Anti-Paedobaptism Part 3, Section 99
SECT. XCIX. Mr. Crs. objections about my 9 untruths, his discourse about re-baptizing are refelled.
I Return now to Mr. Cragg. Part 1. sect. 6. he chargeth me with 9 untruths, outvying the number of the lines; in which he is a false accuser. In the first he mis…recites my words, which were not, that the Epistle affirms, that the baptising of believers had its spring and rise from Nicholas Stork; but thus, As false it is th…t the baptizing of believers (called by these Anabaptism) had its spring and rise from Nicholas Stork and others there named, which were true. For though it was not in those words said by me, that the Epistle did so affirm, yet it is true, 1. That Paedobaptists call the baptizing believers which Nicholas Stork and others practised Anabaptism; me thinks he should not be so impudent as to deny that those whom they baptized were believers, or that they baptized them, or that that Baptism is called Anabaptism by them. 2. The very words of the Epistle are, the spring and rise of Anabaptism had its beginning after truth, and saith the first Author thereof was Nicholas Stork, then Phipher, &c. there you have the spring and rise of it, and therefore in my words there is no untruth, but Mr. Cr. doth falsely insinuate as if there were folshood and inconsequence in my speech, and sl…nderously make me one of the great disturbers of the late reformation, and the first …uthor of the disturbance or Anabaptism, and cunningly altering the subject of the Question from Anabaptists to baptizers of believers.
The 2d. thing he chargeth on me as untruth, was not expressed as Mr. Cr. in…inuates, that Paedobaptists call the baptizers of belivers Anabaptists, but thus [the baptizing of believers called by these Anabaptism] which cannot be denied to be true, unless he deny that the baptizing used was not baptizing, or the baptized no believers, or that they call it not Anabaptism. It is also false that he saith of me, that my judgement and practise is, that all that will be saved must be baptized again, when they become actual believers▪ and this I put in execution by making as many Proselytes by rebaptising as I can.
The 3d. untruth (as he calls it) is, that baptising of believers without infants, or excluding infants, had not its spring and rise from Nicholas Stork; and he notes, that the Epistle affirmed Anabaptism (which is another thing) had its spring thence. But he neither shews what other thing Anabaptism is, nor doth he prove it to be an untruth, but by rendring my own instances against it inv…lid. But therein he d…t… bu… abu…e me, who alledged not the instances he brings to prove that proposition he terms an untruth; nor is there any thing said by him, but what he hath from Mr. Ms. Defence, and is a…swered before here, sect … 98.
The 4th▪ untruth he ch…rgeth me with, is, that infants Baptism was not commanded by Christ, and he th…ks to …vince the contrary from Mat. 28.19. But he saith …othing but wh…t is …ully refuted before, Review, part 2. sect. 5, &c. part 3. sect. 97. and elsewhere, so that I nee… say no more here to it.
The 5th. untruth he imagines▪ is▪ that infant Baptism was not practised by the Apostles, which being denied by the An…ipaedobaptists, the proof lies upon them. But by his …ave the proof lies upon the Paedobaptists, to prove they did baptize infants, sith they claim a right to it, which mu… be proved by precep… o… example of the doing it. A negative argument in matter of fact of this nature is of sufficient validity …o sh…w infant Baptism not to be according to Gods will, sith in meer positive instituted worship, wherein …od hath set down what he will have done, he will have it so done, and no otherwise. It is pro…ed b…fore, Review, part 2. sect. 5. &c. part 3. sect. 52 that the Apostles baptized not infants. Mr. Crs. imagined reasons why they might baptize none but of ripe age, de facto, are vain, there being no intimation of any such reason… in the History of the Apostles Acts: Yea, the story is against his surmises, for the converted and baptized did not travel far to hear the Apostles, but the Apostles travelled far to preach to them in their own Cities, and in them they went from house to house, Acts 16.15, 34. & 20.20. Hierusalem and all Judea, and all the region round about Jordan are said to go out to John Baptist to be baptized of him in Jordan, confessing their sins, which cannot be meant of infants. Though infants be a par… of a Nation, yet Mat. …8.19. Is. 2.2. by nations no infant is meant, nor Luk▪ 19.19. is in…ant Baptism intimated. The Baptism of infants is not proved from Act. 16.15. v. 32, 33. shew that by the house are meant persons of age: and by so expounding we diminish not Gods word, nor make exception that God hath not made, nor imply a contradiction, nor incur a curse, as Mr Cr. after his vein of pratling, writes.
