from the words to Paul Acts 22. 16. where he is commanded 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Arise baptise and wash which all require voluntary action on his part as well as ministration on Ananias his part out of which this argument is formed They are not baptized into Christs Name or his Fathers and Spirits Name who do not perform the acts required in that expression But infants of believers do not perform the acts required in that expression therefore they are not baptized into Christs Name or his Fathers o◠Spirits according to the meaning of it in the institution So that this argument is not a petty reasoning but a solid reason to prove infants baptism not such as Christ appointed As for Mr. Ms. frivolous question Were not the infants of the Jews devoted to God by Circumcision though they could not actually devote themselves Though I am not bound to answer his impertinent questions yet I will tell him they were yet this is nothing to the business in hand about the meaning of the Phrase to be baptized into the Name of the Father Son and Holy Spirit which manifestly implies the party baptized his act which infants cannot do Whereas no where there is such a command Be ye circumced in the Name of Jesus Christ nor is it all one to be circimcised as to be baptized which is still supposed but never proved 4. I further urged Christ bids the Apostles presently after Baptism Teach them to observe what ever he commanded But this direction could not pertain to infants they could not be taught to observe Christs commands therefore neither were they appointed to be baptized Mr. M. denies that they were enjoyned presently to teach them to observe what Christ commanded But the Text knits these together Baptizing and Teaching so as that they that were baptized should be taught that by them that baptized them which the Apostles could not do being to go up and down from place to place to plant the Churches in all Nations if they had been to baptize infants for then they must have staid many years till they came to understanding to be taught to observe what Christ commanded No man me thinks should imagine Christs appointment to be thus Make infants disciples and baptize them and then after five six or ten years when they are grown to some understanding come again and teach them to observe what I have commanded but that Christ did appoint them to teach them presently after Baptism that is in so many hours or days after that Ordinance was administred as it could be well done Nor doth Mr. Cobbet avoid this objection by saying pag. 179. then they must be presently taught the whole minde of Christ which is impossible For presently is not restained to an instant but comprehends a just latitude of time for the doing of the thing onely it notes that the beginning of it is to be not long after Baptism but sooner by much than it could be done to infants Mr. Baxter Plain Scripture Proof pag. 341. argues thus What Christ hath conjoyned man must not separate but Christ hath conjoyned Discipling and Baptizing I add and Teaching therefore we must not separate them 5. The institution of Christ is best understood by the command of the Apostles the resolution of Philip the practice of John Baptist the Apostles and other men sent by God to baptize but the Apostle Peter commanded first Repentance and then Baptism Acts 2. 38. Philip resolved the Eunuch demanding What hindereth me to be baptised If thou believest with all thy heart 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 thou maist it is lawfull or allowed thee Acts 8. 36 37. John the Baptist the Apostles and other holy men sent by God to baptize baptized none but Professors of Repentance Faith and being Disciples of Christ as may appear by the Texts mentioning their baptizing Mat. 3. 6. Mark 1. 5. Luke 3. 10. Acts 2. 41 8. 12 13 38 9. 18. 10. 47. 11. 17 18. 16. 15 31 32 33. 18. 8. 19. 5. 22. 16. Therefore Christs institution is of baptizing onely Professors of Repentance Faith and being Disciples of Christ and therefore not infants of believers The major cannot be denied by those that confess that Scripture best expounds Scripture and that the Apostles knew Christs minde and did observe it The minor is manifest from the Texts alleged And Mr. Rutherfords words are express to that purpose Divine Right of Church government cap. 5. q. 1. pag. 257. We reade that John Baptist and the Apostles baptized none but such as confessed their sins and professed faith in Christ Jesus To this Mr. M. Defence pag. 227. says that it would be a hard task for me to prove that John baptized none but upon profession of Repentance I reply 1. It is proved already and confessed by Mr. Rutherford 2. I did think Mr. Ms. own words Sermon pag 44. that John did teach before he baptized because then no other were capable of Baptism did amount to as much till Mr. M. to help himself referred then to the time untill Parents were converted not to the time of Johns and the Apostles ministry of which the objection was to which in those words he answered For the objection was that they always taught and made them Disciples by teaching before they baptized any and Mr. Ms. words in his answer were John and Christs Disciples and the Apostles did teach before they baptized because then no other were capable of Baptism which if not understood of the time of their Ministery it was an answer besides the objection 3. Mr. M. hath not yet shewed any other but such baptized by them and therefore it is probable in the highest degree of probability that no other were baptized by them 4. I think an argument in this matter from the Evangelists relation negatively is good proof unless we will suppose John Baptist and the Apostles were defective in their duty or the Evangelists in their narrations of that which frequently if it had been their duty would have occurred and their story lead them to mention and it was of much concernment to the Churches of God in after Ages they should 2. He saith It would be hard to prove that John did impose or require confession of sin before baptism Reply I think not 1. what they did sure was required of them else it had not been an acceptable thing and by John else he had failed in his duty Luke 1. 17. But they confessed sin afore Baptism Matth. 3. 6. Mark 1. 5. Ergo. 2. He that preached repentance to them that came to be baptized required confession of sins which is a chief part of it afore Baptism But so did John Matth. 3. 2. Ergo. 3. He that preached to them to prepare the way of the Lord required confession of sins afore Baptism for that was the preparing the way of the Lord by bringing persons to confess sins and then to baptise them But
John did preach to prepare the way of the Lord Mat. 3. 3. 4. He that preached the Baptism of repentance required confession of sin to Baptism But John did preach the Baptism of repentance Mark 1. 4. Luke 3. 3. Acts 13. 24. 19. 4. To prevent this saith Mr. M. It is said he baptized them eis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 unto repentance not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in repentance as stated in actual repentance But dare Mr. M. in good earnest say that John Baptist did admit persons to Baptism that were not in a state of repentance If he should I doubt not but to be able to prove the contrary from that which is said of those he baptized Matth. 3. 6. They were baptized of him in Iordan confessing their sins and Mark 1. 5. They were all baptized of him in the River of Iordan confessing their sins all must not be understood simply for so it were not true but as the matter requires with this limitation all that were baptized were baptized confessing of sins which was a state of repentance Matth. 21. 32. the different state of those that believed Iohn and those that believed not is expressed thus the one repented that they might believe and the other not And by comparing it with Luke 7. 29 30. it appears they onely were baptized that believed Iohn and others not But were it not Mr. M. had been minded to wrangle there had been no need to have proved this His own words That there was a new Church to be constituted of those that should receive Christ Sermon page 44. shews none were to be baptized but penitents unless they were to be Church members who were not in a state of repentance Would Iohn admit manifest impenitents Then the new Church should consist of impenitents and so no difference between the Church and the world them that receive Christ and them that receive him not all should be Church-members Iohns baptism and Christs is by Protestants asserted to be all one saving that the one pointed at Christ to come after Acts 19 4. the other as already manifested by name neither did admit any but penitents and believers in shew As for Mr. Ms. quirk that he baptized 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Matthew 3. 〈◊〉 unto repentance not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in repentance 1. I might urge Erasmus his reading ad poenitentiam at or upon their repentance as the like is to be expounded Matthew 12. 41. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not unto but at the preaching of Ionas 2. There is no need for both are true and may be proved out of the text that he preached repentance to be before baptism and after That he preached repentance to be before baptism is already proved and Pareus in his Comment on Matthew 3. 5. disputing against Maldonate the Iesuite who applies this confession of sins to Auricular confession urgeth the tense 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it is in the present tense referring to the time of baptism having confessed their sins or then confessing their sins when baptized not confessing their sins after as in Auricular confession at the sacrament of Penance as they call it Hereupon he urgeth Non prius baptizabantur postea confitebantur ut inâ—pâ—e fingit Maldonatus and concludes that Iohn rejected the Pharisees when he saw their hypocrisy v. 7. and infers that his auditors first in testimony of repentance confessed their sins and then were baptized and gathers this doctrine To the Sacraments no impenitents are to be admitted It s true that he baptized them unto future repentance that is so as that they were required and professed to repent and change their lives Therefore he required that they should bring forth fruits meet for repentance Luke 3. 8. and directed particularly wherin verse 11 13 14. Initial repentance is prerequired to baptism and continued repentance is to follow after and therefore Iohn Baptists calling for repentance and preaching the baptism of repentance shew not only that this was the lesson they were all to learn but that also as Pareus proves that they must all manifest that they repented afore he baptized them and that all did and were tied to make confession of sins notwithstanding Mr Ms. saying Master M. sets down the judgement of very learned men who conceive their confession of sins was not because it is a necessary medium to all who should receive baptism but to cleer his baptism from misconstruction to thwart the opinion of justification by the works of the Law To which I say 1. That were this granted yet it avoids not my argument who bring the matter of fact onely it is enough for me at present if it appear that Iohn baptized none but penitents 2. Yet the judgement of those very learned men is but their own saying nor can it be right For if the end of Iohns requiring repentance was only to clear his baptism from misconstruction because the men who came to be baptized of Iohn were such as had been educated in an opinion of justification by works of the Law so more was required of them than of others as it is usual to require more of an heretick for his admission into the bosome of the Church then he had required such confession of sins and repentance only of Pharisees and their Scholars whereas he required it also of Publicans Harlots Souldiers as may be seen Luke 3. 