he went in to the uncircumcised, and did eat with them. So that from hence it is manifest, that the proper notion of unclean is (in that place according to the subsense which the vision aimed at) one that being uncircumcised might not be gone into to talk with familiarly, and and eat with, though he were one that feared God. Which cannot bee meant of want of baptism, for so the clean, to wit, the unbelieving Jews were unclean, they were not baptized with Christian baptism, but of exclusion from familiar society and converse. 2. On the other side, by Acts 10.15. What God hath cleansed that call thou not common, Peter v. 28. shews he understood allowance to go to him, preach to him, eat with him, as one accepted of God, v. 35. So that the cleansing is the taking away of that restraint which was upon the Jewes, of converse with the Gentiles. Which being considered, if unclean Acts 10.14. were to be expounded in the same notion which the Dr. imagines to be 1 Cor. 7.14. not admitted to the Church by Baptism, then when God bid Peter count nothing common or unclean, he bid him count no Gentile unbaptized, and when he said what God hath cleansed, it should be whom God hath baptized, or admitted by Baptism into the Church. And when the Apostle according to the Dr. useth unclean 1 Cor. 7.14. in the notion in which it is used Acts 10.14. he should mean, your young children were such as a man might not go into, converse with, talke with familiarly, eat with, which certainly being meant of infants as the Dr. conceives, is so ridiculus an exposition, as a sober man would not put upon any profane Author, much less on the sacred writers.
As for that which the Dr. saith, that the notion of not entring to, and eating with, contained under it this other of not baptizing, for sure hee might not baptize those to whom he might not enter; it is so frivolous, as that it is unfit for a man that takes on him to make Annotations on the New Testament. For if this were good reasoning, it would follow on the contrary, every ones going in to, and eating with one, were baptizing; and sith others then Apostles or preachers were to go into or not, they were to baptize or not to baptize, and all that men might not go into or eat with, as excommunicate persons they must bee unbaptized, and by the same reason, sith sure a Minister may not admit to the Lords Supper, nor a Bishop ordain him for a Priest, to whom he might not enter; the notion of not entring to and eating with, contained under it this other of not communicating and not ordaining, and consequently holy contains under it communicating, and ordaining, and so your young children are not unclean but holy, should bee by this very reasoning expounded, they are admitted to the Lords Supper, and ordained Priests.
And what he adds; And the baptizing Cornelius (and not onelyonly entring to him) being the end for which Peter received that vision, I still adhere that foreign in that place, signifies one peculiarly that must not be received into the Church by Baptism, and the holiness on the contrary reception to that priviledge, may as well serve to prove unclean hath the notion of one excluded from the Lords Supper, or heaven, and holy on the contrary the reception to these, sith these were the ends of Peters going in, as well as baptizing, and so to say your young children are holy, shall be as much as your young children are admitted to the Lords Supper and to Heaven. These conceits of the Dr. go upon two gross mistakes. 1. As if unclean were used in a sense suitable to the Ecclesiastical practise in the Christian Church, whereas it is used according to the use and conceipt of the Jews peculiarly. 2. As if the notion of a word did ex…end to the Concomitants and ends of the act expressed by it; which if true, then election, regeneration, should have the notion of justifying and glorifying, preaching the notion of adoption and sanctification. But enough of this raw conceit of the Doctor, he goe… on thus.
My third reason, saith hee, being taken from the use of the Hebrew foreign to sanctifie, for washing any part of the body, and on occasion of that, mentioning a conjecture that the use of holiness for baptism, might perhaps intimate that the primitive bapti…ms were not always immersions, but that sprinkling of some part might be sufficicient; he hath a reply to each of these: To the former, that if this reason were good, then the husbands being sanctified by the wife, must signifie his being baptized or washed by her; to the latter, that I have in my writings so oft acknowledged the Baptism of the Jews and Christians to be immersion of the whole body, that I ought to be ashamed to say the contrary, and that I can hardly believe my self in it. To these I answer, first to the former. 1. That I that affirm sanctifications among the Jews to signifie washings, do also know that it hath other significations, and that that signification is in each text to bee chosen, which seems most agreeable in all those respects which are to be considerable in the pitching on any interpretation; consequently that the wives baptizing the husband being a thing absurd and utterly unheard of in the Church of God, whether in the Apostles or succeeding ages, this sense may not reasonably be affixt to it; whereas the baptizing of infants being by the ancients affirmed to be received from the Apostles, it is most reasonable to understand the words of this, though not of the other (and so to apply the observation (as it is visible I did) to the latter, not former part of the verse.