All that Mr. Cr. saith in opposition to what I said of baptizing believers in the first ages continued without any infant Baptism, proves not my words an untruth, nor a frontless assertion, and is answered before, sect. 88, 89, 9… …n which, and sect. 90, 91. all that he brings to evince my 7th. and 8th. untruth (as he terms my words) is examined.
I justly account infant Baptism a Popish abuse, it being derived from these principles, unwritten tradition, and necessi…y of it to save an infant dying, which are judged Popish errours. And for answer to what Mr. Cr. saith of my 9th. untruth, as he terms it, I refer the Reader to the 9th. Section of my Praecursor, not refelled by Mr. Baxter in his Praefestinantis morator.
Sect. 7. Mr. Cr. excepts against me for saying, 1. That the Epistlers assignation of the causes of Anabaptism are vain. 2. That Anabaptism is true Baptism. 3. That the true cause is the light shining from Scriptures and other Authors. 4. That this light was not discovered formerly as now. What he saith against the first, is but a repeating of the reasons, without any confirmation, but some light Poetical peda…ti…ue expression…, which deserve onelyonly neglect. Against the …d. he gives his reasons against reiteration of Baptism, which are nothing …o me, who asserted not th… baptizing twice was true Baptism, but baptizing …f persons of age professing …aith though in infancy imagined to have been baptized is true Baptism. Yet do I see no force in the reasons he gives. For 1. in the institution of Baptism, Mat. 28.19. the precept is to the baptizer, and I presume he doth not think the baptizer is not to reiterate his act of baptizing, yea doubtless he is to baptize as oft as there are Disciples made by him. And as for the act of the baptized, which is implied it is true, neither is it determined to be once or twice, and may therefore seem to be left to liberty. That he allegeth, Whatsoever is not of faith is sin, is clean mistaken by him, the meaning …eing onelyonly, what a man doth with a doub…ing conscience is sin to him, & so by this reason rebaptization is a sin only to him that doubts of it. And when …e saith, Whatsoever is not grounded on the Scripture is will worship, I presume he means it of that which is used as worship, and determined to be but once. But then the question is only begg'd, not proved, that Christ hath determined Baptism to be but once. In that which he saith of Act. 19.3. (which is an instance of being twice baptized) I find nothing brought by Mr. Cr. to avoid the force of it. For to be baptized into Johns Baptism can be no other then to be baptized with water according to the pro…ession of Johns Disciples, and this was true Baptism from Heaven, not differing in the nature of it from Christs, as say Protestant Divines; and it is certain, that to be baptised into the name of the Lord Jesus, i… to be baptized with water into the profession of him, as Act 2.…8, 41. & 10.48. the giving the Holy Ghost is distinctly expressed v. 6. to have been by laying on of hands, and this was on the same persons v. 6. who were …aid to hear and to be baptised v. 5. and these were not all the people mentioned v 4. bu… twelve onelyonly v. 7. and therefore it is far more probable, and in mine apprehension certain, as the Ancients did conceive, that those twelve were baptized with water twice, once according to the profe…on Johns Disciples made at Baptism, and the other according to the Christian. Nor am I moved by the observation of Marnixius, …p…roved by Beza in hi… annot. in locum, and followed by many others, That the particles foreign and foreign must necessarily answer each other, and therefore …he words v 4, 5. be Pauls. For 1. the particle foreign is put oft, and the matter requires it should be so conceived here, either as an expletive that is without force, to which in the vulgar transla…ion nothing answers, as it is Act 3.21, 22, &c. o… an adverb of affirmation, or if it be a conjunction di…cretive, that which answers to it is not that v. 5. there being no good sense, to say, John verily baptised with the Baptism of repent…nce, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after, that is, on Christ Jesus; but they hearing this, &c. there being no apt discretion made in such speech, if the particles be discretive, the other part is concealed, and should be to thi… purpose, But the Baptism we use is into the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, or into the name of the Lord Jesus already come. And for this reas…n the particle foreign must be expounded as our interpreters, when, or as a meer expletive as in the vulgar. 