10 11 12 13 14. And indeed he required it of all for both ends that he might contradict the Pharisees doctrine and because it was a necessary prerequisite to his baptism because his baptism was contrary to the baptism that initiated proselytes into Iudaism in the nature of it that is the doctrine taught by the Baptist and professed by the baptized the Pharisees baptism requiring observance of the Law for righteousness and Iohns baptism requiring repentance for remission of sins and therefore the Pharisees rejected it Luke 7. 29 30. so that in truth this judgement of those learned men about the reason of Iohns baptism proves against Mr. M. that repentance is to antecede baptism and his allegation thereof may be retorted upon him 6. To strengthen this argument from the institution of Christ and practise Apostolical there are many passages in the Epistles which do prove that baptism was and ought to be with such profession and acts of the baptized as do not nor can ordinarily be ascribed to infants of believers and therefore they are not rightly baptized according to ordinary rule Ro. 6. 3 4 Know ye not saith the Apostle that so many of us as were baptized into Iesus Christ were baptizd into his death therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father even so we also should walk in newness of life now to be baptized into death Christs death is by baptism to engage our selves to dy with Christ to sin with profession of purpose
apparent that in both places in Matthew the Noun disciple is included in the Verb though in Matthew 28. 19. it be used actively make disciples in the other Matthew 27. 57. it is used passively he was himself a Disciple The same is to be conceived of the two other places where the word is used Matthew 13. 52. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 made a disciple Acts 14. 21. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 had made many disciples And this is further proved from the parallel place Mark 16. 15 16. where preach the Gospel to every Creature answers to make disciples all nations and he that believeth and is baptized answers to baptizing them which plainly shews the subject of baptism to be disciples and those disciples to be believers as Chamier proves panst cath tom 3. l. 12. c. 9. s. 15. But such are not infants of believers Ergo they are not appointed to be baptized 2. Those only Christ appointed to be baptized to whom the Gospel was preached and the persons taught But such are not infants Ergo. The Major is plain both by the words Mat. 28. 19. make disciples which is by teaching and more plainly from Mark 16. 15. Go preach the Gospel to every Creature which answers to disciple all nations and this is to precede baptism This is confirmed by the Apostles practice which shews how they understood Christs words and how we should understand them for they baptized none till they were taught Ergo neither should we Conformable hereto is the constant exposition observation of former and later writers and Expositors of whom as they have occurred to me I shall set down their words Athanasius Orat. contra Arianos Ideoque salvator non quovis modo baptizandum praecepit sed primum dixit docete ac deinde baptizate in nomine Patris et filii et spiritus sancti ut ex doctrina recta fides oriretur et cum fide baptismatis integra initiatio perficeretur Hieron in Mat. 28. 19. Primum docent omnes genses deinde doctas intingunt aqua non enim potest fieri ut corpus baptismi recipiat sacramentum nisiante anima fidei susceperit veritatem Ordo praecipuus jussit Apostolis ut primuÌ„ docerent universas gentes deinde fidei intingerent sacramento et post fidem ac baptisma quae essent observanda praeciperent which words are also ascribed to Hilarius in Matthew 28. 19 20. And the like to Beda Anselmus Aquinas Paschasius Rabanus Lucas Brugensis Iansenius and many others on Matth. 28. 19. which were it necessary might be produced whence the Ancients deduced that persons were first to be catechized and then to be baptized which was constantly observed except in case of present danger of death towards children of believers untill some later ages But because later Protestant writers are of more esteem with most of my Antagonists I will adde some of them Calvin in Matthew 28. 19. apud Marlor Baptizari jubet Christus qui nomen Evangelio dederint seque professi fuerint discipulos Ursin Cat. Explic. part 2. q. 69. Quasi dicat colligite mihi Ecclesiam per verbum et quos feceritis mihi discipulos toto corde credentes eos omnes et solos baptizate mihi areliquis separate Pareus Com. in Matt. 28. 19. Colligite mihi Ecclesiam inter omnes gentes praedicatione vestra adducentes eos ad fidem Alsted Theol. polem parte 3. pag. 251. Ut praecipitur ex cohaerentia sententiarum Matth. 28. docete omnes gentes nempe praedicando Evangelium baptizantes eos Confer cum Marc. 16. Becm Exercit. Th. 17. p. 259 260. Doctrina praecedit baptismus sequitur Mr. Cotton The way of the Churches in New England chap. 4. sect 6. And indeed the Commission which Christ gave his Apostles holdeth it forth that they were by preaching to make disciples before they baptized them and their children This later is his own addition the rest is right and to my purpose But sure Christ did not appoint to preach the Gospel to infants therefore he did not appoint to baptize them For Christ appointed his Disciples to baptize none but they who were first preached to and consequently they do it without Commission from Christ who baptize infants ordinarily without preaching the Gospel to them I suppose no man will conceive Christ appointed infants of a day old to have the Gospel preached to them it had been a ridiculous injunction therefore neither did he appoint them to be baptized For both commands are joined together concerning the same persons 3. The institution is To baptize into the name of the Father Son and holy Spirit But the baptizing of infants is not into the name of the Father Son and holy Spirit Ergo their baptism is not according to the institution The Minor is proved from the right understanding of the meaning of the phrase of baptizing into the name of the Father Son and holy Ghost Beza annot in Matthew 28. 19. Into the name that is the Father Son and Holy Spirit being called upon And this interpretation is confirmed from the words of Ananias to Paul Acts 22. 16. Arise and be baptized and wash away thy sins calling on the name of the Lord where is injoined calling on the name of the Lord with baptizing which explaineth what Christ had appointed Mat. 28. 19. Of baptizing into the name of the Father Son and Holy Spirit Or to be baptized into the name is to be baptized with the person baptized his devoting himself to the Service of the Father Son and holy Spirit This is gathered from the phrase 1 Cor. 1. 13. Were ye baptized into the name of Paul Beza annot in Acts 19. 3. Baptizari autem in ejus nomen dicimur cui nos per baptismum dicamus ac consecramus quamobrem recte Paulus negat sese in nomen suum quemquam baptizâsse Or to be baptized into the name of the Father Son and Spirit is to be baptized with profession of that doctrine to wit that Jesus is the Son of God Act. 8. 37. testifyed by the Father Son and Spirit Mat. 3. 17. 1 John 5. 5 6 7. as to be baptized into Johns baptism Acts 19. 3. whether the same with being baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus verse 5. as those conceive that expound the words as spoken of what Iohn did or different yet it was with profession of doctrine as Beza annot in Acts 19. 3. Baptizari in Ioannis baptisma significat doctrinam quam Ioannes annunciabat ac baptismi symbolo obsignabat profiteri baptismo adhibito amplecti I will add the words of Grotius annot in Matth. 289. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cum locutio haec varias habeat ex Hebraismo significationes eam his praeferendam arbitraor quae baptismo maximè propria est Est autem baptizari in aliquem vel in ejus nomen se ei auctorare atque devovere de ejus nomine appellari â—elle Paulus 1 Cor. 10.
2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 respiciens illud Exodi 14. 31. Crediderunt in Deum Mosen servum ejus id est Mosi tanquam Dei ministro cum bona siducia regendos se commisere sic Paulus negat quenquam baptizatum in suum nomen 1 Corinth 1. 13 15. hoc est sibi velut novi dogmatis auctori mancipatum Maimomides de bello capta 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 baptizet eam in nomen proselytarum id est in eam religionem quam profitentur proselytae Christiani igitur tres sui dogmatis auctores agnoscere jubebantur Patrem filium spiritum sanctum nihilque ut necessarium admittere quod non ab eis esset profectum id est quod non à patre ortum à filio proditum à spiritu verò esset partim explicatum apertius partim obsignatum Administratur enim baptismus ut loquitur Hilarius in confessione auctoris unigeniti dom But infants of believers do neither call upon the Father Son and holy Spirit nor devote themselves to their service nor profess the doctrine of Christ Therefore they are not baptized into the name of the Father Son and holy Spirit according to Christs appointment Mr. M. Defence page 266. calls these petty reasonings and saith That baptizing into the name of the Father Son and holy Ghost should be interpreted to be invocation of Gods name and so to make baptism and prayer all one is strange divinity I reply My words are perverted by him I said baptizing is to be with the party baptized his invocation of the name of the Lord not that baptism and prayer are all one but that they should be concomitants and together in the use of baptism after Christs appointment And this is no strange divinity to others however it be to Mr. M. The words of Ananias Acts 22. 16. Beza on Matthew 28. 19. shew it to be no strange or forced Divinity Becman Exercit. Theol. 17. p. 251. hath the like In nomen hoc est invocato nomine Christi baptizamur The New Annot. on 1 Cor. 1. 13. The third reason taken from the form and end of baptism wherein we make a promise to Christ calling on also the name of the Father and the Holy Ghost The words of Grotius a learned man whatever his other qualities were shew it to be old Divinity Annot. on Matthew 28. 19. he speaks thus Post has ergo stipulationes atque responsiones quas verba Sacramenti Tertullianus vocat ad militiae morem alludens sequebatur baptismus cui accedebant preces in quibus nominabantur Pater Filius Spiritus sanctus Orationem hanc propriè ad patrem directam indicare videtur Justinus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Deinde 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Solemne ejus invocations verbum erat Abba Pater ut not at Chrysostomus 8. ad Rom. 15. The words in Chrysostome hom 10 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That is by which we cry Abba Father This holy Ministers know what it is rightly commanding to say this word first at the mystical prayer meaning at baptism Grotius goes on thus His si addas id quod Acts 22. 16. refertur ab Anania dictum Paulo 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Videbis tum eum qui baptizabatur tum eos qui baptismo aderant neque enim in toto coetu exercebatur primis temporibus quod ostendunt c. solitos orare Deum patrem 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quomodo ipse orare nos docet John 14. 