Answ. This is no answer, but a grant that the sanctifying 1 Cor. 7.14. cannot be meant of Baptizing, sith it is absurd so to expound it; and consequently, a yeelding the argument from the calling the Jews washings sanctifications, to have no force. Nor doth he at all help himself by saying, it is most reasonable to apply it to the latter part of the v. For there is no reason in it, that because the Jewes use the word sanctification for Baptism, therefore holy (which is another word, and in another predicament then sanctified, which is in Passion, and the other in quality or relation) and not sanctified 1 Cor. 7.14. is as much as Baptism, and because the word sanctifications hath other significations then washings, and may not be understood of Baptism in the fore-part of 1 Cor. 7.14. therefore holy, no where proved to be as much as baptized, is as much as admitted to the Church by Baptism ▪ and because the Ancients mention infant Baptism to be received from the Apostles, as they do other unwritten traditions of observing Easter, L…nt, giving infants the Communion, &c. therefore holy 1 Cor. 7.14. must be without any example in Scripture or Father of that use of the word, bee expounded thus [admitted in the Church by Baptism.]
But yet the Dr. is loth to confess his errour, but adds. And yet 2. if we shall distinguish of the notion of [by] and expound [foreign, by the woman] of the perswasion, that the woman hath used to bring her husband to baptism, and not of her ministry in b…ptizing▪ wee may very conveniently so interpret the former part of the verse also that by the woman, foreign, the unbelieving husband hath been brought to baptism, viz. by being brought to faith, to which this priviledge belongs.
Answ. 1. The Dr. brings no example of such a notion of [by] or of such a use of the term [san…tified] any where else, and how ill it suits with the Apostles argument, is shewed fully before. 2. But were it yeelded him, 1. it would shew that th… alledging of the Jews calling their washings sanctifications, to expound 1 Cor. 7.14, by was impertinent, the Jews sanctifications being not b… perswasion of another, but of themselves according to Gods appointment, nor do they note first bringing to the faith, and then admission by another to baptism but washing themselves; and that is one reason why neither the use of sanctified nor holy, 1 Cor. 7.14. can be conceived to be allusive …o the Jewish sanctifications mentioned by the Dr. sith in … high Priest washed himself, and but his hands and his feet …, but Christian baptism was by the ministry of another, by imm…sion of the whole body, and therefore this third reason of the Dr. is altogether in …bable. 2. If [sanctified 1 Cor. 7.14.] be to be … [brought to the faith, and so to Baptism] [holy is in like sort so be expounded, and then we might allow the Drs. exposition of [holy 1 Cor. 7 14.] wit…out any detriment to our cause, it being granted the children of believers were brought to the faith, and so to baptism.
Again saith the Dr. As for his second exceptions to my conje…ture, founded in the use of foreign san…tifications for partial, not total …ashing…. 1. I answer, that I mention it onelyonly as a con…ecture, with a perhaps and lay no more weight u…on it. 2. That for Christian baptism I no whe…e affi…m that it was onelyonly by immersion, nor on the other side that it was alway… by sp…kling but disjun…tively, either by one or the other (as by the word… cited by him from prac. cat. l. 6 …ect. 2 is clear) supposing indeed that Christs appointment was not terminated to either, and so satisfied by either.