2. The words Act. 19.5. do give an obvious plain sense on the other side as the words of Luke, thus, When the twelve, mentioned v. 7. heard this of Paul, that it was Christ …esus to come after John, on whom John would have his Disciples to believe when he baptized them with the Baptism of repentance, then they were baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus with express profession of him. Nor is it true that there is express Scripture, Ephes. 4 5. One Lord, one Faith, one Baptism, against the iteration of the same Baptism. For as one Faith notes n…t one act of believing, but one kind of faith from the unity of the object b…lieved, which may be and is one faith though an hundred times iterated; so one Baptism notes not one act of baptizing, but one kind of Baptism distinct from Pharisaical Baptism into the observance of the Law f…r righteousness, termed one by the profession of the same Doctrine or Lord, though it be an hundred times iterated. The same man baptized an hundred times, and an hundred men once onelyonly baptized, each of them have one Baptism in the …postles sense, if they be baptized with the same profession; and the same person though but once baptized, yet if with another profession, hath not that one Baptism there meant: One Baptism is not as much as once baptized and no more, but Baptism into one profession and no other.
The 2d. argument is of no force, Baptism is the Sacrament of regeneration, or new birth; and as Austin hath it, we are ca…nally and naturally born but once, so we are spiritually and supernaturally new born but once; Faith though it admit of gradations begins but once, Baptism that matriculates us into Christs School is to be performed but once.
Answ. The Scripture no where terms Baptism the Sacrament of regeneration; nor, if the expression be allowed, will it follow Baptism is to be but once. Fo… 1. it doth not follow, natural birth is but once, therefore supernatural new birth, which is onelyonly so metaphorically, is but once; as it follows not, we die naturally but once, therefore we die to sin, or through sin but once. Natural birth hath not degrees, therefore neither regeneration. 2. Baptism is not regeneration though it were yeelded to be the sacrament of regeneration, and therefore though regeneration could be but once, yet Baptism might be often. 3. …hose that hold intercision of regeneration and faith (which I do not) will say that regeneration may be often, and faith begin of…en. 4. Baptism may be termed the sacrament of regeneration either as the cause or sign of it. If as the cause of it so it should rather follow it should be often administred, as the word is often p…eached to beget us again. If as the sign, so it may often be used to signifie it, though it be but once done; as the breaking of bread is oft used to signifie Christs death, though he died but once.
The 3d. argument, from once Circumcision, is of less force. For neither is it true, that our Baptism succeeds Jewish Circumcision, nor is it proved that in no case a person might be twice circumcised▪ nor if both these were granted will it follow, that the rule of circumcising but once must be a rule to us of baptizing but once, any more then the Jews Circumcision was tied to the 8th. day, therefore so must our Baptism. Yet this reason of Mr. Cr. may be thus urged against infant Baptism: Circumcision was tied to the 8…h▪ day, therefore to circumcise on another day were sacriledge; Baptism is tied to Disciples, or believers, Mat. 28.19. Mar. 16.15, 16. therefore to baptize infants who are not Disciples or believers, cannot be justified without sacriledge, at the rate of Mr. Crs. reasoning. The rest of that Section and the next Section need no other answer then what is already made, there being no argument needfull to be answered, nor any thing almost but scosti…g Rhetorick, cavils, mis…representations of my words and the passages a… Disputes, which were rightly represented in the 2d. Section of my Plea.