13 14. Ut sidem ejus qui baptizabatur liberam illam christianismi professionem muneraret spiritu suo sancto per gradus quosdam quorum initium erat 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Grotius notes to like purpose on Luke 3. 21. where it is said Jesus being baptized and praying the Heaven was opened which shews Christ prayed at his Baptism and thereupon the Spirit descended which the Ancients conceived as a Rule and is at least recorded as an Example to be imitated Mr. Cobbet in his Just Vindic. pag. 182. cals this New Light which if he mean Ironically as it is likely he doth he may hereby perceive that he is mistaken and for what he excepts against this Exposition that neither in the baptizing of the Samaritans Acts 8. was that Rule observed nor was it possible that the three thousand baptized in one day Acts 2. should arise each of them and call upon the Name of the Lord as they were baptized it proceeds upon a mistake as if no calling on the Name of the Lord were sufficient but that which was set and solemn before the publick Assembly whereas neither is Baptism necessary to be administred before the publick Assembly Grotius proves out of Justin Martyrs words and otherwise that it was administred not as they now do infant sprinkling in the publick meeting place but in some place without aside from the publick Assembly and the calling on the Name of the Lord was or might be ejaculatory whether in the heart onely or by words praying to the Father by Christ for the Spirit Mr. M. makes this inference from my words Then it seems if the party baptized call on the Name of the Lord by prayer that 's all that is intended by baptizing into the Name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost But this is but another of his pervertings of my words for in the same place I joyned with it devoting themselves to the service of and adherence to the Father Son and Spirit which I proved out of 1 Cor. 1. 13 15. which proves plainly that to be baptized into the Name of the Father Son and Spirit notes not a Ministers Commission from the Father Son and Spirit nor a Form of words to be used by him at Baptism whether the party baptized understand it or no but in baptizing engaging the party baptized to acknowledg the Father Son and Spirit as Lord and Teacher Diod. Annot. in 1 Cor. 1. 15. In mine own Name as to binde them unto me to acknowledg me for their Head Hence Johns Baptism is the Doctrine he preached and the baptized by him professed Mark 1. 4. Acts 10. 47. 19. 3. and the Pharisees therefore were not baptized of John Luke 7. 30. because they should have professed Johns Doctrine which they were against if they had been baptized of him as their Disciples did their Doctrine and Johns Disciples did his Clear therefore it is that baptizing into the Name doth note not onely the act of the Ministers of Baptism but also the party baptized his act of invocating addicting profession of Service and Doctrine and obediently testifying it by that sign for that is plain from the command Acts 2. 38. Let every one of you be baptized in the Name of Jesus Christ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is the requiring of a duty from them conjoyned with repentance and â—herefore to be baptized is not meerly passive but implies a voluntary yielding of a person to it And it is further proved
circumcision Gen. 17. is so wild a conceit that I cannot impuâ—e it to any thing but meer dotage in the assertor there being no one word in the Commission or the executing of it throughout the Acts of the Apostles that doth shew that Christ had reference to it or the Apostles so understood him Yea if that of Circumcision Gent. 17. be an institution of baptism by like reason that of the Passeover Exod. 12. must be an institution of the Lords Supper and then the Lords Supper should be instituted afore the night in which Christ was betrayed and the Lords Supper should be from Moses and regulated by the Ordinances of the ceremoniâ—l Law c. If Mr. M. mean by the foregoing institutution the manner of the Jewish Doctors in baptizing proselytes children with the parents it shall be shewed hereafter especially in answer to Dr. Hammond that there is nothing therein for infant-baptism now it being done to no Jewes or their infants many ages before Christs incarnation and therefore not out of respect to the Covenant Gen. 17. nor as a privilege from thence but meerly as a rite to purge them from the uncleanness of Gentilism nor ever done to the infant posterity of the proselytes of righteousness after the first time of being made proselytes nor ever used to proselytes of the gate And yet had the use been such as that infants of Proselytes after their first enâ—rance on the Jewish profession had been baptized yet there is no commission in Scripture for it though Rabbins would fetch it some from Gen. 35. 2. some from Exod. 19. 10. some from the flood nor is there any thing in the institution of Christ or Acts and sayings of the Apostles that shews that Christian baptism was conformed to the Jewish baptism in this and therefore I conclude that there is no other institution besides Mat. 28. 19. Mark 16. 15 16. together with the Apostles John Baptists and others forenamed sayings and practice that is a rule to us about baptizing and if infant-baptism be not here appointed it is besides the institution and so irregular But Mr. M. allegeth further that it is not said that only disciples are to be baptized To which I replyed Examen page 132. it is not said 1 Cor. 11. 28. Let him only eat that can examine himself nor here only preachers in office are to baptize nor only two to be one flesh nor let only wine be drunk in the Euchurist or water used in baptism yet Divines make these speeches exclusive M. Ball of the Covenant par 2. c. 2. p. 252. when difference or distinction is contained in some term the proposition is for sense exclusive no less than if it were expressly noted Against this Mr. M. excepts Defence pag. 215. That the practice and example of Christ and John is sufficient to make a positive rule affirmative but not exclusive and the reason is plain they possibly might not meet with all persons and occasions as though no proselyte of the gate were baptized till Acts 10. nor any till they made actual confession of their faith and repentance nor any rule given that the receiving the extraordinary gifts of the holy Ghost should without any other confession be a sufficient warrant to baptize any yet Peter upon the very pouring out of those gifts without requiring any further confession either of faith or repentance baptized Cornelius and all his Company Ref. 1. M. Ms. confessions are to be noted that none till they made actual confession of their faith and repentance were baptized till Acts 10. nor any rule given that the receiving the extraordinary gifts of the Holy Ghost should without any other confession be a sufficient warant to baptize any which do grant that till then there was neither rule nor practice of baptising any without actual confession of their faith and repentance which is in effect a grant of the Minor in my argument denying any institution or practice in the New Testament of infant-baptism for there is no other rule or practice of infant-baptism after Acts 10. otherwise than that before 2. It is to be observed that Mr. M. deals not rightly with me in that he makes me to have framed the exclusive rule from practice whereas I joined institution with practice and shewed neither to be for infant-baptism 3. If the non-including of persons or things in the institution or practise of baptism be not exclusive then the institution is not our rule then there is no will-worship or it is no sin to swerve from it we may add to Gods worship infant-communion and innumerable other things rejected may be lawful then do preachers especially Mr. M. unjustly urge the Parliament and others to reform invented ceremonies and Protestants contend against Popish rites in baptism mass c. 4. However Mr. M. conceive yet men abler than Mr. M. do frequently assert negative arguments from institution I will name one who hath few fellowes Chamier Panst. cath in the words lately by me here recited and tom 4. l. 5. c. 9. s. 24. Haec testimonia sunt institutionis quae etsi non prohibent toridem verbis alios liquores tamen eo ipso quod non ponat excludit L. 7. c. 10. s. 38. quamquam in hoc genere rerum quae nihil sunt nisi ex institutione validissimam esse aportet argumentationem negativam si inde sumatur But Mr. M. saith John the Baptist and the Apostles might not meet with all persons and occasions Answ. T is true they baptized no Emperours or Kings because none were converted yet they had a rule to baptize them if disciples But this could not be the reason of their not baptizing infants sith innumerable believers had infants in the times of the Gospel story and Acts of the Apostles and yet no mention of baptizingany Do not Mr. M. and other Paedobaptists plead that the little children brought to Christ were infants of believers and yet there 's not a word of their being baptized As for Mr. Ms. instance to prove no necessity of practice to warrant infant-baptism though I grant if there were institution without practice it were enough yet is it not rightly brought It supposeth Peter baptized Cornelius and his houshold upon the very powring out of extraordinary gifts without actual faith and repentance required And I grant he required them not but yet withal it is manifest he did not baptize meerly upon the powring out of extraordinary gifts without them For the text Acts 10. 46 47. expresly saith they magnified God ere he spake of their baptizing and Acts 11. 17. that they had the like gift as themselves who believed on the Lord Jesus and they gathered thence that the Gentiles had repentance unto life granted by God But it is objected by Mr. Cobbet Just Vindic. part 2. cha 3. sect 2. that Mark 16. 16. none but true believers are meant then if the term be exclusive none but such are to be baptized 2. that