Answ. 1. The Dr. by putting in his conjecture, shewed his willingness to have maintained by some colour, the abuse of sprinkling in stead of baptism, which his own words cited by me, made me f…ar hee did against his own light, and the contrary is not cleered by this slight excuse. 2. The Drs. own words alledged by me, plainly shewed that he knew the primitive baptisms were alwayes immersions of the whole body, nor was any other use of water for baptism, till the corrupt use of the circumfusion of the Clinici in the third Century began. Nor do his words practic cat. l. 6. sect. 2. cleer the contrary to be conceived by him; For when he saith By Christs appointment whosoever should bee thus received into his family, should he received with this ceremony of water, therein to be dipt, i. e. according to the primitive ancient custome, to be put under water three times; and then a…ds, or instead of that to bee sprinkled with it; though he make Christs appointment disjunctively the one or the other, yet he makes the primitive ancient custome, onelyonly to bee by putting under water; as in like manner p. 35. and this was indeed the ancient primitive custome, a Rom. 6.3, 4. Col 2.12. shew, and the known sa…ing of Tertullian …er me…gitamur. And of any one, Dr. Hammond should acknowledg… it, who distinguisheth the sanctifications of a part from foreign, that is Baptism, and saith, the Jewish solemnity of Baptism ▪ which he would have the original and pa…tern of our Baptism, to be the washing of the whole body. As for his propounding Christs appointmen… disjunctively, it discovers more of his audacious and corrupt dealing by ma…ing that appointment, which is but one way disjunctive, either that wa… w…ich is acknowledged to be Christs, or another way in stead of it, whic… cannot be shewn to have been practised by the Apostles, or any Apostolical men in the primitive times. And in this thing it is necessary that …he …il dealing of Dr. Hammond, Mr. Baxter, and oth…rs, be shewed, who do most presumptuously add to the ordinance of Baptism… when Christ h…th appointed onel… dipping, they add sprinkling; when Christ appoints onelyonly Disciples made by preaching the Gospel to be baptized, they add infants who are not such, and by a fictitious title ma…e them Disciples by their parents faith, who learn and profes… nothing themselves; (which he that read… considerately Mr. Baxters arguments in his 2…. disputation of the right to Sacraments, may see sufficiently refuted, and may think he could not write that Book without regret of conscie…ce for what hee had written in his Book of Baptism) and when the New Testament makes none members of the visible Church Christian, but professors of faith, they add infants of their own head; …nd when the Scripture and Fathers in setting down the institution and practise of Baptism, plainly express both so, as that they confess them to bee onelyonly meant of the aged, yet would have them to include also infants, contrary to the pl…in words and their own confessions, and in their expositions so expound the texts, as expressing onelyonly what agrees to the aged, and yet in their arguments urge the same for baptizing of infants, which they could not do if they did not plead for infant Baptism against heir own light, or were not extremely heedless at one time of what they say at another: How ever it be with them, sure I am, no conscientious Christian hath reason to be satisfied by sprinkling, when Christ hath appointed no other then dipping, nor with infant Baptism▪ when as Mr. Baxter hath fully proved in his 2d. disput. that there is a necessi…y of profession of repentance and faith before ▪ and none are to bee baptized but those that are first professed Disciples of Christ; and though he supposeth believers children Disciples, and the parents profession to be instead of their own, yet no where proves it, nor offers any proof, but what is meerly conjectural, nor can any Pastours or teachers of Churches, without most arrogant presumption baptize or take for visible Churchmembers infants, whom neither Christ, nor his Apostles did baptize or take for such. But I return to the Dr.
My last reason, saith he, is taken from the effect of the legal uncleanness contrary to those their sanctifications, viz. removing men from the congregation; agreeable to which it is that those should bee called holy, who in the account of God stood so, that they might be received into the Church. To this he answers, that it is said without proof that the uncleanness excluding from, and sanctification restoring to the tabernacle, are proportionable to the notion here given, of the childrens bei…g excluded or included in the Church, asking why Cornelius should be counted out of the Church being a devout man? But to this I reply, that that which is so manifest needed no further proof, for what two things can be more proportionable, or answerable the one to the other, then the Jews calling those unclean and holy, who were excluded from and restored to the tabernacle, and the Christians calling them unclean, and holy that were excluded from and received into the Church, the exclusion and reception being the same on both sides, as also the uncleanness and holiness, and the proportion lying onelyonly betwixt the Jewish tabernacle, and the Christian Church, which surely are very fit parallels as could have been thought on.
Answ. Were it so, yet it had been necessary to have proved the holy Ghost made them parallels, that from the answerableness a reason might be taken to prove thence the sense of holy and unclean 1 Cor. 7.14. after the Drs. minde: For it is not the fitness of an expression, that must prove the sense we would, but the use and the matter of the speech, in which the Drs. expositions are defective. But the holy Ghost no where that I know resembles the meer visible Church by the tabernacle, but the invisible, in which the spirit of God dwels, or rather every believing Saint, 1 Cor. 3.16, 17. & 6.19. Heb. 3.6. 1 Tim. 3.15. or the body of Christ, Joh. 2.19. Heb. 8.2. or heaven, Heb. 9.24. and the uncleanness resembled by the legal uncleanness, is such as excludes, and the holiness such as admits into communion with God, union with Christ, entrance into heaven, 2 Cor. 6.16, 17. Revel. 21.27. and the sanctification resembled by the Jewish washings, is that which is invisible by the spirit, 1 Cor. 6.11. not meer outward baptism, and therefore if proportion or agreeableness could prove a sense of those terms the sense would be fairer for the expounding of holiness rather of real then relative holiness.
The Dr. adds, As for his question of Cornelius, it is most vain, the whole discourse being not of real but relative sanctification, and the difference most visible betwixt that sanctity which was truly in him in respect of his devotion, fearing, praying, &c. and that outward priviledge of admission into the congregation of the Jews, which alone was the thing which in the account of God or sober men was denied Cornelius. These be pitifull sophisms, and in no reason farther to be insisted on.
Answ. All the discourse is not about meere relative sanctification, sure Dr. Hammond when he expounds sanctified 1 Cor. 7.14. by being converted to the faith, and the same with saved v 16. means it of real sanctification. But were all the discourse about relative sanctification, yet the question was not vain, but attains the end for which propounded, sith Cornelius accounted unclean by Peter, Acts 10.14. was not out of the Church of God, no not out of the Church visible, being of good report among all the nation of the Jews, Acts 10.22. though he were not in the policy of Israel, and therefore uncleanness hath another notion then the non-admission into the visible Church Christian by Baptism, of which is enough said before. Nor are any of these things I alledge sophisms, but plain answers, nor any otherwise pittifull, then that they meet with such a such a superficial and slight reply from the Dr. Of the different interpretatio…s from the Drs. of 1 Cor. 7.14. in Tertullian c. 39. de animâ, and Augustin l. 2. de pecc. mer. & remis. c. 26. and l. 3. c. 12. enough before. And Hieromes different interpretation, is that which is in the comment. on 1 Cor. 7.14. in these words left out by the Dr. Item ide… vir & uxor invicem sanctificantur; quia ex traditione Dei sanctae sunt nuptiae, mentioned here before sect. 92. And Ambrose or who ever was the Author of that Commentary under his name in locum operum tom. 4. sancti sunt] quia de conjugiis legitimis natis, both which agree with my exposition. The two testimonies the Dr. brings out of Cyprian and Nazianzen are impertinent, the former makes a distinction between baptizandum and sanctificandum, the latter if it call Baptism sanctification, yet it doth nor call Baptism sanctity, the word ascribed to children 1 Cor. 7.14. and therefore rather the first part of the v. is to be expounded if any thus, sanctified id est Baptized, which yeelds such a sense as the Dr. will not own, and is shewed before not at all to be satisfied by him. Neither the antiquity of Cyprian, nor Gregory Nazianzen's skill in Greek assures us they understood the sacred Dialect. How much Tertullian, whom Cyprian counted his master, and how much Origen of whom Gregory Nazianzen learned, mistook the meaning of Scripture, and generally the Fathers, may be discerned by their writings remaining, or if any list to take a short cut to satisfie himself, he may see much in Sixt. senens. Biblioth. l. 5. and 6.
In the 4th. ch. sect. 1. of Dr. Hammonds Defence there is little or nothing which at present I need reply to much of it being spoken to before. OnelyOnly I have thought it necessary to go back besides my first purpose to Review the two first Chapters of his Defence, because he doth so often tell me, that I do inartificially deny his conclusion without answering to his premises.