may be a Scholar afore he learns serves not turn to avoyd the force of this Reason For the term Scholar coming from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 leasure or vacation from other exercise may be without actual learning but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is a Verbal Noun from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hath learned and Disciple à discendo from Learning and therefore as it is absurd to call one learned or a Learner without Learning so it is absurd to call one a Disciple without actual learning But I rest not on the notation alone but proceed to the use of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Disciple 2. I argue thus The word Disciple Matth. 28. 19. is to be understood as it is understood all along the New Testament But all along the New Testament it is applied to those that addicted themselves to some as Teachers followed them learned of them no where to an insant who doth none of these Ergo Infants are not Disciples meant Matth. 28. 19. The major is plain from the rule of understanding words that it is to be according to the use of them The minor is proved thus The Disciples of Christ are understood as the Disciples of Iohn and the Pharisees Luke 5. 33. as the Disciples of Moses Iohn 9 28. of the perverters Acts 20. 30. But in all these places and in all the rest they are termed Disciples of John the Pharisees Moses and the perverters who addicted themselves to them followed them learned of them no where an infant who doth none of these Therefore the term Disciples of Christ notes onely such and no where an infant 3. I argue thus They that are not termed believers are not Disciples But infants of believers are not termed believers Therefore they are not termed Disciples The Major is proved from the equipollence of the term Disciple and believers in the New Testament Calvin institut lib. 3. cap. 2. sect 6. Cur respondet quod passim Evangelistae sideles discipulos ponunt tanqu im synonyma ac-praesertim Lucas in Actis Apostolorum saepius Acts 6. 1 2 7. 9. 1 10 19 25 26 38. 11. 26 29. 13. 52. 14. 20 22 28. Which thing is strongly dispured by Chamier 2. Panst. Cath. tom 3. l. 12 c. 9. s. 15. against the Papists implicite saith that none are believers but disciples who learn and know Which he confirms from Matth. 28. 19. in these words Nimlrum disertum erat Christi mandatum Matth. 18. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Docete sive discipulos facite omnes gentes The minor needs not proof believing being an act of the intellectual part supposing the use of reason which infants ordinarily have not at least in such things they cannot be sayd ordinarily to be behevers nor is the term believer any where in Scripture applied to them Rightly saith the same Chamier Panstr Cat. toâ— 4. l. 12. c. 9. sect 53. Infantes potentia tantùm sideles sunt actu nemo nisi adultiv 4. This is further confirmed by comparing Matth. 28 19. with Mark 16. 15 16. where the same Commission is expressed given at the same time in somwhat different words which therefore without all contradiction the one expound the other Now what is sayd Matth. 28 19. Make Disciple of all Nations is in Mark 16 15. Preach the Gospel to every creature and what is sayd Matth. 28 19. baptizing them is Mark 16. 16. Whosoever believeth and is baptized shall be saved which apparently shews that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 them or Disciples are the same with believers and consiquently not insants 5. Which is further confirmed by Philips answer to the Eunuch 〈…〉 ling him that Actâ— 7. which shews that Philip understood Christs Commission to be to baptize believers and none else But infants are not such ordinarily Therefore they are not ordinarily to be baptized Mr. B. himself pag. 300. saith Now for the aged a Disciple and believer are all oâ—e Mark 16. â—6 what Mr. Blake speakes Vindic foed â—ag 4 3. of insants being Disciples as to the participatâ—â—n of Ordinances and elsewhere of being believers virtually though not formally is without Scripture proof which termes none Disciples 〈…〉 right to participate of ordinances but from Learning 〈…〉 believers who are not so formaly nor do I know 〈◊〉 w 〈…〉 infants may be called virtually believers Then 〈…〉 ing is sayd to be virtually such though not formally when it hath though not the quality in its kinde yet hath it ability to produce it as the sun they say is not hot in its self formally yet it is hot virtually because it can produce it in another But I presume he will no say this of an insant that he is virtually a believer because he can produce it in another If he mean it in another sense he should shew how an infant may be said to be virtually a believer and prove that sense out of Scripture and not abuse men with a nonsense distinction if he mean to cleer truth I shall need no better proof against him to shew infants are not to be termed Disciples and believers than his own words Vindic. Foed p. 205. All visible Professors that except the terms of the Covenent are believers Saints Disciples Christians so they are stiled in New Testament Scriptures believers from the faith that they profess Saints from the holiness to which they stand engaged Disciples from the Doctrine which they profess to learn and Christians from him whose they are whom they serve and from whom they expect salvation of which terms according to his own explication none can be attributed to infants of believers 6. That infants of believers are not Disciples appointed to be baptized Matth 28. 19. is proved from the means of making Disciples to wit by preaching the Gospel to them as appears by Mark 16. 15. For what is Matth. 28. 19. Make Disciples of all Nations is Mark 16. 15. Preach the Gospel to every creature Whence I argue Those Disciples which Christ hath ordinarily appointed to be baptized an such as are made such by preaching of the Gosepl to them Rightly saith Mr. Collings Vindic Vindic pag. 145. How iâ— one made a disciple but by conversion and when is a man converted but when he is brought to believe But infants of believers are not made disciples by preaching of the Gospel as is of it self manifest and acknowledged by the adverse party who make them Disciples by an imaginary Covenant and their parents profession Ergo they are not Disciples appointed by Christ ordinarily to be baptized 7. Those are appointed to be baptized and no other whom the Apostles did baptize for the Apostles practice shews how they understood Christs Commission and rightly saith Mr. Norton respon ad Apollon c. 2. pag. 34. 35. Religio est nobis judicare Apostolos in baptizando observà sse regulam à Christo latam Matth. 28. 16. religion binds us to judge the Apostses to have observed in baptizing the rule made
them for clearing the point and therefore I judge them with his three propositions chap. 2. to serve onely to forestall mens minds if they be not used to dull the Readers attention ere he come to the point as the Turks use their Asapi to blunt the Christians swords by killing them afore their Janizaries fall on But what ever the intent was there are sundry passages that require animadversions His first position is That the holy Ghost speaks of somethings in scripture more fully and of others more sparingly which I grant to be true but I like not his instance when he saith that the scripture speaks little concerning the heathen that never heard the Gospell whether any of them be saved or upon what terms he dealeth with them for life or death Far is it saith he from my reach to discover the Holy Ghosts mind in this whereas me thinks the Scripture speaketh much of this Ephes. 2. 1 2 3 12. Rom. 1. 2. 3. 11. Chapters And to be doubtfull whether they that never heard the Gospel were saved and upon what terms God dealt with them for life or death is in my apprehension to be unresolved whether there be not another way of salvation than by Christ whether a man living and dying a professed Idolater without repentance may not be saved by his moral demâ—anour and whether Pelagianism be not true that by nature without grace men may be saved Vedelius in his book de deo synagogae charged Barlet the Arminian with a dangerous position in writing in verses before a book of Manasseh Ben Israel the Jew that the God of Iews and Christians was one and intimating that Iews remaining in denial of Christ might have God for their God contrary to Iohn 8. 24. and 14. â—6 Act. 4 12. 1 Iohn 2. 23. and 5. 12. 2. Iohn 9. How much more dangerous a conceit must this be much lessening the grace of God in Christ tending to Pelagianism and to make Idolatrie a venial sin to imagine that men that never had the Gospel nor the Prophets but were such even the best of them as are described Rom. 1. 21. c. that they should be saved when the Scripture so plainly tels us Revel 21. 8. 27. 22. 15. that all Idolaters shall be without But I leave master B. to Doctor Prideaux his lecture de salute Ethnicorum to resolve him in this point And whereas he saith the Scripture speaketh sparingly of Infants it seems then some at least of his texts he brings for Infants discipleship and visible Church-membership are impertinent sith they are so many and whereas he instanceth in the case of Insant-Baptism among such things as are not plainly determined in Scripture he doth thereby gainsay the title of his book which he cals plain Scripture proof of Infants baptism nor is he relieved by what he replies in his praefestinant is morator where nothing is brought out of his words before or after which shews I have not rightly alleged his words in my Praecursor Sect. 2. And his words pag. 9. the grounds of it are very easie and plain though to many it be difficult to discern how it is from those grounds inferred do confirm my observation that he contradicted his title sith the inference which is the proof is in them confessed to be difficult But what he saith in the words following pag. 3 4. is more exactly to be scanned as touching the main Basis of Paedo-Baptism The new Testament saith Mr. B. speaks more sparingly of that which is more fully discovered in the old what need the same thing be so done twice except men had questioned the authority of the old the whole Scripture is the perfect word and law of God if he should reveal all his mind in one part what use should we make of the other How silent is the N. T. concerning Christian magistracy which made the Anabaptists of old deny it Where find you a Christian in the new Testament that exercised the place of a King a Parliament-man or Justice of Peace or the like so of an oath before a Magistrate of war of the Sabbath c. how sparing is the new Testament and why but because there was enough said of them before in the old This also is the very case in the question in hand The main question is not by what sign members are to be admitted into the Church or whether by a sign or without But at what age they are to be admitted members now this is as fully determined in the old Testament as most things in the Bible and therefore what need any more Answ. Mr. B. here asserts in the question about Infant baptism that it is as fully determined in the old Testament as most things in the Bible at what age persons should be admitted members into the Church and therefore what need any more which if true Mr. B. had done well to have spared the allegation of Mat. 28. 19. Acts 15. 10. Luk. 9. 42. 48. Mat. 18. 5. Mark 9. 41. Rom. 11. 17 19 20 24 25 26. Mat. 23. 37 38 39. Rom. 4. 11. 1. Cor. 7. 14 Mark 9. 36 37. and 10. 13 14 15 16. and others the allegation of Act. 2. 38 39. and 16. 15. 1. Cor. 10 1 2. for Infant-baptism not troubling the Reader with more when if he speak true the proof might have been made by fewer texts Frustra fit per plura quod fieri potest per pauciora And indeed when Paedo-baptists speak not like wranglers but ingenuously confesse the naked truth they acknowledge there is no expresse precept or example for Infantbaptism in the new Testament but they must flye to the old Master Marshal in his sermon of baptizing Infants pag. 34. Doctor Young in the passage cited in my Praecursor Sect. 22. Eaton and Taylor defence pag. 57. Do not you conclude Infants must be baptized not because the new Testament expresly saith so but because you find it in the old the Jews children were circumcised therefore Christians children must be baptized The assembly at Westminster answer to the dissenting Brethren touching Ordination pag. 186. If par ratio will not serve turn to prove an ordinance of Christ or at least to warrant a practice how will our brethren prove baptizing of infants Which confessions me thinks should deterre Paedobaptists fom alleging precept and practice of it out of the new Testament or at least readers and hearers should learn more wit than to be cheated thereby when their own confessions do shew that they are brought onely to fill up books and to deceive the poor simple readers But let us view Mr. B. words better He saith the main question is not by what sign members are to be admitted into the Church or whether by a sign or without but at what age they are to be admitted members now this is as fully determined in the old Testament as most things in the Bible Mr. M. in his defence pag. 195.
express covenanting wherein they renounced the world flesh and devil and engaged themselves to Christ and promised to obey him as you may see in Tertul Origen Cyprian and others at large being printed with a ful point at the end are as plain a denial that infants were baptized in the primitive times as words usually express As for the words following I will cite but one for all who was before the rest and that is Justin Martyr speaking of the way of baptizing the aged sayth they are not words if they be restrictive that limit any one 's speech but Justin Martyrs and if by them M B. would intimate that Justin Martyr did not in that speech set down the way of baptizing all that were then baptized the words following saying thus how we are dedicated to God we will now open unto you and then setting down the constant way of baptizing without any exception M. Bs. addition will easily be perceived to be but a shift to avoid the evidence of this relation of Justin Martyr Apol. 2. ad Antoninum being so plain to prove infant-baptism not to have been then in use among Christians Likewise in my Praecursor Sect. 16. pag. 66. I bring an argument against infant-baptism from M Bs. own words mutatis mutandis His answer in his Praefestinantis morator is in these words His Confidence pag. 66. is marvellous I doubt not but that he knows that I take the words since the solemn institution of Baptism Matth 28. inclusively And so I answer that this solemn instition is our warrant requiring us both to disciple nations and baptize Disciples and we have other Scriptures which plainly prove infants to be Disciples Answ My confidence is upon good reason M Bs. marvelling is from ignorance what he means by taking the words since the solemn institution of Baptism Matth. 28. inclusively I know not except he mean that time when that institution was given as well as the time after or that institution to be a warrant as well as after precepts or examples Either way the medium of M. B. serves my purpose For it plainly asserts that what we have no warrant in all the New Testament for we are not to do ordinarily what we have precept and example for we are to do Which if he will stand to then his warrant out of the Old Testament is not sufficient for infant-baptism and so it is not fully determined in the Old Testament at what age persons are to be admitted into the Church as he sayd before and what we do we have warrant for by his own grant sith he cannot deny we have precept and example for baptizing professors of faith And then his including here Matth. 28. 19. in his Texts though not brought Plain Scripture proof c. pag. 342. to prove his antecedent is an intimation that in all the rest of the Texts John 4. 1. Acts 2. 38 41. 8. 12 13 16 36 38. 9. 18. 10. 47 48. 16. 15 33. 18. 8. 19. 3 4 5. Rom. 6. 3 c. he findes not precept or example for baptizing of infants and so if he finde not warrant Matth. 28. 19. for baptizing infants all his other proofs are by his own reasoning made invalid For sure the Texts alleged do as evidently prove this antecedent we have no warrant by word or example in all the New Testament since the solemn institution of Baptism Matth. 28. to admit any member into the Church by Baptism but believers by profession but both precept and constant example of admitting them by it as Mr Bs. we have no warrant by word or example in all the New Testament since the solemn institution of Baptism Matth. 28 to admit any member into the Church without Baptism but both precept and constant example of admitting them by it The consequent then we must not admit ordinarily any by Baptism without profession of faith must by the force of his own illation be undoubted to those that take the word for their rule As for his evasion that he hath other Scriptures which plainly prove infants to be Disciples how miserably he fails therein will appear by that which follows in this Review The Reader may perceive that whatsoever his talk be about a Gift and Ordinance of visible Church-membership unrepealed and of Christs Laying of hands on little ones and such like Arguments and Texts he brings yet if he will stand to his own reasoning in Arg. 9. against deniers of Baptism by Water pag. 342. of his Plain Scripture proof c. we have no warrant to admit ordinarily by Baptism but according to the precept and example in the New Testament in the Text Matth. 28. 19. and the other Texts before recited Concerning which I have reason to be as confident as of common notions that they include not infants and to marvel that Mr. Bs. prejudice should so blinde him as not to see the futility of his arguings to prove infants to be Disciples included in the institution Matth. 28. 19. But I proceed Because as he sayth pag. 5. An answer cannot be always presently given which may make the case plain to some men therefore Mr. B. should have given his arguments in writing to those that came to him which had been an easier and fairer way than to tell them as he doth pag. 6. If any of you have taken up the opinion of Antepaedobaptism and have not read and studied Mr. Cobbet M. Church and other the chief books and been able at least to himself to confute them you have but discovered a feared conscience a most heavy though vain censure shewing what rashness and distemper was in Mr. B. in this writing which either taketh error for no sin or else dare venture on sin without fear and have betrayed your own souls by your laziness as if a man might not be satisfied by reading of the Scripture and conference with the able of the opposite party without reading so many Books Sure Mr. B. who had read those Books shewed little charity to those of Bewdley that came to him for arguments for infant-baptism when he would neither set down his own arguments in writing nor direct them in what part of those books they might have satisfaction but fly upon them with so deep a charge without any moderation of spirit And when he saith pag. 7. He dare say by my books that it is my case not to have received the doctrine of infant-baptism on the best grounds and arguments I reply 1. that there are many passages which make me think he never read my books with exact diligence and heed but if I may use his own words He betrays his own soul by his laziness or prejudice 2. It shews a fond conceit in him of his own arguments which another perhaps will think weaker than those of Calvin Ursin Piscator the Assembly Mr. M. c. which he might perceive by my Exercit. and otherwise that I had considered I said
of petulancy to insinuate that of me in which my Apology Sect. 4. might have undeceived him though it were not then so easie to discern that error as now after so much debating of it did not pride prejudice fear or some other partial affection hinder And for Mr. Bs. conceit of his grounds though I neither finde them easie nor plain yet it is no marvel others discern not how infant-baptism can be inferred from them which can at most prove a reasonableness of the thing as Mr. Bedford Dr. Field Dr. Hammond and others speak but not an institution of God which must be gathered from precept or example in the N. T. and can onely warrant our practice as the minde of God in meer positives about worship in the New Testament In the explication of his second Proposition pag. 10. he again objects my speech that Mr. Ms. Principle on which he establisheth his Proof from Circumcision for infant-baptism is one of the first condemned Heresies by which I meant that Proposition which he hath in his Sermon pag. 35. that all Gods commands and institutions about the Sacraments of the Jews binde us as much as they did them in all things which belong to the substance of the Covenant and were not accidental to them in which thus much is maintained that some part of the command of Circumcision and the other Sacraments of the Jews binde us as much as they did the Jews which is expresly condemned Acts 15. 24. as subverting the souls of the Gentiles and is called the heresie of the false Apostles by the Century-writers Cent. 1. lib. 2. cap. 5. and others condemn it under the title of Judaism But then saith Mr. B. Mr. M. is an Heretick with me and all the Divines in the world that go his way To which I answer This inference hath too much shew of Sycophancy being urged so often and to the People of Bewdly my quondam Auditors For 1. though I say that Doctrine is such an Heresie yet I do not say Mr. M. still holds it as his words did import yea I did acknowledg in my Apology pag. 99. and in this writing Sect. 2. that Mr. M. doth deny that we are tied to any practise of the ritual part which is indeed to retract his former speech in his Sermon 2. But were it tru that he did still hold it yet it would not follow that he were an Heretick with me For 1. I should not take him to be an Heretick that holds that Doctrine which is Heresie if it were not so directly but onely by consequence not heeded as this of his is 2. Nor do I take him to be an Heretick that doth hold that which is Heresie directly except he hold it in or with a party made to maintain it And therefore I do once more protest against Mr. Bs. calumniatory inference and deny that I account Mr. M. an Heretick and yet I account still his Principle mentioned if it were held as the words in the Sermon did import to contain one of the first condemned Heresies to wit Judaism To this calumny Mr. B. adds another Because I used the words of the Apostle Acts 20. 26 27. in a Sermon he from the report of his Notary and a multitude of my Auditors likely his tale tellers without sending to me about the truth of it prints what he received from them and thence infers that the baptizing of persons of years notwithstanding their infant-baptism is taken by me for a fundamental point which the salvation or damnation of men doth necessarily depend on Or what I meant to say their bloud be on their own heads he knows not And yet he conceives me to contradict my self when I blame the Papists for making baptism of necessity to salvation To which I reply that herein Mr. B. shews his inconsiderateness or his minde to calumniate or both For 1. he might have interpreted my words as I think when I spake them they were meant in reference to other duties which I had taught them with that of Baptism 2. If it were meant particularly of Baptism yet the threatning I conceive was not to the bare omission but to the omission joyned with opposition 3. I am sure if I did threaten their bloud should be on their head for omission of Baptism it was not simply or barely for the omission but for the omission after teaching and upon supposition of conviction by it of their duty And this I think Mr. B. doth not stick to do to his hearers in case after teaching and supposed conviction by it they practise not a duty though non-fundamental as suppose reproving of their neighbours For then they live presumptuously in sin and such sinning consists not with sincerity and truth of Regeneration And yet this doth not suppose the point in it self fundamental that is such as the meer ignorance of it or the bare omission of it doth damn a person or exclude out of the kingdom of God in which sense I blame the Papists for maintaining a necessity of an infants being baptized to its entering into the kingdom of Heaven But Mr. B. doth not think God lays so great a stress on this point as I and others do Answ. That which I hold is this 1. that Baptism with Water is an Ordinance of Christ that bindes Christians now as well as in the Apostles days Mat. 28. 19. Mark 16. 15 16. Act. 2. 38. 10. 47 48. Ephes. 4. 5. And I detest the audacious impiety of Socinians and those in our days who count themselves above Ordinances that is as Mr. B. well interprets it Plain Scripture Proof c. pag. 24. above obedience to God and so Gods as being one of the most palpable delusions of unsound men in our days who place their perfection in a manifest disobedience to Christs appointment and some of them in an Antichristian presumption as if they sate in the Temple of God and shewed themselves as God do most arrogantly of their own heads without any allowance of God make void the express prime Ordinance of the Lord Jesus Christ calling it a low dispensation c. I hope I shall have liberty hereafter to shew the frivolous allegations and pretences of these men In the mean time they may see what Mr. Laurence Mr. Bartlet M. B. pag. 341. of this his Book have written for these Ordinances 2. I hold that every Minister of the Gospel is bound as to preach the Gospel so to baptize those that are made Disciples Matth. 28. 19. 3. That every believing Christian is by necessity of precept tied to be baptized that is dipped in water in testimony of his profession of Christ his Lord upon his being made a Disciple of Christ Mat. 28. 19. Mark 16. 15 16. Acts 2. 38. 22. 16. 4. That this is ordinarily where and when it may be had without unmercifulness defect of water or some other like reason a necessary means of salvation Mark 16. 16. 1 Pet. 3.
institution and the institution of baptism to us Gentiles and therefore the rule by which Ministers are to baptize there being no other institution that I know of to regulate our practice by but such as is gathered from John Baptist the Apostles and some preachers in the Acts of the Apostles their practice and sayings 2. By requiring him to shew another institution else Paedobaptism cannot be acquitted from will-worship To this M. M. Defence page 225. having referred me to part 3. s. 13. where he saith all this is abundantly answered saith This inlargement of their Commission is very unâ—itly called by me an institution of baptism to us their Commission at the same time was inlarged to preach to the Gentiles will you call that an institution of preaching And that the method of preaching to us Gentiles must be fetch out of this place I know you will not Refut 1. By institution I conceive is meant no other than commanding ordaining appointing and I find the words used as equipollent so promiscuously in the Assemblies confession of faith chap. 27 28 29. in the larger and shorter Catechism in the Directory about baptism that sure Mr. M. was either very forgetful of what past in the Assembly or very much disposed to cavil when he excepted against my speech as un fit in calling Mat. 28. 19. the institution of baptism The Assembly Confess of faith ch 27. art 3. call it the word of institution chap. 28. art 7. allegeth no other text to prove the ordaining and appointment of baptism by Christ but Mat. 28. 19 20. Mr. B. calls it page 342. the solemn institution of baptism yea in the disputes with Papists and others about the author minister form use of baptism it is so common a thing to call this the institution of baptism yea the regulating institution the words therein are called the words of institution even in the Directory that I admire Mr. M. should put in this exception had he not a mind to wrangle or to find a knot in a bulrush I will recite Chamiers words Panstr Cath. tom 1. l. 9. c. 10. s. 39. Dico hanc ipsam formam baptizandi in nomine patris filii spiritus sancti solam esse optimam constare ex Evangelio ubi nimirum institutionis est descriptio Nam quis ignor at quaecunque instituuntur à Christo non tantum optimè institui sed etiam sic ut non debeant aliter But he tells me he knows I will not call that Matthew 28. 19. an institution of preaching nor affirm that the method of preaching is to be fetcht out of this place To which I reply He is deceived I do call it an institution of preaching and therein follow his Collegue Mr. Rutherford Due right of Presbyteries pag. 454. That which we allege is an institution for preaching and baptizing Matthew 28. 19 20. and before him Pareus in his Comment who intitles this part of the chapter institutio ministerii and from hence with the generality of Divines fetch the method of preaching But saith he This was only an inlargement of their Commission Answ. I find that the Apostles had commission to preach Mat. 10. 7. and that they did baptize John 4. 1. which I doubt not they had Commission for But be it so yet however Mat. 28. 19. they had their Commission inlarged in the extent of the persons to whom they were to preach and baptize and this Commission is an institution of those works so that frivolously it is denyed to be an institution because it was an inlarged Commission when the enlarged Commission was all one with a renewed institution and must needs be a rule about preaching to and baptizing of Gentiles and therefore the institution of baptism to them But it was instituted long before to be a seal of the Covenant Answ. I deny not but John Baptist was appointed to baptize by God Mat. 21. 25. John 1. 6. and the Apostles by Christ but where there is any institution of baptism so expressed as to regulate our practise afore that Mat. 28. 19. I find not and therefore know no solemn institution by which we are to be guided in the use of it afore this But it was long before instituted to be the Seal of the Covenant for this he refers us to that which he had said before Answ. What ambiguity uncertainty and falsity there is in Paedobaptists speeches about the Covenant being in Covenant seal of the Covenant connexion between the Covenant and seal will be shewed in that which followes For present I know no place assigned by Mr. M. in his Defence part 3 s. 13. wherein he shews that baptism was instituâ—ed long before the time of the speech Mat. 28. 19. to be the seal of the Covenant I have read over that section and do aver that I find it so empty of any either proofs or answers to my Examer that his words in my apprehension are meer trifling If it be thought I wrong a man of such repute let any man shew me a word in all that section in which he saith he hath answered all this abundantly in answer to what I say that Matthew 28 19. is the institution of baptism to us Gentiles and the rule by which ministers are to baptize and that there is no other institution and I will forfeit my credit He neither in all that section nor elsewhere that I know shews either any other or foregoing institution of baptism to us Gentiles or any other but this with John Baptists the Apostles and some forenamed their practice and sayings for a rule of baptizing onely p. 212. he dictates thus Sir since it is apparent that here is no new Commission for any new method in their work but only an enlargement of their Commission to apply their Ministery to new persons how could they understand our Saviours meaning to proceed any other way to the Gentiles than among the Jews c. But to whom is it apparent and when either sleeping or waking where is the old Commission that we must understand this by so as to proceed the way to the Gentiles that was taken among the Jewes Is it the Commission of circumcising Gen. 17 If that be it then baptism is not a Sacrament of the New Testament onely but of the old then it is not a new administration then the Commission of baptizing is to any parent though no minister to baptize then it must be done the eighth day to males only were Christs words thus to be understood they had been a meer riddle where or whence it is apparent that ever the Apostles conceived that in executing the Commission Mat. 28. 19. they were to proceed according to the Commission about circumcising I have shewed Examen part 3 sect 14. that it rather follows to the contrary that they did and were to proceed clean otherwise And therefore that the Apostles should understand the institution Mat. 28. 19. by the institution of
not note a bare entring into Christs School without teaching or hearing of Christ much less such an initiating as they give to infants without any act of their own and John 9. 27. Mr. M. himself paraphaseth thus will ye be his disciples will ye profess him which is an act of their own of which infants are not ordinarily capable and it supposeth some teaching and learning at least this that Jesus is the Christ. 2. I argued from Mark 16. 15. to which our Translators refer in the margin at Matthew 28. 19. as cleering the meaning of it and generally interpreters shew thence how they were appointed to make disciples to wit by preaching the Gospel and so Mr. M. Sermon page 35. Express command there is that they should teach the heathen and the Jews and make them disciples and then baptize them and Defence page 210. Their commission was to preach and baptize and hereupon from Matth. 28. 19. is gathered that none are to baptize but preachers Whence I argue If the making disciples were to be by preaching the Gospel to them who were made disciples then by making disciples is not meant baptizing nor baptizing to be rendered discipling For baptizing and preaching the Gospel are not all one But the making disciples is appointed to be and was by preaching the Gospel to them who were made disciples Ergo discipling is not by baptizing 3. I argued from John 4. 1. in which it is confessed by the New Annot. edit 1. on Mat. 28. 19. made disciples and baptized answer to make disciples baptizing them Mat. 28. 19. now John 4. 1. making disciples is one thing and baptizing is another thing though coupled with it therefore the making disciples is not baptizing but a distinct thing 4. The Commission of Christ is to be understood according to the Apostles practice unless we will say that either they understood not or followed not Christs appointment But their practice was to make disciples first by preaching and then to baptize and no other mentioned as Mr. M. grants in his Sermon page 44. Ergo. I truly said nor need Mr. M. wonder at it or call it a wild consequence as he doth Defence page 214. that if the Apostles had understood Christs Commission as Mr. M. doth baptize according to the rule of circumcising they might have saved a great deal of labour in preaching to the baptized afore they baptized them and in baptizing females sith the rule of circumcising did not require either And though I grant it to be true that male and female are all one yet in the rule of circumcising a difference is made and if that be the rule of baptizing infants then in baptizing them male infants should be baptized and not female 5. If making disciples be by baptizing without preaching before to the baptized then non-preaching ministers may and do baptize rightly though they preach not the Gospel But this I suppose will be denyed by Mr. M. Ergo. 6. If making disciples be by baptizing without preaching to them then the Spaniards in America who drove the Indians into the water to be baptized without teaching them or preaching the Gospel to them did rightly For they followed Christs rule thus expounded But that is absurd Ergo. 7. Mr. M. and other Paedobaptists say that the commission Mat. 28. 19. was the commission for first constituting the Churches of the Gentiles If then the Cōmission be to be understood make ye disciples by baptizing them without first preaching to them then he had appointed them to constitute or plant the first Churches without preaching and then the Apostles gifts of tongues c. were unnecessary they might have constituted Churches by hands baptizing them only without the use of those gifts but these things are absurd besides other absurd consequences which follow on the exposition that discipling is baptizing or baptizing discipling Mat. 28. 19. Lastly many of their own grants and expositions before recited do so cross this conceit that as I said before I thought none that had any wit would embrace it so now I wonder that such men as have taken it up did not better make use of their wit to decline so witlesse a shift Onely I perceive any thing will erve turn to keep up the credit of Infant sprinkling SECT IX The exception of Mr. M. Mr. Blake Mr. Cobbet nations are appointed to be baptized Matthew 28. 19. and so infants is refelled BUt there is yet another exception against my argument from Matthew 28. 19. followed by many that Christ bids them make nations disciples and baptize nations consequently infants at least the species Against this I opposed that all nations simply are not appointed to be baptized but disciples of all nations So Beza annot on Matthew 28. 19. Make to me disciples out of all nations The New Annotations on the Bible on Matth. 28. 19. first edition teach Gr. make disciples of as John 4. 1. all Nations not Jews alone but Gentiles also Acts 10. 34 35 47. Mr. Baxter plain scripture proof c. pag. 327. when Christ saith make me disciples of all nations baptizing them he means sincere disciples Georg. Pasor Lexic ad verbum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Matthew 28. verse 19. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 docete omnes gentes h. ◠colligite mihi discipulos ex omnibus gentibus Mr. Blake himself saith Answer to my letter ch 11. sect 1. he is ready to subscribe to this interpretation as I lay it down in words by preaching the Gospel to all nations make them disciples and baptize those that do become disciples of all nations As for his exceptions that the verb is transitive that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nations is in the accusative case that it is boldness to put it into the Genitive that then the whole of the nation should not be appointed to be baptized and so not infants I have answered them in my Postscript sect 14. And I further prove that the nation entirely is not appointed to be baptized 1. For then the infidels of the nation should be to be baptized for they are a part of the nation 2. Then the Apostles were not to baptize regularly till they baptized a whole nation yea all nations together for so it is construed by them who make nations entirely the subject of baptism according to Christs institution 3. The Apostles practice is an infallible comment on our Lord Christs words As they practised so Christ meant But they baptized not any entire Nation Countrey City or Tribe but believers or disciples out of them therefore no other were appointed to be baptized 4. If the baptizing of all the parts of a nation or a nation entirely were appointed by Christ then there might be some rule to know when a nation is discipled chosen so as that it ought to be entirely baptized But there is no such rule Ergo. To none of these do I find any thing replyed by Mr. M. but by telling me I fall to
those were infants on whose necks they would have laid this yoke Therefore some Infants are Disciples and so called here The major is plain in the Text. Answ. The minor of Mr. Bs. Argument that Infants are Christs Disciples should not be understood of Disciples in that sense that Christ appoints Disciples to be baptized Matth. 28. 19. Discipleship in Mr. Bs. sense in title without learning by remote teaching in the Parents conversion being a sense unknown to the Scripture and a meer figment of Mr. Bs. brain is falsly said to be a scribed to infants by the Holy Ghost or to have any evidence in Scripture for it nor do I think any do more grosly pervert the Text Acts 15. 10. or overloook it more than Mr. B. But let us look a little nearer on Mr. Bs. arguings he premiseth three Questions and answers them concerning which I grant his answer to the first that those were Disciples on whom the false Teachers would have laid the yoke In his second Question and the Answerly sundry fallacies 1. in that he puts the Question about the yoke what it was whereas the Question that should have cleared the difficulty had been what was the putting on of the yoke which Mr. B. doth I fear sophistically omit the point in question being who are meant by Disciples and it being resolved by Mr. B. Those on whom the false Teachers would have laid the yoke the Resolution must be not by knowing barely what the term yoke imported but by knowing how they would lay the yoke or what the act was of the false Teachers termed laying a yoke on their necks Were the act effected or attempted or intended onely it 's that we must know what act it was whether such as infants were the passive subjects of or whether such onely as persons of age were capable of And here I conceive two ways they might be said to lay the yoke one by cutting with their own hand off the little skin of the privy member either of Parents or Children or both according to the rite of Moses Law the other by teaching perswading charging Parents that they and their Children should be circumcised or else they should not be saved the former had been an act of their hands this latter of their tongues the former onely can prove infants to be meant by Disciples if this latter be meant then infants are not meant by Disciples for they were not subjects capable of that act There was no act either effected or attempted on infants but onely the act of the hand using an instrument to cut off the skin If they had attempted to act on infants the later way by telling sucking children you are to be circumcised and to keep Moses Law they had done rather like mad men than cunning Seducers Mr. B. himself when in the next words And whom would they perswade to be circumcised and when after he confesseth that which the false Teachers did was Teaching doth plainly intimate that the false Teachers act in putting on the yoke was onely of the tongue not of the hand and therefore not infants the passive subject of it and so not meant by Disciples Yea the Text it self clears what their act was when it says v. 1. They taught the brethren v. 24. They troubleâ— them with words subverting their souls saying And this is enough to shew the foppery of Mr. Bs. and others arguings hence to prove infants Disciples had they any minde to heed what is spoken Those onely are meant by Disciples who were Patients or passive subjects of the act of laying on the yoke that is Mr. Bs. own major in effect but infants were not such for they were not taught nor troubled with words nor had their souls subverted by the sayings of false Teachers therefore they were not the Disciples meant Acts 15. 10. 2. Concerning the Answer to the Question as he lays it down That the yoke was Circumcision as necessary and as engaging them to keep the Law it may be meant either of the command concerning Circumcision and so it is granted that the yoke was Circumcision that is the command of Circumcision propounded and taught as necessary to the Disciples that they might be saved and engaging them to keep Moses Law or by Circumcision is meant Circumcision in act or actual Circumcision as passively received in the flesh and this it seems Mr. B. understands sith it was it which was to be put on infants and it onely in which sense it is not meant Acts 15. 10. as I have shewed 3. The terms as necessary and ingaging them to keep Moses Law may be understood variously either as necessary and ingaging them in the opinion of the circumcised so that the sense is they would have laid the yoke on the necks of the Disciples so as that the Disciples should have received circumcision with this opinion that thereby they were ingaged to keep Moses his Law and in this sense it is true the yoke was the command of Circumcision to beget this opinion or else in the opinion of the Teachers or Circumcisers onely and so it is false that the yoke was actual Circumcision as necessary and ingaging to keep Moses Law they did not onely teach or circumcise so as to have an opinion of this necessity but so as to indeavour to possess those they would lay the yoke on that it was necessary and they were ingaged to keep Moses Law As for his Answer to the third Question according to the plain sense of the words it is false that they would have perswaded the children I mean infant children to be circumcised For though they would perswade the Parents to be circumcised and then to circumcise their children yet that they would have perswaded the children that is that any of them went to an infant and would have perswaded him to be circumcised is false and the thing would have been ridiculous As for the argument from Acts 15. 10. as it was framed by Mr. M. I did Exam. pag. 135. deny the major and gave my reason it is not said they would put it onely on Disciples it is more probable they endeavoured to put it on the necks of all whether Disciples or others as a thing universally necessary to salvation v. 1. which Mr. M. in his Defence overthrows not but puts it off without answer onely imagines that then I cannot evince from Matth. 3 5 6. Acts 2. 42 c. that John and Christs Disciples baptized onely penitent believers But I presume Mr. M. will be better advised than to make it alike argumentative to prove all were Disciples on whom the false Teachers would have put the yoke from Acts 15 10. and to prove that there was Baptism in the New Testament but of penitent believers from the perpetual course of the history thereof in the former Disciples being onely mentioned occasionaly in condemning a fact done to them in the other are set narrations of Acts done in the Church
good doctrine before Christ which these false Apostles taught viz. that except they were circumcised and kept the Law they could not be saved I meaâ— as to the Jews it was true Now the Doctrine of those that mis-taught the Galatians was justification by the Law as appears by the Apostles opposition Gal. 2. 16 21. 3. 5. 11 18 21. 4. 21. 5. 4. and this was the same with the Doctrine of the false Teachers as appears from Acts 15. 1 9 10 11. and Mr. B. confesseth it to be the same But that Doctrine the Apostle denies to have been true and good before Christ to the Jews Gal. 3. 4. and elsewhere and therefore Mr. B. contradicts the Apostle and his speech overthrows the Gospel and avows keeping of the Law necessary to justification and salvation to have been true and good Doctrine to the Jews afore Christ. 3. He is not wilfull but considerate that by the yoke of bondage Gal. 5. 1. understands not Circumcision as acted on infants that is the bare passive reception of Circumcision of which onely infants are capable no nor perhaps for that is disputed all willing receiving of Circumcision as the Habassiâ—e Christians do but the willing subjecting to Circumcision according to the command of Moses and the Doctrine of the Teachers that urged it as necessary for justification and salvation For herein 1. they have many of the best sort of Protestant Writers on their side 2. They have these Reasons for them 1. Because the exhortation Gal. 5 1. is inferred from his determination in the precedent Chapter from v 21 to the end to wit that the Covenant of the Law did beget to bondage and that they were children of the free woman and therefore the yoke of bondage is not simply Circumcision as acted but as Mr. Dicson expresseth it the yoke of the Covenant of Works and legal Ceremonies 2. Because if ye be circumcised v. 2. is expounded rightly if ye be willingly circumcised upon the opinion and according to the Doctrine of the false Teachers to seek justification thereby as the reasons of the Apostle v. 3. 4 do evidently shew 3. Otherwise Timothy might be said to be entanged with the yoke of bondage when he was circumcised Acts 16. 3. which being so this Argument as all the rest of Mr. Bs. Arguments is against him For if the false Teachers were the same and the yoke the same Acts 15. 10. Gal. 5. 1. and the yoke Gal. 5. 1. be not Circumcision as acted on infants but the Covenant of Works and Circumcision as taught and yielded to by the circumcised under the notion of necessity for justification and obligation thereby to keep the whole Law then the yoke was not that which is put on infants nor any infants meant by Disciples Acts 15. 10. SECT XIII The Arguments are vindicated which are brought to prove infants not meant by Disciples Acts 15. 10. BUt Mr. B. proceeds Well but Mr. T. hath one argument for his conceit and but one that I have heard and that is like the conceit it self If saith he putting on the yoke be onely by teaching then the yoke it self is onely the Doctrine and consequently it was to be put on none but those that could be taught Answ. 1. I deny both the Consequences and he will never prove them For 1. by putting he confesseth is meant an endeavour to put therefore it must be more than bare Doctrine And if by Doctrine they perswade the People of the necessity of practice in so doing they put on them both the mis-belief and the practice Answ. Mr. B. it seems either did not reade or not heed or forgot what was in Examen pag. 135. when he saith he had heard but of one Argument for my conceit though it be his meer ignorance that makes him call it my conceit as if it were my peculiar conceit whereas his own conceit is scarce any thing older than himself and mine agreeable to the Exposition of the best and elder Interpreters And however when Mr. B. wrote this he might know of no more Arguments against his conceit yet there are more iâ— my Antidote sect 6. to which with this here I shall review his Answers My Argument in form is this They onely are meant by Disciples Acts 15 10. who were to be the subjects passive or recipient of the act of the false Teachers whether effected or attempted that is of that which they would have done to them But no infants were to be the subjects passive or recipient of the act of the false Teachers whether effected or attempted that is of that which they would have done to them Ergo. The major is plain to common understanding according to all Rules of Logick and Grammar So we argue they must be meant by all men John 12. 32. when Christ saith I will draw all men to me who were the subjects recipient of the act of drawing Every particular man is not the subject of Christs drawing therefore all men doth not note every particular man Innumerable such Arguments are among Writers Ecclesiastical and Civil nor is there any thing more plain to common understanding The minor is proved thus the onely act of the false Teachers by which the yoke was to be put on Disciples was teaching or that which they would have done to them was onely teaching But of this act no infant was the passive subject Ergo. The former is confessed by himself in calling it perswading and if it were not the Text proves it v. 1. 5 24 The minor is manifest they were neither capable of it nor were the false Teachers so sensless as to endeavour it But let 's view Mr. Bs. Answer He denies this consequence if the putting on the yoke be onely by teaching then the yoke it self is onely the Doctrine But this is not my consequence but this if their act of putting on the yoke were onely Teaching then the terminus at least immediate must be Doctrine in respect of the agent and in respect of the patient learning as if the act of the Sun be Teaching the immediate terminus is heat although other effects follow as dryness or the like so if the false Teachers did put the yoke on the Disciples by Teaching they did put Doctrine on them and if they received it they learned that Doctrine although other effects followed as disquietnes of minde c. which may be comprehended under the metaphor of a yoke By Teaching parents an infant is not cut or cicumcised no not though the parents receive the Doctrine he may have no childe to circumcise or no strength or the like no though it come to pass that the childe be circumcised yet this is not done by the false Teacher but by the parent If then their act was onely teaching then the product result or terminus must be Doctrine though there were other consequents to follow But Mr. B. denies also this consequence that if the yoke
Hammond himself Else were your chidren unclean so that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must be put for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so an Enallage either of Tense or Mood or both And in the very next vers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is manifestly put in the Praeter-tense for the Present as all Interpreters I know render it the same enallage or change of Tense Camerarius conceives in the term 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And which is chiefest this sense seems to beâ—it it best there being no plainer and clearer than this Therefore the believer may live with the unbelieving yoke-fellow because the Husband though an infidel yet is to his own Wife in respect of her and to her conjugal use aâ— if he were sanctified But if it be in the Praeter-tense yet it may be understood of a past thing yet continued as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 John 3. 18. notes an act still continued in force So that notwithstanding the Doctors conceit yet there may be a very reasonable account given without understanding it of an Example of another person sanctified heretofore by another Wife which is very far from the Apostles meaning as I shew before Secondly sayth he by the Phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by or through the Wife This the Preposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so ordinarilly signifies that it cannot need to be farther testified in this notion it is that we here take it whereas the notion which by opposers is here affixt to it that it should signifie to that to which is a sign of the Dative-case sanctified to the Wife as meat to the believer made lawfull to her to live with is never once found to belong to it in the New Testament nor can with any tolerable congruity or Grammatical analogy be affixt to it All the places that are produced for this sense are commonly mistaken So Matth. 17. 12. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not fecerunt ei they have done to him but on him or against him so as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is an ordinary acception of it So Acts 4. 12. There is no name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it is not given unto men but among men and that is an ordinary notion of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for among 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Is God among us and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Christ among us and many the like So 1 Cor. 7. 15. God hath called us 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It is not to as the note of a Dative-case but unto peace as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is again taken for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So Gaâ—l 1. 16. to reveal his own Son 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It is not to me but by or through me to others as it follows that I might preach him And when it there follows 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it is not to but again among the Gentiles And 2 Pet. 1. 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is Add unto your saith virtue c. in the notion of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 unto your faith or over and above that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 superadd virtue or fortitude or constancy that which in this time of persecution they stood so much in need of And so still the rendring it to the Wife will be without any one example and the turning it quite into another phrase as if it were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which to do without any necessity or reason save onely 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to serve the opposers turn upon the place and support his false opinion must needs be very unreasonable Answ. I subscribe to this last speech But all that the Doctor saith makes me not to recede from the rendering of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Cor. 7. 14. to as noting the Dative case and being redundant Not out of any necessity to serve my turn For if it be read in the wife and expounded as Beza doth Annot. In locum respectu uxoris in respect of the wife expounding is or hath been sanctified in the wife thus hath been or is enioyed in coniugal use lawfully in respect of his wife it will as well serve my turn And in this sense 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is as much as ergà towards apud with and is as much as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the sense that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are used 2 Cor. 13. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 v. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But it will not serve the Doctors turn unless he can prove that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must be renderd by and notes the instrument yea and by the wife must signify by the company and conversation of the believer which supplement is not yet proved noâ— do I think can be proved to be necessary The reason why I still adhere to the reading of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to is 1. Because it seems to me the fairest easiest and most congruous sense thus to expound it The believer may abide with the unbelieving yoke-fellow For though he be an unbeliever and so in himself unsanctified yet in or to the wife or his wife he is as if he were sanctified it 's all one in respect of lawfull conjugal use as if he were sanctified 2. Because though the Doctor deny it yet I aver the notion of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for to as a sign of the Dative case is found more than once in the New Testament and may with good congruity and Grammatical analogy be affixt to it Of the which places the first he brings cannot be eluded 1. Because the same speech which is Mat. 17. 12. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is Mark 9. 13. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and rendered by Beza in the former place fecerunt ei they did to him 2. whereas he saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 on him or against him and that this is an ordinary acception of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I grant that it is an ordinary acception to use 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but not in the sense he here conceives to wit as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 notes on or against a person It had been meet the Doctor should have given at least one instance of such a construction which I do not yet believe he can do However if he could yet me thinks it should satisfie that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 notes no more than 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and is a sign of the Dative case because Mark who seems to have abbreviated Matthew so expresseth it and the common use of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when it notes dealings of man to man whether good or bad is usually expressed by the Dative case as Matth. 7. 12 18. 12. 20. 32. 21. 36 40. 25.
Cyprian as he avouched infant-baptism so he did rebaptization and that as from the Apostles Augustin as he avouched infant-baptism by Apostolick tradition so he did also infant-communion But of these things if God will more hereafter if it appear necessary This I take to be sufficient for the present to answer Dr. Hammonds new device which he vainly boasts to have all the weight that a Divine Testimony interpreted by practise can afford and is as great as any such matter can be capable of FINIS Errata Page 1. line 7. reade my Apology p. 4. l. 8. r. Areo. p. 8 l. 15. r. Church p. 13. l. 10. r. in tersering p. 17. l. 1. r. mens p. 18. l 30 r. not p. 22 l. 3. r. materially p. 23. l 1. r. is p 24. l 23 r. did p 25 l 31. r. that l 32. r. Circumcision p. 26. l. 11. â— he p. 27. l. 33. r. 17. 12. p. 28 l 8. r. 12. p 31. l 19. r. 15. p. 45. l 3. r. keep p. 46. l. 33. r. superiours l 35. r. â—o p. 47. l 3. r. excommunication p. 50. l 6 7. dele will be proved p 51 l. 22 dele not l. 25 r. paria p. 52. l. 36. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 38. r. Mathematicis p. 53. l. 3. r. malits l. 5. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 61. l 31. r. â—esute p. 63 l. 16. r. Janu 1. or in p. 64 l. 38. r. is or dele can page 65. line 2. r. he page 68. line 6. r. Anti. page 69 l. 29. r. actus p. 70. l. 6. r. Bishops page 76. line 4. r. fearfull page 86. line 20. r. gentes page 87. line 4 r. peâ—cipitur p 88. l. 21. r. arbitror p. 99. l. 23 24. r. renewing p. 104. l. 29 r. There p. 112. l 2. is it p. 119. l. 1. r. miraculous p. 126. l. 2. r. serve p 148. l. 16. r. 28. l. 20. r. accept p 153. l 34 r. Disciple is p. 162 l. 31. dele not p. 170 l. 28. dele not p. 171. l. 9. dele in l. 10. r in locum p. 175. l 38. dele not p. 179. l. 2. r. I finde p 182 l. 16. r. heating pâ—91 â—91 l 18 r 19 p 195 l 37. r peculiar p 197 l 9 r relation p. 220 l 37 r use of p 226 l 9 r. them p 265 l 35 r oft p 276 r without p 279 l 1 r the p 290 l 9. r 29 p 294 l 17 r in p 306 l 18 r right that the sea 1 Cor. 10 1 2 p 308 l 28 r before p. 314 l 17 r 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 321. l. 6. reade them p. 329. l. 29. reade v. 16. To be added after many p 220 l â—9 what Dr. Ward and Dr. Davenant have sayd for Regeneration and Justification of infants by baptism hath been accurately examined and â—â—ervated by Mr Gâ—taker in Latin Collings vindic minist Evan. pag. 67. It is a rotten distinction to distinguish of substantial and circumstantial acts in businesses relating to Gods worship in which we must have an eye to every tittle of institution Cawdrey Sab. Rediv. part 2. ch 7 pag. 277. The subject or material thing is the substance of a command Cawdrey Sab Rediv. Part. 2. Chap. 6. pag. 226. A â—teer positive law which is special to some person or nation is of no force under the Gospel unlesse it be ratified by the Gospel Baxter plain scripture proofs pag. 341. Nature telleth us nothing of meer positives Mr. Collings caveat for Proph. pag. 77. The equity of the ceremomonial law is a dark notion to me Christ is she equity of it The Apostle cals it a shadow the equity theÌ„ of it is the substance of a shadow and what that is I cannot divine besides Christ whose shadow it was I alwaies understood by the ceremonial laws those laws that concerned the worship of God in that time which were wholly ceremonial and abolished being fulfilled in Christ. To Mr. Fisher urging 1 Cor. 9. 10. for an equity of the Geremonial Law to prove Christmas Mr. Collings Caveat p. 77. saith The Apostle indeed 1 Cor. 9. 10. urgeth the equity of that piece of the Law Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the Oxe c but I never took that for a piece of the Ceremonial but for a piece of the Judicial Law Mr. Fox in the second Book of the Acts Monuments as the years 636 664. See Sprint of Conformity Mr. Blake Vind. foed cap. 6. That is the Covenant draught terms of the Covenant we finde He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved and he that believeth not shall be damned Mark 16. 16 M. Collings Episto the Reader before his Vind. Minst Evang. In things relating to the worship of God it is a general rule in which our brethren and we have long since agreed That nothing ought to be done without an express warrant in the Gospel Mr. Rutherford Due right of Presbyteries pag 364. what the Apostles commanded not in Gods worship that the Churches must not do Piscator observ in Matth. 28. 19. Docete omnes genâ—eâ— nempe praedicando Evangelium ut declarat Marcus baptizantes eos vult ergo ut prius constet de alicujus â—ide quam is baptizetur Collings vin Min. Evang pag 36. It is the first act in ministerial Commission Mat. 28. 19. first preach then baptize Mr. Fox in the Acts and Monuments of the Church relates how in the disputation at Oxf. 1554. with Mr. Latimer Dr. Weston objected this thing and Mr. Latimer answered he found a womans receiving the Lords Supper 1 Cor. 11. 28. Mr. Will. Cook Font. uncov pag. 16. The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 notes the species or kind of man distinct from other creatures without difference of age or sex Ames Bell. Enerv. Tom. 4. l. 6. c. 7. Th. 11. Protest Acts 15. 10. Lex Mosis dicitur jugum importabile Chamier Panstr Caâ—h tom 3. l. 11. c. 15. spends a whole Chapter to prove against the Papists that the yoke there is the Moral as well as the Ceremonial Law Yea Mr. B. himself Direct 10. for peace pag. â—1 hath these words They were therefore said to be in bondage to the Law and the Law was said to be a yoke which neither they nor their fathers were able to bear Acts 15 10. Vide Pareum Bell. Casâ—ig de Justific l. 5. c 14. is the common Doctrine of Protestants to interpret the yoke of the whole Law intolerable because of the curse Vide Dr. Field of the Church l. 3 c. 1. Vide Selden de jure naâ— c. l. 6. c. 8. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Matth. 11. 1â— which is less than 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 notes a little childe that could call to his fellows Knolls History of the Turks in Solyman the magnificent